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.)
It looks as if the sexual market crisis is finally entering into mainstream conversation. From a recently published New Yorker article:
These days, in this country, sex has become a hyper-efficient and deregulated marketplace, and, like any hyper-efficient and deregulated marketplace, it often makes people feel very bad. Our newest sex technologies, such as Tinder and Grindr, are built to carefully match people by looks above all else. Sexual value continues to accrue to abled over disabled, cis over trans, thin over fat, tall over short, white over nonwhite, rich over poor.
Since the church tends to follow suit with the mainstream media, I suspect this will be topic of open conversation soon among Christians. But since Churchians tend to adapt secular conclusions rather than thinking biblically, I expect we’ll see a re-working of the same conclusion [emphasis mine]:
It is men, not women, who have shaped the contours of the incel predicament. It is male power, not female power, that has chained all of human society to the idea that women are decorative sexual objects, and that male worth is measured by how good-looking a woman they acquire. Women—and, specifically, feminists—are the architects of the body-positivity movement, the ones who have pushed for an expansive redefinition of what we consider attractive. “Feminism, far from being Rodger’s enemy,” Srinivasan wrote, “may well be the primary force resisting the very system that made him feel—as a short, clumsy, effeminate, interracial boy—inadequate.” Women, and L.G.B.T.Q. people, are the activists trying to make sex work legal and safe, to establish alternative arrangements of power and exchange in the sexual market.
We can’t redistribute women’s bodies as if they are a natural resource; they are the bodies we live in. We can redistribute the value we apportion to one another—something that the incels demand from others but refuse to do themselves. I still think about Bette telling me, in 2013, how being lonely can make your brain feel like it’s under attack. Over the past week, I have read the incel boards looking for, and occasionally finding, proof of humanity, amid detailed fantasies of rape and murder and musings about what it would be like to assault one’s sister out of desperation. In spite of everything, women are still more willing to look for humanity in the incels than they are in us.
“Men, women are not sex objects. The gospel has set her free from such oppression. I could tell you horror stories of husbands who emotionally abuse their wives by dictating what she should eat, telling her what to wear, and shaming her for her body. The Bible tells us that the Lord judges by the contents of the heart, not outward appearances. Some of you men are still basing your worth on how your wife looks. But Christ Jesus has freed you from such superficial standards.
“And some of you young men are complaining that you can’t find a wife. But what are you doing to prepare to marry one of God’s daughters? We have plenty of fine young ladies right here in this congregation waiting for a godly man to win her hand in marriage. But many of you men won’t man up and marry the girl because your standards are too high. Listen guys, we are all flawed sinners. She’s not expecting perfection in you, neither should you expect perfection in her. I think we guys could learn something from the compassion of women.”
Of course, the young men won’t want to marry any of the “fine young ladies” because they will be objectively unattractive. And since the church will eradicate any hint of alpha qualities out of their men, expect the small number of attractive women to marry outside the church as they go about “witnessing.”
And since unattractiveness generally correlates with poor health, expect to see those prayer lists growing in proportion to the sizes of the women’s waists.
We should always show mercy, regardless of one’s life choices. But I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the coming decades, being a hero for the truth will come down to something as historically obvious as refusing to marry and reproduce with unattractive sickly women.
As a man, it’s easy to get discouraged in today’s anti-male culture.
You go to work at a job that doesn’t fulfill you to support a wife who doesn’t appreciate you. If you’re honest with yourself, you’re probably not getting what you want in the bedroom and you may feel “stuck” living somebody else’s life.
Meanwhile, the media and the church do everything they can to make you feel guilty over your so-called “toxic masulinity” or how you need to “man up” and be a better “servant leader.”
This is why a man needs hope. A man needs a vision. And a man must find this hope and vision for himself because no one else will do it for him.
A lack of vision is the root of a man’s frustrations: lack of fulfillment in work, an unsubmissive wife, lack of motivation…
When a man restores his vision, he restores his life.
This is why I highly recommend taking 80 minutes out of your evening or weekend to watch the following video. I was introduced to this by my friend Wayne over at Sigma Frame. Possibly the most powerful sermon I’ve ever heard. And the 1.2 million views indicate a lot of others felt the same.
I watched it with my wife as well and she found it inspiring. It’s can serve as a great “soft” red pill message about why the man needs to lead and how men and women compliment each other.
Now, because I don’t want anyone to get distracted from the core message, I want to highlight a few objections up front that red pill or conservative men might have when watching the video:
First, the preacher introduces what might seem like a novel definition of work, namely that work is not what you do, but what you become. I checked this out in a Greek dictionary and his use of the word is indeed consistent with the Biblical Greek definition … we’re just conditioned to think of work in terms of inputs instead of end goals.
Secondly, he mentions that man was never made to “rule” over women. But he goes on to say how a man needs to lead a woman and give her work to do. I’m not sure why he was opposed to the term “rule” in that context but it seems to be a superfluous point.
Thirdly, he mentions the words “millionaire” and “private jet” at one point in the sermon. Contextually, it’s more of a rhetorical flourish than a main point. But I know many conservatives are fearful of the “prosperity gospel” so I’ll just mention that I don’t think it’s wise to fixate your vision on money… but you can trust God that money will be no object to fulfilling your Kingdom vision.
