A powerful societal pressure against being a slut in traditional European culture was the inability of a slut to provide for herself if she bore a bastard child . A man was not obligated to take care of a whore's child and thus women were pressured to be conservative because they risked not having a financial means to support their child if they simply whored themselves out.
Sluts have managed to circumvent this aspect of traditional society since the 20th century with the rise of modern child support and alimony laws. This lets sluts to whore themselves out and then collect a paycheck once enough of the sluts countless partners have taken paternity tests. Slutty behavior can be directly tied to the consequences of slutty behavior: if it is a financial risk, less women will be slutty.
Lets eliminate the aspect of the legal system that incentivizes slutty behavior. Get rid of alimony and child support.
view the rest of the comments →
Adminstrater ago
Everyone wants to focus on laws.
The problem is with proper moral education.
A moral society is a functional society.
Crensch ago
This is probably the stupidest thing I'll read today.
It's the law that forces men to finance sluts. It's the law that forces taxes to go to single moms. Take those away, and morality magically becomes fashionable again.
Or, you know, you could act like the virtue-signalling busybodies of the past 50 years and become repellent to the masses. Nobody wants to be told what they can't do by holier-than-thou faggots, whether on the left or the right.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Maybe men shouldn't have sex with sluts then, or with any woman that they would not want to be the mother of their potential children. It's not like you guys have great birth control options, and the law isn't exactly on your side, so why take that risk? If men are going to play a stupid game then they too deserve to win a stupid prize. The fault here is not only on women's shoulders; the men that slutty women are having sex with are also responsible for any kids that are conceived and for whatever fallout results. They should've made better life choices.
Crensch ago
Idiot.
Any woman can be tempted to ruin a man, no matter how sure the man is that she is wife material.
Get your head out of the clouds, faggot.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Men are pretty weak-minded then, if that's the case. Maybe you guys are the weaker sex if all it takes to ruin a man is a pretty face and some pretty little lies.
At any rate, my point is that men need to take responsibility for their own choices. If a man chooses to sleep with a slut, or to have hookups and casual encounters with women he barely knows, or to jump in bed with a new girlfriend right away, that's his own damn fault and he has some responsibility for whatever happens.
Crensch ago
Maybe you cunts are the weaker sex if all it takes to ruin a man is a false rape accusation.
And with that your entire narrative, and attack on men is destroyed.
Get back in the kitchen.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Aren't we triggered. Look, sarcasm aside, all I'm saying is that if you want women to be responsible with their sexual choices, why don't you want the same for men? Why should women be the only ones to be smart about their reproductive capacity while men should not have to take any responsibility for the consequences of spreading their seed? All you are advocating for is men being irresponsible and childish.
Crensch ago
I'm advocating for the law to not punish men for trusting women. Not having a law that punishes men is NOT a punishment for women.
All YOU are advocating is for men to be forced by threat of government.
Get back in the kitchen, cunt.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Having to financially support a child that you helped conceive via consensual sex is not being "punished" for "trusting women", any more than making abortion illegal constitutes "punishing" women.
Again, I think that abortion should be illegal unless it is the only way to save the woman's life, or if the baby is so terminally diseased that if it survives birth it will die in pain. So it's not like I only think that men should have to take responsibility for the children they conceive. I think women should too. I don't think people should be able to fuck off and either abandon their own child or outright kill it - both are equally selfish and reprehensible.
If you are going to have sex with a woman and risk making a baby, you'd better make damn sure that she is trustworthy and that you are in a position where you can afford to provide for a child if she gets pregnant. Same goes for women - if you're going to have sex with a man and risk pregnancy, you'd better make damn sure that he is trustworthy and that you are in a position to provide for a child if you get pregnant. Both men and women need to be more careful about their sexual choices. We used to have stigma and social pressure to keep people in line and it worked way better than this current climate of abortions and "financial abortions" - there were fewer out-of-wedlock kids, for starters, and fewer moms who were single because they had fucked their life up rather than because they were widows.
No. What concerns me most is not what stupid, selfish, irresponsible adults want to do to rid themselves of the need to be accountable for the results of their shitty choices. What concerns me most is that children are not butchered in the womb before birth or abandoned by their worthless fathers after birth. You are advocating for the equivalent of abortion for men and I think it's pathetic. Deadbeat dads are pathetic.
Crensch ago
Stupid whore. If a man has to financially support a child, that child is HIS, not hers. Period. She gets NO say in the child's upbringing, and the child lives with him.
Also, THE GOVERNMENT FORCING THIS is fucking wrong, and you're a sick fuck for wanting it.
Stupid argument. Chances of happening so astronomically small that there's no reason to litigate on it at all. Just let that one in 500million woman die.
Also, I'm NOT ARGUING FOR ABORTION HERE. You really are fucking stupid.
So you're pro-abortion? You think the government will just leave well enough alone? That it won't legalize for a gimp leg? Or for it being white (in the U.K., for instance)?
You want the GOVERNMENT to step in and force this. Stupid, stupid, stupid cunt. Massively stupid cunt.
Now you're just rambling like a whore to try and obfuscate the shame you should be feeling for having been so dishonest. Some part of you knows you should admit you're wrong, but you're too cowardly for that.
You're arguing something that literally nobody else was addressing here, and you're too stupid to understand that.
THE LAW was the only thing I was arguing against. Re-read my words, if you have the reading comprehension ability to do so.
Nobody gives a fuck what you think. This doesn't address a goddamn thing I've said. It's an argument against words I didn't speak, and a position I don't hold.
It's an admission that you haven't thought any of this through, and you're responding like a stupid woman would respond when she's trying to act like she knows something. Stupid. Stupid stupid stupid.
You're really, REALLY fucking stupid.
Show me where I advocated for this. Here, I'll quote my own words for you:
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
I think I would rather wait until after you've calmed down to talk to you. You're very emotional right now and obviously not up to the challenge of having a rational discussion. Perhaps by morning you will better have your feelings and your temper under control. Maybe give this a read. What I'm getting from your rather ridiculous screed is that you want there to be no laws whatsoever to protect children and ensure that their parents don't just fuck off and abandon them; you are pissed at women because they are able to take everything and leave a man with nothing; and you think what is better for everyone is if men can take everything and leave women with nothing. Whatever, bitch. It doesn't matter what you want to happen; that isn't how things work in society. Thank God for that because your version sounds even more shitty than the way it is now. At least now kids have at least a bit of protection, and deadbeat sacks of shit don't all just get to run away and abandon their kids.
Crensch ago
Tone fallacy.
Code for, "I'm too stupid to respond, so I'll pretend you were a meanie and try to get away with walking away."
This is Tuesday for me, slut. This isn't even irritated beyond the pain of witnessing such stupidity from what I assume is a human.
Maybe YOU should read it, because not a single ounce of what I wrote was Ad Hominem Fallacy. If you were smarter, you'd know that, but you're not. You're a stupid woman that doesn't know invective from Ad Hom.
And you think the answer is GOVERNMENT.
I'm not pissed at anyone. That's a fact.
It is. Objectively so.
It IS how things work in a healthy society. Ours is sick, and will die if women continue to have the kind of power they have. Don't worry, it'll change drastically in your lifetime, and it'll negatively affect your kids.
You're too stupid to even understand my position, apparently. My way is the only way to a healthy society. Yours is patently absurd, and just what a WOMAN would advocate for.
Sounds like you're the one with an irrational anger. At men. Who likely were removed from their children's lives by the courts you're defending.
You are so unqualified to comment, yet you continue. You're so out of your league, I'm embarrassed for you.
Read my words. Set your stupid, womanly, PMS emotions aside and READ MY WORDS. They are INFINITELY more sensible than anything you've written here, and have far less emotion than much of what you've written.
You belong in a kitchen, and you should never be let out of it.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
An Ad Hominem is when you insult someone's character or intelligence instead of attacking their point. While you have said things that were about the point I was making, you sprinkle your posts with so many personal attacks and insults that it's ludicrous for you to say "not a single ounce of anything I wrote was an ad hominem" - hey retard, when you tell someone that they're stupid and a cunt and a whore, THAT IS A FUCKING AD HOMINEM. The fact that you also discussed my words doesn't make your other words any less of a fallacy.
Look at the way society was before. Let's go back 200 years. Changes to the legal system to protect the interests of kids has made a huge positive change to society, a change that was desperately needed because kids didn't have legal protections and were being exploited and neglected. That is still happening today, but to a lesser degree here than it does in other countries without laws protecting children.
Prove it. Do you have any stats or evidence to back this up?
Prove it. Proving it, by the way, does not involve you calling me a cunt some more and just repeating "because it is" - proving it requires some kind of evidence. It shouldn't be hard to provide some.
Crensch ago
Break down exactly where I did this.
So I DID address your points. No matter how much invective I spewed, that doesn't change the fact that your points were addressed as points, and not dismissed just because you're a woman.
I know far more about this than you ever will, apparently.
NO. It's NOT.
Ad hominem:
"You are a woman, so your point is invalid"
NOT AD HOMINEM
"Your point is invalid because X, Y, and Z - also, you're a woman and you shouldn't vote."
You're TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE THOUGH, AND YOU'LL COME BACK SHOWING YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, WON'T YOU?
YES IT DOES. Holy SHIT you're stupid.
Horseshit.
The millennial generation is a perfect example of what happens when you vote to "protect the children". Trannies, fags, communists, sluts, and pedophiles are legitimized because "protect the children" also means "give women free money and let them raise their kids on their own".
"Protect the children" is also the mantra of gun-grabbers. It's a thought-terminating cliche that needs to be removed from any and all lawmaking rhetoric.
We have the most fucked up children of any generation, of any civilization, in the history of ever. Tranny kids are featured in our entertainment media. It simply does NOT get more fucked up than that.
Sure. The man makes the money, and can afford the children. He's responsible enough to go work hard to provide for his family, whereas the woman is not. Forcing him to fork over the money to a useless woman that cannot care for them herself is OBJECTIVELY worse. It's the man's money, it's the man's family.
Sure.
84% of single parent families are headed by mothers
Single parent families cause crime
While mothers and fathers may have similar ways of parenting, a youth’s interactions with his or her father plays a greater role in the emotional and behavioral development of the child during the early years of growth (Easterbrooks, et al.). Also in that link: "Further evidence indicated that fathers seem to fill stabilizing role in at-risk youth’s lives, protecting them from experiencing the negative influences of other contextual risks in their lives, such as violence and the presence of negative role models among peers and family members (Howard, Lefever, Borkowski, &Whitman, 2006)."
Free children giveaway for women who only accuse the man of domestic violence Page 6 (note the proponents of statutory presumptions) but read on, it's a litany of evidence that the law needs to fuck off out of our lives.
Dads good. Single moms bad. Courts take children from dads. Courts pay moms to take children from dads. Courts will always seek more power. ANY power in the family will result in single moms eventually.
Single moms are cancer. Women need to shut up and get back in the kitchen.