Patriarchy hates bachelors

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/11/23/bachelor-tax/

Always has done, always will.
It was a wealth tax on those who inherited from their family but refused their family’s wishes to continue the line, spitting on generations of sacrifice.

“Single, footloose, and fancy-free, the bachelor life is often portrayed as an ideal existence.”
Only in the 60s. Look how they turned out.
Historically, they were objects of pity and vice.
“For 2,000 years, bachelor taxes have periodically appeared in societies across the world, targeting single, childless men who were thought to be a useful source of revenue.”
No, they owed their family children (the purpose for their own birth) and, not being able to press the matter of family lineage, it was a useful incentive for the useless pajama boys of their age alongside tying inheritance to making a ‘good match’ and delivering at least one heir. Would you object to that too? Or should we further encourage the aptly named trust fund babies?
A single man doesn’t need a husband and father’s income. They’re spoiled brats who, if they did marry, would ‘marry their mother.’ It’s a good thing the difficult genes are seldom passed on.
They don’t even have to risk death in giving birth unlike the woman, it’s like refusing the draft. (Which bachelors often did, childish).
“In 9 AD, the Roman Emperor Augustus levied the ‘Lex Papia Poppaea’, which imposed a tax on single men and married couples who did not have children.”
Husbands who ‘prevented’ their wife’s fertility, in the latter case.
What about the Spartans?
They were successful because bachelors were considered like children. No responsibility was expected because they were incapable, too soft for it. As such, they were disrespected but at least not slaves.
“The purpose of the tax was to encourage marriage and procreation and to prevent immoral behavior.” They owe society by virtue of being in it, neglecting their duties to the nation – they’re funding, among other things, the women who cannot provide children because they refuse to marry. That’s a direct loss of population to the state.
If they didn’t like it, they could have left.
It was unpatriotic to be single for selfish reasons.
That’s bloody why.
The old wisdom is also coming back on the subject but the West can afford to drop back to its normal pre-WW populations, as long as its resources and infrastructure are not strained by immigration and foreign ‘aid’. We aren’t responsible for the world.
Look at Italy, picture how much better off they’d be now if they imposed a bachelor tax in the 50s.
I heard an old wives’ tale (untrue) that anyone who doesn’t want children, whatsoever, in an earlier era of less medical intervention, would have been destined to die as one, and that was Nature’s way of addressing the fate neatly, just one generation down. Funny how these stories explain things in the fatalistic manner. The impulse to have a healthy, happy family is connected to survival instinct and does frequently diminish in the sickly or traumatized. You could say a lot of modern men are traumatized by the modern world of globalization that forces them to financially compete with the world – so they can never afford a housewife. At minimum, they’re stressed by global concerns. I’d like to see studies on paternal instinct but the bitter segment of bachelors (and they do exist) would cry about it.
“In 1695, when the English Crown was struggling to raise capital for yet another expensive war with France, a bachelor tax was imposed to generate income. This law, known as the Marriage Duty Act, placed a fixed tax on all single men over the age of 25.”
A luxury tax, since you’d have to be rich to afford it. Taxing playboys is a national right, they’re a bad influence. Look how they ruined London. There goes the neighborhood.
Basically it was a eugenic tax on the dead-ends.
It worked.
“Bachelor taxes could also be used to regulate population growth. In South Africa, in 1919, a tax was imposed on bachelors in order to encourage white families to have children, a policy rooted in pre-apartheid racial politics and born out of fears that the white population would soon be eclipsed by the black community.”
No comment.
“In other cases, however, the bachelor tax was more about imposing moral order on society in a time of heightened panic about the hedonistic behavior of young single men.”
They were right…? The degeneracy of today is fueled by vain male demand.
Shut down the porn industry and women might listen. You can’t complain women are showing more skin without complaining about the billboards of lingerie models viewed by toddlers, sex scenes in minors’ films and free porn viewed by five-year olds online because age restrictions and checks would be a mild inconvenience to adults. They know about the brain damage of various vices, they don’t care to ban it. Why would anyone take them seriously? You must also complain about the double standards, like men walking around topless at gyms. We don’t actually want to see that. Plus it’s homoerotic. Sets a bad example.
“Many men complained that such an initiative was an intolerable form of gender discrimination, questioning why men ought to be singled out for extra taxation and not women.”

