It was very common for the young girls in a family to be married off to older suitors while their brothers were still young and not married.
I tried to tell people this for a long time but few listen or know history. It's major recency bias. It could very well be that this wasn't the majority case, but it was absolutely known, done,
and not uncommon. That's the point.
Yes we can expect a virgin and we should. A man is still able to pair bond with a woman even after living a life of promiscuity, IF he repents and cleanses his body and soul first.
Yes, and thinking otherwise is getting into an egalitarian trap. I am flummoxed as to why people can't see this, especially men. The consequence to a woman not being a virgin on many levels is a huge consequence for her, for suitors, for families, etc. The consequence for men is quite clearly little. Especially if he is repentant, as you say. A lot of this has to do with the reality of man and as an experienced guy, ascending in value as a major differentiation between men and women. Women lose value quickly, so their "repentance" is relatively meaningless compared to a man, since they have little to no value left. I don't say that in a christian or metaphysical sense, I say it in a relationship one. It's like a woman going on a diet once you're in your 30s (or 40s for those that think women aren't old at 30). That's right, no one cares. But it is better for you.
There is nothing prideful about wanting the least amount of cards stacked against your future children.
This is the whole thing and one of the reasons why I brought up Clarey talking about the marriageable women. He was a very earnest and thoughtful man in that episode, showing deep down he actually is honest about life and christianity, which he's probably experienced as neutral to bad from a social point of view, given his background was likely protestant. He points out rightly that of the 2-3% left, that doesn't even account for compatibility of personality, energy, cooperation, and things like family stuff. So we are really talking about unicorns in the west at this point, and it's closer to .1% as a successful man, because why is he going to marry an old woman, and what women are left that would marry a man who is mid 30s or older in the west? Social taboo KO for the guy, who actually can take care of her and is wise. Try explaining this to women - you won't be able to.
I don’t see how bedding random women, desiring to do so and laughing and giggling about it is in any shape or form good for society.
What Roosh found by the end is what we all know but what we talk about infrequently, for some reason. I should make a thread on this, actually. He realized that anyone falling for pickup stuff, or sectors that were ok with modern degeneracy of a sort, would hang out at certain places (bars) or in big cities of modernity and fun 20s, feminism and protected women doing whatever the wanted in the modern day. This is really important, and I'm not excusing casual sex or anything of the sort, but there's this type of storytelling or conflation of men going to remote villages and seducing virginal women that just isn't true, and no pun intended,
it's not remotely even true. These were women, their fault or not (do they have agency? you tell me), that were already deciding to have fun and enter into the game of nightlife and "boyfriends" or "dating" etc. That's already the choice of the spectrum of monkey branching, casual sex, getting resources or paid to be a date, and granting to a select few (the guys that probably won't stick around) the sex to try to outkick your coverage, date higher, yes, hypergamy. Knowing that women were playing these games, guys adapted and tried to at least get something out of the "open" women. Is it right? No. Is it a stupid adaptation to clown world and something to do when fewer and fewer serious women are out there? Of course.
Men allowed the casual sex culture, so no, it’s not just “female nature”.
I disagree. The leaders of the country and/or the plan was to subvert most people and families via propaganda, media and government wise. Did men allow mass immigration? No, you know who did, the ones in league, meaning a small number of men. These "elites" know female nature very well, and that female nature unbridled results in exactly what we see.
Why would a woman in a “free market” decide to marry some regular guy and fulfil some kind of traditional Christian duty she knows nothing about?
Yes, this proves my point. They won't. It's their natural to follow, and even if you are a good dad it's still just a probability that your daughter will, depending on many factors and her surroundings. Of course, it's always best to be an example, but just like a lot of men can't control the outside forces and government, it says
nothing necessarily about the father if the whole society is there to subvert him, insitutitonally.
I believe a good woman will make it easy for a man, put herself in your orbit if she does like you. I also believe that behavior requires a certain amount of innocence and that’s why we rarely see it.
This is precisely the case and precisely the problem. Women are obviously not very good at discerning that they actually need men, big picture. Why? They don't think about big picture or anything beyond immediate surroundings. Men don't have that luxury. A woman should always be along for the ride, not the focus.
As I always say, and these things go hand in hand and they are negative (sadly) - and my priority is on telling the truth - you won't get sanity until a relative collapse of the current structure or worse. That also means M:F ratio goes down. For women to be any net benefit for a man, she can't be lazy. This is very rare unless she can't afford to be.