Captain's Blog
15.05.2021., subota
Why Men Must Demand Virginity From Women
 There is a number of reasons why Men must demand virginity from women. The first is that most women can have sex whenever they want. They can walk to some guy on the street and propose sex, and in most cases they will get it. For men it is far more difficult, unless they are exceptionally attractive, and even in that case they would probably be rejected unless they invent some nice story. This is a very significant difference and asymmetry between the sexes, and because of that, a Man who wants to invest his life in marriage with a woman must know that she is worth it, that she is high value for him, and that for her, intimacy with a Man is something exceptional, individual and unique, not something she does casually, otherwise there is nothing exceptional and precious in that woman for a Man to invest his life, love and soul into. Otherwise there is nothing unique about that woman to be invested in, she is just good for getting sex from her. (See "Addition 4 - Another Asymmetry" below, for the expansion of that argument of asymmetry) By demanding virginity, men protect society and marriage and protect women, because if the mentioned sexual asymmetry is acted by women, then they become worthless for Men, marriage becomes worthless and a scam, and society degenerates. A "permissive" society eventually goes to hell. The second reason is humanity. A Man who wants to invest his soul into life with a woman must be sure that she is fully a human being, not just a reactive sensual animal without a human core. To live one's life with a reactive sensual animal instead of a self aware human with a self activated life core is a recipe for catastrophe and failure. And a woman who practices casual sex is a reactive sensual animal, not a self aware human being with an aware human core. She will be volatile and act according to her whims and various sensory stimuli coming along the way. The third reason is female beauty. Many men, mostly the simpletons, believe that female beauty is a reflection of her soul, which is extremely naive. Many women use that masculine naivete, to fascinate men and entrap them psychologically, so that they provide for them and serve them as some kind of goddesses. Those naive men will move mountains for these women, but when those women meet the super alpha male, they will often abandon or cheat on the provider simpleton without the shadow of a remorse. That means that a Man must know that the looks of a woman are not a lie in her flesh, that her flesh, her meat is not a lie in itself. I's like when you buy a product and there is a beautiful picture of it on the box, but if the quality of the product doesn't match the picture, then it is false advertisement. If a woman fascinates with her look, suggesting exceptional quality, she better be of that quality, or the picture on the box is a lie. Some men will be "pragmatic" and will compromise because they think that they cannot demand a product matching the picture, but actually they should demand it, otherwise why should they buy it and treat it as if it was a high quality product, care for it as something precious etc. when it is really a cheap product. If a woman attracts men with her looks of purity, and she is not pure, then her very flesh is a lie, a manipulation, and she is a walking lie. She in fact degrades the very meaning of feminine beauty, making it a lie. Women know that, and when they want to marry they lie that they just had one or two unhappy relationships, when they might had dozens and dozens of instances of casual sex. They know that only purity is worth a man's love and protection. Men must demand that purity, and not marry the liars. A girl who practiced casual sex, for "fun", degraded the meaning and value of sex itself as an exceptional, unique intimacy event, and her own value as this pure creature worth of a Man's love and devotion. Imagine that you want the whole package with a girl, including sex as the deepest most unique intimacy between two people, just to discover that she has cheapen it to the level of worthless, meaningless animality. It is as if she laughed at and ridiculed the meaning sex should have. How could you want anything deep with that girl, and how could there be a deep sense of intimacy and meaning in sex with her? Only if you lie to yourself, or buy her lies about herself. Let's be frank, these cute girls are, more often than not, just cute little reactive animals and not complete human individuals . Or their looks are the expression of their ego and of their cunningness in attracting men. It is not the expression of their souls, or more exactly it is, but you have to know how to look and see through the first level of appearances.This you can do only if you understand how women function when not framed by patriarchy. Without the human personality forming by patriarchy, women left to their own devices tend to regress to cute little sensual animals levels. Only with the cultural factor of patriarchy can women truly develop in the direction of integrated human individuals, not just reactive automatons. For a Man to love a woman, he must feel that she is high value, and a girl who screwed around is of no value. What is there to love in such a woman? What is there a Man