Men were bitching about muh sexism for decades first.
Broflakes. Men were the ones to propose, duh. It was a one-sided choice.
Plus the men were splashing the cash in illegal avenues difficult to trace (mobs).
Unmarried men only caused trouble to civilized society.
They still do.
Everyone complains about the marriage rate but never gets on the case of men who could marry but refuse.
It reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio and how he rails against pollution while flying a private jet.
The men bitching about low marriage and birth rates in a personal way can’t be hypocrites, either marry or shut up.
Why don’t they just…? Well, why don’t you?

It’s a valid question, you begged it.

~mic drop~

If you’re rejecting your own gender role, that’s one potential wife you deprive of hers.
They sound like old women, traditionally the ones trying to force marriages.
With such paternalism, and that’s what it is, they must get married or get over it.
The worst are the bad husbands you see online, avoiding their family to lecture others on why they’re single.
Well… people like that. People who shouldn’t have married but wanted the status to browbeat others.
“More successful initiatives appeared at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. The arguments that prevailed during these debates often centered on the behavior of single men, and the perceived need to coax men into marriage.”
All they had to do was shut the gin shops and brothels.
Make the manwhores leave the country, where they can’t be a bad influence on the native and naive.
The old-fashioned attitude was lynching for seduction.
“Opponents of the bill, however, suggested that if the bachelor tax were to stand, then a similar tax needed to be imposed on all women of marriageable age who had refused marriage proposals.”
This is hilarious. That would be fine?

Single men really don’t understand women, do they?
No woman would refuse a proposal from a man she was seriously courting.
However, to make it fair, men should be taxed according to the number of women they proposed to (including false promises and ex-wives) without a successful match.
Just punish the r-types until they move abroad, it’s very simple.
“In addition to this, in 1934, the state of California proposed a $25 bachelor tax, primarily as a strategy to boost the state’s falling birth rate. However, the proposals were not taken forward and the bill was never actually implemented.”
And look how well they’re doing!


This is like the elusive search for an atheist society that didn’t die out.
Such taxes will come back in the age of impossible unfunded pension liabilities.
Not might, must.
Why should they be entitled to live off other people’s children?
Why do you think the Boomers felt safe to abort their children? Social Security!
Then there’s the contribution to moral decay.
It’s funny how the very men who complain loudly about “degeneracy” also drink, smoke, fornicate, gamble and attend “massage parlors”.

We are not fooled.

What about a broad Hypocrite Tax?
Nobody could object.
That’d bring back the honor culture you so desire.
If you wouldn’t want an establishment opening next to a school, why is it allowed in your society at all?
At least make all of it underground and difficult to access. Don’t glamorize it.

It would make more sense to give all bachelors free vasectomies and make them sign a document that they’ll never ask the public to fund their sexual healthcare.
They won’t take you up on it though, r-types enjoy the idea of reproductive abuse.
They are the creeps who remove condoms against consent and don’t think of themselves as rapists.
Actually why aren’t there more child support cases about that? Most women are not on the Pill. Deliberate STD infection is a crime too. One very chiseled actor was in a Canadian court about that. Sometimes misogyny is obvious.

Traditionally, it was known rapists wanted to steal fertility* without the male investment of marriage. Why isn’t it assumed that producing such a child was an act of rape? Especially if the mother expressly didn’t want it? I’m sure we’ll come back to that legal position again soon, by necessity.

*or else they’d favour non-reproductive sex

I guess we could tattoo their forehead with a B for bachelor.
So they can’t lie to women about their intentions.

Why did no-fault divorce actually happen?

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5145-mnookin-and-kornhauser—1979—bargaining-in-the

Ironically, to enforce the Bible, in places.
Specifically the places where it wasn’t working. [1]

“Divorce was granted
only after an official inquiry by a judge, who had to determine
whether “appropriate grounds”-very narrowly defined in terms of
marital offenses-existed.6 When a divorce was granted, the state asserted
broad authority to structure the economic relationship of the
spouses and to maintain regulatory jurisdiction over the children
and their relationship to the parents.7 Doctrines such as collusion,8
connivance,9 and condonation’0 were meant to curtail the degree to
which parties themselves could bring about a divorce through agreement;
the procedural requirements reflected the view that everyone
was “a suspicious character.”

