Whenever you do anything important, imagine that you’re being paid to do it.
Many men are confident on their job. Few are confident elsewhere. Acknowledged responsibility gives a man confidence.
Thinking of myself as a “professional” helps me focus on skillful execution rather than on my doubts. And it helps me overcome my objections to investing the time and money to learn to do something properly.
Perhaps it will work for you too.
After reading Dr. Catherine Shanahan’s excellent book, Deep Nutrition, I’ve begun to suspect that the decline of female beauty and the rise of feminism is an effect of an even more fundamental cause that is not being discussed.
The following is an excerpt from Shanahan’s book. It’s lengthy, but well worth reading in its entirety. Emphasis mine:
Beauty researchers have divided female body types into four categories. In order of declining frequency they are: banana, apple, pear, and hourglass. Several studies performed in 2005 showed that apple-shaped women (with short waists and narrow hips) had almost double the mortality rates of women with more generous curves. Why would that be?
Voluptuousness is an indication of healthy female sexual dimorphism, while a lack of voluptuousness indicates a problem. Normally, the hips and bust developments involve expansion of the pelvic bones along with the deposition of fat and glandular tissue within the breasts. But women whose genetics are such that their spines are abnormally short or their hormonal surge less pronounced–or whose diet is such that it interferes with the body’s response to hormones–end up with boxier figures. If they’re thin, they’ll end up as bananas. If they put on weight, it gets distributed in a more masculine pattern–in the belly, on the neck, and around the upper arms–and they’ll become apples. Today, after three generations of trans fat consumption (which interferes with hormone expression; see Chapter 7), and with daily infusions of sugar (which interferes with hormone receptivity; see Chapter 9), hourglass figures have become something of a rarity. According to a 2005 study commissioned by Alva products, a manufacturer of designers’ mannequins, less than 10 percent of women today develop the voluptuous curves universally recognized as the defining features of a healthy and attractive female figure.
In a world of apples, pears, and bananas, writer Nancy Etcoff has suggested that the most beautiful among us are “genetic freaks.” It’s not an insult: she is merely referencing the statistical improbability of someone growing up to look like, to use her example, Cindy Crawford. But the suggestion seems to capture Etcoff’s general thesis accurately: when a stunningly beautiful person is born, it’s largely the result of (genetic) chance. These select few, the thinking goes, played the genetic lottery and won big. But I couldn’t disagree more. Why would biology program us to be hot for “genetic freaks”? It seems to me far more probable that we are attracted to beautiful bodies because they advertise superlative health. In keeping with this idea, researchers studying the effect of these four female body types on life span find that women with the most attractive of the four body types, the hourglass, not only live the longest, they also live better. Statistics consistently show that having a longer, slimmer waist and more womanly hips correlates with reduced diagnoses of infertility, osteoporosis, cancer, cognitive problems, abdominal aneurysms, diabetes and its complications, and more.
So far I’ve shown you a good deal of evidence that beauty is not incidental, not an accident of fate. It is the default position, the inevitable product of natural, unimpeded growth whose progress conforms to the rules of mathematic proportion. Just as the laws of physics dictate that six-sided crystals inevitably result when clouds of water vapor form in freezing air, generations of optimal nutrition prime human chromosomal material for optimal growth. If optimal nutrition continues throughout childhood development, the laws of biology dictate the final result: a beautiful healthy person.
[Note: Dr. Shanahan footnotes about a dozen or so primary sources which I have not indicated here. This excerpt can be found in her book on pages 68-70.]
If Shanahan’s thesis is correct then I believe she has, perhaps unintentionally, identified the root cause behind the sexual market crisis, the market saturation of pornography, and the feminist redefinition of beauty.
In other words, the first step in decline was to deprive women and girls of the nutrition needed to develop healthy beautiful bodies (i.e. the hourglass figure, large busts, pretty faces). Over several generations, this created a large female population of sexual “have nots.” In other words, beauty is now the rarity whereas in the past, unattractive women would have been considered rather rare and unfortunate.
