Culture Female sexuality and the necessity of Patriarchy

[LTR]

I'm locking this thread for at least 24 hours so people can cool off and take a step back.

It's veered waaaaaay off from its original topic of talking about watching women dance erotically while civilization burns.

 

[LordSunhawk]

After significant review, @Harlock will be receiving a 3 day threadban for his conduct in this thread and has been spoken with by the rest of staff over his conduct in this thread. The thread is now unlocked and the Boot hopes that people will stay on topic in the future.

 

[mesonoxian]

So here is another Invictus essay thread.

In modern times, we hear a lot about Patriarchy, about how it is an unjust system that oppresses women and seeks to control their bodies.

The animus against Patriarchy, is the core of feminism.

Feminists and sexual libertines will often say, “the patriarchy evolved to regulate or control female sexuality”.

This is not false, in fact is the essence of why patriarchy is necessary.

So what is this female sexual power? What does it entail that warrants a bridle to regulate it?

Well firstly, women are necessary for the making of life. Sons, children. Society can not endure without them having sex. Another matter is paternity. A woman. A woman may cheat on her husband and thus a child will be born that is not his. Women also forge bonds through sex that men do not.

So there are a few elements here.

-Firstly cuckoldry is strictly punished in any healthy society both for the maintenance of the building block of society. The marriage vow which ties society together at the smallest level. That is women must not cheat. Fidelity to one’s husband is the maintenance of the social and moral order reflected at the smallest scale. Infidelity leads to social disorder and decay. Also it renders men’s efforts useless. A man’s greatest desire at least of this world is to sire descendants who will carry on his legacy. King and farmer. If this doesn’t happen if a man can not trust that the children he has are his, he can not reasonably be said to have left any legacy and his contribution to civilization and the future is stolen from him.
-Secondly, women forge emotional bonds through sex. This is absolutely necessary to be maintained. For families, communities, and nations. When this bond is broken or the ability to do so is broken through promiscuity or other sexual behaviors, it produces a number of ill effects.

1. Firstly men are far more reluctant to marry a woman who is used goods. And will not likely be able to bond with him on a psychic level or be faithful.
2. Secondly female promiscuity leads to male immorality, as men indulge in unhealthy, risky, and animalistic behavior to get the attention of women who have hundreds of choices. PUA and “game” would not exist in a healthy patriarchal society.
3. Political turmoil. Women have to be regulated, they are easily led and emotional. In healthy times, a husband or father will hold power over them, and over their bodies. (This applies to young women under their father’s authority). Such women when not under control will vote for or push against healthy order, whether that be in modern movements or voting for things like gun control or refugees. Woman’s emotional impulses must be controlled. A woman’s sexual yearnings, must not be satisfied vicariously but only through marriage.

So what does a healthy patriarchal society look like?

Firstly-boys and men do not think about or worry about sex as much. The more promiscuous and unveiled women are, the less men focus on the higher things. Secondly, more social stability. No or much reduced subversive movements and political operations. Thirdly-greater happiness. Most women if they only submitted to male authority would actually be happy, as opposed to spending two decades as sluts and then being drunkards, depressed, and empty.

Female sexuality “in the wild”-actually is promiscuous, capricious, and entirely untrustworthy. This was understood for thousands of years-“if women are not controlled, if they are not regulated” then society will totter and fall.

So yes, women’s bodies must be controlled. They must be regulated, even if they object.

Basically female sexual power is too important to be left to females. To paraphrase Talleyrand.

A healthy society will channel and discipline the female urges, and will prosper for it.

To use a thought experiment-assuming all restraint was lifted, women would descend into a primal sensuousness, a wild trance that once started could not be stopped, that would lead to civilization burning amidst their erotic dances. Even in the most primitive societies, female sexuality. Albeit in such small groupings, some level of female infidelity can be tolerated-as everyone is basically related anyway. But in civilized societies above a level around 500 people, it can not be tolerated.

