St. Jerome, 393 AD: Men Should Not Marry

Reddit View
March 18, 2016

St. Jerome (AD 347 – AD 420) was one of the most prolific of the early Christian theologists. His main accomplishment was the translation of the Bible into Latin, an important part of the crumbling Roman Empire’s conversion to Christianity. He is frequently ranked among the likes of Augustine, Ambrose, and Gregory the Great as one of the original Doctors of the Church.

Although Christianity has a long history of supporting holy matrimony, St. Jerome was vehemently opposed to the idea of marriage. In my opinion, his condemnation goes too far; he claims furthermore that all sexual contact is inherently sinful and unclean, and urges chastity for all people. It is worth noting that he engaged in much sexual hedonism and debauchery as a young student in Rome, so he at least speaks with experience, if only to reject that lifestyle. Nevertheless, his dissection and critique of marriage and male-female relations remain supremely insightful.

(His advice could be applied to softer relationships too, for the same dynamics and drawbacks are present, albeit in lesser form. Where he says “marriage,” one could easily replace it with “LTR,” and “wife” with “girlfriend.”)

He lays down his reasoning in a book written in 393 AD, Against Jovinianus. An extremely well-learned man, Jerome brings up many quotes, anecdotes, and famous figures from the Classical world. Here are the original sources for these excerpts if you want the whole picture.

Theophrastus' Golden Book of Marriage

I feel that . . . I have said far more than is customary in illustrating a point, and that I might be justly censured by my learned reader. But what am I to do when the women of our time press me with apostolic authority, and before the first husband is buried, repeat from morning to night the precepts which allow a second marriage? Seeing they despise the fidelity which Christian purity dictates, let them at least learn chastity from the heathen.

Even back then, women were quick to move on with their (love) lives, and marriage vows held little sway.

A book - On Marriage - worth its weight in gold, passes under the name of Theophrastus. In it the author asks whether a wise man marries. And after laying down the conditions that the wife must be fair, of good character and honest parentage, the husband in good health and of ample means, and after saying that under these circumstances a wise man sometimes enters the state of matrimony, he immediately proceeds thus:

"But all these conditions are seldom satisfied in marriage. A wise man therefore must not take a wife. For in the first place his study of philosophy will be hindered, and it is impossible for anyone to attend to his books and his wife. Matrons want many things: costly dresses, gold, jewels, great outlay, maid-servants, all kinds of furniture, litters and gilded coaches. Then come curtain-lectures the livelong night: she complains that one lady goes out better dressed than she; that another is looked up to by all; 'I am a poor despised nobody at the ladies assemblies.' 'Why did you ogle that creature next door?' 'Why were you talking to the maid?' 'What did you bring from the market?' 'I am not allowed to have a single friend, or companion.' She suspects that her husband's love goes the same way as her hate.

God, those complaints sound word-for-word like what you’d hear today. Things just don’t change.

There may be in some neighbouring city the wisest of teachers; but if we have a wife we can neither leave her behind, nor take the burden with us. To support a poor wife, is hard; to put up with a rich one, is torture.

Notice, too, that in the case of a wife you cannot pick and choose; you must take her as you find her. If she has a bad temper, or is a fool, if she has a blemish, or is proud, or has bad breath, whatever her fault may be -- all this we learn after marriage. Horses, asses, cattle, even slaves of the smallest worth, clothes, kettles, wooden seats, cups, and earthenware pitchers, are first tried and then bought; a wife is the only thing that is not shown before she is married, for fear she may not give satisfaction.

I’ll admit that it is now easier than ever to “try before you buy,” but even so, a woman has incentive to hide her flaws and stay on her best behavior until you’re invested and committed. In any case, you’d still have to do a lot of sifting to find one without any major faults.

Our gaze must always be directed to her face, and we must always praise her beauty: if you look at another woman, she thinks that she is out of favour. She must be called ‘my lady,’ her birth-day must be kept, we must swear by her health and wish that she may survive us, respect must be paid to the nurse, to the nursemaid, to the father's slave, to the foster-child, to the handsome hanger-on, to the curled darling who manages her affairs, and to the eunuch who ministers to the safe indulgence of her lust; *names which are only a cloak for adultery.* Upon whomsoever she sets her heart, they must have her love though they want her not.

But she say he just a friend!

If you give her the management of the whole house, you must yourself be her slave. If you reserve something for yourself, she will not think you are loyal to her; but she will turn to strife and hatred, and unless you quickly take care, she will have the poison ready.

Poisoning is harder to get away with these days, so they use divorce papers instead.

If you introduce old women, and soothsayers, and prophets, and vendors of jewels and silken clothing, you imperil her chastity; if you shut the door upon them, she is injured and fancies you suspect her. But what is the good of even a careful guardian, when an unchaste wife cannot be watched, and a chaste one ought not to be? For necessity is but a faithless keeper of chastity, and *she alone really deserves to be called pure, who is free to sin if she chooses.*

In other words, mate-guarding is useless, and a woman who is faithful only out of fear of consequences or of losing you is not truly pure at heart. She can still mentally undress anybody she wants.

If a woman be fair, she soon finds lovers; if she be ugly, it is easy to be wanton [i.e. promiscuous] It is difficult to guard what many long for. It is annoying to have what no one thinks worth possessing.

If nobody’s buying her goods, then the price of entry goes down. But since most men value sexual exclusivity as much as sexual attractiveness, then so does the value. It’s a vicious cycle, but what’s a plain woman to do to snatch a high-value mate?

But the misery of having an ugly wife is less than that of watching a comely one. Nothing is safe, for which a whole people sighs and longs. One man entices with his figure, another with his brains, another with his wit, another with his open hand. Somehow, or sometime, the fortress is captured which is attacked on all sides.

Jerome notices that there are many ways to stimulate a woman’s lust. Wealthy noblemen, lanky musicians, sly conmen, brutish warriors, and stern rulers all enjoy sexual success in exchange for what their lifestyles have to offer.

