Marriage and sex are a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT - society has no impetus to allow defectives to marry or reproduce; this is a "MODERN, EGALITARIAN" notion bastardized from Rousseau and Catholic sacraments, NOT a traditional one.
1. In TRADITIONAL societies, lower status men are actively PREVENTED from reproducing, while high-status men are allowed and encouraged to take multiple wives or concubines, which is more effective at producing fit offspring than EGALITARIAN notions like monogamy.
(e.x. Owning lower status men as slaves, or making them into eunuchs who serve in the King or Queen's harem is a common practice in traditional societies; likewise, in some ancient societies, such as Indian hunter-gatherers a man was required to be able to hunt or fight in combat before he was allowed to marry at all, if he couldn't, he was demoted to the status of women and forced to do women's work).
So NO, their views are EGALITARIAN and ENTITLED - in modern societies, even a person with IQ 80 and no other desirable traits and qualities can meet the "bare minimum" required to "get married" - and the only reason the state has a vested interest in is because it's a step above "law of the jungle" and expedites legal and court proceedings, when ideally they wouldn't be marrying or reproducing at all assuming they were even allowed to live to begin with.
(The heretical, pervert hellish doctrine that "a man needs" sex is a LIE perpetuated by perverts, sodomite and psychopaths like Ted Bundy, who have to resort to rape as a result of their evolutionary defectiveness, and have a higher "NEED" for sex because they are UGLY, UNINTELLIGENT, AND DEFECTIVE. (The doctrine of St. Paul and other high-status men from history and ancient times is that physical wants are subordinate to higher-mental goals and ideals; with NOT marrying if it impedes with one's higher goals being a good thing, marrying only being something one 'needs' to do if they feel they absolutely MUST.
People of higher intelligence, creativity, and desirable traits display a much LOWER fixation on sex, reproductions, and purely physical things, than people of lower intelligence and other desirable traits (this is easily evidenced by uneducated people being pregnant by age 16 and having 5 children with 5 different partners; while people of superior intellect and other traits tend to have fewer children and prioritize higher mental goals and achievements (e.x. education, sciences, arts, business) over purely physical ones.
Most of their ANIME and CARTOON porn is from Asia, not the West - so this is easily disproved. The majority of people even in consumerist societies where porn is glamorized DO get married, some couples EVEN ENJOY watching porn together (morality of it be damned as far as this point goes).
So no, this is nonsense - they are undesirable, just as the would have been EVEN MORESO in ancient societies where modern, egalitarian notions did not exist at the expense of evolutionary fitness.
Such as the notions that "
everyone has to gs a right to get married / have a relationship"; "high status men should limit themselves to ONLY 1 wife - instead of do what's in evolution's interest, and take MULTIPLE wives and concubines while killing or enslaving low-status men to ensure they don't reproduce.
Some half-breed spic mongrel with the spic last name "Fuentes"? Who cares? Just kill it along with the other defectives.
NO, they are radical LEFT who hate traditional society and meritocracy.
A LOW STATUS man like an "Incel" has NEVER had any power over HIGH STATUS woman; women in positions of power and authority (e.x. princesses, queens, empresses; Sappho, Cleopatra, Victoria, Catherine the Great, Empress Wu); in ancient societies, family and linage was much more significant; much as how as an ancient female monarch or noblewoman would have had more access to luxuries such as personal liberty, education, career or life pursuits, and so on than an "average" or "empoverished" woman today does.
(Example, the ancient Greek poetess Sappho was well-educated and a socially prominent author during her time, much more than an "average" or "poor" woman today is).
Much as they do in the ANIMAL kingdom as well (the female ANT or BEE QUEEN holds power and dominion over male servants or drones).