This decline in beauty, as well as the rise of photography, video, and the internet created an interesting opportunity for these young “genetic freaks” who happened to look stunningly beautiful. They could now get paid simply for allowing their beauty to be photographed or for being filmed while having sex with hot masculine men. This was a completely different model than prostitution. It was not desperate women having sex with desperate men in exchange for money. This was “sexually liberated” women getting paid (or least promise of pay) to have sex with the alpha studs they always fantasized about. The title of the recent documentary on the pornography industry sums it up well: Hot Girls Wanted.
Both men and women became transfixed with pornography… not so much because of a decline in morality… but because men and women instinctively knew that this is what healthy, beautiful people full of vigor are supposed to look like. And in a world of sick, unattractive people, this contrast is all the more alluring. Unfortunately, this saturation of pornography seemed to have done little more than make men feel insecure about their dick sizes, encourage excessive fapping and lower motivation among young men, popularize the “cucking” fetish, make us think that blacks are a superior race, and make “normal” women feel insecure about their bodies and perhaps even envious of beautiful women.
In other words, watching beautiful people f**king each other does not seem to motivate average people to have more sex. But it does serve as a convenient and inexpensive way to keep the masses of malnourished unmotivated people from growing too discontent and protesting in a world of declining beauty.
I believe it was necessary for the success of feminism to preserve a remnant of pure unadulterated beauty as nature intended. Feminists may be opposed to pornography, but I imagine the evil mastermind that is leveraging feminism (probably men) see pornography as an indispensable propaganda tool. It would not be effective to simply allow all women to get uglier. If that were they case, we truly wouldn’t know any better. We wouldn’t be able to conceive of any greater beauty than what we see in front of us. There has to be contrast. As Saul Alinsky discusses in his Rules for Radicals book, the key to gaining political power is to divide the world between the “haves” and the “have nots.” Pornography shows women the “haves.” The rest of the population is the “have nots.”
Once you can convince people that they are the “have nots” and that the “haves” have benefited from an unfair system that they don’t have access to, you have gained political power. Withhold the truth from them. Rather than encouraging them to reverse the trend of downward beauty, tell them the standards of beauty need to be “redefined.” Yet encourage them to buy products that promise to make them more beautiful (but don’t address the root of the problem.) You have to keep dangling that carrot in front of them while telling them that they are a victim of an unfair system. It’s the “patriarchy” that’s oppressing them and imposing unrealistic standards of beauty onto them. Men are the problem.
Whether this decline in beauty was a masterminded plan by the elite or simply an unintentional bi-product of corporate greed, I don’t know. For the sake of intrigue, let’s assume it was a multi-generational conspiracy. At the least, it proved quite convenient for those who wished to leverage a large population of unattractive women for political gain.
All that said, I have a new perspective on the following verse:
So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.
Yes, the spirit is more important than the body because the body will perish. But spiritual virtues are expressed in a physical world. And we shouldn’t ignore the plain meaning of the command at the expense of being more “spiritual.” One of the most loving (and subversive) things a modern husband and father can do is this:
Take the lead in helping your wife and daughters properly nourish their bodies so they can become as beautiful as their biology will allow.
I recommend starting by reading the book Deep Nutrition with your wife. Any time is a good time to start. But I’d say it’s especially urgent if you will be having a kid soon or if you have daughters who will be entering puberty in the near future.
You have the power to reverse the trend of declining beauty for your progeny. (And, as a bonus, you can help your wife become more attractive and vigorous.)
Here are two troubling enigmas that are beyond my current understanding:
- Why do the vast majority of people choose to remain stagnant when it is in their power to change?
- How do we reconcile the drive to create life-saving technology with the consequence of more unhealthy people reproducing (saving lives vs. decline in beauty and genetic fitness)?
Both questions are related. People have far more power to change than we acknowledge. Apparently, we even have the power to change our genetic expression, thus becoming healthier and more attractive and producing beautiful babies (see the book Deep Nutrition.)
