493
Anon has a realization about his dating life
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
493 points (97.0% liked)
Greentext
3235 readers
1824 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
still better than nothing I guess...
I don't know it sounds even sadder to be paying
Paying for sex, not sad, a little strange for me personally but not sad.
Paying for affection/love, now that IS sad.
If you can't get sex from being a cool person and you have to pay for it, that's sad. If you're addicted to sex and pay for it because you need sex is even sadder.
People who pay for sex are not universally "not cool people" who can't get it other ways. In my work with various at risk populations, from what I hear from sex workers, plenty of people pay for sex. Funny charismatic, rich, doesn't matter, they're just as likely to be Johns.
You're right, only COOL people have the sex😎
Well, traditionally, someone has to like you before they decide they want to fuck you
Traditional was so, so much worse than that
That's generally how it's been done in America for hundreds of years. I think peasants in Europe did it like that even further back too. So how long until it can be considered "tradition"?
You don't read much in the way of history, do you?
Rich families married for power, peasants married for love. That's pretty much how it's always been. Lmao do you think people who worked on a lords farm was also worrying about who their daughter could marry to get a leg up? That's ridiculous
From the University of Nottingham:
People from land-owning families did not normally marry for love. Instead, most such marriages were arranged by their parents or guardians.
Arranged marriages remain an important part of the culture of many societies in the world today, for the same implicit reasons that probably motivated medieval English people: for the creation of stable family units based on respect and duty, in which love can grow; and to protect and increase the family’s wealth and status by association with another family of equal or higher repute.
Peasant women who did not own any land were not exempt from some kind of control over their marriage, as many manorial lords demanded payment of a sum of money called a ‘merchet’
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscriptsandspecialcollections/learning/medievalwomen/theme5/marriagearrangements.aspx
There are plenty of examples, both rich and poor, if you scroll down.
If you think peasants married for just love and not because their father promised them to the son of a farmer they have dealings with, or to a businessman who can provide well for her, or to elevate the family standing in some other way, I have bad news.
Even to this day, after all the strides for equality of the sexes is the material wealth of a man a substantial factor in choosing a partner for most women, even if they are plenty able to provide for themselves.
I didn't say "just for love" but it did happen. None of this information provided contradicts my point that traditionally people have sex with people they like. That has been the case for a while now, back to my original question, how long until you would consider it tradition? 100 years seems enough to me
I agree with you, as stated above, but I have to mention that my wonderful wife more or less picked (for reasons I never understood) me up from homelessness and debt and has cared for me for the past 15 years. I guess these days I'm almost domesticated, even.