Body-Positivity Is Not Meant for Men

Feminists believe that men and women are identical. Because of that belief, they regarded any observed difference between the sexes as coming solely from society, and as oppression. Among other things, this meant that feminists regarded the differences between the sexes in sexuality, as a man-made invention, designed by men for oppression. Due to their belief that there is absolute “molecular sameness” between the two sexes, one of the aspects of human sexuality that was taken by feminists as social and oppressive by design, was the subject of beauty.

Let’s note the truth about beauty and then the feminist misinterpretations would become clear: There are two types of sexuality within heterosexuality – male and female. They definitely share some attributes (neither sex likes being cheated on, for example), but are also different in a complementary manner. The male sexuality of men is focused on female beauty, the female sexuality of women is focused on male status and success. fMRI studies show that the sexuality brain circuit in (hetero) men, responds 3.5 times stronger to nudity of women compared to the response in this region in (hetero) women to nudity of men, and, that this difference between men and women in the response to nudity, is preserved when gay men are compared to lesbian women (when responding to nudity of the sex they are attracted to). The response to nudity, that is, the visual sexual sensitivity, is such a consistent characteristic of the male sexuality in humans, that it allows to identify sex from brain scans with 100% accuracy. Women on the other hand, have a drive to beautify. There are no known cultures where women didn’t beautify. Even under the harshest conditions and with no man present, women will have a drive to beautify, and will regard it as keeping their humanity. It is universal. When such a universal prevalence is found in other human traits – for example, in the universality of the types of human facial expressions – it is taken as evidence for the genetic causes of the trait. That is, women seem to have an innate tendency to beautify.

To recap then, there are two innate types of sexuality, male and female, each with its unique qualities – the male sexuality has an innate sexual sensitivity to female appearance, and the female sexuality has an innate tendency to beautify, and this is tied to a drive to be looked at by the other sex, that is, by men, as we shall see shortly. Two complementary drives out of a wide array of two sets of complementary drives that make up human sexuality. Yes, these statements are treated today as heresy, and would be even called “violent”, but they are the truth nonetheless, and denying them is what ultimately led to mass pathological phenomena.

Here are the evidence that women have that drive to beautify and that this is tied to a drive to be looked at by men: We know that when feminists started about two decades ago to forbid men of looking at women, women did not respond as feminists thought they would. According to the feminist belief that all the qualities of womanhood or femininity are fabrications invented by men, women were supposed to respond by saying “Liberated of men’s looks! No need to beautify!” Instead, a public nudity competition was launched on the streets, with women walking around in cities wearing nothing but a bikini as if trying to get as close as possible to full nudity. This is completely unexplained within the feminist belief, but is very clear to everyone else: When looking became forbidden for men, women attempted to regain that male attention by exposing themselves more – the harsher the feminist restrictions became, the more skin was shown to regain the attention, because it is a drive, in women, because sexuality is not identical between the sexes, there are drives that each has (if you are having trouble understanding why sexuality and its drives are innately determined by your sex, because you regard homosexuality as a “counter-example” that in your opinion proves that “sexuality is not determined by sex”, please refer to the introduction to the book Lovism for a biological explanation of why the exception called homosexuality is not a “counter-example” disproving the rule of genetic determination of sexuality by sex, but part of that rule. You are missing some facts about the mechanisms of human genetics).

But feminists denied womanhood and its drives. And so from this basic denial of the female drive to beautify, a full tree of falsehoods has grown. Let us follow the sequence of erroneous inferences that feminism was forced into by its adoption of a basic falsehood as a premise, and then we could compare each incorrect conclusion to reality. Feminists announced: (1) Men are the ones causing women to beautify (the initial denial of female sexuality and its drives), (2) by setting for women standards. (3) Since the entire process is nothing but social construction by men within men of “what is to be considered beautiful and sexy”, the specific beauty and sexiness attributes are arbitrary. (4) Men are not participating in the beauty contest strictly because they are the ones who invented it, and as domineering beings they exempted themselves. (5) Therefore for equality to materialize (and this conclusion resulting from a series of falsehoods that the initial denial necessitated, brings us to why body positivity was never meant to apply to men) women must be liberated from male visual expectations (be “free like men”) and men must be placed under female visual expectations (be “burdened like women”) – this would balance an imbalance.

