Categories
alpha males are these guys 12 years old? crackpottery creepy evil old ladies men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny patronizing as heck pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles PUA reactionary bullshit red pill

LaidNYC, the My-Seed-is-Liquid-Gold dude, on raising a Red Pill son and other creepy stuff

LaidInNYC is back!
LaidNYC is back!

It’s been a while since we checked in with LaidNYC, the alleged pickup artist whose sperm is LIQUID GOLD and whose wisdom about women, and life in general, is liquid, well, something else. Let’s see what  we can learn from him.

In one recent post, Mr. LaidNYC brings his unique perspective to the question of raising boys, a topic I’m pretty sure he has no actual experience with. Well, after reading his advice, I can only hope that he has no actual experience with it, and that he never gets any. Some of his insights:

Marry a HAWT chick:

Choose his mother carefully.  You are only half responsible for the genetic outcome of your child.  You want a thin, young, healthy wife to help assure a healthy child.  The mother should embrace the idea of wifely submission and a captain-first mate relationship in which she is not the captain.  This will be your son’s first relationship model and it should embed natural gender roles in his mind forever.

Make sure your son knows he’s cockblocking you by even existing, and that you’re making a giant sacrifice by sticking around with mommy, even though she’s no longer the hottie she was when you married her, and you could TOTALLY be dating hotter chicks if she weren’t around.

Make him aware of your sacrifice.  As a guy with game, you will likely be passing up lots of pussy and fun times if you choose to have kids.  Make him aware of this.  He should realize his existence is a gift from you.  This will make him respect you more, and a child who respects his father has higher self-worth because he instinctively understands that his father is his genes.

Pay him money to approach HAWT chicks at Farmers’ Markets before he even reaches puberty. Because that’s not weird or creepy at all.

Have him approach girls.  When he’s cute and pre-pubescent, take him to a park or farmers market and have him approach smoking hot babes.  Give him cute stuff to say, he’ll have a 0% blowout rate.  Make it fun for him, not “daddy is making me talk to girls again”.  Use monetary incentives if necessary.

Get him a dog, because bitches are bitches amirite high five bro! No, really, that’s his argument:

Get a dog. A dog teaches kids how to love and how to be in charge of something they love.  The parallels between dog training and game are staggering.

Also, be a drunk and a letch, because somehow this will benefit him.

Set up some dominoes for him to topple.  This is fun.  Buy a small piece of bar so he can easily be a bartender when he’s 18.  Befriend families in the neighborhood who have hot daughters so he can have an in to fuck them.  … Be a regular at a bar or strip club and pass the status on to him.

What kind of status points to you accumulate, exactly, by being a creepy old dude hanging out in a strip club all the time?

Speaking of creepy old dudes, let’s take a look at another post from LaidNYC with the seemingly inoffensive title The Walls of Facebook, in which our hero villain explains some  research he’s conducted by creeping through the Facebook pictures of teen girls.

Back when I still had Facebook, I was routinely shocked at HOW MUCH hotter girls, even in their early to mid twenties, used to be just a few years earlier.

In fact, Facebook shows that when women peak is even younger than anyone blogging under their real name would care to admit.  Common red pill dogma states that women are their hottest between 18-24.

I say this is bullshit.  Try 15-19.

Even that is generous for modern girls in prosperous countries.  If she’s going to college to binge drink on weekends and swipe her mealplan card at the buffet line, her peak likely ceases her first semester at around age 18.

True female peak, on average, is probably around 16-18.

High schoolers.

Yep, this is the same guy who was just giving advice on how to be a good parent.

He continues:

Now, we in the red pill community try to stretch that peak to 23 or 24 because most guys don’t have the chance to bang high school girls.  There’s the law, different social circles, cock-blocking parents, etc. So we lie to ourselves a bit and claim the 22, 23 year old girls we date are still at peak.  Close enough for government work.

Yes, that’s right. He just complained about COCK-BLOCKING PARENTS.

