"Not true at all. I just claim that women should be virgins before marriage.
All modern women outside good religions are slutty scumbags but I don't see women who aren't like that as some embodiments of purity, just one step closer to sanity. They still need to be closely monitored and controlled.
I am disgusted by sluts not because they have sex per se but because they are coarse, superficial and retarded."
Still leaves you with the same complex: to you, women without control are sexual and therefore disgusting, while women under control keep their sexuality restrained and are closer to an ideal, with there being no middle ground. Also, assuming you are defining "slut" as simply a woman who frequently engages in sexual intercourse with more than one party, you're once again making the same mistake of treating women as though they share the same mind; a sexually active woman can be "coarse, superficial, and retarded", but it is also possible for them not to be. Despite what you've deluded yourself into thinking, sexuality is not the root of all human psychology and behavior.
"No, I don't. You're the one obsessed with sex, because you don't know who your father is and your slut mother(who also didn't know that) couldn't raise you because she didn't know how, as she was too busy sucking retard cocks.
I said that relationships and sex are primary factors for human happiness."
Aw, did I hit a nerve? Sure looks like it, what with all that projecting you're doing; can't say I'm surprised you don't hold your mother in high regard after she refused to sleep with you, and I can't imagine daddy dearest won any points during that debacle either. As for your second statement, assuming you mean "relationships" in the romantic sense of the word, then no; both romance and sex can be sources of great happiness, but it is entirely possible for a human to be happy without either.
"What you see as "human rights" was then rightly seen as disastrous policies which destroy a society so it would punish even advocating such atrocities."
Moving the goalposts; you claimed the punishment would be death, but history would say otherwise. Some societies would inflict some manner of punishment such as house-arrest or other methods of silencing, while others would be content to allow the social stigma to deal with the issue; none would prescribe execution.
"Anyway, you go on to hysterically insult me but anybody with any knowledge of history would be aware that basically all pre-modern societies supported all of my beliefs and none of yours. It's not that hard to see who would be considered insane scum he is-"
You just keep telling yourself that; I'd imagine it's one of the few things keeping you going. Of course, it's not as though it really matters whether or not you're wrong (and you are); fact is, we're alive now, not then. Guess it sucks that you couldn't be born into your ludicrous parody of ancient history, but tough shit.
"That these power structures just came to be for no reason at all. You just say "They came to be". Well, they came to be because sane men knew what psychopaths women are."
Guess your reading skills aren't up to snuff either; again, not surprised. I said pretty clearly why those power structures formed: they were (and I'm quoting directly from my post here) "created by, and thus designed to favor, men, as well as typical logistical issues such as identifying heirs or the concept of marriage as a legal contract to ensure partnership between families."
"That one needs proof that women always accepted the dominant culture. The proof is basically any literally work before 1900. Try reading "The Scarlett Letter", for example."
Covered this as well; man, you really suck at reading. Again, to quote my old post, "the most you could reasonably conclude is that women were relatively complacent with being born into societies wherein they didn't have as much power or influence as men, and anyone with the intelligence of a third grader could tell you that such complacency was due to them being born into circumstances wherein they had no reasonable way to alter the state of things." Also, The Scarlet Letter was a work of fiction written by a man; not exactly a reliable means of assessing the internal thoughts and feelings of women.
"Yes, any society which promotes the "rights of women" declines eventually. There isn't a single Western country with any real future. All of them are drowning in immigration, debts, police states and degeneration of their youth."
Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Sweden, and Germany would disagree; all doing fairly well economically speaking, issues of immigration are minute compared to other nations, none would reasonably qualify as a police state (though I'd argue they could all do with improvements here and there), and the general assessment of their youth is positive even if you might disagree. And those are just the countries I'm personally familiar with; considering your track record for accuracy, I'd hazard that there are probably more.