Victorianism showed that most if not all liberated women would give birth to fatherless children in a dark alley in the rain in the absence of a paternal welfare state. In an attempt to handle this issue, Victorianism intensified censorious sexual moralizing while denying husbands the authority to govern their wives and dads the authority to control their daughters. And, increasing the sexual moralizing failed miserably. Just for reference so you guys can understand this, Queen Caroline went to a ball nude from the waist up and returned to her hotel with a guy she met there and there was a bunch of wicked sex coteries formed (ie Florence Nightingale's affluent gentlemen friends) They both needed a hard beating. A husband or father with a rod no thicker than a woman's thumb cannot be replaced by any amount of religious moralizing. Victorianism was a comically disastrous failure. When women are given the opportunity to choose, many of them make such awful decisions that males are left with no option but to pay for them. If you give women the freedom to make their own decisions, you will have to pay for them and create a welfare state since they so often make terrible choices. Men's independence is severely hampered by having to pay for poor decisions over which they have no control over and gain nothing. The man with a job has to provide for another man's child even if his wife who isn't providing him with domestic help has sex with a thug who knocks her up. Les Misarables was essentially about this. Les Misarables basically argues that in order to care for immoral women and criminal men, you need a welfare state. And if you reject the apparent option of enslaving men and shotgun marrying state issued independent reproductive age women, or of coercively, unwillingly, and violently subjugating criminal men and immoral women to decent men (not some violent ogre whose "hot"), then that is absolutely true. We (the state or the patriarch ie father) must keep women under male control that monitors and restricts their sexual choices because we don't want to pay for eighteen tardlets and we don't want women giving birth in a dark alley in the rain. The guardianship system of the time as primarily used to force young women who would have otherwise grown up to be independent property owners into marriage were typically married off to either their guardian or the son of their guardian. The typical result of guardianship was guardian/ward marriages, which, although ostensibly choice, were typically the product of coercive manipulation. In order to prevent psychological incest, wards who were taken into the guardian's family at a very young age were typically married off as soon as they reached adulthood to a family that was closely connected to their guardian's family. And even though this was not technically against the law, psychologically incestuous marriages between guardians and wards and basically, adopting a kid with the intention of getting married when they reached puberty was morally repugnant at that point. Despite being legal, they appear to have been quite uncommon. A female ward was reared in a family apart from her intended spouse if it was essential to raise her from a young age, and upon puberty, she was moved to her intended husband's household. And, numales will cry over this but people shouldn't be upset about eighteenth-century guardians who basically had to marry their wards for life in order to have sex with them and maintain literally even a minutae of control over their property and dowries when our society encourages and makes it rather easy for sodmites to adopt little, defenseless boys as sex slaves. And, it's honestly a big historical blur as to what happened to these state issued independent young women, there didn't appear to be many of them in the eighteenth century, so I'm guessing something effective was done though what happened to the convict women during the early days of Australian colonization let's us get a general idea. When the convict ships arrived in Australia, the convict women, after they were free of family obligations and able to mix with men, behaved as if it were spring break in Cancun (peak fertility) or the Woodstock revival. Even when the female prisoner was already married to someone else in England, they were wedded when she picked it up. Picking up one of the presents was ideal since any female who remained after every guy had passed by would be forced to serve and be a concubine for at least seven years most of the time. When they arrived, the female convicts were forced to choose between monogamous durable non-consensual concubinage and monogamous durable consensual marriage. For instance, the majority, if not all, of the women who came on the Brittania in 1798 were either married right away, married within a few weeks, or allocated to men with whom they later had children. In one manner or another, they were quickly removed from circulation. The first group of women incarcerated had a tendency to have short-lived, fleeting relationships and as a result created many children without fathers (these were the Domnicanes I believe). Women from the Brittanica were quickly married or assigned something and typically had children of known paternity in long-term relationships. These relationships were frequently long-term assignments that they were coerced into with clear and direct coercion, so they most likely had a severe crackdown on immoral relationships and a preference for monogamy at this time.
