Arranged marriages were just a society wide buddy system that

arranged marriages were only common among rich families. Commoners had 0 reason to arrange marriages.

>>3051474
>at least one of two of the paired together has no say in the matter
>free

>>3051482
Couldn't be more wrong.

>>3051474
Both options are fucking shit. The only right choice is family values, a return to the nuclear family. You being forced to marry someone you barely know is what caused libertine Kings to seek out whores, and women that could've been pure Queens to become whores. It was pretty fucking bad and why aristocracy was shit.

>>3051687
Still exists in Eastern Europe and was promoted as a value in the USSR. Kys aristocrat-supporting degenerate. You probably fucking love the Sun King's court of decadence.

>>3051474
The problem with modern relationships is that people have a twisted view of what a marriage is good for and many people are not very smart in choosing partners.

It is not because a girl is attractive that it is a good idea to marry her. Yet, many people think that the most important part on marriage is attraction. Marriage would work best if people used their rationality more and their instincts less. But then, we are bombarded with 24 hours a day messages from Hollywood on how you should always choose your feelings, so I doubt many people will think hard about this.

>>3051710
Extended family living is better.

>>3051749
>>3051750
Sorry, I more of conflate extended family and nuclear family into a whole thing with family values because of how many times the Americanist term is used. Anyway, you get the idea, be it the US version or the EE version, its about keeping to a family unit rather than being rampant degenerates having a time of being 'young, wild and free!'.

>>3051687
>>3051749
I'm not him, but I believe when he mentions nuclear family, he is saying "biological parents living together with their kids", instead of the "step-parent carousel".

>>3051772
Yeah, see >>3051763

In general I mean, arranged marriages are equally as bad as degenerate behaviour you see today because it doesn't support family as a unit of love, culture and tradition, but rather as a form of business. Lots of wealthy people still go for arranged marriages these days, its just that they have better PR about it now.

>>3051802
Not saying they weren't, but there was still an actual measure of attraction. You got to at least know the girl. Feudalism was pretty fucking horrible overall and those that glorify it have watched too much GoT.

The best period in history for society, culture and progress was arguably all of 19th century to up to the first World War.

>>3051789
It depends on how the parents choose who their kids will marry.

There is a difference between:

- This guy is hard working, religious, kind, treats everyone well. I'm marrying my daughter to him.

and

- This guy has kids with 2 different women. He is alcoholic and he is famous for his pub fights. But his father is a potential political ally. I'm marrying my daughter to him.

>>3051819
[citation needed]

>>3051822
>- This guy has kids with 2 different women. He is alcoholic and he is famous for his pub fights. But his father is a potential political ally. I'm marrying my daughter to him.

Yes, that's my meaning. Selling off your children like livestock is equally degenerate as them selling themselves off as livestock and calling it sexual liberation.

>>3051838
>posting a renovated farm
>claiming feudalism was comfy

if you love being a cuck to your local landlord who fucks your wife before marriage then i guess its a pretty great time

>>3051838
>Eastern European Feudalism.
Even fucking worse.

>>3051819
But its pop pseudo-history like GoT that reinforces the fallacious idea that feudal society was crap. It was actually pretty good.

>>3052703
chill with the ad-hom and use an actual argument, please.

>>3051838
You wouldn't be living in a house like that as a serf. You wouldn't own anything besides your wife, your children, your clothes and a portion of the crops you worked for, because your lord would own the land, a tenth of all crops within, utilities such as the mill you use to make flour, and you are bound to his land, as your children may be. Your house would be a shack or a mudhut. You'd share a (straw) bed with your entire family and next to filthy animals because you'd depend on animal heat to not freeze to death in the coldest nights. You'd almost certainly experience the death of one of your children. Giving birth is often fatal. Disease is rampant. As are raids, and violent death in general.

>>3052815

Well to be fair, peasants back then had more holidays than us and got free wine on Sundays.

But social mobility was rather fucked if you weren't born a noble.

Also you are wrong about the war thing. I mean the English were literally war criminals during the 100 years war and murdered peasants just to wreck the French economy.

But if you were a rich Jew money lender and the local lord hadn't expelled you, then well life wasn't that bad.

>>3051474
Sex is not a human right.

File: russian-peasants-in-a-hut-kamchatka-eastern-imperial-russia-1850-g1ctex.jpg (72KB, 640x428px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x428px

>>3052858

>Rich western peasant got nothing on Slav peasant

>Oh and this was drawing from 1850

>>3051474
Arranged marriages were to secure alliances or fathers to make money selling of their daughter.

>>3052876

Also, people back then just fucked around anyways.

Plenty of gay rulers had kids through their politically arranged marriages, but kept fucking men in the ass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_royalty

>>3052880

Whut? Do Russian images of actual Russian serf homes trigger you or something?

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

File: 1477504315009.jpg (32KB, 256x123px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 256x123px

>>3052880

Are you willfully ignorant?

Do you know what "Chevaunche" tactics are? It was a thing back then.

Also....

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

>>3052902
Anything is fine with men its women who ruin everything.

>>3052938

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

File: russian_peasants.jpg (54KB, 432x310px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 432x310px

>>3052925

Are you really arguing that Russian serfs had a comfy life?

I mean invading Germans in WW2 would burn these Russian farm houses down for warmth because they'd rather stand out in the winter than sleep in lice and bed bug infested hovels.

>>3052850
-social mobility is a meme tho
-war in general is incredibly crap for the people whom it affects, that's not unique to any societal system
-life was pretty nice if you had a liege who wasn't utterly autistic, because everything was defined, your life meant something, you didn't need to achieve more, and you had a more-or-less guaranteed q.t. peasant wife.

>>3052954

More percentage of the population died in 1348 than both the World Wars combined.

And it literally was the result of poor hygiene and fear of cats.

The Jews... Who took baths didn't die of the plague as much.

Look. Feudalism was cool. I enjoy a good crusade, but don't kid yourself that you'd be more happy as a peasant back then then now.

I mean if I was a crusader or merchant that well things would be decent as long as I could take baths.

If I had a choice, I'd rather be a money lending Jew than a peasant.

>>3052954

You still didn't address the whataboutism that you seem to have a problem with.

Don't worry people with mental autismhave a problem with it. I recommend a fidget spinner

>>3052977
I think he's arguing for the ideal of feudalism, aka having with the most modern knowledge and technology, not for feudalism of medieval times.
Let us be honest with ourselves here, all lower class people from time immemorial until the late 1800s (and even afterwards) have had it crap. The question is just the specific ways in which it was crap.

>>3052971

Um. Chances are you settled for whatever peasant wife that was available since no one in the village had gone more than 5 miles away from the village in their life.

Luckily you got one with teeth and not too much hair and you weren't that related.

Maybe she'll help pick the lice out of your pube beard.

File: King_Henry_V_from_NPG.jpg (2MB, 2400x3352px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x3352px

>>3052987

Nah desu. I pointed out the medieval tactic of "Chevaunche" which was the practice of avoiding places with walls and pillaging the country side.

Oh and buy pillage you stole everything you could carry to feed your army and then destroyed the rest to deny it to the enemy.

Henry was a war criminal.

>>3052991
>disregarding all of the main points for the side joke
>then ad homeniming like a champ

Git.

File: autist.png (34KB, 322x282px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 322x282px

>>3053003

>Muh arguments don't hold up! Better attack his spacing!

File: peasant.png (338KB, 778x658px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 778x658px

>>3053010

Its hard to not to ad homimen when person doesn't have the reading comprehension to realize I was talking about peasants not him.

Unless he believes he is a real medieval peasant.

>I am a transpeasant!

>>3052902
That just says to me aristocracy were degenerates that needed to go.

>>3053012

True. Japanese had a good feudal system too.

Of course, again... Sucked to be a Japanese peasant.

But I'd rather be a nip peasant than a euro peasant.

At least they knew how to take baths.

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

File: 1499200810973.jpg (46KB, 500x703px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x703px

>>3051474
In another time girl on the right could have been arranged marriaged to me if we were in the same villlage. It's not fair.

>>3053039
Meant to say girl on the left.

>>3053041
Oh I know. Hardly ALL aristocrats were decadent degenerates, however its a very good argument why monarchy isn't as infallible as it claims to be. If I had to pick a monarch, I'd much rather one like Napoleon.

>>3051482
Ehhhhhh family pressure was a huge part of Western marriage rituals until this century even for lower class people

>>3052971
>your life meant something
Plain delusion

>you didn't need to achieve more
Becuase it was nigh impossible in one generation.

>and you had a more-or-less guaranteed q.t. peasant wife.
Nice delusion, hard working women are anything but qt. Not to mention if she was qt, she'll marry upwards. You'll be left with the kind of woman you'll reject IRL.

>>3051482
wrong, arrange marriages were common among all levels of families. To tie bonds together, friendship, create more economic incentives, etc.

>>3053082
you're being baited. the guy literally wants to be a peasant.

>>3053082
>delusion
Meaning in life is a very powerful force, and one that can and will create great content/drive in one's soul. Also, church helps

>achieve more
No, because all that you truly need to be fulfilled (see above) such as house, family, food, work is already in front of you. In addition, society isn't blaring messages of consumerism and greed in your face all day erry day

>qt wife
Well, you're just off course here. If we recognize that the fit body is more attractive, then we can recognize that the average peasant woman (ignoring disease and malnutrition) is better looking than the average no-physical labor modern woman.

>>3053039

So your parents seriously never tried to set you up with the daughter of one of your friends? Arranged marriages still exist in the states, you're just allowed to say no.

>>3051482
That is not true. Nonetheless I don't agree with OP
>>3051474
Marriage in the past wasn't about love, or really fucking it was about having kids, Either to help out on the farm, the family business/trade, gain more land/wealth or to gain political advantage.
I will emphasize on legitimate children too.
Basically, people married because that's just what you did to survived. You needed a husband to help provide for you(women couldn't work much outside the home anyway) or a wife to help you out. More importantly make kids together to have more help
It wasn't about loving the person at all, it was all practical, like society was some type of machine.
If you want to go back to that, we'll be my guess. Ask you parents to arrange your marriage to an Indian or something.

>>3051772
>>3051789
>>3051749
The nuclear family was a break away from the traditonal extended family you freaking idiots. It was literally a meet to support American proto individualism . Forget your cousins, grandparents (they should all be in a nursing home anyway) uncles, and aunts. Let's live alone as an isolated "father mother daughter son house hold" that's not how families worked for the longest time.

>>3053194
Also forgot to add, while arranged marriages do tend to last longer than non arranged, most of it is due to guilt tripping, not actual new find love. The parents invest so much into the marriage, that the children feel pressured to make the marriage work at all costs, even if they are unhappy.
Of course, not all arranged marriages are bad, it's just difficult to seriously say it is better.

>>3051482
>this is the ""'""knowledge""""" of the average /his/ poster

>>3053102
>Warm environment
Kek During summer I guess. During winter, you'd be pushing all your pig into your house to keep you and your family from freezing to death.

>>3053136
Yes, because in the past, there was a magical cure for acne for everyone and tartar build up on teeth.
Enjoy your wife unkept hair and smelly rump which she could only bath a few times a month.

>>3053290
Instead of having the Jew fit into the oven, you can now have them just crawl on top of it instead!

>>3053290
>Every peasant had a huge oven.
>Not just a time fire place
Sure thing, anon.

>>3053271
It means warm as in loving you autist

>>3053327
Maybe in 19th century Russia.
I'm talking about most of Europe in medieval period.

>>3053317
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearth

>>3053383
Yeah, and love sure ain't gonna stop you from freezing your ass off in the winter though

File: 279e58749ff0dbf1cf5cbcb92c61a7a6.jpg (81KB, 800x770px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x770px

lmao current year redditucks getting BTFO itt

>>3051474
Not gonna lie- I'd be willing to watch them consummate an arranged gay marriage.

>>3052991
go away plebbit

>>3051484
>implying the man had a say in the matter when the family decided for both the man and the woman

>>3053395
And roads are older than carriages, meanwhile many "roads", in the middle ages were under developed.

>>3053069

This

>>3053449
Yes, because a tiny fire place can make an entire house warm.
It's like you skipped over a sentence or two.

>>3053603
You're braindead if the fact that most peasants couldn't afford a giant stove, means it's a novelty.Thats like saying because a lot of peasants couldn't afford a horse it was a novelty. No bro, it was just expensive to build and keep up.

>>3053617
No shit. And materials? And keeping it up.

>>3053136
>Meaning in life is a very powerful force, and one that can and will create great content/drive in one's soul. Also, church helps
Without noble blood, you are nobody

>No, because all that you truly need to be fulfilled (see above) such as house, family, food, work is already in front of you
Well, if you can be happy as a powerless man on bottom of society as long as your basic wishes are fulfilled, then you are different kind of man than I am.

> that the average peasant woman is better looking than the average no-physical labor modern woman.
Lad, are you city-dwelling American or something? You are reachin Chris McCandless levels of idealisation.

>>3053069
Which is why I said... Bonaparte over Bourbon any fucking day. Also reminder that most of the British, German and Romanov-era Russian courts were equally as decadent.

> Why do socialists want to clothe and feed everyone but so vehemently defend the sexual free market?
whoa...wtf
I'm a socialist now!

>>3051687
unironically this. and i'm american myself. nuclear family is one hearbeat away from atomization

>>3051710
>nuclear family
>Eastern Europe
Ofcourse it's nuclear as in a radioactive pile of garbage. You've got parents who fuck off to Spain to pick berries or Italy to wipe old people's butts. The children live with their grandmother as any sane eastern european male dies at 45-55 of alcohol poisoning. Very nuclear indeed.
>Pro-USSR opinions
That's how we can tell you're a sheltered teen in a shithole average town east of Warsaw.

>>3054031
YEAH LETS BE YOUNG WILD AND FREE

FUCK RESPONSIBILITY THATS FASCISM

Off yourself.

>>3054046
I just said there's no nuclear family in EE the fuck does your reply have to do with that? I'm not promoting degeneracy, but you shpuldn't be saying that in EE there's nuclear families. Only alcoholic deppressed post-USSR families. Off yourself for being a commie piece of nuclear waste.

>>3054031
>You've got parents who fuck off to Spain to pick berries or Italy to wipe old people's butts
You don't imply this happened before 1991 do you.

>>3054075
No because before 1991 nobody could even leave the country. If the country was so good, why did so many people revolt in the 90's? Pro tip: it wasn't capitalist propaganda, it was because socialism and communism are shit ideas and they lead to an unhappy hungry people.

>>3054083
All I'm saying is that people leaving the country to work shit jobs abroad is a consequence of capitalism restoration, not socialism. We know that people from poorer capitalist countries that have never experienced socialism go off to work in richer capitalist countries just like Moldovans and Romanians, and that goes on for generations and never stops. Polish people go work in France just as they did back in 1930s, Mexicans go to the US just like in 1940s, Algerians go to France today just like in 1950s. Inequality between countries is a feature of capitalist world economy, it's a bit silly to blame socialism and Communist ideology for that.

>>3054102
It's even sillier to say in eastern europe the nuclear family is the standard.

>>3054104
I'm not that person, but yeah it seems like very much a standard to me. Maybe in Romania social mores or the situation with housing is different, but here we generally have kids living with their parents and grandparents only occasionally coming to visit, three generations living under one roof is seen as abnormality.

File: 1413919990123-2.jpg (244KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1920x1080px

>>3051474
There are no real values in modern societies. People don't care about family, friendship, love and having stable relationships in general.

Extreme feminism enables women to monkey branch (continously changing partners, leaving the used up guy for a "better", more powerful one). Men want money to fuck women. We became animals, nothing more. This is a vicious cicle. No values - men care only for money to fuck women, women care only for power, so they fuck men after men for more power. Disgusting.

In a decadent society like this, culture, happiness, famiy and other values will die. I blame materialism and the lack of empathy. Most people are psychopats; who cares what others want? Who cares what others feel?

And here come the comfortable lies: maybe it's just you. Maybe you'll make it next time. Man up! Be a strong woman! It's not you, it's them. All men are pigs, all women are whores (so you can discard them anytime without remorse - they are not even people, after all).

I don't know if arranged marriages are the solutions or not. Maybe the MGTOW guys are right - but then we should accept the fact that mankind is a failure and humans can't be decent persons. While there were times I accepted their views and agreed that we need to regulate women somehow, I still want a family and I want my values. Anything less is acting like a mindless, soulless animal... and death. I want to be a human and live like a human. Even when society does the opposite.

>>3054109
I don't know what fairy tale land you live in but can I move there?

>>3054115
The land is called Russia, and we don't generally have many people going abroad to work (they prefer to come to us, from Moldova too) so that might be a factor.

>>3054118
Fucking russians you think you're hot shit when it's you who stole everything from your sattelite states. In 30 years Russia will only get worse with your dictator and your theocratic government. Tell me then, if russian nuclear (irradiated by Chernobyl) family is so great, why is Russia such a shithole that is going more backwards by the day?
Your whole country is mud except for moscow and even there it's still ugly. Get some taste and standards of living, nigger of Europe. Gib back the thesaurus you filthy thief, I pray for the day NATO kicks you back to the stone age, even though two thirds of your land are already there.

File: 1499006267949.jpg (117KB, 900x968px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 900x968px

>>3054113

you goys are worse off

>the culling
>>>/pol/132223589

File: 149900626794.jpg (131KB, 750x1164px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 750x1164px

>>3054113
>>3054154

gen x was the hitech future of the world, and yet they got genocided from there. A harbinger for the future lads.

every normie should get blackpilled on the gen x genocide

>>3054156
Gen X dying early is perfectly in line with generational trends that have existed since the colonial era and likely earlier. This guys book has a lot of very interesting information in it, though his predictions for the future are somewhat cringe inducing to read nowadays.

File: generationscover.jpg (48KB, 358x526px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 358x526px

>>3054171
forgot pic

>>3054130
Most of Eastern Europe, or the world, are poor like that or even poorer, and capitalism doesn't seem to do be able to do anything about it. There are only several countries like South Korea that ever managed to get out of this shit. The mainstream Western media claims that it's because of this or that reason like corruption or socialism, that distorts their perfect capitalist economy that will eventually get everyone out of poverty. In reality they no one actually knows what is that that has to be done to get a country out of poverty, but they go on with the pretence that they do only because the status quo favours them (that is, they don't actually want the world to be a less unequal place). What could be better than hiring a Romanian woman who will be happy to work for peanuts and pat yourself in the back for your love of diversity and other non-virtues, right? Elites and common folks in the developed world profit from the inequality, elites in poorer countries like Romania and Russia profit from it too, the only people who don't are people like you and I, but they don't actually want us to notice the real problem, so we're distracted by propaganda boogiemen: be it irradiated theocratic Russians, gay Europeans or aliens from Nibiru, doesn't matter, as long as it allows the common folk like us to vent our anger harmlessly. Don't fall for the meme. Whatever happens in Russia, it won't improve your own prospects by one bit.