Among other things, no-fault divorce is also responsible for a lower spousal suicide rate, probably homicide (harder to measure) and certainly lower rates of domestic abuse. Overturning it requires an open admission these things do happen, one or both parties can be absolutely awful at their job and they still maintain the right to decide their intimate business over whatever State they happen to be stuck in. Appealing to tradition doesn’t really work when some of those values were very poorly aligned with the law at the time, to keep up Pollyanna appearances. To go back to all the old laws, men would have to prove good character (what is that? nobody would get married) and women would be able to press charges for seduction (rape by fraud is already historically present in the law books, i.e. nobody would get married). A lot of the modern “dating” process would also be swiftly made illegal.

Funny they never mention that.

And if men were the sex wriggling to get away, it begs two questions. Firstly, why the fuck did they propose? Second, wouldn’t that constitute abandonment on his part? A grave matter, severely punished, we all know of deadbeats who’d be whipped into shape by a return of fault laws. No-fault divorce treats men equally to women (justice is blind ‘n all), because they’re given the benefit of the doubt where they could be abandoned too.

A list of unisex faults and standards of proof are required, rooted in the post-Reformation Bible, instead of a reversion to a system that blatantly did not work. Two ruined lives plus children is not a success. For example, allowing divorce but banning re-marriage would silence many vocal oppositions. If there’s a limit on abortion and insurance claims, there should logically be one on an oath including “til death do you part”. These faults should be acknowledged in the marriage contract itself, along with ways to avoid them, and an expanded edition to make sure both parties really intend to follow through on their oath (which should be set in stone for legal reasons).

1 https://www.compellingtruth.org/grounds-for-divorce.html

“In the Old Testament, God allowed divorce if a man’s heart became so hardened against his wife that she was actually better off without him

…That isn’t rare. Calculate the odds of marrying anyone with mental problems nowadays. Any mental problem.

Unhappy wives used to hire men to fake affairs and “accidentally” get caught until the 30s when the only common American grounds for divorce was adultery. Your system needs work. Increase your marriage age to 18 for starters, you monsters. Child brides are both a Muslim and an American thing.

If you have a problem with keeping the age of consent at the age of adulthood…. what about voting?

Some simple changes and why:

  1. a hard limit on the number of times anyone can marry excepting widowhood.
  2. a grievance period for widows where marriage is not allowed, depending on how long they were married.
  3. if someone’s sexuality changes, they’re considered to have defrauded the other party of their agreed companionship.
  4. long engagements only, 6-12 months?
  5. one party letting themselves go completely is taken as a clinical indicator (already is) of passive-aggression or depression
  6. no addicts, taking up any addiction is grounds for no-fault divorce on behalf of the other party due to the brain damage effectively killing the person they married and rely upon
  7. marriage is not considered a license to any form of abuse, higher conduct is expected compared to strangers
  8. abandonment includes social, you agreed to be there for one another not at the club/bar/party
  9. romance must go both ways
  10. if someone turns out to be a psychopath (the only condition that can fake it until the wedding), divorce is allowed and the proven psychopath’s influence over the other party limited to account for their condition (ideally you test before marriage?)
  11. 18+, I hope this one is obvious.
  12. if one party works from home it is counted as work for the marriage
  13. real Christians only, married in a Christian ceremony
  14. complaining about their marriage online illegal (other people’s marital status or marriages too) – privacy law
  15. no atheists (think of the divorce risk), they don’t need a “piece of paper”, remember?
  16. adulterers can be sued again, but per act and depravity – would branding be too far?
  17. all bastard children from adultery aborted (risky but I’ll put it, it spares the legitimate children their rights)
  18. no adulterous unions could wed (because obviously they can’t be trusted with it)
  19. a cap on how much weddings can actually cost because... Jesus….
  20. earnings prior to marriage not counted in divorce proceedings, including inheritance, which skips over the spouse to the children.

