Female medieval English skeletons study

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119392

“However, the period of ‘youth’ in medieval England, before the achievement of full social adulthood, may have extended well past physical adolescence, and the age of 25 years is often used as the cut-off point.14″

Louder for the pedos at the back.

“but for most medieval young women physical adulthood did not equate to social adulthood.16″

Obviously.

“Instead, puberty may have marked the beginning of the phase of ‘maidenhood’ rather than adulthood.17”

We now call it teenagehood but I prefer that name for women.

“Lifestyle changes for the teenager, in particular the onset of formal work, may have marked a further step away from childhood, particularly if this involved a move away from the parental home. That the 14th-century poll tax was levied on all those aged 14 years and above suggests that young women were expected to be earning their own money by this age.18

HA. Yeah, the guys who say women should sit at home all day twiddling their thumbs waiting to marry are 1. wrong and 2. have put too much stock in middle-class novelist Austen.

Like today;
“Although exact numbers are impossible to calculate, it is clear from the documentary evidence that a significant proportion of young women migrated to urban centres such as London and York to obtain employment, most commonly a service position.19″

Exactly like today:
“This move would have been a dramatic, and potentially a traumatic, change in lifestyle for young women. Although it may have brought greater freedom and responsibility, it does not seem to have conferred full adult status; there is evidence that young women in service were always viewed as ‘girls’ regardless of their age, just as young men were not viewed as full adults before the completion of an apprenticeship contract.20″

So they didn’t marry for money, they were already economically independent.

If you actually read history and here, forensics.

“in reality, marriage at such a young age was largely restricted to the nobility, with the average age at marriage in the general population estimated at 20–25 years,22
and perhaps even later following the Black Death.23
This would provide a very late age of achievement of ‘adulthood’ by modern standards. However, although marriage was very much the expected path a significant minority of women — perhaps around 15% — never married.24″

Who is dumb enough to have never looked this up?

I keep seeing Americans who make sweeping fictional statements about what ‘we’ Europeans did and it’s like… no. That’s never happened. Citation? Statistics? They are liars. Even in their revenge fantasies of ‘oppressing’ women from work (oh joy, welfare on the backs of random men? can’t win, can we?) then they assume all women would marry off (literally never happened in human history), all women are fertile and their children all magically survive (LOL) and that all men want to marry and got to choose who (LOL no). The economy also needs young workers, part of the immigrant problem is caused by not allowing teens to work.

They’re in bloody La La Land.

Extended maturation is K-selected, the men and women were tougher as a result.

Just realised my grandmothers might be in here.

Almost certainly. Yeah, don’t lie about my nana/s.

“Alongside these dramatic but infrequent events, most young medieval females would have experienced everyday hardships and hazards.”

” The average femoral diaphysis length recorded for the medieval 14-year-old females (354 mm) is closest to that recorded by Maresh for 20th-century 10-year-olds (348 mm). The average figures for medieval 15- and 16-year-old females (365 mm and 366 mm respectively) are still lower than for 20th-century 11-year-olds (367 mm). These data suggest that growth in medieval England fell well below modern standards, perhaps reflecting the lower standard of living medieval children would have experienced.”

If it was that hard on the girls, you don’t wanna go back to that, guys.

“It does not necessarily follow that medieval women were considerably shorter than their modern counterparts. When compared to dental formation, epiphyseal fusion in the female adolescent skeletons from our sample was delayed by two to three years in comparison to modern standards, allowing them to ‘catch-up’ their growth during the pubertal growth spurt.27 This pattern of extended growth appears to have been common in the medieval period;”

The English are tough.

” Only very slight differences in stature were noted between the women of Lincolnshire, London and Gloucester, although the London females had greater diversity in adult height.”

“This may suggest that girls who experienced poorer conditions for childhood and adolescent growth were more likely to die around or before the age of 25 years.”

K-selection. Stunted or shorter women likelier to die. Same with men.

“It has been suggested that female height may have suffered in comparison to male height in medieval Europe due to preferential feeding and care of male children,33causing greater sexual dimorphism in growth and final stature between the sexes. By comparison, the average stature of young men at our sites (156 individuals) was 169.5 cm (5 ft 7 in). This may simply be the result of sexual dimorphism as such comparisons are similar for modern western populations, and therefore does not support the hypothesis that girls experienced poorer nutrition and living standards than boys.”

K-types invest well in all offspring.

“According to these indicators, it appears that all of the individuals studied had entered the pubertal growth spurt by the age of 14 years. In the modern western world girls tend to begin puberty around the age of 10 years,37 and so this result would fit with modern expectations. “

Puberty begins then takes a few years, 14-18/19 matches what I read elsewhere about menarche (posted here).

The ‘modern’ data is skewed by non-whites, especially Asians and Africans, with much lower menarches.

The African is nine, measured in America, as I recall.

“More information can be gained from examining the epiphyseal fusion of the hand phalanges, a process known to occur during the deceleration phase of the pubertal growth spurt, and correlated with first menstruation in modern females. Although the age at which this event occurred varied in our sample just as among modern girls, fusion appears to have occurred most frequently between 15 and 17 years (Fig 2). At 14 years, only 36% of girls display fusing or fused hand phalangeal epiphyses, but by 17 years this figure has risen to 84%.”

Still not 100%, K-types have a later range of menarche.

“A second skeletal event known to be associated with first menstruation, the ossification of the iliac crest of the ilium, was also only found in girls aged at 15 years or over. Interestingly, this is roughly in line with the average age at menarche suggested by the few available documentary sources.38 An average age at menarche of between 15 and 16 years would be much later than the modern British average of just under 13 years.39In addition to their shorter stature, this finding adds weight to the argument that environmental factors such a deficient diet and disease were having a negative impact on medieval female growth and development. Interestingly, however, this average age at menarche is below the age of 17 years recorded for mid-19th century females,40indicating that urban conditions were not as detrimental as those experienced during rapid industrialisation.”

The female body takes YEARS to develop, periods often occur too early to carry a child to term. Hollywood lies, because it’s full of creeps.

Men shouldn’t be discussing a reproductive system they cannot understand.

“The evidence for medieval England, however, shows a delay in the achievement of this milestone, which appears to have fallen between 17 and 18 years for most girls, based on 247 individuals with this bone surviving (Fig 3). Complete fusion of the iliac crest of the ilium, which signals the end of pelvic growth, was only seen in a minority of women aged below 20 years, based on the 277 individuals “

They’re K-types, it isn’t a delay, it’s NORMAL. Modern people are aberrant.

17-18 periods stabilize (this takes years, I have spoken to doctors about it).

The pelvis keeps growing to carry and support a child though, only when this is done (about 21, spinal plate fusion) is the woman actually sexually mature with a low risk of still birth, miscarriage or death.

Modern medicine is allowing a lot of non-white thots to survive a process Nature is telling them is fatal. Do not confuse that with Nature’s approval.

These data suggest that puberty was extended into the very late teens for young medieval women, pushing back the timing of achievement of full physical adulthood. This extended period of physical adolescence indicates that living standards for young medieval women, at least in the urban and small town environments, were considerably poorer than those of modern British adolescents. Some variation between the sites was noted, with pubertal development most advanced in the small town of Barton-upon-Humber, and most delayed in the urban hospital cemetery of St Mary Spital, London. This presumably reflects the harsher living conditions experienced by the girls living and working in London.”

Nah, hard work and low fat diet. Treating the women like men will delay them more.

“It is believed that the demographic changes caused by the Black Death may have led to increased opportunities for many women to migrate and work.43

Although less documentary evidence is available for women than for men, there is evidence for female servants much younger than 12 years in urban households,44and some migration may have occurred at a very young age. Although legislation was passed to regulate the minimum age for apprentices — 13 years in the early 14th century, rising to 16 years by the 15th century — apprenticeships were rarely available for girls, and no such legal minimum age existed for servants or casual workers. The available evidence suggests that girls started formal work away from home at a younger age than boys.45

This concept of female laziness is really American.

” a degree of personal freedom; the latter is perhaps most clearly indicated by the large number of migrant women recorded as making ‘merchet’ payments for the right to choose their own marriage partner.46 On the other hand, moving away from home, particularly to a town or city, could bring with it new challenges and hazards, such as sexual predation, mistreatment, injury and disease.”

Americans are so wrong it hurts.

” this result indicates that much greater numbers of women living and dying in London were actually suffering from tuberculosis.”

“Again, the numbers are too small for statistical analysis, but this may provide further evidence for girls having a more indoor lifestyle than boys in the medieval period.”

Forcing women to sit at home is literally bad for their health.

We aren’t mole people.

On the whole, the women actually had it harder than men.

“There can be little doubt that this extensive workload was exhausting for many women, but osteological study can provide further direct evidence for the impact that this had on young women’s bodies.

A wide range of trauma has been recorded on the skeletons of young medieval women, including fractures of the upper limb and finger bones, cranium and ribs, lower limbs and feet.57 However, the prevalence of fractures of each type is lower than among males, suggesting that girls were exposed to (or exposed themselves to) fewer risks of injury than boys.”

We hadn’t evolved for that labour, men did.

“It is notable that, of the 48 cases of trauma reported in the grey and published literature, cranial, rib and jaw injuries, suggestive of interpersonal violence, only started to appear in women aged 17–25 years, comprising 18.6% of the 43 fractures for this age group. This suggests that the risk of violence rose as girls turned into young women, perhaps reflecting domestic violence after marriage.58″

That would explain the death rate. Stress and fractures – no healthy baby.

There is one area of the skeleton where young women seem to have suffered virtually the same frequency of fractures as young men, the vertebral column. By far the highest prevalence rate for vertebral fractures (4.7%, n = 9) was found at St Mary Spital suggesting that female workers in the capital, or at least the poor workers buried in this hospital cemetery, were undertaking the activities most likely to cause spinal injury. The majority of these fractures were compression fractures, often caused by falls from a height, although avulsion and hyperflexion injuries were also present.59

The men sitting at a desk in an apprenticeship had it easy.

“Schmorl’s nodes are common, often asymptomatic, depressions caused by herniation of the nucleus pulposus on the superior and inferior surfaces of the vertebral bodies. Their aetiology is complex, although spinal trauma caused by vigorous activity and flexion and extension of the spine is most commonly associated with their formation.60 The age of their occurrence is not clear, but they generally appear before the age of 18 years.61Plomp et al argued that males are more susceptible to these lesions due to the size and shape of their vertebrae.62 In our study, medieval women had a higher prevalence of the lesions). Analysis of the location of Schmorl’s nodes on the vertebrae revealed that the lumbar vertebrae were affected far more often among women, and the central thoracic vertebrae among men. This mirrors vertebral fractures where in the women all of the fractures occurred in the lower thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, while in young men the central thoracic vertebrae were affected. This may suggest different activities; strain on the lumbar vertebrae, in particular, may be caused by bending and lifting.63″

aka back breaking labour, which could cause…

“Further evidence for stress being placed on the spines of young medieval women is provided by cases of spondylolysis. This describes the partial separation of the inferior facets on the neural arch from the vertebral body, usually between the ages of 10–12 years. The condition results from microtrauma in low grade stress on the lower back due to bending and lifting strains, or a fall from a height,64 but may have an underlying congenital cause. This injury was present in 4.4% of the female skeletons examined. This is higher than the prevalence of this condition found by the authors among young medieval males (2.9%), although the numbers involved were too small for statistical analysis. Again, the area involved is the lumbar region of the vertebral column. In addition, three young women, two aged at around 21 years and one at 22–25 years, display early degenerative joint disease of the vertebral column.”

Forcing women into labour like that kills them, reminder.

What emerges from the osteological evidence is that the workload of many young medieval women appears to have been literally backbreaking, and these early injuries may be expected to have led to significant back problems and pain in later life. It seems likely that these early spinal problems were caused primarily by carrying heavy loads at a time when the spine was still forming and vulnerable. Research from the grey and published literature reveals that rates of spinal injury were higher in urban than rural women65 and suggests that the workload of the young migrant women in service was harder than that of the young women who remained in the country or in small towns with their families. For example, the prevalence of vertebral fractures, spondylolysis and Schmorl’s nodes was lowest at Barton-upon-Humber, a wealthy small town.66″

Marriage, Sexual Activity and Childbirth

There is considerable evidence to suggest that marriage was a defining moment in the medieval female life course, marking the transition into true social adulthood.67 It is notable, however, that there was a significant gap between the legal age at marriage (12 years) and the average age at marriage (20–25 years even before the Black Death) in medieval England.68 The new analysis of pubertal development in medieval England discussed above suggests that the average age at menarche was 15–16 years. Full fertility, in terms of the likelihood of conception, carrying a healthy pregnancy to term and surviving childbirth, would only have followed several years after menarche with the completion of pelvic growth,69 which in our medieval sample appears to have been rare before the age of 19 years.

aka what I already typed, dammit

The fact that many young medieval women would not have been fertile before their 20s may be one reason for the relatively late average age of marriage during this period.70 It also suggests that marriage at the legal minimum age of 12 years would rarely have been fruitful, and any pregnancy that did ensue would have carried significant risks for the mother. We know of several medieval legal cases of the marriage of young girls where the ‘physical readiness for marriage’ of the girl in question was debated.71

This don’t go to college because you get periods thing from America is pig ignorant on female anatomy.

There is evidence to suggest, however, that the majority of cases of marriage before 15 years were confined to the nobility.72Today, girls of higher socio-economic status, with a considerably better standard of life, mature earlier than average. For example, high caste girls in 20th-century India have an average age at menarche over a year younger than low caste girls.73 The average age at menarche for noble girls in medieval England may therefore have been younger than the average age of 15–16 years described above.

more r-selected by men, explains eventual decadence and homosexuality rates, especially in the French

Even so, a pregnancy before the completion of pelvic development would have been dangerous; a famous example of this is provided by Margaret Beaufort, who appears to have been rendered sterile by a difficult first birth (of the future king Henry VII) at the age of just 13 years.74 An understanding of these risks is demonstrated by several contemporary authors,75 and was reflected in the Jewish rule that contraception (banned by Christian teaching) could be used to prevent pregnancy if the bride were too young to safely bear a child.767

The guys trying to force women to reproduce young would ironically render their own wife sterile via their stupidity. Good riddance. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

In theory, marriage coincided with sexual initiation for young women, and if the Church’s remonstrations to remain celibate until marriage were universally followed, it would indicate a relatively late age of sexual initiation. In reality, premarital sex among betrothed couples seems to have been common,77

that links to this study, no, they weren’t slutty

seems*

no

and sex with other partners, in not all cases consensual, was far from rare.

Are you really counting rape?

Evidence for this is provided by the erratic enforcement of ‘legerwite’ or ‘leyrwite’ fines on serf women who engaged in premarital sex.78

What about the men.

Premarital sex is thought to have been particularly common among young girls and women living away from home, for example in service roles, due to the greater freedom and availability of partners as well as the risk of sexual predation or pimping from employers.79 The sexual exploitation of girls in service appears to have been a frequent problem based on the legal record,80 and many young women must have lost their virginity in these circumstances. The extensive focus of many writers on admonishing young women to stay celibate until marriage may be taken as further evidence that premarital sex was seen (at least for women) as a significant societal problem.

Rape isn’t sleeping around, WTF.

Pedophiles raping virgins don’t really count as premarital sex, a choice, does it?

Two aspects of osteological analysis may shed light on sexual activity among young medieval women. The first is a sexually transmitted disease. Venereal syphilis, a treponemal disease, affects the skeleton in its tertiary stage, causing distinctive skeletal lesions.81 From the end of the 15th century, syphilis is believed to have been endemic in urban areas of England, although recent work has suggested that it may have been present at a much earlier date.82

Men spread that, sailors caught that. Your point?

If a virgin woman married a man with it, she’d get it. That can happen after marriage.

These female authors really want to present all women throughout history as sluts. Cui bono?

