Medieval Arranged Marriages

>>2106510

tfw no arranged marriage

File: IMG_0112.jpg (70KB, 620x480px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 620x480px

>>2106518
Pretty sure we all know that feel.

>>2106565
The beta uprising is soon, brother.

File: IMG_0113.jpg (142KB, 1011x1304px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1011x1304px

>>2106510
Prime teen pussy at any age.

>>2106774
You're a treasure to this board, and should be protected

>>2106510
>Were medieval arranged marriages unhappy unions?

Arranged marriages tend to be much more successful than marriages for love.
>Did they share a bed?

Of course.
>How prevalent was cucking?

No more so than it is today (around 10%)
>Are there any actual examples of the wife baring another man's child and not being beheaded?

If it was known to be another man's child he would likely divorce her, but beheading? Yeah, no. /Maybe/ if the cuckee is a king, but adultery is not a capital crime outside the Muslamic world. Also, arranged marriages were always rare in Europe, and pretty much exclusive to the nobility and the wealthiest merchant families.

>>2106942

Lower class marriages were rarely out of love either and were usually for land transfers, getting rid of daughters, husbands collecting dowries.

>>2107045

No this is not true at all.

>>2106774
do you make these T*rkified meme-images yourself? Do you have a really big folder full of them?

>>2107048

Nice counter argument.

>>2107098

I presented exactly the same evidence you did.

>>2107045
>>2107048
>>2107098
>>2107101

/his/ in a nutshell

>>2107045
>lower class people being allowed to have land

>>2107132

Not that retard but in England at least it was the norm for freemen to own a tiny patch of land.

yeah poor people married their farms more than their children

marrying for love is retarded and builds the fantasy that women do not love to sleep around

File: IMG_0089.png (248KB, 1132x1000px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1132x1000px

>>2106942
Define successful.

>>2107138
But is still worth marrying then if your woman is still going whore around?

File: IMG_0114.jpg (53KB, 300x452px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 300x452px

>>2106510
The golden age before the rise of the homosexual and its ilk.

>>2106510
>How prevalent was cucking?

Very
Havent you watchen Braveheart?

>>2108405
The scene I think you are referring too actually made me pretty mad.

>>2108409
But I'm not talking about the Primae Noctis scene
I'm talking about the English queen cucked the king with some Scottish rebel

>>2106510
>Are there any actual examples of the wife baring another man's child and not being beheaded?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_of_Brabant,_Duchess_of_Bavaria

>>2108494
>>2108494
Shit, I misread the question

>>2108494
Looks like she got what she deserved.

Women were raised to be good people not spoiled entitled whores, so they behaved like civilized human beings and didn't cause problems.

>>2108494
Why do they chose to whore around with other nobles? That is just asking to be discovered. Might as well go for some lowborn nobody.

File: HowardCatherine02.jpg (17KB, 205x255px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 205x255px

>>2108521

Pic related.

See also: the wife of Bath

>>2108535
But she got her just reward..

>>2108521
>Women were raised to be good people not spoiled entitled whores, so they behaved like civilized human beings and didn't cause problems.

I love how retards can manage to delude themselves to this extent and make such a massive generalization.

Sorry anon, there's always been sluts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_Nesle_Affair

>>2107804
He means a long marriage filled with misery, abuse and tragedy.
But it lasts long so it's successful.

>>2108670
Blessed with many children.

>>2108643
Besides women being sluts, most affairs in the medieval era almost certainly resulted from being pressured by other men, just like in my NTR comics (it's no coincidence either, the Japanese attitudes towards shame and authority have a lot in common with medieval European attitudes.)
Most men probably got cucked by some local noble, clergyman etc, and occasionally by their own family or stepfamily.

File: 1471521996240.jpg (79KB, 398x724px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 398x724px

>>2108521
Go watch Lysistrata you uneducated swine.

>>2108705
>stepfamily
*family-in-law rather

>>2107804
>>2108670
no, he means a place where daddy scores him the qt of his dreams and she can never ever get away from him no matter how badly he mistreats or neglects her.

File: 6a00d8341c562c53ef01b8d1a29ea6970c.jpg (32KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 512x512px

>>2106518

>>2108385
The Golden age, where nobles gathered for reasons, and homosexuality happened in the backline

>>2108521
Women being raised "to be good people" only happened in a small middleclass window before industrialization, and during.

File: IMG_0115.jpg (226KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 720x720px

>>2108643
But has there ever been a time in history, besides the present, where this behaviour went unpunishished and unrewarded?

File: IMG_0116.jpg (181KB, 674x880px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 674x880px

It gave everyone a chance at happiness.

>>2108670
>a long marriage filled with misery, abuse and tragedy.
That is any marriage, because that is life. If you're with somebody long enough, even if you aren't married, you're going to experience misery, abuse and tragedy. However, that isn't all there is to life.