I flatter myself these are common sense.

Condom deceit illegal

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/18/hairdresser-daryll-rowe-given-life-sentence-for-deliberately-infecting-men-with-hiv

Told ya so.

“When they refused, he tampered with condoms, tricking them into thinking that he was practising safe sex.”

So rape too. That isn’t on the charge list but according to the CPS, could be.

No comments, so free.

What is sexual coercion? (hint: not consensual)

It’s a positive sign when the sluts and manwhores kvetch over this information getting out.

It’s a great way of outing rapists, like the vegan test. Just discuss rape by fraud and out pop the rapists.

Oddly they’ll talk about male rape as a red herring, when men are probably coerced as much as women based on porn myths i.e. men always want it.

These are your rights. Your right to personal sovereignty, physical power over your own body. They don’t want potential victims to know their rights.

Like, there’s nothing wrong with being a consumer, but purchasing stolen goods is still illegal. Fraud is always possible.

http://www.consented.ca/consent/coercion/
“It’s not that they did not say “no,” but that they could not say “no.””
People will happily admit duress is wrong, but make it something physical, than written… suddenly they argue it’s ‘complicated’ – no.

http://www.loveisrespect.org/content/what-sexual-coercion/

Or you could stop blaming the victim and simply bring back seduction law, which prevented some of the lesser-known forms of rape. (Because consent needs to be fully, truthfully informed).

Seduction is a form of abusive manipulation. It’s sick that society uses the term to mean something admirable.

Seduction is illegal under English common law. Simply enforce it.
Most of the American system is based on it too. Sinatra was charged with it.

5 types of sexual coercion

A lot of men don’t realize that rapists often get a Yes on something else (foot in the door technique) then act like it means something else after the fact.

Just look at prison rape. You accept a free muffin at lunch, you’re later told you agreed to be their bed buddy.
That’s a male example of sexual coercion and men are rightfully terrified of it.

Coercion vitiates consent. It’s in the law, on the legal books.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/67926-is-it-rape-if-you-say-yes-5-types-of-sexual-coercion-explained

“You’re my wife/girlfriend, you are supposed to be having sex with me.”

A girlfriend owes you nothing.
A wife owes you something, but not constantly like a servant.

Many cultures teach us that sex is an inherent part of marriage. Many people take that a step further, and believe that being in a romantic relationship with someone makes you entitled to have sex with them.

They don’t believe that. Believing something doesn’t make it so. They’re lying to blackmail that person.

“You owe me” isn’t a belief.

The problem with that skewed thinking is that it leads some people to act as if taking on the label of “wife,” “girlfriend,” or “partner” suddenly makes your body their property.

I guess this relates to the idea of owning one another, which is true in a spiritual sense with spouses but doesn’t extend to constant entitlement, it relates to the idea that men always have to be up for it like robots and projects it onto the woman as her fault if he isn’t.

Unless you’re Catholic and never use contraception, it has nothing to do with Go forth and multiply, and has nothing to do with Christian duty. Prior to any duty, you should know what you’re agreeing to.

“If you don’t have sex with me, I’m breaking up with you.”

“If you don’t sleep with me, I’m going to sleep with someone else.”

“If you don’t sleep with me, I’m going to tell everyone you are a prude.”

In those cases it’s more obvious that nobody should be sleeping with them because they’re immature.

If Mommy won’t let me have the toy, I’m gonna smash it.

Attractive.

If they don’t respect your No, they don’t respect you or your body. Leave immediately. Run, don’t walk.

Logically, they shouldn’t respect a Yes either, if they doubt your ability to consent. Think about it.

What’s the subtextual thought process here?

You’re not allowed to say No to me.

ding ding crazy

run

whatsjwsimagine

Blackmail doesn’t apply to any agreement, including written contracts.

“If you really loved me, you would have sex with me.”

That isn’t love, that’s prostitution. A prostitute pays for things with sex.

“I wouldn’t have taken you out to dinner if I knew you were just leading me on. If you didn’t want to sleep with me, you shouldn’t have been flirting with me either.”