Among the 14–25 year old female individuals examined, four probable cases of treponemal disease were recorded, based on the presence of characteristic gummatous lesions in the cranium or long bones.83 Three of these were found in the young women from London (Fig 5), and one was found in York, at St Helen-on-the-Walls. One further case is known from Blackfriars, Gloucester;84 no cases were identified in the rural or small town sites consulted in the wider survey. The two youngest women to show signs of treponemal disease were aged at just 16 years. It is difficult to rule out congenital syphilis in these cases, as the presentation of the two conditions can be very similar, although none of these skeletons display the typical dental deformations of congenital syphilis.

So their fathers were sluts, so?

If the disease is the venereal form of treponemal disease, or syphilis, this would suggest the girls were very young when first infected. Syphilis generally takes several years to cause such destruction in the skeleton.85 Although the number of cases recorded is small, given that only 10–20% of individuals with tertiary syphilis experience skeletal involvement, and that skeletal lesions take several years to develop,86 it seems likely that much greater numbers of young women were affected by this disease.

To imply they wanted to be raped by syphilitic men is a bridge too far though.

The spread of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis was exacerbated by the problem of prostitution in medieval towns and cities. Karras argues that regulations of the Guilds limited women’s access to the normal labour market, forcing them to turn to prostitution out of necessity.87

Assuming that was a mistake.

There is little direct evidence that apprentices were procured as prostitutes, but one extant record from London City and Ecclesiastical Court (ad 1423) attests that one Alison Boston took apprentices who she hired out for the ‘horrible vice of lechery’.88 There are also accounts of men taking young girls (invenculae) to the London stews and selling them as prostitutes, suggesting the types of danger faced by young unskilled immigrant women. Goldberg89 cites the famous references from medieval York in ad 1482 that place prostitutes within the legal realm of ‘lepers’ and pigs in the hazards they caused for the local population.

Enslaved children.

She does not discuss the age at which women may have turned to prostitution, but suggests widows and daughters of labourers, known as ‘spinsters’ and ‘seamstresses’ (sempsters), needed to work several jobs to make ends meet, including petty theft, illegal ale retailing and prostitution. Goldberg argues that although full-time, ‘professional’ prostitutes were rare, many women were forced into occasional prostitution in hard times.90

Contradiction, Goldberg.

also why we have the welfare state

This would have been a particular risk for a migrant girl away from the safety of her family.91 Although it is impossible to state that any of the young medieval women examined were forced into this profession, this must be considered in the cases where possible syphilis is recorded.

No shit, nobody would choose that. The excuses these women make for rape are appalling.

A second consequence of sexual activity, pregnancy, may also in exceptional circumstances be visible in the archaeological record. In total, eight cases of young women buried with fetuses in utero have been recorded from medieval cemetery contexts. These burials represent ‘obstetric catastrophes’ with the death of both mother and child in late pregnancy or childbirth. Although there was a Christian injunction in place in medieval England for infants to be removed from their mother’s womb before burial,92 this does not appear to have been rigorously obeyed.

Yeah, who wouldn’t choose to die like that? I guess they were all just happy sluts, huh Mizz Feminist?

All of the individuals buried with a fetus in utero in medieval cemeteries have an estimated age at death of around 20 years or over, and thus none represent particularly young ‘teenage’ pregnancies.

Because they rarely got pregnant. Look at the evidence.

This may support the idea that in the medieval period teenage girls were not falling pregnant, as first pregnancies are often seen as the most hazardous.93

May? It’s anatomical.

It also fits with the known late pattern of marriage in this society. However, it is by no means certain that all of these women were married. The two examples from St Mary Spital may have represented extramarital pregnancies as the hospital was known to accept unmarried women in pregnancy or childbirth.94 It may be significant that neither of these women received an individual grave or any grave ornamentation. In contrast, the elaborate nature of one young mother’s burial at Barton-upon-Humber, in a coffin within the church and with a cloth of gold artefact,95 surely indicates that this woman was married and held a position of substantial social standing.

Clearly, their situation was a choice.

Given the high mortality rate of women in childbirth in the medieval period revealed by documentary sources,96s it is clear that these rare burials represent a dramatic under-estimation of the real levels of maternal mortality. In many cases, the churches prohibition on burying fetuses in utero may have been observed. In a large proportion of births, too, the child may have been saved, leaving little clue as to the cause of death of the mother.

But doctors (when sane) will elect to save the mother because she can have countless children later but an orphan baby is already financially a goner. Remember this, America.

Conclusion

The period of social adolescence for young medieval women seems to have been an important life stage, encompassing the growth to full physical adulthood and fertility, the adoption of adult working roles and, for most young women, the move from legal dependence on a father to legal dependence on a husband, with perhaps a few brief years of relative independence in between. The comparative absence of young women from documentary sources means that osteological information plays a vital role in our understanding of this group, and it can reveal a great deal about the way in which medieval girls grew into women, the living conditions they enjoyed or endured, the work they did and the health problems they faced.

Many of the conclusions drawn from osteological analysis of this group articulate with and illuminate the documentary evidence. The average age at which full fertility appears to have been achieved, around 20 years, is substantially later than in modern England, but ties in well with the known average age at marriage in this society. The greater susceptibility of young women to respiratory infections, from the relatively benign maxillary sinusitis to the deadly serious tuberculosis, chimes with the picture drawn from documentary sources of an indoor lifestyle for women, close to the smoky fire, and of the cramped living conditions that helped to spread disease. The backbreaking work clearly undertaken by many young women paints a clearer physical picture of their daily lives than that provided by documentary sources alone, and the development of signs of venereal disease in very young women hints at the problem of girls being driven to prostitution in England’s medieval cities.

Gang rape, we still have it. They are driven to it, slave-driven.

Tall women live longer than short ones

https://www.upi.com/amp/Health_News/2019/01/22/Study-Body-size-may-influence-longevity-in-women-but-not-in-men/6731548193467/

And from what I know previously, short men tend to outlive very tall ones, unsure about medium to slightly tall height.

The thin finding is ‘duh’ but the height one is surprising.

I guess it’s genetic?

Maybe leg men know best.

I’d like to see a more detailed study comparing within and between race but I won’t hold my breath.

What happens to teenage rape victims?

Another reason forced marriage in a society or “child brides” are barbaric.

Plus a side track on promiscuity, statist preventable disease enabling and STD gene evolution.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X04002575

“Results
The lifetime prevalence of forced sex for females and males was 10.2% and 5.1%, respectively.

I’m disgusted by that alone.

What a “revolution”.

Feed the entitlement of (serial*) rapists.

For the overall sample, feeling sad/hopeless(odds ratio [OR] 1.9), having considered (OR 2.1) or attempted (OR 1.4) suicide, being a victim of physical dating violence (OR 2.8) heavy cigarette use (OR 1.4), binge drinking (OR 0.7), having multiple recent sexual partners (OR 8.3) and unprotected sex (OR 1.7) were correlated with a history of forced sex. Among females, associations were found among sad/hopeless feelings (OR 1.6), having considered suicide(OR 2.2), fighting (OR 1.3), physical dating violence (OR 2.1) heavy cigarette use (OR 1.8), multiple sexual partners (OR 9.3) , alcohol/or drug use before sex (OR 1.6) and unprotected sex (OR 1.5). Among males, associations were found among sad/hopeless feelings (OR 1.8), attempted suicide (OR 1.9), gun carrying (OR 1.8), physical dating violence (OR 4.3), multiple sexual partners (OR 7.8), unprotected sex (OR 1.9), and other ethnicity (OR 3.3).

Conclusions
Although a history of forced sexual intercourse affects a small number of adolescents,

10% of girls isn’t small….

1 in 20 boys neither?

it is an important public health issue. The psychological and behavioral correlates of forced sexuality

Flashback to all the statist propaganda of Sex Ed.

If we adults can’t be trusted with guns or sugary drinks because they enable bad behaviour, what about practically Tantric marital sex guides given to single, horny teenagers, along with condoms and pills?

Is that not encouraging anti-social behaviour?

The emphasis on “safe” sex is denying the legitimacy of celibacy. It assumes everyone is a slut. They can get that information online anyway. Innocence is illegal because explicit, brain-altering pornography is freely available (no credit card wall to safeguard from child access).
A single person shouldn’t be sleeping around, the touted health benefits of sex are statistically non-existent (compared to real exercise, comparing anything to a couch potato would be a benefit, that’s just bad science) and psychologically they’d be better off handling matters themselves if physically desperate than endangering everything from their marriage prospects to their mental health to their future cancer death risk.

