Hygiene Solutions with No Cost and Great Results

Below are two hygiene solutions that I learned from Roosh V, from his blog posts here and here. I have personally applied these and found them to be fantastic. I think every man must follow these.

Plain Water for Shampoo

No shampoo, no soap. Wash your hair with plain water. Tad warm if you prefer so (must if you live in cold weather).

It has been over six months since I last used shampoo to wash my hair but my hair looks better than they used to when I used shampoo.

How to wash: Soak your hair completely with water, ensuring that the water goes down to the roots and touches your scalp. For the first couple of minutes massage your head to take the dust off the hair. Then rinse with water to clean away the dust. Again massage all parts of the scalp for 3-5 minutes. At this time notice that your scalp is producing greasy substance. It is the nourishing grease that nature has endowed us with, but most of us wash our hair of this natural grease while washing hair with shampoo and then put gel and whatnot to bring the same effect. While massaging, the goal is to spread the natural grease all over your hair. After massaging enough to clean the scalp of dust particles and spreading the grease all over, again rinse the hair with water and you are done!

After washing the hair thus, you will notice that the hair will retain the greasy substance. It will give your hair shine, and also help in setting the hair. When I used shampoo, the hair would feel silky after washing it and it felt nice, but after a couple of hours they would be dry as dead. I had to apply gel or oil to make them look alive. It is stupid to apply chemical laden substances to create the effect for which nature has already made arrangement within the body.

You might be concerned about smell in the hair. Let me assure you, the hair won’t smell. I have asked my friends to smell my hair by putting their nose into them, after 6-8 hours of washing them, and none of them smelled anything!

It is a great solution that saves you the cost of shampoo and conditioners, saves your hair of exposure to various chemicals, and gives them nourishment from the natural grease. The hair looks great with natural shine (much better than the silky-dead from shampoo) and easier to set due to the greasiness. While setting my hair I do apply a few drops of coconut oil to increase the greasiness, but that is optional.

Watch the video by Roosh V where he explains the benefits of not using shampoo.

Baking Soda for Deodorant

The amazing solution for body odor is baking soda! It is a great replacement for deodorant.

How to apply: After having bath, keep your underarms, chest and back a tad wet. Take a pinch of baking soda and smear it in your underarms, on the chest and upper back. Or take a pinch of it in your wet palm and rub the palms of your hand, then apply it in the places like you apply cream. The wetness, however, should be just enough for the baking soda powder to stick to the body. The idea is not to dissolve it in the water. Once applied thus, forget about body odor!

I have never used deodorant after I found this solution a few months ago. Even in summer when I walked around in the sun sweating all over, I would not smell at all after a day’s end. Even after full twenty-four hours you will not smell. And do not worry, it does not cause any irritation. In fact, some deodorants have caused me burning sensation. With baking soda it doesn’t feel a thing.

It saves you the cost of deodorant, saves your skin of exposure to various chemicals and most certainly does a better job than any deodorant available in the market. And cost-compared to deodorant it is cheap as dirt.

All the best.

More such solutions would be welcome in comments on this post.

Objectification of Women, and How They Objectify Men

In this post we will examine –

  • Why men objectify women
  • How women encourage their own objectification, and why
  • How women objectify men, and why
  • The harm from women objectifying men

Sexually objectifying women means viewing them like sex objects. Men objectify women thus, meaning they think about sex whenever they see a woman, especially a beautiful one. Why do men sexually objectify women while the reverse is not true as much? Let’s turn to biology.

Why men objectify women

Men are sexually attracted almost exclusively by women’s looks. As against that, attraction in women is relatively complex. Men’s looks certainly play a role, but the bigger role is of their status (which is ascertained by women as combination of alpha qualities like confidence, strength, wealth, charisma,..).

Man’s biological imperative is to reproduce with many beautiful women, as beauty is a sign of good health. As against that, woman’s biological imperative is to have sex with a high status man who would have strength, confidence and resources to protect and provide for them and their offspring. Study of evolution would help one understand how this would be a sensible evolutionary strategy for growth of the species. In the evolutionary past, therefore, a woman’s value to man consisted in her looks, whereas man’s value consisted in his strength, confidence and resources (all combined as status). Biologically, this is true even today.

From sexual attraction perspective, for a man, a woman is nothing if not beautiful. For a woman, a man is nothing if not having status. Ugly women and low status beta males may be productive for the society, but biology of the opposite sex rejects them as mating partners.

There is no changing how men and women view each other because those very instincts have served the species well for as long as we have existed. If men hadn’t been attracted to and having sex with beautiful (read healthy) women, and if women hadn’t been mating with strong, confident and resourceful alpha males, the species would have not evolved thus far.