It is creative, intelligent, attractive people who invent and propagate the ideas and technology that allows unhealthy, unattractive people to live. Biblically, this seems right as each life has inherent dignity.
Yet it seems that the vast majority of recipients of this new freedom to live do not make much of it. They remain unhealthy (both physically and spiritually) and grow worse as time goes on (e.g. the fat angry feminist and the bitter emasculated soy boy). They develop a victim mindset and seem to serve little purpose other than to prop up an increasingly tyrannical government.
One hypothesis I have is that the spiritual health eventually manifests itself physically. For example, poor genetic fitness and physical unattractiveness is a result of poor nutrition which is a result of disregarding the wisdom of our ancestors (“honor your parents so that your days may be long…”) Also, continued poor health is a symptom of a lack of self-control, one of the spiritual fruits. And mental instability is (at least in part) a result of repeating negative or fearful thoughts; people who don’t dwell on “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute” tend to have mental problems.
Our beliefs can be reprogrammed through propaganda so that we think what is ugly and unhealthy is acceptable. But it appears that propaganda cannot change our biological instincts. Men don’t want to mate with ugly women and women don’t want to mate with mentally weak men.
So, perhaps in the end, the seed of the spiritually unhealthy eventually dies out when it becomes physically manifest to the point of being sexually repulsive.
But perhaps God is so merciful that He wants to give the lower class a fighting chance. Even if it results in an epidemic fat ugly feminists and bitter mentally unstable men who reject Him. Perhaps God is willing to put up with a lot of crap just for the sake of a few repulsive people to repent and choose life… both in the spiritual sense and (as a consequence) a more vibrant physical life.
Theologians don’t get laid often.
This is why they have great difficulty grasping the ideas in the Song of Solomon. They literally have no “skin in the game.”
In reality, the Song of Solomon can be better understood by connecting the references to popular songs about sex. Take the following example from Song 2:17:
“Until the cool of the day when the shadows flee away, Turn, my beloved, and be like a gazelle Or a young stag on the mountains of Bether.”
A theologian might get hung up on the individual words and come up with some historical references while still missing the point entirely.
But a fan of AC/DC already gets the point:
Taking more than her share
Had me fighting for air
She told me to come but I was already there
‘Cause the walls start shaking
The earth was quaking
My mind was aching
And we were making it and you
Shook me all night long
Yeah you shook me all night long
Wanted no applause
Just another course
Made a meal out of me and came back for more
Had to cool me down
To take another round
Now I’m back in the ring to take another swing
‘Cause the walls were shaking
The earth was quaking
My mind was aching
Due to the sensitive nature of this blog’s topic, I thought it would be useful to have an anonymous “ask me anything” form.
If you any of you are facing a frustrating problem but don’t wish to reveal your identity, this is the place to ask. Your question will be posted anonymously below after I answer it. Not even I will know your identity.
Since predicting the future is all the rage nowadays, I thought it’d be fun to give it a go myself.
I see three important trends:
- Labor will be replaced by machines
- Men will choose sex robots over women
- The blogosphere and social media will determine what people think
Trends #1 and #3 are already happening. Trend #2 hasn’t come to fruition yet.
Each of these trends corresponds with the three most important responsibilities of a man:
- Financial Provision
- Marriage and “Conjugal Rights”
- Spiritual Leadership
Whoever owns the labor-replacing machines or the assets that the machines work on will become rich. Everyone else will be out of work.
The government will tax these wealthy corporations and give handouts to the unemployed. The government already knows, from the socialist experiments they did with the American Indians, that giving men free money kills a man’s motivation. The Indian men of old were fighters. But force them onto reservations, give them just enough provision to make work unnecessary, and slowly kill his spirit. Indian men of today are aimless, drunk, depressed, and suicidal.