Men marry, indeed, so as to get a manager for the house, to solace weariness, to banish solitude; but a faithful slave is a far better manager, more submissive to the master, more observant of his ways, than a wife who thinks she proves herself mistress if she acts in opposition to her husband, that is, if she does what pleases her, not what she is commanded.

Then, as now, men had the same fears and faulty reasoning in pursuing relationships with women.

But friends, and servants who are under the obligation of benefits received, are better able to wait upon us in sickness than a wife who makes us responsible for her tears (she will sell you enough to make a deluge for the hope of a legacy), boasts of her anxiety, but drives her sick husband to the distraction of despair. But if she herself is poorly, we must fall sick with her and never leave her bedside.

Notice he uses the word “sell” to describe the woman’s crying and pleading for children (i.e. a legacy). Jerome had enough experience with women to see through the long con.

Or if she be a good and agreeable wife (how rare a bird she is!), we have to share her groans in childbirth, and suffer torture when she is in danger.

Even if she does her best to make your life easy, a good woman still needs much support, protection, and care. Proceed at your own risk.

Then again, to marry for the sake of children, so that our name may not perish, or that we may have support in old age and leave our property without dispute, *is the height of stupidity.* For what is it to us when we are leaving the world if another bears our name, when even a son does not all at once take his father's title, and there are countless others who are called by the same name. Or what support in old age is he whom you bring up, and who may die before you, or turn out a reprobate? Or at all events when he reaches mature age, you may seem to him long in dying.

Many of my grandfather’s friends raised incompetent sons, despite being hardworking and conscientious themselves. As a result, they’ve had no support from their offspring in their old age. It is always a gamble, even if you do right by your family.

Friends and relatives whom you can judiciously love are better and safer heirs than those whom you must make your heirs whether you like it or not. Indeed, the surest way of having a good heir is to ruin your fortune in a good cause while you live, not to leave the fruit of your labour to be used you know not how.

This is probably a big, big factor in how the children of good men become spoiled. They know a great inheritance is in the works, plus they’ve had every want and need fulfilled since their parents were so successful at providing, so where’s the children’s incentive to work hard themselves and pay back the favor? For those same reasons, a wife can be spoiled the same way your children can.

Examples Showing Why Men Should Not Marry

When Cicero - after divorcing Terentia - was requested by Hirtius to marry his sister, he set the matter altogether on one side, and said that he could not possibly devote himself to a wife and to philosophy. Meanwhile that excellent partner, who had herself drunk wisdom at Tully's fountains, married Sallust his enemy, and took for her third husband Messala Corvinus, and thus, as it were, passed through three degrees of eloquence.

Socrates had two wives, Xantippe and Myron, grand-daughter of Aristides. They frequently quarreled, and he was accustomed to banter them for disagreeing about him, he being the ugliest of men, with snub nose, bald forehead, rough-haired, and bandylegged. At last they planned an attack upon him, and having punished him severely and put him to flight, vexed him for a long time.

I find it interesting that St. Jerome pointed out Socrates’ ugliness as the reason for his wives abusing and disrespecting him. I guess looks do matter.

On one occasion when he opposed Xantippe, who from above was heaping abuse upon him, the termagant soused him with dirty water, but he only wiped his head and said, "I knew that a shower must follow such thunder as that."

Socrates had another quip, something along the lines of “If you marry a good wife you will become happy; if you marry a bad one you will become a philosopher.” At least he had a sense of humor about it all.

Metella, consort of Lucius Sulla the Fortunate (except in the matter of his wife) was openly unchaste. It was the common talk of Athens, as I learnt in my youthful years when we soon pick up what is bad, and yet Sulla was in the dark, and first got to know the secrets of his household through the abuse of his enemies.

To put this in context, Lucius Sulla was one of the most successful generals and leaders of Rome. He sacked Athens, captured Rome to end a civil war, became dictator, and reinstated the Roman Senate. He was declared by none other than Machiavelli as having the prime attributes of an effective leader – cunning like a fox, courageous like a lion. Apparently all this had no bearing on his wife’s fidelity.

Pompey had an impure wife Mucia, who was surrounded by eunuchs from Pontus and troops of the countrymen of Mithridates. Others thought that he knew all and submitted to it; but a comrade told him during the campaign, and the conqueror of the whole world was dismayed at the sad intelligence.

Pompey could be considered a successor of sorts to Sulla. As a young military commander, he was wildly successful, ruthless, and bold. He became consul of Rome at age 35, an unprecedented feat attributed to his popularity. All this was still not enough to inspire his wife to remain true. They divorced after Pompey learned of her frequent adultery during his military campaigns.

Cato, the Censor, had a wife Actoria Paula, a woman of low origin, fond of drink, violent, and (who would believe it?) haughty to Cato. I say this for fear anyone may suppose that in marrying a poor woman he has secured peace.

A poor woman will not be automatically appreciative of your relative wealth, and make only modest demands of you. She will still want everything you have to offer. Just as you want her sexual best – and nothing less – she will want your provisional best – and nothing less.

When Philip, king of Macedon, against whom Demosthenes thundered in his Philippics, was entering his bed-room as usual, his wife in a passion shut him out. Finding himself excluded he held his tongue, and consoled himself for the insult by reading a tragic poem.

Even kings are made to sleep on the couch. Sing it with me: "Who run tha world?"

Gorgias the Rhetorician recited his excellent treatise on Concord to the Greeks, then at variance among themselves, at Olympia. Whereupon Melanthius his enemy observed: "Here is a man who teaches us concord, and yet could not make concord between himself, his wife, and maid-servant, three persons in one house." The truth was that his wife envied the beauty of the girl, and drove the purest of men wild with daily quarrels.

How do you keep multiple girlfriends happy? Make each one secretly believe she’s number one.

Whole tragedies of Euripides are censures on women. Hence Hermione says, "The counsels of evil women have beguiled me."

In the semibarbarous and remote city Leptis it is the custom for a daughter-in-law on the second day to beg the loan of a jar from her mother-in-law. The latter at once denies the request, and we see how true was the remark of Terence, ambiguously expressed on purpose -- "How is this? Do all mothers-in-law hate their daughters-in-law?"

