Why has Feminism caused so many single men to go MGTOW since we keep meeting very mean and nasty women all the time?

Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,544
Likes
1,724
And my problem with your input is that this:

"Men have always kept a woman’s sexuality covered for her mans eyes only."

Is a lie. Like I said this applied to the women men married. And not in the age of polygamy just in case you feel like bringing that argument up again. Outside of that premarital sex was far more damaging to women than men which is why I said the double standard is immoral considering the stigma attached to women simply because they're the ones who carry the child. It's that kind of thinking that led to the single mother epidemic.
Well I’m sorry but I keep bringing up polygamy because the culture in this society isn’t normal when comparing it to the dominant historical traditions. It’s not normal to force men to have one woman or encourage homosexual marriage/relationships in functioning societies. Like it or not, polygamy’s existence in history is the reason for the double standard of SEXUAL PROMISCUITY. If you now want say there’s a double standard in regards to premarital sex, well that’s a whole other argument different than the one we original started on which was about sexual promiscuity

Quote, don't paraphrase. I said men had a role to play. Which, as you so generously pointed out earlier is not the same thing as blaming them for something specific. And the beauty industry has nothing to do with clothing or lack thereof. The beauty industry we were referring to revolves around stuff like makeup for example -aesthetics. You completely misunderstood the previous conversation. Literally no one brought up styles of dress or sexuality before you.
Misunderstanding or branching off? I read what you said and branched off of it to a similar topic

Yeah, too bad their women being covered up from head to toe doesn't prevent them from being raped and assaulted. You prove feminists right when you imply clothing is responsible for women getting raped. Which is false anyway because not every r*pe case involves a scantily clad woman.
Of course a woman dressing conservatively doesn’t stop all rapes. Just as locking your car door at night doesn’t mean your car won’t ever get broken into. That doesn’t mean we don’t lock our cars at night though does it?

Believing that promiscuity is an example of a moral standard that is detrimental to both sexes is hardly rejecting traditional gender roles. If you believe men should be whores and women chaste I really don't care, but believing in sexual purity for both sexes is not a feminist position at all. Then again I shouldn't have expected differently from someone who puts being robbed on the same level as being raped.
I believe forcibly holding men and women to the exact same standard of conduct is rejecting gender roles.

And I said men "played a part" in something originally too. I said I hold both sexes accountable for the general disintegration of social values. Get it now?
I have always gotten that. I tried to see if there’s anything you specifically put on women and haven’t gotten an answer. All I get is you bringing up men or repeating what you already stated. But maybe if I reword it it would be better.

As a SIDENOTE, is there anything you specifically blame women for? Abortion? Child support? Why it’s cold in Alaska? Treat this like a convo instead of a debate where you try to stay ahead of your “opponent”. And I say this because you keep acting as if I’m trying to make a point asking you this when I’m just asking...

Women's treatment in the Middle East is not some modern fad story that only recently picked up speed because of the Western social climate. These kinds of stories have been circulating for a long time. So are you going to be able to provide any counter stats or news whatsoever or should I just take your word that the Middle East is a good example of conservative sexual ethics/gender roles?
You shouldn’t take my word alone on anything. What I did suggest is that news stories/stats don’t tell the full story and can be presented in biased ways
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
434
Likes
819
Well I’m sorry but I keep bringing up polygamy because the culture in this society isn’t normal when comparing it to the dominant historical traditions. It’s not normal to force men to have one woman or encourage homosexual marriage/relationships in functioning societies. Like it or not, polygamy’s existence in history is the reason for the double standard of SEXUAL PROMISCUITY.
If I recall correctly, you're religious right? If you do ascribe to an Abrahamic faith then you might recall where the prototypical marriage configuration was between one man and one woman. Like divorce, polygamy wasn't the natural plan for humanity but was introduced as a concession because of people's stubbornness. Are you trying to imply that faithfulness to one woman isn't natural for men? That monogamy to men is as unnatural as gay marriage? Because that's pitiful. Are men really that hard-pressed to keep it in their pants?

If you now want say there’s a double standard in regards to premarital sex, well that’s a whole other argument different than the one we original started on which was about sexual promiscuity
Sexual promiscuity IS referring to premarital sex.


Misunderstanding or branching off? I read what you said and branched off of it to a similar topic
Doesn't sound like a branch-off . . . It sounded like you read what I said and drew the incorrect assumption that because I argued against placing all the blame on women for one topic, that I was some man-hating feminist regressive.

