Marrying off children is always wrong

I wouldn’t trust people who think otherwise with a goldfish for the weekend, they might try to insert things into it.
The internet has made men deviant by placing all this monstrous filth at their disposal and they can congregate and assure one another it’s normal. Born this way, right? 

People are not possessions.
One triumph of the First World is self-possession.

You’re not even a fully developed adult until the mid-twenties.
It’s biological, look it up.

I mention this because some terrible people claiming to be right-wing want slaves. The original kind, the one that is purely for the purposes of rape. Instead of acknowledging they want someone they can rape and beat and, in their mind, get away with it, they try to make it socially acceptable – by insulting the institution of marriage.

That’s why they claim to be right-wing, trying  to make pro-marriage, pro-….whatever messed-up things they can think of, only to claim, what, that women want abuse? Nobody in the history of the world has ever believed that, if you’re a shit person at least admit it to yourself.

Women went to convents to avoid marrying these types of “men”.

Both parties enter any legal contract willingly.

There shouldn’t be any underage marriage, anywhere. It’s an oversight we’ve yet to correct.
If they’re not adults they cannot consent.
Children cannot consent.

Yet you see these creepy conversations in certain places about when to ‘get’ a girl (a Middle Eastern idea they openly admit, like bride kidnapping) so she can be brainwashed and conditioned into being a domesticated slave. 1. That doesn’t work, 2. that isn’t legal, 3. you won’t like your ‘purchase’ once it grows up and has a personality and will and intelligence likely above yours.

I love how many Thai brides and the like are divorcing their green-card old fogey husbands after the required years, who genuinely thought in all their smarts that these teenagers would be attracted to them, three, four or once I saw, five times their age. They’re not going to stick around and look after you. They think you’re a creepy lech, they hate you. Who wants to care for a person like that? Does it sound sexy to you? They weren’t attractive in their prime to begin with. Don’t expect Asian women to be all-about breaking out the adult diapers for your sagging ass, they’re just better at playing you for a while, as LBFMs. That’s if they don’t murder you and take your money, as younger wives have done for millennia, especially when forced by social circumstance i.e. money.

Completely one-sided and never foisting this on underage boys (like they can afford to slag off Ancient Greece) from a remnant sense of shame and disgrace, they expect somehow there’ll be a surplus of young women, despite how Those cultures have the opposite problem, and they’ll all be magically dying to marry men old enough to be their grandfather, or great-grandfather.

It’s sick.
It’s pedophilia.
It isn’t right-wing, it’s totally r-selected, early marriage is literally one of the cornerstones of r-selection, degenerate to boot, legally and morally wrong in every sense (the if she bleeds thing is completely medically false naturalistic fallacy, women died a lot that way so society stopped it and menarche never used to be this early, it used to be 17-19), it’s a state-sponsored form of child rape to trap an adult while they’re too weak to defend themselves and deprive them of any self-sufficiency (basic education), putting her in a big dress and a parody of a ring ceremony doesn’t change that fact.

God can see you.

Do you want to live in that craven culture?

And none of them developed as a strategy with an aging population, men used to die around middle-age, as we’d call it now.

I’m not going to allow them to pretend that’s ever been traditional. It isn’t anywhere in the Bible to sell your kid sister like a more fuckable goat, maybe convert to Islam if raping little girls is your thing.
It’s a case of how low can you go when raping children is socially acceptable. Why not primary-age? Nursery age? Newborns? Slippery slope is very real in this case.

There are sickening conversations about How Non-White Countries Do Things.

Yeah, cos we should model ourselves on them, huh?

Have you seen their standard of living? Do those people seem happy to you?
They’re wading through rubbish and shit nine times of ten. They rely on us like dependents for food and water. Have you looked at the IQs? Is that not a dysgenic breeding habit, to be discouraged?

And they basically only mean the pretty ones… with standards… okay, how is it physically possible for the above-average to become the average?

So what if Japan has an age of consent of fourteen, you sick fuck??

A virgin would still know you’re a terrible person and be dissatisfied with your sexual performance, girls are not stupid and teenage girls are the most critical species on the planet. It isn’t Hell Hath No Fury Like A Man Scorned, is it?

The vagina isn’t even necessary for female sexual pleasure, Freud was trying to massage his own ego, basically everything a woman needs is in the structures broadly called the clitoris, the homologue of the penis. These omega male powertrip fantasies about being the big strong man of Mills and Boon dreams slaking a nubile young woman’s lust are hilarious in the era of Ann Summers and the like. [I’m not insulting male sex toys either, it’s just a fact.] Women even have a prostate, there’s a female prostate, and it has basically nothing to do with what men do.

When her hands are better than you, and she sees better men for endurance online, she’ll have plenty of opportunity to mock you, and you can’t escape. That’s the real reason the beatings happen. Weak men try to show dominance, fail as they do, and take it out on the women and animals. The pattern repeats. Nobody is happy.

And if you marry to become a patriarch, do you want your children raised in fear, knowing their mother hates you?

The West has love matches because they’re better for the whole family. It’s civic and key to our success.

Children aren’t possessions or status symbols either. Keep your mutt, those enjoy obedience and humiliation.

Would you sell your daughters off for the same treatment? Probably not.

Like a cult, the mothers help too, it’s the cycle of abuse.

That watermark is unfortunate.

The Sexual Revolution had nothing to do with politics

Because which sexual strategy would benefit from this?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/17/girl-aged-11-to-become-britains-youngest-mother
Plenty of outlets are covering this. I’m linking them because they report it like it’s a nice thing.
https://www.rt.com/uk/381135-pregnant-youngest-mother-girl/
The fornication is fine, it’s good for you goyim…
You’re definitely not going to Hell because we said so.

Call it right. Call it consensual, I fucking dare you.

Think rabbit, think-

Link: Age of menarche and dietary fat

fusion.net/story/171930/early-puberty-period-age-matters-breast-cancer/

Why post about this?

A lot of men stupidly assume it’s a hard limit. For men obsessed with writing about women’s bodies, the least they could do is be well informed on the biology.
Nope, it’s variable, and like men, an earlier age can be triggered by masturbation (which a lot of ‘modern’ Sex Ed encourages). Putting that piece of trivia out there, in the easy porn era. There must be a similar effect for men. The hormones involved kick start the process. It may be to blame for all the hormonal issues suffered by women nowadays, and since the egg reserves are depleted faster, earlier infertility or lower sperm quality in men (more mutation generations in the same age range).

Why tag manosphere, of all things?

They seem to think the Naturalistic Fallacy can be applied to age of consent.

“If she bleeds, she breeds” among other disgusting perversions of Darwin. [ot: IT DOESN’T SAY THAT ANYWHERE EVER] The body takes about 2-3 years to stabilize once puberty begins. Sometimes longer, up to five. It’s a system, there isn’t a single marker. Otherwise, natural birth defects and natural death in childbirth await your ‘natural’ guidance. Let’s be honest, they have a virginity fetish, they’d lose interest after the first time.

However, if women are fertile by nature at 17, then they can’t possibly endorse of paedophilia of Japan’s age of consent, for example. But they will, because they’re pedophiles at heart. The kind of guy to constantly go after 18-25 year olds when he’s old enough to be their father. No logic can diminish vain lust.

This type of information fundamentally refutes their porn-fed ignorance.

comeoutcomeout

Spot the Paedophile is always such a fun game and even easier than Spot the Vegan.
Casually mention this in conversation and it’s surprising, like the classic question of asking which Harry Potter film Hermione got hot in.

The adverse effect of porn on pair bonding and monogamy (hello Coolidge Effect) also rustles their ‘redpill’ jimmies.

Comic: The Cure for Cancer and other Pro-Life

Cure for Cancer
Since the so-called pro-choice people are only ever pro-abortion, anti-natal, I thought to balance the dialogue out somewhat. I won’t use religion since these people don’t believe in the soul, nor have one, just science and logic.

abortion choice2

There are plenty of choices. Sex cannot be separated from reproduction. This is impossible and a lie. Every time someone consents to have sex, they consent to become a parent, should the sex result in conception. This is why expectant parents are congratulated before the birth, as soon as the test flags it within 3-5 weeks, because they are already parents, having conceived. Usually people who are trying for a baby say they are ‘trying to conceive’ and are congratulated on this point in particular. Sex is a medical choice, regarding the body, yet minors are considered fit to make it in some places, an overhang from underage marriages which should be struck off the books. Sexual consent should be the same age as majority, same as marriage and medical decisions (are not abortion, pregnancy and/or gynecological matters, all medical?). The parents of a miscarriage are still parents.