I was going to keep going and go through a couple more posts of his today, but, honestly, HE JUST COMPLAINED ABOUT COCK-BLOCKING PARENTS. I’ve had enough of this creepy bullshit for one day.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

224 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Monster
7 years ago

Men age like fine wine and all young girls want to be with a sophisticated older man. She’ll be so impressed by his Audi TT and his low end designer coats and watches and his middle management IT job and all that character he thinks he has, and taking three days to recover from the office night out is so hot. How could anyone turn down getting all this 10 years early?

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
7 years ago

I’m kinda liking the sex ed blog idea, but I wonder if it wouldn’t be easier to just direct more people to Scarleteen.

One more thought on SocialKenny: are creepy older men actually “rampant” in the Caribbean (which is apparently a cultural monolith), or is he seeing what he wants to see?

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
7 years ago

@Fibinachi That “somethingsomething” is what’s so baffling about PUAs and their claims to alphaness. They aren’t serious men. They’re not engaged in the real world in any meaningful way. They’re not doing useful work or important deeds or interesting things. They don’t appear to be any wealthier than the average male. All they do, seemingly, is hang out at bars and strip clubs and obsess over their notch count and whine on the internet about how hard it is to get laid. How, exactly, does that make them high status?

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

Someone forgot to put the cork back in this wine, and left it sitting around in a cupboard (full of manly rage) for too long. It’s vinegar now, and not the fancy kind either.

kittehserf
7 years ago

SocialKenny is a turd. He just admitted that his game/predation skills are so fucking weak that he had to move from NYC–where the age of consent is 17–just to gain a year.

Kenny, fuck off.

Am I the only one thinking it’s banhammer time for Kenny the “I like to prey on schoolgirls” creep?

Do you have a source on this? I’m like 99% sure this is a myth that’s perpetuated by people like MRAs who romanticise the past and want to convince people it’s morally fine to have sex with children because they’re creeps and “omg! history totes said it was okay!”. Average age of marriage in Victorian era was 25, for example, and virginity was only cared about for the upper class people who also got “married” super young because they were pawns in politics and supposed to cement allegiances and not because marriage meant anything to them.

Correct. It is a myth. More, it’s a load of baloney. Even in the 17th century, the average age of marriage in the peasantry in France was 25. I wonder if this “everyone married at 12” twaddle also relates to the myth that everyone was dead by 40 or so?

Nitram
Nitram
7 years ago

“He didn’t say dangerously underweight, he just said “thin”. I think most people who would be labelled by others as being “thin” can make a perfectly fine baby, thankyou.”

Yes I know, I should’ve mentioned that thin women have healthy babies all the time – not trying to thin-shame. Just wanted to point out his ridiculous notion that thin perfect bodies are a precursor to healthy babies. Large women have healthy babies, and all women typically, and are supposed to, gain 25-30 lbs.

kittehserf
7 years ago

The fact he said thin rather than slim did make me think underweight, but more especially, worried about weight / vulnerable to body-shaming.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

I read it as him believing that women who aren’t thin can’t have healthy babies, which is an…odd idea.

dustydeste
dustydeste
7 years ago

I read it as “being a thin woman doesn’t ensure a healthy baby any more than being a chubby woman rules out having a healthy baby.” I guess it’s a very, eh, interpret-able sentence.

cloudiah
7 years ago

@emilygoddess, Fair point, I had forgotten about Scarleteen. It’s pretty good. I couldn’t find where/if they talked specifically about the ways some people try to manipulate (mostly) women into sex. And I didn’t see much about dealing with sexism/misogyny at the individual level: identifying misogynists, etc. But maybe that’s something they can/should work on.

dustydeste
dustydeste
7 years ago

Oh wait, I thought we were talking about that other comment up further in the thread where someone said “A thin woman does not a healthy baby make” or whatever. My bad. I was confused.