Then there’s the rape allegation from sexual coercion, which is legally valid. How many teenagers are taught that instead of an ugly form of physical entitlement a la Brave New World?

Sex is the adult marker. Yes, it is serious and should be taken deadly seriously. The fallout of a sex life can get you killed (crime of passion is a legal defence in France).
Parents shouldn’t allow sexually active children to live with them anymore. It’s abnormal and contributes to this culture of infantile adults, with all the endorphin-producers and none of the struggle to get them. They regress and functionally retard themselves because those rewards signal the brain that it needn’t develop further, having earned the reproduction status in the tribe (and virgin genuises like Newton never really stopped growing intellectually, along with other comparable groups like monks). Children with early sexuality never catch up mentally either, for this reason. The window of opportunity is lost, it’s like trying to feed plant nutrients into a fruit that’s already been plucked. Future generations will look back in horror that we force-feed ducks to make liver paste but how much more that we encourage the most depraved degeneracy in the most vulnerable – children, which stunts their life, by outcomes? And an addiction, as freeing them?
If you’re mature enough to make babies (that’s what it is) then you have no right to intrude on your own parents. Traditional societies held this rite of passage important. Men who brag about losing their virginity aren’t taught to value purity of the body and psychological pair bonds, they’re kept ignorant of these (by vindictive sluts who want to convert others to misery) and consider themselves men for performing like prostitutes (white men, how far ye have fallen) for a near-stranger who doesn’t love them enough to give them children for it (the test of female loyalty is the investment of fertility). It’s empty. They think they’re proving how they’re independent but they still exist on their parent’s health insurance or under their father’s roof, it’s objectively pathetic. I’m surprised the Boomers didn’t give them a trophy. The Manwhore Medal.
Congratulations, you’ll make an inferior husband with every notch! – Just like the divorcing Boomers.
It is not “fun”, not sport, not exercise, not “good for you”, there is no upside to promiscuity. Scientifically, legally, it’s a con. It’s a self-numbing, self-soothing habit (which unlike masturbation, promotes disease**) that makes strangers have trouble connecting or ruin their pair bonding for the eventual marriage they, again, feel entitled to.

But won’t actually get (quality or bust).

Where did all the good women go? You made them notches. The rest of the world is laughing at America bitching about the consequence of their own causes. You want a culture of sluts, now you have shit marriages. You made your bed. America was the Patient Zero of how to fuck up an amazing civilization with degeneracy in modernity (and yes while planned you went along with it for gibs). You’ve done everything wrong but refuse to reverse it, whining that The Government should “fix it” with further incursions on responsible people’s freedoms when it’s individualism that caused it and…aren’t these guys libertarians? Highlights include bitching about abortion but wanting to keep it legal in cases of premarital consenting sex and bitching about disease rates but refusing to use condoms like a grown-up.

Are you men or not? Either you’re held responsible for your actions or not.

A basic fact that’s been known for ages:

Anyone terrified by being a parent isn’t mature enough to be having sex. If the thought of being a mother or father disgusts you, you shouldn’t be using those parts like Lego bricks (the ones that don’t un-stick) because you can’t un-make a baby.

How often does it mention that? At least, not to do anything downstairs with the opposite sex because… babies happen. They can’t act shocked when the process of baby-making produces one. That is normal.

How much of an idiot do you have to be, to deposit living sperm into or close to (anal) a vagina, and be surprised when a baby comes out nine months later? If you never want kids and you don’t get the snip first, age 18, you deserve to be laughed at. Women can’t get done age 18 but men can get it easily. It’s like something out of Idiocracy to act like your fertility is a surprise, that was a main joke at the opening of the film. You can show them all the pictures but they assume their lust can temporarily suspend the laws of biology. And they treat pregnancy as a disease, like the late-term abortion monsters. (You consented to make it, that’s all sex is, sex is not an orgasm, nobody is stopping you from having those, it even happens in sleep for both sexes. I would add that the cultural focus on orgasms is intended to weaken bonds with pressure and tire people though, it isn’t the purpose and shouldn’t be a focus if you care about health.)

Expecting infertility is abnormal. Really creepy, if you think about it.
A union of death.

Sex Ed doesn’t educate at all, it misinforms.

suggest that these youth have been harmed

really?

the overt pedos saying about raping menstruating little girls are abusive?

wow, shook

and may further place themselves in harm’s way.

Self-destruction, common reaction to abuse.

People are not sex toys or ego pacifiers, whatever Sex Ed has “taught” you.

Intimacy means a lot to people who aren’t psychologically broken. It’s serious. Only a psychopath sees people as toys.

Furthermore, the profiles of adolescent females and males who report such experiences are distinct in ways that warrant their independent examination and attention.”

Different biology, different trauma. Female virginity is more complex of course, involving fertility as the carrier sex and there’s the high risk of physical permanent damage including scarring. Given that fact, the female is historically considered worse (protect the baby-carrying sex is a survival instinct, female fertility or available brides are a vital resource of a race) but men and boys merit individual study as a sex that tries to reduce their numbers (abused) and improve their life outcomes too, while acknowledging sex differences without shame. A cultural change is needed there.

No sex without (full) consent, as this shows, that’s just rape.
It ruins lives.
Strangely, it also increases race-mixing. Stress dampens the typical aversion? Or it seems riskier? This would apply to any racial dynamics, remember, so a black girl would become more likely to sleep with a Mexican, for example.

This is a major factor in suicide, unspoken.

Slutty men and women are far more likely to be acting out their abuse in a way they feel they control.

https://psychologydictionary.org/repetition-compulsion/

It is informally known as “acting out” but instead of relieving themselves of the pain, it’s a temporary purge that brings on feelings of shame and isolation, which they’re often told means they must sleep around more. By the Sex Ed groomers.

Sex is not a suitable anti-depressant. If you must, just masturbate (needing porn is a form of impotence). There’s higher esteem and satisfaction where studied anyway, don’t expect the groomers to tell you that (otherwise how could they rape their students?) … they want to convert people to their miserable lifestyle.

Emotional distance is not normal in men, nor stoicism (philosophical stoics are very close to people) but it’s a fear of emotional intimacy, especially with the demographic of their attacker/s.

*Their libido doesn’t disappear after one attack.

**The MRAs going on about male cancer studies don’t want to research how bad the habit of promiscuity is for the health of a male body because they might have their feelings hurt. They might be judged or questioned (death before triggering?)… There’s a link between anal “sex” and various cancers, for example. Fuck like a gay man, get the same disease risk profile of one. They hardly research it (fine, die?) but penile cancers etc all rise because of fecal bacteria (you know they refuse condoms, just like a homo).

And they’re the reason syphilis is back (men are the major carrier). Hope you like your dick dropping off because you’re too manly to protect it (valid Q: who would know you use condoms unless you tell them and have you seen how many male porn stars get HIV?). Antibiotics are failing on various STDs because the Government gives them all the antibiotics they want without telling them to be less of a slut in future and, being stupid, they use them wrong – directly causing resistance. 

The State shouldn’t hand them out again because hey, you can’t be trusted to use them properly and take measures to avoid infection, so eventually they will fail because of your behaviour.

Another cause of resistance is that they often have multiple STDs (and don’t tell the other party beforehand, which is rape), that swap genes. Still the State refuses to quit enabling the walking public disease cases. The rest of us suffer.

The STDs are preferentially evolving within the male system because nobody is telling the manwhores to stop. The rest of us don’t want to die on the operating table for a large garden splinter age 44.

They grow where irresponsibility lives.

Proof:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180627160523.htm
“The analysis revealed that 9 percent of gonococcal genes showed increased expression exclusively in men and included genes involved in host immune cell interactions.”
The female expression was half that. Tell the manwhores to stop (and the slutty women obviously) or the drugs will become smothered and ineffective in the human immune system (i.e. of all of us).

The “I’m not harming anyone” libertarian argument is bullshit! We have genome data!

It’s evolving around your stupidity. To kill the species.

(By infertility or direct mortality does not matter).

Statistically?