abortion choiceishavingsex

Never have sex unless you’re prepared to become a parent.
This is idiotically simple. If you aren’t prepared to be a parent, you shouldn’t be taking the ‘risk’ of pregnancy aka the consequence of your chosen action. Contraception is a myth, it simply reduces the probability and causes many issues besides. Abortion itself is linked with cancer because the stem cells from the baby take their revenge.

abortion oppression

Someone who refuses to see the connection between sex and babies should be legally classed as retarded. Actually no, I think even they get it, that’s unfair to the retarded, they can see causal connections. These fools shouldn’t be saying “no uterus, no opinion” when they have no idea what a uterus is for (clue: not sex, stupid slut). At least the ones who try to get their uterus removed are honest about it.

abortionguns

abortionreaction

They learn in the womb. Prenatal psychology.
They are sentient beings. They accrue new information.

betterthanbeingpoor

The world is majority poor, is killing them a merciful thing to do, to save them from their poverty?
Essentially, these middle class twits are saying “better dead than poor” and “better dead than adopted”.

cardiaclife

That would be the strict legal definition yes.

massmurder

Literally true, no matter how you fudge the numbers skyward. The numbers Auschwitz themselves revised down on new plaques.
Surely a few million of those people would have been geniuses? 3% MENSA standard? Surely a few of them would have been brilliant scientists, trying to cure cancer?

plannedparenthoodabortion

No liberal wants to talk about this one so I’m putting it, dammit.
Abortion is eugenic because only people dumb enough to go in for it will get one.

reproductiveright

Reproduction in sexual mammals is the combination of maternal and paternal DNA. This is literally what conception is. The egg and the spermatozoa. That’s it, case closed, there is a novel genetic lifeform.
inb4 what if it doesn’t attach? Naturally, this doesn’t happen. The fertilized egg hangs around long enough to attach undisturbed while the mother is sleeping, unless her uterine lining is damaged (incredibly rare). However, women imitate this sterilizing effect chemically, and it can remain once the chemicals are no longer taken and cause infertility. Look up the infertility forums for women who took the Pill for years and suddenly cannot get pregnant, nature doesn’t like being cheated and will prompt super-early/premature menopause too. This occurs most often when they take it from childhood (based on lies it was OK) because the reproductive system hasn’t finished developing (into the 20s, it stabilizes, shown by regularity, same with men and sperm quality at about 18).
The Pill is a chemical abortifacient. The same as various herbal teas throughout history and just as dangerous.

thepill chemical abortion thepill chemical abortion2 infertility

So Pill is not an option. If a woman wants to be sterile, have your tubes tied or uterus removed.
Temporary sterility is impossible. Fertility is not a tap you can turn on and off at will. Many of the women who make these decisions deserve a childless existence because they have no respect for life.

weakestamongusvictim

Pregnancy isn’t a disease. What irks me personally is how the women who pretend to regret it will say their child would have forgiven them. How self-centred can one person be? No, you valued your comfort over their very existence, those children rightfully despise their parents. You are as much a murderer as Jack the Ripper, and he didn’t kill kin. It wasn’t personal, intimate and chosen (except for rape, there was no sex involved because there was no consent, tantamount to using a turkey baster to achieve the same result). Medical urgency is another fitting reason but again, the mother already made a medical choice in conceiving and should try to spare the child wherever possible.

We don’t use a special name for the mother who chooses this (and/or the father who pressures her, it can happen it’s called reproductive abuse), and mothers of miscarriages are still called mothers (correctly), the status is ascribed based on conception. Abortionists don’t deserve to be called mother or father. We should call the abortion-users what they are (barring the exceptions stated for rape and mortality risk) by act: murderers. If it isn’t true, why would it bother them? If they can brag and laugh off their abortion in videos while getting them, they don’t see it as human, why not? The insult shouldn’t stick.

Murder is unlawful killing. The law only permits abortion based on outdated insubstantial medical evidence that fails to overcome the non-personhood assumption. Were these topics reviewed today, as they will be, there can be no doubt. The physiological and psychological reactions observed would grant personhood. It is certainly killing, so perhaps killer would be a more apt descriptor?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/

Interestingly, UK law doesn’t prohibit the charge of infanticide as applied to abortion. Meaning, if the current other laws were over-turned, say by new medical evidence of personhood, all those who obtained or provided abortions could be charged after the fact. Infanticide is defined as a victim under 12 months, there is no minimum age given.