Of course a woman dressing conservatively doesn’t stop all rapes. Just as locking your car door at night doesn’t mean your car won’t ever get broken into. That doesn’t mean we don’t lock our cars at night though does it?
So . . . Let me get this straight. You're comparing leaving a car unlocked and thus vulnerable to theft to dressing provocatively and somehow making yourself vulnerable to being raped? How does that logic work? I could understand and agree that a woman dressing provocatively does invite unwanted attention because it communicates a certain expectation. But there is a world of difference between unwanted sexual attention and actual r*pe. You're honestly making men look like uncontrollable sex fiends who can't be blamed for forcing themselves on anyone showing skin (and not even in all cases). You keep on talking about women having to take responsibility for how they dress . . . Well what about men taking responsibility by not violently forcing themselves on another human being? Theft is not r*pe. Violating another human being is not the same as getting your car broken into and I can't believe a grown adult could even make that comparison.


I believe forcibly holding men and women to the exact same standard of conduct is rejecting gender roles.
So promiscuity is a gender role?

I have always gotten that. I tried to see if there’s anything you specifically put on women and haven’t gotten an answer. All I get is you bringing up men or repeating what you already stated. But maybe if I reword it it would be better.
As a SIDENOTE, is there anything you specifically blame women for? Abortion? Child support? Why it’s cold in Alaska? Treat this like a convo instead of a debate where you try to stay ahead of your “opponent”. And I say this because you keep acting as if I’m trying to make a point asking you this when I’m just asking...
Abortion? Nope. Men bankroll the abortion industry and many are happy to get rid of "unwanted problems" so it's hardly a solely female problem. Child support? So men have no responsibility to their children? I haven't said anything because like it or not the sexes are pretty much irrevocably intertwined -which means that screw-ups are the result of both men and women and not one or the other. I didn't blame men for anything specifically and the reason I keep repeating it is because it nullifies the point you were trying to make (which you did mention earlier btw) - that women don't take responsibility. But let's flip this - what do you specifically blame women for?

You shouldn’t take my word alone on anything. What I did suggest is that news stories/stats don’t tell the full story and can be presented in biased ways
Which I acknowledged and addressed in my original post about this. Hence why I looked for as unbiased links as I could find. But, pray tell, what exactly should I rely on then if not for statistics and news stories?
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,544
Likes
1,724
If I recall correctly, you're religious right? If you do ascribe to an Abrahamic faith then you might recall where the prototypical marriage configuration was between one man and one woman. Like divorce, polygamy wasn't the natural plan for humanity but was introduced as a concession because of people's stubbornness. Are you trying to imply that faithfulness to one woman isn't natural for men? That monogamy to men is as unnatural as gay marriage? Because that's pitiful. Are men really that hard-pressed to keep it in their pants?


Sexual promiscuity IS referring to premarital sex.



Doesn't sound like a branch-off . . . It sounded like you read what I said and drew the incorrect assumption that because I argued against placing all the blame on women for one topic, that I was some man-hating feminist regressive.


So . . . Let me get this straight. You're comparing leaving a car unlocked and thus vulnerable to theft to dressing provocatively and somehow making yourself vulnerable to being raped? How does that logic work? I could understand and agree that a woman dressing provocatively does invite unwanted attention because it communicates a certain expectation. But there is a world of difference between unwanted sexual attention and actual r*pe. You're honestly making men look like uncontrollable sex fiends who can't be blamed for forcing themselves on anyone showing skin (and not even in all cases). You keep on talking about women having to take responsibility for how they dress . . . Well what about men taking responsibility by not violently forcing themselves on another human being? Theft is not r*pe. Violating another human being is not the same as getting your car broken into and I can't believe a grown adult could even make that comparison.



So promiscuity is a gender role?


Abortion? Nope. Men bankroll the abortion industry and many are happy to get rid of "unwanted problems" so it's hardly a solely female problem. Child support? So men have no responsibility to their children? I haven't said anything because like it or not the sexes are pretty much irrevocably intertwined -which means that screw-ups are the result of both men and women and not one or the other. I didn't blame men for anything specifically and the reason I keep repeating it is because it nullifies the point you were trying to make (which you did mention earlier btw) - that women don't take responsibility. But let's flip this - what do you specifically blame women for?


Which I acknowledged and addressed in my original post about this. Hence why I looked for as unbiased links as I could find. But, pray tell, what exactly should I rely on then if not for statistics and news stories?
Divorce, meat eating, polygamy, death, sickness, disease, sins etc... I can make a long list of things that werent supposed to be here in the beginning. But of course, they're here. So we cant live in some fake reality where we pretend we're living in the beginning. Historically speaking, polygamy has always been allowed, even in the Abrahamic traditions. Thats the reason for the discrepancy between how men and women are viewed when it comes to sexual promiscuity. Men who get alot of women are looked at as players and are wanted. Women who are sexually promiscuous are mocked and looked down on. Why? Because of the historical tradition of polygamy.

