6 Lessons About Women And Relationships From The Law Code Of Manu

Considered from a long memory point of view, feminism is quite recent, owing its exponential development to a very specific modern historical context. The matriarchal tribes Leftist anthropologists have been crazy about are but a historical aberration. All civilizations and peoples who were able to go beyond the small tribe stage and erect kingdoms or empires were patriarchal.

The irony of modernity lies in men having invented most of what exist out there, toiled in steaming factories, dug up dark mine drifts, fought in bloody wars, and managed to produce an incredible wealth—for the result of work to be taken away by entitled, ungraceful womyn.

If you look closely, the suffragettes and their ilk did not revolt because “oppression of women”, but to the contrary, in a context where men were already weak and womanly ways were already dominant. Nineteenth century American prostitutes had many things wives did not—like money, glamour, the ability to travel and fuck many wealthy guys, and even men’s attention—and they have set a precedent.

Likewise, if you look at the Belle Époque (roughly 1870-1914) art, it overflows with sensual, bewitching beautiful women, accompanied by high-status or wealthy men orbiting around. Men of these times had already turned into weaklings, proud to be mesmerized by some lipstick-wearing bitch. Far from being “oppressive”, these men were dependent, and spoiled women could easily gauge money and power from them.

This trend of female takeover, be it through seduction, subtle social power-grabbing or direct threats against men, has shaped many of last century changes. Our masculine potentialities were buried in taboo and oblivion by the blue pill, and now that we are developing ourselves again, it is becoming increasingly obvious that we have to roll back the degeneracy and illegitimate powers we were taught to take for granted. With this is mind, we need a traditional, extra-modern perspective from which to stand and strike hard at the Libtard Church.

The Law Code of Manu, an ancient Hindu legal code, is exactly the kind of content that can feed a “neo-traditional” perspective. Its rich contents led me to write on it twice on ROK, and now is a third and last Law of Manu piece specifically about relations between the sexes. What did an allegedly supra-human lawmaker say on women—and that allowed for a civilization standing the test of time?

1. Mating is transactional in character

This is something modernity wanted us to forgive. “Amour, amour!”, cries the nineteenth century bourgeois literature, full of romantic tales and of men penning out long pages about their passion for this or that girl. Novels and poetry from this time are sometimes so full or marshmallow, of one-itis and of pompous prose they are almost disgusting.

Were these infatuated men “free to love whom they wanted”—especially when they were, not incidentally, high-status guys willing to marry down? Of course not: lacking mastery of themselves, they were ensnared and led to believe that their bizarre state of obsession over that-girl-I-am-loving-oh-so-passionately was superior to pondered marriages. Behind the artsy celebration of “progress”, “freedom” and “love” loomed pure seduction power.

Such trends did not exist in Ancient India. There, law enforcers at least were aware of the transactional nature of mating and of the necessity to pair a man and a woman of a relatively equal status. Although men of a higher caste could marry down in case of a shortage (3.13), the practice is disregarded, and Manu explicitly warns that “by contracting aberrant marriages… respectable families quickly come to ruin” (3.63).

The Code is made so that men are more or less limited, but also acknowledged and protected reasonably. Men’s right to sexual and romantic gratification is stated (3.45). A man, the Code says, should seek for a spouse of his own caste and with the “right bodily characteristics” (3.4). Families are encouraged to behave in a respectable manner, which allows them to uphold a fine sociability and offer good girls to marry.

Thus, as everyone strives for virtue and offering quality—instead of predatorily taking away—a decent man has serious chances to find a decent girl. As men strove to be able to “buy” the woman they deserved and women at least maintained their capital, the latter did not wield too much power, could not impose its seduction games, and men could focus on building value properly instead of painfully adapting to the ways of the HR/nightclub sororities.

2. Young women are valuable (and ought not to be squandered or squander themselves)

At the peak of their beauty, sexiness and fertility, women are of a higher value. Our reptilian brain knows about it, which gives a 18-25 years old woman a high sexual market value in a “free sexual marketplace” society, and so did the Code, that also knew about how girls could easily be spoiled if allowed to party down their prime years and get creamed in by massive amounts of dick.

