The myth of "men's rights"

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Questioner, Nov 30, 2019.

  1. Questioner
    Offline

    Questioner Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2019
    Messages:
    518
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +157
    As far as history is concerned, there has never been a time where all men had rights, or were "entitled to sex" simply by virtue of being a man.

    I'd argue that even in ancient 'patriarchial' cultures, birth would have had a role in a man's rights, much as it would have in a woman's - a man born into royalty or aristocracy would have tended to have more rights than ordinary men, much as a queen or princess, such as Cleopatra or Victoria would have had more than an ordinary woman.

    This is why, on some level, the modern notion of "men's rights" is rather silly, especially if it appeals to some ancient "machismo" - if one reads ancient texts such as the Bible, for example - some men had the misfortune of being turned into eunuch's and forced to work in the king's haram.

    An ancient king or ruler never would have allowed one of the "incels" we see crawling out of the woodwork anywhere near his queen or princess, and that likely would have been followed by a gruesome death, much as how rape, according to ancient texts, often resulted in a male relative such as a brother or father engaging in a blood feud.

    If anything, the only reason an "incel" has the luxury of thinking himself entitled is because he lives in a culture which protects his rights to be a fool and a waste of oxygen, rather than just eliminating him as an ancient culture likely would have. This is why I laugh at such absurdity.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. fncceo
    Offline

    fncceo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Messages:
    19,863
    Thanks Received:
    2,885
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +27,190
    Pretty sure that's not right ...

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 2
  3. Questioner
    Offline

    Questioner Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2019
    Messages:
    518
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +157
    My point is, even in a primitive culture, would the "leader" of the tribe just allow an "incel" to make moves on his queen, without some type of viscious punishment in store? I doubt it.

    An Incel has the luxury of being able to live in his mother's basement and imagine that Taylor Swift or some Instagram model is entitled to his advances just because he's horney. In an ancient culture, men may have been ruling... but it wouldn't have been him. He would have been the one they made in to a eunuch.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. fncceo
    Offline

    fncceo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Messages:
    19,863
    Thanks Received:
    2,885
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +27,190
    Did the Queen get her choice of the drones?

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Questioner
    Offline

    Questioner Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2019
    Messages:
    518
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +157
    Unsure, but women who were born into royalty did have more power and education than the average man did. I view birth as more of a determining factor than sex alone, but that's just me.

    I've heard of a few societies, where women married multiple husbands, but they were a rarity.
     
  6. fncceo
    Offline

    fncceo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Messages:
    19,863
    Thanks Received:
    2,885
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +27,190
    You need to ask Louis VII

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Lysistrata
    Offline

    Lysistrata Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2017
    Messages:
    9,888
    Thanks Received:
    1,323
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +6,584
    Questioner's argument has everything to do with men contending/fighting with other men, not with men and women contending/fighting with each other. The women were just objects in his scenario. I sincerely doubt that even high-ranking women were free to invite a pleasing man to their beds for some, most excellent entertainment.

    Hi, hubby. I hate to bother you.You seem to be busy with that new maid. But could you tell that guy who poured the wine at tonight's banquet to come to my chambers immediately?
     
  8. Crepitus
    Offline

    Crepitus Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    24,386
    Thanks Received:
    1,944
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +16,924
    You're missing the point.

    To the best of my knowledge there has never been a time when men didn't have rights simply because they were men.

    Men have been denied rights because if their skin color, their country of origin, and their religion, but never because they were men.

    And they aren't now either.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. B. Kidd
    Offline

    B. Kidd Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Messages:
    19,380
    Thanks Received:
    2,977
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Western Lands
    Ratings:
    +14,591
    CLASS, not birth, IS the determining factor.
    Why else would horse-mouth Chelsea Clinton be successful, you dolt!
     
  10. fncceo
    Offline

    fncceo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Messages:
    19,863
    Thanks Received:
    2,885
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +27,190
    The Romans had a pretty curious custom. Men were allowed, encouraged in fact, to have as many pre/post-marital dalliances as they could handle.

    Women, on the other hand, were to remain virgins until marriage and extra-marital sex could earn a death penalty (for the woman).

    However, once a married woman was widowed, she was allowed to have all the relations she could handle with whomever she chose. For many a Roman widow, her life began after hubby dearest had departed his.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1

Share This Page