Actually I don't think men are sexy at all...but a rather large portion of the population do think their sexy, for arguments sake lets call them women. It is entirely normal and natural that women should be sexually attracted to men. That is true now and it was true in the past. However the things that make a man attractive to a women have been diminishing for quite some time. If you follow your family tree back you will find that at some point two of your ancestors had 12 children. Today a women who has 2 children is above average.
My contention is that in the past men were much sexier to women than they are today. I'm not saying that there is no truth to the normal explanations, that in the countryside children are additional workers and in the city they bring no economic benefit. Or that women's education has no effect. What I'm saying is that it neglects the fact that in the past two centuries human life has changed enormously. And that that change has had just as big a change on the things that women find sexy in men.
The thing that each sex finds attractive in the opposite sex is that we find the things that we do not possess attractive. Men are hard, women are soft, men are tall, women are short, we are attracted to the opposite, physically and mentally.
Men are attracted principally to a women's physical beauty as her physical attributes are signals to her ability to produce healthy babies. The length and shine of her hair, the clearness of her eyes and skin, etc.. Even if a man's conscious mind does not understand this, his subconscious mind does. Only then do her personality, intelligence and other qualities come into view.
For a women attraction is not as simple, certainly she is attracted to a man's look and his physical appearance. How a man affects her emotionally is much more important, because a women is attracted to masculine qualities that are in conflict with each other. Women want safety and security, however they also want excitement and spontaneity. Men can provide these things but they are in conflict with each other.
Natural has provided a large number of ways for women to be attracted to men, to make men sexy to women. In other words things that make women want to have sex with men. The advancement of our civilization has removed some of these things, somethings by accident, sometimes on purpose.
Men and women need to be dependent upon each other, we need to be needed and we need to depend upon other people. Independence is a lie. That dependence has been taken away from us. Even though we need it.
Today a women can own property, she can have a job outside of the home, she can live independently. Once a women needed her husband to provide those things, she was dependent upon him just as he was dependent upon her. That dependence means that the other person is important, vital. You want to take care of something that is important and vital.
In the past most men were farmers, they worked the land and they smelt of the earth and hard work. Smells are attractive to women. A man who smells is something women like. And smell is not the same thing as stink. Women are not attracted to stink. When a women falls in love she wants to wear her mans clothes, because she has nothing to wear? Of course not, because his clothes smell of him. Women are attracted to a mans natural smell. Today we work in jobs were we don't smell, we wear clothes that have been washed, our bodies are washed and often smell of artificial smells, instead of our natural smell.
Women love candles, the flicker of the flame, the smell. The same is true of a log fire, in fact both are considered romantic. Before electricity the candle, the log fire, the lantern were how we lit the darkness. Why do women find this attractive? Because it's natural, in a sense it is another natural light source. The light that protects us and keeps us warm. Now our homes are heated and lit by electricity. For all the benefits of electricity it is not romantic.
The Police have usurped men's rightful role as the protector of his women. Once women had to reply on men to protect them. Not random men in uniform, but their fathers, brothers, husband. Today if there is a problem they call the police or firemen, instead of the men in their lives.
Women have bad blood circulation, men have good blood circulation. When a women sleeps with a man he really did keep her warm. Today with central heating and electric blankets, what does she need a man for?
Sex is not only pleasurable but it aids in our happiness and health. It also produces emotions and binds us together. This is much more true for women although it is also true for men. That is why virginity was always viewed as so important for a women. So that her first sexual experience and emotional bonding with a man would be her husband. Promiscuity harms this. Instead of bonding to one man and loving him, her emotions are conflicted and confused. This makes it harder for her to bond with a man in the future.
Society once, only a few decades ago, did everything in it's power to make men more powerful than women. Why? One reason was because women find powerful men sexy. I'm not simply talking about Princes or millionaires, but even the average man was powerful compared to the average women. He provided her with status, with money, with a home, with security and safety. Men and women were dependent upon each other.
Neither men nor women have been served by making men less sexy to women. Men don't like it. Women don't like it. Both know that things aren't right, that once society worked and now it doesn't. We need to make men sexy again by making them important and vital, both men and women will approve!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Levellers, Then And Now
Excellent post Mr Moncrieff. When women say "I don't need a man" it is sometimes dismissed as snark, but it should be taken seriously as an aspect of dysfunction in relationships. After all, much of the effort of modern society has been to change the pattern of society precisely so that women do not need men.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when women don't need men? You don't end up with "pure" relationships as some liberals thought you might. Instead, women become more blase about making commitments; they are more likely to think "Well, if the perfect one comes along maybe..."; they are more likely to think "If I accept you, you had better live up to expectations"; they are less likely to be grateful for the efforts of the man in the relationship..and so on. In general, they aren't as likely to bond as deeply as they might once have.
You can notice a similar thing in relationships between brothers and sisters. If you read letters and journals from the 1800s, the brother/sister relationship was deeper than they are today. This makes sense. If you were a woman you might depend on the financial support of a brother for periods of time in your life (prior to the modern welfare state). Similarly, if you were a man you might rely on your sister for help when you were sick or if your wife was incapacitated.
If you remove all social function from relationships, then the relationships are likely to become "thinner". That's one reason why sex role convergence is such a mistake. It removes part of what the sexes gift to each other.
Mr. Richardson
DeleteYour example concerning brothers and sisters shows how people in the past were dependent upon each other. Men and women needed each other.
Mark Moncrieff
You should additionally look at the effect of artificial birth control, "the pill." One of the effects is to make a woman's body think it is pregnant and therefore less interested in certain marital activities. But beyond that, the pill is not metabolized in the body. A woman urinates it out, where it pollutes our water supply. It has caused an ecological crisis for frogs and other water species and it makes men less manly when they continually drink contaminated water. It would be prohibitively expensive to filter it from our water supply so it just keeps building up. I was once in a model UN competition and we proposed legislation to add an environmental tax on the pill but to cover the costs of pollution cleanup would cost upward toward $100k per year per woman using the pill. The feminists in the body killed the legislation as an attack on their personal liberty.
ReplyDelete