It doesn’t even mention birth as the starting point, in the murder law itself. Case law, which can be overturned, created the exception.

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/The-law-of-murder.php

Malice aforethought is the intention to kill. Well, they intend it to cease living so I guess we can call that one in the affirmative. Interestingly, a foetus was considered a non-human, before proper MRI technology came in to study this question. Personhood is granted upon birth, despite a plethora of evidence henceforth of psychological individual experience and therefore, existence. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal-fetal_medicine

The mother’s life is not superior to the person inside her, there is a symbiosis, a mutual exchange. For example, when she is injured, the foetus sends out stem cells, which she cannot do. They each provide life support.

See? There is no religion required to make an argument against abortion.

Isn’t science fun?

Paper: Towards a fetal psychology (2010);

https://community.dur.ac.uk/n.n.reissland/publication%20files/Special%20Issue%20introduction.pdf

IQ data before someone has a go.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

3% is the most conservative estimate to provide for potential, not to be confused with performance. 

No, in the Olden Days, most girls didn’t marry creepy old men

http://madeofwynn.net/2013/09/23/misuse-of-the-word-medieval-part-13-most-girls-married-old-guys/

It’s a bit weird for certain circles and people (you know who) to salivate over this prospect like it meant what they think it means (sex, proximity, choice) and furthermore, to infer that what is old is good, from a time when leeches and the Iron Maiden were in use.

The Data

  • 71% of marriages had spouses within 0–5 years of each other.
  • 88% of marriages had spouses within the acceptable “not creepy” range.
  • 17 was the average marriage age for women.
  • 36% of women married under the age of 15.
  • 23 was the average marriage age for men.
  • 20% of men married under the age of 15.

Young women – and young men.

It’s a creepy old man (30-40 considering the ages we define as Old, properly adult) wanting to marry someone so young thing that weirds people out. Like, might hang out at the school gates and kidnap your daughter kind of weird. As if they can’t handle an actual woman with mature expectations and want to pervert an innocent’s understanding into deviant abusive stuff.

In addition, these couples do not have their first child until the wife is at least 16 years old, if not 18–25.

They had standards. Marriage didn’t mean sexual access, especially where young marriage was common, in royalty.

Often they could just appear at functions together and live in different places (or different bedrooms) for a number of years. The women had to mature enough (16-18) that childbirth wouldn’t kill them. Yeah, that. Fucking pedophiles advocating this don’t give a damn about that.

There could be a couple reasons for this. Régine Pernoud notes that 12 was generally considered the age of legal consent for girls and 14 the age of legal consent for boys, though local custom could set consent at a later age.

This doesn’t require that 12 and 14 were expected ages for sexual activity, so the data would support the suggestion that young marriages were not consummated until both parties were older.

Key word – consent.

If your wife didn’t consent to consummate, (or marry you, if that was a choice) then you couldn’t rape her. The wedding night thing is more modern as a stupid expectation (you’re too tired to do much) when the ages were brought forward or they needed to explain the early pregnancy. There would be social consequences considering her youth and weakness (women also being considered like children in this time period regardless of age), especially if it was done with great violence (it would need to be, so basically rape).

I didn’t look at the background of most other marriages, but from the time between marriage and first births, this seems to be pretty typical. Marriage age and age of sexual activity may not have been the same thing. Unfortunately, I haven’t yet found anything from scholars to give more guidance on the best way to interpret this information.

It’s a thing feminists use to make men look evil. The worst part is that evil men pretending to be good (it’s good for society, as they say they don’t want their daughters to do it though) advocate what is tantamount to child rape (they give excuses). We know from medicine and anatomy and physiology that childhood is completely real, provable in forensics and can be measured to the last detail and psychological maturity, such as for consent, takes longer to form. Logically, the age of consents should be pushed back at least until the age of majority (usually 18) but that would make sense so I don’t expect governments to implement it. Lower ages of consent give pedophiles various excuses.

Half of these “creepy” marriages bore no heirs, and in those that did, the wife was of an age we would consider sexually responsible by modern standards.

