Where has society at large dropped the idea that dads protect daughters?
You’re either remembering wrong or being Zecarlo. You introduced an intentional extreme to a broader conversation about sexuality in general and ran with it while I chose not to engage the bullshit.
Okay, you got me.
It wasnt a “prostitute” per se
So the overarching conversation was whether or not sex degrades a woman’s value. It doesn’t.
You introduced the extreme of pornstars, and I believe prostitution was in the mix as well, but that could’ve actually been Zecarlo and I’m not going to dig through to find the specific quote.
A mistake I made in that thread was entertaining the extreme at all. While I understand the point you’re making, it was above and beyond the underlying context.
I still maintain that sex doesn’t degrade a woman’s value, and that ultimately I want happiness for my daughter. Intrinsic, internal happiness. And as mentioned, I don’t know what that will look like for her.
I also don’t see the issue as mutually exclusive with dads being protective of daughters.
Should a guy try to have sex with mine he’s not necessarily a scumbag, for example. It would be ludicrous to expect a eunuch. This isn’t a wholesale endorsement of prostitution though, or even teen sex.
As it relates to being protective, If a guy is abusive, there’s a strong chance he’ll wind up talking funny for the rest of his life or worse.
So where do you draw the line for “scumbag”?
Like if a dude is only interested in sex with her - no commitment, no support, literally just sex.
That’s fine as long as she’s okay with that?
It’s difficult to imagine that happening given the conditions under which he and her mother are raising her. Can it happen that she lets herself be treated poorly? Sure. Is it likely? No.
Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to sit down with the daughter and talk about it? Like, raise her to make good choices by thinking for herself?
I get your point, but what I said specifically has to do with the cornerstone of feminism: removing men from child raising and the reproductive process. That means the home is not headed by the father and daughters are free to do as they please, even if it’s reckless and harmful to themselves, and makes the family, especially the father, present as a pack of losers.
Abortion, no-fault divorce, and provision of welfare bucks are objectives for removing men from fatherhood and the reproductive process. That’s why they are so important to the current form of the left. The first test run for this were black and other low-income communities. By supposedly helping the poor with welfare bucks, what happened was the women booted their men out of the home, and revealed who they really wanted to bed down with out of wedlock: criminals and low-lives that passed through their homes for some good times without care for children. They didn’t really want to screw or have to rely on Urkel the bus driver or mailman all that time. And this made their communities riddled with all the pathologies of fatherlessness: gangs, prostitution, illegitimacy, poor mental health, behavioral problems, violent crime, drugs, truancy, and so forth. And then eventually these pathologies spread to the white lower class, and then to the white middle class. Hence these can no longer be considered "black people problems” by arrogant people.
I forgot which feminist said that it is better to be poor, rely on welfare, and thereby have no sexual restraint (because the state can provide for fatherless kiddies) than to be beholden to one responsible, provisioning husband.
I live in a nanny state. And yes, my view might be tainted because of this and the extremely permissive sentiments that have been expressed to me by both Gen Xers (I am a late one, a Xennial) and boomers. “You cannot stop what they do.” “She is going to see him (the scumbag) anyway.” “They (kids) can pull the wool over your eyes.” “How are you going to have a relationship with your kids if you do that?” Permit, permit, permit! What all that means is that fathers should do nothing but pray and hope. I lived through the extremely permissive latchkey-kid era of the 90’s and, being a man in my 40’s and reflecting on the era, I believe normal fathers would have violent ideation for what was done to daughters.
Perhaps I do not know what could be appropriate closure granted to fathers for such activities, but in the bad old days it could be severe in some cases.
Case 1
A beautiful half-Japanese, half-white fourteen-year-old female pressured to provide oral sex to a number of teenage scumbags one after the other, some of them over seventeen years old, in an unsupervised home with drugs and alcohol flowing on several occasions.
