Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jeffreyjerpp" data-source="post: 1251482" data-attributes="member: 11697">The sexual market and marriage are inseparable.&nbsp; Marriage as a social norm was the best, most constructive, civilization enhancing sexual market regulation ever.&nbsp; The fact that we've lost it proves we're a civilization made up of decadent idiots and queers.In ancient Rome, it actually was legally mandatory for men to get married.&nbsp; Penalties for not getting married were harsh, you could effectively be barred from receiving any kind of inheritance among other things.&nbsp; In exchange for the selfless act of taking on the care of a woman and children, Roman men got the status of &quot;Paterfamilias&quot;, which meant the following: &quot;He held legal privilege over the property of the familia, and varying levels of authority over his dependents: these included his wife and children, certain other relatives through blood or adoption, clients, freedmen and slaves....He had a duty to father and raise healthy children as future citizens of Rome, to maintain the moral propriety and well-being of his household, to honour his clan and ancestral gods and to dutifully participate—and if possible, serve—in Rome's political, religious and social life. In effect, the pater familias was expected to be a good citizen. In theory at least, he held powers of life and death over every member of his extended familia through ancient right. In practice, the extreme form of this right was seldom exercised. It was eventually limited by law.[3]&quot;In exchange for marrying a woman and providing for her, you got total and unquestionable authority over your household.&nbsp; Seems like a fair deal to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jeffreyjerpp, post: 1251482, member: 11697"] The sexual market and marriage are inseparable. Marriage as a social norm was the best, most constructive, civilization enhancing sexual market regulation [i]ever[/i]. The fact that we've lost it proves we're a civilization made up of decadent idiots and queers. In ancient Rome, it actually was [u][b]legally mandatory[/b][/u] for men to get married. Penalties for not getting married were harsh, you could effectively be barred from receiving any kind of inheritance among other things. In exchange for the selfless act of taking on the care of a woman and children, Roman men got the status of "Paterfamilias", which meant the following: "He held legal privilege over the property of the familia, and varying levels of authority over his dependents: these included his wife and children, certain other relatives through blood or adoption, clients, freedmen and slaves....He had a duty to father and raise healthy children as future citizens of Rome, to maintain the moral propriety and well-being of his household, to honour his clan and ancestral gods and to dutifully participate—and if possible, serve—in Rome's political, religious and social life. In effect, the pater familias was expected to be a good citizen. In theory at least, [b]he held powers of life and death over every member of his extended familia through ancient right[/b]. In practice, the extreme form of this right was seldom exercised. It was eventually limited by law.[3]" In exchange for marrying a woman and providing for her, you got total and unquestionable authority over your household. Seems like a fair deal to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification