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
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.
You do know that every major study done has shown that women live longer than men and that it is also shown the same pattern throughout history correct? Apparently you think 13th century France is a gotcha somehow, but even skilled labor like blacksmiths had notoriously shorter lifespans because of constant inhalation of smoke and chemical exposure. This doesn’t even get into the deaths and maimed men from work like mining, quarries, logging, and construction. Then we can talk about the mass killing of men the Catholic Church committed and all the soldier deaths.
No it’s entirely true and proven historically
I have been refuting your arguments, you keep squirming, goalpost shifting and then hurl insults. If you actually had an argument then you would be showing me historical data that said woman died at a younger age than men, that women worked in more dangerous environments than men, and that women had equal or equivalent responsibilities under the law as men or even equivalent socially.
Do show me.
Of course. It won't be a surprise to anyone that life in the 13th century was... dangerous. Your claim is that it was more dangerous than childbirth, which is certainly not a claim that is self-evident.
Wut?
You don't know the first thing about history, which is why you have no citation for this claim of yours. Good luck!
I'll be charitable and say that there were attempts.
See, this is where you go off the rails yet again. You said social responsibilities were lesser. I proved the opposite, after which you started talking about life expectancy instead. I've humored you this shifting of the goalposts, as you'd lose even on this score, but let's not pretend that you are even remotely engaging in good faith.
Responsibilities come with rights.