It has been a few days now since the verdict was delivered on the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard defamation trial, and I’ve been spending that time gathering my thoughts on it. While I’m happy he received a favorable verdict on all counts, there’s still a lot to this spectacle that troubles me. The Johnny Depp and Amber Heard conflict has been humming along—under the radar for most—over several years. Known at first largely to movie insiders and fans, the conflict grew in intensity and scope, culminating in two tense trials: one in the United Kingdom and the recently stratospheric trial in the United States that captured the attention of wider culture.

What was it about this trial that earned so much visibility? There are two main factors, in my view: the first being that two high-profile movie celebrities were engaged in a defamation struggle following their divorce, in which Johnny Depp sued his ex-wife for $50 million after she apparently claimed in a December 2018 op-ed piece of The Washington Post that she was a victim of domestic abuse, with a strong insinuation it was at his hands. Such news is fodder enough for tabloid magazines, entertainment news, and countless insider gossip, but it is the second ingredient that was most relevant: that Amber Heard, the defendant in this case, engaged in a cunning and libelous smear campaign to defame her ex-husband, invoking the spirit of “#MeToo” hysteria by claiming she was physically and sexually abused by him. The Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial was therefore about much more than actors quarreling over domestic abuse or defamation. It became a high profile representation of a sickness in our society, one in which we, as a matter of political correctness, tend to “believe all women” and almost always see men as malevolent perpetrators.

This trial was realized as a moment in which our moral reasoning as a society stood up to stress test the perennial double standards we afford manipulative women who hide behind victim politics and the credence it affords them, especially in Hollywood. As the evidence—largely in the form of audio recordings—became known to the public, it became evident to those with reasonable objectivity that she was, in fact, the abuser, and that Johnny Depp, while troubled by substance abuse, was the real victim all along. The ultimate question was whether the public (not just Hollywoke) could bring itself to recognize this, and further, if a court of law with a seven-person jury could do the same. It was a time of reckoning in which our society was tested for its political blindsidedness and ceaseless tolerance toward the social justice agenda of destroying men of fame and fortune under the pretense of speaking truth to power, and sneering gleefully while doing it. In other words, what was on trial was the very notion of due process, and if our society was capable of following it instead of getting caught up in the sideshows of #MeToo hysteria.

For six weeks, the two actors with their legal teams engaged in a contentious defamation trial, and it came to an end two days ago after the jury unanimously ruled in favor of Johnny Depp. It was a moment that struck a heavy blow to the camp of malignant man hating cancel culture we all know—a spirit that, up until now, seemed to enjoy the public’s silent permissiveness. But with this victory for Mr. Depp, there is a sense that the tide is finally turning on the woke religion that demands we see every woman as a victim and every man as villain, regardless of due process. We have at long last seen legal recognition of a reality many of us know all too well: that women—even beautiful, intelligent, talented, and credentialed ones—do lie, and sometimes their lies are of disturbing proportions, with no motive other than to get “revenge” upon men by taking them down in the court of public opinion.

Johnny Depp cleared his name, but only partially, for there are those in society who will never admit a woman can do wrong, and it is the nature of human beings that once a man is smeared with an allegation of such severity, public opinion of him will never go back to its original favorable proportions. There will always be someone who doubts him, even if he is vindicated in a court of law, and no matter how the record is officially cleared, there will always be some lingering nimbus of darkness around the man. And so, predictably enough, there are armies of fanatical loyalists and activists who still stand behind Ms. Heard, despite all the evidence that contradicts her claims, including the testimonies of her own witnesses.

There are further aspects to this spectacle that are deeply troubling. Take, for instance, the insidious irony that Ms. Heard has been an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Ambassador of Women’s Rights all along, and further, that the ACLU itself drafted her defamatory article in the first place. “The ACLU was a co-conspirator with Ms. Heard,” Depp’s attorney, Ben Chew, said. The question over whether the ACLU or the Washington Post will receive any legal repercussion for its aiding and abetting of Ms. Heard’s lies remains to be seen, but it’s clear, once and for all, that the religion of “believe all women” has reached a point of evil and comical absurdity, considering these facts.

Johnny, in his official reaction statement over the verdict, said, “I hope that my quest to have the truth be told will have helped others, men or women, who have found themselves in my situation, and that those supporting them never give up. I also hope that the position will now return to innocent until proven guilty, both within the courts and in the media.” This is a sentiment I think we all share as well, and while Johnny’s victory has set a precedent and helped move the needle along in that direction, there is plenty of opposing force on the other side still in our culture, fighting to keep the needle exactly where it has been: for the blind advocacy of women, no matter the countervailing evidence that sometimes shows them to be liars and abusers.

Ms. Heard’s lawyers tried to invoke the auspices of such blind advocacy by asserting that if Johnny ever raised a hand to her, the entirety of his argument was null and void. “One time, ladies and gentlemen—if he abused her one time, Amber wins,” Ms. Heard’s lawyer, Benjamin Rottenborn, told the jury during closing arguments. Having listened to the audio of Ms. Heard taunting, goading, and demeaning Mr. Depp incessantly, if not gloating over the fact no one would ever side with him or that her striking him was no big deal, I am reminded of the difficulties men face all over the world in dealing with women who know full well the constellation of advantages they have in modern culture, and how to use those advantages to cleverly advance themselves in the event a man takes the bait and, in a moment of weakness, gives them exactly what they so desire. “Abuse!” will be the common cry, but it is not so cut-and-dried in reality. I found myself in exactly this position many years ago, in fact, with an ex-dominatrix girlfriend who attempted goading me into hitting her during one of our many nasty arguments that heralded the near end of our relationship. “Go on, hit me. I know you want to,” she taunted me, her lovely angular face, framed in long black hair, bobbing from side to side. I realized, there and then, that it wasn’t merely a taunt: it was a threat. I can only imagine what her next action would have been had I given her exactly what she was openly encouraging me to do. Would it have been an angry call to the police? Maybe she would get in touch with a domestic abuse hotline? Or maybe she’d contact her family or neighbors to spin an invented history of violence and abuse on my part? Who knows. After all, the options are endless for a woman after such an event unfolds. Looking back upon my ex’s Cluster B-like personality, anything was possible. I sometimes rewind back to that day and consider who and what I was dealing with, and why I spent a few years of my life with such a person. Thankfully, I didn’t take the bait and I didn’t remain with her. How many men do, though? Why do we never seem to talk about the complexities of this grey area and the psychological cudgel women hold over their victims within it?

Mr. Depp obviously sensed a similar malevolence during his relationship with Ms. Heard, and despite her outrageous behavior, he refrained from any form of serious physical altercation, not only because it’s wise to do, but because he’s a decent person. His patience and resolve is immense and lesser men would likely have snapped and retaliated in some way, considering her noxious aggression. In retrospect, the video of him taking his frustrations out on kitchen cabinets is nothing compared to how others might be inspired to vent their frustrations. My point is that simply because a man hit a woman, that in and of itself is not an indicator of who in the relationship holds the greater gravity of malice. While I realize it’s virtual sacrilege to say this today, it is nonetheless a truth of the heart and mind: the reality deep down in the weeds between two people can be extremely complicated and startlingly counter-intuitive to the simplistic truisms—moral or legal—we find palatable on the surface. Contrary to what we may want to simplistically believe, the true abuser can still be the smaller, physically weaker, and soft-spoken woman in the relationship, even if she bears a (real) bruise around her eye for all to behold. But few tend to see moves like that on the three-dimensional chessboard, much less discuss the inscrutable riddles of female abusers who take advantage of that very incredulity and lack of devious imagination.

Rottenborn, lamenting Ms. Heard’s struggle, continued: “If you didn’t take pictures, it didn’t happen. If you did take pictures, they’re fake. If you didn’t tell your friends, you’re lying, and if you did tell your friends, they’re part of the hoax. If you didn’t seek medical treatment, you weren’t injured. If you did seek medical treatment, you’re crazy.” This part of his litany evinces that familiar mood in culture today regarding the exploration of truth where it concerns violence against women. Often the insinuation emerges that some variation of a good ole boy conspiracy that has somehow survived more than the last half century of feminist educational, legal, and political indoctrination is at play, wielding callous disregard for female victims of abuse or rape. To be clear, we at Humbled Females do not discount the stories of real victims. Many women are indeed victimized today, and they do regularly experience cautious bias against their claims of abuse. Real abuse, rape, and assault is a serious matter. Being sensitive to when that occurs is of great importance, but we must also recognize the tremendous strides we have made in identifying victims of abuse and advocating for them in modernity. To claim we live in a world where women are never believed and that Ms. Heard, especially, is suffering this effect is not only absurd, but dangerous to the interests of real victims of abuse. Likening her obvious malevolence to real abuse victims does not lead to their compassionate support: it makes a flagrant mockery of their reality and the need to protect the innocent.

Regardless, some mainstream publications go on to assert the victim status of Ms. Heard, with no consideration for real victims of abuse—including Mr. Depp himself. They are the usual suspects: the New Yorker, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Vox, Salon, Vogue, Washington Post, etc. Even now, a flurry of articles decry the supposed injustice of Johnny Depp (partially) regaining his reputation back after years of methodical character assassination by Ms. Heard. One of the more bonkers articles comes from the “The Root,” declaring the verdict “sent a message to black women everywhere.” Namely, that if a rich white blonde can’t find justice, average black women have no chance. We are seeing, in real time, how quickly and how far the media circus will run with a story like this, drawing outlandish conclusions—any conclusion at all, in fact—rather than accepting the truth: that Amber Heard’s credibility is severely lacking.

Johnny Depp’s success has much to do with his excellent legal team and the testimony of numerous witnesses, but his most critical ally of all is, simply, objective reality. That is the truth the establishment media seems incapable of facing. Unsurprisingly, Ms. Heard herself has continued on with her assertion that she has been wronged—that she was “heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, influence, and sway of [her] ex-husband.” She then goes on to lament what the verdict means for other women—that it’s a “setback.” Her lies never seem to end. Even in face of the obvious and having been judged a liar in a court of law with competent lawyers on both sides hashing it out, she remains committed to her libelous fictions and many in the media remain rallied around her.

The legal victory handed to team Depp is by no means a small accomplishment in the era of social justice, but as high profile as it is, it’s merely one case. And there are more sobering facts to consider: if a man of celebrity and wealth like Johnny Depp took this long and expended this much effort to clear his name, what chance do average men experiencing similar abuse have? How many men lose their jobs as a result of bogus accusations from women like Amber Heard in their lives? How many lose their money, their homes, their children, and in some cases, their very lives? That is a subject no one in the establishment media feels the need to discuss, as it doesn’t align with the victim narrative of our feminist social justice culture. Under that rubric, men—particularly white men—can only be perpetrators, never the victims. And as we have seen across the Internet, the numbers of those who think this way are legion. They are the university-indoctrinated intelligentsia planted inside the wheelhouses of legacy media, running newspapers and writing activist opinion pieces to uphold a skewed reality. Their works are barely opinion pieces at all, in fact. They are, instead, political hit pieces with the sole intent of manipulating the public perception of reality to align with their ideology. Some examples:

 

“The Johnny Depp and Amber Heard verdict: A victory for the war on free speech.” —Salon

“The Johnny Depp–Amber Heard Verdict Is Chilling.” —The New Yorker

“Amber Heard-Johnny Depp trial memes could have ‘a chilling effect’ on victims of domestic abuse, expert says.” —NBC News

“Johnny Depp’s legal victory and the death of Roe v. Wade are part of the same toxic cultural movement.” —Vox

“The Amber Heard-Johnny Depp trial was an orgy of misogyny.” —The Guardian

“‘Men Always Win’: Survivors ‘Sickened’ by the Amber Heard Verdict.”—The Rolling Stone

 

Let’s consider exactly what event we’ve witnessed in our culture of late, because this is important. When Johnny Depp was defamed indirectly by his ex-wife Amber Heard, the media immediately disowned and condemned him. He became an instant pariah and a monster in the eyes of the public, thanks to zealous misandrist ideologues all too happy to contribute in vilifying him and destroying his reputation. None of the major studios in the Hollywood scene would hire him for fear of reputational damage. When Johnny succeeded in a court of law in proving Amber was in fact the malicious actor in the relationship, an outpouring of support from the establishment media for her—the very same media that gleefully threw Johnny under the bus based on hearsay—ensued. She has been rallied around and gushed over, and Johnny is painted now as an even greater monster. In other words, objectivity, due process, and truth doesn’t matter to this fanatical religion of feminist social justice. What matters to them is forwarding their agenda, at any cost, to a select segment of the population they hate: men. In this, they are an inverted mirror of the very sexist conspiracies they claim they are fighting against. They have become what they claim to fight.

And so to Mr. Rottenborn, I submit this rebuttal. If you don’t have evidence of a woman being abusive, it didn’t happen; it you have audio of her admitting that she hits you, it’s irrelevant. If you have no one to back up your claim, you’re lying; if you have a veritable army of witnesses, they’re part of the hoax. If you’re a man, you’re guilty by default; if you’re exonerated of what you’re accused of in a court of law, it’s a conspiracy. If you’re a man accused of something, the media destroys you; if you’re a woman found guilty of abusing someone in a court of law, the media defends you.

So how do we fight against this insanity? By realizing the cult of social justice is truly lost. We must be proactive in speaking up and defending men against sacred victims like Amber Heard. Instead of believing all women, let’s believe due process. Instead of embracing feminism, let’s employ rationalism. Instead of fashionable lies, let’s work toward embracing the inconvenient truths. And lastly, do stop patronizing these large news corporations. We have been afforded a clear view of the evil at play in the media. Vote with your wallet or purse and help cancel the popular machinery of cancel culture itself. The health of our society depends upon it, and there is no way I can stress this enough. Our legal system certainly isn’t perfect, but what other choice have we? The woke mob and intelligentsia certainly can’t be trusted to safeguard the truth about men and women. In truth, they never could be. I hope that is crystal clear by now to the larger public.

Spring has sprung, and with it, some seismic changes at Humbled Females. For the first time since its reboot in 2012, Humbled Females is now a completely free experience. The articles, media, Primer, and access to the full functions of the site are everyone’s to enjoy.

Why have we done this? The short answer is we can. As for the long answer: Humbled Females finds itself in a bit of an odd place on the Internet, which hasn’t exactly allowed it to thrive, financially speaking. We are adult, but our subject matter is considered untouchable in that it is an anti-feminist space We are also pro-male and advocate actual master-slave relationships, unlike what you find anywhere else on the Internet. We are one of a kind for a reason, and that is, among other things, the simple fact that no one wants to touch the subjects we discuss here. Not seriously, at least. People certainly love kink. They enjoy the sensational world of fetish and alt sex activism. We have nothing really against these things, but they have little to do with who and what we are. Our message is different, standing free of the progressive and pro-sex work mission creep we tend to see in the online BDSM collective, which has become a sexual marketplace for fetish models and a bootloader for OnlyFans actresses. And that is why we are decidedly not the coolest kids on the block, so to speak: we aren’t playing that game. We’re focused upon deeper things, minus the poisons of the day—but of course that’s the entire point of our community.

Our path has always been different, ever since we started Humbled Females in 2005 back in the days of Livejournal. We prefer reality over artifice and passion over consumable politics. We’ve built a large forum of discussion (archived since 2012 when the site was revitalized) on the subject of consensual male dominance and female submission. We have written numerous articles that offer plenty of straight talk and insight about the psychological physics of dominance and submission and master and slave between heterosexual (and heteronormative) males and females. Alongside that remains a library of media provided to entertain, inform, and inspire. All of this was done and, with the exception of the adult media, will continue to be done without sliding into religious fundamentalism, going woke, right-wing political extremity, or Castlerealmic BDSM fantasy. There is no one like us online. You are part of an incredible and authentic online community that is now, in our eyes, “too big to fail.” And much of that success is due to our members, especially the ones who have been with us since the beginning.

But more good things are in store this spring and summer. We are going to be refreshing our forum and tools here with a pure code rewrite, getting us away from limiting software frameworks and allowing Humbled Females to be customized any way the membership wants. Things we currently have in mind are: member search features according to region, orientation, age, etc., better private messages, more options for profiles, and likes for forums comments. The site’s visuals will be slightly adjusted and enhanced in the process as well, allowing for a better mobile or desktop experience.

So, all around good things for Humbled Females in 2022! Check back regularly to see the new features as they emerge.

“Abandon talk,
 say goodbye to your lower self;
…
grieve over your understanding;
 stop using it for evil purposes. Lower yourself in submission
 and become the beloved 
of every dwelling.”

—Excerpt from The Walled Garden Of Hakin Sanai, Tr. by David Pendlebury

 

e speak a lot about consensual slavery on the Humbled Females site and its difference from submission. This contrast is a very important one to us: it’s the difference between someone who serves of her own free will, i.e. when and if she wants to (even if she does generally want to, out of the goodness of her sweet heart and responsible conscience), and someone who serves because she must, because she is enslaved, because she has willingly taken sacred vows that she knows in her soul she will never break. A submissive can change her mind, she can walk free and clear away from the man she serves without a backward glance, if a “landslide” seems to bring the relationship down, in her eyes. This is not so for a willing and genuine slave who is not merely playing a temporary role. While half or more of what makes slavery work is the attitude and ability of the dominant man to enslave a willing spirit, the other half is equally important: the mindset, attitudes, and behaviors of the individual who desires to be owned and serve her owner for the rest of her living days. These include extreme loyalty, a strong work ethic, the ability to be perfectly content with one’s lot in life however low that may be–and not be too covetous of it if it is high. It also includes self control: the ability to curb or control the usual human vices which all are subject to, the ability to see someone else as being as real and human as oneself (i.e. not an object one manipulates or maneuvers around), and many other qualities. These qualities are actually forms of experiential intelligence, gained from studying life, seeing how it works, and paying close attention to others who clearly know how it works better than you do. To pay really close attention to others, the attention that over time yields so much, one’s ego must first be able to accept that there are others out there who, overall, know better than oneself, far better, in many cases. Not all people, even those who consider themselves slaves, can accept this fact. Something (insecurity, egotism, resentment, dishonesty, greed, lust for pleasure, pride, and the danse macabre these all engage in within one’s heart) keeps such individuals isolated in a dark, musty, aggrandizing, and self-referential fortress of the soul.

“Abandon talk,
 say goodbye to your lower self;
…
grieve over your understanding;
 stop using it for evil purposes. Lower yourself in submission
 and become the beloved 
of every dwelling.”

—Excerpt from The Walled Garden Of Hakin Sanai, Tr. by David Pendlebury

 

e speak a lot about consensual slavery on the Humbled Females site and its difference from submission. This contrast is a very important one to us: it’s the difference between someone who serves of her own free will, i.e. when and if she wants to (even if she does generally want to, out of the goodness of her sweet heart and responsible conscience), and someone who serves because she must, because she is enslaved, because she has willingly taken sacred vows that she knows in her soul she will never break. A submissive can change her mind, she can walk free and clear away from the man she serves without a backward glance, if a “landslide” seems to bring the relationship down, in her eyes. This is not so for a willing and genuine slave who is not merely playing a temporary role. While half or more of what makes slavery work is the attitude and ability of the dominant man to enslave a willing spirit, the other half is equally important: the mindset, attitudes, and behaviors of the individual who desires to be owned and serve her owner for the rest of her living days. These include extreme loyalty, a strong work ethic, the ability to be perfectly content with one’s lot in life however low that may be–and not be too covetous of it if it is high. It also includes self control: the ability to curb or control the usual human vices which all are subject to, the ability to see someone else as being as real and human as oneself (i.e. not an object one manipulates or maneuvers around), and many other qualities. These qualities are actually forms of experiential intelligence, gained from studying life, seeing how it works, and paying close attention to others who clearly know how it works better than you do. To pay really close attention to others, the attention that over time yields so much, one’s ego must first be able to accept that there are others out there who, overall, know better than oneself, far better, in many cases. Not all people, even those who consider themselves slaves, can accept this fact. Something (insecurity, egotism, resentment,  dishonesty, greed, lust for pleasure, pride, and the danse macabre these all engage in within one’s heart) keeps such individuals isolated in a dark, musty, aggrandizing, and self-referential fortress of the soul.

While some people are naturally drawn to slavery, often at an early age, and instinctually understand the basics of genuine service,  craving with all their hearts to serve others with pure, loving, unselfish intent, others seem to approach this role from an unconsciously egotistical stance. It’s really, secretly, all about them and their experience and not about the person they serve. They go through the motions, they serve on the surface, but it’s not out of selfless love, nor even an intense liking or appreciation for one’s master. It’s rather a calculated strategy to get the “life goodies” some females feel are their due, but which may, for various reasons, be denied to them through more conventional pursuits or relationships. Worse still, pretend slaves often egotistically assume that everybody else acting like a slave secretly has the same treasonous attitudes they do. Slavery, they think, is, at its deepest heart, just a big pretense, just another life hack which involves fooling others to get more goodies for oneself. This article is probably not for those types, as while such a person will greedily consume words and concepts like the ones in here, she will do so only to add fresh fodder to her pretense, more fancy words she can trot out at will when questioned (as such people always are by astute owners) about her real level of devotion and service.

While no writer can control how readers might interpret their words or even transform them into something entirely different than was meant, this article’s “before the twisting” intention is to describe some of the attitudes that genuinely selfless people who desire to be good, devoted servants or slaves naturally assume. These attitudes seem only common sense to such people and also the only path they can trod through life and still be true to themselves. Not all  women who have these qualities of understanding are slaves. But they are often somewhere on the continuum, working toward consensual slavery or perhaps just beginning their orbit around a man who fascinates them. My Master has a word he uses for all those true believers in this gamut who, no matter where they are in the process, exude understanding, passion, and fierce loyalty: they are acolytes.

On the road to a purer devotion toward the man one serves, there can be many difficult attitude changes to make on one’s own. These can be hard even to fully understand, especially if one is just beginning, as these ideas and practices are not taught or encouraged much in one’s surrounding culture.  Grasping the importance of making these changes is half the battle. Once a truly devoted heart sees the benefits of making personal changes, all that’s left is to figure out the how: how do you, with the help of your master,  change in ways that will benefit him (and, as it happens in this case but isn’t required, you, as well).  You will benefit by becoming more selfless, more giving and loving, and a more pleasing slave to him. He will benefit from your becoming this better servant (more loyal, devoted, empathic, skilled, caring, understanding, and useful). It may sound like a lot of hard work. But the act of assuming these attitudes is its own reward: your life becomes much more peaceful and your path in life increasingly clear, as a result.

Fully serving another human being requires a mental shift, a change in your attitudes. Instead of focusing on what you do (I did this thing well, I thought that out poorly—alas for me), you try to remove your self, your ego, from this picture in order to focus more intently on the work at hand and whom you are serving. Doing this enables the one being served to see not only that you are serving him but also why you are really performing this service and obeying his will. In the early stages (and even later, to be truthful) attitudes count more than achievements. Anyone can fail at anything, as things outside of our control, like lack of experience, health issues, or  bad luck, affect progress, but your attitude is something you alone control. It is also something that you can control no matter what circumstances you face, if you want to. Genuine and successful acolytes serve with a mindset of several attitudes, some of which are described below. If you are already serving someone deeply, and, ideally, someone who is fully engaged in mastering you (as one cannot serve fully in a vacuum), you will probably recognize a number of these attitudes. They are clear guideposts that you are on the right path. For those who are struggling with their service, some of these attitudes or behaviors might be seen as things to work toward,  attitudes and behaviors that, when mastered, will remove all of their difficulties.

 

An acolyte must be capable of regarding the feelings of somebody other than herself as she would her own.

“A man engrossed in himself is neither brother nor kinsman.”
—Old Saying

The unconscious egotism of many who desire or claim to be submissive servants is very obvious these days. When one speaks with or reads the writings of those who identify as submissive, it’s striking to note that often what they say is all about them. It’s all about their feelings, their confusions, their needs, their fantasies, their desires, their fears, what their men don’t understand about them, etc. Their master’s or potential master’s needs are nowhere to be found in these long, self-involved screeds. A good servant, even a new one just learning to serve another, will not be thinking of her needs all the time. She’ll be thinking about what her man’s needs and desires are, asking him about what he expects and wants, and looking forward to meeting his requirements or gratifying his desires. Her man and what he wants matter far more to a devoted acolyte than her own desires. And when she forgets what she wants and just goes with the flow of providing for him, she often finds that she is inexplicably happy whereas her own plans for self-satisfaction, in contrast, often leave her unfulfilled—or worse, wanting even more self-indulgence the next day.

 

An acolyte must be willing and open to learning about her faults.

“If you will not reprove yourself, you will not welcome reproof from another.”
—Saadi

A lot of people practice a “social skill” of appearing to be modest. They pick and choose minor faults in themselves to advertise to others as signs of their humility. It’s just what most humans do, we’re all used to this. It has appropriate social uses and is even a required role to play in certain situations—like in front of a king who is known for chopping off  the heads of those who do not appear humble enough or if you’re desperately hoping to get some free money from someone. It’s a rare person, however, who can hear direct criticism from another and realize or vocalize: “My god, you are so right! I AM like that. I really DO that!” The ability to self-criticize honestly, where necessary (and it seldom involves advertising this to the world) provides one with the ability to hear and use criticism that comes from others that is accurate and true—and not just defensively or arrogantly brush it off because, of course, they cannot begin to know you as well as you know yourself.

If  you can accept how someone relevant to you sees you, if an acolyte can remain open to considering her Master’s words as honest labeling with an intent to improve her rather than as vicious attacks which she must cleverly derail or oppose, while all the while “Yes Mastering” him, such a woman will start to see herself more clearly. She will have avoided that dark, smelly, and largely dishonest trap of self-defense at all costs. This may be painful at first, particularly if she has spent a long time hiding her personal faults from herself, but if she can realize that honest and accurate self-criticism is essential if she wants to up the ante of her service and her devotion to her master, she will bear the pain of reproof rather than discarding it as “worthless” or “dead wrong” or “silly” simply because her ego cannot bear to be criticized.

Not everyone is capable of self-blame or even its gentler cousin, self-observation. Some people are extremely insecure. Such types often become very wrapped up in protecting their egos (usually because they see, incorrectly, their egos as themselves rather than a somewhat useful factotum, an actor that allows us to more easily navigate the world). Such rigid, closed-off, and  fearful souls cannot bear to entertain even small personal critiques. Others are so far gone in the depths of self-worship (which, more times than not, is sourced by a powerful hidden spring of insecurity) that it never occurs to them that it might be useful to watch themselves closely and to see their own mistakes or misunderstandings clearly—rather than deny that they have any. Such a person can possibly start to change this rigid defensiveness by deciding to find at least one thing she did wrong or thought incorrectly per day. Most of us can do that easily. It can be as simple as forgetting to get an item at the grocery store or interrupting someone because you were too eager to speak…or as serious as avoiding a necessary household chore and lying about it.

If you start with observing the little, inconsequential stuff, eventually the bigger things become both easier to see and also easier to bear. Often, the best time to do this review is in the evening, when you are in bed, readying yourself for sleep. As you close your eyes, think about the day’s events, starting with when you woke up: What did you do first thing this morning? Then what? Who did you talk or type to, where did you go, what did you do inside your home, what did you think about the things you did or observed? Did you get everything done that you wanted to? Most of it? Was it a fun day? Why? Was it a terrible day? Why? Was it unexpected in some way? What were the thoughts or concerns you had at various times that day? What interesting ideas came to you? What unusual things did you see?   Did you go to work? Run some errands? Cook a meal? Did you disappoint someone? Please somebody? Confuse them? Did you drop anything you promised to do? Or forget to do something?  What words did your Master speak to you today? Perhaps you can also see some small areas (they don’t have to be huge or life-changing) where you can improve something, do it differently the next time. For me personally, these small things often involve forgetfulness. I tend to focus exclusively on one thing and often lose sight of the big picture: all the other things I had planned to do that day.

 

An acolyte serves another person with loyalty and dedication.

This is most true (and, ironically, least regarded) about intellectual pursuits or outside attractions. As a loyal servant, you follow your man’s ways, you agree with his ideas and adopt those of his practices that are relevant to you as your own, you do not seek out alternative “masters” in pretty forms, including attractive current ideologies, other people’s ways of doing or looking at things, cliques, groups, thought systems, political stances, philosophies, social media trends or fashions, and other things that are outside him or not endorsed by him. You might bring an idea or a way of doing something to his attention and ask him humbly what he thinks about it. But if his opinion is not too high on the matter, a good acolyte accepts this  and doesn’t let a stubborn ego get all butt-hurt about it. She realizes this lifestyle is not “all about her,” not about being constantly pampered, pleasured and complimented.

To a true acolyte, one’s master is all, everything. He is the most fascinating individual in the universe. His ideas trump any others and, even if in the moment other ideas seem more attractive, you still accept his, by default, as better and wiser than anything you have found on your own. For some of us, doing this can be quite an exercise in outwitting a stubborn ego. Due to its recalcitrance toward the bigger picture and ravenous greed for attention and accolades, one’s ego can ruin everything if you give it full rein. If you cannot be loyal to your man’s ideas (that is, not secretly counteract them with your own), you are not really serving him. It’s all lip service.

Ask yourself this: if you truly believe a different set of ideals and values is higher than that of your master’s, then what in the world are you doing claiming to serve him? True loyalty to another involves the ability to put aside one’s baser “everything I know is right” attitude and accept that, like most humans wandering this earth, you know very, very little about almost everything, including anything deeply important, and your most urgent need is to learn more and understand more so that, unlike the proverbial tarot card “The Fool,” you don’t stumble off the cliff of reality because your gaze is focused  solely on the empyrean heights of your self-perceived intellectual reach. Realizing how little you actually know has strong survival value: it makes you far less of a target for the world, far less of a sucker just waiting to be punched—or robbed and flattered blind. By knowing that you do not know, you can observe more accurately what is actually going on around you rather than seeing it through the glowing mists of the latest Beautify filter for the ego. And by acknowledging that your man knows more than you (why, exactly, are you serving him if he doesn’t?), you reopen a door to learning new things that, depending upon your personal level of ego-bloat, may have been closed to you for years.

 

An acolyte rids herself of the concepts of “her possessions” and “her time.”

A genuine acolyte regards herself as a steward of the things around her and that she uses, not as their absolute owner. She remembers who the owner is. Servanthood and stewardship are complimentary traits. For one thing, we are expected to be trustworthy in both. The most important thing required of any servant is that this person be faithful to her owner or master. This includes handling the resources entrusted to her. It helps to ask oneself at times, “How am I handling those things and affairs that belong to my owner?” Are you taking care of your man’s possessions in the ways he prefers? Are you making his abode a pleasant, clean, healthy place to live in or do you tend to be a slob, carelessly leaving mess, dirt, stains, clothing, and crumbs on the floors, and bad smells wherever you go? If you are unowned, what does your house look like and smell like at this moment? If it is nice, is that due to your own efforts or to someone else, like a maid service you bring in because you can’t be bothered to clean? What does the hotel room look like when you check out of it? People who are selfless and care about others tend to leave physical things in the same or better shape than when they got them. They consistently and regularly tidy rooms in their homes, even rooms little used, to make them pleasant to live in, cheerful, clean, free of dust, smelling good, and as nice for others to be in as possible. They neaten their hotel room before vacating it, not leaving horrific food messes on the bed, towels scattered everywhere, or an unflushed toilet for some poor minimum wage worker to deal with. They think about others’ experiences as well as their own, because they care about other people and their quality of life, even if they do not know them. They also don’t want someone to be horrified or disgusted at them for their foul or filthy ways. This should be even more true for a slave serving her Master, no matter how well they know each other. Familiarity should breed respect, not contempt, or (often worse) disinterested apathy. His comfort, his aesthetics, his desires for a pleasant home are, by the true acolyte, paid intense attention to and made realities, even if it means she doesn’t get to occupy herself with diversions and recreation as much as she wants to.

To become a service-oriented acolyte and an excellent steward of one’s owner’s possessions and environment, you must remember that it is impossible to serve two masters. You cannot fully serve your own desires (or laziness) and give sufficient attention to the duties entrusted to you. Something has to give. Living to serve and living for yourself and your own pleasure are two mutually exclusive goals. Which one will you choose as coming first, always? If you are a servant, you can’t moonlight for yourself. All your time belongs to the one you love and serve. Thus, a genuine servant is far more concerned about serving then about satisfying her own desires. Genuine, experienced dominant men know this well and will look into your soul as you express it daily in your external actions and words. They will see clearly where your strengths and weaknesses are; where your loyalties lie, what you really think about him. A good Master, as the ruler of your soul and body, will take care of your needs, but the focus of the relationship always remains on the desires of his heart. If that were not so you would be the Master, not him. Or you would both be striving to live in a perfectly egalitarian hell (hell, because it is fraught with constant discord), like most conventional couples.  A lot of females posing as slaves or as deeply submissive secretly feel that that their personal desires should always trump their owner’s desires for them. (Oh, I’m just not “feeling” this bathroom cleaning today! Instead I’m going to play avenging angel on my favorite social media sites, and give some deserving “enemies” some hell.   I’ll set a timer so that five minutes before he returns, I can do a superficial speed clean.) While few people are honest enough to spell this attitude out to themselves so clearly (most people pleasantly fudge when doing something wrong) others, like their owners, can see this inner attitude clearly through the ways in which they act…and, of course, don’t act.

 

An acolyte sees every type of service as an opportunity, not as an unpleasant obligation.

Acolytes are people who are deeply submissive and enjoy helping people, meeting the needs of the ones they love, and, in particular, doing whatever their masters, dominants, or husbands require. They serve with gladness, and deep joy. A genuine acolyte sees the unique and rare opportunity she is being given: to fulfill her desire to give and please through serving her master. She sees service as her highest use in life: the only way to be made whole and complete. A master can develop a willing acolyte’s submission and make her a viable part of his vision. A good acolyte becomes an extension of his will. The mind and body she has turned over to him become, in one sense, part of him: she has allowed her master to extend his reach by giving him her intelligence, talents, body, and labor.

There are only so many hours in a day so to do that successfully; she must often give up her time and her own personal pursuits and pleasures to serve well. She gladly does so, for a genuine acolyte loves to give, Being able to contribute to her Master’s contentment, pleasure, or wealth makes her tremendously happy. Her heart soars through enabling her owner to have free and comfortable time to spend as he wishes. She is at last home: able to serve and fulfill her life’s calling. She knows that this is a connection worth far more than she could ever hope to earn or accomplish on her own. Belonging to a strong and wise man refines her, elevates her to a much higher level of living. She completely submits  to being molded or developed, as she abandons her own desires and visions for his alone.

As part of the “opportunity, not obligation” mindset, an acolyte must pay far closer attention to her own responsibilities than to what other servants—whether fully owned by her master or not—are doing or not doing. The only exception to this is if he has ordered a servant to direct her attention in this way. Not all of us are the single slave or submissive of a single dominant man. There are others in his circle whom we hear about, maybe wonder about, maybe even meet or eventually live with. Even if we are the sole servants in our homes, many of us cannot resist the urge to visit BDSM or fetish discussion sites and rather smugly (at least that’s how it feels to me!) compare ourselves to the “terrible” servants others. If the man you serve is exceptional and highly visible, he will attract the eye of other submissive females. And if he is also a man who enjoys owning and keeping multiple females, you will be or become just one of many. In such a situation, a good acolyte doesn’t compare, criticize, or compete with others or their accomplishments. She doesn’t necessarily do this because she has been ordered to (although that is often the case as well) but usually this is because her soul, devoted to and constantly thinking about her man’s happiness, is far too busy doing the work that he has given her. She doesn’t feel the need (born of idleness, insecurity, and competitiveness)  to spy on her sister slaves and will not do so unless she has been explicitly ordered to. She is living to serve. This phrase is something of an old canard but there is a golden kernel of truth in in. A genuine acolyte gets intense pleasure from serving, no matter how difficult, demeaning, or boring the tasks may be. She’s deeply enjoying it because she’s thinking about how pleased or comfortable her master will be with the end result, even if he never says anything about it.

A genuine acolyte finds such fulfillment in simple repetitive labor, such quiet joy at making the life and abode of the most important person she knows better, that the egotistic need to compare herself with others seldom, if ever, surfaces. That need to compare often arises from insecurity, boredom and, quite often from a secret awareness in the so-called servant of her own poor performance in serving: how she cuts corners, how she tries to find legitimate excuses to get out of certain chores, how she trains herself not to see the messes around her, even the ones that she herself makes, so that she doesn’t have to clean them up, and so on.

Two or more acolytes competing with one another doesn’t make any sense, particularly if they are the servants of a man who has made it expressly clear that he dislikes this behavior intensely. The positive ways a good acolyte thinks about this are remembering that “We’re all on the same team and our goal is to make him look good, not ourselves. We each have been given different duties, as we each have unique talents, experience, and strengths that this man can utilize (or not) in whatever ways he sees fit. Therefore it makes no sense for two different people, let alone the two servants of the same man, to compare themselves with each other as if one were better and another worse. That is for our lord and master to judge, not us.”  Ideally, if you are busy serving, you just don’t have time to be overly observant and critical: you’re too involved with your own assignments. (The only exception to this that I can think of is if you have been ordered to observe.) A good acolyte will keep in mind that any time spent criticizing others is time and mind energy that could have been spent in service to her man. Remember when you experience tough times, as we all do in life: do not to lose your servant’s heart nor your loyal, devoted focus on the happiness and fulfillment of one person: your Master. Real acolytes do not  complain of unfairness, do  not have have constant self-pity-parties, and do not resent those not serving with domestic labor (for example, a pleasure slave). They just trust in the wisdom and understanding of their masters and continue serving. And normally, what happens when one does this, is that the master recognizes  their contribution and lets the good servant know that he knows about her self-constraint and attempts to build good feelings toward his other servants, even if they themselves are jealous, competing, slacking, or always expressing dark, bitter, disappointed-with-life moods.

An important point that can be missed by even the most loyal slave is that it is not her job to defend herself against criticism. Let one’s master handle it, which also means dishing it out to you, if he feels you deserve it. If you are truly humble, you can and do expect to be criticized. All servants are. We aren’t born knowing how to perfectly serve the unique man we find ourselves with. We have to be open to learning his ways and preferences, not forcing our own ways upon him, even with (what we imagine to be) nice, pleasant, helpful “suggestions.” (Those suggestions are often the work of an overly large ego or a controlling spirit who thinks her ways are always the best ways, her likes the things all other people should automatically like, her dislikes things all others, including her master, should respect.) Avoid that type of naval-gazing, the “I’m the only legitimate being in the universe” thinking that a deeply selfish, self-absorbed individual engages in. It is the kind of thinking that is me-focused and incapable of seeing others, even one’s man, as having equal or more worth than her own “lovely” self. Such a person, should she ever try to pass herself off as an acolyte, is a living lie. You might see a lot of these types in BDSM and fetish social media, where they boast about the their sour, control-freak, ugly, feminist, one-upping ways toward their masters—but they will insist they are 100% slaves… and don’t you ever forget it! You can actually learn a lot from such an individual: a lot about what never to become like.

 

An acolyte must be able to forget herself, to “unself herself.”

There are certain ways of thinking that people devoted to serving someone naturally assume, if they are sincerely motivated to serve and devoted to the one they serve. You may see something of these traits in people performing other self-sacrificing roles (firefighters, doctors in third-world countries, caregivers of all types, and other people doing  dangerous, difficult, or thankless work of all persuasions).

Have you ever noticed that when you become really involved in an object of interest, a project, or other endeavor, when you are totally fascinated by it, you almost forget that “you” exist? All that exists is the thing you are focused on, the thing that is intensely interesting to you. Those who love to be servants or slaves automatically focus most of their attention on another, not on themselves. It is often such an intense focus that they almost forget they exist as a separate being, a separate consciousness. They are thinking constantly about what will please the one they serve. This form of humility is not, as some would imagine, a person thinking less of themselves or having a self-hating inferiority complex. Instead, such people are usually more than fine with themselves. They are simply confident enough in their own worth to realize that in some situations they are far less than others. In particular, they are far less important than the one whom each serves.

This is an important distinction to make clear, for so many people unthinkingly equate the two. Hating oneself, however, is a rather selfish and self-absorbing project. So what if it’s negative? It’s still “all about you.” In fact, when you are self-hating, you are, paradoxically, a far bigger egotist, because absolutely everything and everyone outside oneself is related to oneself, reduced to being oneself. Other things, other people even, are simply accessories, tools, extensions of your self-hate. A despicable you is still you, you, YOU, and intense self-hatred is often an indicator of an unhealthily large ego: an ego that has simply turned to another fuel to support its need for being the center of the universe. You are still turned inward,  only thinking yourself, which is where the problem lies.

People who forget themselves, in contrast, have very little to do with emotional self-flagellation, except perhaps when they see they have disappointed someone. They focus on another, not on themselves or their “delicate” feelings. Their attention is on how another person feels, not on how they feel. This is true humility: it’s not fetishizing ourselves as less (a path that leads to a different form of egotism) but agreeing that we are less and then not giving this simple fact any sort of  peculiar emotional weight. Less important. Less self-centered. Less self-involved. Less reactionary. Less judgmental. To really serve someone, even to successfully lend a helping hand, you need to, for at least a time, forget yourself and your needs. The helping needs to come from an inner generosity that glories in another’s pleasure or ease, not a private scheme to “get in good with the top brass” so as to receive favors and attention from them later down the road. Someone who has truly forgotten themselves doesn’t care about rewards or future good times because, at this time and place, they do not exist. The only things that exist are the task at hand and the beloved person they are doing this task for. This is what it means to “lose your life”: forgetting yourself in service to others. When we stop focusing so much on our perceived needs, we suddenly have free attention capacity to become aware of the needs of those around us…and then sometimes comes a strong desire, a desire that seems almost divine, to serve those needs.

When was the last time you emptied yourself of your self-regard for someone else’s benefit? It is possible to be temporarily of service to others if you are full of yourself. As mentioned before, one’s ego can turn this into a big, pleasurable “look at how good I am” session. But it is impossible for an egotist to keep up this self-aggrandizing “service,” day in and day out. Self-centered people tend to slack off, forget their promises, forget their duties, even forget why they are serving in the first place, because what they crave, at heart, is constant pleasure, compliments from others, and a life of ease and indulgence. A good acolyte works hard to eradicate what is actually a grasping, gluttonous, pleasure-loving ego. She knows that it is only when she forgets herself and her self’s needs that that she is able to put full and dedicated focus on the things that deserve to be remembered: the things that allow her to serve to the very best of her abilities.

Unfortunately, a lot of our service is often self-serving. We serve to get others to like us, to be admired, or to achieve our own goals. That is manipulation rather than real service. All that  time we were supposedly serving others needs, we were really thinking about ourselves and how noble and wonderful we are or how many bonus points we were building up in the other person’s bank of regard. It’s service, in a sense, I suppose, but it is not pure, and because it is based on the sands of self-regard and it is likely to collapse if the external rewards one is getting for the service (praise, money, influence, and so on) disappear.

Other people try to use service as a bargaining tool: “I’ll do this for you, if you’ll do something for me.” Real servants don’t try to use the one they serve for their own purposes in a “this  for that” exchange. Instead, they let themselves be used, even used up, accepting his will as that of their own, without asking for anything in return.

The quality of self-forgetfulness, like an ability to be absolutely faithful, no matter what, is extremely rare. Thinking like a servant is difficult because it bumps up hard against the basic problem of human nature: I am, by nature, selfish. I think most about me. That’s why humility must be made a daily struggle, a lesson a genuine acolyte must relearn over and over. The opportunity to serve confronts you dozens of times a day, times and situations where you are given the choice to decide between meeting your needs and desires or addressing the needs and desires of others. Thus, humility and its bedfellow, frequent self-denial (for a good reason), can be and should be at the core of servanthood.

We can measure our own willingness to serve, and gauge the loyalty and obedience of our hearts, by how we respond when others we have chosen to obey actually treat us just like what we are: servants. How do you react when you’re taken for granted, bossed around, ignored for long periods, or treated as an inferior? If you are unowned and someone takes unfair advantage of you or treats you roughly or in a way that hurts your feelings, you can use your response to this as a gauge of your emotional readiness to practice a life of service. Yes, in some cases, you have to do something about this in the real world (although not always, particularly if it’s a passing minor incident like an insult from a stranger or a misunderstanding over something trivial). Just try not to let your ego get involved. Try hard not to react with outrage. Try not to plan or take revenge even if you’re sure the offender well deserves it. Just… Let. It. Go. Move on. Think or do something else, preferably something useful. Once you’ve done this a few times, you’ll find it’s easier and easier to do in the future. And practicing “just letting it go” until it becomes barely an inconvenience can build another essential and sterling quality in a slave that can never be faked for long: graciousness.

 

An acolyte bases her identity upon the one she serves.

Some of the sections above described the sort of person that secretly believes she is the only real person in the universe. Everyone else is just an object around her, to be used and manipulated as best she is able, or, if she can’t, then she either ignores or opposes them. This foolish (foolish because it always end in disaster—for her—howsoever differently she “spins” it later) version of solipsism is the opposite of the inner attitude of a genuine, loving, and giving acolyte. A good acolyte remembers that she is accepted (and, perhaps loved, if one’s owner wishes to) by grace, and thus she doesn’t have to prove her worth with grandiose displays of superiority or feel threatened when she is provided with lowly tasks. Many people are too insecure to become willing servants, however much they crave the moral high ground and admiring status this gives them. They are afraid that their weaknesses and insecurities will be uncovered, so they hide them with layers of protective pride and much pretense.

There are numerous profound examples of happy and fulfilling service one might perform with a secure (but not highly exaggerated) self-image. One might be toilet service by a non-fetishist (somebody who does not eroticize this behavior): serving as a receptacle for one’s master’s waste, or as a instrument to clean him or his toilet after he is finished. You may not personally like this act (only a few narrow-focused fetishists tend to eroticize this behavior)  but deeply appreciate the opportunity to serve a man worth worshiping in any way he wishes, even if it is uncomfortable or difficult for you (the normal taboo against this sort of thing might be precisely why your master wants to engage in it with you). A second example might involve  massaging and washing feet as a lowly servant. Washing feet is often viewed as the equivalent of being a shoeshine boy, one of the lowest jobs and devoid of status,  and also harkens back to the maundy of Mary Magdalene, the penitent former whore, who, despite others’ approbation, humbly washed her (spiritual) master’s feet. A third example might be having to orally service a really hot girl (or at least one hotter than oneself) that your master is using for his pleasure—and then later told brusquely to exit the room so that they can privately enjoy one another. These examples are at the more extreme ends of service. More common might be any simple chore that one feels intellectually or emotionally above doing: something that is “beneath you” or “not worthy of your skills and knowledge base.” (Can you hear the haughtiness in these phrases?)  Or perhaps one is given a job that is very physically or mentally exerting and takes a great deal of time and tedium, perhaps months or years, to accomplish.

The temptation to avoid perceived low-status, tedious, or large, extensive chores is something a genuine acolyte struggles with and wins, for pleasing her man is far more important to her than avoiding a difficult or unpleasant duty. She will work so hard at physical chores that her muscles may ache for days afterward.  She will toil in the hot sun, if required, until she’s dizzy and bug-bitten. She will perform the most boring, tedious, repetitious, even dangerous work, if it serves his purposes. She does all of this cheerfully and without complaint or concocted clever excuses  about why she cannot. She does this because she not only adores her master but identifies with him and his desires so strongly that she sees herself as merely an extension of him, an appendage to be moved or a tool to be used, at his will. This is deep and true identification with one’s owner, a state that only a few servants are capable of achieving or even willing to strive for. She still likes relaxing, she still needs rest, she still enjoys pleasant experiences, but an acolyte’s desires take backseat to her master’s: she likes even more doing his will, even if it is very hard on her and not the least bit fun. She learns how to ignore the hardship and not whine about it incessantly in her head with the tedious and repetitive drone of the selfish: “It’s Not Fair!”  “Why Can’t I…” “Why Does He…” and above all: “What about ME? My needs. My desires. My time. My pleasure. My rest. My indulgences. The flattery due me.” On and on this harsh, buzzing whine might spin in a so-called servant’s head.  The plaints of the profoundly selfish are endless and they rise, like foul-smelling fumes, from an inner bottomless black pit, whose walls are caked in the emotional equivalent of excrement.

If you are going to be a good acolyte you must, in a sense, merge your identity into the man you serve. Only a secure female can serve in this way because only the secure find it easy and comfortable to let go of what we call ourselves—a pre-packaged identity, most often built from the unstable twin pillars of ego and insecurity—and become whatever and whoever it is our  masters want us to be, no matter how strange or difficult it is. Only someone secure in her identity as a servant of others will passionately love giving up her formerly cherished illusions, the palace of fantasies and lies she has built around her great wonderful self. She will love and find fulfillment in whatever ways she is ordered to serve, even if her duties are at a far lower status and skill level than she is capable of. She will love them even if they are boring or painfully arduous because she loves being of use to a great and wonderful man. Much of the work given a useful servant can be seen by ignorant outsiders as extremely boring, hard, things to be avoided at all costs. But something a genuinely devoted servant realizes is that by doing her tasks regularly and consistently she is either (a) saving someone else she loves that time and difficultly or (b) saving that person from the time and difficulty of having to constantly remind her to do her chores or (c) saving that person from the sour experience of constantly  being disappointed in her performance. One of a good servant’s duties is to save her owner from the tedium of having to do such things himself—at least the ones he doesn’t want to do or judges to be women’s work. He shouldn’t have to “pay” for her labor with compliments, nights on the town, presents, or other special favors. If he does, how is she any different from an ordinary housewife, or worse yet, a common whore who must be paid for her services?

A good acolyte also knows not take things too far in the opposite direction: it is not for her to judge what new activities should comprise her work, if they have not yet been assigned to her. There may be a very good reason for their non-assignment. She knows that new duties (aside from common-sense cleanup when she makes messes) are for her man to set and direct. Doing work not assigned to her that she doesn’t even know if he wants her to do—and she doesn’t bother asking about because she assumes she’s always right—is a common beginner’s mistake. It often comes from good intentions and a desire to be helpful but the individual’s ego is still too much involved in the mix. In choosing what is useful for her to do and what isn’t, she neglects finding out if this is  actually a useful activity for the one she serves. (There may be many reasons why it isn’t.)  Here’s an obvious example that probably no sensible woman would do: vigorously and loudly vacuuming the house at 2:00 in the morning when her man is sleeping because she has insomnia and wants something to do.  No consideration is being shown for him and his desires in such “service.” It can be a fine line to walk between doing too little and doing too much, but it’s also very easy for someone serving a strong, deserving man to find that line and stay on it: she stays alert, not sleeping in a “I already know everything” lazy ego-somnolence, and simply asks him, as frequently as is needed and using simple common sense, if a certain activity is something she should do at this time.

