patrick.net

Patrick says

How to be a Beautiful Woman

- Be thin
- Be able to cook
- Have long hair
- Wear make-up
- Be feminine
- Be graceful
- Be Sensual
- Shave (should go without saying)
- Be fashionable
- Wear pink and feminine colors
- Love men
- Listen to men

Stay classy ladies!

— Alexander J.A Cortes (@AJA_Cortes) February 21, 2019

Reposting here because this truth offends some people exactly because it is true. Men want feminine women. It has always been that way, and always will be because that is what works. Each of us is the product of a man's desire for a feminine woman - our fathers and mothers. Those who mess with gender roles exterminate themselves thereby.

Can’t say I disagree. Wifey hits 10 of the 12 points, and one of the points she doesn’t I don’t consider an issue.

Probably why it took into my forties to get married for the first time.

All the new-age progressive left characteristics are self exterminating

Add big tits to the list.
I don't care if they are implants.

Patrick says

- Be Sensual
- Shave (should go without saying)

Depending on the woman and the location of the hair, some women and their body hair can be quite sensuous.

While they are young anyway, it's always in the back of your mind, what will this hairy woman look like after 40.

Patrick says

Stay classy ladies!

But it's hard...and why would they want to please the patriarchy?...men should accept them for how they are regardless of how they present themselves.....it's 2019.

Hmmm

Objectification of women. Excess of that can lead us into an outlook like Rin has shared with us. Also in the yin and yang of life it can lead to women objectifying us.

It doesn't have to be that way.

We can also size people up by their character, including prospective partners.

Partners chosen by character make excellent co-parents, and excellent "partners" in old age. This is one reason I like that word a lot, "partner", and all it can mean. A partner can be hot, or not, whatever pushes the buttons of mutual consenting adults.

Use of "Partner" is not a SJW . It is much more than that.

Be classy
Value family values

Church teaches that man should value wife and kids, and wife should value husband and kids. It makes for an amazing relationship and happy life.

A "partner" is a guy running a law firm. Or perhaps a cowboy, as in "howdy pardner".

But a husband is a husband and a wife is a wife. These are clearly defined and distinct roles which brought us down to the present day because they are effective at producing more life.

To deny them is to be at war with human biology. War on biology is war against yourself. In can only lead to the end of your line, the death of your genes, to be replaced by people who happily accept the facts of human existence.

Parenting is a partnership, or should be anyway.

When it's not a partnership is when we get all sorts of problems from households where there are not two stable adults parenting/guardian-ing in partnership.

Partner is a relationship that's been around a whole lot longer than lawyering and cowboying.

Partnership is business.

Marriage is lifetime commitment in holy matrimony and devotion. It’s not same.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Parenting is a partnership, or should be anyway.

When it's not a partnership is when we get all sorts of problems from households where there are not two stable adults parenting/guardian-ing in partnership.

Partner is a relationship that's been around a whole lot longer than lawyering and cowboying.

Well, sure, parenting requires a lot of cooperation between the father and mother, and yet their roles have always been very distinct because that is what produces healthy well-adjusted children.

The father tends to be more disciplinarian, teaching children rules and responsibilities and the consequences of dereliction of duty.

The mother tends to be more nurturing, feeding the children (from birth, with breasts), carefully tending to their feelings, etc.

Either parent can do the job of the other if absolutely necessary, just not as well as the actual other parent.

Children who grow up missing a father or a mother tend to get into more trouble and are less likely to have a successful life.

I also suspect that children who grow up with parents who ignore traditional gender roles tend to be pretty fucked up as well. It's like having both father and mother missing and instead having two hermaphrodite parents who fail to do the right things at the right times for the child's development.

B.A.C.A.H. says

A partner can be hot, or not, whatever pushes the buttons of mutual consenting adults.

Yes they can but I personally don't want a partner that doesn't look good. To each his own.

:
Patrick says

How to be a Beautiful Woman

Patrick says

But a husband is a husband and a wife is a wife.

I agree with your underlying point to a very great degree. And yet, most half way liberal or half way progressive women are going to find your absolutist way of putting this out there, to be a little bit offensive.

You're obviously taking issue with people that choose alternative less traditional paths.. The future will be different. Not for everyone, but some will choose different paths. Maybe this is not entirely independent of the fact that we are fast approaching 10 billions humans on earth, and nobody knows how we could have most of them consuming anything like the way Americans consume. But I digress. The point being that we may in one way or another at some point choose to override our intrinsic need to reproduce as effectively as possible.

Don't get me wrong. I'm almost as homophobic as the next straight man out there. But intellectually I override that with tolerance.


komputodo says

B.A.C.A.H. says

A partner can be hot, or not,

Hot is awesome. But there is a sort of economics to it, right ? . If you are with a woman in a modern culture, who enjoys being hot (to most men), then as a man you probably need to have something equally as desirable or at least nearly as desirable to offer. And if that is the trade off, there better be more if it's going to work.

@ Patrick. Is it possible that those Islamic men are on to something with their burkas ? That way beautiful women can be hidden from the other men, for the good of those women, so that they don't realize how wanted they are by all the other men ? Obviously not all the women are that way. But we could balance it out by hiding all of them from the other men, and each other. That way, also if you have a less desirable woman (to other men), you wouldn't lose status for that.

Maybe those Islamic fundamentalists have it figured out even better than Patrick does ? Kind of ironic, if you know what I mean.

B.A.C.A.H. says

an outlook like Rin has shared with us

I'm glad to have shared a zeitgeist for this forum.

marcus says

The future will be different.

I agree. The future will be more like the traditional past, with a father, a mother, and kids who are boys or girls, no confusion.

The people who are currently protesting biology-based traditional roles will simply die without leaving any descendants. That's just the way biology works.

Unfortunately, in the meantime, they will drag many millions of others into oblivion with them. That's the sad part.

marcus says

Is it possible that those Islamic men are on to something with their burkas ?

Call me a feminist if you must, but I think women should should be able to go out with their heads uncovered, should have legal rights, should be able to change their religion or date someone their family doesn't like without fear of being murdered, should be able to speak in public, etc. Islam denies women even the right to leave the house unless accompanied by a male guardian.

But that said, I also think stay-at-home wives with small children should be praised for that choice, and protected and provided for by their husbands and extended families.

:
You completely missed my point didn't you.

You're assertions sound almost like the American Taliban, was my point

Patrick says

Call me a feminist if you must

MY point about burkas was that it's kind of a logical extreme version of the points you were making, about women's roles.

Patrick says

The people who are currently protesting biology-based traditional roles will simply die without leaving any descendants. That's just the way biology works.

Yes, but wouldn't it be more efficient to just throw them off the roofs of buildings ?

I am obviously kidding.

IT's true about dying without descendants, but maybe what's going on is on some deep collective unconscious level there is an awareness that there are simply too many of us.
In which case that behavior is something other than dna that will end when they don't reproduce.

IT might be some combination of factors in modern first world. Culture of narcissism combined with a decrease in economic opportunities to thrive. An awareness of a dangerous and frightening trajectory - which different people focus on in different ways, but everyone knows. Late empire stuff.

Patrick says

The people who are currently protesting biology-based traditional roles will simply die without leaving any descendants. That's just the way biology works.

Or they could linger like aids and just keep passing these aids onto the next generation since they are never completely killed off.

Two topics they don’t teach in schools:

a.) finance
b.) relationship dynamics / what drives members of each sex

Schools exist primarily to create obedient workers as George Carlin put it.

Business owners don't really want the workers knowing much about finance. And they just don't care about teaching them important things about sex roles. In fact, if more women stayed home, that would reduce the number of people in the workforce and drive up wages for those who remain. They certainly don't want that.

Correct.

50yrs ago, one middle class salary got you the house, car, and annual vacation.

Today, two middle class salaries are required to achieve the same thing - because of course women are equal.

:
True, true.

But then imagine how much bigger an edge the slave labor countries would have for manufacturing, if a woman's place was in the home, and men were making twice as much. Something had to give anyway.

“But that said, I also think stay-at-home wives with small children should be praised for that choice, and protected and provided for by their husbands and extended families.”

That decision should also be protected and encouraged by the state. Current economic conditions throughout the country but in California most obviously rewards only dual income families. The homemaker role is highly burdensome to the economic welfare of the family.

I’m not sure I’d say “reward only dual income families”

It’s an absolute necessity to keep your head above water. What kind of reward is that?

Roman history was just like ours. They believed in gods, family, and built greatness. Then they changed, abandoned hard work, morality and family, fell apart and got overran by barbarians. To realize mistake too late.

That’s the chapter America is heading for with liberalism.

Patrick says

But that said, I also think stay-at-home wives with small children should be praised for that choice, and protected and provided for by their husbands and extended families.

Yep.

How about stay-at-home dads? Because Mom has a better job. I know a few of these.

BayArea says

t’s an absolute necessity to keep your head above water.

It's an absolute necessity for a certain expectation, of a certain standard of living.

B.A.C.A.H. says

How about stay-at-home dads? Because Mom has a better job. I know a few of these.

Nice work if you can get it. But you’d better have a plan for when the kids start school, for going back to work.

B.A.C.A.H. says

How about stay-at-home dads? Because Mom has a better job.

Extremely high probability of divorce in those cases.

Women are attracted to men who make significantly more money than they make themselves. (And of course to men who are older, taller, and stronger than themselves.) It's only natural. Women evolved to desire the protection of strong men so that they could concentrate on raising the kids.

Watch what women do, not what they say. In fact, what women say is usually a good predictor of the opposite being the case. Not that they're lying necessarily. They just don't know themselves very well, or don't want to believe what they do know.

Women may say they want a stay-at-home dad, but when they actually get that kind of guy, they lose all attraction for him, deny him sex, and cheat at work with some guy who hits the right buttons, namely, being more powerful and better paid than she is.

Fortwaynemobile says

That’s the chapter America is heading for with liberalism

In a lot less than 800 years

Patrick says

Women may say they want a stay-at-home dad, but when they actually get that kind of guy, they lose all attraction for him, deny him sex, and cheat at work with some guy

Actually, a number of those women are simply looking for a slave and thus, were never attracted to the guy to begin with.

And thus, they bang the 'pool guy' on the side for their fix but don't let it interfere in the business of their daily routine.

Patrick says

Women may say they want a stay-at-home dad, but when they actually get that kind of guy, they lose all attraction for him, deny him sex, and cheat at work with some guy who hits the right buttons, namely, being more powerful and better paid than she is.

But I think they still "want him" for their live in slave...lolol. They might give him a hand job on occasion.

B.A.C.A.H. says

How about stay-at-home dads? Because Mom has a better job. I know a few of these.

Do they still have their testies?

A hot but traditional wife to grow old with is quintessential for matrimomy.

Patrick says

Women are attracted to men who make significantly more money than they make themselves. (And of course to men who are older, taller, and stronger than themselves.) It's only natural. Women evolved to desire the protection of strong men so that they could concentrate on raising the kids

I actually don't think it's entirely about money. For a good chunk I suppose so, but usually to get that money as man you have to have the qualities you list here so they go hand in hand.

It's the word provide that I think is most important. Not necessarily money either, although in today's world that helps. Until the last hundred years or so you'd provide by working the land, doing manly things. Sitting at a desk as a lawyer or coder making $200k/yr is not sexy to a woman. This is fact. They just want the money and is also a recipe for divorce where they take all the god damn money and fuck the pool boy who can do physical labor.

Men were stay at home dad's in the past and the mom's were there too. The men may have just been out in the field busting their ass just to put food on the table, not money. Mom could have hopped on a horse back then and gone to get Dad if she needed something. Both women and men are soft now. This is fact.