You trying to change sexual promiscuity to premarital sex, is you changing the subject. They are NOT the same. And you know that...

You bring up logic so lets talk about it. Do you think, logically, that I was comparing the severity and traumatic experience of a person being raped, to a person having their wallet stolen out of their car? Or comparing the PRECAUTIONS we can take to increase the chances that these crimes are not committed against us? And even after saying this, did I not say that it could still happen anyways? I mean either Im over your head with this conversation or you're grasping at straws at this point. But deep down, like most women I assume, you know the truth. Which is why you said:

I could understand and agree that a woman dressing provocatively does invite unwanted attention
With you saying this I dont think theres much else to say. Because guess who's the worst of the unwanted attention? The rapists. The very same rapists that Im making out to be "uncontrollable sex fiends". You know what Im going to tell my daughter? Dress more conservatively so to not draw this "unwanted attention" (quoting your words) from "uncontrollable sex fiends" (your words) which isnt a blanket statement about men, but specifically "rapists" (my words). You know what Im not going to pretend like? That if she dresses conservatively shes safe. Nope not at all. But I will teach her to not draw that unwanted attention from "uncontrollable sex fiends" ("rapists" not simply "men") by not dressing skimpy. THATS LOGIC. Take precaution so to decrease the chance of a crime being committed against you. A crime that can STILL happen even with the precaution you took.

As far as the rest of your post, I've asked you time and time again for one instance you place blame on women and you havent given it. If you hold women accountable, then for what? How are you going to flip it to me when everytime I ask you bring up men again? You havent blamed men for everything. I have. This time I bolded it and underlined it so you'd get the idea that I blame men for everything. They are the stewards of society so anything that goes awry is their fault. Just like I'd hold the parents responsible for kids doing damage to another person's property. It starts from the top and trickle down. And though it hurts feminists to hear this, men are at the top. Not in terms of value, but leadership. If you dont think women are to blame for anything, or cant think of anything specific then say so. But repeating yourself or bringing up men everytime I ask, or trying to figure out what Im implying or what Im saying about your position is just you dodging the question.

And I'd say if you want to know whats going on in another country, then at the very least, use their news stories first. At the very least, use their statistics first. Use the people who lived/live there or are connected to people who do live there. Dont use news stories of a country who is against their way of living as your vantage point because you'll only get a biased outlook on their way of life.
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
434
Likes
819
Divorce, meat eating, polygamy, death, sickness, disease, sins etc... I can make a long list of things that werent supposed to be here in the beginning. But of course, they're here. So we cant live in some fake reality where we pretend we're living in the beginning. Historically speaking, polygamy has always been allowed, even in the Abrahamic traditions. Thats the reason for the discrepancy between how men and women are viewed when it comes to sexual promiscuity. Men who get alot of women are looked at as players and are wanted. Women who are sexually promiscuous are mocked and looked down on. Why? Because of the historical tradition of polygamy.
The fact that polygamy was allowed later (yet not mandated or enshrined in law) and not instituted FROM the beginning kind of goes against your assertion that it's unnatural for men to be monogamous. Dietry changes, sickness, death and sin aren't the same class of behaviours and the latter three can't even be compared to the others at all because they're an inevitable part of the human state. Unless you want to imply that male nature gained insatiable sexual urges as part of their Fall deal that could only be remedied by polygamous marriage in which case that is a more convincing argument.

You trying to change sexual promiscuity to premarital sex, is you changing the subject. They are NOT the same. And you know that...
Yes, they are. I was ALWAYS talking about premarital sex and only brought up polygamy as an additional point which you took and ran with as though it was the base of my argument. In the confines of marriage, how can you be considered sexually promiscuous unless you are cheating on your spouse? The concept of promiscuity stems from extra or pre marital sexual behaviour.

You bring up logic so lets talk about it. Do you think, logically, that I was comparing the severity and traumatic experience of a person being raped, to a person having their wallet stolen out of their car? Or comparing the PRECAUTIONS we can take to increase the chances that these crimes are not committed against us? And even after saying this, did I not say that it could still happen anyways? I mean either Im over your head with this conversation or you're grasping at straws at this point. But deep down, like most women I assume, you know the truth. Which is why you said:

With you saying this I dont think theres much else to say. Because guess who's the worst of the unwanted attention? The rapists. The very same rapists that Im making out to be "uncontrollable sex fiends". You know what Im going to tell my daughter? Dress more conservatively so to not draw this "unwanted attention" (quoting your words) from "uncontrollable sex fiends" (your words) which isnt a blanket statement about men, but specifically "rapists" (my words). You know what Im not going to pretend like? That if she dresses conservatively shes safe. Nope not at all. But I will teach her to not draw that unwanted attention from "uncontrollable sex fiends" ("rapists" not simply "men") by not dressing skimpy. THATS LOGIC. Take precaution so to decrease the chance of a crime being committed against you. A crime that can STILL happen even with the precaution you took.
You tried to use the example of a guy wearing sagging pants in jail to a woman dressing provocatively and inviting r*pe. Then you said:

"That’s called holding yourself accountable. Just as if I went to a third world country with jewelry on I can expect to eventually get robbed. I wouldn’t turn and say “But I should be able to wear what I want!” because that’s not reality."

You did not add on here that "it could still happen anyway". Never mind that r*pe occurs very often in prisons regardless of pants sagging. It might create the impression that someone is open for sex but a rapist wouldn't care anyway and everyday situations are not prisons. Someone walking around with all their jewellery out or leaving their car open is just being stupid but that doesn't create some sort of impression that they are open to being robbed. If r*pe happens anyway regardless of how women dress (which is the case because some of the highest rates of sexual violence do not occur in western countries but in countries with a significantly more conservative cultural dress code) then those comparisons are markedly poor. I get that you're saying dressing provocatively increases the chances of being noticed but in most cases it does not make a big difference to whether or not a woman is raped. I think the confusion comes in because western women tend to conflate assault or persistent unwanted attention with r*pe (And then think parading naked save nipple pasties is an admirable form of protest). The former yes, can be associated with the way women dress because it does signal some form of openness. The latter does not.

As far as the rest of your post, I've asked you time and time again for one instance you place blame on women and you havent given it. If you hold women accountable, then for what? How are you going to flip it to me when everytime I ask you bring up men again? You havent blamed men for everything. I have. This time I bolded it and underlined it so you'd get the idea that I blame men for everything. They are the stewards of society so anything that goes awry is their fault. Just like I'd hold the parents responsible for kids doing damage to another person's property. It starts from the top and trickle down. And though it hurts feminists to hear this, men are at the top. Not in terms of value, but leadership. If you dont think women are to blame for anything, or cant think of anything specific then say so. But repeating yourself or bringing up men everytime I ask, or trying to figure out what Im implying or what Im saying about your position is just you dodging the question.
I keep repeating myself because you don't seem to get what I'm saying. You keep saying I'm flipping everything around on men and I'm not, I keep pointing out that I blame both sexes. That's my answer. I haven't blamed either one for anything specifically and if you don't want to accept my answer fine but don't think I'm dodging the question just because you don't like my answer. The answer is I don't blame women for anything specifically as I don't blame men for anything specifically . . . As I said in nearly every post to you.

And I'd say if you want to know whats going on in another country, then at the very least, use their news stories first. At the very least, use their statistics first. Use the people who lived/live there or are connected to people who do live there. Dont use news stories of a country who is against their way of living as your vantage point because you'll only get a biased outlook on their way of life.
Ok so do you have any stats or news stories from the Middle East you can link me?
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
2,915
Likes
3,869
I've figured it out. Its bc theyve been disrespected and mistreated by so many men they have their guard up against them. I completely understand, when I see the shit men write to women and how badly they treat them, its utterly respectless and I understand why the women get "bitchy". It's a neccessity for survival these days when the respect for women is completely gone.
 





Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,544
Likes
1,724
The fact that polygamy was allowed later (yet not mandated or enshrined in law) and not instituted FROM the beginning kind of goes against your assertion that it's unnatural for men to be monogamous. Dietry changes, sickness, death and sin aren't the same class of behaviours and the latter three can't even be compared to the others at all because they're an inevitable part of the human state. Unless you want to imply that male nature gained insatiable sexual urges as part of their Fall deal that could only be remedied by polygamous marriage in which case that is a more convincing argument.


Yes, they are. I was ALWAYS talking about premarital sex and only brought up polygamy as an additional point which you took and ran with as though it was the base of my argument. In the confines of marriage, how can you be considered sexually promiscuous unless you are cheating on your spouse? The concept of promiscuity stems from extra or pre marital sexual behaviour.
You can say the same thing about polygamy and monogamy. Neither were prohibited OR mandated so I dont really see where you're going with that point. Where I was going, was that thats the reason for the double standard in how people (both men AND women) look at sexual promiscuity when it comes to men and women. Its because men, historically/traditionally had more than one woman. Women did not unless they were prostitutes.

If you want to say you meant pre marital sex, well then you already gave the historical/traditional reason for that double standard. Lineage. So since in either scenario, we have the historical/traditional reason for the double standard, the next question becomes WHY should we change from that standard to whatever standard you/the bankers want it to change to? Because thats who is spearheading this attack on traditional standards. The bankers. So what is your reason for changing from the traditional standard to whatever standard you want to create/change it to?

You tried to use the example of a guy wearing sagging pants in jail to a woman dressing provocatively and inviting r*pe. Then you said:

"That’s called holding yourself accountable. Just as if I went to a third world country with jewelry on I can expect to eventually get robbed. I wouldn’t turn and say “But I should be able to wear what I want!” because that’s not reality."

You did not add on here that "it could still happen anyway". Never mind that r*pe occurs very often in prisons regardless of pants sagging. It might create the impression that someone is open for sex but a rapist wouldn't care anyway and everyday situations are not prisons. Someone walking around with all their jewellery out or leaving their car open is just being stupid but that doesn't create some sort of impression that they are open to being robbed. If r*pe happens anyway regardless of how women dress (which is the case because some of the highest rates of sexual violence do not occur in western countries but in countries with a significantly more conservative cultural dress code) then those comparisons are markedly poor. I get that you're saying dressing provocatively increases the chances of being noticed but in most cases it does not make a big difference to whether or not a woman is raped. I think the confusion comes in because western women tend to conflate assault or persistent unwanted attention with r*pe (And then think parading naked save nipple pasties is an admirable form of protest). The former yes, can be associated with the way women dress because it does signal some form of openness. The latter does not.
Nope. I compared what steps people can take to lessen the chance that a crime is committed against them. And in post 105 I said that the crime (specifically r*pe) could still happen even if they take those steps but that doesnt mean they shouldnt take them. I never said that a person that doesnt takes these steps is also open to these crimes being committed. When taking everything Im saying in totality, and leaving the emotions out of it, theres nothing to argue with.

I keep repeating myself because you don't seem to get what I'm saying. You keep saying I'm flipping everything around on men and I'm not, I keep pointing out that I blame both sexes. That's my answer. I haven't blamed either one for anything specifically and if you don't want to accept my answer fine but don't think I'm dodging the question just because you don't like my answer. The answer is I don't blame women for anything specifically as I don't blame men for anything specifically . . . As I said in nearly every post to you.
It seems like you keep repeating yourself because you're either not willing or not able to specifically line out what you blame women for. Its YOU that said women and men both play a part in things going on today. So if thats the case, why cant you explain the part that women play in it without mentioning men? If theres an accident and someone says "They (both parties) played a part in the accident" who would understand if they couldnt line out what role each side (or one specific side if asked)played in the incident?

Of course it goes without saying that you do not HAVE to say anything. You dont HAVE to have this convo. You dont HAVE to answer anything I ask. But if we're going to have a convo then I dont really see why not.

But this is just like society. Its easy and open season to criticize men. Women? Its like pulling teeth

Ok so do you have any stats or news stories from the Middle East you can link me?
Im not the one that cares, YOU are (allegedly that is). So all I was getting at was that if you really cared, you'd at least look at what they're saying over there instead of basing it all on the US's "I hate patriarchies" POV.
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
434
Likes
819
You can say the same thing about polygamy and monogamy. Neither were prohibited OR mandated so I dont really see where you're going with that point. Where I was going, was that thats the reason for the double standard in how people (both men AND women) look at sexual promiscuity when it comes to men and women. Its because men, historically/traditionally had more than one woman. Women did not unless they were prostitutes.
I bring up that point because you are the one who made it seem like it's "unnatural" for men to be monogamous when God (the creator of marriage) was the one who deemed a 1:1 marriage partner ratio the ideal standard.


If you want to say you meant pre marital sex, well then you already gave the historical/traditional reason for that double standard. Lineage. So since in either scenario, we have the historical/traditional reason for the double standard, the next question becomes WHY should we change from that standard to whatever standard you/the bankers want it to change to? Because thats who is spearheading this attack on traditional standards. The bankers. So what is your reason for changing from the traditional standard to whatever standard you want to create/change it to?
Because the issue of lineage is no longer a problem to consider in sexual ethics. Male promiscuity has led to countless single mother homes. That didn't occur in the era of polygamy you seemed to be so fond of even though there have always been scores of illigimate children. I don't personally think there is anything wrong with monogamy, in fact I think it works better for society overall and you can disagree which you obviously do. But I doubt that the bankers and I have the same beliefs there so I don't know where that came from.


Nope. I compared what steps people can take to lessen the chance that a crime is committed against them. And in post 105 I said that the crime (specifically r*pe) could still happen even if they take those steps but that doesnt mean they shouldnt take them. I never said that a person that doesnt takes these steps is also open to these crimes being committed. When taking everything Im saying in totality, and leaving the emotions out of it, theres nothing to argue with.
Except you said that the Middle East is a good example of how female modesty is preserved in culture by MEN and when I brought up how their women are treated you started deflecting.


It seems like you keep repeating yourself because you're either not willing or not able to specifically line out what you blame women for. Its YOU that said women and men both play a part in things going on today. So if thats the case, why cant you explain the part that women play in it without mentioning men? If theres an accident and someone says "They (both parties) played a part in the accident" who would understand if they couldnt line out what role each side (or one specific side if asked)played in the incident?
I keep repeating myself because you keep asking the same question. You have my answer. Men's and women's roles in dating are inextricable from each other because out complementary nature means the relationship between us is reactionary. Let me ask you then, what do you specifically blame women for?


But this is just like society. Its easy and open season to criticize men. Women? Its like pulling teeth
And just like most modern men you seem to have a victim mentality. I criticised men in response to a post that only criticised women in a way I felt didn't take certain things into account. And that led to this rather unnecessary tangent.


Im not the one that cares, YOU are (allegedly that is). So all I was getting at was that if you really cared, you'd at least look at what they're saying over there instead of basing it all on the US's "I hate patriarchies" POV.
If you're going to make statements like that then back them up with something I can look at. I formed my opinion because I don't see any available information from Middle Eastern sources themselves. Which is why I asked you to provide them and yet you don't seem to be able to do that either.
 





Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,544
Likes
1,724
I bring up that point because you are the one who made it seem like it's "unnatural" for men to be monogamous when God (the creator of marriage) was the one who deemed a 1:1 marriage partner ratio the ideal standard.
No it’s unnatural to FORCE monogamy. The Creator NEVER mandated monogamy

Because the issue of lineage is no longer a problem to consider in sexual ethics. Male promiscuity has led to countless single mother homes. That didn't occur in the era of polygamy you seemed to be so fond of even though there have always been scores of illigimate children. I don't personally think there is anything wrong with monogamy, in fact I think it works better for society overall and you can disagree which you obviously do. But I doubt that the bankers and I have the same beliefs there so I don't know where that came from.
the bankers love monogamy because it keeps the birth rate low. And no the moral decay in society is what led to single mothers. Not just men’s promiscuity.

I never said there was anything wrong with monogamy. I said it’s wrong to MANDATE it because the Creator didn’t mandate it.

Except you said that the Middle East is a good example of how female modesty is preserved in culture by MEN and when I brought up how their women are treated you started deflecting.
When it came to the way women dressed yea.

I keep repeating myself because you keep asking the same question. You have my answer. Men's and women's roles in dating are inextricable from each other because out complementary nature means the relationship between us is reactionary. Let me ask you then, what do you specifically blame women for?
dating? Who narrowed this to dating only? I asked you to point out ANYTHING that women are at blame for and you have nothing. Yet you come and say both sides are to blame. Yet when I ask you to lay out one side, you can’t. So either that’s above your intelligence or you’re refusing to place blame in women for anything. I already said I (not YOU) blame men for everything that goes down and went down under their watch.

And just like most modern men you seem to have a victim mentality. I criticised men in response to a post that only criticised women in a way I felt didn't take certain things into account. And that led to this rather unnecessary tangent.
You’ve shown that you refuse to hold women accountable without including men. Yet in this very same post you said men’s promiscuity was the reason for single mothers. Note that you didn’t mention what women contributed to single motherhood. And that’s exactly what I’ve been getting at with you. To name something,anything, that women should be held accountable for and you have nothing.

If you're going to make statements like that then back them up with something I can look at. I formed my opinion because I don't see any available information from Middle Eastern sources themselves. Which is why I asked you to provide them and yet you don't seem to be able to do that either.
Let’s see if you pretend or keep it real. You’re telling me that BEFORE this conversation, you tried to look up Middle East POVs in regards to how women are treated?
 





Joined
Nov 20, 2017
Messages
31
Likes
29
It is the truth that many of us good single men keep meeting very meany and nasty women all the time instead of just one good one to have a very serious relationship with, which it does force a lot of men to go MGTOW today. So much very pathetic loser low life women out there today that are making it very difficult for many of us men to find love, which most women these days do have a lot of very severe mental problems when it comes to us men that aren't going MGTOW to begin with. There are many of us men that don't play games like most of these women are doing now, and this is why so many of us men are getting very disgusted over these very troubled messed up women that have really caused this mess now to begin with. Most women in the past were certainly Real Ladies, and the very complete opposite of today altogether which made real love very easy to find back in those days just like our family members did. With Feminism being all over the place which it really has destroyed the dating scene now for many of us men unfortunately.


Words fail me.
:(
 





Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,544
Likes
1,724
Genesis‬ ‭2:24‬ ‭​

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.​
‭‭
that’s not a law. Here’s a law though:

Deuteronomy 21
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love...