would want to protect and cherish in such a woman? What is there in such a woman he would want to be devoted to? She degraded the sexual act to animality, and then should be respected and cherished as a human being? Now the classic question of why men should be allowed one type of behavior and women not. From the human point of view, for two real humans, there is absolutely no difference, and they should both act like true humans and not reactive sensual automatons - animals. However, there is a difference in a woman practicing casual sex and the reason a man often had sex with multiple women. For most men, for whom it is incomparably more difficult to get sex than for most women, because of the way women are attracted to men, and most are not attracted by weak men, but men who will basically "take" them, they are practically obliged to conquer a woman, or they will be relegated in the "friend zone". There are of course exceptions for everything, but exceptions don't help us to understand how the dynamics between the sexes generally works. There where times when things were different, but these times have passed... particularly with the disastrous appearance of social media, dating and hookup apps. Only exceptionally strong Men with a very pronounced male force can make demands on women before having any sex with them, and demand that a woman proves her worth to them before accepting to have anything with them. For most men, they must first conquer the girl and then determine if she is worth of more. Besides, the way a woman reacts is also a sign about her quality. (When she is young and not when she hits the wall and is not that attractive anymore, not being very fertile anymore, and then fakes virtue.) This is or can be part of the wetting process for men to select the right woman. Although I do not advocate it, in some cases it may seem practically necessary, unless the woman/girl is truly exceptional and is not just searching for a male, but for a Man. If you meet such a woman still truly framed by patriarchy, you must take it into account. Women do not practice (casual) sex for that reason, but as part of animal sensual or emotional reactivity, and therefore a woman who practices casual sex is of low value for a Man, for all the aforementioned reasons. Of course there are men-sluts out there, and men are also often reactive animals, however, the value of women for a man still depends on her sexual behavior, because of the easiness a woman can get sex, while a man who can "get women" does not lose value in the same way, precisely because of the comparative difficulty he has to get women. For women who say that it is a double standard for men to expect virginity or at least a low "body count" (the horrible expression used these days) one has to respond that, among other things, the fact that women can (and these days often do) have a body count in the triple digits, does not mean that they are of high value, just the opposite, because they didn't have to demonstrate value for getting that many men to sleep with them, while most men have to work hard to be valuable to women and get them to bed (with the exception of very attractive, very masculine or very popular men). So for a man it's the opposite than for a woman, it's the woman/girl who has a low body count, or is virgin, even though she could have a high body count, that displays human value and is perhaps worth of life investment. The others are not, and definitely not the ones who indulged in the c*ck carousel like animals in their youth and suddenly discover that they are out of time and want "true love" and stability, aka a man to serve and provide for them, or at least provide an ego validation that they cannot get from the c*ck carousel anymore. Because for these women, "true love" is what they can get from a man, not about giving. Remarquably, even though they demonstrated no value, they think that they "deserve" anything they want, that they are "worth" it by default. No you don't, you don't deserve or are worth anything by default. There are young women out there who do understand love as this kind of life union both sides give themselves to, to create life together, but they seem more and more rare these days, (particularly because of the number of those infected by the feminist ideology focused on external and animal demands by women, not what both partners can give to the couple and create together). Those are women who don't perceive life as a perpetual string of external stimuli that they got to get, like feminist culture teaches them to, but see life as giving and creating something together. And those are the women who will chose a real Man who also wants the same thing, not a fake man just giving cheap thrills/stimuli to their ego. And if a woman chooses such a fake man, that means that she is fake value too and deserves what she gets. Of course on a purely human level, the one that I advocate, men would also lose their value if they do not behave in a completely human, non-animal manner, but reality being what it is, women, except the ones of really exceptional quality, do not see a diminished value in a man who had a number of sexual partners, because of the same asymmetry mentioned at the beginning of this post. In reality women are often attracted by such men, because