A negligent acolyte, on the other hand, is one who thinks of herself and her own pleasure first and always, even when purportedly serving a man. She secretly (and often she is in total self-denial about this, as well) worships at the Temple of Me. Although part of that pleasure involves lying to herself—telling herself how hard-working and self-sacrificing she is as she lays about doing nothing except feeding her cravings—she will find all sorts of excuses for avoiding or cleverly slipping off unwanted work. She forgets. She just stops doing a regularly assigned task out of the blue.  She imagines her work is another slave’s job, even though her master has given her no such information. Or she does the converse: she assumes some other servant’s assigned task, equally out of the blue, either because she’s really not paying attention to anything or because she wants to see what mischief this will cause. Or, when she experiences a one-day emergency or obligation like a dental appointment, something that causes a slight change in schedule and allows a lightening of her duties, she then slyly sticks forever to that lightened schedule, as if it were the rule rather than a single exception.

If, on the other hand, a servant bases her worth and identity upon her relationship with her master and in responsibly taking part in the fulfillment of his will, she will find that the more she works for him, the more fulfilled and happy she is. She will not be constantly on the lookout for ways to shirk, ignore, and avoid her duties and responsibilities. She will not find herself bored with her work, because she’ll be too busy  paying close attention to the details and thinking about how happy the man she serves will be with the results. Boredom and resentment are the emotions of a more indolent and self-centered individual, someone who is still primarily amusing herself with the egotistic fantasy that she is a deeply obedient slave—while in reality she couldn’t care less about anything that is not connected to satisfying her own desires. This can be a subtle and very self-deceptive trick of the mind, seldom noticed, but it’s critical to identify it, either in one’s acolytes or as an acolyte who is striving to do better.

Genuine servants don’t have a need for physical display. They don’t need to wear an expensive or impressively slavish collar, dress themselves in hot fetish latex/leather/lace fashions, or show their loyalty to the one who owns them by constantly kneeling when others are present (unless, of course, one’s owner has ordered this behavior). They don’t need to verbally show off online and display to the world how superior they or their masters are. Genuine servants tend to find fine clothing, a beautifully appointed room, lots of the latest electronic toys, plentiful and fine-quality kitchen appliances, a nice car, a filled-to-the-brim larder, and other visual status symbols  as not only  unnecessary but rather crass. Such individuals never measure their worth by their salaries, past achievements, or physical possessions. Some devoted slaves do not think they own anything at all, because their masters have told them this. Instead they are just temporarily using the things their owners have told them they could use. (One could say that all of human life is this way: we come onto this planet, stay  a short while, use a few things while here, get to know a few other souls, and then, in a few dozen years, disappear.) A devoted slave gets  immense pleasure and self-worth in the moment, quietly and largely anonymously serving  her master, making this one person’s life better and richer. She remains in the background until wanted, and then enthusiastically serves when called, hoping to put a smile on her owner’s face. Why would  such a person need to brag about herself? The only approval that has any meaning to her comes from her Master. The closer an acolyte gets to her owner, the less she feels the need to promote herself (and denigrate others so that she can feel better than them). She does not expect recognition for what personality traits she has managed to acquire, what great feats she  has accomplished in her life, or what she thinks she “owns.” If all is well with Him, the person who matters most in her life, all is well with her—and she will do absolutely anything to keep things that way. For a good acolyte, her ultimate goal is that everything she does be a reflection of her master’s will and desires. She feels as though she is a part of him: an appendage he can use at will for whatever purpose he desires. This experience is quietly profound, born of extensive, loyal untiring service, and does not magically come to anyone who just wants to imagine that they can feel it.

 

An acolyte must realize the truth of the statement “you get nothing for free.”

When you want something important, valuable, or rare in life, you often have to pay for it–in various ways.  When an acolyte serves the one she is devoted to she considers many more things than payment, than “how is this act going to make me feel?” The manner of giving, the effect of the giving on both individuals, the thing that is given—all these elements must be taken into account. Yes, anticipation of how you feel is sometimes an element of the experience (although at other times, you may not have time to remember to anticipate), but, if you’re experiencing the giving fully, your personal experience, including gratification, is only a small part of it. If you don’t consider the other elements involved in giving,  particularly the effect the gift will have on the one it’s given to, and if it’s all about how good something makes you feel,  one’s act of giving is much like being a blind person at a fireworks display. You think you’re having the experience because you hear the booms or smell the gun powder and hear gasps of amazement and pleasure all around you, but the real show is actually far beyond your ken.

A core requirement of a consensual slave and a true acolyte is to regard the one she serves as greater, better, more important, more deserving than herself and to behave according to that understanding by always putting that person’s needs, desires, feelings, and thoughts first. This is expressed by noticing, really noticing (through careful listening, observing, and, most of all, asking) what the person you serve really wants from you, and then providing that, whatever it is, even if it isn’t what you imagined or planned upon giving, even if it disappoints you because it isn’t what you expected you’d be giving.  A second behavior is to observe his general likes and dislikes and accept them all, not just the ones you happen to share or agree with.  You fully accept all of his tastes, even the ones that seem strange or uncomfortable to you, even the ones that make you feel jealous or left out. Giving is, at its core, about offering something that you hope (or know, because he’s said so) will make the one you offer it to feel happy. It is not  about picking out with your “great sense of taste” what you imagine he should like (if he were as tasteful as you, that is) and then patting yourself on the back over what a great giver you are.

The general rule for gracious giving, at least in the West (in the East these habits are known to be much more extravagant and profound), is that if you really want to give something that will be appreciated, you carefully study the individual’s tastes, ask questions at unsuspecting times and contexts, and explore in detail who this person is and what he likes. You do diligent, careful research. (This is assuming the current cultural custom that the “gift” must be some sort of surprise is in place where you are.)  But if you really want to give your master and owner something he’ll appreciate, the very best way to accomplish this may be just to ask him what you should get him or do for him and then accept that completely, even if he tells you not to give him any gifts. Instead of being sad over this, it should be a matter of  twice rejoicing: 1. He trusts you enough to be perfectly honest about his tastes and attitudes toward gifts, even though  these may be so unconventional that, with other people like his family, he might have to fudge and pretend something entirely different  and 2.  You know that despite disobeying a cultural imperative to “give a gift” at certain times, you are doing precisely what pleases him the most (and that, truly, is the greatest gift of all).

In every walk of life, you pay for what you get, not always with money, but with time, suffering, effort, or the loss of something else of value. This seems to be a general rule of human existence on this planet. If you are utterly determined to be crazily wealthy, there are payments for achieving this, some obvious, many subtle. If you are really determined  to be someone’s appreciated, devoted acolyte, a payment for this state also exists. That payment is that you must become who and what the individual you serve wants you to be, not what your ego imagines you should be. This is sometimes called aligning with one’s Master, and it cannot be genuinely done without a certain form of selfless giving that comes directly from your heart, more specifically the part of you that relates deeply to your man’s interests, desires, goals, and pleasure and wants them always to be fulfilled, even when it means yours go unfulfilled. At times, the payment for abandoning one’s egotistical sense of self-regard is light; at other times it can feel back-breaking.  A lot depends on how much  inflated ego one  initially brings to to the table: sometimes that balloon is just too fat and full of itself to painlessly lose even a single ounce of hot, self-congratulating air. A woman who knows she must live this type of life and isn’t constantly vacillating back and forth between his desires and her pleasures, reduces her self with joy and abandons herself to service for as long as the man she serves wishes and for as long as her body and mind hold up. This self-reduction and abandonment of ego is a great joy to those who are genuinely suited for a life of slavery.

 

An acolyte is capable of extreme loyalty…to the end.

This one is a requirement, and not just the requirement to keep a sacred vow to the one you serve, but a requirement for a rich, fulfilling, and deeply happy life from which one can depart with a smile on one’s face and with absolutely no regrets. It is, in essence, a lifesaver. At the core of the deepest forms of loyalty is intense gratitude, gratitude toward someone or to a life that gives you so much that you could never give yourself. That latter emotion is one of the most useful and productive emotions to cultivate, no matter what your status or role in life. (Just ask Michael J. Fox, an entertainer who has undergone much difficulty with an ever-worsening case of Parkinson’s disease, but lives with it as if he were madly playing his infamous “Johnny B. Goode” solo to a disease that would utterly halt or at least slow down and deeply depress most people.)

In the late 1970s, at the start of the modern feminist movement, a very popular singer with a voice like a thrush, a woman who thrilled her audiences with her soulful performances, wrote and performed a song that became an instant hit upon release: she was Stevie Nicks and the song was Landslide. The melody is hauntingly beautiful but the lyrics put one in a mood of proud self-righteousness over  the destruction one can cause others as one cuts a swath through life, thinking only of oneself and one’s (so-called) needs. The song, at its core, is a glorification of the usual tawdry and self-serving mid-life crises that so many people go through and that tear apart lives and families that they have spent years building. Someone gets bored of their lover, of their domestic situation, or of the “just you and me” and “let’s build a family” memes that used to be so important to them, and they want out.  Or they find out that a youthful delusion that their partner was perfect and nothing would ever be stressful or go wrong has been smashed–and so, of course, that means the relationship has come to an end and one must seek out a “more perfect” partner.  In reality, most such people are just bored: they may have a very good situation, but songs and media and even their own friends make them restless, wanting even more or at least  something newer and more exciting.

In these times, at least in most developed cultures, opting out of responsibility and connections is extremely easy to do. Nothing in these permissive, “You are Number One” times forbids it. Even though such a break can have considerable legal, social, and financial obligations, many are willing to pay those prices for a shot at what they think is the only way to inject some novelty into their routine and boring lives. Most people who get the itch for “something else” give up on the person they’ve spent so many years with, shared so many moments of joy and pain with, and experienced so much simple, quiet, happy living with, in order to assuage what they imagine is restlessness, boredom, an unmet itch that has to be scratched: a need to ramble in search of new endeavors, new lovers, new careers, new possibilities, and new experiences. The insidiousness of this slightly sad, melodic song and its brilliant vocal presentation is that it makes the listener feel that betraying everyone one has ever loved (and who loved you back) and ruthlessly tearing down all the things one has worked so very hard to build is somehow a noble endeavor, rather than the lazy, indolent, shiftless coward’s way out. It’s a total lie, this song, but the music is so moving that many who hear it believe the lie. (I sometimes wonder how many thousands or tens of thousands of relationships this song has helped destroy.) So what is the truth that the song denies? In my experience, it is that staying with something or someone, sticking it out through thick and thin, is what takes you deeper and deeper, into new and amazing realms. You are no longer just a water strider, flitting about on the surface of the pond of life, you  are diving in and exploring the depths of a relationship with another person that doesn’t end at some arbitrary point determined by boredom or comfort, but just gets deeper and deeper. In doing this, you discover many treasures. Truly it is said that “deep in the sea there are riches beyond compare. But if you seek safety, it is on the shore” (or on the surface, if you are a water strider). Yes, this can be frightening to do. But diving deep into life and with people can be immensely exhilarating and one of the surest ways in which one can grow and change, rather than stagnate in  comfortable but static self-referential navel-gazing and restless, never-content wandering.

When one believes the “landslides happen” lie, one generates self-serving reasoning: the destruction “just happened.” It was an act of nature,  certainly not my fault, it was bound to happen, it was destined. Actually, breaking an otherwise solid relationship asunder or not doing the work to maintain it are not accidents, not acts of nature that just happen out of the blue, they are born of human volition and often stem from an always-take-the-easiest-path personality who has led a self-indulgent me-first life for far too long. In one sense, “landslides” are fulfilled destiny: one’s persistence in uselessness, self-centeredness, and self-flattering narratives generates its own consequences.  From the eyes of a devoted acolyte, this is the deepest of betrayals: the act of someone who is utterly focused on herself, someone who cares only about shaping and molding her own experiences to enhance her own pleasure—a slothful attitude which she self-flatteringly covers up with terms like  “personal growth” or “following one’s path” or “destiny.” And in all this me-firstness, there is no sign of the man she swore to give up her life to serve and to please. Needless to say, this is one of the most horrific and deceptive works of musical art I have ever heard. It wallows in self-serving insincerity while spinning these despicable emotions as noble, honorable endeavors or realizations. And, sadly, some people adopt this pretty tune and its ugly values, perhaps unthinkingly buying the self-serving rationale for destroying their relationships with others whenever things get a little difficult or require a bit of work and self-reassessment.

A genuine acolyte senses in her deepest core that this back-stabbing behavior is the path to destruction, the fruit never to be tasted, the Pandora’s box one is forbidden to open. Once she opens that box, once she lets her inner ego-demons out to fully feed, once she betrays those who rely upon her service (and who provides her with possibly ignored and scorned but very real sustenance and benefits in exchange), she will try to steer a dark, confusing, unlit course through life, a heading from which there is almost no hope of course-correction later because, rather than being guided through rough waters by a sane and knowledgeable navigator, she’s now become a small skiff without a clear direction, a plaything of the constantly changing moods and whims of the chthonic seas.

At first, the sun may glint off the tips of the ever-moving wavelets of life, firing one’s imagination, making one think of gold and treasures beyond compare will soon be within one’s independent, intelligent reach, but in most cases, it’s just a pretty illusion. Even if one’s material wealth increases and one’s imagined hungers and needs are all apparently “satisfied,” in the end, the dark clouds begin moving in. It may start with questions: What does this raging feeling of hunger and emptiness mean and why does it remain, even when I’ve got everything? Why does life seem so dreary and old, so cynical and worn out? Why don’t my former simple pleasures satisfy me anymore? One eventually realizes that the rudder that once steered you truly is broken due to lack of knowledge about ship repair: the sail is ragged and eaten with holes due to years of neglect when one was too busy serving oneself. It’s impossible to navigate without the stars, and when was the last time the sky was clear? One may no longer remember.

The bilge is filling, the ship wallows lower in the sea, and the waves have become enormous and even violent, spilling roughly over the deck—and perhaps this may remind the errant acolyte of the similar dire situation she was in before she first became a great man’s servant. Finally, there is no longer anyone worth following that she can find who is willing to help and even if there was, her reliance on and pride in only herself, a trait that has blocked her from learning all these years, would make it impossible for her proud ego to recognize a  situation that is right for her. She peers dimly outward, but like most self-referential egotists, all she sees is herself. To her, a person whose  facial expressions and speaking tones now reflect only years upon years of greed, pride, superiority, anger, and self-indulgence, demons are perceived as angels, and angels are seen as horrid demons. She is completely lost, and it won’t be long before this particular ship sinks, filled to the brim with the overripe fruits of disloyalty, selfishness, and irrationally high self-regard.

 

An acolyte is genuine because of what she knows, not what she believes or how she acts.

“Without knowledge there is no certainty that behavior is right, and no guarantee that belief is real.”
– Idries Shah

Actions can be faked. Beliefs are often forced upon us when we are young or assumed as ego-ornaments when we are older. Actions and beliefs  change with passing personal, social, and political seasons or alter based on experiences or new lusts. But knowledge (as opposed to tawdry cousin, “information,” that likes to pass itself off as the more modern alternative) is something permanent: something that becomes a part of who we are. Per Webster’s Dictionary, it is an “awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.” Experience is the key word here.

Humans are animals and a major part of our large mammalian brains is something you might call “legacy software.” It’s concerned with survival, dominance, acquiring the things it needs (or thinks it needs) to live successfully and be happy. This software had value in earlier, more primitive times. But like all legacy software that has been around a little too long, these human mental systems are old, clunky, meant for different times, bug-ridden and do not respond well (if it all) to the complex, modern challenges that thinking, social animals, like ourselves, face. Two of these outdated but still successful survival strategies are behavioral displays designed to evoke certain reactions from others (such as awe, admiration, fear, avoidance, agreement, or desire) and the adoption of belief systems that, like anything fashionable, an individual assumes makes them somehow better, more attractive, more knowledgeable, or having an edge over others who lack the given item (in this case, the belief system). Religions are a prime example of belief systems, although they are only the most obvious example. A person without a religious belief system  can easily hold other, equally irrational ideas which get a total pass in her brain because they don’t fall under the more-obvious and easily-critiqued “religious” category.

Behavior is easily faked. It is done millions of times a day in attempts by humans to get what they need or want, be it money, adoration, praise, attention, job promotions, a sale, favors, fame, a good meal, a hot date, etc.. Anyone with enough motivation and information can fake being a genuine servant, a true acolyte—at least for a while or in front of some audiences. Why would they do so? Well, for one thing, it’s a marvelously high-status role for those attracted to a dominant/submissive relationship to fake in a world that increasingly doesn’t believe in saints, martyrs, and holy recluses. In these irreligious modern times there are increasing fewer ways of standing out as pure, holy, saintly, or “better than thou.” Sad to say, some females are attracted to the role of serving as an acolyte not because of a genuine or natural vocation to willingly and happily expend oneself the service of another, but simply because they love the odd sort of status it incurs in certain social circles. They love lording it over others. They love appearing as the ultimate, most pure form of humble servant. You can spot these individuals by the way they talk about their peers when they let their guard down and are not fully “in role:” they’re often the types that have something vicious and denigrating to say about everyone they know—except themselves.

If you watch closely and think about what you see, you’ll notice that a lot of people involved in dominance and submission fake things. They put on behavioral displays that signal some special interior magic they wish the observer to assume that they have so that said observer will bow to their awesomeness. They wear certain clothes, or  display items such as collars, tattoos, cuffs, brandings, baldness, exotic whips, wild hair, sexy fetish outfits, or other things that supposedly signal “I’m deep and extreme.” Or they act  inside their peer groups like they imagine good slaves (or masters) act. A self-identified slave will do the kinky equivalent of “virtue signaling” along the lines of: “See how I superficially politely I speak and act? See how gracefully I kneel? See how well I argue with the unwashed masses who know nothing of how wonderful my lifestyle is? See how I so carefully and patiently explain the “right” way to do things and the best ways to think to the ignorant and confused? See my social-media reports of how my master beat me last night replete with photos and videos? See my saintly tweets with the unwashed and confused masses about what submission is? With all this, how can you possibly doubt my authenticity?”

Some have acquired the additional vice of imagining that because they think of themselves as slaves or are called slaves, they are saints by association. Without really “walking the walk” they just magically know all there is to know about loyally and lovingly serving another. This kind of female never knows what she doesn’t know because she never imagines that her great and wonderful self could not already know something. How does that old rhyme go? Here’s one version: “I am a master at Balliol College, and what I don’t know just can’t be knowledge.” This “knowledgeable and pious servant” goes through the motions very well and might be able to put on quite an act in public. She is a label collector, a badge wearer, a social media contacts/audience collector, not a person who is deeply passionate about service and serves because she loves her master and wants to make his life happier or because she gets deep fulfillment from her work.  In contrast, genuine slaves are often far too busy working for their masters to have much time for grandiose social media pursuits and, when they do take that time, it’s usually because they have been ordered to do so, not because they want to be admired or known by others. Most genuine acolytes abhor a life lived in public—they would much rather be invisible, known only to their masters, if given that choice. In contrast, public attention is the very thing a veiled egotist adores.

A genuine acolyte is a female who doesn’t rest on her laurels (or labels or status), doesn’t use what she is to boast or show off to others. Instead, she quietly tries (without display or show, even to her master) to constantly learn more so she can improve her service to the man she adores with all her heart. You can tell by closely watching an acolyte’s behavior over a period of time whether her heart is genuinely into serving or whether she’s just doing this for the ancillary goodies, which could include the praise and worship of others, a comfortable living, high standing in social circles, the ability and self-endowed license to stalk, make fun of, brow-beat and brutalize others who are not as saintly as her, and the ability to feed her never-ending self-centered lusts: be they for physical hungers or less material things like praise, ego-stroking, and status.

But what about belief? Isn’t piously spouting from memory the current version of dominance and submission or master and slave theory that one subscribes to proof that one truly is what one claims to be (in this case a pure, serving acolyte)? Unfortunately, memorizing the theories, postulates and principles of a body of knowledge to the point where you can recite them at will when prompted is what one does when cramming for a test. It’s no indication of the bearing one’s inner nature is taking or the nature of the true object around which one’s heart orbits. Just because somebody believes something doesn’t mean that that this person actually practices it or has absorbed it so deeply that it has become a part of herself.  Quite often, belief systems are merely personality flourishes someone displays to others in order to appear cool: pretty feathers in one’s ego-cap.

Generally speaking, belief systems in modern times—be they religious, political, social, or otherwise—tend to be comprised of superficial, surface-level automatic reactions and behaviors rather than deeply and passionately lived experiences, constantly tended to and carefully thought about. Belief systems, particularly the ones popular in the time one lives in, definitely make one’s ego feel good because they give you something bigger or better than yourself to identify with and a gang of others you can band together with and  identify as your pack  because they think the same way you do, and… well, that’s usually about it, despite grandiose “Emperor’s New Clothes” claims of happiness, enlightenment, deep knowledge, and self-improvement such systems tend advertise for themselves. Then there is the problem that, usually (although not always) those people who talk a good game  about their given belief system often cannot, when it comes down to the wire, walk the actual walk. They do not consistently act in a way that demonstrates that they really accept or believe what they mouth.  Talking the talk but not walking the walk can have numerous sources, such as:

1. Approaching something for all the wrong reasons (theoretical vs. practical; greed- or status-based vs. a desire to care or give back, etc.);
2. Imagining an unrealistic, ideal, all-my-problems-will-vanish fairy-tale outcome despite being warned against building such castles in the sand;
3. Bringing to the belief system an enormous ego that cannot conceive that any idea it considers or practices could possibly be wrong–hence it is easily led astray; and
4. A general inability to see the world, the things in it, and even oneself very clearly or realistically—because one’s favorite self-aggrandizing fantasies always take precedence, and paint the world (including any adopted belief system) only in the colors one wants to see.

Many high-sounding and passionate beliefs that look so lovely and structurally firm from a certain distance are created from these poor materials, these mental and emotional building blocks made of sand. Thus, many beliefs or entire belief systems that unprepared individuals adopt are often assailable by outside forces. They crumble to pieces, because there are no firm foundations of experience holding them up: all that is at their foundation is the belief-holder’s personal desire that her subscribed fairy tale (in which she is always the beautiful, misunderstood princess who eventually comes to be regarded as the wonderful creature she actually is) magically be true. Such deluded souls are enthusiastically marching down a path to perdition, as it is based on a disastrously bad map and a false orientation that  they chose usually because of uncontrolled desires for adulation or attention (or other chaotic and unconscious cravings that tend to rule such minds). They “wanted it to be so”—and so it is (or, rather, seems to be). No, simply believing isn’t enough. Not nearly enough, especially for the deep level of service we are speaking of in this article.

So what is knowledge? It’s more than just facts or information.  In this context, knowledge usually consists of  verifiable experiences you have had and and information that you have acquired, understand, and remember. One’s experiences have to be correctly interpreted  (or digested) in order to be of use.  If your master corrects you for misbehavior and your conclusion is a melodramatic “He hates me and wants me to leave!” you probably lack the necessary background and experience to interpret the correction properly.   Knowledge is not merely information. It involves the assimilation of information into a coherent whole, a pattern, something  which is often termed, “experience.” Knowledge is informed and enhanced by experience, especially relevant, direct, first-hand, real-world experiences. Knowledge involves exclusion as much as it does inclusion. To be knowledgeable, you may have to remove many unworkable, unproven ideas, fantasies, and theories from your mind (these often come in through books or online reading, not experience).  Avoiding these flawed biases and sticking always with what works here and now, in real life, with your master, is the way to succeed as slave: you trust in that which you have experienced directly and  is practical reliable, and repeatable. Compared to mere information which may or may not be right, particularly if you don’t know the source, knowledge is priceless. It, alone, lets you navigate successfully through life.  A genuine acolyte knows through her  life experiences (not through reading a sexy novel) that she loves serving. She isn’t imaging service to be a non-stop orgy of pleasuring her personal desires, feeding her ego, and indulging in sensual indolence. She knows service is about working for someone else, not for herself, and she fully accepts this  because she acquires qualities and experiences that are precious and rare in such service. To use an old-fashioned term, she is “transformed” by it.

To acquire knowledge requires the ability to see clearly what is directly in front of one’s face—and also to accept it, whatever it may be, not denying it by calling up a preferred belief-system or fantasy to counteract it. For this reason, knowledge tends to get in the door only when the sensitive and prickly sides of one’s ego are carefully controlled and dampened. The ego too often sees only what it wants to see and often becomes outraged when it is required to see something else. Formal belief systems are often ideal for a sensitive ego. They only claim to have a strong connection to actual truth (at least as we experience it in this world) and some people who accept their claims love the “easy path” they offer. Nothing needs to be thought about carefully, nothing proven if you merely “believe.” Knowledge, in contrast, does have a strong connection with reality, one that, unfortunately, strikes certain minds as dull and boring—not to mention hard to practice. So they shun it. Knowledge, if it is genuine, requires proof, and obtaining proof takes work—something some people avoid at all costs, because they’re all about their own immediate pleasure, not about working to understand something. They lack the breadth of mind  to imagine the vista of pleasure and knowledge that hard work, particularly for a great cause or person, affords in the long run. Thus, knowledge which is more difficult to obtain and thus valuable is often rejected in favor of the shinier, easier-to-consume baubles of preferred beliefs and ideological systems—especially belief systems that allow one to justify and even glorify one’s personal laziness, self-indulgence, lust, or greed.

When you actually have knowledge about a subject then you really know it, at least that part of it that you have acquired. You have experienced it, lived it, experimented with it, worked with it and laid beside it.  It has benefited you and frustrated you, and you’ve learned many things from it. Through this experience, knowledge becomes a part of you. You are intimate with the subject because, unlike an intellectual pretense, donned like the latest fashion only to be discarded when nobody cares about that particular faddish idea anymore, knowledge  is now in you and of you, forever yours to call upon.

Probably the thing that makes genuine acolytes stand out from all the rest claiming that role with displays of behavioral signaling and showmanship is the quiet sense you get from them as you watch them in their modest day-to-day activities and encounters, where nothing is to be gained from display, that they really understand what service is all about. They understand the mental part (the willpower and the rewards) and the physical part and their steadfast remembrance and performance of their regular assignments as well as their willingness to volunteer for extra work when they see it needs doing is very apparent. They pay careful attention to and acquiesce to their master’s desires and preferences, even when those counteract their own tastes or come at bad times. They don’t “conveniently” forget their regular duties or assigned tasks the following week. They don’t demand their masters “pay” them for their duties by having to personally remind them, constantly, to do them.  This is because a genuine acolyte has abandoned a certain childish level of selfishness and self-worship that puts herself first before others and has consciously and maturely adopted an attitude of responsible stewardship: clear concern for her master’s welfare, health, and wealth; very little concern for her own, except where it may impact her service to him.

That includes her taking good care of his physical property and possessions, even when it means she must give up other activities that are more fun. It means she doesn’t spend reams of time lounging around feeding the personal cravings for leisure, entertainment, and consumption. Genuine acolytes shoulder difficult or complex assignments their owners  give them without complaint or trying to wiggle out of them and they do not ignore them or perform them incompletely or slovenly in the hopes that he will assign these unwanted tasks to another servant…or do them himself. They even volunteer for work: they ask their masters what else can be done when they have free time rather than making a beeline to what activities or indulgences please them most. And they do all of this because they know, practically and not just as a masturbatory or egotistical fantasy, what it means to actually serve someone fully. They get the core point: that it’s always “All About Him.” Not them. That, in a servant, is  real  knowledge.

 

On Becoming an Acolyte

Below are some short points further describing the practices of genuine acolytes. These points (as well as what came before) might sound difficult to some reading this who are used to a more casual form of service. Assuming your man is happy with the current level, you have nothing to worry about. But if you have signed on to be the type of servant to a man that is described in this article, a servant to his every desire and command, then it is important that you learn to acquire the grace, willingness and large, generous spirit of the genuine acolyte—the passionate slave of his temple. It’s the only thing that will keep you consistently (and with a loving, generous heart) doing his will.

What follows are some ways of behaving that genuine acolytes, true servants of strong men, tend to follow. Some of these will resemble what’s already been written about above, but in a shorter, more digestible form. Others might be new. Either way, the more you can assume these traits and the more you desire to assume them, the better servant you will someday make a man. Some of these points may describe things you can practice alone or practice with a more conventional partner. You may be surprised at what results from this. But if you enter into a relationship with a very controlling man and take sacred vows to become his trusted servant and acolyte, to please him in every way you can, do consider cultivating these attitudes and practices.

* Genuine acolytes have both the desire and the ability to change for their masters already in their hearts. Even if an acolyte starts out with some bad habits, she values nothing as more important than serving her man, without expectation of constant rewards for service or the special attention women in conventional relationships get from their mates. One common example of this is that the acolyte who carries some extra weight who then loses that weight for her man. She takes responsibility for this weight loss so he doesn’t have to police her or nag her like a parent with an errant, willful five-year-old. She finds ways to continue to lose weight until she reaches his goal for her. This is not always easy: food addiction can be as hard to break as a drug or alcohol addiction.  She doesn’t slack off unless she’s been given special permission to. She also never goes on self-indulgent eating binges to “punish” him for some perceived fault, like a perceived lack of attention, attention she automatically but incorrectly assumes is “her due” or even “payment” for being his slave.

* A genuine acolyte is honest to herself about what she really wants. It takes an unusual person who can be honest enough to admit that they are not acolyte material, that they want something or someone a little less strict. But it saves everyone involved a lot of time, work, and heartache if a potential acolyte does an honest self-assessment before taking sacred vows involving absolute service. Before committing, she asks herself things like: Can I bear a life of service, performed without expectation of thanks, payment, rewards?  How have I behaved in other relationships and, if it was poorly, what makes me think I’ll be magically different in this one? Do I have the strength of will to stop thinking constantly about myself and my own pleasure? Do I still  selfishly pursue my own cravings and desires and make these my number one priority? Am I capable of just quietly doing what I am told without pouting, getting grumpy, only half-completing my tasks, or feeling resentment or disappointment for not being constantly praised? Is enslavement supposed to be all about good times, gifts, and flattery for the slave, or should the Master be benefiting most from this arrangement?  So, how, exactly, am I benefiting him…and is it enough? Am I making his life happier? Putting a smile on his face? Or do I perform just the bare minimum that lets me slide by?

* A genuine acolyte learns how to find pleasure in hard work. She discovers, if she doesn’t already know, a deep fulfilling enjoyment in working for her man, including doing the lowliest of chores or the ones that are physically difficult. She discovers the secret joys of labor that her more lazy sisters have absolutely no clue about nor interest in. She has a strong work ethic but she doesn’t go around boasting about it. Normally what inspires such egregious “I’m such a good slave” boasting is an attempt to cover up laziness and sloth. Slaves who quietly do all they are told to do feel no need to boast about it.  Their actions speak for themselves. But some individuals work on the principle that if you speak of something frequently and loudly enough then even if it is totally false, people will eventually start to believe it. Unless, of course, that person is very perceptive and hip-to-the-bullshit master who is watching what you do  vs. what you say as self-promotion and quietly, without your knowledge, forming his own conclusions about your worth.

* A genuine acolyte thinks frequently, lovingly, and happily about the man she serves. He is, to her, the Prime Purpose of the life she is living. Thoughts of him occur throughout the day, even if she has a lot of things on her plate, like mentally rigorous employment outside the home that requires deep focus. The thoughts often involve ideas about pleasing him in the future and they make her very happy. Why? Because she adores him with all her heart and soul. He is what her mind and feelings gravitate toward when she has spare time. This kind of thinking is natural and habitual to somebody genuinely in love. Before you meet a man you want to serve you will often have fantasies about what the service experience will be like. As you have these fantasies, prepare yourself for the idea that the right man for you may  require a very different form of service from you than the one you are fantasizing about. Try fantasizing about different forms of serving, things that require you to give up pleasures or preferred acts and ways of relating, and imagine honestly how you would respond to them. Do you really have the soul of a devoted servant, a true acolyte?

* A genuine acolyte will bend over backward to put a smile on her man’s face. She will go to great efforts to make him happy and pleased with her. She’s always looking out for things that might help him achieve his goals or become greater, but she is careful not to overstep her bounds, and always asks Him if it would be pleasing before she implements something new.  She doesn’t give a damn what happens to her, she only cares about maintaining herself, with minimal cost to him, so that she can serve him fully. Her idea of self-maintenance does not stray into the realm of self-indulgence. Sure, she has desires for things that please or enhance her, but when she has these desires, she honestly admits what they are and asks her Master if she can indulge. She never secretly takes or buys that which he has not directly said she can have. She is not a thief. Someone can start to practice this virtue  long before she meets a man she wants to serve. Practice denying yourself things that you want and can afford in order to experience what it will be like to not always get something you want when you want it. Give yourself a taste of denial. Watch how it makes you feel inside. These experiments, if done genuinely, over things you really want, can tell you a lot about your current ability to sacrifice for a man. No, everything isn’t going to be magically different when you are in his presence: old, self-indulgent habits are strong and it takes a long and determined battle to quell them. Don’t be lazy and assume your future master is going to want do all of this hard work for you. Most masters expect their servants to have at least a minimum ability (that can be built on) to exercise self-control.

* A genuine acolyte is honest with her master, even when it is very hard. She admits to her flaws and weaknesses, she tells him when she is having trouble with something, and, not surprisingly, she gets great relief from his wise guidance, even if she must suffer his disapproval. Under no circumstances does she regularly hide things from him. Practice this early, once you meet a promising man. Tell him something that is hard to speak of but is also important for him to know about you. Don’t put it off for a “better time.” That time will not come. Now is the best time to get something off your chest. Maybe it embarrasses you. Maybe you fear it will make him reject you. Nevertheless, tell him. The more you practice openness and honesty with him, the easier it will become to be honest about hard things later on. Most men worth serving require absolute and complete honesty in their servants. If you were in their position would you want someone concealing important information from you?

* A genuine acolyte takes joy and pride in not being a burden to her man, financially, physically, and emotionally. She tries to avoid the situation where he is working for her, serving her, chauffeuring her around, supporting her (unless he himself wants this), getting her things. That is a role-reversal she should naturally find abhorrent, and even if she is ill and this role-reversal must be done for a short time, she does her best to recover  and get back to her regular duties as soon as possible. While you are still single, make it a practice to become more self-reliant, if you are not already. If something breaks around your home, look up how to fix it online, and, if it seems clear enough, give it a try. Or do something else independent that you usually rely on family or friends or a landlord  to help you with. If you don’t know how to drive, find someone to give you lessons. Find a part-time job, even if you don’t have to work. Experience what it is like to be accountable to something or someone besides yourself. Try traveling somewhere new by yourself, without a family member or friend. If you work outside the home for him and get a promotion, do not assume the extra money or a bonus in your paycheck means all sorts of goodies for you. If you are an owned slave, that money is his, not yours, and if you want anything, you should go to him and beg for it, the way a real slave does.

* A genuine acolyte does her best to keep her emotions under control and not cause unnecessary “drama” for her man. This is a fine line to walk: it doesn’t mean intentionally hiding things from him that he should know. But it does mean she isn’t constantly taking out her spleen and bad moods on him or others in his household. Nor does it mean she is constantly complaining, about her workload, her health, her unmet desires. If you have problems controlling your emotions, begin immediately to practice self-control. Some women who live alone and don’t have many real life contacts are vitriolic to others they engage with online. This is a good place to begin, in the virtual world, where relationships and connections are less important and critical than real-life ones. Either stop being hostile to others, or, if you can’t, cut the connection.  Better yet, start gently praising and supporting your “worst” online enemy—and watch what happens. You might be surprised. :-) If you can’t manage that, at very least don’t engage with the person you are constantly dissing or arguing with. Stop talking about them with your gossipy online connections. Stop being a cowardly online two-year-old and insta-blocking anyone who displeases you (or whom you imagine is displeasing you). Do what other grownups do: learn ways to cope with your imagined virtual “thorn in my side.” Stop treating someone who doesn’t fully stroke your inflated online ego as a dire enemy. If you can learn to let go, grow up, and not fight in these “easy” childish online arenas,  life will be much easier when you eventually aspire a higher level of relating with a dominant man. Self-control is a very important skill for a good servant to cultivate.

* A genuine acolyte takes disappointment gracefully. She doesn’t pout and stomp around when she doesn’t get something she wants when she wants it. She doesn’t let herself fall into a fit of depression over anything, no matter how hard she thinks it is on her.  She, especially, doesn’t show her master how annoyed she is. She remains cheerful and sensible and calm till the end. To practice this before you are owned, you can start out by disappointing yourself. Don’t give yourself that “goodie” you’ve been looking forward to all week, be it a new beauty treatment, a food treat, even a night out with close friends. Don’t buy extra food every time you are at the store if you are overweight. Or stop collecting objects if you have hoarder tendencies. Once in a while this might be OK, but try to cut back. Cut back on your social-media addictions. (Yes, however much “good” you imagine you are doing with them, that is truly what they are: they are ways that you use to decrease your loneliness. There is no need to be ashamed of this. Almost everyone does this.) Don’t immediately binge-watch a streaming show you were looking forward to; wait a couple of months, and then take it very slow—1-2 episodes a week. If you disappoint yourself in little ways like this, you will be ready to hit the floor running when you meet someone who actually controls you. You’ll know better how to deal with the disappointment of not doing or getting everything that you want exactly when you want it.

* While a genuine acolyte cultivates strong self-control, she only uses that skill in positive ways. She doesn’t use it to hide things from her master or to pull the wool over his eyes. She admits openly and honestly to her feelings, even when they are negative. Example of  appropriate self-control: Some is dressing you down, quite rightly, for something you didn’t do that you said you would and when you had all the time in the world to do it. You don’t start screaming back at him or turning the tables, accusing him of something else he did bad.  You don’t practice the “tit for tat” give-back-as-good-as-you-get principle. Instead, you humbly accept in your heart that you were wrong this time and say so to the person you wronged. Apologize sincerely with no snarkiness, bitterness, or sly resentment in your voice or text which totally negates the apology. Always ask for forgiveness when it is obviously needed. If you practice humbling yourself with others before you meet the man of your dreams, especially when you are in the wrong, then this will be easy and graceful to do with him. And it will, I guarantee, be required.

* A genuine acolyte knows herself well and knows what she can bear happily and peacefully. She does not dive into an “all or nothing” control and service relationship unless she’s certain she’s strong enough to handle it. As an example, she either openly welcomes other females that are or become part of her master’s household or she is honest enough with herself to never get involved in that sort of situation in the first place, if she can’t live peacefully with other females. She knows what she can handle and she doesn’t lie about it to herself and thus, to him, imagining falsely that she will supplant somebody already there or drive new females away with her sterling perfection. Start thinking about all the possible living arrangements that could occur if you are considering living with a deeply dominant man, a man who does whatever he wishes. Discuss those “what-if” situations that you personally fear with him before committing to fully be his servant. Find out which ones might be likely. Try to find out about things you may not have ever considered (such as he likes to whore you out to other men; he also likes to have trans-female servants, he wants you fully bisexual with other females or doing it with dogs, etc.). Or maybe it’s something non-exotic like he wants you to have children and you don’t, or vice-versa. Consider even the possibility of his not wanting you for sex, suddenly, only for income, errands, and housework. If you thought certain extreme sexual scenarios were hard, can you bear to live with a sexless possibility? Think very, very carefully about all of this, and be sure you discuss the possibilities with a potential master before taking sacred vows of service.

* A genuine acolyte has an open mind and is constantly learning new things. She is not closed off to life. Because she is open, curious, and observant (in the right way, not as a spy or sneak), she is capable of learning and growing as her master’s desires change, as the ship he steers through life alters course, as shoals or storms threaten, or as treasures are found. She adopts to change readily and easily because the one thing that never, ever changes is her utter devotion to the man she serves. All the rest, whether it involve fortune or disaster, are just stage props,  just window-dressing, to the rightly-aligned female. They aren’t the main show. Practice opening your mind. Buy a non-fiction book on a subject that interests you but that you know little about. Or watch a documentary on a subject or person that would never normally interest you. If you are not a news reader, make a habit of visiting one of the free online news websites and reading a couple of headline stories a day (but be wary, this can quickly become just another online addiction). See what else is out there in this marvelously complex and huge world you live in that is beyond your current narrow interests or desires. If you can be open-minded and deeply curious about other new things, you will respond similarly when your relationship with your owner changes in unexpected ways. Keep in mind that life always changes unexpectedly, surprises happen, and master/slave relationships are not exempt from this overall rule. A flexible mind, however, can see you through almost any change that doesn’t kill you.

 

In Parting

This article was written, as I’m sure some readers will have noticed, for women who are either already acolytes to a strong man or who who are striving to reach this state.  It was not intended for those who have long ago fallen by the wayside or are faking it as they go along, as these minds  and hearts tend to be completely closed to the concepts expressed here.  But, consider these two things (1) such individuals make  excellent examples of what not to do, so if you know a “slave” like this, learn from her bahvior and (2) you never know, sometimes people do change. Weird, unexpected outcomes happen all the time in life, and sometimes cause profound reversals of personality traits. But this article’s primary intent is to provide support and  confirmation to those who are at this time consciously and willingly traveling a hard, but honorable and deeply rewarding path: working at becoming better slaves for their current man  or a future man. Don’t forget that you are not alone. Others are on this journey, too, and understand in varying depths the difficulties and the joys that one can face. It is a journey that has no ending, as there is always room for self-improvement. Don’t be discouraged by that, it helps keep life interesting, and you should rejoice as you slowly improve your service or prepare yourself to be a good server someday.

We hope that this article has offered some reassurance that what one does as a man’s devoted servant may be hard but it is a deeply honorable role to fill in life (some, like me, would say the best role to fill) and it has its own  secret but truly  wonderful rewards. Perhaps it may even inspire those who might be undergoing a period of hard struggle that there is light ahead, just traverse a few more valleys, and on the next peak you’ll see the world that you helped build with your master spread shining below in you the blazing glory of the sun. This is the view that is often entirely hidden to those who wallow in the self-indulgent gloom-filled  me-first-always valleys. We did not write this to criticize those who are still struggling with slavery, although certain types of unwanted behavior have been described so that you can recognize them if you see them crop up in yourself. None of us are ever free from the struggle to improve as slaves and we’re always going to encounter events or have duties are quite difficult or trying and take a lot strength to endure. That is just life: shit happens. Or, to put it more politely, situations are never static, they’re always change with time, often bringing new challenges. But, as a  genuine slave develops some some of the traits discussed in this article and/or recognizes ones she already has, it is hoped that she will realize that she is on the right path. She is not lost, as some, particularly the envious, may suggest, in some “bewildering self-destructive, insane fantasy of servile perfection.”  She is actually doing something immensely constructive and positive, something very few people can do and a role that we sorely need more of in this gluttonous-pigs-in-a-trough world: she has devoted herself, not to a cause, not to a religion, not to a social movement, not to a corporation, not to being a slave to money or sensual pleasures, and most certainly not to egotistically aggrandizing herself, but to another human being: a man she has met who is worth giving everything to and doing anything for. To me, this path through life is one of the most honorable, honest, rewarding…and certain. The only life pursuit I know that is far better is one that I (and many other females) are constitutionally, mentally, and emotionally incapable of traveling: the blazing, golden trail of a genuine Master.  That is a truly admirable way to travel through life, but if one is temperamentally  incapable of such a role, then following in the footsteps of such an amazing trail-blazer is the next best option.  Every path in life has its difficulties and rewards along the way, but some end in misery and confusion while other end in peace and joy. May you choose truly and travel well, dear reader, on whatever path you decide to explore and make your own.

Cookie is an older female in her late forties, but that doesn’t keep her from taking care of her body so that it may still service male pleasure. Note her recent breast implants. Note, further, that she is enthusiastically learning the ropes with dog training. She is already walking on the leash quite well (no small feat, considering the method Marc Esadrian teaches), and demonstrates that she is a quick learner with position commands. She’s not perfect, but she’s getting there, proving that old bitches can indeed learn new tricks. Watch Cookie wait obediently in her cage, accept the leash, drink out of a dog bowl to hydrate herself, and practice slave positions with dedication and focus. What a good girl. We hope she is an inspiration to all females, young and old, that submission and service doesn’t have to end any time soon in life. You can be healthy, pretty, sexually viable, and quick with your obedience well into the autumn of life.

Cookie is an older female in her late forties, but that doesn’t keep her from taking care of her body so that it may still service male pleasure. Note her recent breast implants. Note, further, that she is enthusiastically learning the ropes with dog training. She is already walking on the leash quite well (no small feat, considering the method Marc Esadrian teaches), and demonstrates that she is a quick learner with position commands. She’s not perfect, but she’s getting there, proving that old bitches can indeed learn new tricks. Watch Cookie wait obediently in her cage, accept the leash, drink out of a dog bowl to hydrate herself, and practice slave positions with dedication and focus. What a good girl. We hope she is an inspiration to all females, young and old, that submission and service doesn’t have to end any time soon in life. You can be healthy, pretty, sexually viable, and quick with your obedience well into the autumn of life.

It’s not especially novel at this time to observe and discuss wayward trends in cultural direction, especially in spaces like ours. It may come as no surprise to readers, for instance, that Humbled Females sees a decidedly progressive or “woke” agenda throughout Western society, the pall of which covers everything from the pariah of sexism to the specter of institutional racism. There is much ado about these subjects in politics, in higher education, online, on talk shows, podcasts, and in everyday conversation, and so naturally there would come a time when we’d want to make our position clear within the community, as we do not shy away from commenting on other socially sensitive subjects. We have spoken critically about the demonization of those recognizing differences between the sexes and the related rise of feminism’s corrupting influence quite often, as one would expect us to, given our interests. In this article we’re shifting away from directly criticizing feminism and targeting an adjacent social influence: the transgender movement in its intellectual, cultural, and political activist form. It has been a long time coming, frankly. We have avoided writing anything particular on the subject due to its sensitive nature, but given our core philosophy about the reality of sex, and further contrasting it with the growing influence of transgenderism, which seems bent on obfuscating that reality entirely, this address was inevitable. From Twitter to Scientific American to the APA itself, attacking the truth of sex for the political motivations of a very small group has risen to the forefront of the social justice lens. The way transgender men, in particular, have co-opted the definition of women is obviously of grave concern to us, for we have very particular ideas about what constitutes the adult female sex. Enabled with the antecedent of intersectional feminism and its ideas of equivalence between the sexes, transgenderism—as political animal or as personal truth—has gained a worrisome foothold in the Western psyche, one already addled with the modern rot of political correctness, its people primed at early ages to accept a host of radical ideas that defy common sense, even reality itself. The idea that women are just as capable as men at all things, that there are really no fundamental differences between the sexes, and any extent to which this seems the case can be laid at the feet of cultural influence is just one such example of said lunacy. Transgenderism seems to be following in the practiced footsteps of feminism’s playbook, taking the discussion of the sexes to a new frontier: one of complete blurring…

It’s not especially novel at this time to observe and discuss wayward trends in cultural direction, especially in spaces like ours. It may come as no surprise to readers, for instance, that Humbled Females sees a decidedly progressive or “woke” agenda throughout Western society, the pall of which covers everything from the pariah of sexism to the specter of institutional racism. There is much ado about these subjects in politics, in higher education, online, on talk shows, podcasts, and in everyday conversation, and so naturally there would come a time when we’d want to make our position clear within the community, as we do not shy away from commenting on other socially sensitive subjects. We have spoken critically about the demonization of those recognizing differences between the sexes and the related rise of feminism’s corrupting influence quite often, as one would expect us to, given our interests. In this article we’re shifting away from directly criticizing feminism and targeting an adjacent social influence: the transgender movement in its intellectual, cultural, and political activist form. It has been a long time coming, frankly. We have avoided writing anything particular on the subject due to its sensitive nature, but given our core philosophy about the reality of sex, and further contrasting it with the growing influence of transgenderism, which seems bent on obfuscating that reality entirely, this address was inevitable. From Twitter to Scientific American to the APA itself, attacking the truth of sex for the political motivations of a very small group has risen to the forefront of the social justice lens. The way transgender men, in particular, have co-opted the definition of women is obviously of grave concern to us, for we have very particular ideas about what constitutes the adult female sex. Enabled with the antecedent of intersectional feminism and its ideas of equivalence between the sexes, transgenderism—as political animal or as personal truth—has gained a worrisome foothold in the Western psyche, one already addled with the modern rot of political correctness, its people primed at early ages to accept a host of radical ideas that defy common sense, even reality itself. The idea that women are just as capable as men at all things, that there are really no fundamental differences between the sexes, and any extent to which this seems the case can be laid at the feet of cultural influence is just one such example of said lunacy. Transgenderism seems to be following in the practiced footsteps of feminism’s playbook, taking the discussion of the sexes to a new frontier: one of complete blurring.

This blurring of the sexes—the idea that sex isn’t real—is worrying for several reasons, but most of all for the confusing effect it’s having upon younger generations. By making gender something relative, amorphous, and interchangeable, the activist wing of transgenderism is attacking the very foundation of sexual dimorphism, and from this there is a reinforcement of the ongoing war in the West against the reality of naturally contrasting behaviors between the sexes. Upon investigating the transgender world in its current form, we come to an ironic if not predictable observation: that the continuing natural dominance of genetic males rises to the surface as the defining population within the movement. This is to us at Humbled Females no great shock: men are a force of nature, always at the top of the hierarchy, in whatever form it may be. Male power is not allowed to display itself so openly: today such power can only operate if it is hidden. When masked under a feminine transgender facade, it can express itself and overtly exist in ways that are discouraged and frowned upon in hetero-normative males. While transgender males have carte blanche to use some very typical masculine tactics and actions in the interests of the “third sex,” we find traditional men are maligned as expressing “toxic masculinity” for similar actions. Transgender males openly colonize and parasitically appropriate female culture as a demonstration of conquest. In the process, they disfigure femininity in ways that undermine the deep distinctions between the sexes. The distortion of traditional binary masculinity and femininity undercuts the roots of sexual identity, and, in so doing, poisons the well of relationship fulfillment. It is our view that this is socially destabilizing. Our goal in this article is to discuss and critique this  phenomenon, to call it into the light, and to provide resources for our community to combat the growing influence of those who would rather destroy all differences between the sexes for their own perverse, egotistical, and political ends.

 

Definitions and Clarifications

Before starting down the path of exploring and critiquing transgenderism, it’s important to have clear understandings of the words used in these discussions and to stick with them. Such words are sometimes misused in public debate, making it difficult to have clear, productive discourse that leads to rational conclusions about the reality of sex and the sexes. That’s exactly the intent of some extreme advocates for transgenderism: to muddle language and meaning so as to purposefully break the common continuity of words, and thus, the conversation. At Humbled Females, many in our community will not require such a refresher on terms, as we are well aware of the differences between males and females and therefore hold very clear beliefs about their respective purposes and roles. Our sentiments about the sexes are derived from life experience, if not biological science, and, in the very least, dictionary definitions. Nonetheless, we will provide the following for clarification in this article. 

Male
adjective: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
noun: a male animal or plant.

Normal human males have X and Y chromosomes in their cells.¹

Female
adjective: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
noun: a female animal or plant.

Normal human females have two X chromosomes in their cells.²

Genetic human males will be referred to as “males” or “men.” Males who label themselves either “transgender” or “transsexual” will still be referred to as “males” or “men,” to reflect their genetic reality and not the alternative attributes they have assumed or claimed. And likewise, any discussion of genetic females will refer to them as “females” or “women.” Any females who act under the umbrella of “transgender” or “transsexual” will still be referred to by their genetic reality of being female.

