I did not call men ‘pigs’ or ‘cads.’
However, I deleted a line before posting, so I will add it here: Most young women are hit on very often, even when they don’t look like supermodels. They constantly must turn men down. It’s not a new phenomenon; it’s always been true.
I mentioned beautiful women as an example. But I also wrote that many nice young women are saving themselves for marriage. Yet, you made no mention of the virtuous women in your reply.
Why not?
Never said you did. But wouldn't have had a problem with your labelling some men as such.
Yet, you made no mention of the virtuous women in your reply. Why not?
Because the behavior of NON-virtuous and delusional women and the resultant skewing of the dating market (all ultimately due to the unprecedented unleashing of female sexuality caused by the "Pill," modern conveniences, Industrialization and the declining need for "muscle" at the workplace, online dating, etc.) gives rise to much more-conspicuous societal ills that can be more-easily recognized and subjected to debate.
It's EASY to discuss why the "Titanic" sank; it is much more difficult (and less interesting) to explain why countless other oceanliners DIDN'T sink.
NON-virtuous women are the ones who currently control the dating market; they are the ones who "set the rules." THEY are the ones dominating the market and contributing to societal collapse.
The phenomenon of VIRTUOUS women does not lend itself so well to discussion in a forum of this nature.
I do not deny that they exist - I'm married to one, and she is staunchly conservative, yet even she is prone to "female thinking," and thus has difficulty sometimes separating rational thought directed at achieving concrete, measurable results on one hand from the desire to achieve consensus and "feel-good" comity on the other, even at the expense of truth.
Regards,
Throughout most of history, young women were under the close supervision of their fathers (and other family members), and - on a wider scope - the small, close-knit community in which 95% of mankind lived likewise ensured conformity to established societal rules and religious strictures, including on chastity and such.
And by their early 20s, they weren't, strictly speaking, "young women" anymore. Rather, they were "heavy with child" much of the time - and when not, then they were caring for their brood. Not the likeliest targets for sexual harassment.
The men in the chiefly small communities that have dominated throughout 95% of recorded history knew their place, knew that their actions were being scrutinized, and acted accordingly.
(Of course, there were occasionally breaches of etiquette, societal ruptures, revolutions, and the like - but to be able to gain conversational traction, we are focussing on the norm here.)
The situation you are describing is a relatively recent one, and was not in effect throughout most of history.
Even my very demur and conservative wife has reported attending, e.g., a small social gathering held by her painting club, where one of the ladies' husbands suggested that they adopt a first-name basis, which here in Germany demands a little ceremonial drinking, after which the participants exchange cheek kisses - but where this 85-year-old man unexpectedly went in for the kill and planted a kiss on her mouth.
Yes, that's part of human nature - and *ssholes and such continue to exist.
But the women you are describing - the "young women," even when they aren't "supermodels," who must "constantly turn men down." 1) Is that so bad? Freq. having to "turn men down?" and 2) Might not their overall appearance, eye-contact, grooming, cosmetics, and behavior (incl. tattoos, nose-piercings...) have contributed to this?
I aver that the situation you describe is, historically speaking, an outlier, and not worthy of further consideration.
If we could return to traditional values and ways of life (hopeless, I know!), a lot of the problems we are discussing here would vanish.
Regards,