*Vows to consume proper amount of caffeine to placate the brainfuzzies before commenting from now on*

Athywren
Athywren
7 years ago

Do you have a source on this? I’m like 99% sure this is a myth that’s perpetuated by people like MRAs who romanticise the past and want to convince people it’s morally fine to have sex with children because they’re creeps and “omg! history totes said it was okay!”.

Actually, no… I don’t. Bad skepticism for 6/10/13 #423425. Thank you for pointing that out. Though I do have sources for the humours and the leeches, and the point was that historical =/= good, but yeah… bad to repeat myths. I was thinking of 2000 years ago though, btw, not so much 150-300, though, as pointed out, not sourced. At least, not well – I’ve heard it said that, assuming it happened, Mary would have been ~13-14 when Jesus was born, more or less in accordance with the supposed Jewish tradition of betrothal are ~12 and marriage ~13, but I don’t actually know if that’s true. There’s quite a lot of supposedly going on in there. So, yeah… sorry about that.

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

Okay Nitram, I misunderstood. Yeah, the original post who seemed to say that being thin is NECESSARY for having a healthy baby was obviously idiotic. Several different body shapes can have healthy babies.

Hector
7 years ago

Re: At least, not well – I’ve heard it said that, assuming it happened, Mary would have been ~13-14 when Jesus was born, more or less in accordance with the supposed Jewish tradition of betrothal are ~12 and marriage ~13, but I don’t actually know if that’s true. T

I wouldn’t read too much into what supposed Jewish traditions about betrothal were. The First Century was an unusual time for Judaism (secular history tells us that), and if you take the New Testament seriously, then Mary and her family weren’t typical people either.

Arguments have been maid that in premodern times the age of menarche was much higher than it is now (possibly as high as 16-17 in more malnourished ages, maybe 14-15 in better nourished ones). Although it’s somewhat controversial. We do know that ages of marriage in medieval Europe generally weren’t that low- they were low among the aristocracy, higher among the peasantry.

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

@Athywren: I’ve heard the same thing, mostly by atheists who’ve gone “haha, God is a pedophile, he impregnated a fourteen-year-old!”. It doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible how old she was, and granted that it was some time since I read it now I don’t remember the Bible mentioning any general custom of marrying off thirteen-fourteen-year-olds either. Would be interesting to know if there’s any credible source for this, or if it’s really just a myth.

It is well documented that royal marriages in Europe like five hundred years ago sometimes involved children, but these were marriages for the sake of political alliances, so it’s a bit different.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

Didn’t the medieval church believe that women had no souls? I don’t know that I would trust an organization that came up with that particular piece of bigoted dumbassery not to go “well I want to fuck 13 year olds, so that’s how old Mary must have been” too.

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
7 years ago

@Cloudiah there’s definitely a need for a “predators and their tactics” info source. Maybe a wiki?

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

Didn’t the medieval church believe that women had no souls?

Um, not as far as I know? Source on THIS, because it sounds completely absurd? (Obviously it was a terribly patriarchal institution, but to go from there to the claim that women LACK SOULS, no… I don’t buy it, until I get to see a VERY credible source.)

If you’re thinking pragmatically about it though, rather than morally, it still makes sense for people to wait a bit with sex. They had like no health care, child birth was dangerous even for grown-up women, and getting heirs was really important. I checked on Margaretha of Denmark who was married off to a much older man when she was ten, but she didn’t have a baby until she was seventeen. This was the only example I could come up with from the top off my head of royalty marrying super young, but I’m pretty certain there are a number of such cases of women being married off as kids but not beginning to have babies until they’re of a slightly more sensible age.

Even in horribly sexist times there may have been pragmatic reasons not to rape a valuable prepubescent wife.