“Transgender” will be understood as those who believe their personal gender is either the opposite of their biological sex, or that they are neither male nor female. This will mainly refer to individuals who take on performative characteristics of the opposite genetic sex, including surgical alterations, to appear, physically, like the opposite genetic sex.

With that out of the way, let’s begin.

 

Regarding Our Common Grounds and Where the Sands Shift

It is first quite important to address the incorrect perception that one is transphobic (or homophobic) when attempting to hold critical discourse about the assertions of the transgender world. As is so often experienced, those who attempt having critical discussions with trans people or trans activists usually find themselves harangued for transphobia: a deeply held fear of and/or hatred for transgendered people. While it’s true that some who speak out against transgender activism are indeed bigoted, we assert that this is not the case for most who rise up in an attempt toward understanding it or intellectually challenging it. Our critique at Humbled Females, for instance, does not come from a place of hatred, but rather a love of truth—a love for the reality of sex, of male and female. We do not hold some sort of grudge against alternative sexuality. We acknowledge that the BDSM world itself owes a debt of gratitude to the LGBT community (lesbians, gay men, bisexual men and women, transvestites, and drag queens), in fact. The Stonewall riots and subsequent years of the gay liberation movement opened the door for unusual sexual and relationship practices to come out of the shadows, and much of the early public face of the fetish world was indeed the gay leather community, in which feminine men and crossdressers intermingled. The road to relative ease of access and surface-level social acceptance of bondage and fetishism was paved in part by the earlier LGBT community which sought to decriminalize and destigmatize socially unconventional orientations and practices. Local BDSM community groups would not readily have found sympathetic meeting spaces and alternative social media venues like Fetlife.com or BDSM.com would perhaps not live on as robustly as they do in the public Internet if others before us had not first broken through  the closed-minded and illiberal barriers preceding the sexual revolution.

Differing sexualities and orientations, in and of themselves, are of no threat to the wide and complex world of D/s, or even our smaller sphere of heteronormative male dominance and female submission. In truth, our community shares some degree of alliance with the great alt culture, with people like us being outside of what is perceived as “convention” today (strangely enough). Traditionalists will laud our community premise, yet their support often ends where we push deeper into the realm of overt dominance and submission. The LGBT community, on the other hand, has faced similar struggles against such enforced convention and the attitudes that surround it. We share a common struggle not only against the disapproval of the moral majority, but of societal institutions, religious and governmental, leveraged against us in attempts to legislate puritanical and bigoted values. In seeking the freedom to live as we wish without outside interference, we recognize the same aspirations in others who do not live as we do. Indeed, this sentiment is clearly articulated in the mission statement of our community: that we are not out to change the world, but instead reclaim some animal wisdom of our species we believe has been overlooked in the shuffle of modernity.³

But despite the similarities we may have with those of alternative persuasions, there has been a distinct shift in recent years between intellectual, cultural, and political forces, leaving large swaths of people sharply at odds with each other over toxic and far-reaching ideologies that only seem to further grow and metastasize. It is here that we collide, inevitably, with the tendrils of feminism, for as feminism rebranded and expanded itself with the confusing logic of “intersectionalism,” the LGBT community was aggressively (and successfully) co-opted under its influence. Alternative sexual expression and orientation wasn’t merely that any longer: the personal was made political, as feminists like to say. An unfortunate side effect of the sexual revolution and one that seems to have come to a chaotic head in the decades following was that sexual identity became, more and more, a political symbol and tool.

With the increased political bandwidth from intersectionalism, transgender ideologues and activists have managed to exert a perverse influence over institutions, media, and cultural discourse, leading to the social phenomenon of sky-rocketing claims of the rise of transgenderism and to its pushed normalization. Self-declared gender identification has spread like a contagion among the most impressionable (the young, sexually confused, or mentally ill) and dangerous (criminally sociopathic) groups.⁴ Transgender ideologues, in conjunction with financially motivated health care professionals, have helped institutionalize “gender-affirmative therapy”  which removes psychological, psychiatric, and medical safeguards that were routine in the pre-politicized world of clinicians specializing in transgender or transsexual counseling.

Long-established doctors and psychologists specializing in transsexualism and gender conversion have been professionally shunned for adhering to prior clinical standards and refusing to practice affirmation therapy. In her book Irreversible Damage, Abigail Shrier dedicates a chapter to the “dissident” standard bearers who have not bowed to current transgender ideology. Summarizing interviews with such renowned professionals as Dr. Kenneth Zucker, Dr. Ray Blanchard, and psychotherapist, Lisa Marchiano, she writes:

There are, however, a few professionals who refuse to play ball and are nervy enough to say so. Many of them treated transgender patients long before such work was fashionable. They have earned international reputations as giants of psychiatry, sexology, or psychology. Some have authored major academic research on psychiatric disorders, sexuality, or gender dysphoria. Others are Jungian analysts and published authors. All have suffered professional setbacks and reputational smears for their stubborn insistence that “affirmative therapy” isn’t really therapy at all.

But they all believe gender dysphoria is, first and foremost, a psychopathology—a mental disorder to treat, not primarily an identity to celebrate…. And they believe that “affirmative therapy” is either a terrible dereliction of duty or a political agenda disguised as help. ⁵

The lack of prior institutional guardrails combined with ideological and savvy media have led to unprecedented numbers, well beyond traditional statistics, of people self-identifying as transgender. The current melee of self-identified transgenders includes numbers of mentally unwell individuals suffering from such things as gender dysphoria and autogynephilia, the sexually confused at odds with their homosexuality, those most prone to social contagions, and the outright opportunistic seeking social capital and license. And while this collection of new people bears little resemblance in number or motivation to preintersectional transgenders, their biological identities and subsequent behaviors lay bare the deeper characteristics of the sexes that cannot be overwritten by performative change. In her book Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, Helen Joyce highlights Dr. Ray Blanchard’s conclusions about ideological transgenderism being perpetuated largely by biological men:

Blanchard’s observations of extremist transactivism in recent years have led him to believe that the leaders are mostly autogynephiles. Their anger results from ‘envy of women and resentment at not being accepted by women as one of them,’ he has tweeted. ‘They direct their ire at women because it is women who frustrate their desires. Men are largely irrelevant.’ ⁶

Effeminate homosexual men and transgender people have always been part of the LGBT world. But under the influence of feminism, sacred immunity has been given to those idealizing the feminine. Feminine males, accepted and affirmed with open arms by feminists, influenced a gradually shifting cultural and political direction of feminist gynocentrism. Given expanded social license, gay and transgendered men have adapted to exercise control in the ways that mimic women and define femininity. LGBT men, especially transgender men taking on female attributes, operate relatively unchecked in areas traditionally inhabited by women, smuggling male domination into the world of women under the mask of transgenderism. Where the heterosexual male is scrutinized, despised, and endlessly critiqued, the transgender man is allowed his eccentricities and contradictions in this new world. There is an increased spectacle we see in the world of transgenderism that borrows its moves from the feminist activist playbook, employing victim politics and invading the halls of academia and government to enforce fantastical assertions about reality. To the degree this has become the new chimeric face of the LGBT community, we wholly reject it. While transgender people face legitimate civil rights issues that are worth defending, we cannot and will not support blurring the lines of sex and sexual identity, especially where the effort is embedded in higher education, law, and the corruption of the sciences.  These forms of activism disrupt the very foundations of our understanding of sex and its reality, and such boundaries are not just  important to us in our community: they are real and necessary in order to have a civilization free of philosophical and legal madness.

Like an immune reaction within a massive social organism, feminists have lately become aware of the erosive effects of transgenderism, and have begun to retrace the lines of division between the sexes. The irony is, again, that feminism played a role in promoting the politics of transgenderism through its rhetoric of equivalence between the sexes, intersectionalist victim politics, and a charged culture of political correctness. Their tactics and ideas, as they have slowly begun to realize, have been turned upon them, as we will soon discuss.

 

From the Virtual to the Real: The Steady Encroachment of Trans Culture

The Internet is the easiest venue in which to observe the ascendance of transgender men into realms that have been traditionally female. While females participate in content-driven social media in much greater numbers than men, transgender social media is dominated by greater numbers of men mimicking women, with much smaller numbers of biological women participating. In personally surveying the top 25 posts on Twitter and Facebook with the hashtags #transgender and #transisbeautiful, men out-represented women with the closest ratio being 20:5 and the largest gap being 24:1. In these 20+ male posts on each site, transgender men charismatically and confidently mimic young female behavior, overtly sexual female behavior, and feminist-inspired female behavior. This included twerking, pole-dancing, posturing for selfies, self-promoting pornography, displaying their clothing including lingerie, showcasing their makeup, and intentional no-makeup selfies to show their age. The same exercise on Fetlife yielded a ratio of 25:0 with no depictions of transgender women imitating men. In fact, at least the first 90 photos were all biological men imitating women. And the content on Fetlife was very similar to the Twitter and Facebook user-generated content with posturing selfies, self-promoting pornography, modeling female clothing including lingerie, showcasing makeup, emulating “bimbos,” and being “sex worker” activists.

While social media is an amorphous and often deceptive medium that can’t be entirely trusted, we have witnessed specific high-profile examples of transgender men not only commanding attention in their efforts to be female, but  rising to command areas that are primarily female. In the process, they have found ways to monetize the transgender spectacle of males emulating females. Beyond Chaz Bono and Ellen Page, separated by more than a decade in their attention from transitioning, there are no high-profile examples of biological females attempting to be men. While there are subcultural examples of such females in the LGBT world, their claim to fame is minor and contained within that subculture, not garishly and insistently transferred into the mainstream spotlight.

With transgender males, we see a different story. Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner is now the most famous transgender man in modern history. While his original fame was as a record-setting Olympic decathlete in the 1970’s, even gaining the coveted placement on the Wheaties cereal box, he turbocharged his celebrity 40 years later by publicly coming out as transgender in 2015 while playing his part in the reality series Keeping up with the Kardashians. This earned him the Glamour Magazine “Trans Champion Woman of the Year” award, making him the second transgender man to earn the title (the first went to “Laverne Cox” in 2014). That same year he gained the spinoff series I Am Cait and further attention and infamy when he publicly declared, “The hardest part about being a woman is figuring out what to wear.” In 2016, he launched his own makeup collection with MAC Cosmetics and became the face of Swedish clothing retailer H&M for their sports line. In 2017, he was also very public about undergoing gender reassignment surgery and became an International Women’s Day spokesperson for ONE.org. With an Olympic gold medal, long standing athletic world record, two television series, a cosmetic line, a spokesperson contract for at least two iconic brands, mass culture awards, and activist status, Bruce Jenner has checked off more boxes of achievement than most of the highest achieving biological females of celebrity, much less the transsexual females who are absent from the high-profile landscape, interestingly enough. Not at all coincidentally, the latter year accomplishments are all well within the era of fourth-wave feminism and its public maligning of maleness and masculinity. And yet all of this required a great deal of drive, ambition, determination, focus, shrewdness, if not ruthlessness—the same characteristics displayed, in aggregate, by biological men throughout history.

While Bruce Jenner came out as transgender long after the end of his athletic career, more current male athletes have declared themselves female and have attempted to monetize their status, including, in some instances, physically competing against genetic females, despite being genetic males. Former WWE Wrestler and fitness icon, Gabe “Gabbi” Alon Tuft, and professional MMA fighter, Fallon Fox, both came out as transgender mid-career. No longer fitting the hypermasculine body builder image upon which he built his fame, Tuft is currently attempting to rebrand himself though a social media focus on makeup, cooking, and how to lose muscle mass to be less masculine. He has recently announced plans to compete professionally as a female bodybuilder. Fox had a short-lived professional career as a female fighter as his notoriety grew for inflicting unusual amounts of physical harm on his female opponents.

A cascade of similar instances have occurred since in professional and amateur sports, and the cases remain predominantly those of genetic males competing against genetic females, with the reverse of females competing as males being relatively rare. While females have a physiological ceiling that makes them seldom able to compete athletically with genetic males, males have been allowed to operate at will as females under the guise of transgenderism, where those of general prowess in the world of men routinely and significantly outperform females based on common physical advantages awarded them by nature. Very recent challenges to prevent males from competing as females in youth sports have been met with staunch opposition and claims of discrimination from transgender activists. Just recently, New Zealand has named Gavin “Laurel” Hubbard to its women’s weightlifting roster for the upcoming Olympics in Tokyo, making him the first openly transgender athlete to compete in the games. His election is not without its protest and controversy, as we would easily imagine: his male body is obviously going to give him an incredible advantage against genetic females competing against him. Nonetheless, we’re told Hubbard has met the International Olympic Committee’s requirements for athletes who transition from male to female—something that apparently should ease our concerns. The requirements demand that the athlete declare his gender identity as female, and that this status can’t change for at least four years in the realm of sports. The athlete’s testosterone level must also stay below 10 nanomoles per liter. But this is little comfort for those who understand the reality of pitting male bodies against female bodies. The lopsided encroachment of genetic males into female weightlifting is maddeningly obvious.

Outside of athletics, transgender men have also made high-profile forays into traditionally feminine fields. They have propelled themselves into rock-star level celebrity in their disciplines, becoming highly influential in traditionally feminine areas. As a result, they hold great amounts of influence over their largely female fan bases. Jeffree Star (born Jeffrey Steininger, Jr) is a makeup guru with over 16 million followers on YouTube and his own line of high-end cosmetics. Being one of the highest paid YouTube stars with a vast fan base, Jeffree has a large female following who look to him for beauty recommendations. Jeffree is open about being a gay man who likes feminine things but is not transgender. While his industry is one in which gay men have always had a significant presence, Jeffree has a particularly elevated profile for his feminine and dramatic personality.

Stephen West is a fashion designer who has risen to prominence in the knitting world, an area not known for having visible men or notable personalities. West has a series of published pattern books, his own design brand, and his own yarn brand. He is a highly sought-after educator for podcasts and conventions where he is often the main event. He has an especially high profile on Instagram with over 221,000 followers. West is an effeminate gay man and has made no claims of transgenderism. His rise to renown is noteworthy due to his typically female medium but also due to the rise of the “craftivist” movement in recent years.⁷ Even under the current heavy influence of feminist craftivism, West has gained a level of popularity and influence that has arguably never been seen before in the world of handcrafts.

 

No Way for a Lady to Act: Aggression in Transgender Males

In a perfect world, one would see males and females who desire transitioning their genders truly transforming themselves into the opposite sex through the magic of some future technology. In a century or two from now, this might be possible, once we have achieved transhumanist abilities. But as for now, genetic males will remain genetic males underneath the makeup, feminine clothes, and feminine acting, and the nature of their maleness can and does emerge past the facade of the dubious veils they wear. In defining themselves as females and working toward blurring objective definitions of sex, transgender men have been permitted, outrageously, to display aggressive male behaviors largely unchecked, whereas heteronormative men would be accused of “toxic masculinity” for the display of the exact same behaviors. This double standard is warping and confusing the boundaries of sexual behavior, much to the advantage of trans activists. The communal understanding of female behaviors has begun to publicly skew in this dishonest representation of men, women, and sex, and thus far, the public seems scarcely awake to these obvious dangers.

Finding examples of male violence and aggression being smuggled through twisted feminine archetypes isn’t particularly out of reach.  The recent social and political unrest in the United States has brought to light two transgender men, originally reported in the media (following GLAAD guidelines, which will be discussed later) as being female, who have overtly advocated and planned for violence within their movements. Willy “Vicky” Osterweil became popular among the ideological left and received significant attention for his book In Defense of Looting during the BLM riots of 2020. The original NPR interview with Willy depicted him as a female and his statements read as a militant political manifesto. The book itself overtly calls for violence and extraneously injects notions of femaleness into its aggressive declarations. “Riots are violent, extreme, and femme as fuck,” he writes. “They rip, tear, burn, and destroy to give birth to a new world.” After the initial controversial media attention, it was later uncovered that “Vicky” was, in fact, a genetic male named Willy: a longtime left-wing extremist and known agitator.

In the insurrection at the US Capitol in January 2021, one of the people arrested for organizing a faction of the paramilitary group known as the Oath Keepers was Jeremy “Jessica” Watkins. First reports on the person only stated “Jessica” had a past military background under a different name and had organized a local militia group well before current events as a means to “help” the local community. Days later it was uncovered that this person served in the military as a United States Ranger in Afghanistan under the name of Jeremy David Watkins years before the military transgender ban was lifted.

On the surface, data on transgender individuals committing crimes can be difficult to track down; nearly all academic and institutional attention to the issue of transgenders and crime is focused on transgenders as victims, not as perpetrators. Even when focusing on incarcerated transgender individuals, research and discussions remain dutifully focused on the vulnerability and potential victimization of transgender people in custody and not on the demographics of those committing crimes or the types of crimes committed. Whether it involves advocacy groups diverting attention from negative actions of transgender individuals and excluding information that contradicts their ideologies or institutions and media seeking to avoid controversy, the general absence of direct data and study of the issue arguably reveals a blind spot, if not intentionally dishonest conversation about the effects of genetic sex on tendencies towards violence in genetic males. But therein lies the rub: in order to study the patterns of violence in transgender women, the subject of genetic origin must come into play, and we are not encouraged to discuss the genetic reality due to the insistence we justify the gender-based fantasy of transitioning.

The only known research into transgenderism and criminality comes out of Sweden, looking at the long-term effects for post-operative transsexual men.  It concluded that they “retained a male pattern regarding criminality” with sexual and violent crime.  Frustrated with the male propensity to commit violent and sexual crimes combined with the lack of transparency around transgender criminal data in the UK (where an unusually high number of men self-identifying as women are housed with female prisoners), author Helen Joyce extrapolates the following:

If the UK prisons inspectorate is right, and two percent of male prisoners identify as women, that is a figure greater than half the total number of female prisoners. And if transwomen’s offending pattern is male-typical, and the share imprisoned for sex crimes is five times as high as for women, you arrive at a startling conclusion. Of all the sex offenders behind bars (in men’s or women’s prisons) who identify as women, well over two-thirds are male.⁸

Some institutions, however, still manage to remain honest. Within the US prison system, prisoners are housed by their genetic sex, not assumed identity. In addition, the majority of incarcerated transgenders are housed in facilities for men, indicating that the majority of imprisoned transgender criminals are genetic men and not genetic women. FBI crime statistics do not include statistics on transgender individuals, but rather classify by genetic sex, making it difficult, if not impossible, to identify the types of crimes committed by transgender men. But in the UK, which has a more pronounced advocacy movement to protect genetic females from transgender male infringements, the website for Trans Crime UK has collected their own data on transgender crime statistics. From their data, they have determined that transgender criminals are overwhelmingly genetic males, not genetic females. In addition, the site’s data shows crimes committed by transgender men lean toward violent and sexual crimes, including rape, assault, murder, domestic violence, child sexual abuse, and child pornography. Social media also reveals clear trends of transgender men showing aggression and advocating violence. And despite claims of being female, their ire is often aimed at genetic females, especially those who question their authenticity as supposed females. In other contexts, such behavior would be maligned as “toxic masculinity,” but because it takes place under a performative female facade, the behaviors continue, relatively unchecked. While some feminist and lesbian counteractivists work to bring attention to the reality of these aggressive behaviors, they are still performed openly and are given a politically correct license to continue.

 

Institutional Transgenderism: Influence Beyond Scale

In the traditional fashion in which power is formalized, transgenderism has institutionalized itself to gain credibility and acquire a larger platform for influence. Where it benefits the cause to use aggressive methods that are more male-like, they do so. When the context calls for falling back to the safe social protections of femininity, they likewise do so. As a result, transgenderism has leveraged power and influence that is not commensurate with their percentage of the population, wrecking havoc and netting undue focus in the larger world. While population statistics on transgender people are believed to be inflated by inexact definitions, self-identified transgenders are estimated in the United States to comprise .35% to .6% of the population. And the numbers seeking hormone therapy or gender reassignment are considerably smaller at .009% of the population.

WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) is an important institution behind much of the transgender activism woven into existing institutions. Its original founder, Paul A. Walker, who was president of the original Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA), performed research at Johns Hopkins in collaboration with John Money, the man behind the infamous David Reimer case. HBIGDA would later become known as WPATH, an organization that has specifically focused on integrating its advocates into health care, psychological care, child and adolescent care, law, social work, educational systems, religious organizations, and communications. This group is arguably the main influence for the overfocus on transgenderism in all their targeted disciplines, as well as the vilification of those questioning its “science,” methods, or political intent.

GATE is an organization for transgender advocacy that specifically works with the United Nations and World Health Organization to influence international institutions and policies. GATE is also a strategic partner with WPATH. They focus on high-level influence for international law reform and institutional reform in medicine and psychology to protect transgender views on gender. GATE has been at the forefront of spinning transgender demands as human rights and assisting with codifying these assertions into law, to be used as legal references for future ideological legal endeavors.

In the United States, GLAAD has been at the center of influencing journalists and controlling portrayals of transgenders in the media. GLAAD’s Media Reference Guide (10^th Edition) is a 40 page document  “intended to be used by journalists reporting for mainstream media outlets and by creators in entertainment media who want to tell LGBTQ people’s stories fairly and accurately.” GLAAD openly encourages journalists to not refer to birth names or biological sex when reporting on transgender people and speak in terms of their gender identity, instead. Outside experts with differing observations and opinions are highly discouraged; only transgender individuals should be used as experts or critics in transgender issues. The recent misleading report around a 39-year old “woman” committing incest and raping “her” senile, 80-year old mother (Chris “Christine” Chandler, aka Chris Chan) is a typical example of GLAAD-influenced journalism masking truths about such a disturbing incident.

Following the feminist playbook, transgender activists have also ingrained themselves into academia as a means to increase their cultural footprint. Using the existing academic infrastructure for Women’s Studies and Queer Studies, the first Transgender Studies program emerged in the US in 2015. It is now an integrated discipline under the umbrella of Gender Studies which awards approximately 9100 Bachelors degrees per year. In addition to being regularly presented in more general academic publications for Gender Studies, transgender activists have their own dedicated academic journals, including Transgender Studies Quarterly (Duke University) and International Journal of Transgender Health (WPATH).

In overview, it seems abundantly clear that transgender activists have propagandized language, again copying feminist tactics, with intentional manipulations aimed at supporting their agenda. “Transgender language reform” intentionally obfuscates commonly understood ideas around identity and gender norms. And in the quest to bend language to fit pro-trans ideology, activists and their followers have objectified and dehumanized the overwhelming majority of gender binary individuals. Gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language efforts began under second wave feminism. However, transgender activists have reworked the concept to be personally subjective and thus erode common understanding of individuals having a sexual identity.  Not only do transgender individuals have public license to self-identify by the gender they feel they are, but it is often demanded that all outsiders participate in their subjective realities, where they claim that they are not of their observable, biological sex. “Misgendering” an individual by referring to them as their observable sex, even unintentionally, is labelled as transphobic and a form of harassment.

There is also the modern circus of pronoun usage, something most of us have become acquainted with when spending time largely in, but certainly not limited to, the realm of social media. Widely understood identifiers (he/she, his/her) are discouraged until selected by the individual. In their place, nondescript identifiers are advocated such as “they” and “theirs” or newly invented identifiers (ze/hir/hirs) that are meaningless and confusing to the majority of the population. “Cisgender” was first used around 2006 by lesbian academics, but through transgender activists it has since been given more bandwidth, to where it is relatively mainstream. Sexually normative people now regularly use the term to identify themselves, despite its ideological and latently hostile origins. Language around female identity, in particular, has been commandeered and manipulated to further pro-transgenderism. Where second wave feminists coined the word “womyn” to signal social advocacy for females, fourth wave intersectional feminists introduced the world “womxn” which was quickly appropriated by the transgender community to include all people identifying as women, thereby stripping genetic females of a basic concept of identity. Other feminist-specific concepts have been usurped by transgender activists, including feminism itself, now transformed into “transfeminism,” and misogyny into “transmisogyny,” presuming interchangeability between females and males emulating females.

Transgender people are no different than other minority groups that advocate for their own interests and fair treatment in society, but like feminism before it, the ideological base of the transgender movement seems more interested in gaining power than correcting social wrongs and moving on. As a result, loose and ever-changing definitions that describe them and their causes are used to inflate the perception of their numbers. In using victim culture, especially via the internet, transgender advocates fan flames of manufactured outrage and offense to give an inflated perception of supposed bigotry against them. The remainder of the world is encouraged to walk on eggshells around the political sensitivities they create, to be overly accommodating and mindlessly accepting of their fantasy and rhetoric. Indeed, their institutional and social influence appears far too large for a group that comprises less than 1% of the population. With more than 99% of the population following binary sex norms, the attention and accommodation demanded by politically active transgender people should be irrelevant to the majority, yet the majority seems to have given them more space than they rightfully deserve. Reinforcement through political and corporate institutions, as well as media, has led to a naivete about the reality of their genetics, the limited capacity of performative changes to mask their genetics, and their rightful scale in society.

 

Transgender Subversion within the BDSM Community

It’s becoming increasingly clear that there is a sort of “transgender patriarchy” emerging from the transgender community. Genetic transgender males use their license and ideologically skewed information as validation to dominate the public face of transgenderism, appropriate female culture, and attempt to colonize hetero-normative spaces (yes, we’re using their own words in our critique, as they are, ironically, quite fitting). The BDSM world itself often seems a microcosm of the double-standards afforded them upon which they rely, leading to unchecked transgender male dominance in certain spaces. Where heteronormative men are usually expected to show some deference to females and curb their overt dominance, transgender men, we tend to notice, have no obligation to such limitations. Transgender men regularly present themselves as equal to, interchangeable with, if not even superlative to heterosexual females. With this comes a fusion of the double standards afforded women and a typical style of aggression attributed largely to male behavior. Surface level femininity, as much as is permitted by the male physique, is hyperbolized into the ultimate female appearance. Not having endured any of the trials of girlhood, female adolescence, and motherhood, they step confidently onto the path that genetic females already lived and carved out ahead. And, similar to most females in BDSM and D/s culture, they posture as sexily-masked dominant individuals seeking worship behind labels like “princess,” “doll,” and “goddess.” A frequent factor with transgender men posturing as submissive females is to discover they are switches who fluctuate between surface level dominance and submission as means of acquiring opportunistic sex.

Viewing themselves as interchangeable with genetic females or even as better options, transgender men enter heteronormative spaces in the D/s world expecting acceptance with little apparent reservation. This takes a particularly ironic and bizarre turn in the world of male supremacy or otherwise hetero-normative dominance and submission. Having little sense of boundaries or ability to differentiate themselves from genetic females, transgender men, from time to time, enter communities such as Humbled Females, presuming the collective will accept them as females and that, therefore, they will exist and interact in the community as if they were not a male. The irony of such hubris is lost on them in the world of male dominance and female submissiveness. They do not seem to understand that their own unerasable male characteristics are at the very root of their false presumptions about being female or being accepted as such. Upset, flouncing, or an otherwise dramatic retreat are often the responses the give when confronted by the larger community attempting to gently point this reality out.

 

Overview

Men have historically determined the arc of history for our species. In the last 60 years of western culture, feminism has re-orchestrated social and political control to artificially propel women and shift power. However, male dominance, as timeless as it seems to be, finds men adapting to conquer the brave new world feminism created. From the way we see it, there is much irony here in that transgender men have used gynocentrism as a sort of Trojan Horse to usurp feminine value and its advocacy. Additionally ironic, the recent emergence of the ideological war between transgenders and “trans-exclusionary radical feminists” (TERF’s) confirms some of the foundational tenets of the Humbled Females community, in that the lines between male and female are to be defended. Especially in our feminist-friendly world where masculinity in males and femininity in females—the very foundations of heterosexuality—are both under attack, transgenderism contributes to those same erosions in its current ideological state. Our position at Humbled Females is one of compassion and understanding for those who sense they do not inhabit the sex they were born with. To those limited numbers of human beings living today, they have our recognition and empathy. But given the nature of our beliefs, we cannot help but also cherish and hold dear what seems to be nature’s design of men and women, no matter how indelicate nature has made it out to be.  Where we draw a line in the sand lies in the dangerous and superficial trends of transgender activism and culture today. Its propaganda, noxious influence, poisoning of language, despoiling of reason, and most of all, corrupting of our youth, to the degree that it even causes bodily mutilation and harm to our children, is wholly, completely, and unequivocally unacceptable. We see no way to proceed peacefully with the absurd demands of such extreme fantasists, for to concede ground with them is to commit to lies that are self-evident, and this will certainly do us harm. Our contention is one set against an irreconcilable contradiction: that one cannot hold sex sacred and at the same time hold it utterly meaningless. Said another way, one cannot serve two masters: either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and abandon the other. This is the sociopolitical vice that militant transgenderism and its insistent drive to erase the sexual binary has us in, and we see no alternative but to voice our opposition to normalizing the destruction of the reality of sex itself. We will not go gently in this fight. We will preserve what we know to be true, instinctively, scientifically, even philosophically. That doesn’t mean we insist, unlike the transgender movement, that everyone has to play along with our assertions of reality, only that the majority continues to acknowledge the simple reality of a sexual binary we will never escape until we have transcended our carbon-based humanity.

 

1. https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Y-Chromosome
2. https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/X-Chromosome
3. See our about section: https://humbledfemales.net/about
4. Shrier, Abigail. Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters (p. 133). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.
5. Shrier, Abigail. Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters (pp. 126-127). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.
6. Joyce, Helen. Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality (p. 757). Oneworld Publications. Kindle Edition.
7. Betsy Greer. “Craftivism.” Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. 2007. SAGE Publications.
8. Joyce, Helen. Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. Oneworld Publications. Kindle Edition.

An older female is introduced to some foundational mantras, accompanied by painful somatic accentuation à la the signal whip. Following a period of shackled isolation upon a dog bed in the basement, new female Cookie is summoned to a crude whipping post and taught thereafter the rudimentary logic of her place as a humbled female. “Learning is not child’s play; we cannot learn without pain,” Aristotle once said, and this wisdom is lavishly employed in the way the mantras are driven by rote into Cookie’s mind, aided with the fire of the whip upon her derrière and back. This video demonstrates the reality of a woman undertaking the whip. The strokes are by no means gentle and there is no theatrical deception in this video’s production. Every lash and every mark is real. For those interested in observing the effects of the whip upon flesh for the first time, we feel this video does very well in showing them, sans gimmick or pretense in a raw and straightforward format.

An older female is introduced to some foundational mantras, accompanied by painful somatic accentuation à la the signal whip. Following a period of shackled isolation upon a dog bed in the basement, new female Cookie is summoned to a crude whipping post and taught thereafter the rudimentary logic of her place as a humbled female. “Learning is not child’s play; we cannot learn without pain,” Aristotle once said, and this wisdom is lavishly employed in the way the mantras are driven by rote into Cookie’s mind, aided with the fire of the whip upon her derrière and back. This video demonstrates the reality of a woman undertaking the whip. The strokes are by no means gentle and there is no theatrical deception in this video’s production. Every lash and every mark is real. For those interested in observing the effects of the whip upon flesh for the first time, we feel this video does very well in showing them, sans gimmick or pretense in a raw and straightforward format.

Penny is trained to assimilate some core operating premises with the aid of two useful technologies. The goal is simple: to make her a better submissive female under a strict doctrine. The medium of pleasure: a remote controlled vibrator. The medium of correction: a canine shock collar. Using these devices in tandem during rote programming incentivizes the process of learning. When the female states a programmed value correctly, she receives a pleasurable reward nestled deep inside her sex, forming a sensual pleasure bond; when she fails to state a programmed value correctly, she receives a mild shock from the dog collar, encouraging her away from lack of focus during programming. The only path available for her mind is the one illumined for her. The incentive and punishment combination has its peaks and valleys, as Penny experiences in this video.

Penny is trained to assimilate some core operating premises with the aid of two useful technologies. The goal is simple: to make her a better submissive female under a strict doctrine. The medium of pleasure: a remote controlled vibrator. The medium of correction: a canine shock collar. Using these devices in tandem during rote programming incentivizes the process of learning. When the female states a programmed value correctly, she receives a pleasurable reward nestled deep inside her sex, forming a sensual pleasure bond; when she fails to state a programmed value correctly, she receives a mild shock from the dog collar, encouraging her away from lack of focus during programming. The only path available for her mind is the one illumined for her. The incentive and punishment combination has its peaks and valleys, as Penny experiences in this video.

Sometimes polishing up the kitchen or running a vacuum through the living room can give a female a sense of satisfaction and a little extra pep in her step, but there are days when these tasks take on a different feeling: mounds of laundry and hundreds of square feet to dust can suddenly be overwhelming, even depressing. At Humbled Females, we believe females should be encouraged to embrace their domestic responsibilities with positivity, obedience, and mindful enthusiasm. Housework should be a pleasure, and there is a training method we recommend that takes this literally. To reinforce a healthy psychology around housework, we recommend creating a connection between domestic labor and sexual stimulation, making the experience erotic. With enough conditioning through repeated sessions, the female will associate housework with sexual arousal, triggering a conditioned sexual response (CSR). The resulting pleasure reward of this method has an obvious utility: to reify the female’s domestic responsibilities as positive, insuring she finds stimulation in housework, which in turn makes her more productive and a better slave. Marc Esadrian trains Ginger in this method using a Bluetooth-controlled remote vibrator that is easily managed from a smart phone. Ginger’s routine culminates with an intense focus on her work and a resulting orgasm at day’s end.

Sometimes polishing up the kitchen or running a vacuum through the living room can give a female a sense of satisfaction and a little extra pep in her step, but there are days when these tasks take on a different feeling: mounds of laundry and hundreds of square feet to dust can suddenly be overwhelming, even depressing. At Humbled Females, we believe females should be encouraged to embrace their domestic responsibilities with positivity, obedience, and mindful enthusiasm. Housework should be a pleasure, and there is a training method we recommend that takes this literally. To reinforce a healthy psychology around housework, we recommend creating a connection between domestic labor and sexual stimulation, making the experience erotic. With enough conditioning through repeated sessions, the female will associate housework with sexual arousal, triggering a conditioned sexual response (CSR). The resulting pleasure reward of this method has an obvious utility: to reify the female’s domestic responsibilities as positive, insuring she finds stimulation in housework, which in turn makes her more productive and a better slave. Marc Esadrian trains Ginger in this method using a Bluetooth-controlled remote vibrator that is easily managed from a smart phone. Ginger’s routine culminates with an intense focus on her work and a resulting orgasm at day’s end.

Bitch Bailey is collared and chained to a thick wooden pole in a modernized refurbished mill building apartment. Placed in the hall leading to an open and spacious living room, the pole’s location was a perfect coincidence, providing no privacy. The polished concrete floor makes her time spent there uncomfortable as she awaits her appointment with the whip. The thick metal collar and heavy chain compliments her coiling musculature: the perfect image of the “strong, empowered” female suitably kept humbled and obedient. The time leading up to and after being stretched upon the whipping post provides an excellent frame of time to reflect upon her mistakes in exposed discomfort. Only when her master is content with her penance is she released from the post and allowed the dignity of sleeping in her cage again.

Bitch Bailey is collared and chained to a thick wooden pole in a modernized refurbished mill building apartment. Placed in the hall leading to an open and spacious living room, the pole’s location was a perfect coincidence, providing no privacy. The polished concrete floor makes her time spent there uncomfortable as she awaits her appointment with the whip. The thick metal collar and heavy chain compliments her coiling musculature: the perfect image of the “strong, empowered” female suitably kept humbled and obedient. The time leading up to and after being stretched upon the whipping post provides an excellent frame of time to reflect upon her mistakes in exposed discomfort. Only when her master is content with her penance is she released from the post and allowed the dignity of sleeping in her cage again.

“The crop is a very convenient tool of punishment. Easy to wield and implement, it is my primary method of physical correction. The small and easy to control signal whip comes in at a close second, but what I like about the crop is its rigidity, allowing very little effort to use in close quarters, and without the problems of wrap-around that the whip presents. For more formal (and severe) punishments, the whip is much preferred, but the crop is an ideal go-to implement for use on the fly. It can be plied lightly and accurately for gentle reminders, such as the one pictured here, or with tremendous severity, rendering angry red welts upon the skin. In either case, it will get your girl’s attention.”

—Marc Esadrian

“The crop is a very convenient tool of punishment. Easy to wield and implement, it is my primary method of physical correction. The small and easy to control signal whip comes in at a close second, but what I like about the crop is its rigidity, allowing very little effort to use in close quarters, and without the problems of wrap-around that the whip presents. For more formal (and severe) punishments, the whip is much preferred, but the crop is an ideal go-to implement for use on the fly. It can be plied lightly and accurately for gentle reminders, such as the one pictured here, or with tremendous severity, rendering angry red welts upon the skin. In either case, it will get your girl’s attention.”

—Marc Esadrian

Niki serves Marc Esadrian a quick afternoon lunch. But quick isn’t always simple. The tasks of a humbled female involve domestic talent, mindfulness, attention to detail, and sufficient passion to provide a seamless and pleasurable experience for the man of the home. This does not always lead to a smooth experience for the female, especially one who may be new and lacks a necessary level of discipline and learned attentiveness. Master might like his pasta a certain way: get distracted for only a few moments with other preparations, like setting the table perfectly, lighting the candles, and preparing the wine, and you might miss the al dente window. Having to start the preparations of the food all over again will result in him waiting longer, which is never a good thing! This example is one of many, but easily illustrates that being a good humbled female is about living in a state of intensely submissive mindfulness. It’s fulfilling and even fun at times embracing this state, but it brings its deceptively subtle challenges, nonetheless, keeping her nimble and light-footed as she remembers all the fragments of good service, putting them together in precisely the right ways at the right times, learning to move with grace and quietness with a collar of steel around her delicate neck and the possibility of the whip, should she err.

Niki serves Marc Esadrian a quick afternoon lunch. But quick isn’t always simple. The tasks of a humbled female involve domestic talent, mindfulness, attention to detail, and sufficient passion to provide a seamless and pleasurable experience for the man of the home. This does not always lead to a smooth experience for the female, especially one who may be new and lacks a necessary level of discipline and learned attentiveness. Master might like his pasta a certain way: get distracted for only a few moments with other preparations, like setting the table perfectly, lighting the candles, and preparing the wine, and you might miss the al dente window. Having to start the preparations of the food all over again will result in him waiting longer, which is never a good thing! This example is one of many, but easily illustrates that being a good humbled female is about living in a state of intensely submissive mindfulness. It’s fulfilling and even fun at times embracing this state, but it brings its deceptively subtle challenges, nonetheless, keeping her nimble and light-footed as she remembers all the fragments of good service, putting them together in precisely the right ways at the right times, learning to move with grace and quietness with a collar of steel around her delicate neck and the possibility of the whip, should she err.

“Another gallery brought back by popular demand. Household cleaning isn’t just a chore to get through: it’s something I expect my slaves to immerse themselves in. Plying the mind and body to this thankless domestic drudgery is a time-honored tradition among females in every major civilization, and in my home, this sexist tradition continues: helping to make my world beautiful is an act of service and devotion. Kept nude and barefoot, she is reduced, humbled, and efficient in her labor, her senses enlivened. Her feet feel the floor for crumbs and debris as she walks, her hands are trained to feel, wipe, polish, and scrub, her body in intimate union with the atmosphere of the house. Her exposed flesh is made available for immediate correction, should she so deserve it, and her holes are open for use without notice.”

—Marc Esadrian

“Another gallery brought back by popular demand. Household cleaning isn’t just a chore to get through: it’s something I expect my slaves to immerse themselves in. Plying the mind and body to this thankless domestic drudgery is a time-honored tradition among females in every major civilization, and in my home, this sexist tradition continues: helping to make my world beautiful is an act of service and devotion. Kept nude and barefoot, she is reduced, humbled, and efficient in her labor, her senses enlivened. Her feet feel the floor for crumbs and debris as she walks, her hands are trained to feel, wipe, polish, and scrub, her body in intimate union with the atmosphere of the house. Her exposed flesh is made available for immediate correction, should she so deserve it, and her holes are open for use without notice.”

—Marc Esadrian

Submissive bitch Niki learns the collar, leash, and bind in these classic Humbled Females images, re-posted upon request by the community. Some thoughts relevant to this gallery came to mind when posting it again. You can see in the photos that Niki is kept completely barefoot and nude during her leashing and collaring. This is quite intentional. It is the only way I train my females, especially the ones fit for sexual use. To be forcefully exposed, stripped down to their bare forms, given no material possessions, and restrained like animals inevitably makes them feel vulnerable and more amenable to humbling. It’s also quite pleasing to the male eye when this is practiced with a young and beautiful bitch, arousing his lusts and thus quickening his dominance. As the male of the household, remaining clothed around your female establishes an obvious visual (and psychological) difference in status. Remain so until you decide to penetrate.

Submissive bitch Niki learns the collar, leash, and bind in these classic Humbled Females images, re-posted upon request by the community. Some thoughts relevant to this gallery came to mind when posting it again. You can see in the photos that Niki is kept completely barefoot and nude during her leashing and collaring. This is quite intentional. It is the only way I train my females, especially the ones fit for sexual use. To be forcefully exposed, stripped down to their bare forms, given no material possessions, and restrained like animals inevitably makes them feel vulnerable and more amenable to humbling. It’s also quite pleasing to the male eye when this is practiced with a young and beautiful bitch, arousing his lusts and thus quickening his dominance.  As the male of the household, remaining clothed around your female establishes an obvious visual (and psychological) difference in status. Remain so until you decide to penetrate.

A small but sweet video clip displaying general bath service. Penny draws a bath and attends to her master diligently—a devoted servant to his body. We strongly encourage dominant males to spend some intimate alone time like this with their slaves, girls, or submissive wives. It’s a simple, yet effectively bonding moment, allowing the female to express another facet of her love and submission to the man she worships and adores.

A small but sweet video clip displaying general bath service. Penny draws a bath and attends to her master diligently—a devoted servant to his body. We strongly encourage dominant males to spend some intimate alone time like this with their slaves, girls, or submissive wives. It’s a simple, yet effectively bonding moment, allowing the female to express another facet of her love and submission to the man she worships and adores.

ex. It is, at once, our greatest pleasure and primordial curse, an animal contract we explore, suppress, exploit, and attempt escaping from one century to the next. The predominant source of this struggle rests in the fantasy of transcendence from the material—a wedge fashioned between flesh and spirit. Medieval canonical codes defining immoral and perverse sexual acts and thoughts resulted, naturally, in a heightened preoccupation with sex and sexuality in civilization down through the centuries—proliferating a distorted obsession with it in politics, psychiatry, medicine, and jurisprudence in Western society to this day.

Sex didn’t begin in 1963, as Philip Larkin’s poem Annus Mirabilis insinuates. We humans and our early ancestors have been having sex for millions of years without the need of religious or societal injunctions, but somewhere along that timeline we began to complicate it with exactly these things: superstitions, unrealistic religious dogma, and an obsession with medicalizing anything beyond the strict boundaries of enforced convention. This culminated in what might be called the darkest age of sexual dysfunction: the stifling conventions, ordinances, reticence, and crude science of the Victorian order. Once slipping out of its complete grip, we arrived upon the first relevant point of the sexual revolution’s modern timeline: the reform of the 1920’s, in which a focus on glamour, leisure, women’s suffrage, and the liberal mingling of the sexes were a part.

The post-World War II era of the 1950s ushered in the rise of suburban culture in America. Consumer production flourished, with Bernaysian advertisers selling an idealized way of life to men and women. If we look back to this often romanticized time captured in surviving film and print media, we see a very different world from our own. Its close ties between naive consumerism, conformity, and antiquated mores is, at once, quaintly charming and eye opening, and we see we see how far we’ve come. When people think about returning to traditional life, in fact, they often time travel back to this particular era in their minds, but in truth the beginnings of these values date back to…

ex. It is, at once, our greatest pleasure and primordial curse, a necessary animal contract we explore, suppress, exploit, and flee from one century to the next. The predominant source of this struggle rests in our unease with the magnetic pleasures of sex and the fantasy of transcendence from the material—a discordant wedge fashioned between flesh and imagined spirit. Medieval canonical codes defining immoral and perverse sexual acts and thoughts resulted, naturally, in a heightened preoccupation with sex and sexuality in civilization down through the centuries, proliferating a distorted obsession with it in politics, psychiatry, medicine, and jurisprudence throughout Western society to this very day.

Sex didn’t begin in 1963, as Philip Larkin’s poem Annus Mirabilis insinuates. We humans and our early ancestors have been having sex for millions of years through the evolutionary merging of gametes…and the pleasure in all of this arrived long before we built our first religious or societal injunctions around it. But somewhere along the human timeline we began to complicate sex exactly with these things: superstitions, unrealistic religious dogma, and an obsession with medicalizing anything beyond the strict boundaries of enforced convention. This culminated in what might be called the darkest age of sexual dysfunction surrounding the energies of sexual life force: the stifling conventions, ordinances, reticence, and crude science of the Victorian order. Once slipping out of its grip, we arrived upon the first relevant point of the sexual revolution’s modern timeline: the reform of the 1920’s, in which a focus on glamour, leisure, women’s suffrage, and the liberal mingling of the sexes were a part.

The post-World War II era of the 1950s ushered in the rise of suburban culture in America. Consumer production flourished, with Bernaysian movers and shakers selling an idealized way of life to men and women. If we look back to this often romanticized time captured in surviving film and print media, we see a very different world from our own. Its close ties between naive consumerism, societal conformity, and antiquated mores is, at once, quaintly charming and eye opening; we see how far we’ve come. When people think about returning to traditional life, in fact, they often time travel back to this specific era in their minds, but this is somewhat of a sham: much of the image we fondly look back upon from that era was a construct of political and commercial influence. The real beginnings of these values date back to Republican Motherhood in the 18th century,¹ something little known and much less hearkened back to as it fades from our collective memory. Nonetheless, the post-war rebirth of suburban idealism and the conservatism of the times created a society of distinct adherence to convention, ripe for change and escape from mind control. And so began the great sexual revolution of the 1960s. The spirit of the revolution was well-meaning, and looking back, I can’t help but admire the times. The bra burning, the hedonistic pursuit of open love, the advent of the birth control pill, rebellious rock music, and the popularity of mind-altering drugs ushered in a new era whose time had come. “Beatlemania” gripped the hearts of young teenage baby-boomer girls. The end of that decade saw the Stonewall riots, in which lesbian and gay activists clashed with police in protest over their continued harassment.² America, and Western society overall, underwent a massive ethical revolution during these times, at the heart of it all a war for the soul of sex itself. For sex was no longer a reason to moralize about decency and matrimonial obligation, but fast becoming a medium of expression—a conduit through which the younger generations would claim liberation from the grip of tight conformity.

 

The Emergent Problem

Modernity, it’s quite fair to say, is sexually liberated. The evolving sexual dialectic, the advent of the birth control pill, and the virtual religion of women’s rights has made us the most sexually open, sexually politicized, and sexually “empowered” we’ve ever been. Women have achieved complete social equality with men. The fetters of rigid convention, matrimonial or otherwise, have dissolved. The rights of sexual minorities, like lesbians, gay men, and transsexuals, take up much more of our public discourse and focus than ever before. And yet with the growing political tensions between men and women, gay and straight, and trans vs. “cis,” a question presses insistently: is there a point where this grand experiment of sexual revolution and its infighting evinces a darker side? Have we overlooked something on that count?

I never considered that possibility much when I was younger, growing up in the seventies and eighties. I was raised under Catholicism, a faith that burdens one with guilt over the inane notion of inherited original sin, and when I left the church at the age of sixteen I naturally aspired to be a “sexual deviant.” I say this tongue-in-cheek, but only partially. Bearing witness to many couples trapped in dysfunctional or otherwise dead-end marriages, and surrounded by a milieu locked in stiff, square-headed moralities, I became an open-minded advocate for what one might call extreme sexual freedom. I’m still such an advocate in many ways. I have absolutely no interest in policing sex. Like most readers, I suspect, I am open to accepting nearly all forms of sexual expression, providing they don’t involve the unwilling or create victims of horrible abuse. It costs nothing to join hands and support gay, lesbian, and bisexual intimacies. It’s easy, right, and good to support men and women exploring the bounds of sexual conventions and complacencies. While I can still say this confidently, a tone of caution has crept into my thinking about where this liberality has brought us and where it’s all going over the next few decades.

It is here I will turn to the current times shaping the personalities of younger human beings—the female variety, in particular. An entire article could easily be written (and will be) concerning young males and the challenges they face today, but in this article I will be focusing upon our daughters, their relationships with modernity, and the prickly subject of sex and sexual identity politics. It is, I suspect, no mystery to the readership that how girls are raised and perceived is an ongoing fascination in larger culture, accelerated by progressive social engineering, of which an audacious feminism and its influences are inextricably a part. This modern feminism should concern those of us who raise female children or have influence over them in some way. The future of women and the way the sexes will continue to interrelate in the inertia of this poisonous (if fashionable) movement is important to those within our specific subculture, too, for not all of us are established with our own wives, submissive females, or otherwise luminous helpmates. Further, the quality of available females for men in the future is of increasing concern. Raising well-adjusted, sane, and overtly feminine females, free of the vitriol of the gender war hysteria, should be immensely important to us if we value a future in which the sexes will relate well. From where I stand today, the prospects for those men who search for women, who are actualized in their feminine instincts or are at least open to them, seem to be quickly dwindling.

The part under particular assault in femininity today is the traditional aspect—the one in which submissiveness is thoughtfully taught, idealized, and honed. Clearly, this is all by design. Female youth is clawed and steered, consistently, in confusing directions, but the enduring waypoint, as it turns out, is far afield from submissivity or any traditional model that would encourage them to embrace classical femininity. The agenda we hear and see today is one of feminist-inspired empowerment and consumable solipsism for little girls. They are coddled by modern media, corporate marketing, educational institutions, and surrounding culture. They are told to stand tall, sneer, and emulate masculine power to degrees that are well and above destructive to notions of traditional girlhood. They are encouraged, openly, to deviate from heteronormativity and view men as agents of a vile patriarchy that has enslaved them for centuries—a concept that has been ground into the minds of our youth for several generations now. If you question the validity of such bold claims, consider the outrageously bolder ones published by NBC News, a major news outlet, decrying heterosexuality as not only a grand conspiracy of the patriarchy and detriment to women, but also, quite simply, “not working.”

In this bizarre article, penned by a managing editor at Stanford University with a PhD, no less, we read such pearls of wisdom as, “historically, women have been conditioned to believe that heterosexuality is natural or innate,” or, “absconding from responsibility is the quintessential strategy of the patriarchy; it’s how men stay in control and never lose their power.” Miley Cyrus herself is quoted in the above article, stating, “being someone who takes such pride in individuality and freedom, and being a proud member of the LGBTQ+ community, I’ve been inspired by redefining again what a relationship in this generation looks like.” This is the same Miley Cyrus who paraded across the screen as a child actress in “Hanna Montana,” a progressive children’s sitcom that premiered on the Disney Channel in 2006, influencing its share of young girls who are now, as of the date of this article’s publishing, in their late teens and early twenties. Her powers of persuasion with the young are obvious, and worth thinking about, to say the least.

The above is but one recent example of the indefensible madness of modern feminism, a willful propaganda that angrily excoriates maleness and encourages misandrist culture with its conspiracy fantasies. And the problem seems to just be getting worse. Girl power anthems are ubiquitous, from morning cartoons of childhood to manufactured university protests in young adulthood, to the increasingly warped politics (and politicians) that run our nation states. Supporting it all, the cynical manipulation of an opportunistic corporate America carries on, but now in a different light. Where it once overtly glamorized male chauvinism in the 1950s, it now obsequiously traffics in feminist propaganda, revealing it has no loyalty to any specific world vision, save the capitalist one. Their mercenary crosshairs are now, it turns out, trained on men. Heterosexual men, to be more specific. In our current times, it’s perfectly acceptable for corporations like Gillette to release a virtue-signaling commercial attacking the notion of masculinity itself. After losing eight billion in sales, the corporate giant immediately changed its tune, but wouldn’t offer an apology for attempting to play the progressive card in its advertising.³ While Gillette’s correction is welcome, its initial effort to engage in such brazen advertising propaganda is, without doubt, a sign of the times. But these organizations, as powerful as they are, do not serve as the locus of the madness. That blame lies in the influences of the sexual revolution and the noxious brand of feminism that followed. Cynical activist drives, commercial pandering, and cautious corporate policies, in a bid to gain an economic edge through virtue signaling and “wokeness,” are increasingly female-focused, gay-centric, and gender fluid, putting us in a strange sort of corporatized sociosexual vice of political correctness.

But the results of the revolution that started in the sixties are not solely confined to defeating the largely imaginary enemy of patriarchy and glorifying the female sex as a sacred victim: the drive behind the revolution was also an effort to remove the differential of sex itself and replace it with a weaponized conception of gender ideology, a belief system asserting sex is merely a social construct. The concept of gender, or the modern slant on it today that we’re now saddled with, teaches that every individual has a gender identity in the brain that may not be the same as that person’s biological sex. This reasoning leads to the notion that gender identity is “more real” than the biological reality of someone’s sex, despite the absence of anything remotely scientific in support of this. In a timely display of lucid and plain-spoken confession, political and cultural historian, author, and reformed “gender historian” Christopher Dummitt wrote an article on Quillette, an online magazine, in which he admits his findings while researching social constructionism, especially in the subject of the reality of biological sex, were baseless, albeit catchy.⁴ “I insisted that there was no such thing as sex,” he writes. “There’s nothing so certain as a graduate student armed with precious little life experience and a big idea. And now my big idea is everywhere. It shows up especially in the talking points about trans rights, and policy regarding trans athletes in sports. It is being written into laws that essentially threaten repercussions for anyone who suggests that sex might be a biological reality. Such a statement, for many activists, is tantamount to hate speech.”

In closing his article, Dummitt provides a parting warning about the field of sex vs. gender: “My own flawed reasoning was never called out—and, in fact, only became more ideologically inflected through the process of peer review. Until we have seriously critical and ideologically divergent scholarship on sex and gender—until peer review can be something more than a form of ideological in-group screening—then we ought to be very skeptical indeed about much of what counts as ‘expertise’ on the social construction of sex and gender.”

That confession is all well and good now, but as Dummitt points out, the damage is already done, and adherents of the idea won’t go down easily. The assault on heterosexuality today and anything smacking of traditional norms is clear, present, and at times hyper aggressive. LGBT activism, co-opted by the junk science of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (Wpath) has infiltrated peer-reviewed research to question the very reality of sex itself,⁵ something that cozily plays into the hands of modern feminist goals attempting to discredit accepted differences between men and women.

The fallout and continued damage from this warped pseudoscience is of particular concern to parents today, or should be, as the focus has turned to politicizing children and their “gender markers.” Today we are clearly manufacturing transgender children, given the viral spread of these concepts in media and online. Young boys and girls with “gender dysphoria” are encouraged to explore hormone therapy at alarmingly early ages. In June 2017, the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimated about 150,000 teens, from age thirteen to seventeen, identified as “trans.”⁶  In sync with these statistics, there is a concomitant rise of children and teens seeking hormone therapies and reassignment surgeries.⁷

We assume we’re living post-sexual-revolution, but that’s a precarious miscalculation to make. What we’re seeing instead is its ongoing evolution, if not outright mutation, long after it has overstayed its welcome—a dubious second phase, perhaps unintended, set in motion by those who simply wished to free us from the confines of rigid scriptures and strict adherence to the nuclear family regime. The effort to loosen us from those influences had some merit, but from where I stand, the pendulum has swung much too far in the direction of something closely resembling insanity, foolishly attempting to rewire notions of gender roles and denying the very existence of sex itself. In lockstep with feminism, a movement that lurches toward greater psychopathy in attempting to justify its own continued existence, I see this ongoing revolution, cynically commercialized and politicized, as a poison visited upon our girls today by the deeply entrenched extreme political left. It seems to me that as parents or guardians of young girls we must come to recognize these noxious influences and counter them in thoughtful and decisive ways, lest we lose our children to the delusions, misconceptions, propaganda, and willful fabrications of social engineering and its dubious designs.

To recap, I have observed three troubling developments in modern society thus far:

First, Western civilization has normalized sexual hedonism to such a degree that it has acquired a corruptive effect. Across a large sample of countries, the socioeconomic liberation of women is positively correlated with higher availability of sex.⁸ Traditionally, females represent the suppliers in the economics of sex and men constitute the demand. When supply outnumbers demand, female sexual market value goes down. Feminist and social constructionism, based in the field of political science, has pushed the agenda of a fast and lose “sex-positive feminism” for decades since its coinage by Ellen Willis,⁹ wherein girls are encouraged to openly embrace their sexualities, support licentiousness and prostitution, and engage in activist rallies, such as “slut walks.” We have seen its effects, particularly in young adult girls who have become more sexually mercantile than any other generation preceding them. Meanwhile, the rise of strenuous focus on career goals for young females, university tuition costs, and the scourge of homelessness among college students has pressed young females into the quasi-prostitution of “sugaring,” selling sex for financial support and thus increasing female sexual supply without the premise of intimacy. Beyond this, extremely liberal attitudes about sex and an arguably unhealthy focus on materialism and self have led to a rise in narcissism in both sexes. Millennials, for instance, have been described as the “me, me, me generation.”¹⁰ So while sexuality is more liberated than ever before in history, the current attitudes and entitlements of reproductive-age females doesn’t bode well for men seeking more traditional women as mates.

Second, the sex revolution has obscured the scientific understanding of sex through gender deconstruction. The revolution of sex in the 1960s brought about a watershed of sexual expressions, freedoms, and ideas—not all of them wholesome. The gender constructionist theorists arose as the worst byproduct of the revolution. They claimed (and still claim, adamantly) that binary of sex was little more than a societal coincidence, if not a conspiracy fantasy of a malignant patriarchy. Many in Western society today have blindly accepted what would have been laughed away just a few generations ago: that gender norms are socially constructed and can be adopted by any individual through choice. This concept found its origins in the radical feminist intellectualism of Simone de Beauvoir in the 1950s, and has been embraced by left-leaning ideologues ever since.¹¹

With deeper entrenchment into the university thought complex, and further penetration into the social and psychological sciences, this extremely flawed, unscientific, and ideologically manufactured idea has gained far too much traction, not only among the general populace, but in such institutions as the American Psychological Association.¹² The garish effort to promote it persists against all reason, amplifying the sexual revolution’s darker side by undermining the scientific foundation of male and female. This is the ultimate extension of feminist goals for the new religion of equality. For if sex is accepted as malleable, human nature will be considered infinitely so, and this will serve as justification for endless attempts to reshape and reprogram us.

Third, a pall of rigid feminist political correctness has been cast over all of society. That feminist ideology is an immense cultural pathogen influencing Western art, entertainment, education, business, and statesmanship is obvious at this point in time to all but the most blinkered by its apologia. Consumer capitalism has been opportunistically co-opted to make feminism slick and attractive, thus spreading its viral influence. Universities serve as finishing schools for young students who started with childhood indoctrination through entertainment programming. An increasing agitation for women’s “empowerment” can easily be seen in politics today—a mirror held to the masses, reflecting what they’ve been indoctrinated to politely applause. The excessive focus on female emancipation from wifely duties and traditional femininity, affirmative action in education and businesses, and the strange obsession with coddling female egos under the presumption that misogynist forces in society strive to oppress women, has resulted in a significantly polarized culture between the sexes that can no longer be dismissed as imaginary. In this divisive rage manufacturing, our daughters are cynically recruited and absorbed by the feminist monolith, infecting them with the hubris, outrage, anger, and defiance of its ceaseless victim narrative. Feminism isn’t about making females happy with themselves so much as it is about sowing discontent and distrust in them toward males, conditioning girls to be proud, capable exemplars while simultaneously perpetuating their narrative of victimhood. This is, clearly, confusing and damaging our girls. It puts inside them the glowing red-hot ember of rage and unrest, when they could instead be inspired to become calm and beautiful beings of life and love, embracing grace, art, sensuality, aesthetic, and true feminine power: the mystery of the maternal and the ability to follow one’s muse…or to be the muse of another.

While our surrounding culture may glorify the above trends, that is not to say we should accept them into our value systems or allow them to influence our family lives. If we truly believe in and embrace a way of life that puts men back in control of their women and the family, if we believe that the archetype of femininity is not a mere accident of civilization or biology, for that matter, we should reject these influences out of hand and as wholly as possible while still being productive members of the civilizations to which we belong. I’m not advocating a return to old and outdated orthodoxies or golden ages that, upon rigorous examination, never really were. I am taking, I hope, pieces of wisdom from the past and advocating their application to the present, for the notion our ancestors got everything wrong about the sexes is the height of modern vanity, and one that has churned out a reprehensible coterie of thought leaders entrenched in our universities, halls of state, and celebrity subculture. I think there are many things we could learn from studying the traditional ways of the sexes—the world before so-called sex revolutions, smarmy commercial pandering, and the gentle, gradual brainwashing of social networks. Having thought of these things and having seen the carnage in the wake of modern living and its politics, and further still having observed and participated in child rearing that is sane, I have a few suggestions for others on how to raise young girls well, with their mental health most importantly in mind. The outside messages of surrounding popular culture, left unchecked and unfiltered in this age, bring with them energies of confusion and corruption for our youth. Of this I am certain. But it also seems clear that we’re stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place: we cannot retreat back into a romanticized golden age of the fifties, and yet the sex politics of modern life are psychopathic, out of touch, and quite unsustainable. We must rebuild family life by keeping the war of the sexes squarely out of it. We must focus upon our children by truly instilling in them what values we find most laudable, not let society shape them for us. In particular, the development of our girls is of vast importance, as they are the future gatekeepers of sex and the mothers of generations yet to come.

 

The Proposed Solution

Of theoretical remedies to this increasing unease many of us feel, the main one is this: we must, where we can, see male and female return to understanding simple and intuitive concepts of femininity and masculinity. Of girls, specifically, I would suggest seeing them raised to become sweet, polite, and empathic young ladies, not moving through the world with the common sickness of vanity and hubris that inevitably results in a focus on “empowerment,” but with the grace and true humility that has classically marked the female sex. If this can be accomplished, all the while holding on to the good of sexual openness and a true embrace of our modern liberties to live and behave as we wish and not as the state would have us, we will accomplish as near a perfect harmony between the sexes as possible. I believe deeply that if you let human beings be what they are, they will remain so, no social engineering required. In the very least, we must stop at some point and seriously ask ourselves if we should continue to let this cultural landslide maintain its course, or, instead, take back the future of our children and shield them from the noxious influences of the current establishment. The situation is growing ever more dire, it seems to me, and we must take bold actions to correct the course of the feminine, and by association, the masculine, before it’s too late for our own daughters. Below are my suggestions for deflecting the corrupt influences of feminist culture and putting the power back into our hands as parents.

 

Unplug Your Child from the Internet, or She’ll Unplug from You

Today we see a peculiar phenomenon: everyone seems obsessed with portable rectangular slabs of various sizes. They stare into their glowing screens, detached, at least partially, from the reality around them. By now, it’s quite clear that mobile device use is connected to a host of problems, such as stunted/dissociative social behavior, relationship conflict, car accidents, sleep loss, depression, lack of empathy, and an overall knack for missing the obvious in the physical world (like that imminent collision with a lamp post on the street as you check Twitter notifications).

But there’s a much more vital concern about excessive device use today: the healthy physiological and psychological development of children’s brains. The research today concerning the effects of device use on children is still not settled, but there is an emerging sense that the use of these devices isn’t always so good, especially their unmitigated use. Common Sense Media found that 72 percent of teens feel as though they need to immediately respond to notifications from their phone, and that 50 percent of teens feel addicted to their phones. 59 percent of parents felt their teens were addicted to mobile devices. A 2017 study found that higher “new media” consumption led to increased symptoms of depression and suicide. Jonathan Haidt, co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, correlates the staggering rise of depression in “Generation Z” to the popular use of social media in 2011. Indeed, a study in the journal Pediatrics found a larger increase in depressive symptoms in girls than boys in more recent years, including trends in suicide in the United States. According to the study, cyber bullying may increase more dramatically among girls than boys. The reasoning makes sense: adolescent girls use mobile phones with texting applications more frequently and intensively than adolescent boys. Problematic mobile phone use among young people has been linked to depressed mood, in the very least.¹³ Combined with the indirect social violence that females tend to be so naturally gifted for (spreading rumors, gossip, and whisper campaigns), the effect can be fatal.

I know it’s easy to dismiss concerns about youth as what’s always typical when the older consider the younger. “The problem with kids these days,” goes the timeless lament. But certainly, something new and never seen before is afoot today. How older children and teenagers spend their time today is quite different from how they did decades ago in previous generations. At least, that’s what Jeane M. Twenge in The Atlantic concluded after her 25-year study of differences in the United States between generations. “Around 2012, I noticed abrupt shifts in teen behaviors and emotional states. The gentle slopes of the line graphs became steep mountains and sheer cliffs, and many of the distinctive characteristics of the Millennial generation began to disappear. In all my analyses of generational data—some reaching back to the 1930s—I had never seen anything like it,”she writes. “It’s not an exaggeration to describe iGen as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades. Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones,” Twenge later adds.

I realize that there have been recent studies refuting the ill effects of phone usage, declaring that we’re all just imagining this problem, but they should be held under extreme suspicion. I don’t think that phone technology alone is the only cause, but it is a part of the problem, and it does, as shown above, at least facilitate other negative influences. With everything taken into account, young children and young teens, it seems to me, shouldn’t be allowed to use these devices without strict adult supervision. With their close links to addiction, depression, and suicide cited by scientific studies alone, the mass focus upon phones and tablets, and the Internet culture, overall, is clearly a negative influence. Empirically, the evidence is even more obvious. Simple observation of people around you usually does well enough to point out the problem. It seems to me that, at some point, we really need to come clean and ask ourselves some difficult questions. Do we want our children addicted to these devices and the influences therein? Do we really want to invite the chance of social violence from public shaming and other misuses of publishing power levied upon our young girls? Do we want our own girls engaging in this cruelty, to boot? These devices are not only troublesome, but clearly robbing us of our natural human empathy.¹⁴ Aside from the empathy aspect, what these devices teach and what information is made available through them isn’t always so wonderful. Therein lies another general concern: past the statistics about depression, anti-social behavior, and suicide, there is the matter of the direct conduit formed between smarmy corporate media and your little girl’s brain. Do we want Taylor Swift’s shallow values taking precedent over the ones we’d rather instill as parents? Do we want our girls at a very young age to believe they have “gender dysphoria” because they’ve been learning about it on Youtube channels? Do we want our girls being programmed by feminist propaganda in countless videos and commercials, priming them for the leftist finishing school that is modern western university? Do we want our girls aspiring to be “insta hotties,” just like one of their peers, or do we want them obtaining their inspiration from their natural parents and the examples they set? These are things to contemplate deeply, considering the influence of the Internet.

Call the idea extreme, but having personally seen the effects of these devices on young minds, and the silent steamroller that social media can be in their lives, I believe children should be kept away from the regular use of phones and tablets until their mid-teens, when they have had time to develop their abilities to put the things they see and hear into realistic perspective, and to contrast outside messages against the things they’ve been taught and shown by their parents. Not doing so invites a massive conflict in rearing your children and extreme difficulty in teaching them the values you hold that don’t perfectly match the current accepted norms, that, increasingly, are anything but normal. Removing digital devices from your child’s life removes a massive conduit of troublesome influence, from political brainwashing to feminist-friendly corporate pandering, putting the power of instilling formative values and core world views back into your hands as a parent, where such influences really belong.

It bears mentioning, too, that device use is not a problem relegated only to the child’s end. Parents can be addicted and negligently distracted from interacting effectively with their kids, too, so take the time to unplug yourself and not be such a glaring hypocrite. Children need the attention of their parents, and adult addiction to technology can lead to a subtle, yet damaging, form of psychological neglect.¹⁵

 

Initiate a Full Retreat from Public Education

Keeping phones and other devices from the possession of your children is a big (and needed) step toward controlling the flow of influences and resultant behaviors in the home, but a great degree of the problem lies beyond the home and your capacity to monitor: school and the one-two punch of faculty-peer influence contained therein. Society at large adheres to a host of rigidly progressive dogmas about sex, widely embraced and enforced, along with the usual mission creep of progressive thought control. The contrasts between these modern directives and how we live/what we believe in the Humbled Females community becomes all the more obvious when the two worlds collide, and nowhere does that collision become more potentially apparent than when we send our children off to a public school, rife with leftist ideologues fresh out of university.

Public schools are institutions that enforce common mores, thinking, and values. Children in the surrounding area are dutifully dropped into this massive social blender and orientation processing center, where they mingle with peers and establish themselves as units of a social collective. In this collective, standards and norms are constantly reinforced, with the mandated sentiments children should hold regarding sex and the politics of the sexes chief among them. That collective spell is no trivial matter. Increasingly, public education is operated from and policed by a strong progressive authoritarianism, and one quite at odds with what people in our community who have much more traditional notions about sex roles, female submission, and male dominance have in mind. Teaching our young girls about classic femininity and inspiring them to exude these qualities will not find harmony with the politics of the majority, nor its public educational institutions run mostly by feminist busybodies. Indeed, the majority of workers in the helping professions, of which occupations like teaching and social work are a part, are female¹⁶ and elementary teachers, in particular, are overwhelmingly left-leaning.¹⁷ With such an imbalance between the sexes in these occupations, there is bound to be higher influences of feminist pedagogy, and there is. But it doesn’t end with feminist brainwashing, solely. Consider, also, that transgenderism is being introduced to children in elementary schools, supporting the narrative of “gender fluidity” in the very young.^{18 19}

As parents, guardians, relatives, and influencers, I think we need to take a very close and sober look at the public education establishment, and ask ourselves the following questions: Should children be encouraged to view the world through the feminist lens at early developmental ages, embracing its paranoid, conspiratorial, and misandrist slant on men and the destructive religion of self-aggrandizement it encourages in women and girls? Do you think that training children to use transgendered pronouns and believe in gender fluidity is mentally healthy or even logically tenable? If you answer no to both of these questions, then you have to concede that removing children from the public school system is necessary. By doing so, we nip the problem of childhood conformity to these memetic pathogens at the bud.

Competently teaching children in a home environment sets a consistent tone in the early years of their lives, reinforcing, also, the authority of the parent over the authority of the public institution, something that is, in and of itself, a vital lesson to teach. There’s a lot to unpack on that subject alone, but it’s suffice to say, I think, that conformity and obedience to institutions and monolithic thinking is not something we should prime our children so readily for. If they are indeed our children, let them be our children, not children of public education, children of their peers, children of the Internet, and all the other precarious virtual asylums of the world. There will come a time in the lives of our young ones when they will be free of our direct influence and authority, but for their formative years—years that are so very vital and precious—our desire as parents should be to teach them what we know to be true against the maelstrom of discordant and fiercely corruptive voices in society. We can teach them not only what to think, according to what we know accords with reality, but also how to think. We lead by example and create an environment where the lessons of life touch them organically. A gyro-scoping globe in a home can inform them about all the names of the land masses and countries in our world. Ink and paper can teach the increasingly lost art of how to write letters and figure numbers manually. But alongside this seamlessly turns the cycles of life in the security and comfort of home—where something indescribable is taught by listening to the rain meditatively in an open door, taking walks in the woods and marveling at the life found there, observing the shift of seasons, or learning the art of baking in between reading. In the home, we may parent the whole child, never subjecting her to the trends of organized thought control and the capricious abuse of childhood bullies and cliques. Put plainly, personalized learning is a tremendously powerful method of education and instruction.

While we may teach English, history, math and science competently enough with enough effort, what can be learned is by no means limited to these subjects alone. In the home, a child has the options to explore what interests them the most and learn about subjects not formally offered in public schools. A child may develop a special fondness for chemistry or some permutation of art or engineering that no public school will ever have the capacity to entertain. It is here where the Internet may be used effectively in a controlled fashion, allowing technology to enrich lessons and provide information that will be needed for higher learning. Lastly, the child is molded in the way we’d prefer, inheriting our beliefs and world views. This allows parent and child a continued bond, and lessens the chaotic disruptions of this bond in their teenage years.

 

Dethroning Daddy’s Little Princess

At Humbled Females, we sometimes talk at length about the entitlements and double standards women in modern society seem to adopt thoughtlessly and that people around them seem to accept with equal thoughtlessness. This conversation isn’t relegated to our community walls, however. At gatherings, parties, and cookouts, men will often gather and discuss the imperial petulance of their wives in a humorous way. Most of us have heard such conversations in progress at least once during a social event. Such men might even admit to being treated like little boys by their mates, of getting “in trouble” or being in the “doghouse” when they run afoul of their wives’ demands. This type of self-deprecating humor is commonly accepted, perhaps, out of the popular if not mistaken belief that this is how it really is for all men. When women overhear this sort of thing, there is often a sense of smug amusement. Social norms can often be startling to realize, especially in contrast to the ways of life we, in this community, tend to lead or at least idealize. But a quiet common horror is often sensed by the men who make jokes of themselves in this way. In private conversation, they are often upset with the double standards, the complaining, and the manipulation of their wives or significant others, and yet fail to see how the constant spoiling and obsequious treatment of their own daughters supports an ongoing legacy of these very problems.

The peculiar phenomenon I’ve observed for some time now is that it is fathers who are often to blame for the petulant behaviors of young girls. The same men who complain about their controlling wives can be seen coddling their daughters and running to attend every one of their needs, no matter how trivial or how snappish the demand. This inevitably becomes a developmental pathway through which the young female relates to males: she sees her doting father as a template for mate material in her later years. Is it any wonder, then, that with so many servile daddies in the world today we have seen a rise in egotistical, controlling, petulant, and manipulative females in the mating arena? Neither their education at university nor their professional accomplishments later in life seem to preclude their arrogantly neotenous dispositions, and the surrounding culture does absolutely nothing to correct them on this path of ugly selfishness. If anything, it encourages it, telling them they don’t even need men. The men who have the misfortune of entering these women’s lives in their twenties and thirties become embroiled in the solipsistic sexual politics of the female sex: they have no choice but to extend the coddling, lest they lose their “princesses” to more servile males. If we want to know the source of female entitlement, we’re certainly well served in looking at the social rot of cultural politics today, but we also don’t often need to look any further than the proud patriarch of the family, who is wrapped around his princess’s little finger.

As a father, it’s important to understand that your little girl is indeed seeing you as an example of an ideal man. You are her first sampling of adult maleness, and it’s crucial young females perceive their fathers and interact with them in ways that are respectful, loving, humble, and psychologically healthy. Seeing to this does not mean a father needs to be cruel or detached. Quite the opposite: little girls need the refuge of the masculine, and fathers are given to providing that refuge, especially for their female children. There is a special bond shared between father and daughter, but that bond can be used in a good or a harmful way. As fathers, the aim is to love but not coddle, to inspire but not spoil, to support but not shelter. Daughters need to know the bright lines of discipline as well as love. They need to know how to respect people, and especially the good in the authority of a man. In so learning, they will naturally respect the authority of the men they one day mate with. Any deviation from this is a step away from the femininity we idealize and a denial of the simple fact that women naturally prefer men they can respect and look up to—that this is part of what it means to be female and feminine. If you damage your daughter’s ability to respect men, you are, in a very tangible way, abusing her by robbing her of better futures and fulfillment in herself as a woman later on in life. So do put away the tiara, please. Let her bump up against the limits you set. Discipline her when she transgresses. Make her a little afraid of displeasing you. Teach her how to respect nature, respect her place in it, and above all, respect others. Teach her how to empathize in this day and age where youth seems to be loosing this ability. Be firm, and show her how to be a better young lady from your valuable perspective as her father. These lessons, deeply embedded, will last for a very long time—long enough to guide her into a much more productive and fulfilling adulthood.