Case 2
A sixteen-year-old female who I do not pressured, but seemed to willingly pass herself around for both oral and penetrative sex with the same haggle of numbskulls (again, some over seventeen years old), sometimes, like the above case, one after the other.
Case 3
A fourteen-year old having sex with a guy over seventeen years old, losing her virginity in the process, with the guy’s twelve-year-old brother filming this act from an opening in the attic. Thank goodness camera phones weren’t around to destroy this girl’s life.
Case 4
A drunk female in her early teens, barely aware of what is going on (no consent), fingered by a teenaged guy at a party.
Case 4
A nineteen-year old woman beaten (I’m not talking BDSM) and screamed at, even in the same night of having sex, by one of the aforementioned scumbags.
Case 5
A female classmate of mine for years, from middle to high school, my first crush (she was very nice to me and used to call me all the time just to talk, for years), told me she had a relationship with a 20-year-old man when she was twelve.
I have other cases, but those paint a picture of the sinful neglect, laziness, and dizziness of these girls’ fathers. I blame this on them primarily, and men as a whole secondarily. How did these females wind up in these positions? Because their fathers didn’t give a damn. That’s why.
I also knew some women who are now dead because of the stupid and dangerous situations they put themselves. My best friend’s former girlfriend, a decent, very handsome guy who was unlike all her previous and successive, complicated boyfriends dujour died in a car wreck because of the misdoings of who she was with. I was surprised she went for my clean-living friend, but she said she was dazzled his green eyes and thick black hair. Two other women from the town I grew up in died from dangerous situations involving the wrong crowd. So did a woman I went to elementary school with.
Then there are those women I know with dead scumbag exes, one of them being a former around-the-corner neighbor of mine whose ex I believe died from AIDS (he had quite a bit of fun) and was the leader of a New York hardcore band whose name is likely known to some here. How does a teenage daughter living in a suburb on the outskirts of Queens wind up with the liberty to hang in the Lower East Side, a crime- and drug-ridden dump in the 90’s, with low lives and criminals, is beyond me.
Part of this, I believe, is the lack of nerve of such men. Women respect men who are willing to do damage to other men. So I suspect that if they do not see this in their fathers, they’ll seek it in violent, anti-social men.
I’m stop on here for the time being as this is getting lengthy. I might continue later. If people aren’t into this subject matter, it’s OK. Aside from giving my two sense this allows me to get shit out of my head that I plan on soon publishing elsewhere.
You’re obsessed.
This makes sense, but I do think there are some regional differences.
I am a Xennial as well, but do not live in a nanny state.
I think your examples were common experiences across the country, but they’ve been that way for a long time imo, and are exceptions rather than rules.
Sexual exploration is a normal function of humanity and developing libidos, and has always occurred as a function of biology.
Hippies, part of the boomer generation you noted, ushered in the sexual revolution but all they really changed was outward expression of sex breaking what had been religious moral codes of repression, shame and hiding the act. Sex was happening outside of marriage prior, it was just hidden.
Where I agree your examples are concerning is the coercion and statutory rape. These situations are indeed examples of scumbags, but I can’t think of a scenario where a father who was aware would not step in, and be fine for it. I suppose this could be a regional discrepancy.
A few years ago, in Texas, a father discovered his teen daughter being raped by a ranch hand. The news didn’t specify whether or not it was a forcible, violent act or an ongoing grooming situation, but logic would tell you the latter. Ranch hands live on site, he would’ve been around her, and this was likely an ongoing scenario. A violent rape wouldn’t have gone unnoticed and he would have had all his info for employment on file. No way out.
In any case, dad caught the act red handed and beat the guy to death on the spot. No charges.
Had she been shacking up with a peer, he would’ve likely been charged and convicted of murder.
To me this illustrates the difference between scumbag and normal biological function, as well as appropriate ensuing response.
Now most dads probably would interrupt peer sex and ban contact, but I know I wasn’t a virgin when I married and it’s unrealistic to expect it. I can’t legitimately think of anyone who was except a Mormon I know, and he did everything but.
