It really has very little to do with men "being owed sex" by women. Most men don't really believe they're owed sex by women, or anyone for that matter. The big issue is that society has placed such an emphasis on premarital sex and random hookups and casual sex that young men are beginning to feel like if they aren't having sex they are missing out on an integral part of life, which is not the case.
Sure, there are definitely men out there who truly believe that women are simply there to please them and be their slaves, but that is not the case for the vast majority of men, even so-called incels. They have simply been led to believe that sex is an amazing, huge part of life, that it is integral to a normal life and, while it is important to a healthy relationship, it's not necessary to live a normal life.
It also comes back, in a way, to the destruction of traditional masculinity. If they can convince millions of men that sex is the only thing that matters, that it is the most important part of a relationship and of life, then that's all they're going to care about. They're not going to focus on other things such as learning new skills or trade or bettering themselves in some other way.
Of course, the funny part of all this is that by convincing men that sex is the only thing that matters, they are completely reducing women to only being important in a sexual way. Although, I suppose that's part of the plan too. After all, we can't have women being motherly figures or caring individuals in a household or in life in general. We have to have them choose careers that debase them and destroy their mental well-being. It really is all connected I guess. The destruction of the family unit, the destruction of traditional masculinity, the destruction of traditional femininity, the sexualization of children... It really does circle back to the destruction of traditional values in a way that lets them swoop in and replace traditional morality with some sort of perverted new age "progressive" morality.
Anyway, that's my $0.02
Of what? Death? It depends on the time-period - probably not during the Napoleonic Wars. On average, women were probably more at risk of childbirth than men were of war (nor were wars risk-free for women).
But don't let that deter you from posting absolute crap. You'd have nothing to say.
I think you meant to quote the second part. It's a red herring, of course, and I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue. That there's no such thing as social responsibility if there's this specific law? You can do better than that sure, surely.
Not really. Nor do I go bragging everywhere, in unrelated threads, CHECK OUT HOW I ABSOLUTELY EMBARRASSED Ahaus667! But you do say stuff like "as I always say", as if you're incredible proud of it. Not gonna lie, I'd feel embarrassed for years if I had said anything close to that.
Not just war, all high risk occupations even today are overwhelmingly male dominated. There’s no data historically that argues women had a shorter lifespan than men.
It’s a red herring that the government forced men into war? You said equivalent, so show me the equivalent that women endured under the government.
That would require you to win an argument instead of ad hominem squabbling.
You are completely wrong. Here is a good overview for Ancient Rome: https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-gender-population-imbalance-like-in-the-Roman-Empire-after-losing-tens-or-tens-of-thousands-of-men-in-various-battles-wars-along-the-course-of-the-Empires-existence
Oh boy, a Quora that doesn’t actually cite anything other than making broad claims. Show me death rates and average life span not muh patriarchy.
See? I'm talking about traditional society, and you speak of today. Probably the only occupation more dangerous than woman was monarch, and I'm barely joking.
Effectively. Women were married off even if they didn't want it (for good social reasons), at which point the government would protect the husband's right to consummate his marriage.
A man can do both. But I'd rather that you posted something worth replying to instead of sheer crap.
You did see the even correct? Again no historical evidence women have ever had a shorter life span then men.
Men were married off the just the same, and the “right to consummate” is the marriage part. Women had unique societal mobility in marriage, common men were not allowed to marry into titles, while women were.
Odd how you still can’t make anything other than ad hominem remarks.
Please name high risk occupations in 13th century France. Thanks. Are you denying that this evidence exists, or indicating that you have not seen it?
Eh, that last part is crap, but the first part is true enough. But the said consummation never posed a risk to the man's life.
You've been trying to refute my arguments for several posts now. So how is that only 'ad hominem'? Hell, I don't even dislike you (which you may view as an insult), but some of your sperg- and cringeposting is pretty bad.