---
Ancient Queens and monarchs even had male concubines or "sex slaves:
https://www.markcarlson-ghost.com/in...or-woman-king/
https://historycollection.com/wu-zet...to-disgrace/3/
---
Men of LOW STATUS, such as "incels" those who admit they can only reproduce through rape, have NEVER had an entitlement to sex - in fact the OPPOSITE is true, they were ACTIVELY and INTENTIONALLY DENIED any right or ability to reproduce - whether this meant castrating them and forcing them to serve the king or the queen in the harem, forcing them into slavery, or otherwise - and for GOOD reason.
People who were HIGH STATUS and WELL EDUCATED did not automatically marry young, but invested in superior qualities and traits - "marrying young" was likely something that poor or slave-class people did due to not having any better intellectual or other traits to offer societiy; or perhaps sometimes arranged by wealthy parents to ensure that their child married into a wealthy or high status family.
A HIGH STATUS man of ancient times, such as any Biblical patriarch, would be the equivalent of a Fortune 500 CEO by today's standards, a weak and ineffectual INCEL would never have been able to aspire to such a thing, he would have merely been slave, chattel, or DEAD.
---
As for GENDER ROLES - unless you mean something which falls under the domain of legal and/or moral philosophy (e.x. child support and custody; marriage, divorce, infidelity, etc) then specific "roles" are ultimately private contracts or "roles" under the domain of individuals or families (e.x. women have always done "work" as needed; even in times where contemporary laws preventing hiring or employment discrimination allegedly didn't exist).
In reality, of course men and women have always performed similar "functions" depending on the social context, with pragmatics often being the case (HIGH STATUS women, whether Sappho, Queen Victoria, Woolstonecraft, Marie Curie, or those traditionally born into "good families" have always had more opportunities to education, higher-level work.self-actualization, and other things than men or women of LOW STATUS).
Gun ownership encourages subversion by anti-nationalists, so only members of the right-wing national party should be allowed to own guns, a leftist with a gun is a dangerous terrorist and subversive. Hitler was right to ban firearm ownership for groups he considered subversive
(He wasn't able to do this effectively enough to thwart the resistance, but with modern technology and tracking systems, perhaps it could be done; registration in the national-right wing party could be electronically tracked during gun purchases to ensure that subversives aren't able to possess them).
You are a fool on this one - women of HIGH STATUS, BIRTH, ETC have ALWAYS had more rights than "impoverished" or "average" women and ALWAYS naturally ruled over inferior men, for good reason.
Just as they do in the ANIMAL kingdom as well; such as in ant colonies and bee colonies, where the QUEEN rules and and dominates her subjects.
EVOLUTION and NATURE favors SUPERIOR MEN AND WOMEN over inferior or defective ones.
Even today, low-status women, usually those of little intelligence or other evolutionary desirable traits do settle for worthless males, since pragmatism tends to be much more pressing in the case of "average" or "impoverished people".
What you are saying is NONSENSE.
There were FAR MORE SINGLE MEN in ancient times, where dominant men could MARRY MULTIPLE WIVES or concubines, and castrate the weak and defective men and force them into slavery. (Such practices exist in nature as well; in ant colonies, only the queen is allowed to procreate, while "workers" are sterilized by the tribe, or killed if they attempt to procreate instead of the queen).
Modern, EGALITARIAN notions like MONOGAMY have done the opposite; they've made it socially undesirable for DOMINANT men to do what's in evolution's interest and marry multiple wives and concubines and produce superior offspring, and attempted to give a low-status and defective male like an "incel" an "equal" opportunity to marry or find a partner as a "high status men".
Such a thing is LEFT-WING, EGALITARIAN, and genetically and socially REGRESSIVE; putting the pitiful wants of incels and other untermench on par with societies' ELITE men and women and subverting their natural right to dominate at the expense of the less effectual
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by MarcusA
Marriage and sex are a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT - society has no impetus to allow defectives to marry or reproduce; this is a "MODERN, EGALITARIAN" notion bastardized from Rousseau and Catholic sacraments, NOT a traditional one.
Bookmarks