What makes a woman sexy? Is it incompatible with faith and humility?

Readership: Men; Christian Men;
Theme: Feminine Submission
Length: 1,600 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes + 3.5 minute video

Submission Shaming

Last week, we discussed a few discordant concepts of humility, submissiveness, and attractiveness. IMHO, we (including myself) have a poor appreciation for the distinctions between these characteristics, how it plays out in woman’s behaviors, and what it looks like IRL.

We also found that humility and submissiveness are an exceedingly rare combination of traits in a woman, and that it is practically extinct among Western Christians.

It is also ridiculed by the ungodly. Rock Kitaro went over this phenomenon in this short video.

Women Shaming “Submissive” Women — An Unpopular Opinion (2022-7-10) Length: 3:32

As Rock points out in the video, if feminine humility and submission is denigrated as “sub-par” and mocked as “Perfect Pollyanna” by hateful hoes, this is a major clue that these traits are key elements to Godly femininity.

In addition to Submission Shaming, Virgin Shaming is a similar type of Shame tactic that is extremely widespread and apparently rather successful too. There are several compounding reasons for the breaking flood of hoes in the SMP. Here are a few that I’ve found.

  • Bimbofication is the overriding norm.
  • Young women are drawn to Bimbofication so as to attract more sexual attention.
  • Men are drawn to Bimbofication for obvious reasons.
  • Young women are pressured to compete against bimbos / hoes in the SMV.
  • Young women are averse to being shamed by bimbos for their innocence / purity and often succumb to the peer pressure.
  • Young men are so used to seeing Bimbofication as the norm, that they prefer looking for partners that are more or less the same, thereby creating a shift in the market demand for hoes and thereby ignoring / leaving out / neglecting those few pure women who are struggling to survive.

I wrote about these things before.

Unfortunately, these things are true even among Christian men and women.

Of note, the Dancing Skeleton post uncovers very practical reasons why and how female promiscuity erodes the sanctity of marriage. When I wrote this post, I was angry because these were things that I had never heard about in all my years of church attendance and book reading. I had to write that post to make it known to the world because a lot of people don’t realize how damaging female promiscuity is to marital sanctity and contentment. But once you understand this connection, then your eyes are opened to discern how sexually promiscuous women are spiritually dead on the inside (hence the skeleton analogy). This spiritual deadness lingers for decades, even years after they’ve married and settled down. It shows up in the wife’s constant dissatisfaction, irritation and frustration, which is usually directed on the husband, and it is the prime factor in adultery and divorce. To help increase men’s awareness of this condition, I offered pictorial examples of this change in appearance in the third post in the list above.

Check yourself. Do you see sexy, or do you see bimbo?

Anyway, now getting back to the topic…

Defining Sexy

We have a particular word that we use to describe those women who are humble, submissive, and sultry* — sexy. The dictionary defines sexy as “sexually interesting or exciting; radiating sexuality”, but I am not content with this simple textbook definition. It fails to account for the personal and spiritual elements that comprise the fundamental core essence of sexiness.

For example, women like the 304s in Rock’s video are indeed alluring and sultry,* but they are sorely lacking in humility and grace. So I would hesitate to describe them as sexy.

* Sultry: Capable of arousing passion.

Even secular culture supports the idea that sexy is defined by a particular combination of traits. For example, Glamour had an article entitled, A New Study Redefines What’s Sexy — and Courage Really Matters (2015-1-27). The author reports a study from Jeetendr Sehdev, a branding expert and professor at USC, who questioned 10,000 men and women around the world about what makes someone sexy. The results varied by region, but overall, vulnerability was found to be the number one characteristic of sexiness. This supports my earlier assumed statement that feminine submissiveness is an inherent quality of sexiness. Also appearing on the list were courage (#2), honesty (#5), spontaneity (#7), spirituality (#8), and passion (#9). IMO, these traits could be roughly summed up as a combination of trust and humility, which are the key ingredients of falling in love. In sum, it makes sense that feminine sexiness would inspire masculine desire, love, and passion.

Sexiness is extremely rare and difficult to pull off if it is not inherent to a woman’s natural personality. Very few women are truly sexy and those who are sexy are man magnets whether they want to be or not.

Check yourself. Do you see sexy, or do you see a (potential) sister in Christ?

