Thread by @GoingMedieval

Another day, another pack of wankers displaying what are actually medieval attitudes towards, well not women, exactly, but marriage. (Oh don't worry number 6 was "stop having sex with other men, wah wah, my peepee is sad when ladies have sex".)
Anyway, what do I mean by that?

What you will notice here is that this saddo is discussing both women and men in terms of "value". Now you will note that people are of course, invaluable, so what he actually means when he says "high value" is actual financial value, as in prospective people to join a house with

And he does manage to tick off some of the big things that - if you were royal or noble - would defo be deal breakers. Marriage in a rich people medieval construct is about making partnerships with other rich people and - crucially - making heirs.

Women who had already made some heirs? Out of the rich people breeding game. You have two kids and your husband dies? You have two kids and your marriage days are done. Men with kids might remarry, on the other hand. Women with no heirs might do the same.

The "stop being disagreeable" is also Hella medieval (and I mean Aristotelian too, for that matter) because bitches be arguing, amiright? Part of the very temperament of women was that they are garrulous . Dick here says, "Pwease no argue lady. Be nice mommy to me." Sad ass.

I am not even touching that fat phobic nonsense, but that is weirdly not particularly medieval because medieval people did not share our views of what was the ideal body type. I know I know you already read it. Too bad.
going-medieval.com/2017/11/17/on-…

The thing about ideas of promiscuity (and don't worry, my man has an army of reply guys who hope he sees it harping on about this is what I find most interesting though.) In the medieval rich people context that is desirable so you can know your heirs are yours.

We have that whole having kids thing covered now, so for these dudes this isn't about heirs, it is about sex. Interestingly they seem to agree with medieval people that women be 2 horny: 2 furious. And that is bad, apparently. going-medieval.com/2017/05/26/on-…

For these wankers it is bad because none of this actually has to do with sex. Why would they want an experienced partner who can show them a good time in bed? Nope, acquiring sex partners is about impressing *other men*. Who cares if the sex is good so long as no one else had it?

This is a lot like a lot of courtly love literature where it is ostensibly written by men about women but it is actually written by men about women for an audience of men. Women are incidental objects to discuss with and impress other dudes. They don't enter into it as people.

Now here is the thing, before you get all "Well if this is a traditional way of looking at stuff I guess it is good," it isn't because these whack ideas were a rich people thing and largely do not apply to peasants or traders. Only rich people torture themselves like this.

Your peasant ancestors were happily boning away ignoring all this idiocy, and God bless them for it. In that way they were like literally all women now, who want nothing to do with this thumb looking ass man and his army of pick mes.

And that is the thing that these dudes hate - none of this matters if you just refuse to the terms of engagement that they are stipulating. If you don't agree that people have a "value" and that relationships are about acquiring status then they are powerless.

Obvi most women would actively go out of their way to repel men like this because, no one wants to be this sad ass's mommy-maid, so this is not much of a surprise.
At least it gives him more time to spend with his army of angry bois. Who's to say that's not a relationship?

My thread broke because I was train posting while eating an almond croissant, but here's another point:

https://twitter.com/GoingMedieval/status/1227525409694265344?s=20

DID U KNOW?

https://twitter.com/SciPolTech/status/1227529100652417024?s=20

These people try my patience:
going-medieval.com/2018/11/26/on-…