America doesn’t need a baby boom either, you need the contraction that’s happening because few of you can get married, can afford children and raise them properly plus the Baby Boomer generation was a fluke of history (and world war dead), repeating it will constrict your society and cause more Boom problems. More people, less prosperity (see India). Picture overflowing sewers. You need to be K-selected and focus on quality while reducing foreign (genetic) competition for your domestic tax base resources (your birthright). You cannot out-breed the billions of Asia and Africa and South America. America is a small country compared to most of the globe. Thankfully, you don’t have to.

And immigration doesn’t actually help, Magic Dirt doesn’t fix their tendency to over-breed.

The guys going on about the Spartans can’t sit out in the cold overnight once but never talk about the boy rape by “mentors” (it was Ancient Greece), not being able to choose who you marry (class was important) or being forbidden from living with your own wife until age 30 so… we’ll pass on that system. While making men full citizens age 30 is a good idea neurologically, for voting especially, the sexual stuff is creepy. Plus, you’d 100% be drafted. Sparta was a military force, you can’t be a Spartan male in lifestyle and not be drafted. Usually these same guys getting misty-eyed about Brotherhood (military cult dogma) also bitch about the idea they might be drafted as “sexist” – yes, but in a good way. Men evolved to fight. Men are better equipped to defend themselves. Women are needed so the nation doesn’t die biologically (whatever the outcome) and many women don’t reproduce either (social reasons) but men always fought one another as a rite of passage for a wife and few ancient men bred, your odds are better nowadays. Why complain you have an advantage (self-defense) and the state knows about it? Would you rather be a woman, and physically weaker? Are you sure?

(Physically weaker and more likely to be sexually attacked, 10% lifetime rape risk up top, great combo – there’s your ‘hate crime’).

update:

I didn’t know this existed already until I looked but fuck you America.

http://advocatesaz.org/2012/11/20/std-awareness-antibiotic-resistant-syphilis/

HOW DO YOU KEEP GETTING WORSE. HOW.

“and when the disease goes untreated, it can cause severe, possibly fatal, damage to the nervous system.”

Slutty preppers die first.

The scourge of the bitter mother

I wanted to write about something for a while that really doesn’t help the right-wing and only appears to move Overton. I expect a lot of hate for this, but …fuck it. As you can see, it’s a taste of their own medicine. Judge not lest. 5,000+ words.

If you don’t like it, shake it off.

Nobody talks about it.

We all see it, nobody says a word.

Who are they?

The prissy mothers you see all over the internet, so full of scathing resentment of other women that it almost tinges the screen green. One of their favourite topics is rape. They will go on and on with a Just World fallacy a five-year old would balk at, victim blaming women for, basically, “asking for it”.


That… isn’t how it worked. Ever?

It’s like saying “don’t get burgled”, if they target you/r house, that’s it. The predator of man is man and the predator of woman is man and if men can’t fight off other men, what hope do we have?

Crickets from the women who think, genuinely believe, they know everything.

Their “advice” boils down to “don’t be attractive”… sorry, I didn’t realize I stumbled into a fat acceptance meeting?

With friends like these, who is the enemy, again?
Whatever you look like, the way men work, some of them will find it hot. Yes, even camo pants and bulky sweaters. Should I walk around in a three-piece suit like it’s sexual Kevlar? Some of us are so innately sexy, honey, whatever we wear looks good. Sorry???

Ah, but they’d find fault with that too, huh? The New Shrews.

Everything you do is bad and you’re a bad woman because they don’t like you.

No, fuck you. Fuck you and your abundance of time to tell other people how to live.

Some of us aren’t here for male attention and we were here first. Sit down, Sandra.

You hate femininity. It isn’t evil, it’s not sinful, it’s divine and beautiful and sensuality =/= sexuality.

The enemy pours poison in your ear to think otherwise. Genophilia is good too.

A woman in a nice red dress isn’t looking to steal your husband, calm down.
Everyone fears the Marilyns of the world (like Kibbe Romantics can help their bone structure!) but nobody suspects the real sluts, the Graces and Audreys and other yacht girls and homewreckers (true story). If you actually observed, the women who unapologetically dress like women (no hate) are typically the least promiscuous. What is there to gain, they’re already attractive. Do we ask men to hide their shoulders because a woman might fancy them? It’s absurd and socially oppressive. We aren’t savages and even they had greater freedom. Why would a natural, feminine woman want leftovers either, if they’re even looking for a man? However, desperate women (for sex or A Man or marriage) can’t get away with dressing for show because 1. it’s unnatural to them, 2. having no taste, they don’t know how and 3. they want less attention on their actions, such as sleeping around. This is common female experience and suggests to me these women never got out much. Or they’re veering to the mean girls end of the spectrum, like a clinical narcissist.

“If I can’t have it, no one can!” – crazy hoe

No contact lenses can hide those green eyes, babe.

They hate the signal (esp. of youth) because they don’t have it, not because it’s wrong.
This is the frenemy and we aren’t thick, we can sense it. They can actually gaslight women into feeling bad about their beauty, it’s sick. Nor does a beautiful girl or woman have a duty to sleep with anyone, it’s innocent visual pleasantness, what is up with American entitlement now? It’s obnoxious. Do they key sports cars too, are they these people? Do they stamp on daisies and kick puppies?

Your opinion has no basis in fact. Beauty is scientific and good.

It’s good for society and people who want to corrupt that innocence are the ones you should be denigrating.

As I read, and it always stuck with me, women were raped in a time of petticoats and no ankles, clothing has nothing to do with it. Predators go for body parts and it’s like saying we should ban kitchen knives because serial killers like them. In the First World we expect a basic standard of behaviour. This type of female, however, chooses to prod and cackle at the misfortunes of other (white) women. It’s cunty.
It puts people off the right-wing and makes all mother types look un-maternal (what compassion, such love), embittered and bored (constantly carping on about pop culture online). If all you do (80%+) is bitch, you’re a bitch – and this goes for the men too.
I’m tired of hearing the same strawman applicable only to middle-class American campus dwellers and Sex and the City groan-inducing comparisons. I’m sick of it. Please find a new fiddle and a different tune. The broken record is putting off me and I frequently shitpost on b.

Don’t make me meme you.
Get your ass to a therapist if other women (minding their own business) make you irrationally angry, that is insane. Misogyny is possible in women (self-loathing) albeit rare and racial loathing is presently more common but sexual, gendered loathing of the feminine (or of an action only when a woman does it) isn’t unheard of. The Bible calls it envy because it’s your in-group. God made femininity, who are you to say that’s wrong?

http://biblehub.com/mark/7-22.htm

greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness

All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man.”

7/8 bitches. Off the high horse, time’s up.

Cut it out like a tumour before it kills you.

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/green-eyed-monster.html

Why green? It’s poison, these emotions will stress your body and harm you.
They won’t harm the object that triggered you this cotton-picking week.

http://www.sensationalcolor.com/color-meaning/color-words-phrases/green-with-envy-2109

You’re not helping, you know you’re not helping the rest of us but worst of all, don’t care. It’s all about dem feels. And male approval from strangers on the internet, which is exactly what instawhores do too?
So don’t act as if you’re better than them. You need your narc supply just like they do. They get it from tit pics, you get it from bashing the women posting titty pics. Where is the good here? Do men really need to be told up isn’t down? Repeatedly telling men the obvious like they’re a retarded toddler is the reason they avoid you or are otherwise rightly suspicious of your motives. Bitching doesn’t add anything to the conversation and most of you are incapable of rational thought. You add nothing. Shouldn’t you be enjoying your families than dedicating 50+ hours a month to online shitposting? What kind of example does that set to the little ones? Oh, a woman has a career and she’s happy? Wow, how awful. Cue laugh track, right? Spinsters didn’t exist in the 50s! And nuns aren’t real women because they didn’t breed! The longer we look, the more it looks like you oppose the latter rather than the former. Why do you care? It’s a literal waste of your time, take up canning. Be useful. I laugh at genetic suicides as much as the next edgykin but there’s a limit and that’s about half an hour a month. Yet… this is ALL you do, all you contribute? Nah, fam. I’m not having it. Considering the odds of collapse and unrest, you could pop them out like a rabbit, have fifty kids by IVF and they could still all die in the next ten years. You’re not immortal because you have a pussy. Your plan isn’t foolproof, you’re foolhardy. I bet the doctor who delivered your baby was a woman or certainly the midwife and God help you if you need the help of a female engineer one day to fix your machines. Women contributing to society isn’t the issue. The way we do it doesn’t matter, the fact we do it, does. We could all sit around taking welfare for period pain and we don’t. There is an almost autistic obsession in these harpy women that conforms to the baby cult for privilege points and it’s ridiculous in historical context. You’re still outnumbered, look at Asian and African demographics. Your sons could easily, easily die in the next war. There is no laurel to rest on, the pedestal doesn’t exist. The work isn’t done once the midwife hands you the baby. Woman is a lifelong career.
I expect emotional incontinence from SJWs but I’ve tolerated it from supposed “tradwomen” for long enough.