Again, (tends to be) male entitlement. Neither sex is owed sex.
That’s a non sequitur. If they didn’t want a date, they shouldn’t have asked for a date. That’s the real logic.

Don’t then complain that you thought (lie) it meant ‘something else’, like a ONS assuming it’s now a relationship. But that’s female entitlement, so they’d probably agree if the example isn’t close to home.

It is very easy for someone to try to ply you with alcohol as foreplay to a sexual encounter — because they know that if they can “relax” you enough, you may drop your resistance due to your impaired judgment, and agree to have sex. If your partner knows that you don’t want to have sex, and you find them repeatedly topping off your glass

that would be the point to tell them to go fuck themselves

If you find yourself saying yes to sex as a means to avoid harm, then there is no excuse for your partner’s behavior; please consider talking to someone and getting help.

The police, because sex is not a form of appeasement.

No seriously, many date rapists use these tactics because it gives them more plausible deniability in court later.
I once heard of a serial rapist who’d lure women to alleys threatening to hurt them while a friend played lookout then he forced them to say they wanted him before raping them. Eventually he got caught. Eventually.

The ‘game’ of getting the woman to agree is part of the sexual thrill, because they can take that choice away from her too.

A No doesn’t change into a Yes. That’s called nagging. The coercion thing isn’t widely known although rape by fraud is old as the hills, so the rapist also assumes they’re covered as long as she says the ‘Magic Word’ (until they’re in front of a judge).

There isn’t a magic word that makes rape OK. That’s kinda the point of rape, taking, as in taking away.

Date rapists are harder to catch because the women involved believe it was their fault and he isn’t like that with others (he is). So yes, report it. Others might not get away and you can do everything right and still get raped if they drug you (that’s why date rape is yes, actually, very real, and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is flagging as one of them).

Rapists fear healthy personal boundaries.

Update: I’ll throw this here.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-men-are-trained-to-think-sexual-assault-no-big-deal/

Stalking isn’t romantic.
Harassment isn’t brave.
People don’t owe other people anything.
There are no excuses for shitty behaviour.

I cba to go into this one.

Short version – women are not men and don’t have male libido, even porn stars aren’t really into it/you.

It’s stupid to assume all women are coy like some 19th century Austen novel and further, coyness is lying. Coy women don’t sleep with you. It is exclusive from sluttiness. Sluttiness is anti-coy. But I guess that wouldn’t make porn as fun to watch.

There’s no such thing as playing hard to get. You’re either hard to get or easy.

Imagine if we flipped it and said everything men do, they do for female attention and approval. Good career? Wants to attract a good woman. Nice car? He can’t appreciate cars for themselves, it must be to get women. Nice body? He doesn’t care for his health, it’s all about us. It’s incredibly narcissistic and spoiled to assume the choices of others have ANYTHING to do with you.

It’s also sexist to assume that clothing choices based on temperature e.g. male shirtlessness, female mini-skirts, or other practicality, have anything to do with their moral character.

Adult men have no excuse to think as stupidly as teenage boys.
They want an excuse for their actions, they want someone else to blame.

comment

I don’t have anything much to add to this except to say that I do really appreciate the article. It is frustrating to deal with guys who simply refuse to accept ‘no’ as an answer, because there is no way to ‘really’ refuse once ‘no’ is off the table. Short of fleeing the scene, what the f**k can you say?

That’s the point. It’s a trap.
They think if they can rationalize it, it isn’t rape and you’re the ‘crazy’ one.

Ahh, gaslighting again. Notice how this often crops up with the shit of the species? Because obviously, it can never be sociopath/borderline/plain jerk’s fault. You know, the consequences of his actions. Like a man. You push him away, kick him, bite, scream or punch him? You’re a crazy bitch! But him initiating physical action goes unmentioned. It ‘doesn’t count’ as assault, in his mind, because his consent to your body over-rides your human rights. They never mention what they did just before and claim not to see anything wrong – but they don’t mention it unless forced. This is why they rarely harass women in the company of other men – they know it’s wrong and fear punishment for the crime. This is why they usually stop hassling a girl if she says ‘I have a boyfriend’ (women have to lie to be left alone, minding their own business alone, in public. In the West). They’re cowards trying to exert control over others, women are simply the sex less physically equipped to defend ourselves.

