1) You absolutely should not spend time with small children. The only men who enjoy this are paedophiles and if your wife expects you to do this she either doesn't love you or lacks basic empathy for what it is to be a male. Around 5-6 or is when it becomes tolerable, 3-4 if they are precocious, because then you can teach them to read or chop wood or whatever.
2) Cunnilingus is revolting.
3) Your kids *are* horribly behaved and you are a terrible parent.
4) Men's looks are not important. Just grow a beard and trim it every so often. Doesn't matter if you are a 2 or an 8, now you are a 5. Problem solved.
5) Age of consent stuff is meh. Obviously 18 is way too high. In my school, if you were a virgin at 18, you were a loser. I was a virgin, but I was also a loser. More to the point, 20 is the absolute oldest anyone should be getting married if they don't want to have all sorts of weird hangups.
The other stuff is, as you admit, only true of the lower classes, but lower classes suck and what reactionary ever said otherwise? In Judaism it has always been forbidden to harm animals wantonly, and the talmud teaches that to have male children you need to make your wife orgasm first. Much the same is true of any civilized people.
I must say is this REALLY true? Or is it just liberals talking about the 'bad old days'.
I find it quite hard to believe. A lot of movies from the 30s, 40s, and 50s don't have such a cold hearted view of women and children, just look at films like 'It's a Wonderful Life'. You often hear compassion for animals going back to Victorian times. Yes there was a taboo about sex outside of marriage, for obvious reasons, but you hear plenty of stories about passionate affairs.
I think these are things that are just part of the Anglo-Saxon tradition. The Woke regime wants to present the pre-60s era as more primitive and barbaric than it really was because it affirms their own narrative.
Even if this does have some truth to it, it is not advantageous to bring up, because it allows the liberals to go on about being on the 'right side of history'. It is in our interests to downplay the negative aspects of the pre-60s period.
You are wrong about so much I don't even know where to begin, that myth about making a dog smell its pee, it's stupid to believe in now, and so it was in the past. Why are you insinuating you can't love your dog/wife/children if you beat them into submission? Sounds like some leftist bullshit.
I grew up in Brazil. When i was 15 i got my first girlfriend who was 13. Not only would guys honk their carnhorn at her to catcall her but the 20-30 dudes at the gym would hit on her on a regular basis. It was seen as absolutely normal, so much so she didn't even see a problem with it. This was only 11 years ago. Admitedly Brazil is a bit of a weird "stuck in the 80s country" but hell, i wager these things are still going on outside the first world.
When I think about what "traditionalist" means today, I think it means that someone just wants enforced monogamy, with norms that are pro-marriage and pro-family, and containment of sexual deviancy. The rest they could take or leave depending on the person. I think you are probably correct that few if any of today's "traditionalists" want to go back to a time when marrying 13 year olds was legal and acceptable, but I'm not really sure how useful or insightful that observation is. Obviously when people identify as "traditionalist" what they mean is that they desire to reclaim some of the good aspects of the past that have been lost, not that they literally want to go back in time in every single aspect.
I don't think everyone on the right would just take all of these statements for granted or automatically push back against challenges to them, either. I'm sure there are plenty of "trad" men who would be totally happy to not spend much time with small children, or to be allowed to discipline their children harshly when they feel it's warranted, for instance.
1) You absolutely should not spend time with small children. The only men who enjoy this are paedophiles and if your wife expects you to do this she either doesn't love you or lacks basic empathy for what it is to be a male. Around 5-6 or is when it becomes tolerable, 3-4 if they are precocious, because then you can teach them to read or chop wood or whatever.
2) Cunnilingus is revolting.
3) Your kids *are* horribly behaved and you are a terrible parent.
4) Men's looks are not important. Just grow a beard and trim it every so often. Doesn't matter if you are a 2 or an 8, now you are a 5. Problem solved.
5) Age of consent stuff is meh. Obviously 18 is way too high. In my school, if you were a virgin at 18, you were a loser. I was a virgin, but I was also a loser. More to the point, 20 is the absolute oldest anyone should be getting married if they don't want to have all sorts of weird hangups.
The other stuff is, as you admit, only true of the lower classes, but lower classes suck and what reactionary ever said otherwise? In Judaism it has always been forbidden to harm animals wantonly, and the talmud teaches that to have male children you need to make your wife orgasm first. Much the same is true of any civilized people.
I must say is this REALLY true? Or is it just liberals talking about the 'bad old days'.
I find it quite hard to believe. A lot of movies from the 30s, 40s, and 50s don't have such a cold hearted view of women and children, just look at films like 'It's a Wonderful Life'. You often hear compassion for animals going back to Victorian times. Yes there was a taboo about sex outside of marriage, for obvious reasons, but you hear plenty of stories about passionate affairs.
I think these are things that are just part of the Anglo-Saxon tradition. The Woke regime wants to present the pre-60s era as more primitive and barbaric than it really was because it affirms their own narrative.
Even if this does have some truth to it, it is not advantageous to bring up, because it allows the liberals to go on about being on the 'right side of history'. It is in our interests to downplay the negative aspects of the pre-60s period.
You are wrong about so much I don't even know where to begin, that myth about making a dog smell its pee, it's stupid to believe in now, and so it was in the past. Why are you insinuating you can't love your dog/wife/children if you beat them into submission? Sounds like some leftist bullshit.
I grew up in Brazil. When i was 15 i got my first girlfriend who was 13. Not only would guys honk their carnhorn at her to catcall her but the 20-30 dudes at the gym would hit on her on a regular basis. It was seen as absolutely normal, so much so she didn't even see a problem with it. This was only 11 years ago. Admitedly Brazil is a bit of a weird "stuck in the 80s country" but hell, i wager these things are still going on outside the first world.
When I think about what "traditionalist" means today, I think it means that someone just wants enforced monogamy, with norms that are pro-marriage and pro-family, and containment of sexual deviancy. The rest they could take or leave depending on the person. I think you are probably correct that few if any of today's "traditionalists" want to go back to a time when marrying 13 year olds was legal and acceptable, but I'm not really sure how useful or insightful that observation is. Obviously when people identify as "traditionalist" what they mean is that they desire to reclaim some of the good aspects of the past that have been lost, not that they literally want to go back in time in every single aspect.
I don't think everyone on the right would just take all of these statements for granted or automatically push back against challenges to them, either. I'm sure there are plenty of "trad" men who would be totally happy to not spend much time with small children, or to be allowed to discipline their children harshly when they feel it's warranted, for instance.
Or just called "reactionary modernists." "Reactionary" because they just want modernism without the French, or what happened in the 60s.
Woa where did the last 2 sentences come from
Great work!