>>3053194
When did the modern concept of love appeared? We know that by Shakespeare's time it was already a big thing (R&J), but there are also some medieval tales about romance and bravery.

Maybe romance back then was just a fantasy?

>>3052870
Yes because some 19th century random drawing of a hut in far eastern Russia represents eastern european medieval feudalism

File: culling.png (8KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 600x500px

>>3054171
>>3054174
>they aint outliving the previous gen

the trends from prehistoric era to the pre-industrial era are moot

all the modern advances have increased life expectancy for every generation before gen-x, the rest is downhill

read the thread
>>>/pol/132223589

>>3054130
Fuck off you Imperialistic cunt. I pray for the day when your shitty country is wiped out in its civil war over identity politics. Americunts are the worst thing to have ever happened to this world. Fuck your Pentagon-Wall Street deep state and fuck you Americunts for supporting and encouraging it like brainless drones.

>>3053038
Feudalism was shit for everyone not even the fucking aristocrats liked it otherwise they wouldn't have been so suicidal. People who are saying commoners don't have a reason to arrange marriages are fucking dumb. If I was a piss poor peasant I could arrange for my healthy attractive fertile daughter to marry the son of a rich merchant, that way our families would unite and would help each other out, my family would climb the social ladder and would benefit greatly from the merchant's help. If I let my daughter marry the tanner's son it would be a loss for my family, because the tanner doesn't have enough money to help me out so both our families would get stuck in the same class.

Love was a thing back then as it is now but there were plenty of smart peasants who saw marriage as a means of getting up in the world, not as a means to fulfill love. If your father is against you marrying some poor qt because he wants you to marry the inbred countess, he's doing it to get up in the world, and if you disagree with him because the countess is hideous he could just disinherit you.

That being said sons and daughters were just another resource to any man back then. If you had a debt to pay you could just betroth your daughter to the man who owed you money. If you were a good buddy of the lord you'd send your son to his service.

Now you can argue that arranged marriages might be good today to improve your social/economic/political standing but making them the norm is idiotic. Imagine you turn 18 and you have to spend the rest of your life with an ugly dumb woman that you share nothing in common with because she was picked for you, not by you. Pretty shit innit? Now you can pick the woman you want but most people are idiots and pick the bad one anyway which goes to show no matter how far we've come we're still constantly fucking it up.

>>3054176
trubadour love, and before that knightly love

gradually the sexual (and romantic) connotations we introduced to marriage, which was just an ecomomic union and a babymaking platform before that

>>3054237
100% agreed. With the end of arranged marriages came more traditional ones. It's why high-up politicians were way more moral in some cases, despite the meme, than monarchs. The Bourbons were a decadent mess, meanwhile Napoleon who was at his heart a soldier was a family man.

If you marry someone you actually love, and he/she loves you back, odds are you will create a stable family unit. If King X got to marry some peasant girl that respected and appreciated him, he'd have a much better life and rule better than if he was forced to marry some decadent noble slut.

Sure today you have degeneracy but its no better if you want to return to the aristocratic degeneracy where in an arranged marriage the man and the woman would have 5000000000000x lovers.

>>3051474
it wasn't as much "risk free sex all the time" because contraception didn't exist
men took their fucc, if a babby was made they just rolled with it i think, not like the wife could do anythin bout it

also probably why whores were more popular

>>3051749
desu this is frowned upon today, as living at home is seen as being unable to live an independent life

i understand that times are different and kids do mooch off parents longer, but if you live closer together and bring in income as well as maintain family ties and eventually take care of your parents and take their place in the family hierarchy, that's perfectly fine to me.

>>3053605
peasant houses were often just one main room where everyone slept. adults slept on beds, kids slept on the ground, in tables, on the furnace (if they had one). so one fire did tend to one room, and in a way, the house.

>>3053623
You show a picture of a giant masonry oven and then say it is an average cooking oven used by most peasants. You want me to agree that just cause you said it?
I didn't say they didn't have hearths or small stoves

>>3051710
Your virginity radiates through this post

>>3054319
Bringing in more things to warm the house could help throughout the harshest winters.
I thought they all slept in one bed? Kind of harsh to put the kids on the floor. I guess they slept together with a sheet.
Babies also didn't have cribs most of the so they probably slept with the parents, which was probably dangerous since that is risk factor for SIDS.
Anyway this threadas is being derailed, it was about arranged marriages, not peasant lives. Some idiot was just romantizing feudalism again.

File: extrapolating.png (21KB, 461x295px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 461x295px

>>3054184
Meh, alarmist charts like that tend to forget that cancer is inevitable as one ages, and the population is indeed aging, and then, well, pic related.

Everyone old enough to post on this board has tumors, it's just a matter of time before you develop one that is malignant and metastasizes. All that is required is that something else doesn't kill you first, and since that is increasingly unlikely, barring a cure, more and more people will die of cancer as time goes on and medical advancements for other causes of death improve.

>>3051711
Pretty much this.
Find a partner that is compatible with you personality and values wise, not just who is attractive. People also like to reach for marrying the MOST attractive people, big mistake since those tend to be the most shallow and self centered people.

>>3054340
>I don't support rampant hedonism and orgies so I must be a virgin

You have to be above 18 to post on 4chan.

>>3054359
Now THIS is being a virgin.

>>3054113
I don't think marriage will help put a "sou"l back into society. We will just be like India.
See>>3053219

>>3054352
except if you actually read the posts, life expectancy is decreasing and people are dropping like flies much younger now

>>3054374
Regular marriage and family values (not necessarily nuclear family you amerifucks) would, arranged marriage would not.

>>3054369
How am I a virgin for telling people to marry within their own personality?
What's a better people marrying people who are out of their leave attractive wise like they do today?
Are you sure I'm the virgin? Look if you want to have meaningless sex all the time until you find a girl/guy who seems the "sexiest" then decide to marry them then go ahead. I just don't think you will be better off for it. Nor would most people.
Why do you think people have to like having one night stands all the time before they have friends or aren't lonely virgins? It's like you are projecting or trying to mask you discontent with life so far with the facade that fucking sexy people all the time is what will bring you true happiness.
Btw, having the same values as a partner can mean anything, not just Christian values.

>>3054385
>>3054369
My bad.
What's better*
League*

>>3054385
not the guy, but i assume you've been called a virgin because "pretty people are bad people"

>>3054385
I'm against hedonism, I literally say it in my post. Pick-up culture, forced Hollywood bullshit, libertinism and the rest has destroyed society.

I'm saying you're being too simplistic about it. There is nothing saying an attractive girl or an attractive guy can't have good morals. A lot don't because of Hollywood culture, but there are still those that do. Thinking in terms of ebul Stacy/Chad vs Plain Jane/Joe is just too simplistic. See >>3054390

>>3054390
No!
Not all of them, I mean 10/10s usually.
If you want to prevent yourself from living an unhappy life, your best bet is to marry a person who is 7/10. They tend not to be full of themselves and actually care about others besides themselves unlike the former. Now not all very attractive people are terrible and I know a few but they are always taken, and very hard to find.
I'm talking about MEN AND WOMEN btw so don't call me a/ r9k/ fag or woman hater.
This conclusion has actually come from my observation of others and my own life experience so go ahead, call me a basement dwelling virgin again. It won help you in the long run if you just dismiss my advice.

>>3054399
I agree with you that you shouldn't get together solely based on looks, but what I'm also saying is that its not so simple as that. It depends on how you were raised, if your parents kept you away from Hollywood bullshit and so on.

>>3052870
Looks pretty good for Kamchatka desu

>>3054404
And my point is, since Hollywood glorifies the very attractive to excessive degrees and most parents suck at parenting to the point it is near impossible that children are not exposed to this. It makes your post seem more idealistic.
Most of them will grow up thinking they are all that and then some. Hell, there is a joke by this one comedian saying how "attractive people are actually the worse in bed because they believe themselves too beautiful to have to put in effort since you should be glad you'refucking then. Now this is an over exaggeration obviously, but it comes from the same idea." That less attractive people should be happy that they are deign to fuck them

>>3051749
this really

>>3054262
False.

>>3054494
what part

pls explain, i want to correct myself in future

>>3054376
your own chart says life expectancy is rising

File: diseasefrequency.jpg (119KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 700x525px

>>3054184
Wrong. Even though the average age is increasing, the chances of someone getting cancer is decreasing.

You believe in this conspiracy theory due to emotions and various logical fallacies, most notably the accusation that if someone disagrees they are conformist "sheeple". I am skeptical of the government, I am just also skeptical of you.

Apologise.

this >>3054237

>>3054546
>>3054528
>>3054352
>>3054184
it is 1 in 2 people. meaning 50% of the population
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/risk/lifetime-risk
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/study-says-nearly-1-in-2-canadians-to-develop-cancer-in-their-lifetime-1.3468455
http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-101/canadian-cancer-statistics-publication/?region=bc
Half of Kurdistan population could face risk of cancer in 3 years
half of the Iraqi population will face the risk of cancer in 2020,” he added.
http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/230620173

File: yeahimout.gif (2MB, 161x149px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 161x149px

>>3054606
This is because we can cure most diseases except cancer. It doesn't prove you are more likely to get cancer in a given year.

I can't put this argument any simpler. Are you going to address it logically or what?

>>3054636
except you are wrong.

you act like you are invincible to the cancer epidemic and ignore the facts.

>it is 1 in 2 people. meaning 50% of the population
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/risk/lifetime-risk

http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/study-says-nearly-1-in-2-canadians-to-develop-cancer-in-their-lifetime-1.3468455
http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-101/canadian-canceHalf of Kurdistan population could face risk of cancer in 3 years
half of the Iraqi population will face the risk of cancer in 2020,” he added.
http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/230620173r-statistics-publication/?region=bc

>Half of Kurdistan population could face risk of cancer in 3 years
>half of the Iraqi population will face the risk of cancer in 2020,” he added.
http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/230620173

>>3051474
Names?

>>3053194
I think that thinking marriage is about romantic love is harmful. Romantic love lasts about a year or two. And is neurologically similar to a drug addiction.

When you think of marriage like this, after the two years are over you end up feeling frustrated and miserable. The marriage ends or becomes a disappointment. And if you get hooked on romantic love, you become a serious monogamist, with all the unhappiness that a serial divorcer suffers.

It is healthier to ser marriage as a lifelong union with the purpose of having a family and with a kind of love that changes over time.

Realistic expectations make you happier in the long run. And kids raised by their two biological parents end up better than others.

>>3054369
>>3054340

Am I the only one that hates that virgin became an insult?
Why is having sex outside marriage seem like a virtue to some people? This is one of the reasons why marriage is failing. Trash tier values.

>>3054887
It's shit pushed by American cosmopolitan "culture". "Lol why aren't you having sex brahs?" Disgusting.

>>3054887
I'm against virgin shaming but bitter /r9k/ and /pol/fags make it hard to sympathize

>>3054273
The Bourbons were generally very clean, its just that they had to deal with the French aristocracy, so they got splashed with the shit blow-back.

>>3056071
The Sun King was a known libertine that held degenerate orgies in court.

>>3054887
>t. Virgin

Sauce?

>>3051474
THis is a SFW board please refrain from posting pornography.

File: cancer-total-ageadjusted.jpg (99KB, 1280x525px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1280x525px

>>3054768
>>3054606
1 in 2 people is just wrong...

It's 100% of people. Most infants have minor tumors. Everyone. by the time they are an adult, has tons. Everyone, eventually, gets cancer. You just have to live long enough.

And all the nations you mentioned, like nearly all others, are top heavy in age. Meaning more old people, meaning more cancer.

Age adjust your damn charts you alarmist fucks.

>>3051474
How do I know you're no older than 22 and have a prescription for fluoxetine?

