"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists

[Aldarion]

The key thing would be to take a dragon's breath to the whole "she can divorce him anytime and take all his stuff" nonsense.
No more alimony. If she quits the relationship, he has no more obligations towards her, period.

That is how it was in Croatia few decades ago.

When my parents divorced, my mother didn't get alimony, or any money, or anything. Just got her stuff, took me, and went. And they still remained in contact for my sake.

The tragedy of the ones who look like the Jabba the Hutt is that, I think, your standard/default woman is at least passable if not attractive. If these people would just observe beauty standards, fix their attitude and take care of themselves, they’d be surprised how many men’s eyes they’d catch.

A person on Reddit once said to me, in a conversation like this, that he’d seen “so many beautiful women trapped in a prison of flesh and French fries.”

And you can probably say the same for a lot of men too.

Yep.

Greatest tragedy of a modern society is that we are literally surrounded by poison. And it shows.

Seriously, when it comes to basic health (not including medical care and such), the height of Western health was somewhere between 600 and 1200 AD.

 

[Jormungandr]

That is how it was in Croatia few decades ago.

When my parents divorced, my mother didn't get alimony, or any money, or anything. Just got her stuff, took me, and went. And they still remained in contact for my sake.

Yep.

Greatest tragedy of a modern society is that we are literally surrounded by poison. And it shows.

Seriously, when it comes to basic health (not including medical care and such), the height of Western health was somewhere between 600 and 1200 AD.

Ironically, Medieval peasants and serfs ate a lot more healthier than we do in the modern era -- fish (e.g. salmon), fresh fruits, grains, and vegetables, lean meat from hunting, et cetera.

Kinda says something in itself, haha.

 

[Doomsought]

Ironically, Medieval peasants and serfs ate a lot more healthier than we do in the modern era -- fish (e.g. salmon), fresh fruits, grains, and vegetables, lean meat from hunting, et cetera.

Kinda says something in itself, haha.

Not really, they often had to make due with impurities that we don't have in our food. Bread infamously was contaminated with a weed that caused upset stomach, people couldn't completely eliminate that weed from wheat fields until synthetic pesticides. They also ate a lot of expired food because they lacked refrigeration. Fermentation, salt and smoking where basically the only forms of preservatives they had.

 

[Jormungandr]

Not really, they often had to make due with impurities that we don't have in our food. Bread infamously was contaminated with a weed that caused upset stomach, people couldn't completely eliminate that weed from wheat fields until synthetic pesticides. They also ate a lot of expired food because they lacked refrigeration. Fermentation, salt and smoking where basically the only forms of preservatives they had.

Fermentation, salting, and other preservation methods did work, though. You are right about the stomach bugs and weeds; I'd completely forgotten about those.

IIRC weren't they still an issue in wheat fields until WW1/early 20th or so?

 

[Aldarion]

Ironically, Medieval peasants and serfs ate a lot more healthier than we do in the modern era -- fish (e.g. salmon), fresh fruits, grains, and vegetables, lean meat from hunting, et cetera.

Kinda says something in itself, haha.

Yep. Pretty much my point.

Not really, they often had to make due with impurities that we don't have in our food. Bread infamously was contaminated with a weed that caused upset stomach, people couldn't completely eliminate that weed from wheat fields until synthetic pesticides. They also ate a lot of expired food because they lacked refrigeration. Fermentation, salt and smoking where basically the only forms of preservatives they had.

And we have to do with impurities they didn't have in their food... and ours are often even worse.

I mean, we have to think about microplastics, mercury, and so on. Bread being contaminated isn't that bad by comparison, especially since it wasn't a staple food.

So while you are correct about their food having flaws as well, I am not sure these were as major as you think.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

It’s amusing in some respects. If you could keep modern medicine, life as medieval peasant wouldn’t be as unbearable as you might think.

 

[LordsFire]

Because I don't want millions of unwanted children to grow up resenting a world where they shouldn't have existed.

Do you have any idea how many people are on the waiting list to adopt? It's over two million people (or was the last time-period I had the stat from), which was about double the annual abortion ratio before RvW was overturned.

Do you have any idea how many women who chose not to kill their baby, would decide, 'hey, I want to take care of this baby after all?'

Nor do I want to force any woman to carry to term a foetus she does not want to.

If she didn't want a baby, she should not have had sex. A very small percentage of aborted babies are the result of rape, but as others on the thread have said, it's an extremely small number.

Acting like an adult (choosing to have sex) comes with adult responsibilities, meaning having a baby.

Even if those Bible thumpers and their blatantly ignorant beliefs about life starting at conception were true, nobody can force you to support another being's life with your own.

I can tell you've spend along time int he abortionists bubble, because that's nonsense.

Humans are living organisms. From conception, a fetus has its own unique genetic code, and thus by all scientific definitions is an independent life-form. Some people make arguments about capable of surviving independently, or argue about personhood not happening until brain activity or similar. There's arguments about that, but nobody who is talking seriously about biology is going to claim a baby isn't alive.

As to force someone to support another being's life with your own, again, the woman makes the choice when she chooses to have sex. If she doesn't want the responsibility, don't do something that will get you pregnant.

For example, nobody can force you to give a blood transfusion or organ transplant, even if it leads to the death of another person.

The autonomy of the body and social order are both only preserved by making abortion legal and available to anyone who wants one, for any reason that they can think of.

No, it isn't. Devaluing human life is corrosive to the social order, and abortion has had all kinds of costs. From a societal standpoint, it heads in the direction of 'MAID' and crap like what Canada is doing now, from a legal standpoint, it puts into question what legal personhood is, and some leftists have pushed for 'post-birth abortion' legality, and morally, taking the life of the most innocent human beings possible has a horrific cost.

If I got some links of women talking about how horrible the abortion they went through was, would you be willing to read or watch them?

 

[mrttao]

unfortunately in their mind that isn't usually how it works. they start thinking they deserve a guy as nice as Jason who is as good in bed as Tyrone who is richer than Jake was when he was buying her all those nice things she deserves who is as good around the house as Paul was ect. It tends to be that they build up in their head that they deserve an amalgamation of the best traits of their previous guys without doing any work on themselves. it tends to be in the mid 30s early 40s that they start being willing to start to reduce their standards. but by that time guys their age aren't looking for a woman like them. they want a family and that means they gotta look a bit younger.

It is this whole princess syndrome

> a prince once fucked and chucked me
> this means I can pull a prince
> this means I can marry a prince at any time I feel like it. this is what I am worth.
> ewww, this guy is not a prince. why would I ever settle for him?

they need to realize that just because once, when they were young and pretty, a prince deigned to use them as a disposable rag for a night, does not mean they are worthy of marrying a prince.

 

[Aldarion]

It’s amusing in some respects. If you could keep modern medicine, life as medieval peasant wouldn’t be as unbearable as you might think.

Even without modern medicine it wouldn't be that bad so long as you don't end up in one of outbreaks of Black Death.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

o you have any idea how many people are on the waiting list to adopt?

And how many orphans or other children are also waiting to be adopted?

Do you have any idea how many women who chose not to kill their baby, would decide, 'hey, I want to take care of this baby after all?'

Not many. It's why the anti-abortion movement is toxic to anyone who wants the female vote. The only ones who support it are older Evangelical women, who should probably be classed with the Chickens For KFCs crowd with how they constantly bend over backwards for people who see them as second class citizens that should be submissive to their men.

If she didn't want a baby, she should not have had sex

Quite true, but I see no reason for why the children- as well as society in general- should be punished for their idiocy.

And if it's a case of rape, then there should be no punishments for anyone but the rapist. A position that is clearly not reflected in the actual policy Evangelicals are supporting in Texas and other Bible Belt regions.

No, it isn't.

If you don't believe in bodily autonomy, then we are going to have problems.

 

[Aldarion]

If you don't believe in bodily autonomy, then we are going to have problems.

Abortion has nothing to do with bodily autonomy because fetus isn't woman's body.

The end.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

bortion has nothing to do with bodily autonomy because fetus isn't woman's body.

But it is entirely dependent on the mother to survive, and she has a choice about whether it will or not. Full stop.

The mother is the only one relevant here, because she's the only one who has to bear the foetus.

 

[Scottty]

And how many orphans or other children are also waiting to be adopted?

That there is a waiting list for people who want to adopt children tells us that the supply is unequal to the demand, that all those orphans/etc get adopted pretty quick.

 

[Blasterbot]

But it is entirely dependent on the mother to survive, and she has a choice about whether it will or not. Full stop.

The mother is the only one relevant here, because she's the only one who has to bear the foetus.

so are babies. hell most kids are completely dependent on their guardians. heck I'd argue on the order of half of the population couldn't actually survive a week on their own.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

That there is a waiting list for people who want to adopt children tells us that the supply is unequal to the demand

Not all orphans are equal. Some are more and less desirable than others.

so are babies. hell most kids are completely dependent on their guardians. heck I'd argue on the order of half of the population couldn't actually survive a week on their own.

They are not dependent on their mother's living functions to just exist. But yes, an argument could be made that mothers cannot be compelled to breastfeed their children.

But nobody is making that argument right now, so whatever.

 

[Blasterbot]

Not all orphans are equal. Some are more and less desirable than others.

They are not dependent on their mother's living functions to just exist. But yes, an argument could be made that mothers cannot be compelled to breastfeed their children.

But nobody is making that argument right now, so whatever.

fair but the government is in charge of adoptions so the fact that it is inefficient and awful at actually matching up prospective families for the kids is just expected at this point.

I am unmoved by the argument that the mother being the incubator for the baby means she gets to choose whether or not to kill it. it makes no difference to me whether the kid is in the womb or outside of it. murder is bad. murdering your own kid because you want to go out and party or it would ruin your figure or you can't afford a kid but you can afford a bunch of other expensive material things like more than 90% of abortions are about is just awful and horrendous.

 

[Aldarion]

But it is entirely dependent on the mother to survive, and she has a choice about whether it will or not. Full stop.

The mother is the only one relevant here, because she's the only one who has to bear the foetus.

So are babies dependant on their guardians. People in coma are dependant on machines. Hell, all of us are dependant on each other.

If being dependant onto somebody gives that somebody right to decide whether you get to live or die... I really think you don't understand what you are arguing for here. Or at least I hope you don't.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

I am unmoved by the argument that the mother being the incubator for the baby means she gets to choose whether or not to kill it.

Then we have differing opinions on bodily autonomy. Not prioritizing it is how you end up with government officials and doctors deciding to euthanize sick people and taking their organs. Because it WILL go that way. The very idea that people don't have control over their body will lead to dystopian shenanigans.

o are babies dependant on their guardians. People in coma are dependant on machines. Hell, all of us are dependant on each other.

They are not attached to another being for existence, and I have already addressed that it can lead to some disturbing ideas like legalized infanticide if taken too far. But since nobody is taking it that far, and pro-choice activists are only concerned with ensuring that women don't get forced to bear the children of their rapists or mistakes, we can let that lie for now.

Later, of course, we can deal with it. But personally, I don't think a child is a person until the umbilical cord is cut anyway. Until then, I treat it as just another extension of its mother. And of course, all individuals have full autonomy over their own bodies and souls.

 

[Aldarion]

They are not attached to another being for existence, and I have already addressed that it can lead to some disturbing ideas like legalized infanticide if taken too far. But since nobody is taking it that far, and pro-choice activists are only concerned with ensuring that women don't get forced to bear the children of their rapists or mistakes, we can let that lie for now.

Later, of course, we can deal with it. But personally, I don't think a child is a person until the umbilical cord is cut anyway. Until then, I treat it as just another extension of its mother. And of course, all individuals have full autonomy over their own bodies and souls.

Child is its own individual from the time it is conceived. Every other possible measure is arbitrary, but genetics don't lie. Meaning that abortion is murder, fullstop.

And "not attached to another being for existence" is a completely random and worthless argument as they are still incapable of existing on their own. Whether they are attached to another human being or to a machine is completely irrelevant. If a baby can be legally murdered because it cannot live on its own, then people in coma, or relying on dialysis and so on, also have no right to live.

And no, "pro-choice activists" are not

only concerned with ensuring that women don't get forced to bear the children of their rapists or mistakes

They want the women to have complete freedom from consequences, to be able to fuck whenever she wants and whoever she wants without having to worry about anything so old-fashioned as responsibility. Rape argument only becomes relevant as a strawman to shut down the opposition... nevermind that the best solution for issue of rape is prevention in the shape of .45 hollowpoint, but you will never hear a leftist even considering that.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

They want the women to have complete freedom from consequences, to be able to fuck whenever she wants and whoever she wants without having to worry about anything so old-fashioned as responsibility

Absolutely. Meanwhile, the other side wants to punish them for having sex.

Personally, I don't stand for punishing victimless crimes. If someone's body or property has been harmed? Sure, let the bullets fly. But we are not obligated to protect the feelings of a Bronze Age cult that thinks it has the right to tell us what to do or not to do.

Religion will be left alone as long as it leaves others alone. Otherwise, remember how low it has fallen and how much lower it can fall.

Child is its own individual from the time it is conceived

Lmao, it isn't even capable of existing by itself. It's just another part of its mother's body.

And "not attached to another being for existence" is a completely random and worthless argument as they are still incapable of existing on their own

Nope. They derive everything from their mother. They have no individual existence, not even a mind.