Blaming marriage for misery, abuse and tragedy over the course of life is like blaming marriage for the opposite, because the opposite also exists.

Life is going to be life, whether you want to spend it by yourself or with somebody.

>>2108670
>>2108732
>>2109126
I think you guys are severely exaggerating the rates of abuse and misery in Marriages.

>>2109126
Hogwash, arranged marriages are awful.

>>2106510
his really does havee a cuck fetish

degenerate

>>2108643
>human behavior is exactly the same over hundreds of years and hundreds of different cultural shifts in attitude towards sexuality

Why are you even posting on a fucking history board?

>>2109430

But anon, it is. People are people. They had the same hormones and brain functions as we do. People wanted to fuck and they fucked like rabbits.

>>2109161
>cuck fetish
>bad
>>>/pol/

>>2109440
Would you say that, on average, 17 year old Amish have as much sex as 17 year old LA tumblristas? They must, because they have the same hormones and brain functions! Same with African tribes Saudi Arabian Muslim communities. We're all exactly the same!

>>2109453
>cuck fetish
>good
>>>/r9k/

>>2109440
But they didn't fuck like rabbits with anyone but their spouse. Society enforced it.

>>2109453
>implying /pol/ isn't the board with the biggest cuck fetish
/pol/ is like the anti-gay politician found pounding boipussy like there was no tomorrow. You can't talk that much about cuck fetish if you really don't like it.

>>2109473

Lol no. Medieval London had so many prostitutes and brothels it formed it's own red light district in Southwark

>>2109469

Probably. They just don't broadcast it on twitface for moral crusaders to get outraged about.

>>2109486
>there are prostitutes therefore all women who aren't prostitutes go around sleeping with everybody
? ? ?

>>2109486
Still isn't everyone's wives cucking their husbands like no tomorrow.

>>2109513

Why are there prostitutes if noone fucked around because society enforced it?

>>2109518

>he thinks dank maymays are real life

>>2109525
We're discussing women, specifically a claim that women were always as slutty as they are today.

>>2109532

And the men are exactly the same as they are today. Why would the women be different? Again, refer to the wife of Bath.

File: richelieurochelle.jpg (32KB, 428x393px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 428x393px

>>2108385
>gays not powerful during the Middle Ages
>>YFW you'll never have a loving Uncle and Prince of the Church to watch your back

They were one of Europe's dominant forces.

File: Inhuman.jpg (25KB, 177x188px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 177x188px

>>2109440
I'm getting tired of these historical revisionist trying to rewrite history so that women were all sluts, that there was was nothing controlling them, and that monogamy wasn't responsible for civilization and the domination over lesser peoples.

In fact, I am getting pretty tired of cucks being allowed to live.

>>2109544
About 15% of men in America say that have been with a prostitute. What do you think the percentage of men in Medieval England who visited, or even had access to and money for prostitutes was? I'd say pretty fucking low in comparison.

>>2109557

>I'm getting tired of the actual reality of history being told rather than my heroic Victorian fantasy

>>2109558

And yet there were so many that a red light district thrived for centuries.

>>2109567
>cities are wholly representative of humans at any given time

How high are you?

>>2109567
A whole red light district for 3-7 million people, you say?

>>2109575

>people who live in cities have a different biological make up to countryside folk

>>2109592
Biology isn't everything, you dumb motherfucker.

File: You.png (13KB, 418x359px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 418x359px

Why are you guys derailing off topic to prostitutes.

Were talking about married women, not whores selling their charms for cash.

>>2109592
How do you reconcile you belief that everybody on earth throughout all of history has exactly the same amount of sex when you are a virgin?

>honestly thinks the medieval and early modern people weren't fucking like it's going out of style
>calls other people dumb

Lel

Read the Wife of Bath segments of the Canterbury Tales. Hell, read the Canterbury Tales or The Decameron. Plenty of people fucking. Theres an entire sub plot to Gawain and the Green Knight involving a slut trying to jump our valiant heroes bones. I'm sure there will be plenty of accounts from coroners and court records if anyone bothered to look.

>>2109614

>hurrr you disagree so must be a vurgan!!!!!!

Excellent counter argument.

>>2109635
t. somebody who denies both evolution and the influence culture has on a society.

>>2109608

>implying that there were never any married whores

See also Mistress Quickly in Henry V.

>>2109625
>using Canterbury Tales as a historical source to apply hedonism to dozens of generations across an entire continent
>implying they don't exaggerate anyway
>in literature

Are you taking the piss?