To regulate the market and prevent an unholy alliance between party girls and notches-racking assholes, the Code states that a man must be older than the girl he woos: “a 30 year old man should marry a charming girl of 12 years, or an 18 year old, a girl of 8 years or sooner” (9.94). In other words, instead of giving way to the temptation and throwing themselves in a cutting-throat competition for notches, young men have to master their own desires while getting a betrothal with younger girls. Then, as a well-deserved reward, they get a good spouse, each of them peaks at the same time, each can naturally enjoy the other—the 30 year old enjoys the young female who enjoys an older, dominant male—and build a home.

This is akin to what Aristotle wrote about marriage: “women should marry when they are about 18 years of age, and men at 37; then they are in the prime of life, and the decline in the powers of both will coincide.” (Politics, 1335a25)

3. Women ought to be made dependent for their own good

The Code states:

Even in her own home, a female—whether she is a child, a young woman, or an old lady—should never carry out any task independently. As a child, she must remain under her father’s control; as a young woman, under her husband’s; and when her husband is dead, under her sons’. She must never seek to live independently. (5.147-8)

If women depend from their families and ought to be traded or cared of by men, this makes pairing easier and more straightforward. Being traded, women can focus on their own value and avoid being damaged by their own foolish choices. Also, as they are hypergamic, women ought to be made socially inferior for their own satisfaction: if they get equal to men, they will despise men of equal value and want for a higher value one at the expense of whom they should pair with.

Women belonging to their families are limited in their ability to lure any male into their traps: if they do, they will likely get the wrath of their responsible relatives.

Day and night men should keep their women from acting independently; for, attached as they are to sensual pleasures, men should keep them under their control. (9.2)

Drinking, associating with bad people, living away from the husband; travelling, sleeping, and staying in the houses of others—these are the six things that corrupt women… Lechery, fickleness of mind, and hard-heartedness are innate in them… Recognizing this, a man should make the utmost effort at guarding them. (9.13-6)

4. Hypergamy is a true peril to society and should be vigilantly monitored

Even then, it seems that hubristic hypergamy had already started to rear its ugly head at the time when the Law Code was written down, for it explicitly warns against the temptation to abandon one’s husband for a man of higher social status:

When a woman abandons her own husband of lower rank and unites with a man of higher rank, she only brings disgrace upon herself in the world and is called ‘a woman who has had a man before.’ By being unfaithful to her husband, a woman becomes disgraced in the world. (5.163-4)

The Ancients knew well about the conditions necessary for a marriage to be auspicious, and the relative equality of status as well as the stability of the union were doubtlessly necessary. Some women, at least, had let their burning desire unravel the social fabric and betrayed their home to get the “higher” man, for if it had not been so the Code would not warn against it.

5. Husband and wife do not have to be “equal”

Some things ought to be checked as relatively equal between a husband and a wife, such as the caste, social value, or being in one’s prime, for the marriage to work well, with the exception of “times of adversity” when higher caste men can marry down. Everything, though, does not have to be the same.

A woman realizes herself and flourishes through her place in the family. She ought to be dutiful to have her proper center and dignity. Therefore,

Though he may be bereft of virtue, given to lust, and totally devoid of good qualities, a good woman should always worship her husband like a god. For women, there is no independent sacrifice, vow, or fast; a woman will be exalted in heaven by the mere fact that she obediently served her husband. (5.154-6)

On the other hand, a husband can go away for years on which his wife ought to maintain the home, provided he secures some resource for her to live on (9.74-6). He is also free to repudiate his wife if she loathes him without a proper reason. Specific reasons are specified by the Code, such as if he turns into an unrepentant alcoholic, or becomes “foul-mouthed” (9.81).

Men and women’s respective roles and different, complementary, and unequal. Modernists should get over it instead of wrecking social life in the name of an equality between non-existent abstract individuals.

A man’s striving expresses mostly on the public scene, outside from the house, while the man’s quest finds its center in himself and larger projects. A man ought to be able to thrive outside, whereas his wife, by being supportive, realizes herself at the same time that she helps him. Also note that risks are properly shared here, as the woman may seem in a more risky situation at home, when the husband meets with the risks outside.

6. Women have proper qualities to develop

Just as social castes are supposed to expand and enshrine inner vocations, names have to say something about their bearer. For girls, names act as a sort of tutor or landmark:

Girls’ names should be easy to pronounce and without fierce connotations, have a clear meaning, be charming and auspicious, end in a long final syllable, and contain a word for blessing. (2.33)

Also, dependence from family and husband do not mean lack of self-agency: women too have quests to pursue—which makes self-improvement as relevant to them as it is to us.