Finally, a practical point where I personally differ: he talks about vision as if it’s something immediately clear. He asks if you have a “50 Year Plan” for your life. In my experience, a vision is something that unfolds over time. You don’t need the complete vision all at once. You just need a hint to keep you moving forward and the vision grows as your understanding grows.
So all that yammering aside, do set aside time to watch the video… especially if you feel low on inspiration this week.
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.
It’s no secret that most people (Christians) are stressed, anxious, and generally not enjoying life.
I think I’ve identified the root cause. It’s something I call the “Modern Life” vs. the “Abundant Life.”
The Modern Life Flow goes something like this:
- Sacrifice time and energy to acquire (and manage) money and possessions
- Invest minimal to no time or money learning new skills
- Use “to do” lists to direct one’s life
- Feel perpetually behind, tired and unable to handle any more “blessing”
I like to contrast that with what I call the Abundant Life Flow:
- Use time and money to learn new skills and create energy (i.e. rest, nourishment, strong body, mindset, vision & purpose, fellowship, gratitude)
- Use excess energy to labor for (just enough) money to replenish immediate needs
- Use new skills and knowledge to create systems and find investments that make money for you
- Create life and shine your light in the world
It doesn’t matter so much what you do or how far advanced you are in the “program”. What matters is what comes first. Most people put “mammon” first. Few people put life first. They are contradicting priorities.
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
I don’t know how much truth is behind this recent sensational headline found on the Drudge Report, but it fits the larger pattern:
Priests found in bed together in Rome face being expelled…
I’m astonished that we still allow such perverts to authoritatively teach us what constitutes “good” sexual expression.
And it’s not just gay priests that are the problem. Every time I’ve encountered the sexual teachings of a teacher the church venerates as a “man of God” I’ve been disappointed to say the least. Here are just a couple examples (emphasis mine):
For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting has not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it has venial fault: but adultery or fornication has deadly fault, and, through this, continence from all intercourse is indeed better even than the intercourse of marriage itself, which takes place for the sake of begetting.
But because that Continence is of larger desert, but to pay the due of marriage is no crime, but to demand it beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault, but to commit fornication or adultery is a crime to be punished…
At no point is a man’s depravity more manifest than in the procreative act. We know man is a sinner by what he says. We know man is a sinner by what he does… We can see on the outside sinful deeds. But how do we know man is a sinner at the base of his character? How do we know man is a sinner at the root of his existence? The answer: by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked because man is wicked.
Nowhere then, in the anatomy of a man, or in the activity of a man, is depravity more manifest than in the procreative act. Because it is precisely at that point which he demonstrates the depth of his sinfulness because he produces a sinner…
I would remind you that Jesus Christ had no human father. Because there was no human father who could produce a perfect person. The Spirit of God had to plant a perfect seed in Mary and bypass a human father. The male organ, then, is the point at which human depravity is most demonstrated. You see, not the deeds of sin, but the nature of sin passed on to the next generation.
Why we continue to tolerate such sexually retarded teachings in the church is beyond me.
Something seems fishy about the language and examples chosen for this recent Gospel Coalition piece called “A Hidden Epidemic God Hates.”
“A hidden epidemic” sounds eerily similar to the opening rhetoric of Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique:
The problem lay buried, unspoken, for many years in the minds of American women.
Now let’s see what the Gospel Coalition is up to…
TGC: Tom micromanages his wife Sarah’s physical appearance to fit his personal tastes. He picks out her clothes, tells her how she can do her hair, and restricts her diet so she remains thin.
God: 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.
TGC: Miranda is an overprotective mother. She homeschools her 17-year-old daughter, Kate, to prevent her from being exposed to rebellious teenagers. She won’t allow her to play sports, attend dances, or get her driver’s license.
God: He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will be destroyed.
TGC: Bill forces his wife Angie to have sex against her will. He’s rough in bed and occasionally strikes her when they’re being intimate.
God: Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.
(I wouldn’t be surprised if many female readers suddenly started fantasizing about “Bill” after reading the article. That’s about as erotic as Christian writing gets for a woman.)
Evil rhetoric always starts by emphasizing the restriction and omitting the blessing. Rather than liberating people from their burdens, it manufactures burdens from thin air by re-framing the situation.
If it acts like a snake and talks like a snake…
A quick glance at the top 20 sites on the web reveals there is a major mismatch between what the church is talking about and what people think about:
I’m astonished that the church still hasn’t figured out the following basic truths about modern life:
- People don’t call their pastor to ask about truth or get help with personal problems. They go to Google.
- Social media feeds inform our reality.
- Most people don’t like to read.
- People think about sex more than any other topic.
- People have an unlimited appetite for entertainment.
Here are the essential 21st century skills of evangelism (in addition to understanding biblical truth):
- Search engine marketing*
- Understanding of sexual dynamics
I doubt any church will be offering training on any of these skills, so the field is wide open for anyone who wishes to scoop up the harvest.
* For examples of websites who are using search engines to evangelize check out the following two sites:
- Empathize with the pain
- Show the consequences of the present path
- Show the bliss of the path of wisdom
- Provide sensible boundaries to protect the bliss
- Re-frame struggles into triumphs
- Draw attention to a restriction (manufacture pain)
- Deny the consequences of breaking the restriction
- Highlight the desirability of transgression
- Add restrictions and expand the definition of sin
- Preach the consequences of transgression
- Exhort people to try harder to do good
- Act shocked and appalled when the younger generation leaves the church and turns to evil
- Adapt the new evil into the church to be more “relevant”