Weren't things in the past as repressive for men as well ?

Notanothrshitthrow · 2022-01-25T12:56:04+00:00

I think the fact that the concept of a "Mistress" was so widely accepted by society throughout history (or at least, wasn't spoken of if the man kept it under wraps) shows that male promiscuity/infidelity was not taken nearly as seriously as female promiscuity/infidelity.

Vtridolla · 2022-01-25T12:42:19+00:00

I mean sure, but like literally women couldn’t vote or own land. So take all the shit that would happen to us men and then just basically increase that by a multitude of 3. Like when was the last time a mans hand in marriage was sold for 3 goats and a cow?

chromie96 · 2022-01-25T14:42:18+00:00

The past was repressive for all people involved but the difference was that if a woman had sex before she was married, she could be killed or ostrisezed by the community. For the man, he didn't have much punishment out side of people knowing he had sex and the judgment that came with that and in some circles there was no repercussions for that.

Stahlboden · 2022-01-25T16:23:03+00:00

Whenever feminists say "men" they mean "topmost decile of wealthiest and sometimes hottest men". This example is no exception.

EdessaKandros · 2022-01-25T12:41:48+00:00

Unless you were rich your sexuality was repressed.

Salt_Mathematician24 · 2022-01-25T13:32:01+00:00

Yeah it was represive for everyone but women were essentially placed lower in the hierarchy and used as an incentive for men and had much less power and influence from the top, which usually determines societal rules and expectations.

NarniaFox · 2022-01-25T12:56:07+00:00

I guess you want to talk purely about sexual freedom, as in terms of social hierarchy women were lower than men during most part of our history.

I'll copy my old comment if you don't mind. Note that I'm gonna talk about Russia. Also note that by "students' the author means only men.

In 1909 in Moscow a brochure was published with the results of a statistical study conducted among students of Moscow State University. The results of the survey showed that about 60% (almost two-thirds of students at the university) satisfied their sexual needs with prostitutes, 12% slept with other people's wives, a fifth with servants, and only 15% had a constant relationship. Almost half of the respondents lost their virginity in brothels. Moreover, at the beginning of the century it was completely commonplace to rent one sex worker for two or three, which means that a significant part of urban residents had experience of group sex.

Unlike men (and only they could be university students at that time), the majority of women kept their innocence until marriage and were brought up in traditions of high morality. The higher in status a girl was, the more “cold” she had to be in bed. The manifestations of sexual feelings were unambiguously viewed as baseness and a consequence of poor upbringing.

https://snob.ru/entry/204254/?fbclid=IwAR0Zi0OHRtFmC9H2oUBvyKAF\_tPAvqIiM42AG91SrfL9d0GpYQ7E1yG1C3c

In the 17th century, men, going to remote service, could pawn their wives to comrades, and instead of interest, they gave them the right to have sex. If the husband did not redeem his wife on time, then she could be resold on the same terms.

https://tjournal.ru/stories/141710-istoriya-borby-s-prostituciey-v-rossii-pryadilnye-dvory-legalnye-bordeli-i-trudovye-profilaktorii

So a man could just turn his wife into a sex worker in some sense.

Older men also were known for having sex and just raping wives of younger relatives (usually sons):

In the Russian Empire, snokhachestvo (Russian: снохачество, lit. 'daughter-in-law privileges') referred to sexual relations between a pater familias (bolshak) of a Russian peasant household (dvor) and his daughter-in-law (snokha) during the minority or absence of his sonю With a view to attracting additional workers to the household, marriages in rural Russia were frequently contracted when the groom was six or seven years old. During her husband's minority, the bride often had to tolerate advances of her assertive father-in-law. For example, in the middle of the 19th century in Tambov Governorate 12-13 year old boys were often married to 16-17 year old girls. The boys' fathers used to arrange such marriages to take advantage of their sons' lack of experience. Snokhachestvo entailed conflicts in the family and put moral pressure on the mother-in-law, who usually treated her son's wife as a rival for her own husband's affections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snokhachestvo

You also should consider that being raped was seen as the lost of honor and "family honor". A lot of women preferred to keep silent, as they would get backslash themselves and it was hard to prove and make people believe you in the first place. Also serf women had very little if not totally inexistent chances to call the justice on their master who was raping them.

