"Chivalry did not forbid rape -- if a knight came upon a woman being accosted, he was expected to help her no matter the social class; if he came upon an unaccompanied woman, and she was of an inferior social class, she was fair game because if the woman's family stood up to power, then would be knocked down by power. "
As if any medieval lass wouldn't immediately spread her legs for said knight as quickly as her modern counterparts do for rock stars, professional athletes, or anybody who can afford a better car than her father or former beau. Girls are *always* on the lookout for a guy with a bigger wallet no matter what century they live in. In addition, most fathers are actually proud when their daughter marries a guy with superior social standing. That hasn't changed in a millenium either. Gee, this whole feudalism thing makes more sense all the time. The evolutionists and their endarkenment, despite all of their verbal pyrotechnics really haven't changed human nature at all.
71 comments
Aww, turned you down, did she? Passed you up for someone else did she?
You poor baby.
... no, can't keep going with a straight face.
Y'know it's not because he's richer, it's because you haven't learnt the difference between your mouth and your asshole yet.
(Edit: also, am I the only one who got a kinda creepy daddy/daughter issue vibe from the 'richer than her father' part?)
"The evolutionists and their endarkenment, despite all of their verbal pyrotechnics really haven't changed human nature at all."
I'm convinced, lets all go back to the bright ages.
Gee, this whole feudalism thing makes more sense all the time.
Feudalism stopped making sense a long, long time ago.
It stopped making sense when a simple soldier could easily kill a mounted knight, by using a cheap firearm.
The sheer absurdity of Feudalism was depicted brilliantly in a famous book written in the 16th century. Its title was: "Don Quixotte".
To defend Feudalism in the 21st century (a century with world-wide instant communication, mass societies, and volatile biographies as the norm), is not only a sheer absurdity, it is plainly nuts.
As if any medieval lass wouldn't immediately spread her legs for said knight as quickly as her modern counterparts do for rock stars, professional athletes, or anybody who can afford a better car than her father or former beau.
While there are certainly women who have done this in the modern era (and probably in the medieval era as well), it's by no means likely that all women are like this.
Gee, this whole feudalism thing makes more sense all the time.
Wait until some cop, drug lord or politician rapes your sister and your family is "knocked down by power". Then see how much sense it makes.
So, Mr. Andersen, you believe that the Enlightenment was a bad thing. Die in a fire, please. Slowly. I am dead fucking serious. Suffer the punishment that authorities (especially church authorities) loved to inflict during the Middle Ages which you so love. And here I was, honestly thinking that apologists for ancien régime monarchies no longer existed. Boy, was I wrong. And of course, because it has been scientifically proven by meticulously reading quotes on FSTDT that all reactionaries believe in the same things, you fail to disappoint by blaming the rape victim and practically excusing the rapist. You have a problem with women banging every rich man who come their way (and fall back on stereotypes to do it) yet you don't seem to care that certain men are unable to keep it in their pants, or armor in this case. You just might be more despicable than Feynman And Coulter's Love Child, and that is quite an achievement. You, he, Lawrence Auster, and the entire memberships of al-Qaeda and the Tea Party should take the soonest one-way trip to the fourteenth century. After all, you seem to like that time better than your own. Write back to the present to report how commoners in that benighted age really lived. I predict that within a month all of you would have converted to liberalism and secularism and be BEGGING to be allowed to return home.
As if any medieval lass wouldn't immediately spread her legs for said knight as quickly as her modern counterparts do for rock stars, professional athletes, or anybody who can afford a better car than her father or former beau.
Well, someone's bitter.
Are you a girl, Hygaboo? If not, then how the heck do you know what every womand would do, what every woman wants?
I do know that many women want someone kind, funny and interesting; i.e. the brain is much more important than the wallet.
Evolutionists are not out to change human nature, they are just describing natural processes of adaptation through mutation and natural selection.
Women reject rock stars, athletes, and rich guys too. This whole "women love money" thing is a myth. They love confidence and while that usually DOES come with money (hence the mistaken association) it's not always the case. Granted, there are some women that are gold diggers but those are the kind that rarely fall in love with the guy and are just using him for the money.
Gee, this whole feudalism thing makes more sense all the time
Really? Try living in a feudal society as a peasant. Then you'll see how much sense it makes. Everyone loves a system with classes if they're the ones at the top but what people don't fucking realize is that that's always a rare distinction and that they're more likely to end up at the bottom of the hierarchy.
