Post: #1

I have had an hypothesis bouncing around in my head for a few months.

Hypothesis: Even if contraception had never been invented, Western Women would be just (or nearly almost) as bad as they are now due to:

1) the Industrial Revolution making provider/protector males unnecessary
2) women getting the vote allowing them to use the monopolized violence of the state to force men to pay for alpha bastard children they did not father

I just have a gut feeling that things would be just as bad today, if not even worse since beta men might have no where to turn to deal with their sexual needs.

Have there been any studies or analysis of this? I think that I've read theories that part of the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire was that women were given too many rights against their husbands, but I don't remember where. Is that true? If so, are there other examples of this actually happening?

As well, it strikes me as a good idea for a science fiction novel in which a single technology suddenly exists or is taken away.

Anyway, I would love to hear the forum's thoughts on this.

Post: #2

I think a larger contributor to the attitude of Western women is the welfare system. No matter what "big daddy government" will take care of them. The average man can not compete as a provider with someone/something that has access to trillions of dollars. Being a solid provider is no longer very attractive except for extraordinary cases.

Post: #3

The Roman Empire:
You can find a hundred different theories for why it fell, but I don't think you'll find one specific causative reason. I think one influences the other which then influences the first. Insofar as the Empire's destruction is concerned, I tend to focus on large scale economic and military factors. The Empire's integrity principally came from its legions and their ability to hold back those on its borders. Therefore, dilute the strength of the legions, whether by their composition or by stretching them too thin along a border too long to defend, and you dilute the security of the Empire generally. The more you dilute the Empire's security, the more your economy has to compensate by either buttressing that weakness or dealing with internal problems that result from that lack of security.

For me the most significant one single event that tells us the Empire was on its way down was the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD, about 250 years ahead of the sacking of Rome. By this edict, all free men in the Roman Empire became Roman citizens, and all free women had the same rights as Roman women. The principal reason for this, according to Cassius Dio, was to increase the taxation base in order to pay the legions. At the same time, Caracalla was also debasing the currency in order to pay for them as well.

But this measure was a penny wise and a pound foolish, because up to this point service in the Roman army was one of the only ways one could attain Roman citizenship if you weren't born into it. At a stroke, Caracalla removed any real impetus for a non-citizen to serve (and indeed only Roman citizens could be forced to serve in the Roman army) and thereby guaranteed the Roman Army would have to take the worst of its citizenry rather than the best. The Army started to have recruitment problems from the third century, which is around the time the Empire also went into its terminal decline. In addition, while Caracalla might have increased the tax base by making everyone in the Empire a citizen, in real terms he probably didn't actually increase his take - because that tax base still needed an administration to collect the tax and ferry it back to Rome. And debasement of the currency caused high inflation, which in turn created massive unemployment.

Women had attained a somewhat stronger place in society, but in general the society by the time of the Empire's fall had hit a high point in degeneracy. Put it this way, Augustus, when Christ was alive, had to put in bachelor taxes in order to promote marriage, and that was five hundred years before the Empire fell. The Empire's later problems and degeneracy were in part due to the economic problem: remember how I said high unemployment crept up when they debased the currency? Well, if the thousands of unemployed Romans became bored this led to civil unrest and rioting in the streets. The 'Mob' needed to be amused - spectacular gladiatorial games had to be provided. The cost of the gladiatorial games was borne by the Emperors, and therefore the state, and corrupt politicians who sponsored the games to curry favour and support with the 'Mob'. The cost of the gladiatorial games eventually came to one third of the total income of the Roman Empire.

But when we're talking degeneracy, we're talking degeneracy raised to a high art. Ethics and values had already been eroded away, but the decline in morals, especially in the rich upper classes, nobility and the emperors, had a devastating impact on the Romans. Adultery, orgies, you name it. Emperors such as Tiberius kept groups of young boys for his pleasure; Nero committed incest, and had a male slave castrated so he could take him as his wife; Elagabalus forced a Vestal Virgin into marriage; Commodus with his harems of concubines enraged Romans by sitting in the theatre or at the games dressed in a woman's garments. The decline in morals also affected the lower classes and slaves. Religious festivals such as Saturnalia and Bacchanalia where sacrifices, ribald songs, lewd acts and sexual promiscuity were practised. Bestiality was exhibited in the Colosseum arena to amuse the mob. Brothels and forced prostitution flourished.

Contraception:
One of the interesting factoids about contraception is what happened to the abortion rate after it was introduced. One of the main arguments was that contraception would stop or stem abortion. The reality indicated otherwise: abortion rates actually skyrocketed after the Pill was first licenced, although given that was around the same time as Roe v. Wade it's hard to say whether it's the court case or the contraception that prompted it.

If contraception had not come along and abortion had remained illegal, I think things would be entirely different. Birth rates would be higher, for one thing, and marriage rates also likely higher and marriage ages much younger. That said, women with the vote would never have allowed abortion to remain illegal for long.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #4

I would say no. I think that if it weren't for contraception the nanny state could not have been formed. Women maintain the framework of mating and contraception completely changes the framework. Perhaps you could say that the framework of the woman marrying the state is a writ-large consequence of the scrambled mating framework between men and women.

How could this be? Well a so-called liberated woman can now delay childbearing years or, more specifically, decide WHEN the childbearing years occur. The only missing ingredient here is the traditional protector role of the male. Before the 50s or 60s or so, women faced peril and death without a male protector. The state filled that gap quite nicely. This was the missing ingredient to enable a woman to determine the childbearing years. The state got progressively larger as the debate got more and more framed as "equality of OUTCOME between the sexes". The constant and perpetual drone of the need to 'break the glass ceiling'. The 'glass floor'(the filthy jobs and the dying in war) is conveniently ignored and continues to more or less be relegated to men.

So yes, contraception, the disconnection of the sexual act and the creation of life, had a huge impact. The Margaret Sangers of the world are toasting champagne and laughing as we slaughter our unborn. Unfortunately this is just the beginning.

(06-19-2016 01:35 PM)beta_plus Wrote:  I have had an hypothesis bouncing around in my head for a few months.

Hypothesis: Even if contraception had never been invented, Western Women would be just (or nearly almost) as bad as they are now due to:

1) the Industrial Revolution making provider/protector males unnecessary
2) women getting the vote allowing them to use the monopolized violence of the state to force men to pay for alpha bastard children they did not father

I just have a gut feeling that things would be just as bad today, if not even worse since beta men might have no where to turn to deal with their sexual needs.

Have there been any studies or analysis of this? I think that I've read theories that part of the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire was that women were given too many rights against their husbands, but I don't remember where. Is that true? If so, are there other examples of this actually happening?

As well, it strikes me as a good idea for a science fiction novel in which a single technology suddenly exists or is taken away.

Anyway, I would love to hear the forum's thoughts on this.

Post: #5

I think the main problem for western women isn't contraception. I believe that's kind of good thing because we all get to bang.

The real problem is welfare. Thats when the men with guns take your productive output and give it to women, without them having to "earn" it.

Add to that organised physical security (police and army) and women no longer need men. We became optional playthings to exploit.

Society made worthless the contributions of men, while the pussey is still golden and desired.

There is no free pussy rights in the Welfare state...

Post: #6

Back in the day, women were forced to "marry losers" :

Post: #7

I don't know why people complain about "western women" or modern women so much. If pussy is such a huge concern, and bitchy women, why not move to where there's hot cornfed blonde babes (i.e; the American Midwest), where a good gamesman can mop up?

Post: #8

(06-20-2016 07:53 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  Back in the day, women were forced to "marry losers" :

I'm shocked that she is jewish.

Post: #9

nah there's no way they'd be anywhere near as bad - contraceptives kicked it into overdrive. they'd certainly still be attention-seeking, though.

Post: #10

(06-20-2016 09:59 AM)Hades Wrote:  I don't know why people complain about "western women" or modern women so much. If pussy is such a huge concern, and bitchy women, why not move to where there's hot cornfed blonde babes (i.e; the American Midwest), where a good gamesman can mop up?

Because "pussy paradises" are rapidly disappearing, and the degeneracy of western women is spreading throughout the world. If things continue on this path there will be nowhere to run in a couple of decades.