Boompa22 · 2022-01-25T13:27:41+00:00

More Men were MEN back then. IMO the 80/20 rule wasn't in full effect yet. You know why? Men literally couldn't afford to not be Men back in the day. If they weren't the traditional masculine, stoic male, they wouldn't fit in with their work group, they wouldn't make money, and they sure as hell wouldn't reproduce.

The advancement of society and technology has allowed for placated men to still live a relatively normal life, minus the woman aspect. Work from home, gaming, entertainment, etc. has allowed men today to escape from needing those traditional masculine values but still contribute to society.

I think overall my argument is that the Alpha/Chads today aren't inherently super good looking or whatever, but that they just exhibit the traditional masculine qualities which is always going to be attractive to women. In a sea of placated boys, traditional masculinity really stands out. So back in the day I do think there were Chads and shit, but it really didn't make as much of a difference as it would today.

goatismycopilot · 2022-01-25T14:54:48+00:00

I think the only working class or normie men who had a bit of freedom were guys in the navy/railroads or guys who took off for bush logging. They could add some fictional extra travel time and have side women.

When manufacturing was an actual viable thing in North America they usually had bars and strip clubs located near the plant so they could catch the men coming or going.

Wealthy men always did whatever they wanted and usually had the resources to contain it.

CatoftheBanals · 2022-01-25T15:14:42+00:00

Depends on the time period and country, but in history yes, many lower-status (ie, third and fourth sons) got shoved into a monastery or sent off to war as a way of keeping the surplus men busy. If you were poor, like most guys, I don’t think your sexuality was policed as much, but there were other barriers to just living as you wanted.

8WeaponizedAutism8 · 2022-01-25T16:28:26+00:00

With the past i assume you mean white picket fence America 1950?

Birth control was far less common in those days meaning that a man had to think three times before he put his dick somewhere. Unlike today. Where most woman are on the pil. or any of the other 10 different kind of birth control you have today.

Actually when you think about it. Because birth control was almost non existent. it did not allow men to objectify woman. At least nowhere close to the same extend as today. They were forced to view woman as a person that. if they had sex with had a high chance of becoming pregnant. which made a man want to really know and trust a woman before he did the deed. Because if she indeed became pregnant, the social norms of the time forced you to get married. Which a man of course did not want to do with a woman he only knew for a couple of hours and had a ONS with.

While birth control today makes it much easier for men to objectify woman. To see them as an object of pure lust. The risk of pregnancy in viewing Woman like this is far lower today. It allows men to invest far less in a woman personally before doing the deed. Of course this is all from the view of the "average" man back then. not the ones with an income to go to prostitutes.

So in a way the liberation movement of the 1960's that advocated for free birth control for Woman. Actually severely reduced the value a Woman held as an individual in the eyes of many men. and increased here value as just a couple of holes to fuck.

So yes. The average man back then was very limited in his sexuality as well. because of Women tending to get pregnant much quicker.

ubuntuuuuu · 2022-01-25T18:21:56+00:00

Have you ever seen ads against women's emancipation from the first suffragettes times? They basically portray the horrors that would take place if women became "free". They showed men not being able to meet and drink with friends because they would have to take care of the kids for example. These men were afraid that the roles would change and they hated the idea.

Men knew that women were held under their boots and that they had more freedom than them. And yes, most people had it shitty. But middle-class men had it better than women. Women pretty much had to hope that their husbands will not be a dick. In Victorian times, men legally owned their wives and had all the rights to their money.

Maria Skłodowska-Curie couldn't attend the university and she had to migrate to another country to get her education. The reason? She was a woman.

