Select Page

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.)