Life in nature is fundamentally about reproduction, i.e. sex. Society, its norms, and everything else is just offshoots of men and women pursuing their biological goals of survival and reproduction through their respective biological imperatives. For the growth of the species, men are designed by evolution to have sex with many beautiful women. To that end, it is necessary for nature to hardwire men to view women as creatures they primarily want to relate to for reproduction. Everything else they do to women would be basically to get sex in return. Men objectifying women’s beauty, thus, is naturally hardwired behavior. And for a good reason.

Many of the natural instincts are deemed misplaced in the present state of civilization. But that does not mean those instincts can be eliminated by moralizing. Moral development is a tug-of-war with nature, and it has its limits. This is not to mean that objectification of human beings is good, but one must look deeper and find alternative ways to minimize the harm resulting from such objectification than demanding the impossible behavioral change of either gender.

How women encourage their own objectification, and why

Let us ask, what are women doing to minimize the harm resulting out of their objectification?

Women are well aware of the sexual attraction mechanism. They know what men find attractive in them, and they use their sexuality to the fullest extent to their advantage. Find a modern urban woman who wears clothes that are less revealing, or less tight, than typical men’s clothes. You can’t. Think about this: Men are at no risk of sexual assault, so technically they can afford even to walk around in their underwear if they wished, but instead we see that women are the ones who reveal considerably more skin than men. Revealing the underwear is also becoming the norm in modern women’s clothing. Even in formal settings women’s dress code allows showing more skin than we see in men. On one hand they blame men for objectifying women, and on the other hand they continue to do everything to appeal to the same base nature of men where the objectification originates!

Modern women are hypocritical. The blame on men can only be justified in a society where women don’t flaunt their bodies to reap the benefits of sex appeal. Looking at the kind of money women spend on beauty products, hairdos, clothes,.. in trying to look like supermodels, one wonders if they are not objectifying themselves.

So why do women encourage men, so to speak, to objectify them? The answer to this lies in women’s biological imperative.

As we noted above, it is men’s biological imperative to have sex with beautiful women. Women, at some level, know this. And they want to be that beautiful woman men want to have sex with! Of course, they won’t have sex with all men who approached them but only the high status alpha males.

If a woman stops “objectifying” herself by painstakingly trying to look beautiful, she would lose the edge and miss the opportunity in her way, and fail her biological imperative which is to reproduce with a high status man.

This explains why women can’t help pouring money and constant efforts at looking beautiful. No woman wants to lose a potential high status man to another woman more beautiful than herself.

How women objectify men, and why

Since men’s looks also play a role in women’s attraction, they too sexually objectify men. However, women sexually objectifying men is not the parallel of men sexually objectifying women. The parallel of the latter is women objectifying men for their status.

Just like men want to have sex with beautiful women, women want to settle down with a high status man.

A man would readily have sex with a beautiful homeless woman, but a woman would not give her sexual resources to a homeless man, however handsome he may be. Conversely, a woman would have sex with a high status man even if the man is not handsome.

In this article on elitedaily.com, the woman author explains why it is completely okay to (sexually) objectify men:

Well, I hate to silence straight white males again (I know you guys have been getting a lot of flak from me for merely existing lately), but until you live in a world in which your objectification leads to excessive victim-blaming, unwelcome catcalling, mortifyingly high rates of sexual assault and rape and having your value in society based exclusively on what you look like, I will continue to exercise my God-given right to objectify you.

Because the objectification of women leads to all of those things. The objectification of men does not. And that’s why it’s okay to do it.

Basically, she says that women objectifying men doesn’t result in harmful consequences as does men objectifying women. While I agree with her that men objectifying women (albeit, with great help from women!) leads to harmful consequences, she has completely missed the mark on how women objectify men.

Once we have understood the differences in male and female biological imperatives, it is not hard to see that the parallel of men sexually objectifying women is not the reverse of it. The parallel is women objectifying men for their status. That is how men are truly being objectified by women.

When a man says he wants to marry a fair and beautiful woman, he is objectifying women. When a woman says she wants to marry a rich man, she is objectifying men.

The harm from women objectifying men

Just like men objectifying women results in harm, as the author of the above linked article points out, so does women objectifying men. This harm is manifested in the increasing trend of women marrying wealthy men, then divorcing them to take huge pie of the man’s property in alimony. Various anti-domestic violence and anti-dowry laws are notorious for being misused by modern women to extract huge sums from the counterpart through divorce. More than 70% of divorces are now initiated by women. This is because women are incentivised to divorce their husbands by the provision of settlement, alimony, and lifetime maintenance payments.

One might argue that more women initiating divorce might just mean that more men are bad partners. However, the facts and data presented here demolishes that argument:

But constitutional white knights — you know who you are — claim that figure could just as easily mean that 70% of husbands are shitty spouses. Well, maybe. But that interpretation is no less speculative than the opposite, and in fact is less sustainable under scrutiny, because the simpler explanation for the 70% female divorce-initiation figure is that men and women are about equally represented among the crappy spouse demographic, but women initiate more divorces because they perceive that a host of benefits will accrue to them from severing their marriages. Husbands, in contrast, perceive no such benefits, and are thus more loathe to divorce even when their wives are insufferable.

One way to test this hypothesis, as The Anti-Gnostic implied above, is to look at which sex initiates more non-marital break-ups. If men really are crappier partners than women, then the break-up initiation rate will be roughly the same inside and outside of marriage. The break-up initiation rate should skew approximately 70% in favor of women in whatever form of relationship they’re in. The premise behind this assumption is that a person’s romantic character or “livability” traits are fairly constant throughout life.

Using the variable FAMPER3 (“During the last year, did you… 3. Break up with a steady boyfriend/girlfriend or fiance?”) from the General Social Survey (GSS) dataset, we find that men broke up their non-marital relationships almost twice as often as did women.

So there.

Women do objectify men. And women’s objectification of men also has harmful effects on the society and man-woman relationships.

Working Men are Slaves, Working Women are Independent

When women say that they want to work to be independent, therein lies a difference between men’s and women’s positions in the modern society. Historically, men have been working because the society has been using them as providers and protectors, not because they wanted to be independent. The thought of being independent is fundamentally detrimental to the society’s interests.

Men work to provide for their dependents, which adds value to the society. Women want to work to be independent, which effectively negates the value. Unlike men, women want to work for themselves. After all, that’s what independence means. Most of the working and “independent” women declare shopping as their favorite hobby. That explains where their income goes. Men never said they were independent, because they never were. Nor have they cried for independence.

Most men hate their work, but do they have a choice? Who will run the society if they stopped working? One might ask oneself, who will provide for their family if men decided to be independent? If one’s answer is women, one could not be more wrong. A women would not even marry and form a family with a man who did not work to begin with. We don’t even need studies to prove this, just common sense and looking around. Thus, men don’t work because they want to be independent, they work because they have no choice.

A woman who is not interested in making a home, taking care of children, and maintaining communal ties is as useless to the society as a man who does not want to work.

How gender roles are formed

There are two important systems that shoulder every society. Economy and family. If either of the two is inexistent or fails, the society would not develop to begin with or collapse. In most basic terms, economy takes care of feeding people, and family system is necessary to increase/maintain the population. For a society to thrive the two systems must work in tandem. If economy collapses people would go hungry. In modern times it translates into difficulty in fulfilling the basic needs. If family system collapses it means reduction in marriage and birthrate and decline in population, along with loss of meaning in life and ennui in modern times.

It was not tyranny of men who chose women for the role of homemaker while choosing more “independent” life for themselves. It was so arranged because that’s what both men and women are naturally suited for. In the primitive stages of society when there were no desk jobs available and the environment was fraught with dangers, women could not afford to take on the role of provider and protector. They were best suited for domestic tasks while men worked with dangers of the environment to feed and protect their women and children. Men brought food, women prepared and served it to the family. Men built houses, women kept them in order and made them homes. Men fought wars to protect their community, women oiled communal ties. Men carried out the large scale tasks because they are endowed with the required fortitude and more strength than women. Women carried out the relatively smaller scale tasks, because that’s what they are best endowed for.

Men built and ran economies,  and women built and ran families. None of the genders chose their respective tasks, it just happened with nature’s arrangement based on respective strengths of the two sexes. Societies with any other arrangement would have perished, because as mentioned above for any society to thrive the economy and family system must work in tandem, and this was the only arrangement conducive to that end.

Once the wheels of the society are set in motion in direction of growth with a given arrangement, any deviation generates negative payoffs (in the form of problems) that create pressures for the deviating agents to re-align their paths to the mutual interests of the society. That’s why we say that the society pressurized women to stick to their original role to participate in the family system, and still pressurizes men to work to participate in the economy.

The title of this article says working men are slaves. Similarly, women in their traditional role must also feel the same way, that they are domestic slaves. Let me be clear, I used this terminology only to make women understand that if they feel like slaves confined to domestic tasks, the world is not bed of roses for men either.

This so called slavery for men and women is not bad. It is what makes the society and all the comforts that we enjoy possible. Real independence is not what it seems like. In jungle is one really independent, in the society one has to fit into the designed roles. The protagonist of the film Into the Wild (based on a true story) breaks free from the society to live independently into the wild. He is barely able to feed himself and is killed by the vagaries of nature. That is what real independence is like.

Women who abandon their traditional role in the society are narcissists in the same way men who want to loaf without working are. Both are a cost to the society.

The equality movement has done great disservice to the society by making women think that they were being oppressed and made slaves of by men who enjoyed all independence. It has made women dissatisfied with their role which is essential for the society to sustain itself.

Men and women in their traditional roles are like right and left wheels of the cart. The society can not run with two right wheels or two left wheels alone. We did not need women to take over men’s roles while abandoning their own.

As more women are “liberated”, families are disappearing. White Western women are among the most liberated in the world, and white population in the West is on decline. This heralds the collapse of human civilization.