A mother often understands her son’s wife/girlfriend better than he does – that hatred means something.

We read of a certain Roman noble who, when his friends found fault with him for having divorced a wife, beautiful, chaste, and rich, put out his foot and said to them, "And the shoe before you looks new and elegant, yet no one but myself knows where it pinches." Herodotus tells us that a woman puts off her modesty with her clothes. And our own comic poet thinks the man fortunate who has never been married.

In all the bombast of tragedy and the overthrow of houses, cities, and kingdoms, it is the wives and concubines who stir up strife. Parents take up arms against their children; unspeakable banquets are served; and on account of the rape of one wretched woman Europe and Asia are involved in a ten years' war.

I am not sure what war Jerome is referring to here, maybe someone with better history knowledge can chime in.

We read of some who were divorced the day after they were married, and immediately married again. Both husbands are to blame, both he who was so soon dissatisfied, and he who was so soon pleased. Epicurus the patron of pleasure (though Metrodorus his disciple married Leontia) says that a wise man can seldom marry, because marriage has many drawbacks. And as riches, honours, bodily health, and other things which we call indifferent, are neither good nor bad, but stand as it were midway, and become good and bad according to the use and issue, so wives stand on the border line of good and ill. It is, moreover, a serious matter for a wise man to be in doubt whether he is going to marry a good or a bad woman.

The Snares of Marital Love; Chastity Recommended to Women

Aristotle and Plutarch and our Seneca have written treatises on matrimony, out of which we have already made some extracts and now add a few more:

The love of beauty is the forgetting of reason and the near neighbour of madness; a foul blot little in keeping with a sound mind. It confuses counsel, breaks high and generous spirits, draws away men from great thoughts to mean ones; it makes men querulous, ill-tempered, foolhardy, cruelly imperious, servile flatterers, good for nothing, at last not even for love itself. For although in the intensity of passion it burns like a raging fire, it wastes much time through suspicions, tears, and complaints: it begets hatred of itself, and at last hates itself."

The course of love is laid bare in Plato's Phaedrus from beginning to end, and Lysias explains all its drawbacks -- how it is led not by reason, but by frenzy, and in particular is a harsh gaoler over lovely wives.

Jerome is talking not only of oneitis, but of pure lust as well. Both can lead to a man’s downfall. In both cases, sexual jealousy can rear its ugly head. But if a woman wants to cheat or branch-swing, there is virtually nothing you can do to stop her from acting on that desire, or from having the desire in the first place. And if a woman does not want to cheat or branch-swing, then jealousy is useless and can only damage your standing in the relationship, perhaps leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy. And all the while, your feelings of rage and inadequacy only cause you psychological harm. That said, I completely understand the natural tendency to become jealous. It is probably an evolved, instinctive response to being cuckolded or losing reproductive opportunity, which would’ve been useful to avoid wasting resources and to keep your genes in the gene pool. But if sex is all you’re after – and the women you sleep with fulfill your sexual desires – then what do her other lovers matter to you? Sure, STDs are a concern, but if it’s your goal to sleep with multiple women, you’re already exposing yourself to considerable risk.

There is nothing blacker than to love a wife as if she were an adulteress. Men who say they have contracted marriage and are bringing up children, for the good of their country and of the race, should at least imitate the brutes, and not destroy their offspring in the womb; nor should they appear in the character of lovers, but of husbands. In some cases marriage has grown out of adultery; and, shameful to relate! men have tried to teach their wives chastity after having taken their chastity away.

I think this speaks to the hypocrisy of men expecting women to enjoy having sex, but only with them and no one else. If a woman likes wine, would she only drink chardonnay? If a woman likes country, would she only listen to Carrie Underwood? Likewise, if a woman genuinely enjoys sex, why would her tastes be limited to just one man?

Marriages of that sort are quickly dissolved when lust is satiated. The first allurement gone, the charm is lost.

Relationships based on attraction alone do not last, simple as that. You actually have to be compatible as people – if that’s possible between a man and woman. You both need enough self-control and motivation to overcome your straying impulses. Men must check their desire for polygamy, and women must check their desire for hypergamy. Otherwise, the relationship will become exploitative on one side or the other, or dissolve entirely.

What shall I say, says Seneca, of the poor men who in numbers are bribed to take the name of husband in order to evade the laws promulgated against bachelors? How can he who is married under such conditions be a guide to morality, teach chastity, and maintain the authority of a husband?

Even then, men were compelled to marry and place themselves under the yoke. Remind me again how Marriage 1.0 was such a good deal? Ain’t a damn thing changed.

Summary: St. Jerome, one of the most influential figures in early Christianity, warned of the follies and dangers of marriage, and advised wholeheartedly against it. Even during Marriage 1.0, women often ruled the relationship. Famous philosophers, powerful rulers, and charming orators were unable to keep their wives in check. Jealousy and mate-guarding are useless to prevent cheating, they can only help a man to walk away from potential cuckoldry and abuse. It is paradoxical to expect a woman who enjoys sex to only desire it with you. Conversely, it is irrational to expect a chaste woman to act like your own personal whore.

Do not marry for sex or love, because the relationship will crumble when mutual attraction fades. Marrying to have kids is also foolish, because you don’t know how they will turn out or whether they will actually support you in your old age. Ultimately, it is impossible to know for certain beforehand if a woman will make a good or bad wife, so it is wisest to avoid the risk altogether. DO NOT MARRY.

Post Information
Title St. Jerome, 393 AD: Men Should Not Marry
Upvotes 704
Comments 113
Date 18 March 2016 04:40 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
mate guardingbranch swingingpolygamycheatinghypergamylong term relationshipthe red pill

[–]PaperbackParrot143 points144 points  (25 children) | Copy

This post is fucking incredible.