Now let us compare each feminist misguided step to reality:

1. Men are not the ones causing women to want to beautify, women have an innate drive to beautify (appearing in every culture past or present) coming from their innate female sexuality – human female sexuality is different from male sexuality in certain respects (sexuality is not one of the things where sameness is often found between two sexes).

2. Men have a complementary innate drive to look at women (so consistent that it allows to identify sex from fMRI brain scans), and hence they are not “selecting” standards for women but rather, preferences for certain female sexiness and beauty attributes are imprinted into their male sexuality. It seems that there is not one archetype of beauty but several dozens, and different men will see beauty and sexiness in different types of female appearance, but the feminist denial attributed men’s preferences to “cultural programming” which required to assume a “programmed model”, leading to the false idea that all men have but one preference.

3. Thus the preferences men have are not “arbitrary” nor are they “coming from society”, they are a deep-seated drive coming from within each man and causing immense feelings and emotions from looking at a beautiful sexy woman, and since the specific preferences originate from innate imprinted drives, they cannot be “reshaped by society” anymore than the homosexual tendency can be reshaped by society in a human being.

4. Since the two complementary drives – the male drive to look and the female drive to beautify – come from the innate sex and not from society, men did not “exempt” themselves from anything; rather, because women are a different sex with a different sexuality, they have their own sexual preference and models for men, of status and success, and thus men are by no means “exempt” – men are thrown as well by women into a contest and feel the very same pressures – there’s nothing to “balance” here. Men are already living and always have, in a harsh contest that women create for them by their female sexuality and its innate drives.

Because of the initial feminist denial of the innate two-sexes human sexuality, and because of the ensuing religious feminist belief that “all differences are therefore social, all invented by men, all for oppression”, balancing was interpreted as “erase the beauty competition by forbidding men of having sexual male preferences and place men under a beauty competition by encouraging girls and women to set visual expectations for men”. The full culture of body positivity stems from a feminist perspective meant to put men and boys under a “male beauty competition”, this is the part the body positivity politics reserves for men. Thus body-positivity is exclusionary of men and boys by design. This is not some blind spot nor is it an implicit double standard – the standard of the feminist method, ever since feminists in the media began in the 1990s imposing the term “metro-sexual” in an attempt to cause men to enter a beauty contest, is “take away the appearances contest from women and throw it on men”; “throw the beauty contest on men” is the intended and declared effort and not some mistake.

And now it is clear why body-positivity was never meant for men, and will never include them. “Body positivity” has nothing to do with positivity nor with acceptance and never had. Feminists could never humanize men enough to see that they are already in a competition created by the innate female sexuality, and feminism forbids men of explaining to women their life experience as a man facing the female sex and silences them in every cultural platform, so feminists ended up seeing only one competition out of two, and concluded – “this needs balancing”.

Men do live in a contest driven by female sexuality, and men too cannot be liberated from this contest that women’s sexuality puts them under. No one can force a woman who likes some sort of success, to be sexually attracted to whom she regards as a failure, no matter how much society would celebrate, say, socially-isolated, homeless, unemployed, uneducated men (no status, no success) as “a sexual ideal of women” in order to “program women sexually” to “liberate men of the contest women put them in”. In exactly the same way, women, like men, cannot in fact be liberated from the sexual contest that the innate drives of the other sex create. Certainly not by celebrating the female equivalent of a socially-isolated, homeless, unemployed, uneducated man, that is the unattractive woman – those women just like their male counterparts will still seek male attention and not receive it as often, which will still cause them deep frustration, now possibly in addition to unhealthy physiques. In reality, the feminist body-positivity is what you would get if male INCELS had the social power that female INCELS have and were able to use all of society and culture to force on all women to be attracted to them… The fact that we do have such a movement, with such universal influence and power, but of the women whom men don’t find attractive, shows the actual power relations between the sexes in the past decade or two.