Clean house, you sluts.
Fun fact: a slut refers to a woman who keeps an untidy home and/or demeanor. You are the epitome of uncouth. This is the true reason women can’t be openly right-wing amongst themselves, women like you. You’ll smack ’em down like a bug for trying. Where is the class? No, there’s only shame for having simple dignity like having nice hair or dresses.

This is you.

Getting into slanging matches like the slag down the road isn’t persuasion. If it’s an easy target, stop and think. The seekers who typically find these women first don’t feel the slightest warmth from the very people who could help them (maybe) but would rather beat them when they’re already down. Stunning and brave.
Women need to help one another, that’s what feminism was supposed to be before they stole it. Hating men is backwards, hating other women is also backwards. Both sexes need one another or society dies.
When I can feel the toxic waves of victim blame (tell the little girls of Rotherham that, you’re just like the social workers who told them they were hookers) and jealousy that a woman isn’t part of the Mombot hivemind by native disposition, even I feel deterred from certain ideas. Burn the witch! Shun the outcast! There have always been exceptions – Captain Obvious. It is fundamentally off-putting. It’s totally negative and offers no useful, practical advice. They fill in the blanks of a stranger’s life with a catastrophic worst case scenario (clinically unhealthy). https://psychcentral.com/lib/what-is-catastrophizing/
e.g.

>I can see her skin/shape
>She must be a slut

Sorry, do you live in porn? Are you from Pornland, where that isn’t a non sequitur?
Move to Saudi Arabia if the sight of perky breasts offends you so.

You know what proves a woman’s character? Her actions!

Shocking, I know! It’s called integrity!

A woman can have hypothetical power over men and never, ever abuse it!
(Psychologically: They know they would in the same situation and project).

Some of us have a moral compass. Fashions are based on social norms, practicality, and not individual choice. There will be people who hate me and pre-judge me for wearing heels and other people who like me for the exact same thing. It’s a waste of time caring. Pleasing everyone is impossible.

A woman could walk around naked (and if you live in Sweden, in their culture it’s normal) but if she doesn’t sleep around, you can’t insult her! Because she doesn’t do the thing! You can’t call her a slut or other behaviour-based insults unless she actually does those things. Otherwise it’s called defamation (there were/are laws about slandering a woman’s sexual honour specifically because other women are the main culprits, think Medusa’s punishment) and you’re a nothing more than a jealous, vindictive cunt.

Fact you can take to the bank.
(Yes, men do it too, so? Everyone already knows they’re bitter about what they can’t have).

I heard from a man once some piece of witty gold. He overheard some women talking about me (my dress was knee-length, people!) and I was upset about it. To console me, because they were really jealous over the fact he was there with me and felt responsible, he said:

“How do you know a woman’s attractive – without ever seeing her?” he grinned, leaning down.

“I dunno, how?” I said, trying not to cry in public.

“All the other women hate her.”

I laughed and it’s never bothered me since. Great riddle. Great man.

It’s true, they just want us to cover up and hide away. Is sleeveless banned? Are ungloved hands too pretty? A woman with good skin or even features must wear a face mask like some Harrison Bergeron costume party? What’s with the social acceptability of bitter individuals nowadays?

Another common, more overtly vitriolic one:
>own vagina
>expect to be raped


No. We fought wars over this. No. And does that mean men or little boys deserve it too? [No.]
In the onslaught of anti-white propaganda, the last thing women need is to be shamed for having tits by so-called allies. These snipes want other women to be ruined and traumatized for life because the idea makes them feel good. It’s twisted bullshit. It’s creepy how they salivate over fellow women’s hypothetical suffering “you’ll be sorry” style.
Were the women in Germany on NYE “asking for it”? No, STFU. Shit happens. You know who else thinks all white women are automatic whores? Muslims, straight outta the Muslim playbook (Koran). Such progress. Much culture.

If women are the greatest victims of this toxic culture, victim blaming is the last thing anyone should do. Does every woman have a man to protect her, family or husband? No. Funds to live somewhere safe? No. Money to buy clothing that doesn’t look High St i.e. a little bit trashy? No. They don’t care about the truth, they care about being sadists and stamping down women. I can’t be doing with control freaks, it’s so Mrs Grundy. I waited years to bring this up.

Slander is a cancer. It’s the hallmark of postmodern morals. Don’t do it.

If you’re going to take the moral high ground, you don’t get to sneer from it. People found you because they wanted help, not yet another woman-basher finger-wagging and trying to hide behind the pitiful criticism shield “as a mother”, the shit-tier right-winger’s As a Woman…

Being a mother takes nine months, being a woman takes a lifetime. Being a good woman comes before everything else. Is anyone else done with the Pharisee Matriarchs? I’m just fully done at this point.

I’d like to plop those women down in front of some of the infertile women I know and make them tell them, to their face, why they’re a bad person. To the women and wives who cannot afford children yet and refuse to be irresponsible burdens on the taxpayers or their husband. These are real people you humiliate in sweeping statements, like you know their life. How presumptuous and ugly. They don’t dare start on men, more worthy of scorn, who sit around drinking, hollering, deadbeating. No, start on the easy targets. You’ll really get women to look up to you that way…

Face it, you aren’t tall enough for this ride. Hop off the bandwagon before we chuck you.

These women have privilege, sure, I haven’t seen a single one of these women who isn’t firmly middle-class. Your comfort is not the norm and your assumptions are frankly embarrassing. You’re out of touch, how nice that you have an 18-acre farm and don’t need earning potential, but shut up and let your husband do the talking like the Bible says. By the way, I’m 99% sure he visits hookers on the side like most married “conservative” men who spend their time verbally opposing “degeneracy”. “We live in a society…” doesn’t really work when I can almost see your husband cringe behind you.

Twenty years ago, these women would just be bashing men. It’s only now white feminism has turned on their page 3 hating kind they magically find the right. How convenient. They’re so principled.

I’m waiting on one of them to eventually get sued for providing medical advice without a license and lawsuit insurance (all doctors have).
Telling people they have to have children could actually kill them, maternal death happens.
The “disclaimers” you put on videos and such don’t actually count? A judge would laugh at you. If you have a channel and hundreds of hours of footage devoted to guilt-tripping women into getting pregnant, yes, you knew what you were doing. There is a very clear motive.

Expert is that way of behaving, intending that people do exactly as you say. I’m very careful to look like a raving nobody despite having real authority. Crazy like a fox. How many fell since I started? Still here.

Showing is fine, telling is legally binding.

You wouldn’t tell them to go base jumping because oh, that’s dangerous!

It isn’t as if maternity services are lacking or non-existent, is it? IS IT.
It isn’t like labour is to women what war is to men. The most common cause of death or injury.

You can’t play leader without some real culpability. Yay for being treated equally!

It reminds me of the PUAs who think putting up a sign about recording in their bedroom legally counts, when porn actresses need to sign a model release (to record) and legal distribution rights contract (who gets to see the footage). Idiots don’t know their law and it’s your own fault. Arrogance is illegal in many forms.

The fact you filmed without legal consent means the whole interaction is unconsenting!

Back to the scourge.

Those women are not good mothers, I can tell you now. These women act like saints because they’ve pushed a baby out of their twat with an epidural. Your fertility is not an accomplishment and fertility is neither a sign of moral grace. “As a mother….” type, pretentious and sickening. It isn’t about the politics, it’s about the attitude. It’s ugly in lefties too.
I waited and waited, hoping for a natural evolution of the dialogue.

