DEBT-FREE VIRGINS WITHOUT TATTOOS

     Along with Left-Wing whackos having TDS attacks over a sidewalk decoration, there's been a serious controversy raging over an article by Lori Alexander of The Transformed Wife blog. The title is Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos; by Mrs. Lori's admission, this article has 'gone viral'. Red Pill cultists Dalrock, Chateau Heartiste, and Reality Doug have all chimed in with their less-than-two-cents-worth. 

      I personally will agree with the authoress about tattoos. Personally I can't stand them. They might look alright on 250-lb. bikers, lumberjacks, and sailors; but on a female body they're about as attractive as some of those 60's avant-garde artists who drew moustaches on the Mona Lisa. Note that this is only a personal preference. I know a lot of guys who like tattooed women. 

      But virginity and debt? Let's just point out here that most women probably find sexual exclusiveness and freedom from debt attractive in men as well. But that aside, what really caused all of the uproar was the suggestion in the article that young women should avoid debt by foregoing college---the expenses of which are responsible for much public debt.

     That's so; but the scandalous debt from education has more to do with rampant corruption in American Academia than anything else. And the highest debts incurred are for vital services like medicine, science, and engineering. What normal man would consider a relationship with a woman in, or studying in, these professions to be a bad thing?

      The Red Pills do; mostly because they don't relish the idea of educating women in the first place. Dalrock and Reality Doug especially took some comments about the article and wedged them into their AWALT heresies. Dalrock took issue with Wendy Griffith who said: 

     "Ladies, the Lord wants you to know that you are a pearl of great price, a treasure worth pursuing and protecting. You are worth fighting for and, like the pearl in the parable at the head of this chapter, worth everything it might cost a guy to obtain you. You are worth someone sacrificing his time, his routine, his comfort, his money, his whatever in order to have you. You are worth it! You are a prize to be won. Don’t settle for Crumbs."

      To Dalrock and other Red Pills, Love never factors into gender relations, so they completely miss the point that installing confidence in women might help them choose better men. Reality Doug lays it out plainly:

      "You (pretty much every Western man, call me pompous) don’t understand women because you greatly overestimate their human value from a cultural perspective, which considers the time dimension and presumes probable survival and replication. Animals have a ‘present’ perspective. The women is mentally an animal (instincts first) that knows what you care about but does not understand what you care about. She is built for manipulation not conscious thinking...Woman’s psychologically manifest and immediate goal, in service of her ultimate evolutionary purpose of advancing her genes with the practical baseness of a wild animal, is relative herd status."

      This is just stupid; and reflects the emotional immaturity of the Red Pills, who are also moral and intellectual pygmies. Mature men don't consider women as 'animals' but as human beings. And, as fallible human beings, are liable to do things like accumulate debts and lose their virginity. Thus it follows logically that while a man may prefer certain qualities; a mature man doesn't expect perfection. Nor is a man who finds Love some sort of a chump because he values the object of his desire.

      The whole strength of monogamy is based upon couples valuing one another. This is because monogamy is combination of strengths. There is the power inherent in love. To turn it into a 'game' of competition and power defeats its entire purpose.