Body positivity was from its onset about sexuality, not about acceptance (a note is in place about anorexia: see box 1). The feminist misguided belief that human sexuality is not innate (in heterosexuals; while, feminists do hold the contradicting position, that sexuality is completely innate, when it comes to homosexuality), made feminists interpret men’s sexual preferences as arbitrary, causing them to try and erase male sexuality by socially celebrating what the innate male sexuality is not attracted to or is repulsed by – “Sexual preferences of men are socially-constructed hence if we socially announce something else as attractive – this will become what men are sexually attracted to”. Feminism was likewise blind to the fact that although you can create in women fashions and they will chase a specific male appearance, trying to put men under a beauty contest for women is impossible because women do not have the male sexual visual sensitivity. Indeed, since women are very sensitive to fashion, you could try making all of them look for a certain marketed accessory-man (manufactured by feminists in the media out of the above-mentioned agenda, of “throw the beauty contest on men by ‘making’ women have a drive for male appearance like men have for women’s”). And women will compete for that accessory-man against other girls as they would for a purse or for a pair of boots. But they will not have from this marketed accessory the inner sensations women’s-looks trigger in men, those overwhelming emotions and feelings.

Which is not the case for men – they are attracted not to the outer social context, but, to the inner physical and personal attributes within a woman, and will admire a beautiful, sexy, goodhearted girl even if she is homeless – her social context or status is sexually-transparent to men, innately. Since women don’t have the male sexuality, they do not respond the same way to the physical appearances of men and will not actually want those men defined by a feminist culture as a fashion accessory, when capturing them (other than for a notch on the belt for the later show-off for the other girls competing in the fashion show). It will be an empty competition and the winner will wonder why she at all competed for something she doesn’t really want. Meanwhile, male visual arousal from women will never change because these specific sensitivities are imprinted (and, because they are biologically imprinted and do not come from any “socially programmed” model, they are diverse, and one man’s ideal may be unappealing to another, with there being possibly several dozens of beauty archetypes, each seated in a sub-group of the male population).

If anything, what men and boys would have appreciated is not male-body-positivity, but a status-positivity culture. Although, I don’t think either method could ever change the sexes, neither status-positivity for men nor body-positivity for women. Yes – we must absolutely be nice to everyone – the unattractive woman and the unsuccessful man – in this regard society can always be more considerate. But in terms of re-programming an entire sex to change its sexuality which was created by its innate sex – programming women to be sexually attracted to whom they regard as a failure and men to women whose appearance they find unappealing – this is as practical as training society to have the same preference for eating plastic as for eating food. Our biological bodies, brains included, create in humans imprinted capacities and drives, that society will not change.

Body-positivity is not able to provide the women embracing it with what they wish for. Regardless of it being futile, body-positivity is severe discrimination if not accompanied by status-positivity. It may also hurt the women it misleads, in terms of their health. Body-positivity stems from a sequence of erroneous inferences necessitated by an initial underlying false belief: that the two sexes of a species are identical in their sexuality, such that any observed difference must therefore come from society, is oppression, can be changed, and must be changed, including by force, intimidation, incitement and social violence. For we must remember, that body-positivity is enforced by something that seems more than anything as a rape-culture toward men – they are socially forced to be “attracted” to and in sexual and romantic relationships with women they are not attracted to, through social violence by ostracism, public shaming, and threat. Body “positivity” is anything but positive, it involves brutal treatment toward its target – men and boys; being exclusionary by design or striving to drive males into becoming and being treated as a dehumanized fashion accessory next to a purse are far from its worse aspects.

Cover image: A screenshot of a Reddit post from 2022 where a picture from the website of a clothing firm was shown