If all we can do is bitch about pop culture and insult other white people, we’re already dead.

Where is the prosocial focus, people? Where is the building one another up?

If a woman gets the instilled sense nothing she ever does is right, feeding that won’t make her listen.

Where’s the discussion of quality? You might be married yes, but to a piece of shit, we don’t know? Show us! Just getting a ring on your finger isn’t the status symbol of old, there are plenty of dirtbags buying a Moissanite ring and lie that it’s a diamond, as if that metaphor doesn’t show you how far we’ve fallen as a civilization . “Passing off” is illegal? That’s grounds for divorce, honestly. Traditions exist for a reason. Where’s the filter here? Crickets on the subject. Helpful. Don’t even bring up the savagery of lust matches, that might make unwise people question themselves and we can’t have that! Anything but that!
We don’t have the courtship rituals or family filtration anymore, plenty of trash get married in Vegas. There is no innate status to marriage anymore due to this ease, you aren’t necessarily a better person for it. In spite of this, oceans of smug.

Er…

Why?

Really, why?

I haven’t seen a single person address why. I’ve seen a lot of footage.
You just stand there, smug because you got married. No rhyme or reason.


Something that happened to you. All the agency of a stump. Lefties, at least, are smart enough not to be smug about a party that happened once. It isn’t a big deal. If you swore never to divorce, we might care.
Are you superior to Newton, Joan of Arc, Sappho or Tesla, then? They never got married and they’re more valuable human beings than most who will ever live.

It’s such a superficial way of viewing it.

Married = Moral.

No? Plenty of awful people are married. Your contribution isn’t that. It isn’t even children, no shortage of shitty parents in the world. And what do women do once the kids grow up, wither and die? Grow warts and become witches in the outback?
Is a woman’s only contribution her loin meat? Don’t children and older women contribute anything to society?

Crickets from the gobby girls. If it isn’t ALL about them and their “lifestyle”, they don’t care.

Like everything in the world will magically become good if everyone is married?
I don’t have to test your IQ to know it’s low if you really believe that.

Before somebody asks about the traditions, it’s logical proof of gender role success:

If a man can’t afford to get engaged, he can’t afford to get married. If a man can’t afford to get married, he can’t afford to “keep” a wife, as it was commonly well known. He certainly can’t afford to raise kids, plural, (3-4+) if a tiny diamond is out of reach. She isn’t working, right? Single income, just like you wanted.

h/t the snarky conservative with Dixon Diaz

And why diamond? Well, you intend to be married for life and pass on the stone to your daughter, don’t you? Everything else cracks. Americans don’t remember but Europe does. Look at the antique market. Plenty of diamonds, hardly any other stones. Emeralds, considered a coloured diamond, are rare choices because they scratch to buggery very easily. Try doing your research before vapidly deferring to “women are crazy”. I’ve had to help male friends shop for engagement rings and they were shocked it was so logical (always spring for the comfort band, guys).

There used to be entire books (h/t WM A Alcott) about how to be a good husband, it was a whole genre! Men would take decades, growing up and learning, training. And you think…. turning up?

~whispers~ I don’t think so.

Husband doesn’t mean what you think it means. There are plenty of good bachelors and plenty of adulterous scumbag husbands. Go outside once in a while.

These snooty housewives can be just as hypocritical as the SJWs, ignoring any data they dislike. Anything that’s complicated, unknown or hard to think about, they reject out of hand. It’s weak, I’m done sitting here silently waiting for women older than myself to get their shit together. They fawn over men for existing (sad) but hold women to impossible and contradictory standards. That is not healthy. It’s just as sick as the culture we grew up in. Get your act together and get over yourselves.
And they’re never great parents, always average at best. Like, if your life’s gonna revolve around something (or your ego): be dedicated to it. Read the research journals, cookbooks, encourage the best of both daughters and sons – don’t just do the bare minimum 50s housewife LARP in a frilly apron and act like everyone should kiss your feet for it.

They de-sexualise themselves like the Virgin Mary in a pathetic bid to get respect.
That doesn’t work. The fact you care so much about strangers’ opinions means you won’t get it.

I feel like posting tits or GTFO because they expect all the rapt male attention of jiggling D-cups and bring none of the substance. Okay, you …exist…

???

Now what?

Shouldn’t you be spending this time with your kids? Friends? Hobbies? Church?

You don’t see African women popping out eight kids acting like Gaia incarnate.
I saw a pregnant photo of Spencer’s Russian honeypot and I just burst out laughing.
She actually angled the shot so it looked like the sun was shining out of her belly.
That’s narcissism Beyonce would be proud of. I’m fairly certain it was heliocentrism, the Sun does not, in fact, shine out of your vag.
The Disney princesses aren’t married for a reason. You’re not important anymore.
This is an attitude problem which stems from callow pride and is also found among the ghetto. It isn’t classy, please stop.

“Oh, I cook my kids’ food!”

…. you’re SUPPOSED to!

The virtue signalling is obscene. “Well, I never had a one-night stand!” Neither have most women currently or in all human history. Your point?

They act as if pop culture is real. Look at the stats. No, it’s fake. Get out more.

Not that I let men off the hook. The man who acts like a hero for not being an alcoholic at the bar and spending his time with his children is literally doing the bare minimum also. Co-parenting is a trendy word for being.. normal. Children need a lot of time with both parents. Men don’t get to skip off to a club or hang around with their friends more than their wife. Neglect is a form of abuse, guys.

“The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” 1 Cor 7:4 When you marry, your time belongs primarily to your spouse. That’s the “commitment” part. I don’t get to take a job, turn up three days of five and wonder why I was fired.

Another common topic is clothing, as aforementioned. Because when the Queen wore that low cut coronation dress, she was such a skank. Because shaming the female figure is helpful for our purposes in encouraging women.
You disgust me. Unless you’re wearing a niqab, some man somewhere will find you attractive and according to the Bible, it’s his fault. Are you holier than the Bible too?

Before someone tries to @ me with a quote like I haven’t read it, should women have long hair?
I think a woman should have long hair as long as it wouldn’t be dangerous to her and as long as it’s more flattering. Now, how many men with #opinions on long hair, have never had it? You have to tie it up, you have to pin it back. Braiding is an efficient way of keeping it clean and neat. So when the Bible slags off braiding of the hair, what they mean is the three-hour updo with a solid gold pagan headpiece when your husband can’t afford it. [1]

Pictured: probably out of most budgets.

It does NOT extend to keeping it up out of food (she cooks, right?) or away from machinery so she isn’t scalped (you like her scalp, right?) or clean and not covered in baby vomit. The feminists don’t get everything wrong, you know. Just most things.
While I’m on my high horse for the season, the Bible does actually tell women they need to work. Stupid Yanks confuse this with taxable income. Per hour, housewives work more total hours than their husbands.
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/gender/chapter4/chapter4.html
Acknowledge the work women already do, because the State sure doesn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaid_work
“In the United States, the latest available data from 2014 shows that women undertake 14.58 hours per week on household labor.” Gee, why are women entitled to alimony? Almost like wife is a job! It’s “free” conditional on the lifelong union, because home management is really a full-time management job, if you’re doing it properly, hence the jarring pricing once the union is dissolved (by the State, not God). Investments have value.
Women are supposed to work as hard as men, equally yoked, it’s in the Bible. (Proverbs 31:13 on) we must pull our own weight, independence isn’t some newfangled (Jewfangled?) invention from the 1960s, women entered the workplace always. If she’s going to do that work anyway (say, the increasingly popular flexitime from home) who are you to a tell a marital union you have no part of, that she can’t earn money from it? That’s between her and her husband, it’s nothing to do with some judgmental opinionated nobody whose only qualification is a vagina.

I don’t see them pining over the deep meaning of Timothy. “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Applies between women n’ all. That’s the job of her family. Even if you’re related to a woman, you probably don’t understand her situation from the outside and if you aren’t going to physically help, shut up! The nag talks and talks and pretends they’re helpful, really they’re emotionally venting and trying to look good. Das pride.

1: It is also important to dress and act your station. The modern obsession with dressing poor is rude if you aren’t because it makes your family look poor and your husband look like a failing provider. Read old books.