The virgin fetishists always raise their ugly head in these discussions and expect they’re the norm. Imagine being one of those people who gets off on ruining purity, how awful. Seeking out good in the world to destroy it, would make anyone balk. They want social sanction, even encouragement, to hurt children.

In 20% of marriages, the wife was older than her husband. In most she is 1–3 years older, but in a couple, it’s as much as 8. I mention it simply because I’ve never seen this information included in a study before.

Don’t tell the idiots who believe age is like a use by date. I hope age is cruel to them.

Christine Klapisch-Zuber says that “literature of the fabliaux widely exploits the theme of unequal ages in marriage between a graybeard and a tender young thing.” [2] This appears to be the best answer to the stereotype. Fabliaux or satires usually depict events that were seen as unusual, strange, and undesirable by a medieval audience. When a modern audience no longer has the same point of reference as the original audience, many of these become mistaken for the norm, and a stereotype is born.

rdj claps applause mhmm

Perverts even in the Middle Ages. When you’re weirder than torture, congrats. I recall seeing some, they were depicted as despicable lecherous pigs with scraggly beards and grope hands. Like Fagin.

In modern times, people still prefer 20s and early 30s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage

Healthier children this way too. Going back…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

Arguably, this is why the West developed.

Women married earlier for protection and a lower risk of death. Hardly a stellar choice we want to emulate.

….by the end of the 18th century it had risen to roughly 26 years and continued to climb with the celibacy rate as a result of falling infant mortality rates, declining famines, and other factors…

And when times got really bad, no marriage at all.

… in the decades after the Great Famine, the age of marriage had risen to 28–29 for women and 33 for men and as much as a third of Irishmen and a fourth of Irishwomen never married due to chronic economic problems that discouraged early marriage…

While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 for women and 27 for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[15] and the percentage of Englishwomen marrying fell from over 90% to just over 80% through the 17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26

There are lessons here. Don’t ask a gross old guy who puts off women his own age anything about marriage or little girls.

The rise of Christianity created more incentives to keep families nuclear; the Church instituted marriage laws and practices that undermined large kinship groups. From as early as the fourth century, the Church discouraged any practice that enlarged the family, like adoption, polygamy, taking concubines, divorce, and remarriage.

Adoption – of bastards from a promiscuous manwhore. Anything that redirected attention and family resources (part of the bargain of marriage) were forbidden.

Ideally, the ages match, and we saw this as the world developed

as Christianity expanded men married increasingly earlier and women married increasingly later

Basically, the manosphere is wrong on pretty much anything regarding wives and LTRs.

the chance for women to earn money in the one hundred and fifty years after the Black Death was attractive, with less competition for jobs; as much as half of women in the North willingly worked to earn money for marriage while their Southern contemporaries were married or widows before turning to work and unmarried young women only worked as a last resort, lest her honor be put at risk

In the last decades of the century the age at marriage had climbed to averages of 25 for women and 27 for men in England and the Low Countries as more people married later or remained unmarried due to lack of money or resources, and these averages remained high for nearly two centuries and averages across Northwestern Europe had done likewise.[42]

So when I see some loser approaching middle age salivating over the prospect of a naive schoolgirl for a supposedly docile wife who won’t complain or know to complain when he’s a bad person or a terrible husband (purpose of vows), this question is often a good test for creeps.

If I hear “Women should…..”

wrong dr house urgh shut up idiots

It’s like a feminist saying Men should. Don’t. Nobody needs to do anything, who made you Pope?

Life outcomes of age at first sex suggest age of consent too early

http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/10/18/timing-of-first-sex-has-far-reaching-relationship-effects/46256.html

The ‘too early’ group did just as poorly as the so-called ‘on time’. However, on-time is defined as a legal construct, it’s arbitrary and artificial.

This suggests the common age of consent (16-18) is set too early and should be enforced better without exception (based on age similarity, for example).

Considering longer schooling into the 20s forbidding the time for family rearing, failure to thrive/immaturity and longer time to rites of passage like moving out, a later age of consent too would make logical sense, especially in light of the psychiatric (personal) and societal damage (communal ripple effect) of being too early.

btw study applies to men and women

We need to break out of this feminist Sexual Revolution delusion that sex is always cheap, easy, harmless fun with no serious consequences – in spite of all the mounting evidence to suggest otherwise. Everything we do young has a later effect on our life, good or bad, how can something as big as sex be any different?