Which is why, in answer to feminists, yes female sexuality is important, it’s just too important for women to have lordship over.

Lord Invictus.

This is genuinely one of the stupidest things I have ever read in my life. Anjd I have read a lot of stupid shit.

Wild idea: Women are people, and can manage their own lives and sexuality without your deep thoughts.

Next time you wonder why people treat right wingers as bitter weirdos whose ideas don't merit consideration, remember this post.

 

[ShieldWife]

Even if we accept that people have the right to engage in any consensual sexual act that they desire, and I’d say that there is a very strong case to be made for that, we would still have to admit that if enough people engage in certain consensual behaviors that it would be ruinous for humanity, maybe so much so that it might justify government coercion.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I'd say its questionable if people have the right to engage in any sexual act they desire, even consensually. Sex is important, and not just for reproduction. So I think it bears regulating. Because the sexual actions and lives of men and women both exert such a great pull on society as a whole, and on their own lives as individuals. It would be a dereliction to allow it to exist in an unfettered and unregulated state.

Human nature being what it is, means people will stray and act outside of socially proscribed boundaries. That said, these boundaries exist for a reason.

 

[ShieldWife]

I'd say its questionable if people have the right to engage in any sexual act they desire, even consensually. Sex is important, and not just for reproduction. So I think it bears regulating. Because the sexual actions and lives of men and women both exert such a great pull on society as a whole, and on their own lives as individuals.

Human nature being what it is, means people will stray and act outside of socially proscribed boundaries. That said, these boundaries exist for a reason.

Well, I didn’t assume that people necessarily have that right, but I think that a strong case can be made for having that right. Though there are all sorts of behaviors people can engage in that they have a right to engage in, not just sexual behaviors, that are destructive to society especially if lots of people do it. Do we outlaw everything like that?

Can we really say that we would use violence against people for having consensual premarital sex? That sounds like a scary prospect to me. I’d far rather those kinds of morals be enforced through culture and social pressure rather than by force of law. Really, they would have to be.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Well, I didn’t assume that people necessarily have that right, but I think that a strong case can be made for having that right. Though there are all sorts of behaviors people can engage in that they have a right to engage in, not just sexual behaviors, that are destructive to society especially if lots of people do it. Do we outlaw everything like that?

An interesting discussion would be an examination of the concept of "rights" themselves, and how they ought to be applied or not. I'm generally a libertarian-at least as far as people self destructing go, if you do something foolish it should not be the job of society to correct your thinking, your behavior if its criminal yes. That said at the social level, I think social pressure and incentive structures work best. If someone is intent on engaging in behavior that society otherwise pressures them against, they should be allowed to fall on their own. I guess you might combine strict penalties for stupid or immoral behavior-for example, harsh laws if you kill someone while speeding, but otherwise laxer laws as far as speed limits go. People should have freedom, but they should not free of the consequences of freedom.

Can we really say that we would use violence against people for having consensual premarital sex? That sounds like a scary prospect to me. I’d far rather those kinds of morals be enforced through culture and social pressure rather than by force of law.

Depends on the circumstance. I'd probably be one to insist you marry if you impregnate your girlfriend. As a teenager or young adult. No social shaming or stigma for youthful passion, but "okay here is what that means for you". You crack down on this more through both external pressure and also getting people to internalize the value of self discipline, modesty, and chastity.

Force of law without cultural pressure, just means said law will be overturned as an inevitability.

 

[hyperspacewizard]

I feel this video would be relevant to the discussion also the video maker got sacked from his job because he refused to remove said video

 

[Xilizhra]

To use a thought experiment-assuming all restraint was lifted, women would descend into a primal sensuousness, a wild trance that once started could not be stopped, that would lead to civilization burning amidst their erotic dances.

Oh, fuck, the men know.

Honestly, I've always found arguments like this to be strange, because they seem to be predicated on a quite intense disdain for men. Who are, by my count...

Women also forge bonds through sex that men do not.

Incapable of fostering love.

Also it renders men’s efforts useless. A man’s greatest desire at least of this world is to sire descendants who will carry on his legacy. King and farmer. If this doesn’t happen if a man can not trust that the children he has are his, he can not reasonably be said to have left any legacy and his contribution to civilization and the future is stolen from him.

Tunnel-visioned on genetic ties and lacking in group loyalty to anything larger.

1. Firstly men are far more reluctant to marry a woman who is used goods. And will not likely be able to bond with him on a psychic level or be faithful.

Insecure and egotistical.

2. Secondly female promiscuity leads to male immorality, as men indulge in unhealthy, risky, and animalistic behavior to get the attention of women who have hundreds of choices. PUA and “game” would not exist in a healthy patriarchal society.

Idiotic and destructive.

3. Political turmoil. Women have to be regulated, they are easily led and emotional. In healthy times, a husband or father will hold power over them, and over their bodies. (This applies to young women under their father’s authority). Such women when not under control will vote for or push against healthy order, whether that be in modern movements or voting for things like gun control or refugees. Woman’s emotional impulses must be controlled. A woman’s sexual yearnings, must not be satisfied vicariously but only through marriage.

Totally lacking in self-awareness, given how apparently emotionally led they were through the last few points.

Firstly-boys and men do not think about or worry about sex as much. The more promiscuous and unveiled women are, the less men focus on the higher things.

Incapable of self-control.

So, like, why so misandrist?

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

That's sort of a recurring theme from the Victorian and Edwardian eras isn't it? A bit of an artifact that I find is an anathema to the rugged, individualistic stoic that made the Americas. From Washington, to Juan Manuel De Rosas, to Teddy Roosevelt.

All the so called "men" of the Viennese coffee shop, of the elite of Europe were a bunch of dysgenic, effete snobs who were constantly portrayed as LITERALLY SHAKING..and fainting at the drop of a hat, needing to be "refreshed with brandy" and patted and reassured by the ever present female whose "subtle strengths of the woman mean that she is a creature built to endure where the man is a far more intemperate beast". I've never cared for that...I've found it to be probably the driving force behind why European cultures basically got emasculated into irrelevancy by the Americas and Japan in the gilded age and the 20th century...Why world wars broke them and yet invigorated us.

We are creatures of emotion..But we shouldn't be creatures governed by emotion..... A male, a real male weaponizes it, channels it, pulls the iron of his heart through a crucible of life experience and knowledge to create pristine steel that allows him to assert his will against the world. To do this a male needs a female who is just as driven, just as assertive and usually they both need kids to move their asses. We are not as a species meant to be alone, nor are we meant to be governed by one or the other.

The Female by contrast, was always the keeper of the culture and the blood, practicing a fucked up caveman's understanding of eugenics, with ostracization and condemnation. It's why 90% of domestic abuse involving a male ends in prison time but 90% of domestic abuse perpetrated by a female ends in suicides...We're both compelled by biology and driven by instinct...But we're the emotional ones..Woman at her core is cold, methodical, robotic and governed by a need to cull. And neither one is whole and able to function properly without the other in their life..And even then they usually need kids to keep it from turning into MAD. Again....not meant to be alone, not meant to dominated or to dominate.

The matriarchically lead societies of the world were of the most grotesque and violent and vicious on earth...And patriarchies tend to crumble from within because they're either run by absolute SIMPs (Europe in the 1880's and Nazi Germany), or the men who run them become short sighted, greey, fat and lazy...and will import a bunch of violent aliens and create welfare dependencies that destroy them (Rome with the Germanics and Modern Europe).


The only societies that haven't been a gigantic clusterfuck are the ones where the two dysfunctional beasts that make up our species work together..usually under pressure and against an external threat.

The US is a great example of that...pioneers were married couples working together in tandem with their neighbors to assert their will on a wild land....When a strong daddy or a wise matron took over in parts of Latin America those nations tended to crumble under batshit lunacy or moral and spiritual cuckoldry rather quickly and only sorted themselves out (if at all) when families moved together..


Of course none of this is possible without culture

And in every instance of either extreme..Culture had been gutted and rebooted a few generations prior..or Culture had been formed retardedly (Sparta was doomed before it even began because of Bronze age Soccer moms, Japan was hopelessly fucked because it always prized collective male honor over individual honor and pride). And those glorious civilizations where men and women built better worlds together..tended to only collapse when one gender or the other asserted itself..and then did something to fuck its culture up the ass.


Modern women are a disaster for the same reason modern men are...Because we've been sold a lie that deconstruction is beneficent..it isn't and every nation, every civilization throughout history that's flirted with it went up in flames.


Patriarchy isn't the answer..Cultural Supremacy is.

 

[Deleted member 88]

One Victorian cultural idea I think that needs to be put to rest is the idea of the virtuous woman who never countenances a crass joke, gets mortified at the mention of sex, and “lies back and thinks of England”.

Even in the medieval ages, it’s noted that female infidelity occurred in chivalrous manuals for nobles, in Puritan times, young people married and often a child was born less than a year afterwards, and so on.

The idea of the sexless woman, is a Victorian construct. Perhaps it was an ideal they wished to strive for, but it’s simply not true. And it wasn’t true then.

Which is why it’s important for us today to understand that yes female sexuality exists and was regulated not because men had some naive notion that women were angelic sexless beings, but in fact they knew the opposite.

Incapable of fostering love.

Men don’t forge the same bonds during sex that women do? That doesn’t mean that they don’t love it just means the psychological mechanisms are different.

Tunnel-visioned on genetic ties and lacking in group loyalty to anything larger.

No one(at least no one with self respect-fetishists included) wants to be cuckolded. Even unknowingly. I don’t want to be a father and then learn on my death bed my children aren’t mine. Why should a man have loyalty to a child that is born due to his partner’s dishonesty?

Insecure and egotistical.

“I’ve found the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with, but wait she’s had dozens of sexual partners. How can I trust she really means what she says when we take our wedding vows, “do you promise to take no other” I can’t”. It’s not insecure to want fidelity.

Idiotic and destructive.

To be fair this is a natural male behavior. Men do dumb things to get the attention of women. I had a classmate once who tried climbing under a stair well, and swinging under it, to impress the girls. He hit a nerve and got knocked unconscious. Had to be carried by the principal and another teacher to the hospital (I consider him a friend and deeply admire him but even then I couldn’t help but feel his actions were stupid)-men do this. It’s natural. They wouldn’t spend as much time or risk their own bodies and minds if they didn’t feel they had to compete constantly with other men for female attention. In a society that liberates women to choose whatever men they wish, however many and so on-men engage in such behaviors because they need to stand out, often to their own detriment.

Totally lacking in self-awareness, given how apparently emotionally led they were through the last few points.

Women are more easily swayed on appeals to compassion or a latent motherly instinct. Men are of course swayed on different grounds, but it’s easier to control and manipulate mass society with female participation in the poleis due to mass propaganda being specifically targeted on emotions that women feel the most strongly.

Incapable of self-control.

So, like, why so misandrist?

No denial there. Men require a lot of discipline and other things to control themselves. To not revert to a bestial primal sort of masculine animality. Do you really think that they have more control now then they did a thousand years ago or two thousand? Before feminism and female sexual liberation?

I’m a pessimistic realist. Human nature is not that of angels and people’s drives and behaviors are regulated or were regulated in recognition of the fact that yes these things can be destructive if not corralled and channeled properly. That applies to both men and women.

I’m not going to advocate for “pump and dump” or any sort of “player” culture. Or some sort of “men get all the freedom”, “women all the responsibilities”.

Also...female and male behavior influence each other? Expecting men to act in the way you expect in absence of corresponding behavior and virtue on women’s part is unrealistic and the same sort of “every person is an island and no one is influenced by social factors” that are used against libertarianism.

 

[ShieldWife]

An interesting discussion would be an examination of the concept of "rights" themselves, and how they ought to be applied or not. I'm generally a libertarian-at least as far as people self destructing go, if you do something foolish it should not be the job of society to correct your thinking, your behavior if its criminal yes. That said at the social level, I think social pressure and incentive structures work best. If someone is intent on engaging in behavior that society otherwise pressures them against, they should be allowed to fall on their own. I guess you might combine strict penalties for stupid or immoral behavior-for example, harsh laws if you kill someone while speeding, but otherwise laxer laws as far as speed limits go. People should have freedom, but they should not free of the consequences of freedom.


Depends on the circumstance. I'd probably be one to insist you marry if you impregnate your girlfriend. As a teenager or young adult. No social shaming or stigma for youthful passion, but "okay here is what that means for you". You crack down on this more through both external pressure and also getting people to internalize the value of self discipline, modesty, and chastity.

Force of law without cultural pressure, just means said law will be overturned as an inevitability.

Rights are artificial constructs which are based on the reality of human nature, kind of like how physics is an artificial construct based on physical nature. So a government can't freely decide what rights are any more than they can freely decide what the laws of physics are. Are there times when there is a need so pressing that we must violate people's rights? Probably so, but deciding when and how to do that is a slippery slope.

One way, as others like Cherico have said, is not to use legal force to stop people from sexual immorality, but at least we could stop using the legal force to encourage sexual immorality - which first world nations do. That could certainly help.

Once pregnancy happens, we aren't just talking about two consensual sexual partners anymore, we now bring a baby into the equation which must be cared for (voluntarily or involuntarily, by relatives or the state) or killed. So even a staunch libertarian might accept the intervention of government in that case. How should the government intervene? I'm not sure if forcing people to get married is the best solution, assuming we don't change other aspects of society. You'd have a huge number of women throwing themselves at bad boys or rich guys and "accidentally" getting pregnant. You'd also end up with a lot of completely incompatible promiscuous people forced into marriages that they would hate. Abortion is currently an option in most nations, but if one thinks that abortion is murder then that would be horrendous.

I think instead of forcing marriage I might actually go in an even more radical minimalist government direction. The father isn't forced to do anything. He doesn't have to marry the girl he knocked up, he doesn't have to pay child support, he doesn't have to take care of the baby in any way. Which is basically how most of human civilization functioned for millennia. That is allowing women to suffer the consequences of their actions, and would likely cause women to give a bit more consideration to who they jumped into bed with.

Incapable of fostering love.

Men and women are both capable of love and sex can certainly be emotionally powerful for men just like women. I think that there is an important difference though, because there is some strong data to suggest that women have a sort of sex-love burn out, where sex creates a strong emotional bond with the man, but that more sex with different man makes that reaction increasingly weak until women essentially lose the ability to fall in love.

They have done studies that show that women whose husbands are there first sexual partner have a very low chance of getting divorced. If the is one previous sexual partner, the chance of divorce is higher, two sexual partners, even higher. I think by the time we get up to 10 sexual partners and a woman is almost certain to get divorced if she gets married.

 

[Guncannon]

2. Secondly female promiscuity leads to male immorality, as men indulge in unhealthy, risky, and animalistic behavior to get the attention of women who have hundreds of choices. PUA and “game” would not exist in a healthy patriarchal society.

So explain male on female rape. Where does that fall under your theory?

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Funny how the opening poster thinks men are primal beasts governed by instinct and is being excoriated for it and I'm here saying men are the fairer sex and women are born sociopaths driven by instinct and compelled to destroy weakness wherever they see it and I've not been hit by the knee jerk posts yet.

I do think we compliment each other and we both need culture to tard wrangle us though.

Edit i think it speaks volumes for how we are programmed socially. Patriarchy as a word elicits a conditioned emotional response. But spend a lot of words calling women Makoto Shishio and people have nodded at it.

So explain male on female rape. Where does that fall under your theory?