How long did it take you to sift through all of this information for TRP knowledge? We talk about the history of evolutionary psychology oftentimes (which covers the course of millions of years), but this type of history really drives home the fact that we really are not alone in our understanding of woman. That part about THE CHAD Lucius Sulla drives a strong point home that you really cannot be perfect for a woman.

Quality post fam

[–]FiveLions[🍰] 71 points72 points  (1 child) | Copy

This post needs to be stickied. It's a revelation. Makes me feel like we aren't different (as men) from our ancestors. It also gives collateral to the mods and redpillers who have been saying the same thing (i.e. this is biological, men have been going through this for ages etc) more clout for the truth they speak. My ancestors went through this, so shall i.

[–]truthyego8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

It is a revelation... from a saint no less. Praise Jebus!

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy

Until recently we couldn't really test for paternity so in a way the men of ancient times were even more redpill.

[–]truthyego2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

We need to up vote this post until it reaches the front page of reddit (if thats even possible)

[–]Toolman89010 points11 points  (17 children) | Copy

I think a good point is that most of them were away on campaigns, much like the increased likelihood of military wives cheating today. You have to be present. For some reason many of you have a problem with 'mateguarding' which I disagree with to an extent. I do not think your wife should ever even have the opportunity to cheat.

It's true that if a woman wants to cheat then she can do it easily whilst you're at work. But you shouldn't ever allow your woman to be in a position to be taken, aka social events without you, going out to drinks, etc. Those are places where a woman who is otherwise pleased with you and won't go out of her way to cheat, will cheat after being hooked in by the right man in the right situation.

If you never let her be in those situations, and you keep her happy, she most likely isn't going to be seduced by another man at the supermarket or get one off facebook.

But if you're away, she's going to get lonely and go out socialising.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours27 points28 points  (4 children) | Copy

Still new to this, aren't you? You assume you can keep her faithful, you think you being around and keeping her happy will work? You don't know girls. If you have been in a long term relationship, then you have been cheated on and never knew it. Guaranteed.

Simply because you don't know, does not mean she hasn't cheated. You can't be around her 24/7 and if you are she will tire of you quickly.

What works best, but is very far from 100% effective, is dread. Everything else you stated is hope dressed up in jealousy and insecurities. Hope that she will "do the right thing" or that you can control her, or be alpha enough, keep her happy enough. What it tells me is that you don't know fuck about shit when it comes to girls.

To the sidebar with you before you fuck up your life father, or mislead others into thinking your ideas hold water.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Agreed. I experienced this myself a bit (I'm 28) and I know what EVERY man has ever told me anyway (I'm from Eastern Bloc and this knowledge here is often): you can't lock women. There is nothing you can do to stop them. They will cheat. Simply get that naive idea of your mind.

I've heard this from guys of all walks of life: from pipeline workers to high level politicians and enterpreneurs.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy


Every girl will cheat, every fucking one of given opportunity and plausible deniability. I made the mistake of thinking that an ugly girl would never cheat because nobody would ever want her. Turns out there are desperate losers out there who would walk a mile barefoot in broken glass just to hear that ugly girl fart over the radio. All he needs to do is appear to be better than you in any way, and she will fuck him.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Ugly girls are pain in the ass in much more ways then handsome girls. They compensate for their frustration by being bitchy most of the time.

I avoid them as much as I can. Anyway one of the most important notions od trp is that with women it's just your turn. I don't know if I will ever get married.

But I'd like to have a kid so I'm not sure what to do

[–]1MCMLVII[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

I do not think your wife should ever even have the opportunity to cheat

If your wife even has the intention to cheat, you've already lost the most important battle. Any efforts to prevent it will only further convince her she can do better, but even so, some women will stray no matter how good you are.

Also, to take this further, I think a lot of women do not have an intrinsic understanding of why sexual fidelity is such a huge deal to men. Perhaps they understand it at the abstract level, but since women cannot be cuckolded, they have not developed the gut instinct or feeling that tells them cheating is bad (and we know they trust feelings more anyway).

They are fine with sharing a high-value mate, so they extrapolate that attitude to you as well. For instance, if a woman has sex with her husband/boyfriend 95% of the time, and some other lover(s) 5% of the time, I imagine some women would consider that a win-win. After all, hubby gets most of the sex, why should he complain? /s

[–]FiveLions[🍰] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

This may also be why so many women have accepted their high value partner's mistresses throughout history. Not unlike wives of famous athletes today.

[–]LazyMagus7 points8 points  (9 children) | Copy

OK. So, you guard her well. I still don't understand how you are going to stop her from sleeping a casanova when he meets her at a supermarket and takes her on a instant date? Are you going to hire a maid for doing the shopping too? Or a detective?

[–]1theoctopuss8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

You don't get married. That's what.

[–]rmnfcbnyy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

TRP is onto something? Who knew?

This post deserves a spot in the hall of fame. Excellent write up and great find. Masterpiece.

[–]moredishware60 points61 points  (1 child) | Copy

it is impossible for anyone to attend to his books and his wife

Fucking lmfao. Golden post, with gilded edges.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

Couple that with

it is led not by reason, but by frenzy

And you have a golden RP rule:

"To stay sane and grounded, do not fall in love. Do not get married."

[–]sir_Preacher50 points51 points  (2 children) | Copy

Do all mothers-in-law hate their daughters-in-law?" A mother often understands her son’s wife/girlfriend better than he does – that hatred means something

Hardly will you come across a mother-in-law who does not hate or isn't jealous of her daughter-in-law.

She knows that the tricks she has been using to manipulate her husband and her son are the same another woman is using to manipulate her son. And she hates it.

Part of the hatred is also becaue she feels like the daughter-in- law is reaping where she has not sown, especially when her son is rich. Forgetting that she(and her daughters) also married another woman's son, and reaped where she hadn't sown

[–]sweetleef22 points23 points  (1 child) | Copy

Agreed, and there's also the instinctual competition for status in the eyes of the man, and/or power to dominate him.

The mother and daughter-in-law are both fighting to be the "most important" woman, to be superior in controlling the man's attention and loyalty - so they will constantly set up confrontations where the man is forced to pick a side.

