Marriage has its roots in male slavery

>The gynocentric model for conducting relations between the sexes today comes from old Europe in the forms of damsaling, chivalry and courtly-love. The tradition began in 12th century France and Germany and spread rapidly to all the principle courts of Europe. From there it filtered into popular culture, being transported eventually to the new world on the wings of colonial expansionism – to the Americas, India, Australia and so on.

>In the medieval model men offered themselves as vassals to women who took on the status of overlords in sexual relations – this because women were widely viewed as men’s moral superiors. As evinced by the first troubadours, men pledged homage and fealty to women who actively played the part of man’s superior. This feudalistic formula, which I will tentatively label sexual feudalism, is attested by writers from the Middle Ages onward, including by Lucrezia Marinella who in 1600 AD recounted that women of even lower socioeconomic classes were treated as superiors by men who, she recounts, “acted as servants or beasts born to serve them.”

>Many female and male writers stated this belief, including Modesta Pozzo who in 1590 wrote, “don’t we see that men’s rightful task is to go out to work and wear themselves out trying to accumulate wealth, as though they were our factors or stewards, so that we can remain at home like the lady of the house directing their work and enjoying the profit of their labors? That, if you like, is the reason why men are naturally stronger and more robust than us — they need to be, so they can put up with the hard labor they must endure in our service.”

The feudalistic origins of "love service" are explained more clearly here: gynocentrism.com/2014/04/29/marriage-is-slavery/ This absolutely dismantles the feminist narrative that marriage was conceived as a slavery contract for women. What are your thoughts, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_came_to_serve
unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/10/societys-acceptance-of-domestic.html
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 2:4-3:24
youtube.com/watch?v=X1njGh1shHY
youtube.com/watch?v=1Y9dzfwxSQA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>only purpose is to die in childbirth
>moral superiors
lol okay

Jesus MGTOW could you be more like a feminist?

Less than 1% of women died in childbirth. That's a feminist myth.

Huh? I'm not MGTOW, I just think this is pretty interesting stuff that schools don't teach.

The wording is a little extreme but yeah the gist of it is true.

Women exist with a mission: to reproduce and raise children. Men are more existential creatures; we have no God-given mission (aside from perhaps to subjugate the wildlife). Men are powerful tools. Women's task in life is to learn to acquire, wield, and maintain these tools to advance her mission of continuing her lineage. Women exist to serve this purpose; men exist to serve women.

My linking of this article isn't so much to debate the merits of this kind of system but rather to question why feminists have distorted history so much.

And then they say we nihilists have a depressing outlook of life.

Marriage predates feudalism by thousands of years. The matriarchal sexual model during prehistory was always polyamory. What killed off the ancient free love sex orgy was the end of their blissful ignorance about sex and children. The "knowledge of good and evil" talked about in Genesis is really the knowledge that sexual intercourse is what produces offspring and that pregnancy cannot occur without men. When women began to realize this millenia ago and started telling their favorite alpha that "your seed conceived my fruit", the rise of patriarchy and monogamy began. This is what the "fall" really is, the escape from blissful sexual ignorance where women are impregnated by spirits, and the transition into hard reality where men are either cucks, virgins, or fathers. In very primitive tribal matriarchal cultures like the aborigines this knowledge wasn't known until whites came along. They greatly resisted the idea of paternity (the first and greatest redpill of all) because it made their matriarchal culture impossible. The entire institution of marriage and monogamy only exists to help ensure paternal certainty.

>why don't feminists care about history?
Women are not interested in an accurate vision of the past or future. Men are willing to subjugate themselves to the truth because we have no conflicting purpose and exist as impartial witnesses to the universe. Women are here on a mission and that mission takes precedence over any autistic concerns about "what really happened."

ok

No, feminists care about history, but it seems they're hellbent on portraying a version of it where women were constantly oppressed and victimised for male gratification. Sort of like 50 Shades of Grey. Do you know why they'd do this?

It's not depressing. A hammer shouldn't be depressed to realize it's a tool and neither should we. It's really quite liberating to recognize your purpose and be at peace with it.

Lmao nice LARP faggot

...

you dumb niggers, the original purpose of marriage was to transfer property and wealth. are you trying to say that ancient feminism existed and that all men were lap dogs while women ruled everything? women didn't even have the right to vote. what the fuck are you talking about.

