The myth of "men's rights"

[Questioner]

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.

 

[fncceo]

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.

Pretty sure that's not right ...

 

[Questioner]

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.

Pretty sure that's not right ...

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.

 

[fncceo]

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.

Pretty sure that's not right ...

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.

Did the Queen get her choice of the drones?

 

[Questioner]

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.

Pretty sure that's not right ...

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.

Did the Queen get her choice of the drones?

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.

 

[fncceo]

would the "leader" of the tribe just allow an "incel" to make moves on his queen,

You need to ask Louis VII

 

[Lysistrata]

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?

 

[Crepitus]

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.

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.

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

Pretty sure that's not right ...

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.

Did the Queen get her choice of the drones?

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.

CLASS, not birth, IS the determining factor.
Why else would horse-mouth Chelsea Clinton be successful, you dolt!

 

[fncceo]

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?

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.

 

[Lysistrata]

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?

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.

You got that right! Why is it that we women always get the proverbial short end of the stick (no pun actually intended, but, hey.)

The other weird thing, among many, was that Roman men could have sex with younger men without any loss of status, so long as the man played topsies. Sex can be described as one being the "pitcher" and the other being the "catcher." Being the "pitcher" was quite fine, but the one who plays "catcher," whether male or female, always has lesser status. we humans are strange.

The Romans also were weird with their communal bathrooms, so that one could have a pleasant chat with one's friends, and then pass the corncobs.

 

[B. Kidd]

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?

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.

You got that right! Why is it that we women always get the proverbial short end of the stick (no pun actually intended, but, hey.)

The other weird thing, among many, was that Roman men could have sex with younger men without any loss of status, so long as the man played topsies. Sex can be described as one being the "pitcher" and the other being the "catcher." Being the "pitcher" was quite fine, but the one who plays "catcher," whether male or female, always has lesser status. we humans are strange.

You only speak for yourself.

 

[irosie91]

Lysie----da romans were-----WERE----lets leave them as WERE----their perversities
WERE

 

[Lysistrata]

Lysie----da romans were-----WERE----lets leave them as WERE----their perversities
WERE

Oh, come on. What's the Latin for "fun bunch"? I took Latin for a year. I swear that it must have been impossible to get anything done in that language. Decline this!

 

[rightwinger]

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.

What is someone who is incel, other than someone who can’t get laid?

Social loser

 

[fncceo]

Among the 12th Century Japanese Samurai Class, samurai warriors having sex with women was considered emasculating and sex with men was considered empowering.

Don't even get me started on the Spartans.

 

[irosie91]

Lysie----da romans were-----WERE----lets leave them as WERE----their perversities
WERE

Oh, come on. What's the Latin for "fun bunch"? I took Latin for a year. I swear that it must have been impossible to get anything done in that language. Decline this!

gee----I am sad to say-----I never did latin-------I cannot decline "this"-----
my dad used to so -----something like 'amat, amas ----.....???? I have no idea

 

[Lysistrata]

Lysie----da romans were-----WERE----lets leave them as WERE----their perversities
WERE

Oh, come on. What's the Latin for "fun bunch"? I took Latin for a year. I swear that it must have been impossible to get anything done in that language. Decline this!

gee----I am sad to say-----I never did latin-------I cannot decline "this"-----
my dad used to so -----something like 'amat, amas ----.....???? I have no idea

You didn't miss much. I concluded that the only thing the language was good for was papal enclaves. Every damned noun has to have a different ending depending on where it is in the sentence. I can't see how one could make love, argue politics, or order a pizza in that language. The only person I ever met who used it was one of my medieval history professors in college, who said that he met a foreigner on a bus and they couldn't find a language in common until they got to Latin.

When I was a little Catholic kid, we responded to some prayers during mass with "et cum spiritu tuo (and with your spirit also). We used to say that this was G-d's phone number.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

Pretty sure that's not right ...

if that female is conservative and christian she will submit to her husband bashing her over the head with a club and dragging her to a cave to be molested

 

[Questioner]

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.

Pretty sure that's not right ...

if that female is conservative and christian she will submit to her husband bashing her over the head with a club and dragging her to a cave to be molested

Actually no, even in the Old Testament, there were stories of blood feuds occurring in which a father or male relative took revenge against a rival tribe for molesting his daughter or sister.