ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
18hr ago
True; that's why the AoC is currently infinite (and the women still honoring this compromise are generally seen as suckers). I think I could be more precise in saying that they can't sell sex in the context of a relationship that isn't purely exploitative on the woman's part, though since that was the entire point of establishing the AoC in the first place...
All sex is rape [as women obviously can't be trusted not to call sex they regretted rape] + woman forced to marry her rapist [provided this didn't occur where anyone could have reasonably heard her cry rape] is a stable compromise, which is probably why traditionalist societies did that.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
19hr ago
yeah, given my druthers, I'd much rather a hot little 15 year old than that 30 year old hag, I'm only 46, I'm in my prime!
Which is a situation that "30 year old hag" (in your words) would naturally like to avoid. By cutting the top competitors out of the market, the rest of the competitors stabilize their positions.
Yes, the best men (from the most mercenary "sex for resources" perspective) are still going to select right at the limit. But since that market is artificially limited, the total supply of women is constrained, thus the definition of any given quality of man "settling for" becomes a correspondingly older woman (as that's what they can afford; age is usually a proxy for this, which you acknowledge). If no AoC, "settling" would be 20 (or a 8/10), but with the limit in place "settling" may be 25-30 (or a 5/10).
In this way, the AoC protects the sociofinancial interests of all women over it, at the expense of men (in the "not allowed to fully utilize resources for sex" sense, typically rationalized in some form of "men are objectively better than women and so have a duty to them") and women under it (typically rationalized as "too immature", but importantly the AoC doesn't actually prohibit these women from having sex, it just makes it so that the only men they can sell sex to can't afford to buy it).
Is this an overly simplistic model of how men and women form relationships? Sure- most people aren't quite that mercenary- but there's always some element of this present in every relationship (and is the fear keeping the relevant actors up at night).
You are not convincing me of the rightness of your views here
On the contrary, I think you are already convinced. It's not a crime to be on the high side of political power.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
21hr ago
Indeed, how could the law ever criminalise emotional states?
And yet this actually is the law of the land; "woman regrets it afterwards" is the mechanism by which any sex may retroactively become rape. If and when this fails in a court of law, laws get changed to make sure future instances of this succeed.
That's right out of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Most (all?) modern gender politics are.
And if it wasn't obviously in their interest to publicly believe this, I might believe this as well. Half the problem with the "debate" is that this claim isn't being made in good faith; you acknowledge this yourself through your last sentence despite you already having established in previous comments that you know drawing that equivalence is wrong.
So, when everything anyone will tell you is going to be biased in their favor in some way, what else can you do but return to
monkeinitial conditions and reason about what people will say about this topic now assuming those initial conditions remain valid (ignoring stuff like technologies [contraceptives, all known STDs of consequence cured except for one] with which human instinct is not natively compatible)?And the women on here argue that "all men have of value is their ability to physically produce, and that's all they have with which to buy" (or "what price they can fetch on the employment marketplace"). Given gender equality, both should be valid.
The reason for the emphasis on this is that it's the only part of the dynamic we can actually control and measure, much like 6/6/6 is for women (but somehow that's acceptable, which again is why I believe women who do this while believing it's evil when men do it are mistaken at best and actively lying at worst). And every relationship is affected by these dynamics to some degree; there's no getting away from it, we're all human, we like good things, and may God have mercy on our souls.
Is it the full picture? Of course not; people marry their friends all the time to the point it's a meme, women actually seek out casual sex (contrary to an asymmetric biological imperative that they shouldn't), men actually seek out commitment, etc.- but to say that an age beginning with 1 or 2, or a total income that has 5 zeroes in it, isn't a measurable starting point at least some of the time (or at least an attractor, if not the primary one), and isn't the dominating portion of it from people who are working in a way compatible with their instincts? I think that's likely to be destructive.
They'll outcompete me in the dating marketplace for cougars and tomboys (if male sexuality in a woman, then they're probably looking for someone young in that unrealized-potential-is-attractive way); why even live?
More options
Context Copy link