A woman who controls her mind, speech, and body and is never unfaithful to her husband attains the worlds of her husband, and virtuous people call her a ‘good woman.’ (5.163)

[Wives should be employed] in the collection and the disbursement of his wealth, in cleaning, in meritorious activity, in cooking food, and in looking after household goods. When they are kept confined within the house by trusted men, they are not truly guarded; only when they guard themselves by themselves are they truly well-guarded. (9.11-2, emphasis mine)

This is consistent with the three purposes Roosh identified.


That the modern trends of “emancipation” of women would actually unravel into a catastrophe for most men, not to mention our civilization as a whole, could have been predicted by the wise men living millennia ago. Particular vocations, social equilibrium, good chances and fair trade were ensured by the wisdom and fidelity of traditional men.

As we toil for taking back our institutions, countries and civilization, it is also necessary to glean discernment from (almost) timeless Scriptures. Odds are, the most familiar we become with antique wisdom, the more specifically modern trends will look like blind or monstrous deviations. This may be unsettling. I could bet my last penny, though, that in the long run it will be understood as a necessary step for getting outside the rotten world we were born in and avoid falling for the same mistakes again and again.

Read Next: Modern Marriage Is Rent-Seeking Hell

89 thoughts on “6 Lessons About Women And Relationships From The Law Code Of Manu”

  1. “…a good woman should always worship her husband like a god…”
    Amen, Manu. Amen.

    1. But what if she is married to a man who is beta to the core like 80% of men today?

      1. The beta male doesn’t want to lead he wants a helpmate and co-equal. He wants to hide his inadequacy behind a mask of equality. It is true that women don’t find beta males sexy but they try to repress this for a number of reasons. Some women can repress for years on end while others can only go a few weeks before they find their husband’s betaness very difficult to bear. All women love the idea of marriage it is the reality that quite a few have trouble with. Women like this are easy to spot, they are the ones who shortly after the wedding will turn off the sex tap. They will say “we’re married now, once a week should be sufficient for you.”
        Of course there are husbands who need a stiff drink before climbing the stairs to the marital bedroom with a ‘let’s get this over with’ attitude. So both sexes can be manipulative.

        1. Honour that man because no matter how beta he is, you will never be as exalted as he may. Nor will you know better as to what’s good, for even yourself, more than he. That is the way of men and women.
          My advice to you would be to correct your own behaviour. You may have the ability to help him become a better man overall rather than try to change him for your own selfish desires. It’s best to be subtle about it though. For if you give up on the single most important person in your life, a husband or a wife, then what value do you give to yourself?

        2. Back in my day, you’d get banned for replying to a woman on ROK, and women would get deleted by the mods. That seems to have gradually faded away.

        3. my classmate’s mom makes $65 every hour on the internet.. she has been without work for 8 months.. the previous month her payment was $18818 just working from home a few hours. ➤go here to ➤this

      2. Obviously, encourage her husband upfront to learn from the brotherhood, rather than sneakily ruining the relationship. But millenials and their attention span.

        1. Sorry but 80+% of men are beta and will remain beta until their dying second. Roosh et al are howling in the wilderness.

        2. Well then, find yourself a 20% willing to be exclusive.
          If not, then find a 20% open to polygamy.
          If not, then self-sufficiency is all the rage these days.
          If nothing works, you can always get pets.

      3. Then she should tell her man, that for her is is the MAN & that he better start behaving as a MAN or she’ll woop his arse ??

    2. “she only brings disgrace upon herself in the world and is called ‘a woman who has had a man before.’”

