patrick.net

yawaraf says

Using traditional principles, I would say it is, for two reasons. Firstly, if one ends up knocking up a rando he is then responsible for her child and, to some degree, its mother. He will then have to divert resources from his family. Secondly is it the role of men to protect the weaker sex, not to take advantage of women.

That's not the deal. The deal is to support her and their children. That's it.

The law used to reflect that. No more.

Who supports the bastards then? Do we let them run around without discipline? Do we let them get abused by strangers?

I understand the a man might not have had any legal obligation to illegitimate children, and a woman was (at still is) stupid to open up her legs to someone who is not her husband, but is that the kind of society you want to live in?

yawaraf says

Who supports the bastards then? Do we let them run around without discipline? Do we let them get abused by strangers?

That was caused by no-fault "I'm not haaaaaaapy anymore" divorce, and the elimination of shame for women who divorced decent men and their exclusion from larger social groups.

HeadSet says

Yes, but are men holding up their end of deal? That is, those men are not sleeping with other women? Or is the premise that the woman stays chaste while the men, because they pay for the dates, are allowed to sleep around?

Men haven't changed. Most men will sleep with a chick if it's on offer.

Women used to be shamed if they slept with guys outside marriage, then outside a LTR, and now aren't shamed at ALL, but expect men to be as chivalrous as ever while dating. Nah, shit deal.

Most men were happy dating a chick in hopes of going steady on the 3rd date and getting laid - provided she didn't keep a guy on the side while allowing him to spend money on her.

It simply isn't working, and it's not pron. It was easy divorce and birth control. More evidence it isn't Corn is that the birth rates began to plummet and divorce rates explode in the mid 60s, and the last big leg down was with smartphones, social media 2.0, and dating apps in the late 2000s, not Theaters in the 70s, VHS in the 80s, internet in the 90s.

Bulls go where the cows are. Shaming men doesn't work, never has, that's why no society in history bothered with shaming men much. It works great on women, who are far more sensitive to social shame, pecking order of hens, etc. than men.

yawaraf says

I understand the a man might not have had any legal obligation to illegitimate children, and a woman was (at still is) stupid to open up her legs to someone who is not her husband, but is that the kind of society you want to live in?

You mean the society we had before? With stable nuclear families predominating? Even with Blacks?

Fuck yeah. I most certainly do want to live in such a FUNCTIONAL society again.

You seem to equate 'fair' as having to be just as important as 'functional' or part of it. It is not.

You can't get 1954 stability and prosperity with the laws and social environment of 2024.

Porn has been restricted in South Korea since 2009 and banned since 2019. Birth and marriage rates still stink. 60%+ of OF subscribers are married men in an age when less than half the men under 50 are married.

"I want traditionalism, but not a fiery redhead wife to get the spanking she deserves"

HeadSet says

AmericanKulak says

The point is that women who haven't held up their end of the deal still want men to be traditional. They want men to put in effort, but they don't deserve it.

Yes, but are men holding up their end of deal? That is, those men are not sleeping with other women? Or is the premise that the woman stays chaste while the men, because they pay for the dates, are allowed to sleep around?

Of course not, biology demands men to spread their seeds and women to nest for the human race to be successful. That's why most women don't want a man for family/marriage who hasn't slept with at least a dozen chicks or more, but men don't want women for family/marriage who have slept with more than 5-10 partners. The men need to get their rocks off to know what they want and when they want it, but for women promiscuity is detrimental to their natural sense of family/marriage, so is birth control as it alters their taste. This is all scientifically proven but nobody can admit to it out of fear of being canceled. Ironically usually the worst choice for women in terms of stability is a type A uber successful man, often somewhat of a social sociopath, but it's what they crave most. Biodynamics are tricky.