It was also normal for servant women to be raped or molested by their employers. And whenever a woman spoke up, she would be ridiculed and blamed for the situation (and left without her job of course). It was so common in fact, that in the guides for servants they wee advice to silently and discreetly leave the house of their "masters" in case of sexual harassment and to not say anything bad about their oppressors. And no, many of them didn't have a choice. While millions of women worked during that time, they could mostly find employment as servants.

In China, women were called useless until they gave birth to a son. Telling women how useless they were was a big part of their education. Women's suicidal rate was really high back then. Many couldn't even go out by themselves (and often weren't physically capable of doing so).

So answering your question, no, I don't think so. Was it shitty for many of them? Yes. Was it worse than it was for women? No.

Over_Noise3530 · 2022-01-25T15:27:39+00:00

[permanently deleted]

DworkinPill · 2022-01-25T13:45:08+00:00

Of course not. Only women had visible signs they’d had sex. There were not paternity tests until extremely recently.

No man ever got sent to a home for unwed fathers. Unless the man was the same class as the woman, there was no way in hell anyone was going to be able to apply social sanctions to him.

It’s always been he said she said and we see how men react to she said.

Any_Championship_654 · 2022-01-25T14:34:28+00:00

Pretty much everyone was repressed unless you were an aristocrat or royalty.

AutoModerator · 2022-01-25T10:40:59+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

abaxeron · 2022-01-25T16:36:58+00:00

Perhaps men in the past could go around to fuck prostitutes

At least for some places, we don't have to guess:

"At the turn of the (19th) century, the authorities estimated that there were 30,000 prostitutes in Paris[33] alone, plus an additional 10,000 high-class prostitutes. To measure the extent of the phenomenon, most contemporary historians point out that if the proportion of prostitutes was the same today (about 13% of women), Paris would have a population of more than 100,000 prostitutes." (Wikipedia)

At least in certain parts of Europe, where brothels were legal, prostitutes were very common.

Looking into British peerage, there are numerous cases of commoner girls claiming to be illegitimate daughters of noblemen to secure priority as potential bride for a nobleman. It allows us to conclude that there's at least one reason why historical reports of extramarital sex between lords and commoners might be exaggerated.

pubgmisc · 2022-01-25T16:42:20+00:00

You need to understand the game.
The western world is a deregulated sexual market place and for the most part it’s global.
Women are born with value and must preserve it, thus getting the best mate she can with her dual sexual strategy (alpha seed, beta need $). Looking for congruency, competence, leadership skills, body, knows what to do when to do it what to say when to say it, taller, higher on the socioeconommic ladder etc. Often this can be helped with a male in her family because he doesn’t want intercourse with her. Once she does, girl game is keeping the guy post sex. She’ll often bond with her sisterhood by talking about relationships and people, pre selection for mate selection (hence why women cosign on the guy during bathroom conversations) etc. and thinking in instinct, emotion, reason as well as a more communitarian collectivist nature.
As opposed to men in instinct, reason then emotion, often bonding by doing things . Men are born without value, they must create it to be finally visible to women (80% of men are invisible, guy game is levelling up to become visible. Only the top 20% are dating girls), then once they are post 25 years of age and established, they will play the game, giving sex attention to many women, but will only give relationship attention to a woman who is chaste, feminine, can make a lemonade in summer, doesn't advertise herself to others. etc, often guys like this will still love her but bang other chicks, completing his dual sexaul strategy (unlimted access to unlimited sexuality while living their main girl because males are different, think athletes).
= Can you start to see all the confusion the happens in de-regualted sexual market places like the west? low birth rates? higher prices of cat and dog food for 'left over women' ? etc.
There's a reason why only patriarchies stand the test of time, because they keep responsibility and authority together, keep checks and balances, buffer the male sexual strategy by installing monogamy, and buffering the female one by creating virgins and not giving them rights to monkey branch etc. This has been known around the world by each culture, not being aware of each other, for millennia, based on fundamental laws of biology, but now the market is deregulated so…

clitorophagy · 2022-01-25T18:10:29+00:00

the repression of emotions for men and boys has been harmful. Also the negation of sexual assault on men and boys, as if it doesn’t count

2022-01-25T18:48:44+00:00

I think most people have no idea how relationships/sexuality were centuries ago. Yes, religion was a big thing and there aren't so many direct sources speaking openly of it.

But read books from the 19th century, read biography of Queens and Kings... you will see that sex wasn't always as repressed as we think it was, at least for the upper classes.

WilliamWyattD · 2022-01-25T18:52:33+00:00

Not sure if you are talking about sexual repression or overall oppression.

But for sex, you have to think of repression relative to the levels of titillation. It is a lot easier to go without sex in some environments than others.

Also, one has to think about socio-economic levels. How often a man could see a prostitute, if he chose to, varied enormously. I would wager that it was not very frequently for the average man during the history of civilization.

But overall, I would say female sexuality was more repressed. Most men were not rich enough for hookers, and they weren't so attractive that social repression was preventing them from getting sex they would have otherwise had. Many higher value and attractive men, on the other hand, did effectively have their sexuality repressed in certain cultures. These are men who actually had options to forgo with enforced monogamy.

NotGoingoutofMW · 2022-01-25T20:07:37+00:00

Regarding social standing within cultures you can say that women where repressed, yes nothing to deny. But regarding the cold truth reality it where the men being repressed since it where men and overwhelmingly only men who actually did heavy lifting in all aspects of immediate survival and later in maintainance of structures which ensured said survival. They broke their bones, limps, skin and died early but hey, they got to be the head of the household where more almost their entire money was directly reinvested in the family.

This was the case for 95% of men. I admit these 5% at the top have and still have everything in their lifes. It's completely clear that feminism only focuses at these top 5% of men and this "social standing" arguement while leaving out the most crucial part that renders 90% of their claims useless.

ledatherockband · 2022-01-26T01:44:24+00:00

Yes. If you weren’t rich or a mobility, shit kind of sucked.

If there are any intersectional feminists in the sub, I’d like to know why it’s called patriarchy if it also sucked for ordinary men.

Haven’t gotten an answer that makes sense.

kindParodox · 2022-01-26T05:05:06+00:00

Not a super knowledgeable historian, but to my knowledge it really depends on the culture you look at. The Romans were pretty apathetic till they fell and then reformed as the Holy Romans... Persians where surprisingly chill when it came for sexual progressivism surprisingly at least in the scope of Mediterranean cultures in the time. As for the Norse...they were strangely egalitarian to the point of having female graves with similar treasures that one would find in a mans, but there were MANY groups, pacts, clans, kingdoms, ECT that all functioned differently... As I see it, most of the regression of expression in all forms is found prominently in regions where large scale religious organization were the predominant record keepers.

herefortheparty01 · 2022-01-25T12:36:12+00:00

Yes. In different ways

Hoopy223 · 2022-01-25T15:03:57+00:00

Yes and not just sexuality. I can think of a lot of different examples from various civilizations but basically we are a lot better off nowadays.

2022-01-25T15:59:15+00:00

Yes. People forget that for a long time what gave you a say in society was the amount of property you owned, it was the primary determinant on whether you could vote or not in the US for a long time, that included women.

Men have always been beasts of burden, we've always had to eat shit especially with women. It's just women expect us to feel privileged to eat it and enjoy the taste of it nowadays.

ruboyuri · 2022-01-25T16:16:59+00:00

What are you not seeing?

That the vast majority of the repression/oppression was done by one gender to all genders

And still is

Title	Weren't things in the past as repressive for men as well ?
Author	Pm_Me_Dirty_Thought
Upvotes	14
Comments	191
Date	January 25, 2022 10:40 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/scau4l/werent_things_in_the_past_as_repressive_for_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/werent-things-in-the-past-as-repressive-for-men-as.1097655 https://theredarchive.com/post/1097655

Comments