>>2109654
>Mistress Quickly
>Fictional Character

>>2109625
>Fiction

>>2109656

>literature is just plucked from the heavens and is not shaped by the society in which it was written
>exaggerations are for no reason and certainly not to appeal to an audience who loves to read about fucking

>>2109635
man that triggered you

File: 1477196922630.png (901KB, 939x1195px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 939x1195px

>>2109625
>literally using a fairy tale to prove his point

>>2109663

See

>>2109671

>hurrr Shakespeare just made it all up and the plays are not reflections of the society in which he lived, nor are the characters drawn from people who actually existed, nor are their traits anything Shakespeare's audience would recognise.

I love watching all these idiot alt-right people get terrified of the women they feel entitled to having sexual ownership over will all join Chad’s harem if they are given the right to act even an iota more free than in Saudi Arabia. The fact is retards, that no woman wants to be wife no.8 in some obese 60 year old’s fuck harem. It is in fact easier for a guy in the western world to get his dick wet now than at any point in history. Ye Olde days you all pine for were in fact full of monopolized sexual access where the only way vast amounts of men could get laid was through prostitution or rape.

>>2109671
It can provide historical context, but shouldn't be used so specifically. And the reason could be to make for a better story.

File: 1451949867736.jpg (312KB, 1223x1570px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1223x1570px

>>2109683
YASSSSSS somebody who finally gets it! There's nothing wrong with settling down with a woman who had a little fun when she was younger as long as she loves you now. These misogynists need to get a life and get some pussy lmao!

File: 1475783771034.jpg (80KB, 640x539px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 640x539px

>>2106774
i missed u

>ywn be forcibly paired with an awkward girl who doesn't know you
>ywn be forced to take the bed with her on your wedding night
>ywn both find comfort and mutual understanding in each other's arms from the outlying pressures forced upon your young minds and all the stress that the system of feudal politics requires
>ywn grow to love each other by this domestic system that neither of you really want the responsibility of maintaining
>ywn die knowing she was the only one who loved and understood you

>>2109675

>The Canterbury Tales, Decameron, Gawain, etc, don't tell us anything about the medieval mind or the culture in which they were created

You're really saying this, on 4chan of all places?

>>2109683
>Ye Olde days you all pine for were in fact full of monopolized sexual access where the only way vast amounts of men could get laid was through prostitution or rape.
Lel no you cuck. Marriage was a thing thanks to the Church.

>>2109692

Why would adding in EXTRA sex make for a better story in a society of prides? Looking at what they chose to exaggerate is just as important what they left as normal.

>>2107101
im gonna use this quip from now on

File: NHSLS-lifetime-sex-partners.jpg (77KB, 683x324px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 683x324px

>>2109694
Those charts are maliciously, deliberately misleading and don't take averages into account.

Yes, girls with severe daddy issues fill the aching void in their souls with the wrong kind of attention and act like mega-sluts. That accounts for about 3% of women (almost the exact percentage of men who are kissless virgins), and a full 90% of the female population has had 10 or less partners
http://www.lehmiller.com/blog/2014/5/30/sex-question-friday-how-many-sexual-partners-have-most-people-had
You're just mad because he's so right

File: 1469805686259.png (8KB, 224x270px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 224x270px

>>2109704
If that's how we're going to do things, I refer you to R Kelly's 33 part hip hopera, Trapped In The Closet, for a perspective on sexuality in modern times.

Unless you're going to imply that he just plucked the story from the heavens or exaggerated for dramatic effect.

>>2109714
Because it's racy and exciting? Which would you rather listen to on the road? Same shit, different day? Or the kind of stuff they only do in the red light district? :^ )

>>2109725
>a full 90% of the female population has had 10 or less partners
That's cool. Also doesn't matter because your shot at having a successful marriage sinks dramatically in that range of sexual partners, hitting less than 50% after 2 partners. Talk about "deliberately misleading", huh?

>>2109728

Yes, why not?

>>2109747

Why would it be exciting when everyone is a uptight prude? Surely they'd think it was vile and disgusting?

>>2109748
>hitting less than 50% after 2 partners.
Yes, women who have experience won't sit there passively and let you mistreat/neglect them, they've been there before and they don't like it, and they will up and leave your undeserving ass more quickly than some stupid young girl who doesn't know any better.

Sorry that you find the mating game so difficult nowadays. Perhaps you'd like it better living in some Muslim shithole?

File: 1462273324043.png (71KB, 1695x1013px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1695x1013px

>>2109749
I feel pretty bad for you if this is what your love life looks like, dude.

>>2109758
>conveniently ignoring the fact that women with fewer partners are also happier and healthier
I have to assume you're trolling at this point. No more (You)s from me.

>>2109759

So are you suggesting that there is noone in real life with a complex love life? Looks tame compared to what /pol/ alleges the average modern womans sex life is like.

>>2107085
>really big folder
He has like 5 or 6 memes and a few pictures

>>2109755
Wow, it's almost like you could say that people were probably different from one another even way back then, and we can't be entirely sure which brush to paint entire cultures with!