They think No means Yes and Get Lost means Take Me I’m Yours – a Disney cartoon figured this out.

They don’t really think that, they’re pushing their luck and the boundaries of the law.

No means No because that’s literally the line. That’s the legal line we shouldn’t have to reach when there are other forms of rejection men are willfully blind to. It’s been proven men assume sexual interest where there is none. It’s a defect in their programming. However, ignoring many indicators to the contrary (emotional intelligence) isn’t an excuse. Women are people, first and foremost, and respect should be given when asking anyone for anything, since you are in the position of desire and need them to oblige you.

The whole tone of that article is a theme I call Poor Men, via Women.

Wtf.

How enlightened, feminist guy.

You’ve gone from acting like a black guy (where all this ‘sexual culture’ comes from) to just a plain misogynist, who can’t understand that women aren’t billboards for male attention. via People is terribly dehumanizing as a message.

It isn’t about you.
It isn’t about you.
It isn’t about you.

Assumptions make a what?

The feminists do the opposite, like Emma Watson signalling Poor Women, via Men. Still wrong, still sexism. You don’t self-actualize or seek attention/sympathy via the opposite sex. Or any other people, really. Your business is yours, not every stranger who piques your fancy.

OT

We seem to have a form of sexual politics like consensus reality. There’s no such thing as consensus morality. Let’s assume coercion doesn’t apply for a moment. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Two people can agree to something, doesn’t make it less wrong. Evil can be mutually agreed. So no, getting a Yes doesn’t get you off the hook for what you choose to do with your own body.

Update: Rape gangs are illegal because it’s organised sexual coercion of women (not just minors).  It’s organised crime, it just happens to be rape than common theft.

Which brings me onto a valid point.

Playing the Eve Teasing line “it’s her fault for being too attractive”, I don’t get to rob a bank and go “but, your Honour, it’s their fault for having too much money!”
You’re responsible for your own impulse control, you monsters. Impulse control is heavily tied to IQ, Westerners have no excuse. Rapists are the sexual Marxists of the world, willing to steal what they can’t earn. You are not allowed to reject a Marxist’s claim to your income, the fruit of your body.
Do regular white women have to be like children in Sweden and wear wristbands saying “please don’t rape me”? You’d ignore those too. Almost like you don’t consider the target group as people, like the rape gangs.
Erotic capital is not a choice, men have it too, expression of sensuality is cultural, social, not necessarily sexual (the culture says we need to look somewhat sexy to conform! and too many things are labelled sexy when they aren’t) and what one person does e.g. tight clothing, is not a super-secret, erotomanic code for burning desire to random observer. It isn’t about you. If a woman wants a man, in this culture, she can ask him out. He doesn’t need to “chase” her, he isn’t a lion about to eat a gazelle. To compare their fun to murder really shows their character, dunnit?

Lock/key is a poor analogy

It doesn’t prove anything.

Except the degeneracy of fornication.

The premise is unintentionally hilarious. What’s the prior here? Logically?

Women are supposed to limit themselves, as if reproduction is a sin (Bible says No) and men can do what they want (Bible says No). Angels fell for fornication. It’s up there with rape. In fact…

If women are supposed to keep their legs shut for their ‘owners’ (husbands), any man who beds a woman and doesn’t marry her is a rapist.

The Bible does imply this too.

It used to be on the law books as things like Breach of Promise. Aka it used to be illegal to defraud/lie to get sex historically too. Rape by fraud would be traditional to reinstate.

She is incapable of consenting except to be wed, in a church, with her previous owner’s (father’s) permission.

They’re implicitly arguing against the Sexual Revolution. A feminist event that allows them to sleep around. Because they defend their ‘right’ to sleep around… (not endogenous, not a right).

Fallacy of Poor analogy.

They’re implicitly saying that all fornication is rape and sex is otherwise stolen from women by criminal men. We’re helpless. As in, we can’t consent to the guy using the metaphor either. It’s an argument to female hypoagency. Also sexist to men, as all rapists and aggressors who only want one thing.