I found out about a certain blog post by Lori Alexander, titled Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos. It caused quite the uproar on social media sites, notably on Facebook and Twitter. There are probably other sites that you can see similar reactions, but I am not concerned with those details. The reactions themselves are the most telling about our current society.
The majority of reactions with this were full of rage, anger, and hostility. "How dare she say something so misogynistic! Was this really written by a woman?" "This isn't the 1800s anymore! It's 2018, and we don't need your Victorian standards here!" "What a religious fundamentalist, I bet she watches A Handmaiden's Tale wishing it was how our society actually was!" "Women are not just objects to be won by men as a reward because they think the are entitled to a virgin wife!" "What a slut shamer! Women are free to make their own choices without the approval of those scumbag men!" "She must have written this blog post when she was in her kitchen chained to the stove!"
I did not take any direct quotes, but the sentiment is the same. All the critics (not just women, but simpy men as well) took umbrage at Lori Alexander's words. They took it as an attack on women, which is a cardinal sin in their eyes. But as you look at the lashing back at her blog post, you should notice a trend: Most of these responses do not address the assertions presented, but rather just outrage at the action of posting such words. Little to no arguments to be found. Just hate and rage. Was what she said wrong? Did her words cause such anger because they were lies? No. Her words were the truth, thus the vitriol. Prior to the social media outcry, I doubt anyone had heard of Lori Alexander. So if she did not have the truth on her side, she would have been ignored. On the contrary, she caused quite a stir.
Men that have taken the red pill know her words to be true. We know for a fact that women who have had fewer sex partners prior to marriage have a greater chance of staying married to their husbands. Even better, if they did not have any sex partners at all prior to marriage, those odds are even greater. Debt is not inherently tied to morals, but less debt is certainly desirable. Having debt is a liability, and an indicator of whether or not a woman has foresight or not. I would argue that a modest amount of debt is not a huge detractor, but when taken to a larger degree, this is a major concern. Even worse, if she has a great amount of debt and a degree that does not grant her the means to pay said debt is an indicator of a woman who lacks long term and critical thinking. A woman who has 6 figures in debt that works as a barista after graduation has clearly made an error at some point. As for tattoos, this ties in with the lack of long term thinking, as well as a correlation with sexual promiscuity. How many people who get tattoos stop and think about whether or not they will regret getting that tattoo 10 years later? Tattoo removal is expensive (more debt!), so that is another concern if there are any regrets. Also, the type of woman who is willing to get a tattoo is less likely to have boundaries when it comes to sex. All of these factors are not good signs when it comes to a woman's marriageability.
And here is where we get to the good men, those who are marriage minded and want a woman who is good wife material. What do debt-free virgins without tattoos possess? Indicators that they would be good candidates to be a man's future wife, of course! Not that these are the only features to look at, but rather a concise set of characteristics that correlate well with being good long term partner's for men. The women that are well outside of these qualities, on the other hand, have a stronger inclination towards being a poor choice for a man looking for a future wife.
The angry protests from the critics, both women who do not fit the criteria outlayed by Lexi Alexander and the supplicant males who hope that their solidarity will net them some sexual marketplace leverage, not only fail to make an argument of any kind against her post, but also fail to take into consideration what good, high quality men want in long term partners. Virtue signaling simps who claim that they don't desire these things in women as well do not count, as we know how sour grapes plays a role, as good women have masculinity as a part of their requirements. As this mob of perpetual anger fails to take men into consideration for what they want, they will continue to make the same mistakes that led them to expressing outrage at Alexander's writing.
Plain and simple, good high quality men want women who also are good and high in quality. These women tend to have less debt, be less sexually promiscuous, and be free of any body markings. No amount of protest in opposition to these preferences will change the fact that these are desirable qualities that men seek in women. No amount of shaming, ridicule, or protest will change this, as biology trumps artificially propped up ideals. Women who wish to alter what men want will fail every time because they fail to understand why men prefer what they prefer. Since women are largely social creatures that tend to conform, they mistakenly believe that they can force men to conform the same way and abandon the hard wired biological instincts that drive them. You see this with the fat acceptance movement, where (mostly) women push the idea that obesity should be accepted as beautiful. On the topic of the number of sexual partners, no amount of propping up sexual promiscuity as a positive with events such as slut walks will ever convince men that a slut is going to be a good choice for a marriage partner.
When Lexi Alexander's blog post garnered attention, the same tactics were applied, and they were just as ineffectual at changing any man's mind that the archetype described would not be the most desired by men. Perhaps they have some merit in saying that they don't need to conform to what men want in a woman, but they must remember that if they desire marriage in their futures, they are going to need to cater to what men want. So it comes down to an ultimate choice, be a better woman, or lose out on getting a good man in their future. For many women, it is already too late, so they rage at the author in vain, hoping that they can change reality. It is not the author they are mad at, but the reflection of their own character they must acknowledge, as they have failed to be good, virtuous women themselves. And in failing to do this, have no success at the dream of marrying a good man.
Want to know where the good men are? They are looking for good women. How do you be a good woman? Show some positive qualities, such as long term thinking, restraint from impulsive behaviors, respect towards your future husband by living life in preparation for your future. Perhaps there's a quicker, more snappy way of expressing that idea. Perhaps something along the lines of "Debt-free, virgin, without tattoos"...