But instead a stance taken against girls going to college.
Here is the “logic” of the article.

1. Men prefer debt free virgins without tattoos.
2. College is where debt, sex and tattoos happen.
3. Therefore girls shouldn’t go to college.

This logic is obviously filled with error.  Even if some men prefer these traits, and even if a woman wants to attract a man like that…
Don’t debt, tattoos and sex happen outside of college campuses?
Are less-well educated woman LESS likely to have sex or get a tattoo or to have a payday loan at 200% interest?  I happen to know, firsthand, that there are, and have been, debt free virgins who went to college (some for a LOOOONG time) and who didn’t even get a tattoo (and I am not just talking about myself – see photo)
I would love to see some research on this, or on what percentage of men (even “godly” men) prefer in regard to these traits, or on how many other traits (kindness, friendliness, able to maintain a deep conversation, beauty, leadership skill, adventurousness, and education level and GODLINESS) are MORE important to men (even godly men) than these other three traits.
Naturally, no such research is involved in this article. I am dubious it would support her claims, especially in relation to other traits.
So, I think the seeming purpose of the article can be negated, no matter what it really was.
But what about the scriptural side of things – does the Bible (or God and therefore men who follow God) prefer these traits based on the Bible?
Of course, there are many passages in which “obedience” is required by God. So, as in the case of premarital sex, God would certainly “prefer” that we all obey his teaching to wait until a covenant marriage to embrace sex!  Beyond that, check out those links above.
The article itself is very short on scripture, though.
Mrs. Alexander references (in parenthesis in the midst of the other person’s thoughts) only 2 verses:
Ephesians 6:4 in reference to girls “not having read the Bible with their fathers:”
“Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
And I Cor 14:35 in reference to their not having a husband to explain the Bible to them:
“If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” (I know there is a lot to digest in that one verse and I am not going to attempt to examine it here, perhaps at another time, but suffice it to say, for now, that this was about propriety, not about a wife not being smart enough to understand the Bible).
But in fact, the only verse from the Bible directly cited at all in the original articles is I Peter 3:4
^“… but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.”
This entire thought in this passage is an admonition to women to find their beauty in their character rather than their appearance.  The passage says:
^“3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— ⁴ but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.”
The follow-up article sports quite a few more verses (mostly in other people’s posts she cites) that take a hard-line literal interpretation and application attitude about the passages, no matter what section or book of the Bible, and yet the lovely woman covering her post is wearing gold jewelry.  Something specifically mentioned in the only passage she references in her original article.   I am not intending to be “snarky.”  I am pointing out that everyone interprets the Bible when they apply it (which they should properly)
Regardless, that First Peter passage is not applicable to virginity, debt nor tattoos.
Part 3 (and most important)