Sexiness is in the Eye of the Beholder

Looking closer, each woman whom we would consider sexy has a unique combination of certain traits among those mentioned in the last section, presumably a set of traits that fits her individual personality. The exact combination of traits may vary from one individual woman to another, but nevertheless, those women who possess a particular combination that “works” will find it astonishingly easy to be sensationally popular among men, and therefore have the most potential to become sex symbols, even among conservative audiences. Thus, it is not surprising to see many such women (like Abigail Shapiro, Delphine, Nita Marie, et al.) become actresses, celebrities, OnlyFans stars, well-known personalities, YouTube creators, and so on.

Upon consideration, men may find that only certain combinations of specific traits in a woman can strike the chords of inspiration enough for the woman in question to make the cut to be considered sexy, and these specific traits are different from man to man. As with beauty, attraction and sexiness is in the eye of the beholder.

Christian men have it much more difficult in sorting out sexy in this regard, simply because some traits are conducive to marriage and family formation, while others don’t. I mean, what are the chances of finding a sexy woman who is also a humble faithful Christian? An appreciation of the rarity of such a woman helps us understand the popularity of women like Nita Marie. In her case, even if she is a fake or deceived Christian, nevertheless, she can still play on Christian men’s deep rooted fantasies of having a humble and sexy Christian gal!

Leaving aside the evo-psyche-based hallmarks of physical beauty for a moment, the important thing for a marriage minded man to do is to consider his tastes, and make some effort to be aware of which traits he finds attractive, and then review each of these traits in terms of why he finds those traits to be attractive. IOW, do a little bit of soul searching. Then he needs to pick out those traits that are most conducive to his own personality and purpose, and what would actually bring sanctification into a potential relationship. He also needs to reassess himself in terms of why he is attracted to those traits that are NOT conducive. Finally, he needs to correct his vision in how he perceives and sizes up women, so that what he “sees” lines up with what he actually believes, wants, and needs. A man might be surprised at how his tastes may change as a result of these conclusions, and how some women he overlooked before might pop up on his radar. The result would allow him to be a better picker / vetter.

What I’ve described here is essentially a repentance from The Quiet Desperation of the Autopilot; one that frees himself from the curse of lusting after Bimbofication.

A man who can effectively weed out the desires of his flesh from his convictions and the call of the Spirit will no longer be frustrated with the unsolvable dilemma of finding a salacious, sensual, sexy, sultry woman who is also a humble, faithful, submissive, Christian, virgin unicorn. He will be able to recognize this expectation as vain and oxymoronic, and will not waste time on women who will only waste his time. He will be able to recognize that a woman with traits A, B, and C, won’t necessarily give him a Christian marriage characterized by Headship (however good those traits might be), whereas a woman with traits X, Y, and Z very well could. Again, the particular combination of traits may be different from man to woman. It is the gestalt of the union that really counts towards Headship.

Check yourself. Do you see sexy, or do you see freedom in Christ?


Men are often ridiculed for having a double standard for women. That is, men want a woman who is seductive, sensual, sultry, and is also somehow chaste, faithful, humble, pure, and submissive. And then Christian men tack on the additional qualifier that she must also be a Christian woman who is Tingle crazy for him (i.e. Scott’s Axiom).

But Christian men do not need to be so double minded. Based on the above, Christian men are faced with the choice of what set of character traits they consider to be attractive in a woman.

  1. Will it be the meretricious, tantalizing, and voluptuous, but arrogant, foul mouthed, haughty naughty bimbo hoe who is wearing skin tight camel toe pants and who can and will suck and fvck on a dime like a pro (either real or virtual)?
  2. Will it be Glamour / Sehdev’s romantic notions of vulnerability, courage, honesty, passion… etc.?
  3. Will it be the collection of traits described in 1 Peter 3:1-6: chaste, faithful, respectful, submissive, trusting, and having a kind, gentle, quiet spirit?

As long as we continue to indulge ourselves in the first view, we are inadvertently contributing to the larger Satanic operations of Submission / Virgin Shaming (described in the first section above).

The second view is no different from the wider secular culture.

The third view is a radical socio-psychological transformation requiring the renewal of the mind and thereby carries the hope of receiving God’s grace, not only for one’s self, but for one’s progeny and community as well.

Ultimately, we will have to decide, and the sooner the better — exactly what is our concept of sexy?


