Hot The Invasion of the Libtards

jpc

PI Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
1,674
Likes
2,200

jon 1000's of irish f

Donator
PI Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
6,192
Likes
4,158
how it will all end: as happened in rome. page wont link! top comment on article "
on these terms marriage became unfashionable, especially among the men—but perhaps it would be more just to say that marriage on these terms was despised, for there seemed to be few advantages to be gained, many' to be lost. A large number of leading citizens preferred a mistress (concubina) to a wife.
talk about echoes of history

sounds like a lot of roman men went their own way

I wonder if the liberated roman women called to them to "man up" as their country was overrun by teutons"
Want to know how the endgame for the West will look like? Take a look at Romes decline. The following excerpt is from J D Unwins 1934 "Sex and Cultures", which describes how the dissolution of strict monogamic marriage leads to Romes downfall.

In the second century confarreatio disappeared, and for no less than seventy-five years it was impossible to find a man qualified to occupy, the priesthood of Jupiter, for the occupier of that office had to be the product f a confarreatio marriage. Free marriages became usual, made and broken by mutual consent. Indeed the will of one party only was sufficient for divorce, the intention to dissolve being communicated either byword of mouth or by messenger. There was no ceremony, no registration, no formality. Women were free from any trace of marital authority ; they/ could hold property and could- contract in their own name. The tutela remained, but a woman could appoint her own guardian, and the ingenuity of fashionable lawyers assisted them to escape the limitations which a nominal tutelage imposed. Even on these terms marriage became unfashionable, especially among the men—but perhaps it would be more just to say that marriage on these terms was despised, for there seemed to be few advantages to be gained, many' to be lost. A large number of leading citizens preferred a mistress (concubina) to a wife. A Roman concubina was not an additional sexual partner; She was a man's sole female . companion, sometimes his life-läng associate. The one great difference was that a freeman could take a freedwoman as a concubina but not as a Wife.
Augustus endeavoured to effect a change by the Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea, but it is doubtful if his efforts to prop up a rotting -edifice. were successful. It took three years -to persuade the people to accept the law, which Muirhead describes as 'a voluminous matrimonial code, which for two or three centuries exercised such an influence as to be regarded as one of the sources of Roman law almost quite as much as the Twelve Tables'. Certainly the tone of many of its provisions -was contrary to the practices of - the first century. B.C., but the 'basis of sexual relationships remained the same—mutualconsent. The object .of the law was not to reintroduce compulsory continence, but to encourage fertility and to restore some order into the existing chaos. marriage with men and women of low character was forbidden; unmarried persons were , not allowed to benefit under a will; married childless people were permitted to inherit only half their legal share ; mothers of children were relieved of tutela; concubinage reCeived official sanction ; no divorce was valid unless a -formal declaration was made, before witnesses. Such was the tenor• of the proposals of the Princeps. Soon the emancipation of women received official sanction. The parental authority also was abolished almost completely.
Gradually- the old forms of government, outwardly preserved, ceased to function. The conzitia lost even the shadow of authority;, it was simply incapable of possessing it. It was the same with the senate. 'There can be little doubt', Sir Samuel Dill observes, 'that there were men who dreamed of a restored senatorial power. It is equally 'certain that the , senate was incapable of asserting it; The extension of sexual opportunity had done its work. The -Romans satisfied their sexual desires in a direct manner.. Consequently they had no energy for anything else.
[...]
Yet once more-there emerged a group of men who had spent their early years in an atmosphere of compulsory continence. I mean the Christians. They had survived many violent persecutions; eventually theyydominated the, Empire, which in the fourth century recovered the strength it had shown in the second century. The 'Edict of Milan may have been a political move, but Constantine was right -in thinking.that the Christians were the men-on whoni he should rely. Then the Christians in their turn changed their habits. In the matter of post-nuptial regulations they compromised with the civil authorities; they also encouraged, even commanded, their finest women to be sterile. Then the Teutons overran the Western Empire. These Teutons possessed, in regard to sexual regulations, the 'same absolutely monogamous ideas that the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, and Romans had once possessed ; and later discarded.
Want to know how the endgame for the West will look like? Take a look at Romes decline. The following excerpt is from J D Unwins 1934 "Sex and Cultures", which describes how the dissolution of strict monogamic marriage leads to Romes downfall.

In the second century confarreatio disappeared, and for no less than seventy-five years it was impossible to find a man qualified to occupy, the priesthood of Jupiter, for the occupier of that office had to be the product f a confarreatio marriage. Free marriages became usual, made and broken by mutual consent. Indeed the will of one party only was sufficient for divorce, the intention to dissolve being communicated either byword of mouth or by messenger. There was no ceremony, no registration, no formality. Women were free from any trace of marital authority ; they/ could hold property and could- contract in their own name. The tutela remained, but a woman could appoint her own guardian, and the ingenuity of fashionable lawyers assisted them to escape the limitations which a nominal tutelage imposed. Even on these terms marriage became unfashionable, especially among the men—but perhaps it would be more just to say that marriage on these terms was despised, for there seemed to be few advantages to be gained, many' to be lost. A large number of leading citizens preferred a mistress (concubina) to a wife. A Roman concubina was not an additional sexual partner; She was a man's sole female . companion, sometimes his life-läng associate. The one great difference was that a freeman could take a freedwoman as a concubina but not as a Wife.
Augustus endeavoured to effect a change by the Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea, but it is doubtful if his efforts to prop up a rotting -edifice. were successful. It took three years -to persuade the people to accept the law, which Muirhead describes as 'a voluminous matrimonial code, which for two or three centuries exercised such an influence as to be regarded as one of the sources of Roman law almost quite as much as the Twelve Tables'. Certainly the tone of many of its provisions -was contrary to the practices of - the first century. B.C., but the 'basis of sexual relationships remained the same—mutualconsent. The object .of the law was not to reintroduce compulsory continence, but to encourage fertility and to restore some order into the existing chaos. marriage with men and women of low character was forbidden; unmarried persons were , not allowed to benefit under a will; married childless people were permitted to inherit only half their legal share ; mothers of children were relieved of tutela; concubinage reCeived official sanction ; no divorce was valid unless a -formal declaration was made, before witnesses. Such was the tenor• of the proposals of the Princeps. Soon the emancipation of women received official sanction. The parental authority also was abolished almost completely.
Gradually- the old forms of government, outwardly preserved, ceased to function. The conzitia lost even the shadow of authority;, it was simply incapable of possessing it. It was the same with the senate. 'There can be little doubt', Sir Samuel Dill observes, 'that there were men who dreamed of a restored senatorial power. It is equally 'certain that the , senate was incapable of asserting it; The extension of sexual opportunity had done its work. The -Romans satisfied their sexual desires in a direct manner.. Consequently they had no energy for anything else.
[...]
Yet once more-there emerged a group of men who had spent their early years in an atmosphere of compulsory continence. I mean the Christians. They had survived many violent persecutions; eventually theyydominated the, Empire, which in the fourth century recovered the strength it had shown in the second century. The 'Edict of Milan may have been a political move, but Constantine was right -in thinking.that the Christians were the men-on whoni he should rely. Then the Christians in their turn changed their habits. In the matter of post-nuptial regulations they compromised with the civil authorities; they also encouraged, even commanded, their finest women to be sterile. Then the Teutons overran the Western Empire. These Teutons possessed, in regard to sexual regulations, the 'same absolutely monogamous ideas that the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, and Romans had once possessed ; and later discarded."
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom