Right, but if women hadn't laid the groundwork by fighting for the right to vote and other social advances 40 years prior to the technological advances that liberated them economically, they would have been kept shacked to the kitchen long past when it was economically feasible for them to not be. That's exactly what's happening in Islamic cultures. The money and the technology exists, but without the social framework necessary for social equality, their entire cultures remain relegated to the proverbial gutter.Capitalism and technological improvement over the scale of centuries is one of primary reasons why this free society came to be... Just imagine a world without a pot, oven, laundry machine, and essentially every household item that women uses in their day to day activities to make their lives easiler. Without these progress, women will still be in the kitchen and their participantion in the workforce infinitely doubtful. Why was for instance 1960 the era of change? Because babyboomers who grew up easy with all the tools they need no longer helped their mothers to do housework and instead went to school. Motherbood/womenhood was redefined by the progress of our civilization.
Islamic world is an interesting experience but even in the Islamic world women's place in the society is steadily changing because of the irrelevance that is sharia law. In the end though, a society that adopts to quickly changing technology is the society that will win out.
You're taking a throwaway, half-assed joking comment WAY THE FUCK too seriously man.There is no element of truth to saying White man ruled the world for the last couple of millennia.
While male only ruled europe because there were no other races in Europe for several millennia, so male ruled Europe.
White male never ruled , Africa, middle east, Near Asia, Far Asia, South Asia, Caribbean, South America, North America, in any period prior to 1600, that is only 500 years ago.
I wonder who laid the groundwork which allowed women to lay said groundwork...Right, but if women hadn't laid the groundwork by fighting for the right to vote and other social advances 40 years prior to the technological advances that liberated them economically, they would have been kept shacked to the kitchen long past when it was economically feasible for them to not be. That's exactly what's happening in Islamic cultures. The money and the technology exists, but without the social framework necessary for social equality, their entire cultures remain relegated to the proverbial gutter.
That is not what you argued and you know it.Right, but if women hadn't laid the groundwork by fighting for the right to vote and other social advances 40 years prior to the technological advances that liberated them economically, they would have been kept shacked to the kitchen long past when it was economically feasible for them to not be. That's exactly what's happening in Islamic cultures. The money and the technology exists, but without the social framework necessary for social equality, their entire cultures remain relegated to the proverbial gutter.
That's not the context at all. If anything we're making fun of the PUAHate idiots, who seem to feel like the whole world is against them, when the reality is that they're mostly members of one of the subsets of society that probably has it the easiest of anyone,in general terms. Of course not every white male has life easy. But you know what? On average, they have it easier than most. That's not white male guilt. That's just reality.I just thought I'd jump right in on page 58 without reading any previous posts. I'm assuming we're just going to stereotype all white males as having it easy as fuck and no possible obstacles in their life, right? Cuz skin and penis.
They want us to feel guilty about it though. If being white and male is an advantage (and it is), then good for me, sucks to be you. I don't feel guilty about getting pocket aces at the Hold'em table either. I only get one life, if I get advantages in it, woo hoo!That's not the context at all. If anything we're making fun of the PUAHate idiots, who seem to feel like the whole world is against them, when the reality is that they're mostly members of one of the subsets of society that probably has it the easiest of anyone,in general terms. Of course not every white male has life easy. But you know what? On average, they have it easier than most. That's not white male guilt. That's just reality.
And who reared and raised those men? Don't chicken and egg me all the way down, you'll lose in the end.I wonder who laid the groundwork which allowed women to lay said groundwork...
Prima Nocta is largely myth. Basically it never happenedAlso Prima Nocta.
Yeah I know but it's fun to pretend. Realistically a lord was probably swimming in as much pussy as he wanted, no need to go nailing common wenches on their wedding night.Prima Nocta is largely myth. Basically it never happened
I would take middle class today; over the most powerful medieval King. No contest. The past is romanticized way too much; but it essentially sucked, for everyone, even the kings. It just sucked a lot more for the peasants. I'd probably even take somewhat poor, in a Western country, over medieval king. Only trade I'd make today is if I was an impoverished third worlder.So... it was fucking awesome to be the king or nobility then. We're agreed.
Not feminists lol.And who reared and raised those men? Don't chicken and egg me all the way down, you'll lose in the end.
Wow, you're slow. Yes, you can't give consent while drunk. Yes, it happens ALL THE TIME anyway, because people are generally mature and responsible adults who are capable of drinking with the intention to fuck if they want to. What you don't get, what most people refuse to even acknowledge, is that "people can drink and fuck" doesn't mean" it's OK to take advantage of a drunk person to fuck them".Here is the inconsistency with your argument.
On one hand you claim that consent can not be given when drunk. And on the other hand you said and i quote again
"Again (again, again), most people can drink and fuck and have no problems."
Those two positions can no coexist because drinking and getting drunk are synonymous for the law. It is either no alcohol on your blood, or there is some alcohol, and you are drunk.
So if we go by the establish law, that drinking = drunk, because the last thing a judge wants is to determine "how drunk someone was", because that is HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE; then your statement of "most people can drink and can fuck" becomes "no female can drink and give consent to fuck", they still fuck, but without legal consent. And that is where your argument falls apart, by your own statements, not mine.
Do you understand that?
For sure. At the time it was awesome. Now? Yeah cholera and dysentary probably suck, I'll never know though. I will take my pampered, cushy existence.I would take middle class today; over the most powerful medieval King. No contest. The past is romanticized way too much; but it essentially sucked, for everyone, even the kings. It just sucked a lot more for the peasants. I'd probably even take somewhat poor, in a Western country, over medieval king. Only trade I'd make today is if I was an impoverished third worlder.