        1. Do you think it would be possible for you to refrain from shitting all over the comment sections with multiple, duplicative, usually unresponsive YouTube and GIF posts?
          I realize that I, of all people, should not be complaining about the quality of another poster’s posts…. but damn, son, you really just sperg out with this shit. But like 17 different, random posts of YouTube videos and random other images and GIFs that really only mean something to you? C’mon man….
          Look, I’m not saying you can’t post all the text responses you want, discuss whatever you want, let it all hang out. Go for it. And I post an image or two, or a YouTube link every now and again when its actually relevant.
          I’m just talking about the 47,000 different YouTubes, GIFs, and images you always seem to shit everywhere. That much random, meaningless crap just screws up Disqus and makes it harder for everyone else to enjoy the damn conversation.
          Could you please try to curtail the Asperger’s to some sort of quasi-normal level? Are you even capable of that kind of personal restraint? Can you even comprehend the words that are typed out here on the screen in front of you, or do I need to find some random YouTube clip of some sperg restraining his spergasms to get through to you?

        2. maybe you should access RoK on a desktop or laptop like a human and not on a tablet like a lower order primate poking at a touch screen

        3. As the doorman said to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, “Ain’t No Way! Ain’t No How!”

        4. Some researchers have claimed that the Autistic mind is in fact the extreme form of a masculine mind.

        5. See, this is exactly what I am talking about. Like 4 random ass SPERG responses in a row to just one comment. Can’t you just SPERG once or twice instead of like 15 times?

        6. This is a double post of 2 versions of the same YouTube video that you already SPERG posted, and you posted them within 60 seconds of each other.
          That’s just totally SPERGtarded. That’s something a 14yo would do, not a 41yo. There is absolutely no reason to do that except to satisfy the SPERG-urges in your SPERG-addled brain. No one wants to see that shit. No one is clicking on that shit.
          Even if you don’t care about SPERGing all over the thread, you should at least consider how much RoK bandwidth you’re wasting just to SPERG out to yourself.

        7. People should be more appreciative of what I share. The problem is not my sharing: it is the lack of gratitude.

        8. …took 18 years to get this far…
          This blows the studio version away
          Glenn Buxton RIP

    1. Manu sounds a little packy I’ll admit but the code itself is rich in wisdom. For the code to be westernized, the ‘U’ has to be dropped. The ‘Code of Man’ sounds better. I don’t blame you for mocking “manu”. When I saw “manu”, I was bouncing on my head thinking “manu achoo Vili Fualuu Scooby Doo bippity boppity boo MCGOO Ragu” too.
      The code is immensely valuable and once they drop the ‘U’, it will quickly take off and fly in the west. I can’t stand it when western shitlibs properly pronounce eastern words so as to be sympathetic to other dialects other than their own. Like when they order at the chinese food court. I make a point to westernize any non greek words. I’ll say in a redneck accent “gimmee some general foe chikkin n raace and pile me a heap o them gibblets with that there kamikazi sauce tonto”. I used to mock their accents out of habit and also possibly due to being publicly educated. One day I was ordering and I said “I need tooo egg dlop sooop, asooo”. The korean guy looked at me like “fuck you moron”. So it’s best to stick to your native dialect. The chinks or any other foreigners with accents obviously don’t have the gene I luckily have where I can mimic anyone, so they’re stuck in a lifelong accented struggle in their host countries.
      So I agree. Drop the ‘U’. The ‘Code of Man’ it is.

  2. Thank you. I have heard wonderful things about the Middle East. A place where men are men and women are women.

    1. It is true.
      As much as I despise mohammedans, I have to admit, they know how to handle their females.
      Unfortunately, they are also boy molesting faggots who should be burned at the stake, but their treatment of females, for the most part, seems to be correct.

      1. Code of Manu is actually found in Hindu scriptures going back thousands of years, it has nothing to do with “mohammedans”. These laws were probably played some factor in making India a superpower in ancient times.

        1. Sure. I understand that.
          But “beserker” mentioned “Middle East”.
          India is South Asia.
          BTW, about 10% of India is mohammedan, which is over 120 million people. The 3rd or 4th most mohammedan country in the world.
          And I do not believe they were ever a world superpower.
          A regional power at best. But overrun easily by both mongol and mohammedan forces. And of course the British too.

  3. My favorite bit of ancient wisdom on male/female dynamics was (unsurprisingly) Homer’s Odyssey, where Agamemnon made the ultimate mistake of losing influence over his wife while he was away and blindly trusted her, which was his undoing. For Odysseus, it’s very clear that all the goddesses, sea monsters, and sirens that bewitched him, and even the suitors in his own home, the most dangerous was his own wife, should she have been untrue to him. http://masculineepic.com/index.php/2017/05/05/homer-the-odyssey-the-book-for-our-time/

    1. Did you mean to say Odysseus in the first sentence? You said Agamemnon…

      1. No. Agamemnon was the one that made the mistake of losing his influence with his wife and assuming she’d always be on his side. He serves as the template of the hero that met a terrible fate in the Odyssey, the fate Odysseus has to avoid.

        1. Clytemnestra, Agamemnon’s wife, sister of Helen of Troy, was none too pleased that Agamemnon sacrificed their daughter, Iphigenia, while at sea to the gods in exchange for fair winds. He also brought Princess Cassandra of Troy home as his sex slave. In modern terms, he overplayed his pimp hand with his Spartan wife.

      2. “Skepticism is as much the result of knowledge, as knowledge is of skepticism.”
        ― Homer, The Odyssey

    2. That’s some good insight there. They never discussed the subtext when I was in school, never said it was wrong of her to move on. I remember the men he surrounded himself with were idiots (like with the bag of gales). So I’d add, “choose your bros carefully.”

      1. True, but Odysseus should’ve explained to them what was in the sack as well. They opened it partly because they wanted to find out. Odysseus himself made some dumb choices even when his men exhorted him not to, like shouting his name to the cyclops.

        1. That was actually a good idea though, because Odysseus said his name was Nobody, and the Cyclops was rather dumb, so when the Cyclops’ friends came and asked the Cyclops what was wrong, he said “Nobody’s hurting me!” and so the other cyclopses ignored him.
          But yeah, Odysseus not telling his men what was in the sack was a very bad idea.

        2. I mean yelling out his real name as he was sailing away. From the standpoint of the Homeric hero, it was vital that “noman” shouldn’t be known as the person that blinded the cyclopes as it was such a great feat, but it earned him the enmity of Poseidon.

      2. “Come, weave us a scheme so I can pay them back!
        Stand beside me, Athena, fire me with daring, fierce
        as the day we ripped Troy’s glittering crown of towers down.
        Stand by me – furious now as then, my bright-eyed one –
        and I would fight three hundred men, great goddess,
        with you to brace me, comrade-in-arms in battle!”
        ― Homer, The Odyssey

    3. “There is nothing more admirable than when two people who see eye to eye keep house as man and wife, confounding their enemies and delighting their friends.”
      ― Homer, The Odyssey

    1. Sounds vaguely like “Manu” but is actually completely unrelated. That’s my guess.

  4. Seeing this is not “western”, the liberals and feminists should embrace this like they embrace Islam.

  5. First announcing that there is a ‘law of manu’ soon coming by instead saying the ‘law of man’ or the “order of man” or “age of man cometh” for example is a requisite to bringing forth the change into mass acceptance. Hillary and shitlibs can proclaim “prepare for adapting. “We won’t be a majority white country anymore. Challenges lie ahead”. Yes it would be a challenge to swallow any of their agenda. But they announce what they’re going to do. They try to holographically project their own wish list before you in other words. In war, battle calls work the same. Spectre announces Europe won’t be anglo and then she urges everyone to conform to the ‘challenges’. IN TRUTH all you have to do is rebuke and reject them. Flip the table and challenge the messenger.
    With regards to the resurgence of patriarchy, if you were to announce “the law of ‘manu’ is coming”, it sounds a bit obscure. The ‘RETURN OF MAN’ rings a bell though.
    If I say tried to enforce the ‘patriarch is master and god over his woman’ law on half my own shitlib family tree members, I could expect a fistfight or some backhanded backlash. But IF I ANNOUNCE FIRST that a new age is coming, if I say “have you noticed the change in people? It’s like an energy and ordering or reordering happening all at once?” then even the worst of the shitlibs at the table agree. They then need guidance. They need the guy with a flashlight. It’s not so hard to tell females what their roles are once their radical switches have been flipped to reality and to attention that something is impending. Everyone knows the sun will rise tomorrow so each day requires only a minor preparation. But irregular events like storms and long cycles like a major sexual power shift get peoples undivided attention.
    So if you go about proclaiming “THE AGE OF MAN” is upon us and then proceed to proselytize the ‘law of manu’ elements, then it will be fully rebranded as western.

  6. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being romantic; as long as you know women’s nature. Sex is greatly reduced if there isn’t a mental romantic element towards the woman you’re sleeping with.

