Why does real life work this way when you'd think it would be the opposite...

Why does real life work this way when you'd think it would be the opposite? Is there a historical or sociological explanation?

Attached: 1.jpg (1100x2332, 704.91K)

Men police women in their own families and no well adjusted person wants their daughter or sister to become the plaything of scumbags

Yup. Its about control as a response to fear of loss. The idea that the more you fear losing something, the tighter you grip it. These practices are about fathers keeping strange men away from their daughters and husbands keeping strange men away from their wife. Sociologically, it then expanded to the family model where your brother, as the son of his father, was charged with the responsibility to keep his father's will ergo keep both mother and sister clothed and hidden.

The idea of patriarchal societies switching to the bottom pic woupd never happen because, despite being horndogs, they all fear that eachother is a horndog and so they fear the mob. As a way to prevent that, you of societal morays and norms developed where the men agree to the norms of the top pic as a defense mechanism against their fear of loss.

Seriously, its just scared men being afraid, unable to see or admit it, and getting angry when it's suggested. When you anger a group, they have numbers in agreement, so they feel their stance is correct. Its fragile masculinity in a nutshell.

Signed,
user with degrees in psychology, sociology, and a focus in family and alternative secondary family units.

So that's why the west is dying.
Whores.

Except there's nothing well adjusted about making women dress like beekeepers so the argument falls apart. We're not talking about sensible leadership. We're talking about leadership that goes out of it's way to dominate women. So why aren't they making them dress like whores everywhere to enjoy it?

Lol no. The west is dying because capitalism has tipped beyond the threashold of societal stability and we're due for a forced redistribution/reassessment of wealth.

Whores and concubines have a long history in the East. No one bitches about that. I mean, the sex tourism capital of the world is South East Asia as a region.

The west is facing population pare-down because the on-going housing crisis is causing people to delay having kids by nearly a decade while promoting homelessness and increasing the rate of death-by-despair. Stability and home-ownership are what promotes growth of families and communities.

The Muslims put burkas on their women but are also peeing in their own genepool by sleeping with family members and the last thing that is going to help anyone with anything is a vast underclass of inbred, low IQ mongoloids with incel seethe

I don't disagree with you, but every culture puts its own spin on what it means to police their family members and some are more domineering and patriarcical about it than others.

So the bottom pic wouldn't happen unless the domination came from a source other than fear? I'm actually trying to parse this. So a ruling class would have to be so secure in it's power to just not give a shit? I understand there's a certain hedonism that would have to take hold but it would have to also be paired with women being second class citizens at the same time. I understand that no society like that exists and doesn't seem to ever have in history but it does seem strange that it wouldn't have given how long some of these empires lasted.

Prudish religion mostly

this

There is no patriarchy conspiracy, it’s societal evolution. Since the dawn of time cultures organized and run by men prospered while cultures organized and run by women failed. Nature chooses the strongest to survive, and male run societies were always stronger and still are. It’s true male run societies have kept women in more conservative attire because throughout history that seems to have worked. It’s only as societies become infected with liberalism and start giving women more freedom that you see women start to slut it up and act like whores in public - which says more about their nature than men’s.

You haven't remotely addressed OP's question.

Answered it perfectly, stop jerking off and read it again.

It's possible that it's because average women running around naked aren't all that fun to look at. There are plenty of tribal cultures where women go topless all the time and it's not really the show you'd think it would be.

men like whores when they aren't their wifes.

unless they're cuck,s ofc.

Because nobody would think that unless they're in the middle of puberty.

Not him but you really didnt. You complained about women and the one time you attempted to answer the question was 'it seemed to work'. Lmao.

Whores disgust me and I do not have a daughter

You're not understanding the id. All of what you're discussing is the ego. This is a more primitive level of fear.

Seriously, most people who don't get psychology is because they cant grasp the difference.

this

To be fair, OP isn't talking about sex, just public exposure. Obviously one would lead to the other but it doesn't have to be a slippery slope. Rape, for example, could still be a crime. It'd be akin to hentai where Japanese high schoolers wear VERY revealing uniforms. That's obviously counterintuitive to everything our society understands about social norms but we're talking about why a hypothetical society that doesn't share those norms hasn't developed considering how many exist where women are second class citizens and therefore theoretically could.

Maidenless behavior

Attached: fetchimage.jpg (320x349, 47.7K)

also men are evolutionary programmed to ensure their wives kids are his, and the only way psychologically, tb 100% certain is 100% control. its worth noting that the ability to have sex with little chance of pregnancy is a very recent phenomenon (that we havent really come to terms with), so woman had good reasons themselves to adopt these customs

It would require a level of cooperation and trust among the ruling class of men that just doesn't happen outside of small tight knit groups. Nobody wants to be the odd man out who isn't getting as much sex or pleasure as everyone else and the men at the top will boast about it. You'd have to have a mutually beneficial arrangement that is very carefully balanced in order for this not to fall apart out of jealousy.

I suppose it's possible for a society to adopt the bottom image up until marriage. Basically the woman's attire would be akin to a wedding ring. That does mean that every married woman wouldn't be a virgin, which was extremely important for a long time, but if it's a non-existent concept as a matter of course then nobody would ever expect it in the first place.

>its worth noting that the ability to have sex with little chance of pregnancy is a very recent phenomenon (that we havent really come to terms with)
That's a really interesting point. It's pretty much the norm for human evolution. Our bodies are built for hunting and foraging, not walking through the aisles at a supermarket. Hence obesity.

Its about self control and the fact that women don't have it.