SittieKitty
7 years ago

No worries Athywren, I used to think so too. However, I have access to an archeologist, anthropologist, who corrected me on that particular issue. Looking at the nobility and how they did things, it was super unusual and not at all typical of how marriage as an institution worked – and also, people in the higher classes, both husbands and wives, had affairs like crazy, and it really wasn’t all that big a deal as long as you weren’t a queen…

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

I think the fact that people sometimes got married young in the nobility because of alliances and blah blah may mislead people into assuming that the earliest age they were known to have married = the age people thought it was acceptable to have sex. Which is kind of silly, because it’s not uncommon in cultures where early marriage is practiced for the assumption to be that sex will wait until both parties have at least reached puberty.

Of course it’s very convenient for pedo apologists to assume that one historical figure being married off at 10 = it was totes normal for adults to fuck 10 year olds, so that’s what they’re going to do.,

Shaenon
7 years ago

Every culture is different, but throughout history it’s been most common for people to get married in their early to mid 20s. Child brides usually happen in cultures where marriage becomes valuable as a bargaining chip between wealthy families.

In parts of medieval Europe, it was common for a while for noble families to marry off their children–both male and female–early to protect their inheritance, because getting married made them legally adults. Otherwise the children would become wards to the state if their parents died. This seems to be the origin of the “in the olden days girls all got married at twelve” myth, but in the non-landed classes the average age of first marriage was in the early 20s, not much different from today.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

I wonder if we could break their brains by pointing out that in some cultures a woman who was already pregnant made an attractive potential bride because her being pregnant meant that everyone knew she was fertile.

BlackBloc (@XBlackBlocX)

One thing I’ve noticed, and that’s true as much of traditionalists, MRAs, people who seek to excuse sexual intercourse with children or teenagers, but also a lot of liberals (when it comes to views on “romantic love”, marriage, etc) is that when people look at how things were done in the past it’s all about what nobility, or whatever dominant class of the time, was doing. Child brides were mostly a factor in arranging familial alliances, as someone mentioned earlier. This was not something the lower classes did typically, unless there was an occasion for social climbing (and the reality on this planet is that social climbing is not something that was offered often to peasants and other working class folks).

This is a lot because cultural productions are almost always controlled by given ruling classes, so communicated history tend to be the documentation of the behavior of ruling classes in time. If you want the gist of what the little people were doing, you have to talk to anthropologists mostly, and people who reconstruct these from the small parcels that got to us through the filters, while chivalry, the foibles of kings, queens, princes and princesses pretty much are known to anyone who has a basic grasp of history.

kittehserf
7 years ago

Even when the upper classes married their children very young – like, way before their teens – there was no assumption that the children would start living together, let alone having sex. It was more about making an alliance, as people have said, or securing an inheritance, and the children would go on living with their own families until they were deemed old enough to cohabit. That might be on the youngish side, especially if there was an age gap and the families didn’t want the boy to start having sex elsewhere.

Even when early teens were required to have sex, it was down to politics; Louis and Anne are a good example. They had just turned fourteen when they were married, and had to go through the whole displaying-of-the-sheets-afterward wedding night routine to make sure the marriage (ie. alliance between France and Spain) couldn’t be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation. I don’t know how Anne felt about it, but Louis sure wasn’t ready, and they lived apart for years afterward. But to take an example like that as the norm for their time, even among royalty, is all wrong, and either ignorant of the general situations or a very side-eyeish claim that children marrying was usual.

Also excellent point about menarche from Hector. It has varied over the centuries with different nutritional levels and so on. It’s getting earlier now; it’s becoming more common for children to reach it well before their teens, even early in primary school, sometimes.

Monster
7 years ago

I find it interesting that MRA/PUA types frequently refer to young girls as ‘women’ , ‘young women’ or say that ‘women’ peak between 14-15 and 19/20/24 whatever ( a while back I remember a whole bunch of creepiness about ‘fertile young women’ who were actually school age kids being covered here) but I’ve not seen anything that implies 13-14 year old boys are ‘virile young men’ or whatever. Just stuff about ‘raising them as men’ or ‘teaching them to be men’ or whatever. Like, 15 year old boy is a child who needs to learn and grow but a 15 year old girl, well, as soon as they want to fuck her then she’s a fertile young woman and biotruth. Ugh.

kittehserf
7 years ago

Monster – yes, and once someone’s an actual adult, ie. a woman, she becomes a “female”.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

A friend of mine explained this to men once in the context of the (extremely sexist) culture she grew up in. OK, so imagine that the idea that women are equal to men isn’t even worth considering -it’s clear to you that even if women live to be 90 they are still less intelligent, less spiritual, and less everything than men, and the idea of them even aspiring to relate to men on an equal level is ludicrous. In that context, how do you figure out when they’re old enough to have sex? Well, puberty is all you really have to go on, since from your perspective women are never going to become adults in the same sense that men are.

It’s disgusting, and depressing, but there is a certain horrible internal logic to it from the perspective of a virulent misogynist.

katz
7 years ago

So, Blackbloc, are we just dumping the art-defacing thing down the memory hole, or what? Because I’m still waiting for an explanation of that.

Monster
7 years ago

It makes total, horrible sense. It conveys very well thier belief that women are only things. Total giveaway.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

Interestingly enough she did say that people do grasp the idea that old enough to have sex isn’t necessarily old enough to have a baby, and that people put the appropriate age for that significantly higher.

katz
7 years ago

The young-marriage thing isn’t always an exaggeration; we’ve got plenty of records of women from ancient Rome who were married and having kids as young teenagers at all levels of society. And Roman men got married very late indeed; soldiers weren’t allowed to marry until they left the army at age 30.

AK
AK
7 years ago

Thenatfantastic, That’s what I don’t get. They can’t even argue that older males provide better protection or whatever, because they don’t today. Even though older males have more money, it’s not like she has no money due to her gender. Every 15 year old is dirt poor. But they’re usually fine since they have parents who care for them.
There’s no gender difference in this, so they should be arguing that older women should date young boys too.
As far as them saying that men are naturally attracted to young girls, and vice versa, if you have to keep reminding people who they’re naturally supposed to be attracted to like a correction, then it’s not natural. Even then nature =/= healthy. Otherwise being gay or trans* would be a disease.

By their logic, if anything it should make more sense for women to have an obsession with young men, because while girls between 14-17 might be more fertile in the sense that they get pregnant easily (I’m not sure if that’s true, but we’ll go with it for the sake of argument), girls that age have a very high risk of both maternal and infant morbidity. There are a ton of complications that grow up in girls who aren’t fully grown and yet are giving birth; 17 and under is considered a high risk pregnancy by default because of it.

So if we’re approaching it from an evolutionary perspective, the simple ability to get pregnant isn’t enough. She would have to be capable of giving birth to healthy offspring and surviving to nurse them with no medical care, which teenagers are not well-suited for (and which you can usually tell by looking at them–their bodies are obviously not fully mature yet). I don’t believe teenage boys have a comparable problem with immature sperm or whatever.

So really, if there’s really an evolutionary reason to prefer teenagers, it should be women preferring boys and men preferring slightly older young women. But of course it’s all a bullshit attempt to justify preying on young girls, so it doesn’t have to make sense I guess.

I do just want to quibble with the last sentence in the quote, though. Homosexual behavior* is extremely common throughout the natural world, both in domesticated animals and wild ones. And it isn’t just a “males will hump anything” thing. In animals that pair-bond, some same-sex animals will choose each other as long-term or even lifetime mates. The frequency varies by species (there are some that exhibit a lot of homosexual behaviors, and others that exhibit almost none in natural conditions), but homosexual behavior definitely happens in nature.

I don’t know if there’s an analogue to being trans, but mostly because that’s a rather difficult thing to quantify in animals. I’ve definitely seen animals (again, both domestic and wild) who acted more like the opposite sex of their species is expected to, but since gender is a pretty human idea, I don’t know.

So really, I’d say that both those things are rare, but natural nonetheless.

*I went with “homosexual behavior” because I don’t like the trend of being like, “Animals are gay so it’s okay!” Because it’s true, and it does need to be pointed out in some contexts, but I don’t like using that as a justification for homosexuality. It’s like the whole “is it genetic?” debate…on the one hand it is interesting and important in understanding the full spectrum of human sexuality, but in a world where we’re still fighting for basic civil rights for LGBTQ people, it’s really problematic to rely on arguments that are basically, “they can’t help it!”

So basically, I consider homosexual behavior in non-human animals to be distinct from what we think of when we think about homosexuality, but at the same time there’s enough examples to say that homosexuality is pretty damn natural. 😉

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Huh, I was just thinking about why I don’t like the “but I was born this way!” argument. I mean, if it is genetic, hey, no complaints! But if it isn’t and we use that to argue why GLBT people should have equal rights? It can all fall apart, which is, obviously, a Bad Thing. And this is why I’m of the “whether it’s genetic or not, we’re people and everyone deserves the same rights” /tangent

As for animals being trans*, obviously it’s impossible to go ask other species, and idk that species that undergo gender changes as routine really count! but a fair number of fish species change genders depending on various environmental cues or as they age. It’s something genetically programmed for the whole species though, so idk how comparable it is. (Otoh, everyone is genetically programmed with the possibility, environmental cues sometimes make it happen? Maybe it isn’t so different)

I know fish stuff, surprising, I know!

Leum
Leum
7 years ago

Didn’t the medieval church believe that women had no souls?

If memory serves, someone made that argument in a theological setting to satirize someone else’s argument. A third person took the argument seriously and successfully argued against it, likely on the grounds of “wut?”

SittieKitty
7 years ago

I was just thinking about why I don’t like the “but I was born this way!” argument.

I don’t like it because it shouldn’t matter one way or another. There’s nothing wrong with homosexual relationships and whether a person is born that way or chooses to act in that way doesn’t make any difference as to whether or not homosexual relationships are totally normal and fine.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Yeah, exactly. And hinging that on genetics is a risky proposition if it turns out not to be genetic.

myeyestheyburn
myeyestheyburn
7 years ago

Nynaeve, your baby boy is beautiful. I was sitting in the lounge with friends when I opened the link and we were reduced to a huddling collective of “aaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwww”. Absolutely adorable :3

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

Regarding trans and animals – I have a hard time believing that any other species except perhaps really advanced ones like chimps could be trans. The reason? Being trans has to do with your identity, the way you think about yourself. I can’t see how it’s possible to be trans unless you’re self-aware in a pretty complex way. (This obviously means that we shouldn’t say that animals are cis either – rather that the whole trans/cis thing doesn’t apply.)
Even if we find another species where sometimes, say, individuals with vaginas to display a typically male behaviour, that’s not enough to label them trans. In humans, the definition of trans isn’t “person with vagina who does manly things” or the other way around, so it seems weird to use that as a definition for other species. The same thing goes for fish that first has one set of genitals and then another one – the definition of trans in humans isn’t “first has one set of genitals and then another”, so why would that be the definition for fish?

I think it makes more sense to argue that animals can be homo/hetero/bi depending on what sex they display sexual attraction/pair bonding behaviour toward. But being either cis or trans would require the ability to think about zirself and have an idea of who zie is which I think is beyond most species.

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

Also; I’m with everyone else on the “born this way” being a problematic argument anyway for reasons already stated. If it turns out that being HBT is caused by the environment or the result of some (perhaps subconscious) choice, heck, even if it turns out that there is some way to cure people, that shouldn’t matter.

Fi
Fi
7 years ago

Serious baby is seriously adorable. I just wanna smooch that fuzzy head.

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

In medieval England, it was not uncommon for aristocrat children aged 12 or less to be married (to each other or to adults) as dynastic alliances. BUT there would be no sex or children until the child themselves had reached a decent age.

THere was a total scandal when Margaret Beaufort was married at the age of 12, not because of the marriage but because her adult husband bedded her and got her pregnant. She gave birth to Henry Tudor (Henry VII) when she was only 13 and everyone assumed both she & the baby would die.

So while society deemed it acceptable to marry that young, they did not deem it acceptable for adult men to abuse their child brides.

/mythbusters

kittehserf
7 years ago

titianblue – yes, I was thinking of Margaret Beaufort before, and what a rarity her situation was (slimy bloody Tudors, bah humbug).

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

*Waves white rose at Kittehserf*

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

I checked Wikipedia on Margareta of Denmark whom I mentioned above. So she was married to the 23-year-old king of Norway when she was ten years old, but continued to live with her parents until she was thirteen, at which point she moved to Norway, and “was raised by Märta Ulfsdotter” – indicating that nobody thought she was an adult at thirteen. Wikipedia then jumps to the point where she’s seventeen and had a baby, which indicates that at some point earlier she had begun to live “like man and wife” with the king.

I guess, based on what Titianblue wrote as well, that something like this procedure was standard when a king, duke or the like married a child?

Wikipedia also says that she “early” (whatever that means) became her husbands valued adviser in political affairs, indicating that medieval king Håkan Magnusson had less patriarchal views on women than current-day MRA:s.

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

I think it was common to use children to build alliances like this and common enough that there were established patterns of how the child was raised etc. No decent parent is going to marry their child-daughter to a king, duke, etc, without ensuring that she was going to safe.

And even if the parent was utterly selfish,from a purely political point of view, they wanted her to stay alive and produce heirs to cement the alliance.

Poor Margaret Beaufort was an orphan ward of state with no one who cared enough about her (rather than her lands & money) to protect her from her husband.

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

So yes, “cockblocking parents” were there, too.

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

@Titianblue! *lol* for the cockblocking parents.

And who knows, maybe most men who had a child bride in medieval times wasn’t even that interested in banging her until she was a bit older?

freemage
7 years ago

So I went to the Wikipedia article on the subject, and hit some interesting tidbits above and beyond the general picture (which matches what folks have been saying here–you had politically arranged marriages as young as 2 or 3, but the actual thing we think of as marriage was delayed until adolescence).

One bit I found highly intriguing is the notion that for a time, the Catholic Church was a supporter of elopement:

In the 12th century, the Catholic Church drastically changed legal standards for marital consent by allowing daughters over 12 and sons over 14 to marry without their parents’ approval, even if their marriage was made clandestinely.[4] Parish studies have confirmed that late medieval women did sometimes marry against their parents’ approval.[5] The Catholic Church’s policy of considering clandestine marriages and marriages made without parental consent to be valid was controversial, and in the 16th century both the French monarchy and the Lutheran church sought to end these practices, with limited success.[6]

Katelisa
Katelisa
7 years ago

Also, Lucrezia Borgia was married to Giovanni Sforza at the age of thirteen, but the marriage wasn’t consummated until she was about a year older, something that was even stipulated in the wedding contract.

Oh, also, in contrast to Margaret Beaufort, Elizabeth Woodville was a 27-year-old mother of two when she married Edward IV, (who was 22), a marriage that stemmed from love/lust rather than politics. So, suck on that piece of history, numbnut PUA creeps.

sparky52881
sparky52881
7 years ago

This is a little late, but earlier up the thread the idea of a blog on how to avoid manipulative jerks/PUA and sex ed was mentioned; I think this is a great idea, even with sites like Scarlateen (which is an awesome site, BTW) are out there, it seems like there is so much disinformation out there too that the more people there are repeating the truth, the better. And, like CassandraSays said, there just doesn’t seem to be a lot of oppurtinities/platforms for older women to be able to mentor younger women about the techniques and manipulation and shaming and all around bad stuff that these MRAs and PUAs are advocating.

(OT, there now seems to be a string of numbers after my name; I’m the one who’s posted here before as “sparky;” I signed up for Gravatar so I can have a cool picture like everyone else. 🙂 ).