      1. Don’t knock what ya haven’t tried. Some of the best sex I’ve ever had was from a pro.
        It realigns a man’s perspective. Have a 10 who treats you like her Lord for a night and freely gives of herself however and whenever you want. VS putting in months or years of effort for a woman who seems to resent you, or act indifferent except on occasion and only gave great or decently passable sex when the relationship was young.
        Makes a man realise “romance” is masculine trait that is simply exploited by women to obtain what they want from you.
        Or in simple terms, they fuck for resources, we give resources for sex/companionship.
        Stop fooling yourself and cut to the chase.

        1. “It realigns a man’s perspective. Have a 10 who treats you like her Lord for a night and freely gives of herself however and whenever you want. VS putting in months or years of effort for a woman who seems to resent you, or act indifferent except on occasion and only gave great or decently passable sex when the relationship was young.”
          This is another “A or B and that’s it. Those are the only options for you out there.”
          No. My life has always been so much more than just 2 options. I’ve never been in a contact with women, or people, in general who seems to resent me. If we don’t feel connection, we move along. I don’t stay months or even years with a person who seems to resent me. I’m not blind with the truth that my girl is with me for my resources. We’re both agree on male-female relationship’s true form; women fucks to get resources, men give resources to get fucks. We’ve been told by our parents that since we were just kids. But we can always behave like a decent human about it.
          Some men prefer a short cut; prostitute, which I understand, but I can’t see myself do that in the future. But yeah, if you’re into it, good for you.

        2. No “A or B” about it. Its simply reality, as you yourself confirmed. And prostitution is one of many methods for cheap easy sex. Nothing more, nothing less.
          I’m certainly not advocating it as an end all be all solution to a man’s unsatisfactory experiences with women.

  7. What translations have you guys doing to be the best for reading? Can anyone out there tell me which translations is the “most true” to Ancient Indian thought?

    1. Not being a Sanskrit scholar I could not tell exactly. Patrick Olivelle’s translations are the mainstream ones for now. You can get older translations if you search among ebooks. For explanations I know to be reliable (just explanations, not complete translations), I strongly advise reading René Guénon’s studies on Hinduism.

  8. Fine Article. Well, said, Andre.
    Seeing history recorded in books has helped me see how backward America is today. I admit I view facebook daily (always after those online girls–to little avail, it’s rigged), and have noticed hoardes of men and women with tatoos. Code of Manu understands that men are not women. Why don’t women want to be beautiful? Or do they think tatoos are beautiful? I think tatoos are a hardship you wear to say you went through pain. I do not have any. Girls I’ve talked to get a lot of ‘dates’ tatooed in them (Births, deaths, cancer wins and losses). Men who get a ton of word tattoos make my think of an imposter who ‘has a lot to say’ but doesn’t want to admit it by saying it out loud. I don’t want to see a tattoo on a lady. Even a “good one.” It’s just like the colored hair stuff. The only time it was appealing, ink or color, was as a child, before I had persective. In this Code of Manu, was there anything about what beauty is, to get women on the right track? I wish there was a code to point to, and say, “This. 100% This.” …starting with, “Women should say 80% less.” I wish women didn’t keep making me say, “Stop trying to be a man. You’re messing up EVERYTHING.”

  9. All major religious doctrines seek to reign in human behavior. When I was young I thought that was a bad thing. Now I realize how wise and necessary those rules are to maintain an orderly society. This liberal experiment of doing whatever we want, whatever feels good is not healthy.

    1. Man who doesn’t believe in God will do just fine. Woman who doesn’t believe in God is fucked up.

      1. I think it was Roosh who wrote that men should choose a woman who believes in God, but the man doesn’t have to believe in God?
        That doesn’t work.
        Christian women want to marry christian men and shouldn’t marry someone who doesn’t share her faith.

  10. ROK should do an article on holding women accountable for their behaviors vs PUA. The two cannkt coexist as “game” is literally the game that women have created and demand our participation in. One solves this broken culture, the other positively reinforces that what it capitalizes on.

  11. “Though he may be bereft of virtue, given to lust, and totally devoid of good qualities, a good woman should always worship her husband like a god.”
    Wow that is bad advice. Would you want your daughters or sisters worshiping a man totally devoid of good qualities?

Comments are closed.