Abraham had children by multiple women. Jacob had two wives. Moses had two. David had more than 5. The father of the prophet Samuel had 2wives. Esau had multiple wives as well. I mean in chapter 4 of genesis you have a man (Lamech) take on two wives. And guess what, NONE of them were condemned for doing so.
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
434
Likes
819
that’s not a law. Here’s a law though:

Deuteronomy 21
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love...

Abraham had children by multiple women. Jacob had two wives. Moses had two. David had more than 5. The father of the prophet Samuel had 2wives. Esau had multiple wives as well. I mean in chapter 4 of genesis you have a man (Lamech) take on two wives. And guess what, NONE of them were condemned for doing so.
Yeah no one said it was unlawful. Funnily enough most of those men (if not all) experienced marital problems related to having more than one wife or lover. Do the divorce laws stipulated promote divorce as the best route? Or is that not also a concessionary option as Jesus spoke of due to the "hardness of your hearts"?

No it’s unnatural to FORCE monogamy. The Creator NEVER mandated monogamy
Well, you said:
"That context overrides the strict monogamy the west tries to force on people when traditionally it was polygamy that was being followed."

And I pointed out that while it was never enshrined in law, polygamy was a clear concession to curb lust when God had obviously intended marriage to be between one man and one woman. That was the ideal standard God put forth. If I recall correctly, you put monogamy in the same bracket of unnatural as same-sex marriage. The concession was never the paragon.

the bankers love monogamy because it keeps the birth rate low. And no the moral decay in society is what led to single mothers. Not just men’s promiscuity.
That point makes no sense considering the fact that the bankers fund movements that promote promiscuity and a general hypersexualised society. It's become common place to cheat and have children out of wedlock so how are they for monogamy? Yes . . . Not just men's promiscuity but do you understand why I brought it up given your position in this thread?

I never said there was anything wrong with monogamy. I said it’s wrong to MANDATE it because the Creator didn’t mandate it.
Well you did say that forcing people to be monogamous is just as abnormal as gay marriage. An interesting point considering that according to scripture gay marriage isn't marriage at all whereas a MONOGAMOUS union is painted as the definition. One flesh. Not one man's flesh joined to many wives.

When it came to the way women dressed yea.
And how have men, who value their women's sexuality over there, responded to the way they dress? You're going to ignore the abuse and violence? You going to provide a link now showing they undergo lower rates of r*pe and sexual assault than their western counterparts? Because I'm still waiting.

dating? Who narrowed this to dating only? I asked you to point out ANYTHING that women are at blame for and you have nothing. Yet you come and say both sides are to blame. Yet when I ask you to lay out one side, you can’t. So either that’s above your intelligence or you’re refusing to place blame in women for anything. I already said I (not YOU) blame men for everything that goes down and went down under their watch.
The context has ALWAYS been about dating. Look at the OP. And again with trying to goad a response you want to hear through insults . . . I'm glad you're keeping it classy. ;)

You’ve shown that you refuse to hold women accountable without including men. Yet in this very same post you said men’s promiscuity was the reason for single mothers. Note that you didn’t mention what women contributed to single motherhood. And that’s exactly what I’ve been getting at with you. To name something,anything, that women should be held accountable for and you have nothing.
I never said the single mother rate was solely due to male promiscuity, it's just a pertinent part of it ESPECIALLY given the viewpoint you've given about how men can easily impregnate many women in one night while a woman is saddled with the nine-month long consequence of wreckless sex. That's the mentality that led to men being able to sleep around without responsibility and that is the problem with the double standard that I was calling out as it continues into modernity. You asked why I would want to change it and that's why -because it's resulted in broken homes and a culture of absentee fathers. This isn't about women's lib, my friend, or getting even because "Boo the patriarchy is evil!". If you can't see that then I don't know what to say. Of course women have a role to play. Women are also to be held accountable for their promiscuity (although the responsibility of its consequences weigh far heavier on them and they're harder pressed to escape them, as we've already established). Of course there are self-made single mothers who use their children as pawns in a vendetta to spite an ex. I never disputed that. But do you realise the context in which we are having this discussion? Women have largely abandoned their roles and bought into 3rd wave feminism which diminishes many beautiful things about femininity in exchange for competing with men. Many have turned bitter and hostile and have allowed themselves to be led into supporting liberal movements that ultimately work to destabilise society's moral foundation moreso than men. Is that what you want to hear? This conversation was always about the context of dating and I've always maintained my position on it but if you get off on redirecting conversations to satisfy your western-bashing kink, by all means enjoy yourself. I don't judge.

Let’s see if you pretend or keep it real. You’re telling me that BEFORE this conversation, you tried to look up Middle East POVs in regards to how women are treated?
Not specifically, no. But I have seen content by women from the Middle East who have spoken out about their treatment. Have you ever bothered to look at statistics or articles about gender based violence there or is the fact that they cover their women's bodies enough for you? I think I'm done with this conversation but you can have the last word if you like. From my side though, have a great day.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,544
Likes
1,724
Yeah no one said it was unlawful. Funnily enough most of those men (if not all) experienced marital problems related to having more than one wife or lover. Do the divorce laws stipulated promote divorce as the best route? Or is that not also a concessionary option as Jesus spoke of due to the "hardness of your hearts"?


Well, you said:
"That context overrides the strict monogamy the west tries to force on people when traditionally it was polygamy that was being followed."

And I pointed out that while it was never enshrined in law, polygamy was a clear concession to curb lust when God had obviously intended marriage to be between one man and one woman. That was the ideal standard God put forth. If I recall correctly, you put monogamy in the same bracket of unnatural as same-sex marriage. The concession was never the paragon.
I said FORCING monogamy is unnatural just as gay marriage is. As in they’re both unnatural. Never gave a measuring stick as to which one was more or less unnatural.

That point makes no sense considering the fact that the bankers fund movements that promote promiscuity and a general hypersexualised society. It's become common place to cheat and have children out of wedlock so how are they for monogamy? Yes . . . Not just men's promiscuity but do you understand why I brought it up given your position in this thread?


Well you did say that forcing people to be monogamous is just as abnormal as gay marriage. An interesting point considering that according to scripture gay marriage isn't marriage at all whereas a MONOGAMOUS union is painted as the definition. One flesh. Not one man's flesh joined to many wives.
monogamy means one man one woman marriages. That’s what they support. And while they support that it doesn’t mean they support an orderly form of it.

I don’t really care how you define marriage when the Creator has people He chose for His purpose have more than one wife. So no Abraham and Moses weren’t “given over to lust” because theyhad more than one wife. If that was the case that would have been stated.


And how have men, who value their women's sexuality over there, responded to the way they dress? You're going to ignore the abuse and violence? You going to provide a link now showing they undergo lower rates of r*pe and sexual assault than their western counterparts? Because I'm still waiting.
But I said women got freedom and took their clothes off while men in the past and now in Amish and Middle eastern countries kept their women covered. The point being that women cannot put it on men that they are being oversexualized in society when it’s them who took their clothes off when given the freedom to do so.

I'm glad you're keeping it classy. ;)
;)
I never said the single mother rate was solely due to male promiscuity, it's just a pertinent part of it ESPECIALLY given the viewpoint you've given about how men can easily impregnate many women in one night while a woman is saddled with the nine-month long consequence of wreckless sex. That's the mentality that led to men being able to sleep around without responsibility and that is the problem with the double standard that I was calling out as it continues into modernity. You asked why I would want to change it and that's why -because it's resulted in broken homes and a culture of absentee fathers. This isn't about women's lib, my friend, or getting even because "Boo the patriarchy is evil!". If you can't see that then I don't know what to say. Of course women have a role to play. Women are also to be held accountable for their promiscuity (although the responsibility of its consequences weigh far heavier on them and they're harder pressed to escape them, as we've already established). Of course there are self-made single mothers who use their children as pawns in a vendetta to spite an ex. I never disputed that. But do you realise the context in which we are having this discussion? Women have largely abandoned their roles and bought into 3rd wave feminism which diminishes many beautiful things about femininity in exchange for competing with men. Many have turned bitter and hostile and have allowed themselves to be led into supporting liberal movements that ultimately work to destabilise society's moral foundation moreso than men. Is that what you want to hear? This conversation was always about the context of dating and I've always maintained my position on it but if you get off on redirecting conversations to satisfy your western-bashing kink, by all means enjoy yourself. I don't judge.
well actually my point was in that part of your post you only brought up men’s part in the problem. And that’s fine. But whenever I ask you to bring up women’s part in ANY problem without mentioning men you won’t do it.

Even in this post you bring up women’s part in a problem (3rd wave feminism) yet again afterwards bring up men again. You seem to have a problem addressing women without including men which leads to the “lack of accountability” I brought up earlier.


Not specifically, no.
Yea I didn’t think so. I don’t care about what’s going on over there to look up statistics on it. I was just saying that it’s better to form a more well rounded opinion on a subject rather than relying on a country (The US) who hates their way of life (ie strict patriarchy).

And for the record this was no hard feelings. I didn’t have this convo to convince you of anything. It’s mainly for the readers who may be reading (or may not) so they can understand that all this feminist BS will pass and women will ultimately be back in place under the man along with children. That’s how it was in the beginning and how it will be in the end. But honestly good day to you. I always enjoy passing time discussing modern or historical events with people whether they agree or disagree. Again it’s men who I blame so it’s really them who need to shape for things to be in order
 





Last edited: