[EndsExpect]

(02-07-2018 10:59 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

This is an illusion. Men were not policing women. Economics was. Nobody was putting a gun to their heads to avoid slutting and get married young.
Welfare. Affirmative action. Make-work jobs. You don't need to police whores. You just need to stop subsidising them.

Even just 60 years ago the actions of your children were a reflection on you. My grandparents actions were policed by their parents fairly heavily.

With that said... I believe the REASON for that policing was primarily economic. If your daughter had a child with at guy who then bounced... guess who is going to be supporting her? The parents. It's going to be extra hard to find a guy to wife her up and support her ass after that. So in a time of limited resources, having a slut daughter could cost your life savings and take a struggling family under during the depression times.

However, today we have myriad birth controls and abortion available. This drives female behavior today as much as financial gains.

(02-07-2018 11:55 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(02-07-2018 10:59 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Men were not policing women. Economics was.

Fathers were certainly policing their daughters. A daughter of ill-repute cannot be married to anyone and is a burden to her parents.
Brothers were certainly policing their sisters. A sister of ill-repute cannot be married to anyone and is a burden to her parents, which means less inheritance to her siblings.

Oh... damn. I should have read your point before typing all that crap myself.

[Icarus]

(02-08-2018 12:06 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

I believe the REASON for that policing was primarily economic

Penicillin may have been discovered in 1928, but widespread use came only after WWII.

Without antibiotics, venereal disease could very well be a death sentence.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(02-07-2018 11:55 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(02-07-2018 10:59 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Men were not policing women. Economics was.

Fathers were certainly policing their daughters. A daughter of ill-repute cannot be married to anyone and is a burden to her parents.

Brothers were certainly policing their sisters. A sister of ill-repute cannot be married to anyone and is a burden to her parents, which means less inheritance to her siblings.

Again, the cart before the horse.

We were not living in Arabia. If a woman of consenting age wanted to walk out of the family house and never return then she was lawfully allowed to do so and physically restraining her was an unlawful act, just as it is now.

What forced her to listen to her parents was the absence of having financial options to support her if she decided to be a slut. Sure, social programming existed, but only because it was fundamentally impossible for a woman to hop on a jet, go to some place nobody knew her, start drawing welfare and get a shitty office job for life.

And I probably sound like a nag with this stuff, but this rose-coloured-glasses back-to-front understanding of how things used to be is a harmful delusion because it causes men to mistake cause with effect when it comes to female nature.

Laws allowing men to beat womenfolk for insubordination and functionally lock them up are long gone, and the height of our civilisation was achieved well after "the rule of thumb" was a distant memory. The alternative is closer to Islam than anything we'd recognise as "traditional" and would have similar primitive outcomes.

Women are only going to be brought to heel when our societal systems no longer subsidise their financial ability to be independent. When men can legally be hired preferentially, when welfare is no more, when divorce courts go from white-knight to black knight and when whores have to pay for their own abortions, women will fall in line with no shackles and beatings required.

[Icarus]

(02-08-2018 09:58 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

We were not living in Arabia. If a woman of consenting age wanted to walk out of the family house and never return then she was lawfully allowed to do so and physically restraining her was an unlawful act, just as it is now.

So, there was Arabia and not-Arabia. Within not-Arabia, Sicily and Sweden had the same social norms. I don't buy it. By the way, which century are we talking about?

Why would a proper father who invested in his daughter for 20 years care about whether it is lawful or unlawful to put her on house arrest? She is his property. She is the vessel through which his descendants come to life. She has no right to ruin herself.

There's more than economic independence. When people lived mostly in rural areas and there were no automobiles and no electronic communications, a woman living alone and away from her male relatives would quickly end up gang-raped, STD-riddled and, thus, useless for procreation. Such "strong & independent" women left few successful descendants. Becoming a whore is not an achievement.

[PapayaTapper]

(02-08-2018 09:58 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Women are only going to be brought to heel when our societal systems no longer subsidise their financial ability to be independent. When men can legally be hired preferentially, when welfare is no more, when divorce courts go from white-knight to black knight and when whores have to pay for their own abortions, women will fall in line with no shackles and beatings required.

But our societal systems would no longer subsidize their financial ability to be independent only after society says its no longer ok to be a whore again. (Not likely to happen any time soon as this would goes against the master "human farmers'" agenda of having more bodies in the workforce...but thats another topic)

The government taking on the financial burden of single motherhood, slutdom etc. came about only after the devolution of the social stigma associated those behaviors. If the traditional social mores of say pre 1960 were still in place there'd be no support for the government subsidization of glorified whoredom.

In a way feminism and smoking tobacco have had the complete opposite social trajectories. 50 years ago smoking was seen as cool and sexy by the public at large. Now it's on the verge of becoming flat out illegal. I doubt one could rally much support for a government program that subisdizes the consequences of smoking (a bad behavior by current societies standards)

To Rhyme or Reason's earlier point I can see the traditional values system was in effect a kind pussy socialism by prioritizing finding a "good man" a desire out of necessity. It leveled the playing field

[Icarus]

(02-08-2018 01:39 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

To Rhyme or Reason's earlier point I can see the traditional values system was in effect a kind pussy socialism by prioritizing finding a "good man" a desire out of necessity. It leveled the playing field

It also maximized the number of marriages, the number of hard-working betas, the sexual health and fertility of the bride and of the groom, and the number of children. Societies that maximized the number of children had — ceteris paribus — an advantage in times of war, of course. Soldiers must be born and raised before they are recruited.

[jamaicabound]

(02-04-2018 05:20 AM)Kieran Wrote:  

I try not to fuck married women or girls in serious relationships anymore. It sounds ridiculous but I kind of believe in karma and it's just bad energy. Nine times out of ten they start developing feelings and it all gets messy, and often I feel like some women are so self destructive it's almost like they want to be caught.

I'm with you. I can kind of understand the whole it came to me I didn't pursue it thing and I get the argument it's not your concern she's the one doing something wrong.

At the end of the day I'm a big believer in Karma, what goes around comes around. I also think it shows a lack of morals/ethics/character someone who either pursues taken women or who takes pride in fucking married women or even women in relationships. To each their own though.

[tj1588]

Yes, some women have morals. Believing ALL women are amoral is a very negative, toxic, incel attitude to have. I wouldn't say those twins are representative of all women.

[Graft]

Women have plenty of morals-for children, pets, and refugees. It's like they bend over backwards for stray pets and foreigners.

Their man? He is expendable.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I disagree that the sluttery was the precursor for the push for welfare. Sluts suffering economically and their sympathisers were never even close to an election-swinging demographic.

The real trouble started during WW2 when women were pushed into the workforce and of course many beta-male employers eventually prioritised their subservient nature (and the access it gave them by defacto) over the returned soldier's superior productivity, so there's some blame to lay there, but it's a bit of a stretch to insist that there was some strong political drive at any stage prior to the last few decades to make sure welfare queens could pop out numerous spawn without getting married.

I hate to sound like the tin-foil-hat guy, and we could play "which came first, the chicken or the egg" all day long but prior to recent times I've never once seen an election swung on who'll pander to sluts better. Elections were nearly always won on preaching family values, and then later (((subversives))) would put in place everything required to erode those family values from behind the scenes.

As for what it would take to undo it at this stage, well nothing short of collapse, really. Either a slow one or a fast one. Other than the subversion, we have become victims of our own historically unprecedented levels of production, to the point where half of all jobs are either flat out or borderline welfare-disguised-as-work.

(02-08-2018 12:44 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

Why would a proper father who invested in his daughter for 20 years care about whether it is lawful or unlawful to put her on house arrest? She is his property. She is the vessel through which his descendants come to life. She has no right to ruin herself.

Go and sell cocaine in front of a police station and tell me how it works out just because "you don't care about the law". It's all good and well to huff and puff about how men should go back to imprisoning women but it's just stone age chest beating. You can play the big man if you like. Let's imagine this scenario. It's the 50's and your 16 year old daughter has quietly left the house. You get a phone call from a friend saying she's down at the bar acting slutty towards a local police officer who's known to seduce young women. This politely encapsulates the conundrum your point of view presents.

How do you proceed? No points for "a police officer wouldn't do that, because "muh Rockwell Norman painting!"

p.s. A man's sons are the vessel of his bloodline. His daughters are a womb for someone else's. I'm not sure where you're getting your patriarchy lessons from.

[Jetset]

(02-08-2018 12:44 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

Why would a proper father who invested in his daughter for 20 years care about whether it is lawful or unlawful to put her on house arrest? She is his property. She is the vessel through which his descendants come to life. She has no right to ruin herself.

[Icarus]

(02-08-2018 07:13 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

It's the 50's and your 16 year old daughter has quietly left the house. You get a phone call from a friend saying she's down at the bar acting slutty

She can be disowned. Any of her siblings who help her out can be disowned, too. Inheritance is a powerful motivator.

A slut who brings shame to her family is making it harder for her siblings (and nephews and nieces) to marry people from good families.

(02-08-2018 07:13 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

A man's sons are the vessel of his bloodline. His daughters are a womb for someone else's.

No, a man's sons are the carriers of his surname. The bloodline is gender-neutral, obviously. Both maternal and paternal grandfathers contribute equally, roughly speaking. Unless you believe that the Y chromosome is equivalent to one's bloodline.

[Icarus]

(02-08-2018 07:22 PM)Jetset Wrote:  

Happiest women I know come from Catholic families, have many siblings and a benevolent dictator for a father.

Why are they so happy? Probably because they know that their fathers and their brothers are always ready to protect them. They feel safe.

They only left their father's house when they got married. They all married right after college. They were all mothers by 25.