Like the emasculated Indian, the majority of men will passively settle into their Reservation 2.0 lifestyle. The government will provide (just enough) income for their housing, groceries, and cheap entertainment. They will have access to an abundance of porn and will be provided with several sex robots to relieve and amuse themselves with. They will lose all interest in real women.
The toxins in the environment and government supplied food continue to lower men’s testosterone, ensuring that they will not be a threat to the powers that be. They will not fight. They will not reproduce. They will not strive. They will be passive and harmless. Useful only for voting.
Meanwhile, women pine after the (precious few) remaining high-testosterone men. Since the vast majority of men are now undesirable, “open relationships” becomes the norm. Women would rather share an alpha than be forced to pair with an omega.
Mainstream Christianity is forced to respond to this crisis. Not wanting to completely abandon the institution of marriage, they quickly approve polygamy as a viable marriage option in order to appease the demands of women. Meanwhile, they continue to preach against “toxic masculinity” while downplaying or excusing the woman’s sins of adultery and promiscuity. Thus Christianity adapts its own form of “open relationships” under the guise of upholding marriage.
The traditional churches that hold to monogamy quickly decline into extinction. The alpha males leave to attend pro-polygamy churches. The women refuse to marry the remaining omega males. Thus the congregation fails to reproduce itself and dies off.
The sexual marketplace tilts heavily in favor of (masculine) men. Paradoxically, government-funded propaganda and agendas continue to vilify and attack men… further increasing the divide between the undesirable soy boys and sexy alphas. The sexual hierarchy moves towards extreme bifurcation: alpha or omega. The semi-desirable “beta bucks” become a thing of the past.
The alpha man becomes the coveted prize of women. He will have his pick of women. Naturally, only the most attractive women will be considered worthy of breeding. Most children will be born out of wedlock. The majority of bastard sons will grow up to join the ranks of the undesirable omegas. The bastard daughters will grow up to “ride the cock carousel” until they burn out and settle into a life as a miserable single mother. This process ensures that future alphas have a fresh supply of disposable women to use for their pleasure.
A minority of these bastardized children will seek and find Wisdom and escape this viscious cycle.
The only lineages that will have a chance of surviving are those born in wedlock. Polygamous men will out-breed monogamous men, further cementing the church’s “temporary” decision into the culture.
Christian married men are constantly attacked. Polygamous Muslim immigrants are welcomed and encouraged (?). The battle for Western civilization comes down to a breeding war.
The risks of marriage for men become increasingly higher. Many eligible men will opt-out, counting the cost to be too high. Thus the number of marriageable men becomes even lower than the number of “datable” men.
Even among the men who marry, many of them fail their dynastic quest. Some become emasculated after marriage. Some get greedy and take on more wives than they can manage. Some sire more children than they can properly discipline.
Technologically, the world looks different. Information is passed on through computers that seamlessly integrate into every part of our life. People no longer rely on discrete units of information such as books, sermons, lectures, etc. Everything is a stream of information, like a Facebook or Twitter feed. Corporations and government agencies spend big bucks to earn the attention of the masses through these streams. But they are too stupid to figure out how to do it. Social media requires interesting, personality-driven information.
Unable to earn the attention of the masses, the government resorts to buying the platforms and restricting speech that runs against the narrative they wish to propagate. This leads to the bifurcation of “approved” platforms and “alternative” platforms. Once again, this only serves to further divide the population, with the majority receiving only the government-approved messages and the minority feeding on a completely different information stream. Low-class men are practically shut off from the truth. Only the most motivated truth seekers find a way out.
Preachers are practically irrelevant now. They still exist, but it’s more ceremonial than practical. When they preach, they only echo and reinforce what’s being said on mainstream social media and perhaps tack on a Bible verse for good measure. Some preachers attempt to stick to traditional theological sermons, but their comparatively dull sermons are quickly drowned out by the sea of daily “infotainment” coming at the congregants on their social media feeds. Seminary students are simply not prepared to preach in the age of social media.