The evolutionists and their endarkenment
I take great offense to that. How dare you crap all over the Enlightenment when it's responsible for modern science (which also brought modern medicine), human rights, and paved the way for democracy to rise again?
despite all of their verbal pyrotechnics really haven't changed human nature at all
Who said it did? It didn't change human nature, it just changed the way we think; it was a cultural change.
Wait, evolutionists are supposed to be changing human nature now? I must have not gotten the memo. Does this mean that creationists, by contrast, are all for keeping human nature the same, despite their firm beliefs that is a "sinful" one? Sounds right to me, I guess. I just think it's a tad dishonest that there are creationists out there who spout out hysterical nonsense about the evils of suggesting that human nature is an animal nature when they are essentially saying the same damn thing.
Also: I pity all of the actual women in your life, because you seem to regard all women as a sexist caricature despite them.
Rape != marriage.
It's one thing for a man's daughter to be chosen to be the wife of a knight who is obligated to pay a sizeable dowry. It's something else completely if the knight has his way with her and then gallops off back to the manor when he's done.
Even by the self-serving standards that Mr Andersen is going by, there's no advantage to the peasant father whose daughter has just been raped by some anonymous noble.
Though how this discussion leads to discrediting the validity of evolution, I may never know.
> if a knight came upon a woman being accosted, he was expected to help her no matter the social class; if he came upon an unaccompanied woman, and she was of an inferior social class, she was fair game
Well, that's definitely a contradiction. One minute he's obliged to help, the next he's free to rape. Score one for feudalism (assuming the quote is even true).
Hey! Wouldn't it be great if you could be superior to everybody and if you were legally allowed to rape your inferiors, practically honour bound to, in fact. Of course, not that you'd have to, cos they'd actually only be too glad to spread their legs for you, you being so superior and everything. That's the fun thing about women inferiors, they can't keep their legs closed. This would be an extremely handy state of affairs for particularly repellant personalities like Hygaboo Anderson. Still, I expect he'll just have to make do with his rape fantasies, cos it ain't really gonna happen, specially the bit about Hygaboo being a superior being. He's way down the pecking order. Homo medievalensis non-sapiens don't even get a look in.
Hmm, not an English, History or sociology major I see. Perhaps you could major in cranky, bitter, girlfriend-less studies.
Did the entire feminist revolution, where women can direct their own destiny without "spreading their legs", just pass Hygaboo?
He probably also harbours hatred to women that acheive high standards without a man.
For the last time, dammit, F.A.T.A.L. wasn't a historically accurate game, despite *ahem* its creator's claims to the contrary!
"As if any medieval lass wouldn't immediately spread her legs for said knight as quickly as her modern counterparts do for rock stars, professional athletes, or anybody who can afford a better car than her father or former beau. Girls are *always* on the lookout for a guy with a bigger wallet no matter what century they live in."
What about the medieval lesbains?
Sounds like Hygaboo Andersen knows the wrong women.
Let's hope he plays the lottery. Then God can let him win and he can buy himself a tramp.
[sings] "Can't buy me love, everybody tells me so; can't buy me love, a no, no, no, nooooo."
There are no true knights, no more than there are gods. If you can't protect yourself, die and get out of the way of those who can. Sharp steel and strong arms rule this world, don't ever believe any different.
Knights didn't work like that, a lot of the stuff we know about knights is stuff they wrote (or had written) after the fact, sometimes generations later to make themselves look better and more Christian. If a knight rode past a Noble Woman more then likely he would kidnap her, possibly have his way with her and ransom her back to her family. Knights were brutal power hungry murderers, the rare few who were noble like we think got knocked off in a huge game of brutal politics.
Also rape!=marriage, sex!=marriage not ever then. You go back into the woods and start living your Dark Ages again, I will sit here on my computer browsing the internet and wait for the story about you running out of the woods crying and blubbering that it's all too hard.
Girls are *always* on the lookout for a guy with a bigger wallet no matter what century they live in.
First of all, it's women , and second, not all women are straight.
Also, even if women had sex with lots of men, why is that a problem? They deserve sexual happiness just as much as men do.
[Girls are *always* on the lookout for a guy with a bigger wallet no matter what century they live in.]