>>3054869
Some say arranged marriage is better because love should grow between to people. Often times, the love is forced to grow because of expectations though. What is the difference between that and just having the love there in the first place?
I do wish families were more involved in who their kids married though. It would help men and women especially(because it is more important so they don't get married to some dude who leaves them as a single mom), make more responsible choices. Like, maybe set up blind dates and it works out it, then they could get married and the family would be behind it. If it doesn't then find them a new date.
Of course, there is no way to implement such a system like this easily now.

>>3051474
>What is wrong with giving everybody a buddy they can love and have sex with?
You don't deserve love, neither sex. Nobody does if you wanted you gained or take it

>>3054393
>thinking the whole Western civilization is brainwashed by Hollywood

Get your burgercentrism out of the thread

>>3051789
A friend of mine had his marriage arranged... he is white and American.... purely for monetary reasons.

>>3056847
>Implying every country doesn't copy American culture to some degree such as:
>denim jeans as casual and other fashions.
>Individualism.
>shitty day time talk shows for women.

>>3052974
>implying that the working class in the soviet union wern't just peasants

>>3051474
Ey who is that on the left
Instagram name???

>>3056904
>individualism is american
remind me why I come to /his/ again

>>3054130
>Gib back the thesaurus you filthy thief
found the romanian

>>3056510
except you are wrong.

you act like you are invincible to the cancer epidemic and ignore the facts.

>it is 1 in 2 people. meaning 50% of the population
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/risk/lifetime-risk

http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/study-says-nearly-1-in-2-canadians-to-develop-cancer-in-their-lifetime-1.3468455
http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-101/canadian-canceHalf of Kurdistan population could face risk of cancer in 3 years
half of the Iraqi population will face the risk of cancer in 2020,” he added.
http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/230620173r-statistics-publication/?region=bc

>Half of Kurdistan population could face risk of cancer in 3 years
>half of the Iraqi population will face the risk of cancer in 2020,” he added.
http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/230620173

>>3056539
>Like, maybe set up blind dates and it works out it
That's cringey as fuck. Parents having anything to do in their kids' personal life more than just raising him/her to be free from degeneracy, appreciate patriotism and culture is autism and LARPing as aristocrats.

>>3057758
You just responded to my response of your copy pasta, with the same copy pasta...

Are you some kinda shill?

>>3057914
>>3057758
>>3054184
>>3054156
>>3054154

In 1971, when President Richard M. Nixon initiated the War on Cancer, the average person had a 1 in 10 risk of developing cancer in his or her lifetime. Today, that's changed – for the worse. The risk as of 2005 is 1 in 2.

this is the major cause of rapid decline in western populations


cancer is now as common as the flu, that is intentional. the existing cures for cancer are intentionally suppressed.

the great culling/poisoning orchestrated by CIA, CFR, etc has led to dramatic population declines. the genocide machine is being refueled by new immigrants to pack into the poison chambers

File: Shill Detector - Cancer-RatebyRegion-AgeAdjusted.png (26KB, 676x466px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 676x466px

>>3057758
>>3057939
Let's test something...

Cancer, age adjusted.

>>3054237
Very very rare for your parents, who love you, to pick a shitty wife for you. Look at the state of arranged marriage in India today. While it's not the same as it was in Europe, it's a decent representation of what it'd be like today if the West suddenly started up and doing it. My good friend is Indian and his parents would never set him up with an ugly broad. No fucking way. Looks are just as important for a potential bride as standing and values are to a mother and father picking one out. Also they get to meet and see if they are compatible.

>>3057939
The average risk of developing cancer in your lifetime has always been 100%, if nothing else kills you.

>>3054184
>>3057758
>>3057946
>>3057939

> in 1880s was 1 in 50
>1920s 1 in 20
>1970s 1 in 10
>2000s 1 in 2

by 2025 the rate will be close to 80%


But our latest estimate, which uses the most accurate calculation method to date, now puts our chances of developing the disease at 1 in 2.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-cancer-rates-increasing/

the cause of the epidemic which will cull the majority of the population is intertwined with industrial toxins, pollutions, and modern western lifestyle promoted by corporations, politicians and social engineers.

it took 100 years for the authorities to acknowledge that smoking is harmful to health

it will take 1000 years for the authorities to allow minimally-invasive, effective, curative treatments with great safety profile

the epidemic is silenced. the cures are suppressed. they want you to not exist.

I thought as much - it's some sorta bot...

I guess some infowars style tech guy went on a tech crusade - or someone's really just hoping for more c*ncer funding research.

>>3058039
Just as likely some sorta basement dweller with a paranoid delusion out on a crusade, armed with a bunch of copypastes, but with no real understanding of them, let alone the ability to defend them when they are attacked.

It may also be english isn't his first language, so he doesn't quite realize that the links provided were being addressed and defeated so easily, let alone have the ability to address the counter arguments.

So, a fleshy bot, as it were. They are depressingly common.

>>3058039
consider the fact that cancer rates increased from 10% in 1970 to >50% in 2005, all since nixon declared war on cancer

consider the fact that cancer treatments have remained the same for 100 years using archaic radiotherapy and chemo

consider the fact that immunotherapy, cryoimmunotherapy have been around for over 100 years, but suppressed and avoided by medical establishment

consider the fact that the FDA setup red-tape and expensive phased clinical trials to delay and discourage new treatments

also it has been proven that diseases like cancer can be treated with a combination/cocktail of old common, cheap, repurposed drugs

>>3058088
Who cares bro. Kill yourself before the cancer does.

>>3058088
>also it has been proven that diseases like cancer can be treated with a combination/cocktail of old common, cheap, repurposed drugs

Wow, you must be really a capacity in the field! At which uni do you lecure?

>>3058088
All of which you've already stated multiple times, and all of which has been effectively addressed in multiple ways from multiple fronts, all of which you ignore, while repeating yourself.

I'd get checked for brain cancer, you may have a tumor putting you in a blind repeat.

>>3058088
>10% in 1970 to >50% in 2005, all since nixon declared war on cancer
And that's a little less than the portion of the population that is now in the 50+ range.

All those baby boomers? They were about the same age as the average 4chan poster when Nixon was president.

Meanwhile, the generation born while Nixon was president is almost non-existent, as births were comparatively few and far between thanks to the introduction of effective birth control, and a lot of ladies not quite getting that it doesn't stop their clocks ticking, hence "the missing generation". Hence, an extreme and rapid shift in average age demographics from younger to older between Nixon and Trump. Hence >>3057946 and >>3056510.