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Agency, Attraction, Autopilot, Calculated Risk Taking, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Conserving Power, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Desire, Desire, Passion, Determination, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Discipline, Divorce, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Fundamental Frame, Game Theory, Generational Curses, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Identity, Inner Game, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Male Power, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Mysticism, Online Personas, Overcoming Addictions, Personal Domain, Personality Types, Power, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, Self-Control, Sex, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, Society, Sphere of Influence, Strategy, The Power of God, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Sexy

  1. RICanuck says:

    Jack, I disagree with your definition of sexiness. I have a weakness for dark haired women so other men may disagree with my examples below as per their own tastes.

    Sexy is what produces a visceral reaction, a stirring of the loins. There are two types of sexy with a certain degree of continuum between the two.

    Kim Kardashian (before the latest round of surgeries) is the type of sexy you may want to take back to your room, and hope your mother doesn’t find out.
    You may also hope she leaves by Monday morning.

    The younger Ocasio Cortez, dancing on the rooftop of Boston University had the type of sexy you want to keep for yourself, and make babies with. A young man would want his mother to like her. This type of sexy is better described as allure.

    My second example goes to show that a woman may destroy her allure.

    [Jack: Images added for easy reference.]


    • Jack says:


      “I disagree with your definition of sexiness.”

      Could you go into more detail about why? Specifically, do you agree or disagree that humility and/or submissiveness is sexy? Why or why not?


      • RICanuck says:

        Submissiveness and vulnerability are sexy, but the allure type of sexy.

        A woman can be sexy without the above, but that’s the first type of sexy, but not long term committed sexy.


      • Sharkly says:

        Sexy (ADJECTIVE): sexually attractive

        Could we not pervert the preexisting definitions of words, and just go by their published definitions instead? Please choose words that will convey what you want to say without having to redefine them to develop your own coded language that nobody else can fully remember and understand. If you don’t know of one single word that expresses the concept you want to express then put words together to construct the concept you are intending to convey.

        God initially divided and encoded our languages at the tower of Babel. Although our languages have obviously changed some, their origins were from God. I personally believe changing the set definitions of words is a form of evil, a perversion of what was either established by God or originated from our forbearers, a rebellion against using words as they are already defined in published dictionaries and common usage. Except perhaps in rare cases of those having a disorder that affects their vocabulary skills, in which case their Creator is well aware of their linguistic disability.

        On the recently demolished Georgia Guidestones, globalist goal number 3 was to: “Unite humanity with a living new language.”
        I don’t want a “living” language, not Satan’s nor yours. I want the certainty and security of a more God-like language that doesn’t change. The easiest way to make a liar out of God, or anyone, is just to change the definitions of words. Because God is already on record as having said many things which we already have in writing.

        Jack, your consistent use of your own altered definitions for commonly used religious terminology makes your lengthy posts confusing to read. In fact I often just skim the posts written by you because I get sick of trying to decode your personalized version of English.

        While I’m bitching: To me your site is kind of the opposite of how Dalrock’s site was. Dalrock’s posts were very concise and clearly written explaining complex concepts in ways that made them easy for everyone to understand. I felt like his posts were most always better than the comments that followed. Dalrock also coined some new manosphere terminology, but I don’t recall him just trying to redefine the meaning of words to suit his personal purposes. Here your posts often get far too wordy and your true meaning can get so easily obscured in the unknowable nuances of your own personal coded language. To the point where, when I start reading sentences where it is not immediately clear what you mean, from there on down, I just skim the rest of your post to see what topics are mentioned and then go to reading the comments. The comments are, to me, usually better than the original post, because for the most part, they are written in plain English, not Jackanese.


    • Kentucky Gent says:

      “This type of sexy is better described as allure.”

      This statement sounds more like a personal opinion than an objective observation. No disrespect intended.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:


      “Submissiveness and vulnerability are sexy, but the allure type of sexy.”

      I’m a little confused about your viewpoint because you also said that AOC is (or was) alluring. AOC strikes me as being a sassy playgirl and this trait has intensified as she has aged. She doesn’t appear to be either submissive or vulnerable.


  2. redpillboomer says:

    To me, as an older married man, looking to define women’s sexiness for younger men, I like to use this framework: Attractive….Good Personality….Character.