I also think as kids get older it's actually better for the kids to have a stay at home Dad. I always respected my mother, but I feared the consequences from my father MUCH more. I've always noticed families with active dad's or even stay at home dad's do much better with their older children. Women are great until about 7-9 years, after that you need discipline and structure. Boys or girls.

I think B.A.C.A.H. has a valid point about the partner versus spouse stuff he's talking about. And yes, having a hot partner is key too. If you don't know how to turn a wrench, work on a home, yard, etc you're probably fucked either way. Plenty of hotties stay with guys that install furnaces, toilets and fix your car. Usually the cheaters are hooked up with high paid, white collar job/men that aren't manly litigating a patent lawsuit. Or they're just whores, but those are easy enough to spot.

WookieMan says

B.A.C.A.H. has a valid point about the partner versus spouse

Wookie, it's no use convincing.

Their points ARE VALID, for the types of women they objectify.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Wookie, it's not use convincing.

Their points ARE VALID, for the types of women they objectify.

I hear what you're saying. Not trying to convince anyone really. Just pointing out that current roles are not historical norms. The idea that a banker, lawyer, rich guy basically is desirable to women is a new(ish) idea. Women have not evolved to accept that. I'm talking of the woman that sticks with a man. Of course they go for the money, but if they cheat on you, what's the fucking point?

They understand there's money there for sure. It's purely financial and not an actual attraction. Female's primal instincts want a man that can build a house for her children, fix a broken toilet, etc. Not call the handy man because they're building a website or defending a child molester in a court case. Money has its influence, but regardless of Patrick's list, woman want a man and white collar jobs ain't gonna cut it most the time as far as primal instincts go.

I have to say the makeup bullet point is weird to me. If your lady needs to or wants to wear makeup to look like a clown, she likely doesn't have natural beauty. I probably just pissed a bunch of people off, lol.

Some grist for the mill herewith:

Obviously, a fat woman is not very attractive; yet guys aren't attractive either if they're very out of shape.

A guy who has no money is not bad per se; he just projects a loser, a jellyfish who floats along the tides of life, which is not attractive to women.

They like a guy who is out there doing something and if it's very profitable that's good, but not necessary as long as he handles his business well enough.

The unattractive thing about many women is the back talking, the attitude, "GPS"=golden pussy syndrome, that they are so much more valuable to us than we are to them.

I often tell the ones who think they are the cat's meow; "At night all cats are black". This means that deep down women aren't so different (assuming no fat chicks in the equation)

I know a female who is about 38 but was once a stripper; she is still pretty hot but thinks her shit don't stink and that men should be throwing money at her still.

She's a pain in the ass to go out with; I took her to lunch and it was a pretty nice joint; she wanted oysters and a bottle of champagne so I was at $60+ before we even ordered food. Later she wanted to keep the buzz going and she demanded to go to a fancy bar on the water and ordered "triple pina coladas" which have 2 test tubes of rum in the slush and cost $20.

Her demanding and prima donna nature kind of ruined her good looks for me.

I guess the unattractive thing about her was her drinking, so I guess on Patrick's list above I would add "doesn't get sloppy drunk and aggressive."

Patrick says

- Have long hair

Let's start with having some hair. Remember Britney Spears gone wild a decade ago ...

This is an outcome of a Nerdy Engineer who objectified a woman. I think I recall that at the time it happened, he was living with a spouse/partner who was not a hottie.

I remember it like it was yesterday. My partner (OK, patrick, then-fiance) worked across the street from that office when hell broke loose. She called me to tell me not to worry, they'd secured the area and folks in her building would be safe. Jeez I didn't know WTF she was talking about. She told me to "turn on the news". (I was at home at the time).

A friend of mine's dad was a senior exec at the company. I think he was in a different building when it happened.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Farley

Rin says

Let's start with having some hair. Remember Britney Spears gone wild a decade ago ...

White trash. Always thought so from day one. We'll see if Dan comes out of the woodwork, but same for Taylor Swift. Rich mommy and daddy can't take the trash out of you. lol.