it means that their masculinity has been corroborated by other women. It is the opposite for women who had multiple sexual partners, their feminine value is not enhanced but diminished or nullified. Patriarchy is the only healthy moral order, in which Men demand virginity from women, and create a culture valuing virginity. Patriarchy also improves the moral quality of men who must prove their true Manhood (not just animal maleness). In a culture not valuing virginity, people sink into animality, women lose their value for men, who are not interested in marriage anymore, just sex, and society deteriorates in all kinds of ways, as can be seen in many Western countries, particularly the USA. This all is not just an individual issue, but a question of general frame: i.e. Patriarchy or not. The demand for virginity makes complete sense only if it inscribed inside the general awareness of the imperative need for Men to reestablish a patriarchal moral order, which would apply also to men themselves as moral responsibility and leadership. It obviously makes no sense for men to make such demands on women if they are not ready to reestablish a patriarchal moral order by taking responsibility for the morality of society (including themselves), and patriarchal moral leadership. The key idea behind all this patriarchy thing is that it is the natural role of Men to take responsibility for the moral order of a society, and then women can follow. Women cannot lead in that direction, and it is the role of Men to lead. In this article I explained two things. Why female virginity is important from the point of view of men, and what that demand for virginity implies for men themselves, i.e. the reestablishment of Patriarchy by Men taking responsibility and moral leadership for the moral order of their society. ADDITIONS: Addition 1 Someone asked: Do you agree that the one expecting a virgin should also be a virgin? I replied: Yes I do. But as I suggested in my Blog and also here, this is not just an individual issue, but a question of general frame: i.e. Patriarchy or not. The demand for virginity makes complete sense only if it inscribed inside the general awareness of the imperative need for Men to reestablish a patriarchal moral order, which would apply also to men themselves as moral responsibility and leadership. It obviously makes no sense for men to make such demands on women if they are not ready to reestablish a patriarchal moral order by taking responsibility for the morality of society (including themselves), and patriarchal moral leadership. The key idea behind all this patriarchy thing is that it is the natural role of Men to take responsibility for the moral order of a society, and then women can follow. Women cannot lead in that direction, and it is the role of Men to lead. But this I already stated, and now I made it even more explicit. Actually I will add this reply to my Blog, to make it completely clear, thanks. Addition 2 Someone said: That’s good. I had to ask because whenever the staying a virgin until marriage topic comes up, it’s almost always about women, with not a care about men being held to the same standard. I replied: This is what I think from a human point of view, as I consider that "sex" as mere (animal) sex should not exist between two human beings. What should exist is intimacy, which is different. There is also the issue of modern Patriarchy having to be moral responsibility and leadership rather than an imposition by force, as it perhaps was in the past. However, I clearly explained in my Blog's article that the female and male virginity cannot be equated from the point of view of their value for the opposite sex. Because of the sexual asymmetry I also explained at the beginning of the article, female virginity is far more important for men, than male virginity for women. This is simply effectively so, and is not affected by any ideology of justice or equality. The two are objectively not equally important for the opposite sex, and my article aims among other things to explain to men that they should not be fooled by that discourse of equality into believing that they should renounce the demand of virginity from women, because for them it is an objectively important one, while for women that demand on men is not of equal objective importance in the context of the sexes objective sexual asymmetry. However, in the present civilizational context, that demand by men on women cannot be enforced in the same way as it was in the past. It has to do be done by taking full responsibility and leadership, rather than force, which implies that a renewed Patriarchy, a "Neo-Patriarchy" demands a higher level of humanity on men in general. It demands from them to be complete Men, and not just physically men with some male animal properties, and demands from them to impose real complete Manhood as the main defining frame for society, as it is the role of Men to create that social moral frame. Real Manhood is and must actually be that frame itself. Men must reimpose patriarchy, not by force but by taking full leadership in the moral order of society, by being Men, and then woman can follow their lead. Addition 3 Someone reacted: Female virginity maybe important for men but hypocrisy/double standards are important for women , no one has the right to demand of others they don't of themselves and still claim integrity that's where men fail and that's why feminism came about ...as they said "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". I replied: Hypocrisy is important for everyone, and from a historical point of view previous forms of patriarchy had many flaws. One can discus what made feminism appear and one must quickly note that it also spread because men allowed it. If they didn't, it wouldn't have. There were also various ideological factors that created a deficit in the awareness for a need for Patriarchy (the part in one of my previous posts where I talk about Patriarchy not having been explicited fundamentally, but being in the collective unconscious), which prevented further evolution of Patriarchy. Feminism is a complex issue, but not directly relevant for my discourse, because from my point of view Patriarchy is essential for society and whatever its flaws in the past, it is imperative to be reestablished in a new form, a Neo-Patriarchy, in the way I sketched in my previous post. Basically Neo-Patriarchy is a process of humanization, in which men must become Men, and women must become Women. PS: for the superficial reader I must clarify that the humanization I am talking about has NOTHING to do with the ideological code lefties call "humanism", which is actually a dehumanization. Addition 4 - Another Asymmetry  Asymmetrical Balance Another important thing is that for a man to dedicate his life and provide for a woman, he must know that she is worth it. And a girl/woman who practices casual sex may be worth some casual sex, but not providing for her, protecting her, caring for her, devoting one's life to life with her, as she does not provide the feminine quality that would made her worth it. I'm sure that some will reply that women don't want providers, but the reality is that they do. Even women who objectively don't need a provider usually search for men more financially secure than themselves and want men who look like they can physically protect them etc. This is another answer to the "hypocrisy" argument about men demanding virginity without them being virgins. The thing is that if women want men to bring something to the table, they also have to bring something to the table, and since something is expected from men, men also have the right to expect something from women, and that exchange doesn't have to be of the same thing and it isn't. This of course doesn't invalidate anything that I said about moral responsibility, leadership, humanization and real Manhood. Those things are necessary for Neo-Patriarchy, but it contextualizes the fallacy of the claim that if men expect one thing from women, then women have the right to expect the same thing from men, because the exchange between men and women in most cases is not symmetric, but asymmetric again. There are no double standards in this, because while the value of what is exchanged must be the same, what is exchanged is not the same. Ideally, and prospectively, humanity should move to a higher level, but the way things are, the existing exchange of values between the sexes is asymmetrical. What is exchanged is not the same thing, but it has to be of the same reciprocal value. It's an asymmetrical balance. These days that reciprocity is broken by feminism, which gives the idea to young women that it is OK for women to sleep around, and then expect men to respect them, love them, cherish them and provide for them, when they do not do their part. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If a women expects to be treated with respect, be loved, protected, provided for and cherished, but acts in a way that makes her totally unworthy of those things for a Man, then she should not be surprised if she gets exactly the "respect" she is really worth... Some naive simps might actually do all those things, but Men won't, and many of the marriages established under such conditions will end up in divorce, simply because women in the USA and the West have learned that they do not have to provide themselves something important to men in that marriage, reciprocal to what they expect from men . They have learned to expect, but not having to bring something of equal value to the table. And then they get "unsatisfied", "bored", "unhappy", cheat and divorce, because they are focusing on their expectations, what is done for them, not what they do for the man. PS: Those who have read the article about morality on my Blog, will recognize in this issue the same morality's principle of reciprocity of exchange identified there. Addition 5 - Blaming Women? Someone suggested that women might be to blame. I replied: Whatever the responsibility of women, and all that women did and do, men allowed it, directly and by relinquishing their leadership, the only important point is that there is no purpose at all for men in blaming women, but to take responsibility for themselves and society again. The moment (neo)patriarchal awareness gets sufficiently established and realized among men, the problems caused by feminism (and lack of patriarchy) will dissolve, not by any violence or coercion but by natural leadership. Nothing will ever happen by blaming women, because if men don't get back on their leadership position by themselves, women will not put them there just because they would whine about it. It would be a complete contradiction to expect that. But Neo-Patriarchy implies a significantly higher level of maturity, and therefore active self aware and self responsible Manhood among the male population than in previous patriarchal periods. Leadership is not given, it is actively created and must be deserved. But while blaming women has no purpose, revealing to men the real situation in the World vis a vis the relation of the sexes is very important, so that they realize the consequences of their abandonment of Patriarchy. Addition 6 - Diagnosis of the Demise The most important thing is for men to realize that something must be done, and that something is a rethink of what men are and of their role in society, which leads to the realization of the necessity for a new patriarchal moral order to be established. (...) Can the White race survive without offering a new societal model? I sincerely doubt it. One cannot go back, one has to move forwards and offer new models that will replace the false paradigms that are pervading the World now. It is not just about creating an awareness of saving the race as biological entity, but awakening the race to the fact that its demise came from the generation of a false moral order. This diagnosis is critical. What caused the demise of the White race was the creation of a false moral order, a false moral order that destroyed the old moral order of the White race which was its backbone and was preserving it. A correct moral order is a holistic thing. One cannot say that we will just correct the issue of the white race not caring for its survival, because this issue of survival, its moral dimension of being good is inscribed in the issue of a larger moral frame that must be defined, a complete moral frame which also defines the correct relation of men and women inside that moral frame. This relation being essentially important for obvious reasons of biological survival. It must all be treated as a whole, which is something I have been trying to do in various posts on SF and also on my Blog. The practical point now is that we cannot go back, and it is the character of the White race, not to go back but to go a step forward further. One must find new paradigms and redefine the basis of society in a more fundamental way, offering a new and better model than the one that has been destroyed and than the false moral order that destroyed it. Addition 7 - Statistical Considerations - Yet another asymmetry Statistics have shown that if a woman is promiscuous and lost her virginity early, the chances that she will be material for a stable marriage decreases dramatically. On the other hand this does not apply to men. This is a statistical asymmetry that is objectively quantifiable, so even if none of the arguments I used so far did convince you, this one should. Women who are promiscuous, eventually become incapable to be good wives and live a stable family life. Of course, for me it is just pragmatic stuff, and one should be able to realize that Men must demand virginity for deeper reasons mentioned above, and a true Man, a truly human, integrated, self aware individualized man does not need to know those statistics for him to be obvious that Men must demand virginity from women. But Men also must demand women to be Women, true individualized human beings with a self activated human core, not reactive animals, slave to some animal programmings. We humans have those animal programs in us, but those programs are not us. Unfortunately, for the true biological human potential beyond these animal programs to be actualized, culture is necessary, the right form of culture that will develop and actualize these potentials for becoming a true human. Make no mistake, the human potential is also a biological thing, just like the animal programs, but it needs the right cultural frame to develop and actualize in a person. And that humanizing culture should frame children from the earliest age. If the young are constantly submitted to influences encouraging animality, and there's nothing or very little to make them realize and actualize their humanity - their human biological potential, they will basically actualize animality in the way their brains are wired, and the more they actualize animality, the more difficult it is to expect real humanity from them. This is particularly true of girls, because a man is a creature of performance and success, that's a man's metrics in society and with women. Men are forced to think about what a successful life means in a broader picture, while women are creatures of external attention, and the extent many of them think about life is how to get attention in the short term. And generating true humanity in girls is not just making them behave like "good girls" without having the stimulation to develop into truly individualized humans with their own causal core. Because just framing them to be "good girls" will not do the trick, as it makes them just automatons for external approval, not self aware human beings. This humanizing moral order must be a patriarchy, because women cannot create it, but not any form of patriarchy from the past, but a Neo-Patriarchy that represents an evolution to what Patriarchy fundamentally is and must be. |