    Attractive is visually “sexy.” Does she get my attention with her looks and figure. This follows the “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” cliche. A cruder way to put it, does she get my attention with her looks and figure and begin to turn me on, or at least get me to want to keep looking at her? However, this form of sexy is only a beginning, and it can stop right there, go no further. To use another cliche, she’s passes the “qualifies as eye candy” test, but that’s it. This kind of “sexy” says absolutely nothing about what type of person she is, absolutely nothing. She still has two more gates to get through.

    Next is the “good personality” test. If she’s attractive, AND I can carry on a conversation with her, whether it be chatting or even flirting, AND it occurs as enjoyable conversation, then this is the next level of “sexy.” She’s attractive AND fun to talk with; and by fun, I mean I enjoy the conversation and look forward to more conversations with her. However, this is not enough! As the saying goes, “But wait, there’s more!”

    The third level of sexiness, and now you’re really getting into “full spectrum sexy,” is her character. It’s ALL the stuff Jack has been writing about in the last few posts. What is her character like? Humble? Submissive? Trustworthy? Faithful? On and on. Without these traits, she is just “sexy” to look at or to look at and talk to, but NOT sexy to have a relationship with.

    Now, when you add in character, we’re talking SEXY! She’s attractive to me, I like her, and there are few, if any red flags popping up. Probably should say there are no red flags, however she still needs to pass the TEST of TIME, to make sure the character is real and not that she is some sort of clever actress. There are some women out there who can act the part, but they can’t keep it up for long if it’s not genuine.

    I don’t know how long this takes to observe, I’ve heard Manospherian time frames laid out from three months to a year to observe her character and get an accurate reading, but again, IDK for certain. I think if a man has discernment, he can pick it up much earlier than three months; however, this probably depends a lot on his age, life experiences and ability to not get all caught up in her attractiveness and personality. I’ve met quite a few women in my lifetime that can check those first two boxes–attractiveness and personality; however, on deeper examination, not the character box.

    Without character you can get sexy, but not SEXY. Fun to look at and/or flirt/converse with, but not someone to get into a long term relationship with.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. My thoughts here:

    Some additional thoughts on modesty

    Sexy = attention, usually less cloths, highlights sexualized areas (e.g. breasts, butt), aimed at increasing arousal. For the bedroom in marriage.

    Classy = feminine, elegant, usually has youthful innocence as well. Usually dresses and skirts. Can be form fitting but generally modest. Accentuates feminine beauty but doesn’t induce arousal.

    Most important thing is the clear and obvious impression:

    “Most people can look at an outfit and tell whether a person is dressing for attention or to be sexy. Also, most people can see if someone is wearing something elegant, classy, and feminine.”


    • Jack says:

      Deep Strength describes two categories of attractiveness as sexy or classy, and says the basic difference between these two is that sexy is arousing but classy is not.

      In my view, this is a very simplistic assessment. What Deep Strength describes as sexy, I would think of as a hoe or a bimbo — a woman who advertises her flesh but doesn’t necessarily have any content to her character. A truly sexy woman could have no figure, dirty hair, be dressed in a paper bag, and she would still be arousing. You can feel her presence light up the room from 50 meters away, even when she’s out of sight.


      • @ Jack

        Eh, I wouldn’t say classy can’t be sexy but generally it isn’t for the vast majority of women.

        A. In my view, this is a very simplistic assessment. What Deep Strength describes as sexy, I would think of as a hoe or a bimbo — a woman who advertises her flesh but doesn’t necessarily have any content to her character.

        B. A truly sexy woman could have no figure, dirty hair, be dressed in a paper bag, and she would still be arousing. You can feel her presence light up the room from 50 meters away, even when she’s out of sight.

        A. Most would describe this as sexy/arousing even though they’re hoe, prostitute, bimbo level.

        B. This is not so much the level of dress but generally the level of femininity they exude. IMO, generally rare with women to be able to exhibit it through behavior rather than dress. Also becoming a lost art with the masculinization of women.

        Belly dancing with the hips, waist and shoulder control is on this level. The seductive look can be part of this too. Could be wearing whatever but it transcends what they’re wearing. The behavior is harder to pin down as a whole though but you know it when you see it.


      • Jack says:

        Deep Strength,

        “A. Most would describe this as sexy/arousing even though they’re hoe, prostitute, bimbo level.”