Corinthians also discusses why not everyone is suited for marriage “I want you to be free from anxieties…” and personally, I don’t think any of these women have a right to sneer on the celibate. No, your baby-making twat doesn’t make you morally superior to a woman who acts like a nun (and look at the stats, it’s common to not sleep around now). Defaming other women is expressly condemned throughout the Bible and it’s sick to see women calling everyone who isn’t exactly like them a whore, basically. God made your body, don’t be ashamed of it (just don’t flash anyone either). This isn’t complicated.

Would I want to be friends with most of these women, I think. And no is the inevitable answer, they are quick in temper and scorn without due consideration and reason.

“She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.”
Shouldn’t we expect the kindest behaviour from woman to woman?
If you’re going to be a cunt, at least be somewhat practical and recognize the reasons and exceptions, Jesus Christ.

Jesus didn’t dropkick the fallen but you wouldn’t know from how they behave and give all of us righties a bad name.

Mommy blogs are the ideal: helpful, practical and sanctuaries from the reminder of degeneracy.

Up with Mommy blogs and fashion blogs and home decor blogs and hell, female DIY and natural science blogs. Down with preachy whiny Domestic Goddess nauseating delusions of superiority.

Speaking about good women like they’re shit is bad for the cause, shame on you, Brutus.
It only gives men and foreigners an excuse to treat us like it too. Judas got paid, Patreon whores.

They are obsessed with finding people they are allegedly superior to, I’m bored now.

“I’m not like the other girls tee hee hee” is over.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/my-xtmas-wish-for-you-please-please.html

Hatred is broadly speaking a waste of time, unless you need it to feel normal.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/the-red-pill-must-indeed-be-pill.html

“Those who talk most about themselves having-been Red-Pilled are examples of ‘false-awakening’: still asleep but merely dreaming that they have awoken”

I don’t think new readers quite understand how often I take the piss out of myself.

This is a shit blog and entirely pointless, we won’t change a thing. I know that. You won’t change a thing either. At least I don’t do the grandiose thing and put my hair in rollers to appear in a Youtube video with a face like a slapped arse.

We have limits.

Narcissism in the Family

The covert narcissist will pull others down to feel better about themselves. It ain’t right. This simply isn’t cricket, ya hear?

“Though the narcissistic father is a formidable bully, I suspect the narcissistic mother is, in many ways, often much worse, if for no other reason than that she can cunningly exploit the stereotype of the angelic, saintly mother who criticizes her victim only out of ‘concern’. Remember that while we normally think of narcissists as self-absorbed egotists, many can come across convincingly as selfless and altruistic, all for the purpose of gaining narcissistic supply from being thought of as such saintly types.”

http://unitycounsellingservice.co.uk/understanding-narcissistic-behaviour-narcissist-hates-others-happiness-joy/

They laugh at women for their special qualities, I think that was the obvious thing. Yes, there have been plenty of female geniuses, read a book and stop giggling about women “acting like men”, the brain doesn’t work like that. For example, IQ is more dependent on white matter organisation. Guess what women have more of?
You aren’t cool, you’re ignorant. You aren’t edgy for telling white women they’re dirt like the media does. None of this stuff is as simple as you make out, once you actually look.

Read something that isn’t a magazine.

The stereotypical housewife is an ignorant shrill cow and you’ll filling it to a tee. It’s a pox on the pro-natal right.

This is why we can’t have nice things

>Women look like women, normally.
>Harassment and stalking, male superficiality and baseness.

Pick one.

Nobody thinks you really want the number or a chat.
There’s only one type of woman that gets solicited in the street, everyone knows it’s an insult.

Anything less than full androgyny is not hooker attire.
Looking female =/= sexual? The most matronly women have worn skirt, dress or heels. It’s a cultural norm.

Don’t talk to strangers.

Not just etiquette for kids!

It is still weird to solicit (actual word meaning) strangers in the street for any purpose, whatever American comedians tell you. Some of us are raised better. Instant bad impression, whoever you are.

She missed out the schizo verbal abuse when you try to politely, passively avoid the pervert interrupting your day.

Imagine if someone at a bus stop called you a bastard for not talking to them. Multiple times a day.
Men would be horrified. Oh, and you can’t physically defend yourself or pepper spray them, and their revolting hands might grope you…

Because they liked your “outfit”.

Gee, why do so many women dress like shit, wear huge coats in public, avoid men or get fat?

Maybe…. men’s behaviour had something, some tiny, little, fleeting influence on that?

Ask yourself: is this something ghetto trash would do?

If so, never ever do it!

You know, if a woman likes you, she can talk to you first?

Or a hey if she didn’t notice you and you’re in the same place for a while?

Avoid the circle of personal space. She can close the gap.

If she keeps it short, move along. A minimal response is basic politeness, savoir vivre.

You never see men’s mags say “15 signs she isn’t interested”.

Subtitle: and how to make a classy exit.

This would be useful.

It explains the entirety of the problem, forcing a reaction (abuse). Kinda like putting your job interviewer in a headlock. One step down from kidnapping.

So what you really have in most cases are men with no idea how an adult is supposed to behave, think you can “tease” people like in school, and worst of all, that think you can talk someone into fancying them.

The fat girls can’t do it, neither can you. Nice guy = great personality. No.

Men over-estimate their attractiveness, excessively. Not fancying you isn’t a personality flaw, it should be expected (most humans don’t fancy most humans), especially when you’re enraged about it. Doesn’t strike the casual observer as sane.

Whether someone is single doesn’t matter. Maybe, just maybe, they aren’t a slut?
Look at the statistics, young people are sleeping around less than their elders.

Why?

Those elders (Boomers, Gen X, some Y) and the young vibrants that think porn is real constantly being lecherous at them might have something to do with it. Women do not work like men. Random compliments make us feel worse. We weren’t thinking about how we looked and suddenly this sleaze has an opinion, feels entitled to tell me and thinks I should respond to it?

Like a literal magic word? (how stupid do they think women are?)

Like insincere compliments are hard to get?

Bad compliments are insults.

Why?

They make a heap of degrading assumptions.

For instance, women wear “woman” clothes because actually, they’re physically practical! A low neckline ventilates a hot bust! A breezy skirt prevents thighs from chafing (even in thin, non-anorexic women). Do I have to explain the sweat benefits of sleeveless?

Women already know this, ask women you know about the practical reasons for wearing clothes. It has nothing to do with men and entirely what we like. Not melting in summer is among them. Women probably stopped fainting because we could get some sweet, sweet breeze circulation!
If you had two globules of fat on your chest overheating your core body temperature, like a heat pad on your heart [1], you’d want low-cut tops as well. In the Victorian era, this was understood to be the only part you could bare – for practical reasons! Nothing to do with showing off or sex. You’re a perv.

Lingerie ads tell men what we wear has anything to do with them. Not really.

Some women try to dress to avoid male attention and need to wear deodorant under the boobs. Some women with large ones, all over. All over the boob. Sexy, right?

Most women hate compliments because most are from strangers, shallow, rude and poorly thought out.

Street harassment is totally okay if we’re allowed to pepper spray or shoot them.
Since women are the physically weaker sex and a random guy walking up to anyone, m/f, is threatening. Whoever they are. When they seem interested in taking things, willing or not, suspicions are confirmed.

It’s like lending a mugger your wallet. No, we don’t want to “talk”/give a #/”go out”.

We want to walk down a public street, in public, as an unmolested member of the public.

Huge ask, I know.

Walking down a street isn’t an invitation to impose yourself on anyone – man/woman/child.

Think how weird it would be to a man or child. No less weird to a woman.

This used to be standard protocol throughout the entire First World until the 20th century.

I think a lot of you would be shocked by how polite I am IRL. Self restraint is important.

Observation:

If you compare the way schoolboys harass and intimidate one another, it’s exactly the same with street creeps.
Invasion of personal space, cutting off avenue of escape, forced conversation, rude comments, stupid questions, illegal touching, acting like you’re the one with the problem.

[1] do that experiment, internet! Men could not last more than an hour.

The irritating fact of boob ownership is in winter, you lose heat from them.

WHO DESIGNED THIS?