 

On the Prurient Sugar Coating of Modern Teenhood

The very first suggestion made in this article was to unplug your little girl from the influences of the Internet. I do hope you take that suggestion seriously. Maybe you have every intention of doing so, or are at least exploring the idea. Certainly, if such exposure has already begun, rolling it back will require gradual steps and a good plan. But what if you are a little late to the task, and at this stage in your girl’s life she is fast approaching her teen years, or is already in them while having enjoyed a close relationship with mainstream media and the Internet? What if, like many parents this day and age, you just allowed unmitigated Internet consumption pour into your girl’s brain day after day, year after year, with hardly any interruption? You may be, at this point in the game, completely unaware of the influences your girl regularly interfaces with, and all the myriad steps she took to get to that place over the years of her wandering youth. You might not understand how graphically she was exposed to pornography, for instance, and how inevitable her desensitization to prurient material online became. Probing deep into the hedonistic culture of vain and hyper-sexualized woman worship seen in social media, music, books, ads, and movies, your daughter, once innocent, became another statistic of a pernicious mill, where girls learn, all too early, their sensual market value and perceived power. Granted, this process also happens in school, where girls begin to learn the sway they have over boys with their looks, but the neon party of the Internet is something new. It has a way of turning girls exceptionally jaded and mercenary, encouraging them to use their looks and sexuality to appeal to male interest and obtain a great sense of worth and power from this. This is easy to do, if you’re pretty. We see this in comparing the popularity of online divas to brilliant thought leaders and other talented personalities who only manage to earn a fraction of the women’s follower counts.

This isn’t a secret: countless girls are cashing in on their sex appeal online, as it is a very tempting form of currency. It gets them attention, earns them money or clout, and feeds their egos. Their posturing and posing in increasingly suggestive pictures shared on Instagram, for instance, may seem relatively juvenile and ultimately harmless for girls in this day and age, but it’s a mistake to take it so lightly: such places easily serve as gateways to other forms of exhibitionist behavior online. The Internet, as it were, is replete with numerous reservoirs by which a modern form of virtual prostitution thrives, much to the chagrin of traditional pornographers, escort agencies, and strip clubs. Places like “Chaturbate” allow freshly legal teens to casually lay about nude before a live audience and profit from doing so. All that’s needed is a web cam, Internet service, and a room in which to pose. A personal gallery and blog site, “Onlyfans” offers a slick venue by which girls can learn to publish themselves and acquire a sycophantic army of admirers. “iWantClips” and other sites like it allow movies and other media to be uploaded and sold, and even paid calls to be made from interested fans who wish to speak to the objects of their desires. None of these sites are hard to come by. It’s extremely easy to build profiles on these networks and begin partaking in the online sex trade.

But it doesn’t stop at the virtual. A new wave of sex worker has been generated from the glitzy, hyper-sexualized world of the Internet: the modern “sugar baby.” Ashley, 23, an interviewee in Nancy Jo Sales‘s article in Vanity Fair about the “new prostitution economy” goes on to moralize quite casually about the ubiquity of “sugaring” among young females: “Almost all of my friends do some sort of sex work,” she says. “It’s super-common. It’s almost trendy to say you do it—or that you would.” Jenna, 22, adds, “It’s not like you need a pimp anymore. You just need a computer.”

It is trendy and easy. The site “SeekingArrangement” (now shortened to “Seeking,” ever since the chilling effects of Backpage being removed) boasts 10 million members and spans more than 139 countries. There are dozens of slick sites like these that make whoring culturally acceptable and temptingly lucrative, and with the rise of outrageous student debt, more girls are pushed into this lifestyle out of necessity than trend alone.

I could go on for pages describing this affliction, but I’m certain I needn’t go into how toxic and corrupting these influences are in modern culture for young girls. And make no mistake about it, this is a pressing and far-reaching cultural phenomenon, the likes of which we’ve never quite seen before in this grand social experiment of ours. The numerous and accessible forms of prostitution may seem like blessings within the vacuous rhetoric of “sex-positive feminism,” but the reality is they are rendering our girls sexually jaded, narcissistic, and coldly mercenary, if not impossible to properly pair bond with. They learn at very early ages, long before they are allowed to engage in such commerce legally, that spinning false intimacies using their sex appeal is profitable and empowering. Where prostitution was once relegated (perhaps appropriately) to the shadows, now it has gone mainstream, turning our girls into vainglorious sex workers who sneer contemptibly at men and attempt to bilk them for all they’ve got. I contend that any parent who cares about his or her daughter should keep an extremely close eye on this trend in society and the ways it infects young adult minds. It’s in the quiet pools left between the spaces of life, wrought by parental absence and disconnect, where these diseases tend to take root and flourish the most. Girls left unwatched and uncared for will seek out attention online, and it is here the disease begins its course. Nip this problem at the bud by removing your girl’s need to find attention and support from other sources. Keep her close to you. Listen to her. Help her navigate the world compassionately and with good counsel, and keep a sharp eye on any Internet usage you allow her.

 

Better Examples, Better Girls

In this lopsided modern age where the worship of girl power has become so culturally pervasive, little girls (and boys, for that matter) have, increasingly, nothing to model that is counter to its malignant influence. The older generations that contain so much wisdom, experience, and grit from lives lived in another time are quickly going away, leaving in their absence a growing dearth of role models and sources of elder advice. Today, there is nothing to suggest that something more to male-female interactions exists beyond the mandate that a bland and polite sameness exists. After all, gender is nothing more than a social construct, they say. This is stifling to true human nature. As we have been well aware of in this community for some time, and researchers are just now beginning to discover to be the case in places like Scandinavia, allowing men and women to behave naturally results in natural differences in behavior. Where the greatest social equality between male and female has been achieved, we see this clearly demonstrated in that, contrary to popular expectations, men and women do not seek out the same goals, but instead show greater behavioral variance, as is typical according to their sex.²⁰ When complete equality between male and female is achieved, the result is something completely contradictory to what gender reconstructionists assume would happen: males and females gravitate toward gender-typical behavior more. In places where you allow the sexes choice, they naturally assume their male and female roles and interests.

All of this makes something quite clear: many of the differences in male and female gender behaviors are not constructed, but are, instead, genotypical to a large degree. When we allow males to be males and females to be females, sans sociopolitical pressure and media brainwashing, they choose sex-typical behaviors quite naturally. With this in mind, it seems clear to me that we should make certain the choice to be naturally feminine is at least made available to girls. They are, after all, inclined to follow that path of interest to begin with. By further encouraging it, we may steer them toward their natural interests and behaviors. We begin by modeling an ideal male-female dyad in the home through the living example of her parents. Let her see her mother openly submitting to her father, and let them not be subtle about it. This is not to say you must expose the child to explicit sexual scenery, of course, but that she see and understand the core differences between male and female in the home by way of the female parent deferring to the male parent. Respectfully. Lovingly. Let her see the close bond her parents share by enacting male dominance and female submission. Let her see the harmony and order it brings into the home, of how it resolves conflict and eliminates open argument. Let her see her mother being held accountable to her father when she fails or disobeys. Let her see and understand the good flow of things resulting from this order, where she, like her mother, submits to her father’s leadership and loving guidance. This leads to harmony in the home. Masculinity is not injured when dominant, and femininity is not injured when submissive. We cannot say the same when we reverse the roles.

The world we weave must be beautiful and pleasant. It must demonstrate peace and order, contrasting starkly against the turmoil of the outside world and the social malaise to which many families fall prey. The mother is vital in demonstrating this formative lesson, not only in serving as a healthy example of female submission to a man, but in gently and consistently guiding the daughter toward the arts and energies of the feminine. Teaching her how to dress feminine, how to comport herself with humility and respect toward others, and how to behave properly in the presence of her father is crucial in laying this foundation. Teach her by showing her, daily, the secrets of cooking and baking, of attending to bedding, laundry, sweeping, dusting, and other domestic responsibilities. Chores are, in fact, a very effective way of teaching responsibility. Make these moments special between mother and daughter. Let them be happy, rewarding times, not drab tasks that are tended to on resentful autopilot. Let her see and embrace the ordinary beauty in being wholesomely female, and part of a larger collective in her family.

 

The Importance of Place: Country Living is Best

There is nothing more important in life than where we find ourselves calling home, day after day. If this is true of adults, how much more so it is for the young? Where we live is a big part of how we ascend from childhood; it is integral to the spirit forged inside us as living beings. It seems to me that we are destined to arrive upon this fact while in deep reflection of what spirit we seek to infuse in our children as they grow up. With the current day sexual-political tensions as they tend to be, the parental dyad featuring a functioning (and thriving) heterosexual dominant male/submissive female relationship in Western society seems almost scandalous, even feral. The more tight-knit the community you live in tends to be, the more passively policed your activities become. Celebrated norms replicate themselves from one generation to the next, and the closer you live near large, conventional communities, the closer you are to their influences that dull and wear down the gentle call of nature. The garish neon distractions creep in.

Cities, as conveniently dense and connected as they may be, stand as the worst of these examples. They don’t easily offer an environment in which an appropriate level of isolation and focus can be fostered so as to enable young minds to learn and grow, free of malignant social pressures. The bustle and noise of urban life breeds, inevitably, urban culture. Urban life, celebrated as a large and dynamic repository of modern culture, provides far too many glossy inlets of subversive influence, often of the left-leaning variety, extolling influences we may put under the header of “non-tradditional values.” What we must contend with in such places is the ever-present social contagion of the in-vogue and its dubious messengers, potentially warping our childrens’ value systems through the seemingly benign vehicle of “culture,” as well as the stress and anxiety cities impose. Indeed, research has emerged linking urban living and urban upbringing with neural social stress in humans, showing mood and anxiety disorders are more prevalent in city dwellers.²¹

Suburbia is an improvement over the city, but its dense population and clustered sprawl of housing still structurally enforces the schedule of tight social norms through close proximity. These highly interconnected home communities provide a variety of family cultures and belief systems to which your children will be more intimately exposed. This diversity isn’t necessarily bad, but it may be very difficult to regulate the peers your children encounter, the family models they experience, and the resultant influences that fall upon them. These risks can be mitigated with careful observance of who your children associate with and what effects their new peers bring, but the effort will be intense and ongoing, and compromises in the strictness of your rules may need to be made. It will be difficult to insist on a life free of media and the Internet, for instance, if your child’s surrounding peers are fully integrated with such influences and apply social tension to join in. Those who don’t will likely be ostracized, obviously, and so a happy medium will likely need to be found, striking a balance between the two worlds.

The country offers the most ideal environment in which to raise your child. It provides a natural, peaceful setting, free of the stresses of modern urban life. This helps to make your child calmer, more focused, and lowers his or her risk of having anxiety disorders.²² Under the rocking canopy of trees or in the undulating meadow, amidst the melodies of bird songs and the weather, your child connects to nature, within and without. With your home nestled in a few acres of plush country real estate, there are less intrusions and far less nosy neighbors apt to intrude upon your life simply by glancing out a window. The peace, quiet, and privacy of the deeper country allows for a more lax way of living and a path to unconventional circumstances, far different from the social policing of tight-knit communities.

There are other, less obvious benefits of living in the country as well. Its rugged environment inevitably teaches self-reliance and a work ethic. Resourcefulness also comes to mind: nothing can be taken for granted when living in open, empty country, in which you must rely a little more upon determination and grit to get something done. You’re not conditioned to blithely over-consume and make an unnecessary waste of things.  You become intimately aware of your place in the world, the space you take up, and the clean air you’re breathing. You become “green” long before you’re aware of what the word even means, and quite naturally so. With the turning of the seasons, you are more connected to the earth. Who would not want these lessons passed down to their children?

 

On Maintaining a United Front

The most pernicious flaw in raising a child, aside from outright absence and neglect, surely has to be any undermining subterfuge between parents. When one parent secretly subverts the other’s image, authority, goals, or interests with the child, this leads to extremely damaging interpersonal issues between parents and children, and in even more extreme cases, alienation. In the relationships we idealize on Humbled Females, the chances of this being willfully done over a period of time are extremely low, but that’s not to say subtle cues and gestures can’t be sent unknowingly to children. Even in established dyads presumed to be happy, where both parents are, in their minds, united in fostering positive relationships between themselves and their children, they may still yet engage in behaviors that lead their children to feel they must pick sides and form alliances with one parent over the other. When this happens, the health of the relationship between the child and her parents degrades, and the influence of the parental pair is weakened. Doubt creeps into the child’s mind about her mother and father, and this is extremely erosive to the idea they are or should be legitimate authorities in her eyes. If mom and dad can’t reach consistent consensus, how can I fully trust what they say? That’s certainly not where we want to be as parents.

So what might be an example of transgressing against the rule of keeping a united front? It might come in the form or one parent overriding another. For instance, Julie really wants to have a candy bar from the pantry before dinner, but her father, upon stepping out the door, tells her she can have it afterward for desert. Julie shrugs and agrees. Several minutes later, she finds her mother and asks the same question, hoping to get a different response. The mother, unaware her daughter already asked the same question of her father, gives in and lets her eat a candy bar from the pantry. In this scenario, there was no ill intent from any of the parents toward each other, simply a lack of information that Julie knowingly exploited to her advantage. The lesson learned for Julie is that she can override one parent through the other.

We could imagine something much more intentional, too, like a mother openly questioning the child’s father in front of her, or insinuating there’s something wrong with the way he thinks. This creates an intentional imbalance in the relationship, where the daughter, in this example, is bonding with the mother through the act of resisting the father. As soon as either parent begins this sort of behavior, it’s never good for the child caught in the middle.

What do both examples of parental disharmony teach, overall? The answer seems to be nothing more than lying, manipulation, and mistrust—not good formative lessons to teach a child, wittingly or unwittingly. So what are some ways you can ensure you both of you will remain united under one common mission statement? I’ve listed a few below.

Be on the same page. It can’t be stressed enough that the man and woman must align fully in their respective beliefs, philosophies, and visions, or as fully as humanly possible. As we know within the Humbled Females community, this is much more likely if the couple has bonded through the dominant male/submissive female paradigm and the psychological processes that bring such minds together. But even here there can be exceptions some females attempt to place on that meeting of the minds—little islands of individualism they claim for themselves that prevent complete unity with the male and his goals and visions, among those his ideas about rearing of children. Any unlit corner of her mind—a place where she carves out for herself little spaces in which she disagrees with her man—will likely rear its head over the sensitive nature of child rearing. She may have some residual conventional (even feminist) beliefs and will react strongly to how her daughter is treated and raised by the man in the household, and this will, in time, create resistance in the mother. And no matter how gentle such resistance or defiance may be, it is erosive to the rule of a united front, and needs to be addressed prior to the couple conceiving of a child in the first place. So make double certain you both are on the same page, so to speak, about your visions and expectations where it concerns your relationship logic, and by extension, the logic of raising a child.

Communicate often and effectively. A breakdown in communication correlates intimately with the first point above. In order to align and ally properly, you must be in frequent, effective contact with your mate/wife/husband/master/slave. Two cannot possibly come together through silence or sharing imagined skills in telepathy: There must be a true convergence of mind between the male and female, not only for the sake of the dyad, but for what the male-female dyad is ultimately intended to produce: young. The best parents are those who keep in intimate alignment, and that is only possible through good communication. But communication isn’t just about sharing words; it’s about sharing ideas, experiences, emotions, and coming closer, as a whole, in this process. What is a good wife and husband? What is a good parent? What is “good”? All of communication hinges upon us sharing the medium of words and ideas effectively. And it’s equally about listening. Not just speaking or waiting impatiently for your turn to speak. How we attach meaning to words, and how we resolve these differences between minds, is the key to human understanding and psychological harmony, of knowing the paths to be taken in life together, of having both sets of eyes, together, fixed on the same horizon of the future. Without this alliance closely maintained through good discourse and aligned understanding, it will unravel.

Incorporate male dominance without subverting the mother. The male, according to our beliefs and much of what we can borrow historically from human tradition, is the head of the household—the highest member in the familial dominance hierarchy. It is his purpose to oversee the safety and security of his family and to guide them and protect them with competent leadership. At Humbled Females, we take his role, and the role of his female, to their purest and (arguably) most natural conclusions. But the fact we believe in an overt asymmetry of power between male and female is not to say the maternal role is to be impugned or dismissed. Our beliefs are, in fact, quite the contrary: We support the role of the mother far more critically than modernity’s infatuation with male-female equality can possibly grant. We believe her focus and attention should be largely upon her children, as nature has intended. Let the mother become and be seen as an extension of the father, worthy of her own authority in the household, enacting his will for the betterment and learning of all children within it.

Combat the modern entitlements of youth that fray against parental control. Today, it seems to me that we have a tendency to worship youth a little too much in polite culture. The net effect of this trend is that, often, we place the needs and goals of our children above that of the parents. Most would shrug in agreement with that idea; it’s a widely embraced foregone conclusion, and one most are quite fine with. But the current trend gets something confused. While children are obviously important, the values of parenting have discernibly shifted from the past. Kids have become symbolic of something abstractly sacred as culture has leaned toward eulogizing maternal values. An increasingly litigious, feminist society is largely to blame for this, especially as divorces continue to skyrocket and parents fight bitterly over child custody rights with scores of lawyers and counselors. The so-called experts in the field of psychology over the past several decades are also to blame for this phenomenon: They have put far too much emphasis on feelings and safe spaces, as well as hobbling support for traditional notions of discipline. The result is the “helicopter parent”: A hyper-sheltering breed of begetter who micro-manages his or her children. Collectively, our concern for children has become subserviently solicitous and oddly indulgent. In the midst of this, children have accrued a fair amount of license to make unreasonable demands and hold brazen expectations. But parents don’t need to teach this to their kids in order for these behaviors to take hold: it’s in our culture. It’s learned directly through others, too. All your daughter needs to learn these corrupt attitudes is a close friend who is spoiled, entitled, and manipulative, infecting her with the same thinking over the course of time through observational learning. With enough toxic influence, she may attempt to manipulate her parents by playing favorites, or getting in between them to sow discord. She may, in her own subtle way, attempt taking the helm of how she is parented. As a parent today, you must work carefully in overriding that particular rot of her childhood character. Be mindful of the influences to which she is exposed, especially through social contagion. If you allow these portals of the world to get a foothold, they can (and most likely will) drive a wedge between you as parents, or between you and your child.

 

In Closing

It’s easy to go with the current program around us and assume that with a little encouragement and a lot of luck, our girls will turn out fine. The reality is that our society is creating angry, anxious, entitled, narcissistic, and less empathetic girls who are encouraged to endlessly navel gaze. The zeitgeist of the modern West, clearly, is one of shrill feminist advocacy writ large. And yet despite all the achievements for women since the sixties, our rising mass cult of female empowerment has seen depression and anxiety among women skyrocket right along with it, a product of the paradox of declining female happiness.²³ Wide gains in women’s rights haven’t really made women happier and freer, it turns out, and while some of that reality can be attributed to institutional recalcitrance, it does not explain how some surveyed women living in places with more traditional values (and less equal pay) were happier than employed women in more liberal communities.²⁴ The triad of feminism, the malignant deconstruction of sex, and a culture of hedonistic license has another phenomenon to account for, as well: the many young men in society who are receding from dating and interacting with the female sex altogether. The terms “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW) or “Men’s Rights Activist” were unheard of in the revolutionary times of the 1960s. Today, there is a considerable number of the male population that is clearly put off by the religion of feminism and its obvious war against maleness. Obviously something is amiss in our world today and it’s not relegated, simply, to a few delusional outliers. The contagion has been detected in the organism of society and anti-bodies are finally being produced to combat it.

Our goal should be to gently and thoughtfully infuse a sort of social anti-body against feminism into society, one that is softer and more passive, but effective in time: the reawakening of true femininity in young girls. Under that heading are a series of female qualities we extol as virtuous: grace, true humility, empathetic intelligence, sincere respect, domesticity, submissivity, and the many crafts and disciplines of beauty. Raising our daughters with these qualities in mind will not only make them healthier and happier. The virtue they hold will spread as they touch others and ascend into the great tapestry to help create new families, keeping the flickering light of an older, wiser way of life alive until it regains some part of its former luminescence in a saner future age.

 

1.Linda K. Kerber, “The Republican Mother: Women and the Enlightenment – An American Perspective,” in Toward an Intellectual History of Women: Essays by Linda K. Kerber (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997), p. 43.

2. https://www.britannica.com/event/Stonewall-riots

3. https://onenewsnow.com/business/2019/08/02/gillette-cut-by-8b-loss-after-toxic-masculinity-ad

4. https://quillette.com/2019/09/17/i-basically-just-made-it-up-confessions-of-a-social-constructionist/

5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-1420-y

6. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/transgender-issues/new-estimates-show-that-150000-youth-ages-13-to-17-identify-as-transgender-in-the-us/

7. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2673384 | https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-20/childhood-demand-for-biological-sex-change-surges-to-record/10240480 | https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/trans-teens-ottawa-cheo-demand-1.5026034

8. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.2010.481686

9. https://1980swebography.weebly.com/sex-positive-feminism-a-very-short-introduction-and-resources.html

10. https://time.com/247/millennials-the-me-me-me-generation/

11. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/1976/interview.htm

12. https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/gender-identity-report.pdf

13. Augner C, Hacker GW Associations between problematic mobile phone use and psychological parameters in young adults. Int J Public Health. 2012;57(2):437–441pmid:21290162

14. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/

15. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317639.php

16. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

17. http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/index.html

18. https://www.kappanonline.org/mangin-transgender-gender-identity-school-policies-gender-expansive/

19. https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/05/parent-objections-public-school-teaches-6-year-olds-transgender-ravens-gender-fluidity/

20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323197652_The_Gender-Equality_Paradox_in_Science_Technology_Engineering_and_Mathematics_Education

See also: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/scandinavian-gender-equality-myth-us-more-female-managers/

 

21. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10190

22. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19624573

23. http://ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdf

24. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00148-009-0257-4 | See: http://ftp.iza.org/dp1202.pdf

Presenting doll: A fixed position and rigid psychological space where the female serves as a passive sex toy. Marc Esadrian demonstrates the practice and discipline of this modality with Penny, his sublime Asian female. Study the subtleties of this particular mode, where she is reduced to the state of a passive and surrendered object, intimating no will or autonomous agency of her own. In doll, her legs are spread in a wide “v,” painted toes pointed and suspended in the air for maximal aesthetic. Her mouth, popping with red lip gloss, remains open, inviting sexual use at the male’s time and bidding. This form of submission is perfect for times when the male doesn’t want to fuss with giving pleasure—only receiving it, and on his terms. Beneath him, she remains motionless and depersonalized, a living sex toy in the highest state of objectification.

Presenting doll: A fixed position and rigid psychological space where the female serves as a passive sex toy. Marc Esadrian demonstrates the practice and discipline of this modality with Penny, his sublime Asian female. Study the subtleties of this particular mode, where she is reduced to the state of a passive and surrendered object, intimating no will or autonomous agency of her own. In doll, her legs are spread in a wide “v,” painted toes pointed and suspended in the air for maximal aesthetic. Her mouth, popping with red lip gloss, remains open, inviting sexual use at the male’s time and bidding. This form of submission is perfect for times when the male doesn’t want to fuss with giving pleasure—only receiving it, and on his terms. Beneath him, she remains motionless and depersonalized, a living sex toy in the highest state of objectification.

Witness a custom-built cage, made specifically for humans (and preferably of the female variety). Marc Esadrian walks Penny by collar and leash to the cage embedded inside his closet rooms, where she is kept over periods of time to rest, reflect, or await use. Note the simple steel mesh walls of the cage and its rigid construction, as well as its empty furnishings, so as to strip the slave of her human comforts. There are no pillows or blankets here. Clothing is, of course, not allowed. There is absolutely no privacy. She is exposed and vulnerable, with every inch of her flesh on display. Even relieving herself is afforded no refuge, the act becoming a humiliating and degrading experience. We hope this video helps inspire dominant males to conceive of their own cages, as it’s an extremely effective psychological tool in creating a contrast between the master’s agency and the slave’s objectified status.

Witness a custom-built cage, made specifically for humans (and preferably of the female variety). Marc Esadrian walks Penny by collar and leash to the cage embedded inside his closet rooms, where she is kept over periods of time to rest, reflect, or await use. Note the simple steel mesh walls of the cage and its rigid construction, as well as its empty furnishings, so as to strip the slave of her human comforts. There are no pillows or blankets here. Clothing is, of course, not allowed. There is absolutely no privacy. She is exposed and vulnerable, with every inch of her flesh on display. Even relieving herself is afforded no refuge, the act becoming a humiliating and degrading experience. We hope this video helps inspire dominant males to conceive of their own cages, as it’s an extremely effective psychological tool in creating a contrast between the master’s agency and the slave’s objectified status.

Penny is introduced to submissive acts, including kissing feet and paying oral homage to her master’s balls. This video is shot in typical Humbled Females style, with the male clothed and the female completely naked and unadorned, keeping her in an animal state. The acts of worship themselves deny any focus upon her own pleasure. Stripped and collared, she is made to show signs of love and worship, sans focus upon her own ego. This video also demonstrates that direct fellatio isn’t always the necessary consummating act: a man can enjoy other areas of stimulation while partaking in dominance over his female. At the end of her training session, Penny must swallow her master’s ejaculate, and is shown back to her dog bed shortly thereafter.

Penny is introduced to submissive acts, including kissing feet and paying oral homage to her master’s balls. This video is shot in typical Humbled Females style, with the male clothed and the female completely naked and unadorned, keeping her in an animal state. The acts of worship themselves deny any focus upon her own pleasure. Stripped and collared, she is made to show signs of love and worship, sans focus upon her own ego. This video also demonstrates that direct fellatio isn’t always the necessary consummating act: a man can enjoy other areas of stimulation while partaking in dominance over his female. At the end of her training session, Penny must swallow her master’s ejaculate, and is shown back to her dog bed shortly thereafter.

“Serving is a form of pleasing—no matter how mundane the task. The humbled female embraces this philosophy and lives it. She kneels in her place as a natural servant to the man in her life, never insinuating herself into the limelight or demanding attention. She is content to serve quietly, patiently, and lovingly. She is ever on the periphery, just beyond the rim of light, waiting silently and invisibly until summoned to please in any way she can, reaping no insult from being rendered voiceless, naked, and ignored until desired.” —Marc Esadrian

See More