        Yes, to the undiscerning, there is no difference. I agree there.

        “B. This is not so much the level of dress but generally the level of femininity they exude. IMO, generally rare with women to be able to exhibit it through behavior rather than dress. Also becoming a lost art with the masculinization of women.”

        Yes on all three statements. One of my purposes for writing this post is for us to hone our appreciation of the finer traits of feminine character and to be able to identify them in women. The question I’ve been posing in the last few posts is, “Exactly what are these traits and how do they contribute towards attraction / sexiness?”


  4. Lastmod says:

    Most women that are “sexy” I suppose….like the picture of the scantily clad woman in heat that Jack used in this post…..are out of league for about 99% of men today.

    And lets suppose for a minute I looked like I was a male model from a J Crew or LL Bean catalog, GQ fashion spread. That kind of woman, or kind of “sexy” would still be such a tiresome struggle of keeping her happy, living at the gym, and paranoia of her going to cheat on / leave / unreasonable demands in order to be in her “sexy” presence.

    Very few women are sexy. Many are pretty. Lots more that are cute. That real “sexy” one is probably more work and trouble than she is worth, and she would have little to do with 99% of the men anyway.

    A few posts back, Deti I believe posted that video clip of “take me to the lake” of that woman losing her mind and going crazy on her husband. I saw that husband interviewed on ‘Dr. Phil” or some show like it shortly after that clip went viral.

    He of course had “no idea” she was like that when they were dating. He didn’t see any red flags while they were dating, and it was for well over a year of “courtship” My take? guy was thirsty, figured she was the best he could do. They got divorced btw, and call it a hunch….he is probably dating / married and living again at this point.

    Was she sexy? I bet he thought she was.


  5. catacombresident says:

    It’s not bragging to say I’m different. Given the definition, I don’t care about “sexy”. If I can see enough to decide she’s sexy, I’ve already seen too much; I want nothing to do with her. My flesh has never gotten a vote in the process of deciding a woman was worth my time. Yet, my wife never fails to arouse me when she wants.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Kentucky Gent says:

    Image 1:

    “Check yourself. Do you see sexy, or do you see bimbo?”


    Image 2:

    “Check yourself. Do you see sexy, or do you see a (potential) sister in Christ?”

    Depends on if they are natural, or implants.

    Image 3:

    “Check yourself. Do you see sexy, or do you see freedom in Christ?”

    Sexy. I cannot bring myself to believe that Christ approves of bikinis.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. info says:

    Instead. This is the right way for a woman to be:

    Keep her face uncovered. But I am not for women generally showing skin in a Bikini, low necklines, or figure hugging clothes (which might as well be full nudity). It is not good because they all contribute to objectification at the expense of the whole of the woman (including her proportions and Personality):


  8. Jack says:

    A couple readers commented that they do not approve of bikinis. Just curious, what would you expect your wife or daughter to wear to the beach? A one piece swim suit shows less skin, but it is form fitting and rather revealing.


    • info says:

      There are swimsuits before the 1950’s that are quite modest.


    • ramman3000 says:

      There are plenty of modest one piece swim suits that have extra layers, frills, and the like, and reveal no cleavage.

      The real problem with trying to wear modest swim suits is that all the other people in the beach are walking around in the equivalent of their underwear. You can’t fix that by fixing what your family wears. Your choice is either to accept it as is, or just don’t go to the beach or pool.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kentucky Gent says:

        There are plenty of modest one piece swim suits that have extra layers, frills, and the like, and reveal no cleavage.


        The real problem with trying to wear modest swim suits is that all the other people in the beach are walking around in the equivalent of their underwear. You can’t fix that by fixing what your family wears. Your choice is either to accept it as is, or just don’t go to the beach or pool.

        Exactly. And it’s not just swimming anymore. Four or five times a week I go to a park to hike long miles (training), and I never fail to see hot or attractive women running in yoga pants and half-tank tops that are all skin tight. I literally could picture them with nothing on below the top, if I were inclined to do so.

        But I’m not going to act like an awkward child and look away or cover my eyes when one of these women comes into view. I decided that if it is placed right in front of me I will appreciate the female form, but I won’t dwell on it. I also won’t let the memory linger in my mind after she is out of view.

        This seems like I am avoiding sin, but today I even asked God “can I ever be holy if I allow myself to look and appreciate?” Don’t know, and didn’t get an answer.


