Yes that happened too, but from my knowledge, which might be incorrect or lacking such courtship was not limited to upper classes.
Plenty of ordinary men surveilled or do surveil their daughters and want to know who their daughters are dealing with considering, as I’ve mentioned, the stupid and dangerous positions we’ve seen or heard about young women in.
It also happened with serf and peasant families, but yeah, daughters were literally objects
In pre-modern China, many girls were not given proper names. They were labelled by where they fell in the family (e.g., third eldest sister)
What is weird or not is a social construct that changes
I don’t think it’s “weird” that dads wanted to control who their daughters (or sons) mated with. But I highly doubt most fathers back then were concerned for their daughters’ well being/happiness. Children were resources.
However, times have changed and children’s partner(s) (or lack of partner(s)) no longer have the same importance. Therefore, it makes less sense to control them in this way
I actually think it makes more sense to do the reverse- women and men should screen the families of their potential long term partners.
Oh, I believe you. Many men do not give a rat’s ass about what their children do. Me personally, who my children wind up with is very important considering family is the most important thing to me, more important than my own well being. Some men, including me, do not want our daughters harmed or to deal with the mess created by abusive, negligent low lives and do-nothings and have an interest in who gives us grandchildren and who my in-laws will be.
Oh yes they should as I’ve stated elsewhere. And that’s what I’ll do.
This implies that women cannot choose for themselves.
Most of the “hookup culture” girls are going around and screwing anyone who asks, nor do they plan on settling down with a low life.
You even acknowledged this
That’s what your daughter should do for herself.
Not every “bad inlaw” situations are because the in-laws are low lives. Cultural fit matters. For example, I would never want to be part of a family that likes to host large events regularly or one that is insistent on having grandchildren.
Those potential in laws could be wonderful people, but I’d be miserable
Not saying this is the case for you, but sometimes kids and parents have different preferences for the type of family or culture
It would be safe to assume you and I are both high investment parents. Maybe not the finest prep schools & whatnot, but to make sure our kids have the best possible shot at a good life.
That includes who they date, whether its daughters or sons. I don’t want my son finding out the hard way that women can be just a bad as good.
I don’t think I was clear about what I was responding to. In the upper classes women were kept largely idle, so surveillance - maintaining virginity - was relatively easy, or at least doable. In the lower classes daughters were working, which as in today’s society opens all sorts of doors beyond the father’s control, attraction and rape being among them.
Did serf families want to protect their daughters’ financial and social value? Sure. But this:
Was something that required the daughter’s buy-in in the lower classes. As it does today.
Healthy families tend to rear healthy children. Loved girls who are taught to respect themselves and their bodies tend to do so.
I am saying those “engrained belief systems” are beyond religion. They are built in. That is what psychological/biological evolution is.
My life experience has shown me that many young women I grew up with did not know how to avoid or of course, chose abusive, criminal, and dangerous people. I say chose because in some cases they had free will and chose men precisely because of these characteristics.
Young men and women can sure choose bad things, but no sane parent wants them to. A boy can choose to drugs and his parents will be inclined to do whatever they can do get him off of them.
Yes, everyone can choose poorly.
In some situations, who children choose is not just “their business”.
Yes, exactly.
I should have said “we”.
Probably they grew up around abusive, or less than ideal people?
From what I understand, you grew up in a really rough area
I don’t think this is an issue for the women (or men) I’m around who go through a “ho phase”
You do not see this as an issue? You make it seem like it is normal.
My own town was not rough. It was a low-crime, middle class town with, let’s say a fair amount of maladjusted and violent people. Most towns in Northeastern Queens were like this.
There were rich people, and ordinary people in these towns, but no shortage of troublesome people. When I was little one of the most feared gangs (mostly into the 80’s graffiti scene) ever to grace Queens was from ordinary, middle to upper class Bayside and Flushing. I actually have two books authored by its members.
Plus my high school had 4000 kids from different towns with huge ethnic and socioeconomic diversity and my family and I worked in rough towns (including some where people’s favorite rappers come from) for years.
Not true. I know this for a fact. In some cultures it was the norm for all classes.
I do not. Sex has no moral value in my view. There is only an issue if 1) unwanted pregnancy 2) messing with bad people
These women (and men) are intelligent and want to feel good. They are not screwing low lives, criminals or otherwise dangerous people.
If I have it right, you are upper class. Have you ever thought or informed yourself what promiscuity has done to the underclasses?
Child welfare agencies, CPS in NY, DYFS in NJ for example, are practically industries built upon a foundation of promiscuity among the poor. The worst circumstances for a child to find himself in, is being raised by a single mother. It’s worse than being raised by a single father and obviously an intact nuclear family. It’s the issue feminists do not want to acknowledge, let alone fix.