domain:mgautreau.substack.com
erwgv3g34
9m ago
That was part of the religious rules, yes. Before the modern concept of martial "rape", a man was entitled to take his marital rights from his wife. Consent didn't enter into it; she gave consent when she agreed to marry him, and such was irrevocable.
This is an absolutely essential part of the marriage bargain. Sex is the payment that a man receives for providing and protecting his wife. Saying that a wife has the right to, at any time, stop providing that payment because she does not feel like it, is ridiculous. Doubly so because the typical man disgusts the typical woman, which means any society where the majority of men get married is a society where the wives are laying back and thinking of England, and will stop performing this unpleasant chore at the first opportunity.
To help conceptualize the absurdity, imagine a pro-worker's rights party in government passing a law that an employee is at any time entitled to stop doing useful tasks for a company, but that the company is legally obligated to continue paying that employee his full salary. Oh, and at any time the employee can decide to quit and receive half of the company's assets. What happens to the employment market in such an scenario? Solve for the equilibrium.
Societies which abide by the zeroth commandment cannot survive. Either we get our heads out of our asses about this, or, more likely, we get replaced by a culture that still understands how marriage works, like Muslims (or, more likely still, AI makes all of this relevant, but I have never liked "run for the singularity" as an exit strategy).
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
10m ago
Okay, mea culpa!
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
11m ago
LOL, not even close. I'm suggesting that biology is stuck in a mechanistic paradigm and needs to move beyond it to make progress. I'm not saying this "proves souls" or anything whacky, though I doubt we would be in the same ballpark of what we think "souls" are.
is to make it so that you can have as much sex with your wife as you want, consent be damned, legally
Which is why this was the historical norm in the first place.
Divorce meaning the man loses most of their assets is, quite literally, a pension plan for when a sex worker has had enough of the job. That this means they're grossly overpaid and encouraged to retire that way is a problem not unique to sex workers, but it does come from the same philosophical place as other pension systems do.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
26m ago
In what way is a beehive "male-created"?
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
27m ago
The fundemental problem the hereditarians face is that thier entire edifice rests on an assumption that biology, psychology, and anthropology are not only rigourous and mechanisistic, but sufficiently understood that outcomes can be manipulated in a near deterministic manner. This is manifestly not the case.
Sure biology may be more rigorous than psychology which is in turn more rigourous than anthropology, but none of them are even in the same zip code (much less the same ballpark) as electrical engineering.
Fair enough. If I'm accused of seducing women via lies and deception, it's a charge I'd strongly rebut. If I'm accused of having had sex with women I had no interest in pursuing a serious romantic relationship with - guilty as charged.
ControlsFreak
40m ago
The only historical precedent which has to do with natural children is the legal presumption that a woman's husband is the father of her children, absent other evidence.
What do you make of prohibitions on marriage between sufficiently close relatives? ...what do you make of exceptions to those prohibitions when one of the two individuals could demonstrate that they were sterile?
TowardsPanna
41m ago
Wish I could utterly root and de-bloat and de-spyware my samsung android phone, but I think I need it bloated for bank apps to function.
Crowstep
42m ago
I always found it strange for activists to complain about emotional labour (rather than simply describing it neutrally). I mean sure, most emotional-labour heavy jobs are predominantly female, but that's because those are the jobs women want. A woman doesn't become a nurse because she likes changing bedpans, she becomes a nurse because she likes caring for people. The emotional labour is the main appeal of the job.
The fb-word is a slur and offensive to the community of men experiencing relationship expectation mismatches with women, demeaning the challenges they face in their lived experiences and further entrenching casual misandry. *crosses arms and turns away*
There’s a motte-and-bailey. If asked to define fuckboy, I suspect chicks would say something along the lines of what you described: A guy who obtained or obtains sex by lies and/or deception. However, in practice they extend it to any guy who merely banged them without unilaterally preregistering a guarantee of commitment and no commitment ensuing thereafter (shocked pikachu).
Thus resulting in ex-post hoe maddening. principal_skinner.jpg: “Is it possible I have some accountability in the matter? No, it’s the men who are evil.”
Barfknuckle
59m ago
“wife-selling” was a well-known Anglo practice of soft divorce
wat
Because he goes through the potential mistakes twin studies could be making and convincingly dismisses them all. The only likely source of error would be assortive mating, which would be under estimating genetic impact. If you have an alternative explanation of what mistake the twin studies could be making and how they could correct for it, I'd love to hear
More options
Context Copy link