    • catacombresident says:

      My standard has not changed in decades: men and women covered from neck to knees, shoulder to shoulder. That’s what I wear to the beach. Cumbersome, perhaps, but utterly necessary. That’s in part because almost nobody in the West understands that there should be no mixed swimming in public. Families can swim in what they like in private, or the two sexes can swim in separate facilities in public, but otherwise I adhere to the high standard of covering up.


  9. locustsplease says:

    After being single for years and making standards for someone to procreate with I have a few automatic disqualifiers. Walks around showing mid drift I don’t care how much gone immediately. I cannot take you to dinner dressed like that and respect myself i am not buying those tops for my future daughters- teenage mom degenerates. Young women’s attire is turning more prostitute like by the day. Bull ring in nose and yes there are many hot girls at church with this sign of feminist rebellion. Dyed your hair an unnatural color? Extreme makeup. High heels or low cut dress skirt top. Ever cut hair in jabronee hair cut I will look on fb and find it has become less now than in past but gone bye or your mother. All these are extreme signs that a woman will not b listening to me and that my labor will b used for liberal causes, absolutely not.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. thedeti says:

    I come back to my Pretty/Hot/Sexy taxonomy.

    Most women can be pretty. Or cute, if you prefer. Meg Ryan and Reese Witherspoon are cute. Jennifer Love Hewitt, Eva Mendez, Alexandra Daddario, and Amy Adams are pretty. Woman 2 in the OP is pretty with a bangin’ body.

    Some women can be hot. The number of hot women is increasing. Megan Fox, Pamela Anderson, Kim Kardashian, and Woman 1 in the OP are hot.

    A few, very few, women are sexy. Sexy cannot be evaluated except by seeing video or in person. I need to see the woman move, hear her talk, see how she uses her voice and body.

    Sexy is attitude. Sexy is hot that knows how to use hotness and restricts who gets to see the hotness. Sexy is hotness that knows how to be cute and coy. Sexy is sexual availability but not total availability to just anyone who wants it. Sexy is confidence but not arrogance; available but not everywhere. Sexy is cute, hot, nice, and accessible.

    Sophia Loren circa 1960 was sexy. Sela Ward is sexy.

    Of the three states, sexy is by far the most difficult to pull off. It requires a delicate balance that is extremely difficult to describe and even harder to attain. Hot is not the same as sexy. There are lots of hot women who aren’t sexy. Most women have not the slightest idea how to be sexy.

    Marilyn Monroe and Sofia Vergara are all three: Cute, hot, and sexy all rolled up together. That was a huge part of Monroe’s appeal – she was the first woman of the modern era who was able to portray and deploy cute, hot, and sexy in one package.

    Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      “Marilyn Monroe and Sofia Vergara are all three: Cute, hot, and sexy all rolled up together. That was a huge part of Monroe’s appeal – she was the first woman of the modern era who was able to portray and deploy cute, hot, and sexy in one package.”

      With Marilyn Monroe, so very true. With her, the old adage, “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts” is what I think of when I think of her. She’s good looking, but there were better looking women in her peer group. She’s hot, but there were hotter women. If you’ve ever seen her nudes you’ve probably thought, “Nice, but seen better.” She’s sexy, in her girl-next-door, coy persona way, but there are better “girl next door types.” However, when you put it all together, she’s something else. I can see why men of the 1950s couldn’t take their eyes off her. She RADIATED sexiness like few other women ever have or will.

      My dad was mesmerized by Marilyn (btw that’s where I saw her nudes when I found his Playboy magazine collection). I remember him relating to me something about her (and he rarely, if ever talked anything sexual with me when I was growing up), that when he and my mom were dating, my mom used to say about MM, “I don’t see what men see in her, she’s fat.” Even as a young kid/teenager I thought this statement by my mom was absolutely ridiculous. She was many things, but fat was not one of them.


  11. dave sora says:

    The word sexy just means whore. I don’t use it anymore. Whore works better. If sexy was meant to refer to attractiveness it ceased to do so. What is commonly described as sexy is not attractive. Nor is hot anymore. These words have come to just mean whore. So sultry and cute, and just not bad, are now the words to use to describe attractiveness. And maybe the simple pretty.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Pingback: What we’ve learned about Feminine Submission | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s