TBH ill wager 200 bucks towards the site that 80% of unreported sexual assault is by male victims or lesbians who were raped by women/their partners.

Women who rape teenaged boys can later sue them for child support and not only win but be called heroes for it.

 

[Deleted member 88]

So explain male on female rape. Where does that fall under your theory?

It’s not supposed to explain everything? But I would say that yes law and custom and culture restrains the extremely powerful male sexual drive, the same way it does female sexual urges.

In just about every society, rape is not tolerated even if it’s condemned on patriarchal property based grounds. When men are desperate, angry, and in moments of primal lust and fury-they rape. Especially in times of war.

At our basest nature, we are savages. Part of the purpose of civilization is to refine and discipline and channel human primal urges that if left unchanneled lead to everyone acting in a bestial and savage way.

Men and women both.

 

[Fleiur]

Funny how the opening poster thinks men are primal beasts governed by instinct and is being excoriated for it and I'm here saying men are the fairer sex and women are born sociopaths driven by instinct and compelled to destroy weakness wherever they see it and I've not been hit by the knee jerk posts yet.

I do think we compliment each other and we both need culture to tard wrangle us though.

Edit i think it speaks volumes for how we are programmed socially. Patriarchy as a word elicits a conditioned emotional response. But spend a lot of words calling women Makoto Shishio and you're nodded at.



TBH ill wager 200 bucks towards the site that 80% of unreported sexual assault is by makle victims or lesbians who were raped by women/their partners.

Women who rape teenaged boys can later sue them for child support and not only win but be called heroes for it.

I agree. Except though that men usually are the perpetrators in sex trafficking.For these women, the big factor is the lack of a father at home.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

I agree. Except though that men usually are the perpetrators in sex trafficking.For these women, the big factor is the lack of a father at home.

You're absolutely right..They're the chief movers, pushers and "wranglers" and "overseers" of those poor kids...But the one who usually sells their daughters and sons to traffickers are usually the mothers.

Step dad's often rape and abuse the step kids because the mothers care about the new boyfriend more than the kid.

Two different flavors of an incredible evil. One can debate which is worse, the mother who condemns her progeny to horror or the men who inflict it upon their kids. You're right though..

 

[Fleiur]

You're absolutely right..They're the chief movers, pushers and "wranglers" and "overseers" of those poor kids...But the one who usually sells their daughters and sons to traffickers are usually the mothers.

Step dad's often rape and abuse the step kids because the mothers care about the new boyfriend more than the kid.

Two different flavors of an incredible evil. One can debate which is worse, the mother who condemns her progeny to horror or the men who inflict it upon their kids. You're right though..

Yes, mothers who are usually broken and corrupted. Because it's a mother's instinct to protect her child. After all it's her flesh and blood and she carried the child for 9 months.

Yes. It's why second family is very complicated. Because in the first place having a family to build is hard and complicated, how much more having second family.

I know I am repeating myself again here. But to me, the good starting point is to marry someone who shares your core values and principles. Because your marriage will be tested, your family will be tested, but at the end of the day, you will go back to those values and principles as a husband and wife.

 

[hyperspacewizard]

I forget where I read it but I think I can get the gist across.
Humans are what happens when the divine mixes with the animal but most people want to forget the animalistic part of ourselves and delude themselves into thinking they are completely rational beings even as they react and make judgments on pure emotions.

While I dislike increased government power and as such think any laws to control any kind of sexual behavior outside of obvious abominations like rape or abuse of minors would be tyrannical I feel like the lack of taboos and social pressures to at least try to not be as promiscuous is detrimental to wider society.

But I have very little ideal of how we can begin to fix such a problem outside of raising your own children to the best of your abilities and providing mentor ship to young people. Though I guess I can hope with how mainstream “sex positivity” is maybe it won’t be cool to have a stupid amount of sex partners anymore. Man I sound old I’m only in my twenties.

 

[Fleiur]

Man I sound old I’m only in my twenties.

I think most of us are in our twenties here.