...

HOT AND KINKY TBQHWY

No kidding. The basis of marriage is providing equal access to all males the chance of female companionship. Societies work when men have something to work for.

MGTOW is as poisonous as feminism, however, in the battle of logical decision making for young males, they currently are winning all the arguments with factual information to back their claims.

In a society that operates on Judeo-Christian morality, victimhood is power. Women's survival instinct depends on having power over men however they can. In our society that amounts to casting themselves as the victim and baiting men to white knight for them.

As I said, women are not impressed with historical facts. So feminists don't have any qualms with retelling a version of history that casts them as victims.

traditional wedding vows as expressed in the English book of common prayer:

Bride, "I,_____, take thee, _____, to be my wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.

Groom, placing ring upon bride's finger, "With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

I'm MGTOW and im doing pretty well in life

No one could vote in the middle ages, you DINGUS

Oh yawn. MGTOW is nothing. Those men were never going to get laid in a gynocentic non-patriarchal society anyways.

>women didn't even have the right to vote
Most people didn't have the right to vote, because they were poor fucking peasants and the first time voting appeared in the medieval it was exclusively for nobles.

Take a basic fucking history class for fucksake

>I'm MGTOW and im doing pretty well in life

Does your metric for how well you're doing include anything about not being a genetic dead end?

The original purpose of marriage was to avoid getting cucked and make sure your kids are really your kids. That's really all it boils down to.

I mean I'm happy. My life is filled with pleasure. I get up, go to work, hear stories from the other staff about crazy stuff, come home, go on Sup Forums and eat tasty foods, jerk off, and go to bed. You may see that as like a losers life but I see it has 24/7 happiness

>hear stories (mental pleasure since it entertains my thoughts)
>Sup Forums (mental pleasure as it satisfies my curiousity about the world
>eating tasty foods (physical pleasure)
>Jerk off (physical pleasure)
>Go in bed and feel really comfy (mix of both physical pleasure and mental as I have a constinous storyline in my head that's really complicated that i imagine when i am falling asleep.

*voting was only for noble MEN

Fixed your post

I don't care what you do with your brief moment alive on this planet. Are you passing on the 4 billion year inheritance you received from your parents that you are enjoying so much or not?

>The Medieval model of service to a feudal lord was transferred wholesale into relationships as “love service” of men toward ladies. Such service is the hallmark of romantic love and is characterized by men’s deference to a woman who is viewed as a moral superior. During this period women were often referred to by men as domnia (dominant rank), midons (my lord), and later dame (honored authority) which terms each draw their root from the Latin dominus meaning “master,” or “owner,” particularly of slaves. Medieval language expert Peter Makin confirms that the men who used these terms must have been aware of what they were saying:

>“William IX calls his lady midons, which I have translated as ‘my Lord’. This midons is, as Pound said, ‘inexplicable’: it is used by the troubadours, of their ladies, and in the later troubadours we find it everywhere–Bernart de Ventadorn used it twenty-three times. Its etymology is (?mi-) dominus, ‘my master, lord’, but since it is used only of women – its pronoun is ‘she’ – glossarists have difficulty assigning it a gender. Though Mary Hackett has shown that it was not felt to mean on the primary level ‘my quasi-feudal lord’ by the troubadours who used it, these men knew their Latin and must have been aware of its origins and peculiarity; in fact it was clearly their collective emotions and expectations that drew what amounts to a metaphor from the area of lordship, just as it is the collective metaphor-making process that establishes ‘baby’ as a term for a girlfriend and that creates and transforms language constantly. In the same way, knowing that Dominus was the standard term for God, and that don, ‘lord’, was also used for God, they must also have felt some connection with religious adoration. William IX echoes the scriptures when he says

>Every joy must bow down before her
>and every pride obey Midons…
>No one can find a finer lady,
>nor eyes see, nor mouth speak of…"

So it appears even the "obedience" aspect of marriage was undercut in some way.

That's not true though.
There were Queens,Duchesses and Baronesses that made vast overreaching decisions and sent men to their deaths in war all the same as their male counterparts did.
Again, please take a basic history course.

No. I won't care anyways once im dead. So what purpose? There's already 8 billion people.

Only in cucked maritime states like England, Spain, and the Netherlands, where a lot of the men were at sea for years at a time. Germany and other higher countries never had a ruling queen.

>There's already 8 billion people.
And none of them are a continuation of yourself.

I don't know many guys who fall for the marriage scam anymore. The only ones who do are young guys in their early twenties who are either very religious and/or naive enough to think that getting married will give them a secure sex life. In other words, young, dumb, and full of cum.

I find that most guys who reach 30 unmarried have come to the sober realization that tying yourself to a woman and the government is a fool's errand.

Why does that matter? If i have kids it won't be me, i will die no matter what,.

While some of the facts you're touching on about the advent of courtly love on the 12th century are largely accurate, by leaving out some essential historical features your interpretation becomes weak.

The 11th and 12th centuries in southern France are associated with the rise of the Cathar, who were reputed to hold the secret of the holy grail, and even to have protected the bloodline of the Christ through Mary Magdalene.

So the troubadours were heavily influenced by the charismatic culture of the Cathar, and encoded a number of their teachings in their songs of love and 'romance,' which incidentally are the direct antecedents for everything from Eleanor of Aquitaine to James Brown.

So essentially all love songs are directed not only to the beloved, but to the divine female principle itself, the holy Venus, The Magdalene. Its an act of spiritual worship, as much as it is of subservience.

>Women exist to serve this purpose; men exist to serve women.
You know, I've seen men both write and say this before. And it pisses me of every single time. The fact that the majority of men are women's bitches and live only to serve women does not mean every man does. Accept your own lot in life, don't force it on other men.

>i will die no matter what
Yes, you will. So drop this preoccupation with your life. It's brief, it's already half over, it's going away and it's never coming back.

You aren't here to live forever. You're here to reproduce. You have been given the gift of life by your parents and you ought to pass it down as have all the billions of your ancestors before you. They are now dead but it is by the fruit of their efforts that you exist in good health and can enjoy your life.

I was taught that Eleanor of Aquitane learned of courtly love from Muslim poets. Is this quest for the holy bloodline the root of Marianism, you think?

Wonder why feminists don't give a shit about any of this and are complaining about mansplaining instead lol

A man who uses his power selfishly is a defective man. The relative power between the genders in the human race is distorted in favor of the male. We are invested with some of the power that was due to our females. It is right to give it back. Women are high specialized for birthing and rearing creatures as intelligent and powerful as we. The function of men's power is to help them do so.

A female tiger doesn't need anyone's help. She can feed herself and her offspring. A female human needs male humans. We are designed to help them.

It was a far more symbiotic relationship than it is now, that's for sure.

Haha [SUBMISSIVE CUUCK SIGNAL] this post is [SUBMISSIVE CUUCK SIGNAL] right on.

[SUBMISSIVE CUUCK SIGNAL], We cant let people take our free speech.

[SUBMISSIVE CUUCK SIGNAL], the real solution is to white knight harder and suck up to women, betray white men, and flood our country with Muslims!!!

Why?! Because a man we feel intimidated by had a FLEETING interest in our girlfriend 2 years go..

>A female human needs male humans. We are designed to help them.
(artist's depiction)

Yeah. I am also designed to do other things. It's not my sole fucking purpose in life. But it really is for some men, I have noticed that.

I think the thesis goes that this was all taking place in the Albigensian region of southern France, and so there was a lot of cultural cross-pollination from Moorish Spain.

'Feminist' history has got quite a distinguished pedigree, and is quite different from the modern 3rd wave variety. Rich women often hosted the literary salons of the Enlightenment, and in those circles Eleanor of Aquitaine was always popular.

Although its funny to remember that the literary and historical ladies of the salons were called 'blue stockings'- which was considered a slur n some way I dont quite understand- and today we call them blue-haired sjws.

Makes sense.

I'm speaking of Dworkin-feminism. Stepford Wives, The Handmaid's tale, basically anything that portrays women as victims in accordance with feminist/female masochism and victimhood drives.

It should. Accepting a mission imposed by other is pure cuckoldry.

>sexual feudalism
Someone please enlighten me about why people on this board often feel subdued by women, because I have never made those experiences myself.
I'm in my early 20s so that might change some things, but the only financial requirement I have noticed when dating is that you should have a car and possibly have your own place, neither of which should be too hard to attain.
Past that girls have never cared about how much money I make and have never asked me for monetary support.
Most of my past relationships felt like a best friend I get to fuck.
Maybe I just got lucky or maybe it's different when a girl wants you to actually father her children?

Yeah the other interesting thing this interpretation entirely misses, is that 'courtly love' and chivalry were a means of curtailing the overwhelming violence and raep in the early mediæval, by extending the code of the battle field to civilians, and in particular- women.

It should be interesting to us lads in our study of historical memetics, in that here we have a concrete example of a meme (courtly love) manifesting a direct change on society (curtailing knightly violence by iron-clad thugs and moulding them into supreme gentlemen.

Mariage is an institution made so betas can have some pussy and even kid that, I shit you not, they know are their. This way, betas don't fuck around but go to work so they can invest in their offspring. This is the root of civilisation.

There's no direct chain of events outlined here, just an assertion that courtly love was invented in response to super sexy hawt raeps.

Another poster identified its origins in Cathars, I've personally read that it originated from 12th century Muslim poets. Where's your proof?

No it doesn't, you fucking idiot. Pairbonding pre-dates language and our entire fucking genus.

Almost every known culture in human history has has some sort've marriage.

You're a gibbering imbecile, my god.

I'm referring to modern day marriage with all of its festivities. It's undeniably influenced by this feudalistic gyneolatry.

Thanks for contributing.

yeah im the same guy that chucked in the cathar thing.

I'm just chucking in some different hypothesis- because the best thing about thte study of history is that it is one big, and ongoing fight, that has been raging for 100s, if not 1000s of years.

Truth doesn't matter so much as the quality of your argument, and its largely works of falsehood and fiction.

oh shit i didn't even notice

Dude, I was thinking the SAME thing when I started this thread. It's like a battle of personalities. It doesn't even matter who's right, it's like whoever's more charismatic wins.

Many people here don't go outside and as you can see by op's absolutely retarded screed in which he declares that he does not even have a passing familiarity with remedial anthropology, they don't even try to learn basic aspects of a topic before deciding that their feels are justified and that's that.

All they know are narratives, and they've adopted one that absolves them of any responsibility for any real or perceived dysfunction with their relationships, and their abilities to form them.

Some have genuinely been rendered fairly unfuckable by nature, and are bitter as shit because of it. Some are just lazy and sheltered to the point that they curl up at home and have atrophied, and some are just stupid and/or obese and unpleasant little shits.

>men exist to serve women.
Men do not exist to serve women rather we used to provide for them due to the benefit it brought to us.

It is akin to cattle to where we provide for the cattle but we do not exist to serve them rather we only provide due to the benefit they bring to us.

I do not live to service women (aside from fucking but only when i feel like it). I live for myself and my mission.

Ok that's beyond retarded.
All the respect and bowing was not given to the woman because of gender but because of status.
No one ever showed any respect to a peasant girl.
It was reserved to the aristocratic thots because of the land and power of their family not because of tits.

kys feminist

And as it goes, the 'Curtailing knightly violence' hypothesis is also considered fairy strong, in that there were various deputations made to the pope in the period prior to this to ask him to do something about the plague of armored thugs terrorizing the contentment.

The church reacted by calling the Peace and Truce of God, which helped somewhat, and during this period we see the aforementioned transfer of the code of 'fair combat' to civilians- protect the weak, show mercy to the fallen, etc.

In this historical trajectory however, the crusades are just coming up, so the only eventual solution to knightly violence was really exxporting it from europe, and in the process founding the whole idea of 'Christendom'

>You're here to reproduce
Okay then ill just knock a woman up and leave her problem solved as if i have one kid then i am a genetic success.
>You have been given the gift of life by your parents and you ought to pass it down as have all the billions of your ancestors before you
You have to realize there are billions of other people who never reproduced for whatever reason.
>Women are high specialized for birthing and rearing creatures as intelligent and powerful as we. The function of men's power is to help them do so
Women are more in line with walking wombs then anything else and are used to create more of us.

see Don't be spiteful and ignore my explanation of why you're wrong.

>I live for myself and my mission.
Sounds like every basic bitch PUA screed ever written. "Focus on your mission, not your wife or family" is the type of advice that destroys civilisation. I recall you being a MGTOW from your other posts. You're a disgusting pig fuck. Don't post in my threads.

Read the article linked in the OP. Note the similiarities between vassals swearing fealty to lords and men swearing fealty to women. Note the language

We Whites haven't had the correct view of women since Antiquity.

theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html

Possibly the best essay ever written

I think there's evidence for it like other hypotheses but the Church at first tried to squash courtly love for fears that it promoted adultery. The Church's later promotion of it could be interpeted as the continuing tradition of gyneolatry through Mary, women's "moral superiority" would certainly suggest that.

>Sounds like every basic bitch PUA screed ever written
Most of PUA is a scam however there is some truth in it.
>"Focus on your mission, not your wife or family" is the type of advice that destroys civilisation
Who gives a fuck about civilsation when it gives no shits about me?

What benefit do i get from toiling and dying for it rather then living my life for my mission?
> You're a disgusting pig fuck. Don't post in my threads.
I am a proud disgusting pig fuck.

>men swearing fealty to women
"Oaths are but words, and words are but wind."

I don't give any shits about you either. Flush yourself down the toilet.

Great refutation of centuries of historical evidence.

>I don't give any shits about you either
Still ignores the point why should i break my balls and sacrifice myself for society and women when i can choose my own path?

Why should i live for anyone but myself?
> Flush yourself down the toilet.
Even so i will have lived a better life then you could in 10.

>Someone please enlighten me about why people on this board often feel subdued by women, because I have never made those experiences myself.
You pay income tax? All that tax goes to women. Before women got the vote there was no income tax. Just look at your paycheck next time, whatever you paid in income tax, that is what you paid to women that month.

>Men exist to serve women

Spotted the cuck.

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” - 1 Corinthians 11:9

>Marriage has its roots in male slavery

Sounds like your average christcucks

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_came_to_serve

I really don't care what path you choose. You can kill yourself for all I care. You keep replying to me however so it's clear I struck a nerve.

Cuck.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." - Genesis 3:16

" Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"

Way to totally miss the point of Christianity.

>You keep replying to me however so it's clear I struck a nerve.
Provide a argument against my point you society serving cuckold.

Women were created to serve men not the other way around even in religious scriptures.

If we want to go back to religious values women must submit to their husbands and must serve them and that must be the message tolled forward. We cannot have cuckold bullshit of serving women and sacrificing ourselves to them.

Makes sense, to I tool
Marriage is divine,made by god,leave it to (((them))) to twist it and make it vile

Your point?
Once again what you describe is not how women were treated but how aristocrats were.
Women without powerful family (vast majority) got no courtly love nor any respect.

christian marriage ritual in the american south

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_came_to_serve

Son of man came to serve the LORD. No where in the bible does it say to serve WOMEN. Fucking moron.

Remember Peterson's account of this.. What would that picture on the left be saying guys? cmon cmon you can do it

Serve MANKIND, idiot. That's why he martyred himself.

Spoken like a true feminist.

That was never how the West operated. It's simply not traditional. If you want proof, it's all my posts in this thread. I provide a great deal of evidence for my statements.

Way to be a moron.

Find the scripture that says man is here to serve WOMEN. You won't find it ANYWHERE. You fucking cuck.

>That was never how the West operated
In all of the western countries men had legal power and control over their women and domestic violence and marital rape were completely legal things (unlike in our white knight mangina society).
> It's simply not traditional
Traditional society (before the cucked south and the 1800's) operated in a similar manner to what i said even with the bullshit love and chilvary.

I don't have to because that isn't my point, fuckwit!

lol @ domestic violence. 500 years ago if your wife beat you, YOU would be paraded around backwards on a mule for the entire neighborhood to mock and pelt with tomatoes. This is a fact, look it up. This is because a man was legally culpable for his woman's behavior, in a sense responsible for her every sin, meaning he received what would normally be her punishment. There's no such thing as "spousal rape."

READ THIS: unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/10/societys-acceptance-of-domestic.html

further, there were laws in colonial america pre-revolution against domestic violence

the idea that a man could legally beat the fuck out of his wife is a FEMINIST MYTH

You make things worse if you do the kneeling thing. I didn't even offer my wife to be a ring. We already had bought the stone on a trip together to Thailand, and when she said yes (I asked her in a playful setting, not a somber one) I said I'd get the stone made up into a ring, and I did so she had it to wear during engagement.

Why would a man act submissive like that, at that moment?

It just says he came to serve, nothing about serving women.

"You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.[4]"

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 2:4-3:24

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.
16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

youtube.com/watch?v=X1njGh1shHY

What MGTOWs read as "men's slavery" is called civilization. Men are the caretakers of society and the over-grown children (women) in it.

Feminist??
Women were less useful as workforce and next to useless as warriors thats why had little value in the society.
This are the facts and i see nothing feminist about them.
If anything is feminist its the muh powerfull women meme.

I'm pretty sure there was civilization before there was women's suffrage...
youtube.com/watch?v=1Y9dzfwxSQA

>This is a fact, look it up. This is because a man was legally culpable for his woman's behavior, in a sense responsible for her every sin
And that means he has the right to punish his wife including via violence to curb her behavior.

It is like that i have the right to beat the fuck out of my kid for starting shit.
>further, there were laws in colonial america pre-revolution against domestic violence
One word and its called English cuckoldry.

The Spanish had no such laws till America forced itself on them and i come from the Spanish tree (Not some anglo faggot).
>the idea that a man could legally beat the fuck out of his wife is a FEMINIST MYTH
A man had legal power over her thereby he could beat his wife back in the day at least in most places.

It really was not till the 1800's did gynocentrism spread to the point where it began getting outlawed in more and more places.

Courtly love was a way to wink and nudge extramarital affairs for a specific aristocracy centred on the court of a noble house run by a sex-mad woman. It all spiralled out of that.
Nobility and bloodline was always traced through the FEMALE Line.
Knights naturally protected the source not only of their nobility but of their children.
Chretien de Troyes and the rest are based as fuck and redpill constantly.
Jews need not apply. Pic related.

The posturing isn't meant to express submission but rather devotion. Or fuck, maybe it was submission either way it was gynocentric af.

Women are mankind. Jesus gave his life for women, not just men. Jesus is regarded as a rolemodel for Christians, if you didn't know. The passage is about self-sacrifice. Jesus rewarded the woman who washed his feet with forgiveness as helping others is the true path to salvation.

You make it seem like these cultural overtones didn't extend to the lower and middle class which is just bullshit. Read the English common law marriage vows where a man literally pledges to worship his wife.

When did I mention women's suffrage? Obviously women shouldn't be allowed to vote

>And that means he has the right to punish his wife including via violence to curb her behavior.
Absolutely. Within reason. Even Muslims limit to what extent a man can punish his wife (stick has to be thin).

You and Aglin make it seem like a man could kill his wife. Which he never could. Not even in the beginning of the Roman Republic when it was codified as there were loopholes that almost always were taken advantage of by the bride's father.

Nice dodge, cuckboi.

Stop spreading your bullshit cuck ideologies around here. You colossal faggot.

>ill educated academics and (((academics)))
>ignore constant use of punning and canting by well educated courtiers
>midons is a play on MADONNA you ignorant fucks
>saying your hotness and second base sex partner is pure like Mother Mary
>while at same time saying she's like the other Mary - Magdalene

European culture is for educated white people so don't try this at home, mulattos, foreign scum and kikes

>When did I mention women's suffrage?
>What MGTOWs read as "men's slavery" is called civilization.
>Obviously women shouldn't be allowed to vote
If it is so obvious, why can they vote?

Load up your anime video games. You have no place in academic discussion.

Translate this from schizophrenic to English and I'll offer a rebuttal.

>Even Muslims limit to what extent a man can punish his wife (stick has to be thin).
That is about official law not what happens personally.

All sorts of rules and shit get broken all the time as not everyone gives a shit whether it be the citizens or the police (meaning they will not arrest someone for beating his own wife but in cucked countries you get arrested for yelling at her).
>You and Aglin make it seem like a man could kill his wife
You cannot murder your wife however you could get off easier since it falls more in line with a crime of passion then traditional murder (if you kill your cheating spouse it is a crime of passion not homocide)..

Alot of places had these laws till feminism revoked it and with crime of passion the sentences were alot lower.

But even outside of the crime of passion alot of countries still had the death penalty or imprisonment for cheating wives.