This isn’t to say that the gospel isn’t preached. The Kingdom of God continues to advance. But evangelism looks quite different in this future world.
And there will only be a few men left to do it.
My wife and I have been rewatching one of our favorite comedy TV shows, 3rd Rock from the Sun.
The premise is that a group of outer space aliens assumes human bodies in order research life on planet Earth. The “politically incorrect” jokes that were allowed to air back in the late ’90s is a testament to how much our culture has changed in such a short time.
Here are a few of the classic zingers on gender:
Dick: Sally, I want you to observe her, find out what women on this planet do.
Sally: Why can’t Harry do it?
Dick: Because you’re the woman.
Sally: That brings up a very good question: why am I the woman?
Dick: Because you lost.
Sally: Dick, women are trouble. I should know! I’ve been one for two weeks!
Dick: I know, which brings up another point. I command you to shave under your arms.
Sally: Doable. I’m sorry you find me so offensive (tears up)
Dick: Dammit! Pull yourself together, man! We’re going out.
Sally: Ok, give me an hour.
Dick: An hour?
Sally: I got to rotate these (indicating breasts). It’s a party!
Harry: Women. You can’t live with ’em, and yet they’re everywhere.
Tommy: Sally, you’re amazing. As sick as you are, you keep taking care of us.
Sally: Yeah, I know. I don’t understand. All I want to do is curl up into a ball, and yet somehow I feel compelled to nurture you. God, what a cruel disease!
Sally: You just can’t imagine what it feels like, Dick. It’s like he reached in… and pulled all the bones out of my body… [starts crying]
Dick: My God, what are you doing?
Sally: [wipes her tears] Apparently I’m leaking!
Dick: Well, stop!
Nina: I knew you had a thing for her.
Dick: Yes, but I understand I’m not allowed to show it to her without her permission.
Gender comedy has changed. It used to be about poking fun at the difficulties of being (and living with) a woman. Nowadays, it’s about the difficulty women face dealing with their idiot husbands.
I recently saw the latest Pixar movie Coco with my wife.
I found the movie to be a refreshing contrast from the normal deluge of anti-male Disney propaganda.
The protagonist is a 12-year old boy (I know, shocker) who grows up in an oppressive matriarchy. The boy wants to be a musician like his great-grandfather, but his grandmother says his grandfather was a bad man who abandoned his family. And to make sure the family is never hurt again, she forbids any enjoyment of music.
But the boy cannot suppress his gift/love for music and continues to secretly practice his guitar.
Then, through a series of events, he ends up being sucked into the “Land of the Dead” where he goes on a quest to find the truth about his great-grandfather.
I won’t give any spoilers, but the resolution was refreshingly pro-male (or at least not anti-male) and pro-family.
This got me thinking…
Most Disney movies follow some variation of the “follow your heart” theme.
It seems that, in most stories, when a boy “follows his heart” it usually involves something like finding the truth about a missing father or ancestor, finding a lost treasure, doing something risky to save others, etc.
But when a girl “follows her heart” it typically involves rebelling against her parents and seeking a high-status position that is normally occupied by men.
This got me wondering if it would be possible to have a story structure that had the same appeal of Disney movies, but without the feminist rebellion theme.
I think it is possible, and it might look something like this:
- A child (boy or girl) has a unique gift that makes him/her different or is slow to “come of age” like the rest of the children
- The child faces ridicule and other difficulties due to being different from everyone else
- The parents (and particularly the father) help the child come to terms with his/her identity
- The child faces a test of courage
- The child passes the test and contributes to the greater good of the community.
I think stories like that would be just as compelling, if not more so, then the normal deluge of “girl power” narratives. And it would place the parents in an honorable role without making the story boring and devoid of drama.
Just some thoughts. Maybe one day the Disney empire will finally crumble and children’s movies can be redeemed…
Tried to log into my blog the other day from a library computer.
My site was blocked for “pornography.”
I guess Bible study just reached a new level of excitement.