File: d8a7d099a5ed6456afde16e3b55a5a3c.jpg (36KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x500px

>>2109764
>I have to assume you're trolling at this point. No more (You)s from me.
That's ok, I know it hurts that freedom is so popular. Must be so frustrating for you knowing that you played the game and were given a fair shot and still lost, and rather than suck up and deal with it, you pine for a rigged system where daddy buys you a wife and society forces her to attend to your every need no matter how little you actually did to deserve it.

>>2109767
I am suggesting that R Kelly used exaggeration for the humorously over exaggerated web of sexual infidelity TITC is known for, and wasn't trying to portray a realistic scenario in his hip hopera where midgets hide under the kitchen sink to avoid being caught cheating, and that it does not reflect society accurately.

>>2109781

Yes?

File: 1441573535663.jpg (643KB, 1519x1155px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 1519x1155px

>>2109683
>I love watching all these idiot alt-right people get terrified of the women they feel entitled to having sexual ownership over will all join Chad’s harem if they are given the right to act even an iota more free than in Saudi Arabia.

No. They join Jamal's harem.

>The fact is retards, that no woman wants to be wife no.8 in some obese 60 year old’s fuck harem.

But being slut no.15 in the harem of an Algerian or Nigerian drug dealer is fine.

>It is in fact easier for a guy in the western world to get his dick wet now than at any point in history.

Not anymore. Mass migration into the West has changed everything because most women prefer to enter relationships with more virile and and aggressive black and brown men.

>>2109787

And yet we know that cheating happens and people hide from angry husbands in real life. It's an exaggeration, not a complete fantasy.

>>2109785
>Don't mind me, I'm just cleaning my wife's bull's cock off with my mouth after he finished in her ass.

this whole thread is lmeow

>>2109818
>most women prefer to enter relationships with more virile and and aggressive black and brown men

So you're admitting you're a beta and can't compete?

>>2109818
Oh, what a surprise, you're completely wrong and pulling shit out of your ass!

https://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/

>>2109792
That's my point. What did you think it was?

Marriage used to be about alliances between families, clans or tribes, where two young members of the societal group would build a household and raise a family together.

In this context, there is no sense in marrying for "love". Love doesn't lasts, and in the end you will end up having to share a household with someone you don't love and don't share anything in common. It's much better to leave the decision of who to marry for your parents or elders who will make the better decision about with whom you will spend your whole life. It's too serious to be left with fickle passions.

That's it in the days when a couple was supposed to raise a family and build a household, and the authority of the father of the family was respected, of course. I see no reason at all to marry in 2016. The family doesn't serve a single purpose, not economically, not culturally, not socially and not politically (unless you're a Rothschild or something). And if you try to raise a family and exhibit your strenght as a patriarch, you are more likely than not to end up without your wife, your kids, your money and in jail.

Much better to just watch anime for love and fuck prostitutes for sex.

File: 1442663520125.jpg (82KB, 630x540px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 630x540px

>>2109836
Frankly, dating websites statistics is not the best source about this, because what women respond to in such websites is not what they actually seek sexualy.

Of course they won't respond for a Moroccan who asks if she wants "ficky ficky" on Okcupid, but if she mets him in a nightclub, and he charms her with his confidence, his wit, his violent domination of all around him, then she will have sex with him. And that's what is happening all around Europe.

>>2109843
This is the kind of shit that should be ban-worthy on /his/. Just regurgitating red pills you only hear on /pol/ to make yourself feel better about not contributing anything to society. Sad!

>>2109839

I don't recall having disagreed with that statement. Some medieval people were turbosluts. Some were prudes. It was never 100% of the population being one or the other.

>>2107804

They last longer and the couples report higher satisfaction and happiness.

>>2109152

You're wrong, they have better outcomes across the board by an order of magnitude.

I'd say this thread is circling the drain, but even the op was a misinformed /pol/-lite idiot, so it's only fair this thread becomes a /pol/ shithole

For anyone actually interested in approachable readings to learn more about historical marriage in the early modern period I would point to

Marriage and Violence: The Early Modern Legacy, by Frances E. Dolan

Giovanni and Lusanna
Love and Marriage in Renaissance Florence, by Gene Brucker

The Return of Martin Guerre, by Natalie Zemon Davis

Dolan gives a structural overview, and both Brucker and Davis deal with legal disputes. Davis giving a cross section of French peasant culture, and Brucker examining well to do artisans an merchants

>>2109886
No one wants to read communist propaganda.

File: ea22c10e6c27a12ad7510a8ae982ad5e8ab5a30b752942bf5b1f58acc604e5dc.jpg (60KB, 600x699px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x699px

>>2109898
>Books are communist propoganda

This is why you lost the first time

>>2106942
>but adultery is not a capital crime outside the Muslamic world
Pure fucking madness

>>2109920

Are you saying it's mad that we don't kill people for adultery, or that muslims DO, or that my claim is madness, ie, wrong?

>>2109898
You've never read a Marxist history? You're arbitrarily limiting yourself.
You can disagree with ideologies and conclusions, half of the point of reading history is to disagree with the historian.

Davis doesn't even work from a Marxist framework. She's a solid historian, a much better one than anyone on this board is

>>2109929
Marxists believe that the point of social science is not to understand the world, but to change it. It's pretty much an admission that all their history, sociology and anthropoly is propaganda designed to advance the political interests of the communist movement.

>>2109929

Have you ever read a nazi historian? Would you read a book by David Irving, or by FP Yockey, if I recommended one for you?

>>2109874
>They last longer and the couples report higher satisfaction and happiness.

No wonder the people behind Hollywood and the media destroyed it.

>>2109941
Are you so feeble minded you can't read something and form your own opinions? Would you like some ear plugs and blinders too?

>>2109942
Sure, if it was well researched, had credible citations, and was either relevant or interesting

File: There is no nice way of putting it.jpg (73KB, 500x389px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x389px

>>2109829
>projecting this hard

>>2109886
The thread was about medieval arranged marriages, their happiness, and whether there are any historical instances of wives cucking their husband.

Turns out there are no examples and the thread derailed with limp wristed cucks revising history to satisfy their degenerate fetish.

>>2109999
>Sure, if it was well researched, had credible citations, and was either relevant or interesting

So "no" then? Because I don't believe you would accept nazi historical methods OR the "credibility" of nazi citations.

Guess what? Normal people don;t accept marxist methods or citations as credible, either.

>>2109996

What are you talking about? Arranged marriage has never been common in the west,and it's still practised in India and the muslim world.

>>2110012

>who is Catherine Howard?

>>2110012
Implying the /pol/tards weren't the first ones out the door with their "muh degeneracy" rightwing-SJW virginal hugfest

>>2110026
> le big /pol/ boogey man

>>2110016
Except that's wrong
Marxist elements and the use of Marxist frameworks has a deal of representation in historical discourse. It is often inferior to revisionist histories, but it has its uses

I forgot that that /his/ definition of history rarely includes works by actual historians and exclusively supports whatever social or political view they're trying to reafirm

>>2110046
>Marxist elements and the use of Marxist frameworks has a deal of representation in historical discourse.

Proving what, exactly? That marxism won the clash of ideologies in ww2. If the nazis had won, THEY would be "represented in historical discourse". And, of course, there IS an historical discourse of the far right, one you are ignorant of and that is not taught at colleges but that has its thinkers, its publications, its journals and academics.

>actual historians

Marxist historians are NOT actual historians. They are ideologues pushing an ideology, they have no more credibility than nazi historians do.

>>2110040
>haha I'm not from /pol/, I'm this retarded on my own!"

>>2110056
So you're literally admitting that you just throw out the work of others because you don't like their ideas?

Like I said, I can't belive I forgot the goal of /his/ was to reaffirm worldview first, learn about history second

Natalie Zemon Davis is one of the most widely respected and awarded historians alive, but I'm sure you know better

>>2110078
>So you're literally admitting that you just throw out the work of others because you don't like their ideas?

No, I'm saying they have given up any right to be treated as free-thinking individuals by embracing a cult of the mind. I don't waste my time reading nazi historians or libertarian historians or creationist historians, why would I waste my time reading marxist ones? I can tell you without reading them exactly what their conclusions will be, and I can't trust them not to distort, misrepresent or outright fabricate the evidence to fit their narrative.

>>2106510
>Were medieval arranged marriages unhappy unions?
In general? Not specially, because people were conditioned to think of them as "natural" just like it is "natural" for us to marry for love.
>Did they share a bed?
Poor couples would sleep with their children, maybe even their own parents, and sometimes even farm animals for heat. Very cramped.
Nobles would sleep next to servants. Sleeping with their spouses wasn't the norm.
>How prevalent was cucking?
The rules of love and war haven't fundamentally changed.
>Are there any actual examples of the wife baring another man's child and not being beheaded?
Dude. Are you insane? Yeah, chinese concubines and women like so were held to some pretty strict standards but most men didn't kill the mother of their children or a realtive to their allies.

File: 1479178259181.jpg (41KB, 534x849px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 534x849px

>>2109924
>Are you saying it's mad that we don't kill people for adultery
Yes

>>2110088
Dang that's a good point

If only there was some system where historians have to point to the facts they're using. Maybe they could put it at the bottom of the page? Huh, and what about if there was a way you could find out what other professional historians think about the content, methodology, and conclusion of a historical work.

also
>being so absorbed in the society you live in and your own modes of thought that you forget it is just as based around ideals and principles as any other

>>2110133
>Nobles would sleep next to servants.
Sexual or non-sexual

>>2110143

I console myself with the knowledge that while I must share a world with """people""" like you, at least I can be certain you will never amount to anything and your """ideas""" will die with you.

>>2110012
>i believe i the fairy tails that every woman in the middle-age were pure maiden

>>2109836
OkCupid is not representative of the actual populace at all. Is White female and pacific Islander Male the most popular relationship in America?

>>2110155

Do you imagine that it is impossible to use facts to push an agenda? Nazi historians also cite facts. The problem is, they cite facts selectively, and sometimes the "facts" they cite are fraudulent. This is one reason why you simply can't trust nazi historians. However, this is not unique to nazis: ALL ideologues behave this way, because fundamentally they bare not interested in knowledge but in propagating their ideology.

And it is frankly comical for you, an advocate for a murderous anti-thought ideology, to accuse me of being partizan.

>>2109852
>HURR DURR ONLY MY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE COUNTS, NOT ACTUAL DATA

just stop and kill yourself

File: Trump.jpg (455KB, 4272x3204px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 4272x3204px

>>2110158
Bet you said the same about pic related.

>>2106510
>How prevalent was cucking?
Doubt there were that many black people in medieval Europe

>>2110163
Learn to read, you giant retard. Only you can help yourself.

>>2110157
It wouldn't be uncommon for noblemen to sleep with their female servants, but I was actually refering to how queens would share their beds with noblewomen (being a servant to royalty was prestigious even for high nobles) and noblewomen in general would share their beds with female staff. Nights at castles were very cold and high nobles couldn't be trusted to wipe their own asses so they'd have warm, atentive helpers by their side all night.

>>2110175
>People I don't like are untrustworthy because they believe in things
>But nope not me, nosiree, I don't have any biases at all

Lol your whole argument is that you can't be bothered to check sources

>>2110222

You're incapable of understanding because you're a mindless ideologue drone. I know it blows your tiny little mind, but Marxist historians are liar and frauds, they have exactly the same credibility as nazi historians and creationist historians.

>>2110222
no, his argument is that the reason nobody takes Nazi revisionists seriously is because of how shitty and artifact-plagued their methodologies whose conclusions melt away when subjected to even the most cursory scrutiny.

It's a valid one.

>>2110230
>mindless ideologue drone

Okay were on to the insults now

I have never advocated a Marxist position on anything, I think Communism is a failed system and shouldn't be implemented anywhere. But because I don't refuse to read Marxist works and shut myself off from a huge section of historiography I'm an ideologue.
I think Marxist frameworks lead to generally wrong conclusions and should be refuted, but you have to read something to refute it.
Because I suggest people read things and form their own opinions I'm the one who's mindless?

Your worldview is so fragile you can't even stand to possibly encounter anything that challenges it. It's one thing to read things and reject them out right, but you don't even bother to read them.
But I'm the drone lol

>>2110235
I agree. However, I believe that any shitty methodologies or conclusions should actually be examined and refuted

Anon is arguing we should just plug our ears and pretend like they don't exist.
How ever bad their methodologies and data leading to their conclusions they literally can't be as bad as Anon's methodology of refuting them

>>2110259

By advocating ideological historians you are yourself advocating for that ideology.

>Your worldview is so fragile you can't even stand to possibly encounter anything that challenges it.

Spoken like a True Believer. No, you dullard, I have explained at considerable length why I don't waste my time on ideologically motivated "histories". To summarise, it is because they are full of lies and distortions.

>But I'm the drone lol

Glad you accept it, comrade.

>>2110275
>By advocating ideological historians you are yourself advocating for that ideology.
No

>ideologically motivated "histories"
How do you tell what is and isn't ideologically motivated?
How do you tell when something is distorted, or when a historian is a liar without reading a single word?
How do you *literally* judge a book by its cover?
I'm all ears

>>2110293
>No

Yes. Learn what "advocate" means, you slow-witted clown.

>How do you tell what is and isn't ideologically motivated?

I research the historians. If they're overtly biased, I don't waste my time on their work. This isn't foolproof of course but it does save me a lot of wasted effort.

>How do you tell when something is distorted, or when a historian is a liar without reading a single word?

If they're an ideologue it goes without saying that they are worthless. This is true for ALL ideologues, no matter how hard they may try to be non-partisan, it's a product of what ideology is and how it shapes our thoughts.

>How do you *literally* judge a book by its cover?

I look for the part that displays the author's name.
>I'm all ears

If that were true, you wouldn't be such a cretin.

>>2110307
So which ideology am I a True Believer in? Which ideology have I become a drone of?
Because I have done nothing but advocate for a fair and balanced reading of all histories

It's one thing to judge a work by its creator rather than its content, but you don't even bother reading the content.
I can't believe that you accuse be of being close minded when the basis of your argument is that we shouldn't read certain types of things because they might infect our minds. And not only that, you don't think anyone should read them.
I have an idea, how about you round up all the works by people you disagree with and burn them in one big fire. That'd be great! Then no one could read anything poisoned by ideology.

Your ideas go against the entire concept of learning

>>2110336
>Because I have done nothing but advocate for a fair and balanced reading of all histories

But you haven't, tho. You recommenced marxist historians, you haven't mentioned any nazis or creationists.

>It's one thing to judge a work by its creator rather than its content, but you don't even bother reading the content.

Again, would you bother to read a nazi history? Or a creationist one? If not, why not? Is it because you know before you begin what conclusion they will reach, AND you know that they will present facts selectively and perhaps deceptively, making them useless even as a resource? If yes, then please list the last few nazi histories you've read, and how useful you found them.

File: IMG_6360.jpg (21KB, 304x252px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 304x252px

>>2109843
>much better to watch animu for love
my sides are in orbit around the sun
>this thread
too funny.

File: IMG_5960.jpg (163KB, 1126x1097px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1126x1097px

>>2106510
all these people ITT who have never had a relationship giving relationship advice
>cannot fabricate

>>2110359
>>2109999
Interestingly I don't know any Nazi historians who wrote about marriage in the Early Modern Period

Certainly none that are considered good or insightful like Davis's is, not to mention it isn't even a Marxist history but a social microhistory

Speaking of which, since you have repeatedly claim to have psychic powers and can tell claims before you read them, exactly what is Davis's claim? and how is it wrong?

>>2110382
>implying stormlards can read a book

None of those citations were from Marxists. You could learn that from a five second Google search, but that is too difficult for the average /pol/ user. Reading is too difficult for the average /pol/ user as long as it doesn't come dribbling down from one of their gods or a meme macro.

These people do not rely on sense. They rely on shouting really loudly and hoping people pay attention no matter how factual the words are.

File: 1475343949210.jpg (9KB, 159x199px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 159x199px

>>2109843
>Much better to just watch anime for love and fuck prostitutes for sex.

File: 1470872311433.gif (447KB, 245x175px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 245x175px

>>2109557
>I'm getting tired of these historical revisionist trying to rewrite history so that [...] monogamy wasn't responsible for civilization

>>2109874
>>2109885
They last longer because getting divorced in a culture that has arranged marriages can get you a face full of acid.
Studies on satisfaction and marital quality whatever the fuck show arranged marriages are shit.

>>2107804
Why must a picture like that exist? Why did it seem like a worthwhile investment of time for someone to actually draw that? We have to go back.

>>2110417

I don't know what studies you've been looking at, all the ones I can find show much higher levels of happiness for arranged marriages.

>>2110426
It's too late, much much too late.

Full steam ahead!

>>2110430
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3711098/

>>2110370
What are you talking about.

I thought we had a nazi argument going on.

>>2110430
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3743999/

>>2110414
Name me a non-monogamous civilization that went up against monogamy and won.

>inb4 Muslims
They were btfo back to the Stone Age where they still remain.

>>2109886
This goes beyond medieval and into the late renaissance , but Marriage Wars by Joanne Ferraro is a pretty interesting look into how arranged marriages and divorces worked in late renaissance Venice. It uses super extensive archival evidence to help its case

>>2108467
The Queen in question was two at the time
So unless William Wallace raped a two year old French Princess no cuckolding happened

>>2108521
I see you've never read the Decameron

>>2110462
Are you drunk? That has nothing to do with the statement that monogamy was responsible for civilization.

>>2110434
alri

>>2110462
>Name me a non-monogamous civilization that went up against monogamy and won.
Indonesia vs the Netherlands

>>2110550
One is a third world shithole.
The other is a first world nation.

I don't see your point.

>>2109699
I'm sad now thanks

>>2109699
This desu

>>2109725
>self reporting

into the trash, I doubt its accurate for either

File: XwN1clW.gif (4MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 300x225px

>>2109699
Jesus Christ you fucking NEETs with your qt3.14 fantasies. Like your odds of it being a happy marriage were any higher in shittier days when marriages were business propositions between neighboring clans and you had no choice if you were paired with a buck-toothed unibrow that grows into a bitter old hag and whose marriage you are unable to escape.

>Why couldn't I live in a society where daddy does all the work for me and I don't have to make any hard decisions for myself
It makes me fucking sick how much you hate freedom

>>2109902
I'd like to correct this image because Hitler literally conceded in 1945 that the Germanic race had failed and deserved to be destroyed in a cleansing defeat, or as he called it a "gotterdamerung". So there's really nothing hypocritical about it. Of course being the libcuck you are you'll probably ignore my post just like a poltard would because it contains an inconvenient truth that disrupts the memetic transmission of post modern history.

>>2110776
>limitless freedom is always good.

Humans need the yoke and the leash to do good.

>>2110776
>implying feminism wasnt merely the application of market principles to courtship

look at the wagecuck arguing it makes him happier

File: Boxer_of_quirinal_hands.jpg (3MB, 3456x2304px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3456x2304px

>>2110785
>If only I lived in a society where all the odds were totally rigged in my favor, then I'd finally get lucky!

>>2110789
>wagecuck
Spotted the basement dweller. I guess I should quit my job and ditch my girlfriend and move back into my parent's basement and spend my days getting into heated debates in waifu threads because I'm living the life of an unemployed kissless virginal NEET. But if I did that whose taxes would pay for your disability checks that lets you sit around all day doing the same thing, fantasizing about your medieval waifu who is totally perfect in every way and you didn't even have to make the smallest of efforts to bag her?

>>2110842
Did something they said rustle your jimmies?

And why are you putting you """gf"""'s pussy on such a high pedadstal; orbiting your life around her, supporting her in hope of getting access to her wrecked roastie?

File: image6.jpg (180KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 640x512px

>>2110879
>Did something they said rustle your jimmies?
No, I'm just amusing myself at this point. It's like they're so pathetic that it's actually fascinating.

>And why are you putting you """gf"""'s pussy on such a high pedadstal;
I'm literally doing the exact opposite.

It's just sex. Kissless virginals have a difficult time comprehending how mundane an urge it is, and how once you reach mature adulthood, people settle the fuck down and stop stressing themselves out over high school bullshit like who slept with who. You're both mature enough to know what you want and what's expected of you in a committed relationship.

>in hope of getting access to her wrecked roastie?
That just tells me that your one of them, because you obviously have no idea how a woman's vagina works, how it doesn't "wear out" if she has lots of sex, how it naturally returns to its original tight position in time for tomorrow night's screw. One day you'll get a girlfriend and understand. Or you'll give up and solicit a prostitute and realize that even the snatch of a woman whose had hundreds of partners is still tight af, which will be a small consolation to you in your moment of pussified surrender

>>2110430
Problem is that when you only you know ONE entire way of being (your societal paradigm), and in particular you come from a culture that strongly regards family honour and cohesion, and that has arranged marriages, well... what else should poll subjects say?

I'm sure there were happy content slaves here and there, or happy and content American voters who are total tools successfully convinced to work against their interests.

Just ask upper or middle-class Indians, for example, who are exposed to western ideas. Many dis-prefer arranged marriages. They will let their parents go through the trappings of traditional arranged marriage procedures, but for someone they have basically ALREADY themselves chosen. Of course, that's when there is already mutual interest between a pair. Some arranged marriage systems are basically just parent-led dating. Depends how strict individuals involved are. As women are basically baby-making cooks, cleaners and fucktoys that gets a dowry, for less educated and poorer families,

>>2110603
"First world" and "third world" don't mean what you think they mean, genius.

>>2108663
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_Nesle_Affair
super kek

>>2110783
>Hitler said it, so it have mystical truth!!
Götterdämmerung was a term popularized by Wagner, who Hitler was a fanboy of. All it means is a twilight of the gods. Real useful.

>>2109150
No, the TV and movies i've seen told me that all marriages prior to the 2000s were hellish and nothing but abuse and repression

>>2108521
/r9k/ is leaking again

>>2111720
Isn't non-arranged marriage the only ways some people know and thus reflect in polls as well?

>>2109469
Amish girls are total sluts, bro. They sneak out and get plastered the hardest.

>>2109758
>they don't divorce so they must be abused
If not being able to take 5 cocks at once is abuse then sure. It's far more likely that people with fewer sexual partners have lower sexual standards and desires and focus on benign extrasexual aspects of a relationship.

>>2109818
do you really believe this? there are horny girls everywhere who are into all sort of disgusting men. You have more a chance now than you ever will.

>>2109852

Except it doesn't. Nightclubs throw Arabs out all the time for not being able to handle their liquor and generally being a bunch of loud mouthed assholes.

>>2107804
where does he keep the spaghetti?

>>2109755
>why would something you're not usually exposed to excite you

...

>>2112061
>5 cocks at once
man, you need to stop watching so much porn and get a real girlfriend

>>2106510
Gonna read a book you lazy fuck.

>>2114875
Let me know what you learn.

>>2114309

So you're saying that watching gay rape happening in front of you, would excite you?

>>2111803
Are you retarded? I'm not even him but go listen to gotterdammerung then read the wikipedia article on it.

>>2110426
Called being an absolute badass.