I do agree attitudes about sex have shifted, however.
For the record, my personal opinion is that adults are free to engage in consensual acts. A father should be mindful of minors, just like he should be in regards to alcohol or whatever else. And for the record, if I caught someone raping my daughter, I’d shoot him. Most dads I know would too.
@BrickHead Being similar ages, your NYC childhood wasn’t ALL that different from my NW Indiana childhood, minus your lack of cornfields.
While I agree with your premise about the fatherhood crisis, sometimes teenagers are just teenagers and parents can do little to stop it. My friend Manda came from a very good two parent home and was the only child of my town’s podiatrist. I knew her very well and she was no different than the rest of us who needed to cut loose and find some fun.
Then she got addicted to hard drugs and it was all over not long after that when she fatally overdosed. Not to pick on her dad, because it isn’t his fault, but he went on an anti-marijuana crusade after that and believes you should drug test your children beginning around age 10. That type of fatherly protection is probably not going to work the way he thinks it will for most teenagers.
She was but one of several of my female friends who behaved in ways similar to what you describe, although Manda never did any nasty sex stuff that I knew about. She dated a guy 5 or 6 years older than her who played his part leading them both into the world of addiction and many of the worst behaviors that accompany it.
Women with a high body counts are absolutely less in value as regards relationships.
4char
Not one single successful matriarchal society on Earf
This only true when you add your twists to the original context and take comments down a weird, extreme loop that loses touch with reality.
I do want my daughter to be intrinsically happy, and I don’t agree that sex will steal her happiness.
Besides in my experience every slut I ever casually fucked, and there were a few, had overbearing parents who couldn’t come to terms with biology. Not unlike the kids from very strict parents going nuts with alcohol and drugs.
I’m willing to bet a healthy and responsible view of sex leads to a well adjusted, intrinsically happy woman, and yours makes it to the keg party blowbang first anyways.
I 100% do think porn can be consumed in a healthy, or at least non-damaging way. Like alcohol, lwhich I mentioned but you’re doing the snippet thing.
And, when I discuss sex, it can generally be assumed it’s in an adult context. I absolutely think a 5 year old participating in your scenarios would be problematic and I think it’s weird you keep sexualizing a 5 year old to push a manipulated point. That’s literal scumbag shit.
No one’s sexualizing a 5 year old so you can put that card back in the deck.
Except you, repeatedly, in the same conversation you keep snipping and linking. And it’s weird.
Snipping and linking a conversation is the same thing as sexualizing a 5 year old?
No, but you’re playing dumb and we both know it. Same out of context, intentionally dumb stance as you’re doing here, except placing a 5 year old in sexual situations to force the intentionally dumb and manipulated point you’re trying to make.
Go back and re-read for context. Or don’t. I probably wouldn’t either if it were me placing a five year old in sexualized situations for maybe 100 comments to argue that porn cannot be consumed in a healthy or at least non-damaging way.
Well, they seem to be a well-matched, affluent couple who get along well. A year or two ago I started a thread entitled something like “best compliment you’ve gotten” and his answer was “my wife agreeing to marry me” or some such. It was sweet and respectful. @Njord has posted enough awful things over the years that I don’t question that it’s real - he’s not above shocking people.
His answer in these threads has been nothing more or less than “I just want my daughter to be happy,” which also smacks of love, along with respect for his daughter’s intellect and character.
You understood me to say that talking to children about your hopes and values is oppressive? I’m sure there must have been a misunderstanding. I very much believe in talking, lol.
You’re the only one whose brought up a 5 year old in the context of any of these conversations.
I’ve repeatedly said this isnt what I’m talking about, and youre supposedly not bringing it up, but you keep bringing it up…
So if you’re not bringing it up, and ive said that I’m not discussing sexual content with regards to a 5 year old, then why do you keep bringing it up?
Shits retarded.
Who are you talking about though? She’s 5….
It will be every time you play dumb on purpose. But you know that.