[–]Chinchilla_the_Hun8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

there's also the instinctual competition for status in the eyes of the man, and/or power to dominate him.

Hitting the nail on the head there. They either want the benefits of a strong man or the dopamine rush from pushing him around.

Story time: Mrs. the-Hun has 5 sisters and 1 brother (he's the first child). Guy was a solid alpha: started and ran his own small side business at a young age, made smart financial investments, exercised his talents, took care of his health, etc. Unfortunately, he married an immature annoyance. It's not bad enough that she coast on his success, but what's worse, I've noticed that she has gradually turned him more of a shade of blue. The constant vitriol towards his wife that I observe behind the scenes is palpable.

[–]tb8767033 points34 points  (0 children) | Copy

Damn son, this is a very well thought well laid out post full of good information. You did some serious book digging. Forget buying some reddit gold, someone buy this man a bottle of cialis and rent him a few clean prostitutes for a week!

Jokes aside it's sad that this is the nature of women. Really, they are self-destructive to all relationships of all kinds. A chaste girl is pointed out above to likely have low sex drive, so why expect her to be your personal whore? On the opposite end a woman that loves sex will never be satisfied with just you, even if you are a 10/10 piece of man-candy. Very good insights with a historical context showing that this has always been a problem in society, but there were just enough laws and social taboos in place to allow man kind to advance until recently when those fail-safes were removed because of the hippies and the 'sexual revolution'.

[–][deleted] 85 points86 points  (10 children) | Copy

I bang my head against the wall that your epic post is currently at +9 when vapid, click-baity bullshit is frequently on the front page of +300. If only there was some way to remove upvote privileges from new users. But I digress.

Your post is really fantastic and it reinforces in my mind one of the most frequent errors that we in TRP often make - and that is looking at the past through rose-colored lenses. We assume that a lot of these difficulties of women's nature that we see nowadays are a modern thing. We think that it's a problem of Western society. We say that if you go to Brazil/Thailand/Poland/whatever you'll find REAL women. Or that if you go farther back in history that you'll find a time when hypergamy wasn't so strong.

It's all a fantasy. This is how women are by their very nature. Marriage only make sense if you have the skills and frame necessary to make it work, and if you find one of those rare women with whom it is possible to make it work. We have to resist the urge to play by womens' rules, to allow them to decide the nature of our relationships, and to cave in to the social pressure to become a woman's slave.

[–]LazyMagus18 points19 points  (4 children) | Copy

I am not an important guy here (so I risked being banned), but even posts like a recent one from a popular contributor on 'understanding women' (which didn't read like the Holy Grail the author promised it to be) are getting undue attention compared to gold posts like OP's.

So, it's not just the newbies who are contributing to the unfair rise of certain posts, it's also the long term users who automatically upvote anything from popular users here, regardless of content.

[–]lnTheRearWithTheGear12 points13 points  (2 children) | Copy

The endorsed contributor tag is a crock of shit. Not sure how it's handed out, but it doesn't mean much.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]LazyMagus0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

How does someone donate to TRP instead of Reddit?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

There are 144,000 people subscribed to this sub and you think the several dozen popular users are throwing off numbers in terms of upvoting content?

[–]1MCMLVII[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

Or that if you go farther back in history that you'll find a time when hypergamy wasn't so strong.

You won't find a time when hypergamy was weaker, only times when men were stronger and smarter.

[–]ColdEiric6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

I bang my head against the wall that your epic post is currently at +9 when vapid, click-baity bullshit is frequently on the front page of +300.

Gold doesn't shine as much as well-polished shit shines. Imagine how few people there are who are able to spot the true goldmines, and imagine how easily common idiots persuade other common idiots.

[–]Mithra90091 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

To be fair, I think these anecdotes are coming from the time when Rome was nearing its collapse just as the west is today so I don't think it's necessarily accurate to look at Rome during this particular time and conclude that literally, throughout the history of mankind, AWALT.

[–]Physio_Tool3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

You nailed it. Rome collapsed due to its century of decadence, softness, impiety, collapse of identity. Smaller towns in america still have their collective sense of community and some morals and ultimately chicks cant afford to ride the cc due to lack of abundance and the easy dissemination of their wanton behaviour. But everywhere else is declining, morals have decayed and we will largely suffer the fate of rome

[–]masnera-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Marriage only make sense if you have the skills and frame necessary to make it work

so there's still a condition that marriage makes sense. Having been in TRP for few months...this post seems like a rant to me.

Edit: a rant using historical facts. Women are women, we must discuss how men must become men.

[–]Knowmadik28 points29 points  (0 children) | Copy

A mother often understands her son’s wife/girlfriend better than he does – that hatred means something.

This in particular is an excellent point that I have not heard before. Women love children, even their adult ones. They understand their own predatory nature is the same as their son's SO, and a defense mechanism is triggered. Not for their sake, but for their sons sake.

[–]redparadigm22 points23 points  (6 children) | Copy

TRP is slowly but surely is becoming a a source of very in depth and mature analysis and discussions, one of the best online. Your post is a great example of this. We'll done sir.

It's pretty illuminating to me, as I was always fed that poor women were utterly suppressed before the sixties happened, and yet, here we read, that fucking powerful generals couldn't keep their women in check and were under constant barrage of infidelity, disrespect and shit tests. The weaker gender my ass.

As a side note, do we know how Marcus Aurelius handled women? Do we have any succulent quotes of him on the matter? I ask as I know he is highly regarded here.

[–]bebestman2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

As a side note, do we know how Marcus Aurelius handled women? Do we have any succulent quotes of him on the matter? I ask as I know he is highly regarded here.

TRP on the matter. His wife cheated plenty on him, at least according to some Roman sources. Her husband however seemed to have loved and respected her. Make of it what you will. Keep in mind that people in antiquity had a different perspective on the institution of marriage than people in modernity.

[–]redparadigm1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Please elaborate how opinions on marriage differed in antiquity.

