TeeHee "One harsh reality of historical women"

[The Notorious SLAV]

Spoiler alert: It has to do with rape.


View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DyNo7C8d7xg


So what was it? Was rape of women not recognized as a crime? Did people downplay it or even say that women can't be raped because they are horny animals who always want it? Was women being raped a punchline to jokes?

Nah, wait, that's the case currently for men (and was for the rest of history as well.) Instead, *gasp*, because women were often represented by their men in legal matters, it was the men who were paid the compensation, not the women. Can you imagine that? In eras centuries before digital money, it wasn't the women who were personally handled the money to bring it to their households where, because of its nature as physical money which weren't hidden in anyone's personal bank account but was implicitly always within reach of any household member who needed it, it would then be used by the rest of the family, but the men. Such injustice. Surely, 110/100 women would immediately switch it around and happily have their rapes by the opposite sex treated like men had instead.

 

[Puppeter]

Rape for foids is any sub5 that looked in her way

 

[SupremeFroggy]

Reminds me of:

Deuteronomy 22:29 - Marriage Violations

then the man who lay with her must pay the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she must become his wife because he has violated her. He must not divorce her as long as he lives.

biblehub.com

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

Reminds me of:

Deuteronomy 22:29 - Marriage Violations

then the man who lay with her must pay the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she must become his wife because he has violated her. He must not divorce her as long as he lives.

biblehub.com

Yup, what I was thinking of as well.

Plus, although this guy's the type who would definitely try to downplay it, there's apparently at least some proof that in actual court cases at the time, the woman could actually choose whether to marry the man who violated her, or just take the money and keep living with her family:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvw3tWtKD_Y

 

[AsiaCel]

I'm still waiting for the day where History By Mae accidentally reveal a photo with her wearing sandals or walking in the beach. I haven't seen foids that look like her.

 

[GeckoBus]

Plus, although this guy's the type who would definitely try to downplay it, there's apparently at least some proof that in actual court cases at the time, the woman could actually choose whether to marry the man who violated her, or just take the money and keep living with her family:

this is a classic issue with feminists or tradcopers. They will take some piece of legal code or some elite intellectuals writings from the time and then jump to the conclusion that this is a 1:1 representation of what happened and what the society looked like. This is retarded no shit. In the bible for example you have multiple times where it says "smash babies against rocks" - if we took this literal, it is brutal. But what you find in context is that this is more like our version of "fuck him up" - which does not literally mean "sex him" or "rape him." As it turns out, other cultures like the egyptians would use the same phrase of baby smashing in their writings. It was a stylistic way of saying, we crushed our enemies.

Egyptians for example were notorious fucking liars in their records. They had countless wars with neighboring nations like the Hittites, which ended inconclusively and both sides ended up declaring victory. Always, the egyptians would write some edgelord fanfic of themselves where it would say WEEE CRRRRRRRRRRRUSHED THEM TO THE LAST MAN, SMAHSED THEIR BABIES, WE FUCKED THEM AAAL TO DEATH RAAAAAW
- this was complete bullshit however. How do we know? Because the nations the egyptians just "crushed to the last man" would come back and start another war like 50 years later

In the bible this also happens. God seemingly orders a genocide against the caanites, which again, soys use as example of bible condoning murder etc. Problem: The caanites still exist a few chapters later. I also want to stress that canonically, moses was the writer of first five books of the old testament + he was egyptian, his name is fucking egyption, he was raised egyptian etc - look no further than pharao names like "Thutmose, eldest son of Amenhotep III."

Going back to my original point, both feminist and tradcoper idiots will do the same fuck up with ancient greece and rome, variously refering to quotes by aristotle and plato where they called women a lower lifeform or whatever, and then claiming these cultures were giga patriarchies. They also do this with legal codes from later times, claiming women were not allowed to work etc. In reality, the law bends to human nature. We all know this from our times. We know women get more lenient sentences and that the police and justice system lets shit happen all the time.

So why would they not do it back in the day? Ive mentioned this before but legally banning women from working was suicide for marriages, it would have meant starvation death. So even if there were laws restricting women from doing shit, they would just be ignored by people. Right now for example, the guy at the welfare office told me that he can just keep people on temporary welfare forever, if he wants to. Like if he likes you, he can just keep you in gibs limbo until you die. The law is just a provisional agreement by the people, a reflection of human nature, not an arbitrary invention. So why would they treat women differently back then?

 

[GeckoBus]

Spoiler alert: It has to do with rape.


View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DyNo7C8d7xg


So what was it? Was rape of women not recognized as a crime? Did people downplay it or even say that women can't be raped because they are horny animals who always want it? Was women being raped a punchline to jokes?

Nah, wait, that's the case currently for men (and was for the rest of history as well.) Instead, *gasp*, because women were often represented by their men in legal matters, it was the men who were paid the compensation, not the women. Can you imagine that? In eras centuries before digital money, it wasn't the women who were personally handled the money to bring it to their households where, because of its nature as physical money which weren't hidden in anyone's personal bank account but was implicitly always within reach of any household member who needed it, it would then be used by the rest of the family, but the men. Such injustice. Surely, 110/100 women would immediately switch it around and happily have their rapes by the opposite sex treated like men had instead.

also this bitch is hilarious, shes basically a fucking AI bot that just scans history and artworks for pattern match with her victim mindset obession. Like imagine I went through 1000s of historical artworks to find the ones I can interpret as supporting a foot fetish or something. "OMG this 15th century artist drew the feet at a certain angle, this is implies that it was compeltely normal back then to coom on the feet."