It's not like men are always on the lookout for chicks with larger breasts...
[In addition, most fathers are actually proud when their daughter marries a guy with superior social standing.]
Of course they are stupid! Who would you rather your daughter married; The good guy with a degree a career and is an outstanding member of his community, or the Joe Dirt guy who sells meth out of the mobible home park?
While I do not agree with the arranged marriage in my culture, in the terms of social class/hierarchy there's a bloody damn good reason a father applauds his daughter for marrying money. It's called seeking a better life. Douche-nozzle. Just because a girl is considered a gold digger in one culture doesn't mean the same in another.
There are sound, evolutionary-psychology-based reasons why a woman should prefer a wealthy beau.
In the prehistoric wild, when basic survival was still a challenge for humans everywhere, a woman with a well-off mate knew she and her babies wouldn't starve to death. "Wealthy," at that point in human pre-history, meant having enough food and other resources to survive a harsh winter or a drought. And of course a father was glad if his daughter married a wealthy guy, because that meant his daughter and grandchildren would have better odds of survival.
Those women (and fathers) with these instincts had better odds of survival than those without these instincts, and so the genes that caused these instincts eventually swept through the human population. It makes sense that these instincts would still be present in a modern woman's brain, and a modern father's brain.
Chivalry kept itself to the stories and the court. Few men actually gave a shit about chivalry on the battlefield.
Human nature isn't something evolutionists try to change, they just want to explain it.
Also, verbal pyrotechnics. I'm stealing that I'm sick of using the words unnecessarily verbose.
@#1309517
A wee bit like religion?
One day these fuckers are going to step out of line, mistake their twisted fantasies for real life, and scar some poor woman for life. When that happens I hope somebody shows them the meaning of medieval Samuel L Jackson style.
Actually dumbass, many (straight) women do not give a fuzzy rat's fanny about the guy's wallet. We are more interested in little details like his mind, heart, character, sense of humor, dreams and ambitions, accomplishments (meaning enrichment, not $), compassion, causes, ethics...
Oh yeah. You don't have any of that. Explains much.
Googled "elevatorgate" after seeing the comment thread and damn atheists like to start drama.
As to the the post I refer the OP to the words of Kanye west, "Im not saying she's a gold digger but she ain't messing with no broke niggers". Of course there are women who are interested in men for their wallet but the problem is generalizing from there even though the proportion of women who do this sort of thing is probably higher than the commenters here admit since it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary, economic, social and psychological standpoint.
Damn it. I just can't dig up witty references from popular movies without looking like a moron.
Still though: Show attempted rapists (a generic implication of hideously overdone violence) from the definition of (someone famous for being involved in graphic depictions of hilariously overdone violence) using a (item not normally used for violence, but applied creatively can be utterly horrifying to imagine)
"In addition, most fathers are actually proud when their daughter marries a guy with superior social standing."
I suppose that, in the la-la land that you live, the Knight or his parents would even think of ramping up the filthy commoner's social standing because he knocked her up. Feudalism in your fantasy world must have been pretty nice. Did the horses poop rainbows as well?
The funny thing is that the lady in question was of a higher social class than the knight's and, wink, wink, she was MARRIED.
Late to the game, but it has to be said:
Yeah, guys... whether or not gold-digging is common in real life, this guy is still saying this is the case for ALL women in order to be a rape apologist. That's the point, which seems to be often missed in the arguing of semantics. Keep it in mind.
@Passerby :
I like this movie example: Vin Diesel in The Chronicles of Riddick (terrible plot, but still, terribly watchable) "I'll kill you with this tea-cup..." *quietly places metal cup on rock. Waits. One "tough-guy" takes him up on it. Diesel turns cup upside down, smacks it into rock to stiffen and rip up the edge, then punches it into "tough-guy's" chest. Everybody freezes in place as "Tough-Guy" collapses. Diesel pulls out one of those keys from a can of tinned meat. Smirks. Places it on that same rock. Waits. After an exchange of WTF? looks, they all run.*
Heh. Stupid as fuck, never gonna happen, but damn, that scene is hilarious. Take that to Mr. Rape Apologist, since I think he needs the education.
Pity this navel-lint made it to Pharyngula's page, as I really like that blog... Brings the whole tone down with his asshattery.
"...if the woman's family stood up to power, then would be knocked down by power."
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
