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 in sexuality between the sexes, as a man-made invention, designed by men, for oppression. Due to their belief that there is absolute “molecular sameness” shared by 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 in (hetero) men, the sexuality brain circuit 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 is preserved in gay men 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’s universal. Such universal nature of a trait when found in other human traits such as the human facial expressions, is taken as evidence for the genetic causes of the trait.
What the facts noted above show, is that men have an innate drive that does not generally appear in women in similar magnitudes, to look at the other sex – women; and that women have an innate drive that does not appear in men in general in similar magnitudes, 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. 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: We know that when feminists started about two decades ago forbidding men of looking at women, women did not respond as feminists thought they would. According to the feminist belief that all of womanhood is a fabrication 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 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 restrictions became, the more skin was shown to regain the attention, because it is a drive, in women, because the sexuality is not identical between the sexes, there are drives that each has.
But feminists denied womanhood and its drives. And so from this basic denial a full tree of falsehoods had grown:
1. Men are the ones causing women to beautify,
2. By setting for women standards.
3. Since the entire process is nothing but social construction, the specific beauty and sexiness attributes are arbitrary.
4. Men are exempt from the beauty contest because they are the ones who invented the game so they exempted themselves.
5. For equality to materialize – and this conclusion resulting from an entire series of denials that the initial denial necessitates, 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”).
Let’s compare each feminist misguided step to reality:
1. Men are not the ones causing women to want to beautify, women have an innate drive coming from their innate female sexuality (appearing in every culture past or present) – 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, general preferences for some female sexiness and beauty attributes are imprinted into their male sexuality (it seems that there is not one archetype but several dozens, and different men will see beauty and sexiness in different types of female looks, 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” and “coming from society”, they are a deep-seated drive coming from within each man and causing immense feelings and emotions, and since they originate from innate imprinted drives, these preferences 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 of 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” – they are put by women in a contest as well and feel the very same pressures.
And lastly, 5. (a): as a consequence, there’s nothing to balance here, men are already living in a harsh contest that women create for them; (b) trying to put men under “a beauty contest” for women is impossible because women do not have the male sexual visual sensitivity – a man’s status is what attracts them and not his looks, or put more accurately – they will find the looks of the person they attribute status to, as appealing (since women are very sensitive to fashion, you could try making all of them look for a certain male appearance and they will compete for that against other girls like they would for a purse or for a pair of boots, but they will not have from this “marketed accessory-man” the inner sensations women’s-looks trigger in men, those overwhelming emotions and feelings – it will be an empty competition and the winner will wonder why she at all competed for something she doesn’t really want); (c) male expectations will never change because they are imprinted (and because they are imprinted and do not come from a programmed model, they are diverse, and one man’s ideal may not be appealing to another); and finally, (d) women have a drive to receive the male attention, and since men’s preferences cannot be changed “socially”, women can’t in fact be “liberated” of the beauty contest by “celebrating unattractive women” – those women will still seek male attention and will still not receive it as often, which will still cause them deep frustration, now possibly in addition to an unhealthy physiques – men cannot be liberated either from the success and status 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 celebrates, 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”.
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 or “acceptance” and never had, it is about sexuality (a note is in place about anorexia: see box 1). The full culture of body positivity is coming from the feminist belief that the sexes are identical specifically in sexuality, that is, that there are no male and female complementing and different drives that create differences – a female beauty competition and a male social-status competition. Feminists could never humanize men enough to see that they are already in a competition created by female innate sexuality, and if that’s not enough, they also forbid men of explaining their life experience, so feminists ended up being able to see only one competition out of two, and concluded – “it needs balancing”. Their denial of the sexuality of both sexes, made feminists interpret the differences caused by what is in fact imprinted sexuality, as “social”, thus attempting to “re-socialize” humanity: “deleting” male (imprinted, innate) preferences by forbidding men of having their preferences, now seen as “arbitrary and oppressive”; attempting to “reshape” male preferences by “socially celebrating” anything not within their preferences (“sexuality is social so if we socially treat something as attractive – this will become the human sexuality”); while pushing women to set visual standards for men believing this creates “a balance by putting men in a competition as well”.
All this while, feminism was ignoring the fact that men are already in a contest created by female sexuality and that while you can create in women fashions and they will “chase a specific male appearance”, women will generally not have from a man’s looks the inner sensations men have from women’s (generally speaking) – not strictly or even primarily from the man’s looks anyway (say, of a guy who doesn’t have the kind of social status they are attracted to). Because women don’t have the male sexuality, they do not respond the same way to physical appearances of men, and will not actually want those men defined for women 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).
Box 1. No causal link between what men actually prefer, and the anorectic body-image disorder, was ever found – the feminist attempt to blame anorexia on men was created as part of the enforcement of the 5-step-denial presented above, inflamed by the general feminist urge to incriminate men as a group and present them as guilty and bad. Anorexia is associated with a dominant mother and might also be associated with a standard that may have been created by gay fashion figures who wanted to make women resemble a young slim guy, but not with any standard created by men in general, and men are thus not guilty of the disorder and cannot cure it by “changing standards”. Psychotherapy to the controlling mother that would allow her to apologize to her daughter and take responsibility for hurting her, thus empowering her – anorexia being an attempt to regain control over self through a last autonomous domain left by the mother – and less dominance of gay-men standards in fashion, can aid, as well as educating young girls not to be too competitive among themselves as it can hurt the more vulnerable girl among them. This is primarily about educating women, not men.
So, not only that men and boys will never be included in the “body positivity” politics – this entire social effort stems out of a perspective meant to put men and boys in a “male beauty competition”, this is the part the body positivity politics reserves for men, because of all what was explained above.
That said, if anything, what men and boys need in fact is not male-body-positivity (because in terms of actual female drives as opposed to artificial fashions given to women by feminism, men and boys are not in any appearances competition), but a status-positivity culture. I don’t think either method could ever change the sexes, neither “body-positivity” for women nor “status positivity” for men. 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 a sexuality which was created by its innate sex – programming women to be sexually attracted to whom they regard as a failure the same way they are attracted to high-status successful men, and men to be attracted to women whose appearance they find unappealing the same as to beautiful sexy women – this is as practical as training society to have the same preference for eating plastic as for food – our biological bodies, brains included, create in humans imprinted capacities and abilities that society will not change.
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 since the imposed coining of the term “metro-sexual” in the 1990s, is “take away the appearances contest from women and put it on men”, “throw the beauty contest on men” is the intended and declared effort and not some mistake. Body-positivity is not able to give the women embracing it what they wish for either. Regardless of it being futile, body-positivity is discrimination when not accompanied by status-positivity. It may also hurt the women it misleads, in terms of their health. Body-positivity stems from a 5-steps chain of erroneous inferences all being necessitated by the first underlying false feminist belief: that the two sexes of a species are identical at the molecular level and any observed differences between them must therefore come from society, are oppression, can be changed, and must be changed.
Cover image: A screenshot of a Reddit post from 2022 where a picture from the website of a clothing firm was shown
You can help this website continue operating by downloading from Amazon the book Lovism. All revenues are devoted to the maintenance of the website and for disseminating the articles published in it. Your support is greatly appreciated.
You can also support this website via Patreon: www.patreon.com/henryblair