Granted, I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to an ESL bot that can't read, and only repeats the same pre-determined lines, over and over again, regardless of what is said.

>>3051482
Nah, poor families had attractive daughters too.

>>3058088
>>3057993
>>3058119
>>3057939

The information you will learn is mostly censored and banned in the United States when it comes to cancer treatment, as only pharmaceutical products approved by the FDA are allowed to treat cancer in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry and the U.S. government has lost the war on cancer.

At the beginning of the last century, one person in twenty would get cancer. In the 1940s it was one out of every sixteen people. In the 1970s it was one person out of ten. Today one person out of two gets cancer in the course of their life.

The cancer industry is probably the most prosperous business in the United States. In 2014, there will be an estimated 1,665,540 new cancer cases diagnosed and 585,720 cancer deaths in the U.S. $6 billion of tax-payer funds are cycled through various federal agencies for cancer research, such as the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The NCI states that the medical costs of cancer care are $125 billion, with a projected 39 percent increase to $173 billion by 2020.

The simple fact is that the cancer industry employs too many people and produces too much income to allow a cure to be found. All of the current research on cancer drugs is based on the premise that the cancer market will grow, not shrink.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnZDiYPkVaI

>>3052925
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia
>this is how average Americans live

Wouldn't mind that desu, looks pretty comfy

>>3058145
More copy pasta.

Think for yourself, dammit, just once.

>>3058173
>plz Think for yourself, and accept my govt and big pharma approved propaganda

In the 1920s scientists showed that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer.[224] Which resulted in no governmental ban on smoking.

In the UK and the USA, an increase in lung cancer rates was being picked up by the 1930s, but the cause for this increase remained suppressed. Decades followed of suppression of truth, unsuccessful attempts by victims to sue the companies and government protecting the interests of the tobacco mafia.

After 7 decades, and millions dead, the tobacco mafia in the United States has suffered greatly since the mid-1990s, when it was successfully sued by several U.S. states. The suits claimed that tobacco causes cancer, that companies in the industry knew this, and that they deliberately denied the legitimacy of their findings, contributing to the illness and death of millions worldwide.

The industry was found to have decades of internal memos confirming in detail that tobacco (which contains nicotine) is both addictive and carcinogenic (cancer-causing


There have been multiple court cases on the issue that tobacco companies have researched the health effects of tobacco, but suppressed the findings or formatted them to imply lessened or no hazard

>>3058272
>>3058145

In a land mark article, John Bailar published in the “New England Journal of Medicine” in 1997 “Are we losing the war on cancer?”

We recently confirmed that this is, still the case. We obtained from the WHO mortality time-series data of 20 countries over 45 years (1960–2015). During these 50 years the age standardised cancer death rate has varied little (−4%).

These data confirm the preliminary results from Bailar and contradict the notion of a breakthrough in cancer prevention, early detection, and cancer treatment (Summa 2012). Today, as before, cancer to the notable exception of some childhood malignancies and of lymphoma remains almost universally fatal.

Today cancer is thought as an invasion by malignant cells which deserves to be killed either by the same stubbornly archaic, primitive treatments: surgery, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy.

The release of drugs is done by assessing their efficacy in killing cancer cells. Modern drugs target one specific pathway in order to kill the malignant cell.

But the logic is still the same: killing the cancer cell. None of these new drugs can be credited with having changed significantly the survival pattern. For example the overall response rate to Herceptin (a so called magic bullet) when administered alone is less than 5%.In the meantime the cost of cancer drugs has increased exponentially. It is highly probable that we are witnessing a “bubble” based more on greed than results.There is an obvious need for change of paradigm.

>>3051474
First legitimately interesting question about the socialism/free market dichotomy paradigm I've seen in years.

>>3057947
Perhaps, but it really depends on the case, today we can make comfortable decisions because we're not piss poor peasants. I'd imagine if your father has to work all the time and he's constantly struggling to put food on the table, he'l piss on your preference of blondes over redheads and pick the girl that'l get him more money, even if she's as dumb as a rock, looks like shit and will cheat on you with everyone in the village. Those days feelings mattered less than reason because you couldn't afford to be sentimental.

Today I know my parents are older then me but that doesn't necessarily make them wiser, and even if they are what right do they have to pick who I'l spend my life with? I believe we should have the freedom to make the choice ourselves, even if it ends up bad. If it's just your parents trying to help you out that's cool, no issue with that, but if they force you they're taking away your freedom which I don't think should happen.

Isnt there sort of de facto arranged marriages to this day, like old money families marrying into old money families etc

People that want to spend the rest of their life with a willing person should be able to do so. People that want to fuck other consenting adults should have the freedom to do so. I'm not speaking for socialists here, but I value the wants of the individual over forcing the needs of other people.

File: 1489895117187.jpg (89KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1920x1080px

>>3056539
>>3054869
in liberal society a relationship begins when the woman wants it to begin which is when the sex begins. then the relationship is fed by sex and it ceases due to sex too.

>>3059134
yes normies love to be hedonists and despise the thought of being constrains not to act on their desires

>>3053154
Nope, they only had me interacting with my female cousins. I didn't see girls much until I was 14.

>>3054130
> Russian nuclear family
What the fuck? The nuclear family is American meme, Russian family is extended one (because you can't buy a fucking personal house for cheap in suburbs and live there with your wife alone from parents like in states).

File: Pepe2.jpg (119KB, 800x764px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 800x764px

How would system even decide who pair with who? Lottery?

>>3059134
>People that want to spend the rest of their life with a willing person should be able to do so. People that want to fuck other consenting adults should have the freedom to do so. I'm not speaking for socialists here, but I value the wants of the individual over forcing the needs of other people.

There are two different issues:

People should have the right to fuck around. But that doesn't mean fucking around is a good idea. Our society nowadays encourage fucking around instead of giving people better values that would make them happier.

> the wants of the individual

This is, I think, the biggest weakness of modern liberalism. The supremacy of wants.

>spending his money and labour and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as on necessary ones; but if he be fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his wits, when years have elapsed, and the heyday of passion is over --supposing that he then re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not wholly give himself up to their successors --in that case he balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium, putting the government of himself into the hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn; and when he has had enough of that, then into the hands of another; he despises none of them but encourages them all equally.

>Neither does he receive or let pass into the [mind] any true word of advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others --whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.

>and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them.

>>3059300
> Our society nowadays encourage fucking around
How so? If anything our modern society is more moral than barbarian people of past ages.

>>3059302
>How so?

By the messages it sends.
Fucking around is shown positively in the media, for example. Take a look at a series such as Friends, which is considered a clean series. How many partners each of the protagonists had?

Now let's take a look at a magazine for teenagers:

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/unslut-slut-shaming-parents-talk-to-them

>But sometimes, the issue isn’t just your safety — it’s a difference in values that might be made more extreme by the cultural or religious norms your parents are used to. Those norms often put special pressure on dads to police and control their daughters’ sexuality. Like most men, your dad was probably brought up to believe that there are two kinds of female people — “good girls” and “sluts” — and that it is a father’s job to make sure his daughter is one of the “good girls.”

>But the truth is, you’re probably not going to be able to change their mind with a single conversation. Instead, plan for the long game. As you grow up, pursue your career, have healthy relationships, and discover what makes you happy, you will be demonstrating to your parents that whatever they thought of as “proper” womanhood doesn’t necessarily make sense for you. Over the course of many years and many conversations, you can show them — through the awesome life you will be leading — that women should not be categorized according to their sexuality.

They are basically telling girls to ignore the morals of their parents..

>>3059322
Media isn't a whole society and it isn't like anyone believe fucking Friends and Teen Vogue to be their moral guides.

>>3056539
This is what Asian families do. If you aren't married by a certain age, they arrange a date with a family friend's child and hope it works out. It's not forced on either party, just highly encouraged.

>>3059326
If they grow up watching television and reading magazines where promiscuity is glamourized, they will absorb those values.
If you grow up seeing people saying about how great is to have sex with plenty of people, you will likely start to believe it, unless you are too much of an independent mind.

>>3059343
The first point is the fair one, but I don't believe that you can really argue about having sex with a plenty of people being or not being great from an objective point of view.

Also, there exist movies and such that point out to the importance of monogamy so it isn't that black-and-white.

>>3059322
Things could be worse...
http://psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-7-child-abuse-homicide-and-raids-in-tribes/

>>3059360
>I don't believe that you can really argue about having sex with a plenty of people being or not being great from an objective point of view.

Having "promiscuous values" and "promiscuous habits" do lead to a worse life.

>>3059360
>The first point is the fair one, but I don't believe that you can really argue about having sex with a plenty of people being or not being great from an objective point of view.
Not him, but when you bring raising the resulting babies comes into the subject, it kinda does. An unstable family leads to all sorts of emotional difficulties.

Granted, a large part of that is because we haven't yet figured a way to transition between this stage when family was a crucial matter of survival for the individuals founding said and the source of all rights of property, to where it's simply become biological maintenance for the greater whole and actually a burden to the founders. Not to go all /pol/, but the fact that information based evolution so thoroughly supplanted genetic evolution (especially with CRISPR on the horizon), and the fact that effective birth control and career women became a thing, basically means that sex is no longer about having babies. Yet it remains a closed social bond, and will probably remain so, and for the mental stability of the children in such societies, as >>3059365's article, among others, hints at, should probably remain so.

Given all that, it's a rather difficult balance to strike. The old doesn't make sense anymore, and no new way has been truly established. The western world is kinda just meandering and muddling its way through uncharted territory at this point.

It's like /r9k/ and /pol/ had a baby.

>>3059268

>they only had me cousins

The majority of arranged marriages involve cousins.

File: tinfoil.jpg (151KB, 598x796px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 598x796px

>>3057939

>>3059285
Paki arranged marriages are usually between cousins to keep the family together.

File: 1436512231466.jpg (20KB, 150x200px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 150x200px

>>3059385
>/r9k/
>a baby

>>3059614
It was an arrainged marriage

>>3058647
>Today I know my parents are older then me but that doesn't necessarily make them wiser
This is a good point. The angst of edgy teens who think they know everything, and their parents nothing, aside, by one's mid-twenties any reasonably well-rounded person with a good relationship with their family should be able to figure out that their parents are not necessarily the founts of wisdom they thought they were.

Hell, even if they were/are top of their class/field, the shifts in society we've had over the past three decades alone make their understanding of job- and housing-markets (both basic things that I'd hope an arranged marriage would take into account) would be hilariously outdated.

reminder that nobody cares about your feeling and that
-men love to overestimate their performance in bed
-men love to be praised by any woman
-men love to underestimate the lust of women
-men love to underestimate the boredom of women
-there is nothing more boring to a woman than to be fucked over and over by only one man
-men love to think that women love men like women love children
-women are in heat all year long
-women see no reward for faithfulness
-women see the reward for sleeping around
-women see no reward for their virginity
-women do not desire to have only one provider for sex
-women do not desire to stay virgin
-women do not know how to stay virgin
-women do not desire to be prude
-women despise nonguly asexual men
-women fear of being asexual

-the only gift a man possesses by his sheer existence is to be left alone if he wants it, but ofc very few men want this since very few men kill their infatuation with their spook of ''society'' and women.

>>3059682
Yeah... Wait another 20 years... Then see how all the retarded all the twenty-somes really are, and that your parents were right all along.

Ever try to carry a conversation with a nine year old? Well, when you get old enough, carrying a conversation with a twenty year old is much the same, for much the same reasons.

>>3060164
>women are in heat all year long
>women see no reward for faithfulness
>women see the reward for sleeping around
>Women see no reward for their virginity
>women do not desire to have only one provider for sex
>women do not desire to stay virgin
You do know that most of this stuff in the list could apply to men too right? Just making sure you're not a deluded mgtow.

>>3058647
Well are we talking about if arranged marriage WAS good or if it would BE good?

Parents do not choose the partner, that was my point. You ultimately choose the partner- in India at least. You're given options by your parents and then you choose from those. Don't like any of the options? Then your parents keep looking. I think we're on the same page with the forcing thing. No one wants to be forced into a marriage. But your parents can definitely help you in the process and their help puts a lot of pressure off of you so you can focus on other things that ultimately matter more.