And, the nineteenth century Victorian consensus among the Teutonic chivalrics was that women were so naturally pure and chaste that all the apparatus of coercion to keep them from misbehaving was sheer cruelty and could just be ignored, the eighteenth century view was that women had to be in the custody of someone with a duty and practical motive to keep them from engaging in sex (the solution and undoubtably correct), as well as the authority and power to coercively prevent them from engaging in sex, until they were married to a husband who had the authority and practical impetus. The latter era veiw incorrectly assumed that fertile-age women urgently needed sex and were prone to taking alarmingly drastic measures or going into hysterics if they were denied it, whereas people from the mid-nineteenth century to the present appear to believe that sex is something alarming and unpleasant imposed on women by men (this is the ideal veiw but they didn't enforcd chastity). Note that the nineteenth-century therapy for hysteria is similar to the realistic eighteenth-century theory as to what caused it which is that if female choice is unrestricted, twenty percent of the guys receive eighty percent of the cunt. But they didn't grasp it in a consistent way. This was of course absolutely accurate. The average woman spends a few months at number three on one guy's BDSM call list, then decides she has little chance of moving up to number two and joins another man's BDSM call list then she repeats the cylcle amoung the 20 percent. This means no one gets to breed, unlike in traditional harems dominated by male power rather than female power, she would be trapped in one guy's harem, allowing her and that man to reproduce but no one gets anything and the entire thing is largely dysgenic. Irregardless, harem development has a negative impact on the fast declining number of males in society, regardless of whether it is the consequence of female control over sex or a few strong men dominating sex. They are discouraged from working or fighting for peace, order, and their society if they do not have access to the vagaina. You'll see this in so many civilization and I analyzed civilizational cycles in middle and high school and my foresight is near divine, I should be put on a council of Kling because I'm literally right about everything. This may seem like I'm being arrogant but if you have any idea who I am, you'd know I'm next level (I literally predicted the Iran war and Charlie Kirk) want my trail? Check my Twitter. Please, go searching. But again, basically, the solution imposed during the 19th century was predicated on the quandary of the elite that is (this is what we need to do, though Easternism is more realistic) when the men don't appear to be interested in working, paying taxes, or serving in the military or literally doing anything, it of course worries a King. Thus, he lowers the price of vagina to a level that regular guys can afford. The women visa ve have to follow their husbands, not their fathers or their own inclinations in a optimal or ideal society even with a competent monarch, and the bride price must be minimal or nonexistent. But, price control results in a scarcity, so the King and the high priest have to implement rationing. Each consumer may only have one vagina. And, if you think about it, the sexual market is much like the economic market. The state cannot really intervene at a certain point. This applies to non-consensual marriages. It applies to everyone ie handshakes between the bride's father and the groom, or between the bride's father and the groom's father creates a diffusional void (efficiency atp) What happens, though, if your marriage is entirely or partially passionate and consensual? If this scenario was say now without the chastity, the lady is likely to delay marriage expecting for a BDSM call from Cassius Clay till her eggs start to dry up. And, again, what happens when your marriage partially consenting and simultaneously passionate? Well, BDSM calls during your marriage and cuckholdry is the result thus eternal damnation, in accordance to any tenable and rational high priest. However, this has very little impact relative to the parent who is not only dishonored but may face punishment if his daughter goes out on a BDSM call, to the King and the high priest. If the King supports parental control over daughters, then this works. Alternatively, the King may treat all women like dogs, and the high priest would change marriage to a handshake between the father and the groom. Therefore, going out on BDSM calls will result in eternal damnation, according to the high priest in all cased. However, this has very little impact temporally. If his daughter goes out on a BDSM call, depending on the rationality of the King and the high priest it's perpetual shame and shaft. And, again, the King may treat all the women who choose to be reproabtes like dogs and only virtuous virginal women or women who are reasonably assumed to be virginal under parental supervision are normal and normative and treated more humanesque (still paternalistic based obviously) and have the high priest keep marriage *exclusively* to a handshake between the father and the groom or something. And, just to be clear, I have merely shown the motivations that lead to monogamy as the motivations of certain strong individuals, thus this is not necessarily a literal description of the origins of monogamy which would require extensive research but the majority of societies employed a combination of these strategies, albeit somewhat inconsistently, hypocritically, and irregularly with marriage being consensual and romantic, but female choice severely restricted by the authority of the father and pressure to get married, especially severe pressure to get married in the event of illicit sexual activity. So I think the most optimal answer to the Victorian question is high chastity and pure monogamy. This would entirely alleviate inceldom since women don't actually have genuine sexual desires and their desires are a blank slate so more men would have a higher chance since she'll worship the greater sex, the stronger sex
And, the nineteenth century Victorian consensus among the Teutonic chivalrics was that women were so naturally pure and chaste that all the apparatus of coercion to keep them from misbehaving was sheer cruelty and could just be ignored, the eighteenth century view was that women had to be in the custody of someone with a duty and practical motive to keep them from engaging in sex (the solution and undoubtably correct), as well as the authority and power to coercively prevent them from engaging in sex, until they were married to a husband who had the authority and practical impetus. The latter era veiw incorrectly assumed that fertile-age women urgently needed sex and were prone to taking alarmingly drastic measures or going into hysterics if they were denied it, whereas people from the mid-nineteenth century to the present appear to believe that sex is something alarming and unpleasant imposed on women by men (this is the ideal veiw but they didn't enforcd chastity). Note that the nineteenth-century therapy for hysteria is similar to the realistic eighteenth-century theory as to what caused it which is that if female choice is unrestricted, twenty percent of the guys receive eighty percent of the cunt. But they didn't grasp it in a consistent way. This was of course absolutely accurate. The average woman spends a few months at number three on one guy's BDSM call list, then decides she has little chance of moving up to number two and joins another man's BDSM call list then she repeats the cylcle amoung the 20 percent. This means no one gets to breed, unlike in traditional harems dominated by male power rather than female power, she would be trapped in one guy's harem, allowing her and that man to reproduce but no one gets anything and the entire thing is largely dysgenic. Irregardless, harem development has a negative impact on the fast declining number of males in society, regardless of whether it is the consequence of female control over sex or a few strong men dominating sex. They are discouraged from working or fighting for peace, order, and their society if they do not have access to the vagaina. You'll see this in so many civilization and I analyzed civilizational cycles in middle and high school and my foresight is near divine, I should be put on a council of Kling because I'm literally right about everything. This may seem like I'm being arrogant but if you have any idea who I am, you'd know I'm next level (I literally predicted the Iran war and Charlie Kirk) want my trail? Check my Twitter. Please, go searching. But again, basically, the solution imposed during the 19th century was predicated on the quandary of the elite that is (this is what we need to do, though Easternism is more realistic) when the men don't appear to be interested in working, paying taxes, or serving in the military or literally doing anything, it of course worries a King. Thus, he lowers the price of vagina to a level that regular guys can afford. The women visa ve have to follow their husbands, not their fathers or their own inclinations in a optimal or ideal society even with a competent monarch, and the bride price must be minimal or nonexistent. But, price control results in a scarcity, so the King and the high priest have to implement rationing. Each consumer may only have one vagina. And, if you think about it, the sexual market is much like the economic market. The state cannot really intervene at a certain point. This applies to non-consensual marriages. It applies to everyone ie handshakes between the bride's father and the groom, or between the bride's father and the groom's father creates a diffusional void (efficiency atp) What happens, though, if your marriage is entirely or partially passionate and consensual? If this scenario was say now without the chastity, the lady is likely to delay marriage expecting for a BDSM call from Cassius Clay till her eggs start to dry up. And, again, what happens when your marriage partially consenting and simultaneously passionate? Well, BDSM calls during your marriage and cuckholdry is the result thus eternal damnation, in accordance to any tenable and rational high priest. However, this has very little impact relative to the parent who is not only dishonored but may face punishment if his daughter goes out on a BDSM call, to the King and the high priest. If the King supports parental control over daughters, then this works. Alternatively, the King may treat all women like dogs, and the high priest would change marriage to a handshake between the father and the groom. Therefore, going out on BDSM calls will result in eternal damnation, according to the high priest in all cased. However, this has very little impact temporally. If his daughter goes out on a BDSM call, depending on the rationality of the King and the high priest it's perpetual shame and shaft. And, again, the King may treat all the women who choose to be reproabtes like dogs and only virtuous virginal women or women who are reasonably assumed to be virginal under parental supervision are normal and normative and treated more humanesque (still paternalistic based obviously) and have the high priest keep marriage *exclusively* to a handshake between the father and the groom or something. And, just to be clear, I have merely shown the motivations that lead to monogamy as the motivations of certain strong individuals, thus this is not necessarily a literal description of the origins of monogamy which would require extensive research but the majority of societies employed a combination of these strategies, albeit somewhat inconsistently, hypocritically, and irregularly with marriage being consensual and romantic, but female choice severely restricted by the authority of the father and pressure to get married, especially severe pressure to get married in the event of illicit sexual activity. So I think the most optimal answer to the Victorian question is high chastity and pure monogamy. This would entirely alleviate inceldom since women don't actually have genuine sexual desires and their desires are a blank slate so more men would have a higher chance since she'll worship the greater sex, the stronger sex
Last edited:
