Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Brutal A magazine from 1913 telling wives not to be annoyed with their husbands for being short or weak

  • Thread starter The Notorious SLAV
  • Start date
Brutal man. I reckon there was a ton of undercover infidelity in these types of societies with monogamous marriages i struggle to believe women were able to stay with one guy
 
"Bruh, women back then were completely different, they were trad and based:soy:," meanwhile, women back then had to be explicitly told to pretend that their husbands' height doesn't matter, because it of course absolutely mattered:feelsUnreal::society:.
They simply had lower standards due to the internet not existing, people being more connected to their own areas, the areas being smaller and the need for security. I dont think many believe this bullshit
 
They simply had lower standards due to the internet not existing and the need for security. I dont think many believe this bullshit
"Try not to embarrass your husband infront of others if he is small, ugly, and weak. That's really not good."
 
Traditions and social constructs exist because human nature is flawed.

People don't consider that they are also products of natural selection.
 
Yes, they were betabuxxing, but it was arguably worth it back then.
 
This doesn't look like its fron 1913
 
Traditions and social constructs exist because human nature is flawed.

People don't consider that they are also products of natural selection.
Natural selection all for it to end with one guy for some of you on here.
 
Tfw no wife to "forcibly restrain" you from dressing like a retard :feels:
 
Brutal man. I reckon there was a ton of undercover infidelity in these types of societies with monogamous marriages i struggle to believe women were able to stay with one guy
It was easier for them to get away with it more back then as well
 
If this was published today it would get banned for promoting incel extremism jfl
 
For husband: Don't talk down to her...
For Wife: Don't be discontented...

:society:
 
If this was published today it would get banned for promoting incel extremism jfl
Tbh. It seems like it's just promoting better understanding between couples, albeit with a gynocentric undertone.
 
Brutal man. I reckon there was a ton of undercover infidelity in these types of societies with monogamous marriages i struggle to believe women were able to stay with one guy
Very likely:yes:.

Tfw no wife to "forcibly restrain" you from dressing like a retard :feels:
Brutal indeed:feelsbadman:.

I love historical backpills. In fact, the world has always been the way it is, and perhaps I tend to idealize the past.
 
"Bruh, women back then were completely different, they were trad and based:soy:," meanwhile, women back then had to be explicitly told to pretend that their husbands' height doesn't matter, because it of course absolutely mattered:feelsUnreal::society:.
I myself lean to the traditional, and I would say that the only difference is that back them you could hit them so that their stupidity went away; today we cannot.

A traditionalist argument would be completely nonsensical if it didn't acknowledge the inherent backwardness of women.
 
If this was published today it would get banned for promoting incel extremism jfl
:yes:

In this day and age, asking a woman to compromise her standards is tantamount to hate speech or sexual harassment. You're not allowed to question a woman's absurd beauty standards or you're an evil inkwell. Short and ugly guys are now just expected to die alone in a ditch without so much as questioning it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top