[–]bebestman7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

You could fill a couple of books on this topic. The short of it is that marriage was something you just had to do and was for the purpose of creating progeny. Notably, this meant that adultery could only commited by the husband if he screwed around with an unmarried woman or a married woman, however slaves, prostitutes and other men were fair game. If the wife was cheating, it was her paterfamilia that was allowed to kill both her and her lover if the latter was a Roman citizen or only her lover if he was not. Notably, the husband being cheated on did not have this right to kill his wife, but he was obligated to divorce her and charge her with adultery, else he could be charged with whoremongering.

All these facts suggest to me that the Romans viewed marriage differently. Most notably, marriage is not something done out of love, so unfaithfulness is viewed differently. Read up on the whole thing on Wikipedia under "Marriage in ancient Rome".

[–]redparadigm1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Fascinating, Thanks for the comprehensive answer.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy

Brilliant analysis my friend. We often look to the past with rose tinted lenses, thinking things were much better back then. This is a beautiful reminder that they weren't. And the fairy-tale vision we believe women to be... They never will be.

[–]Endorsed Contributormonsieurhire215 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy

Excellent post. This kind of thing inspires me to read history books. Am currently reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I started with the chapter on Commodus.

My take: Basically, since Marcus Aurelius appeared to be clueless about his wife Faustina's rampant adultery, even going as far as to make her an honorary deity to chastity, even while the Empire knew that she was a slut, it is very likely that Commodus was a product of cuckholdry, and therefore not his natural-born son.

So, even though he was virtuous, his bluepill ways ultimately led to the suffering of millions and the weakening of his Empire. All hell breaks loose after Commodus becomes Emperor, and he was around for 13 years. And all because Marcus couldn't control his wife, or find a woman he could control, and was delusional about female nature.

[–]Sdom118 points19 points  (1 child) | Copy

Contrast that with Julius Caesar, who divorced his wife simply because it was rumored she was being adulterous. She protested, and he said "The wife of Caesar must be above reproach."

So yeah, zero fucking tolerance.

[–]Physio_Tool1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

If anyone had that sort of self-respect for themselves that Caeser had they would not accept that behaviour either and would deal with the situation with keen prudence.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Marcus had other children but they died. Also, in earlier times Roman emperors were often not direct descendants of their predecessors but part of their extended family and adopted as adults. Marcus was adopted by the previous emporer.

Direct descendants tended to be worse emporers, cuckoldry aside.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana29 points30 points  (2 children) | Copy

TRP should have a permanent shrine dedicated to this man.

[–]Manducor 17 points17 points [recovered] | Copy

It might be a cool idea if we had "historical" flare for RP wisdom of the past, or maybe even an entire subforum dedicated to historical wisdom

[–]Physio_Tool4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Way more tangible and substantiating then 20 flimsy evo-psychology theories competing to explain our behaviour

[–]heretik11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

To support a poor wife, is hard; to put up with a rich one, is torture.

My hair stood up when I read that.

[–]MEpicLevelCheater[M] 13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy

Your posts are of a consistently high-quality. Thank you for your contributions to both original content and discussions.

[–]Physio_Tool2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Seriously, this kind of post is better then most blog posts or anything you'd even see at ROK

[–]says_harsh_things10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think I know which books are next to be removed from liberal arts college libraries.

[–]2renzy777 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Terrific post! I would love to see more content like this on TRP. It really brought home the fact that we aren't discovering, so much as rediscovering, what men of old have always known about women.

[–]cariboo_j10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

Excellent post!

I'm of the opinion that there was no golden age where marriage was awesome and edit: [men] and women fit together like hands on a glove.

Sexual relationships have always been competitive /adversarial. Male and female reproductive strategies have conflicting interests at their cores.

The traditionalists who look back wistfully at the past are deluding themselves. It's the same old shit; it's just more out in the open today.

I posted this before but when he was writing about marriage Schopenhauer quipped

that discord in married life which is so prevalent and almost the normal state.

300 years ago... 1600 years ago... It's all the same shit.

[–]anglertaio7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy

This is a terrific post.

It must be remembered that St. Jerome believed marriage to be far better than fornication. He would judge the sub harshly—more harshly than he did men who marry. “Sexual strategy is amoral” would get a bitter laugh from him.

[–]redparadigm4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy

Op wrote that he himself had a very hedonistic past. So it's another case of do as I say not as I do.

[–]charlesbukowksi 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

Many of the church fathers did, interestingly.

[–]Physio_Tool4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yup, cause once you finally satiate the lust for the validation that comes from fucking a lot of girl, you realise the hollowness of sex and that there is far more reward in a virtuous life then one of a revolving door of chasing hedonic pleasures

[–]Endorsed ContributorClint_Redwood9 points10 points  (9 children) | Copy

On one occasion when he opposed Xantippe, who from above was heaping abuse upon him, the termagant soused him with dirty water, but he only wiped his head and said, "I knew that a shower must follow such thunder as that."

Damn, never knew Socrates was had such a quick wipe. That's some jedi level amused mastery.

[–]RedSugarPill11 points12 points  (8 children) | Copy

I fought back tears when I read that one of the most beautiful men in the history of forever, Socrates, was treated like dirt by his own wife.

If I ever get the chance, I will piss and shit on Xantippe's grave in Socrates' honor.

[–][deleted] 24 points24 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]RedSugarPill7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Touche. I still want to piss on her grave :)

[–]Physio_Tool0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Well that may work well for a Sage like socrates who probably comes along once a century. But most people, even the self-proclaimed 'solid-frame' badasses of TRP, cannot mentally and physically endure a constant barrage of abuse and stress. Eventually trauma happens as a result of Stress finally breaking through your mechanisms for processing stress and then you must cope with what you now have burning deep inside you

[–]PlanB_pedofile6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

There's a reason why there are no women philosophers. That level of thinking is lost to them.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Abraham Lincoln's wife was awful as well

[–]LeftShark866 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Fantastic post. Thanks for the insight.

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy

Yep. Christianity has always been in support of controlling sexuality, not just as a religious practice, but out of pragmatism, to give stability and order to the bloody mess that is sexual attraction. Pauls writings on marriage are quite RP, stating that, if a man can control himself, it is beneficial that he does not marry.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]PlanB_pedofile2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Ironic since many of the apostles were bachelor's till death

[–]TecoAndJix2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

1 corinthians 7, that was the first thing I thought of when I read this.

[–]PlanB_pedofile-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Paul, being a Roman, knew that his society was progressive and the thought of enforcement of mid eastern law of executing women for adultery wouldn't fly. So don't marry.

Old testament marriage was enforced with punishment. Usually through stoning and a man would then obtain a new wife the same way he would obtain an Ox. A wife and a servant were pretty much interchangeable.

[–]Whitified3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Christianity has always been and will always be RP

The modern church though, is an absolute disgrace...

[–]supergilbert2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Christianity is the ultimate red pill.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

There's no sluts in church?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Just to repeat what others are saying - excellent post. We need more stuff like this here.

[–]Sdom15 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

I am not sure what war Jerome is referring to here, maybe someone with better history knowledge can chime in.

Er, God, I assume this is a joke. It has to be. You seem to know quite a bit. But for anyone in the thread who doesn't know, the war being referenced is the Trojan War. Interestingly enough, the consensus always used to be that the Trojan war was a myth, as was Troy. A German Archaeologist carefully read the Iliad, and from clues he found theorized that the site was at Hissarlik, in modern-day Turkey. And this proved to be correct. Not only that, but there's evidence the city was burned in the time frame that the Ancient Greeks claimed the war occurred.

[–]1MCMLVII[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah, I thought it was the Trojan War, but the vagueness threw me off, so I left it at that.

[–]Sdom11 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The 10 year reference was the giveaway. The Trojan War lasted 10 years.

[–]should_4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I might be taking on a more DarkEnlightenment angle, but at least in our world today, the number one thing a child can wish for for the sake of their own development is to be born to parents that are and stay married. 70% of criminals, store robbers, juvenile delinquents, murderers, etc come from single mother homes. Society needs to stop giving women the right to a man's bank account if they're not married and cut out goodie bags from divorce settlements -- basically, anything to make marriage suck less.

[–]unseen1unknown16 points17 points  (8 children) | Copy

nice work mate, I only just recently started going to a catholic church as well, so much history to learn.

By the way

"I am not sure what war Jerome is referring to here, maybe someone with better history knowledge can chime in"

He is probably referring to the Trojan war that started after Paris when back to Troy with Helen of Sparta

As for your summary I think the reason Christianity was spread so successfully when the Roman empire was collapsing, was one of the Sacraments being that once you married it was for life with no divorce possible and whoever committed adultery would be sent to hell.

And as for your kids not supporting you in your old age, I disagree I because I think if you raise your kids right i.e not be a massive cunt to them and actually spend time with them, they'll be more likely to help you out when you are older and need taking care of.

[–]bakerizer5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

He is probably referring to the Trojan war that started after Paris when back to Troy with Helen of Sparta

I am pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Everyone knows about Troy.

I think if you raise your kids right

Children are separate from their parents. The apple can and often does fall very far from the tree.

[–]bebestman4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

The apple can and often does fall very far from the tree.

In my, admittedly limited, experience, the apple does not fall far from the tree. People that neglect their parents usually have parents that in turn neglected their parents.

This applies equally to many other traits: People who were quiet, calm children that did not make their home a living hell, usually have equally calm children. Also, loyal parents usually have loyal children. All of which makes me suspicious of people who hate their parents, as I suspect they will show the exact traits they so despise.

[–]1MCMLVII[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I suspected it was the Trojan War, but the way Jerome described it threw me off. I thought Helen had been seduced and eloped with Paris, not raped, and his mentioning "Europe vs. Asia" instead of the more specific "Trojans vs. Achaeans" also confused me.

[–]OptimusCrime691 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's a literary tool to say Europe vs. Asia or the purpose of exaggeration.

Anyways Asia back then referred to the Anatolian Peninsula which Troy was located on.

[–]PlanB_pedofile10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy

There's this disconnect between western civilization and Abrahamic religion.

Abrahamic religion is very middle eastern. The old testament is not a bunch of white men in robes but bearded brown men living in the desert wearing turbans.

Marriage in that region is what we see today with islam. Wives can be stoned for adultery, women are property, and marriage is a lawful contract. Women cannot initiate a divorce. Only a man can. It is expected of a middle eastern family to have their children take care of the patriarch in old age.

The foolishness of Christianity is this thought that you can have an old testament style marriage in a progressive western world. Rome then is much like what we have today. Rampant sexual instinct with a very progressive mindset. This includes women being presented as near equals instead of 2nd class citizens equal to maids and female slaves.

Jerome sees the folly in having a traditional middle eastern matrimony in a progressive society. It doesn't work because by nature women are passive and unfaithful.

[–]bebestman1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Can you expand on the idea of the clash between western civilization and Abrahamitic religion? Or at least link to material that does. It seems like a rather intriguing concept, especially in the context of the renaissance reviving ideas of antiquity and leading to modern progressiveness.

[–]PlanB_pedofile4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

The overall language between the old testament and the new testament shifts dramatically. Where the old testament was stories based upon prophets, heroes, and kings, the new testament is about philosophy and salvation. This of course spans the region where the religions propagated as well. Judaism O/T focuses around the egypt mid-east region to what we know today is Israel. Pretty much the whole 3000 years of the Old Testament deals with that area. Rise and fall of Kingdoms, Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines or Gideon and his 70 sons from the multiple wives he had captured. Women were property that was married off to patriarchs and the price of adultery was high.

So all that history in the region then things began to change around the end of the book Nehemia at 400BC, Alexander the Great at 350BC and the whole Greek thing, Ceasar and the Roman empire taking over the Judea region at 44BC till we hit Jesus.

So you can imagine the the differences of the Roman Culture (polytheism,) was introduced to Judea at the time. Then along came Christ, which led to the Apostles. The Apostle Paul, a Roman citizen, whom in my opinion was the biggest figure in the early Christian church with his letters and guidance of the faith was the catalyst that caused Christianity to spread like wildfire through the Greece and Rome and long the mediterranean. The "western" like societies with their progressive views on sex, alcohol, polytheism, are now being influenced by a patriarchal arab monotheistic religion. But the focus wasn't so much on becoming a Jew like Jesus, but to seek salvation within Jesus. Paul said that you can become a Christian without regarding much of anything in the Old Testament. This was the case brought up when people asked if they needed to be circumcised even though they were not jewish. They also wondered if they needed to adopt much of the jewish religion in order to have salvation to which again Paul mentions that salvation is through Christ, not old abrahamic laws.

Of course the holy roman church, the assembly of the bible, and the adaptation of those stricter views on marriage, sex

[–]anglertaio1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Right, it’s the Trojan War. Classically, “Asia” was at the east shore of the Aegean Sea, and (sometimes) “Europe” was at the west shore of it.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

I actually took the time to read the wall of text. In the end, my anger and oneitis diminished and internalizing of TRP truths improved. Concepts like mate guarding make more sense as does the hypergamy/polygamy dynamic. The difficulty in finding a good mate is apparent... and why monk mode isn't a self-imposed punishment. Rather, it's the greatest freedom a man can give himself. Try monk mode when you're married with kids. HA!

Thank you for such an inspiring post. Perhaps those of us that were indoctrinated into religion at an early age will appreciate this more than most.

[–]PlanB_pedofile6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

Monk mode is not for a family man. Patriarchy mode is the only mode for men with wives and family.

Once you have a child, your duty is now fatherly. Now many cultures have different roles of father figure ranging from king patriarch, teacher / master, all the way down to uninvolved sperm donor.

Pick one. Way western society is becoming, men are diminished to sperm donor while betas become the non biological father figure.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

men are diminished to sperm donor while betas become the non biological father figure

Excellent points... however.... A former family man, that was reduced to a sperm donor while a beta raises his kids, has the time to spend in monk mode and improve himself. His name/legacy/prodigy has endured. He now has the opportunity to improve, lead, and become the man he may have not otherwise become had he stayed in patriarchy mode. The number of men that will fall into this category will continue to grow until their children see the light and choose not to follow their beta upbringing.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I remember reading a quote about cultures with slaves, that men with enough money buy a hot wife were the happiest because they didnt have to deal with the bullshit that came with marriage. He could pretty much do whatever he wanted, and if the wife messed up she is punishable.

[–]no_face2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Do all mothers-in-law hate their daughters-in-law?

Mothers-in-law do hate their daughters-in-law. Their sons are now "under new management" and they see it as a loss of exclusive control of someone who they could rely on to call for any sort of aid, unquestioned.

[–]cariboo_j3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

He became consul of Rome at age 35, an unprecedented feat attributed to his popularity. All this was still not enough to inspire his wife to remain true. They divorced after Pompey learned of her frequent adultery during his military campaigns.

Obviously Pompey should've lifted more bro.

I bet he didn't dread game enough.


[–]NeoreactionSafe2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy


Even then, men were compelled to marry and place themselves under the yoke. Remind me again how Marriage 1.0 was such a good deal? Ain’t a damn thing changed.


It was a good post up to that point then... screech... it went off the rails.

393 A.D. is during the late Empire. (technically the Holy Roman Empire)

That would be Marriage 2.0.

Marriage 1.0 for the Romans would have been before Christ in the Republic.

Those laws were passed in 9 A.D. which is the beginning of the Empire.


Marriage 1.0 was set up so women could not vote or own property.

In a divorce in Marriage 1.0 a woman got nothing so there was no Divorce Rape.

There were no Child Support Laws, so no slavery.


[–]desno2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

This legitly looks like something a RP or mgtow user would write

[–]DysfunctionalBrother0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Fuck me, how long did i take you to write this? It would of taken me a whole day to write something of equal length.

[–]1MCMLVII[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

It took a few hours over the course of a few days. When I came across the texts, I knew I had to contribute it here.

[–]aanarchist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

hmmm, a chaste asexual....i want one. i can pedestalize her to my blue pill heart's content :)

[–]blake33340 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Guys been writing about the truth the whole time but I betcha you the few people who did read it laughed it off has if he was crazy... when in fact he had the shit down to a science. It's like watching a guy till everybody aliens are wearing skins of humans and taking over the world on TV and everyone laughs it off like thats guys crazy but in reality when they see the truth and hop out of the rabbit hole there not laughing anymore in fact there now the guy screaming on TV warning about the aliens wearing the skin of humans trying to take over the world lol.

[–]WhySoRuff0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

A mother often understands her son’s wife/girlfriend better than he does – that hatred means something.

It's funny that usually the mother is who programs her son into betahood. All those years of manipulation has turned him into a needy, submissive, doormat. How is it that she hates another woman for filling the void she created?

There is that lack of self awareness rearing it's ugly head again.

"On one occasion when he opposed Xantippe, who from above was heaping abuse upon him, the termagant soused him with dirty water, but he only wiped his head and said, "I knew that a shower must follow such thunder as that."

In my culture their is an old saying aimed at fools:

"They spit on your face, but you think it's raining."

I'm impressed at Socrates' wit and frame to counter with such a line.

[–]Telocvovim0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

so my dad told them: "guys, cmon, seriously, dont eat that"

first thing that bitch does is eat it. so, yeah. thats why im here.


[–]Lintmin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Absolutely great post and research. Bookmarked it. St. Jerome was a beast!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I think alot of guys are missing the point about these great anecdotes.

This is in the context of civilisations. Once the state is removed as a total provider/protector, things drastically change. Not to mention that most examples are affluent women.

[–]KizahdStenter0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The "wretched" woman you asked about was Helen, wife of the king of Sparta. Her "leaving" with Paris of Troy was the cause of the ten year Trojan war.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter