sexual fidelity (especially in women, to protect fatherhood), durability (to protect women and motherhood), and presumptive consent to sex (to maximize fertility and protect both father/mother from spurious rape allegations).
To put it in less euphemistic terms than Løvenskiolds: both partners agree not to cheat (but men do it with their fingers crossed); there’s little or no divorce; and marital rape isn’t regarded as rape. Which is, I suppose, one way to reduce “spurious rape allegations,” though it makes roughly as much sense as legalizing marital murder to protect married murderers from “spurious murder allegations.”
But that’s not the bit I wanted to tell you about. That was just some background so you could better understand the context in which Løvenskiolds makes his bizarre and revealing little comment. It comes at the end of this paragraph on the disintegration of traditional “andomarriage.” I’ve put it in bold.
With the rise of gynocentrism and leisure culture, the harsh penalties for violating the andromarriage laws began to erode – as our preferences for expanding the purview of women increased we became less willing to hold women to any standards or responsibilities. We now see women as lifelong children: too weak, frail, stupid and mercurial to be trusted with adult responsibility when it comes to adhering to the strict requirements of an andromarriage contract. Western countries now look on places that stone adulterers as barbaric even though we were killing them ourselves not that long ago. A woman stoned to death is a woman held to adult standards that feminists now reject.
Did he just say that “[a] woman stoned to death [for adultery] is a woman held to adult standards that feminists now reject?” Yes, yes he did.
Løvenskiolds also has some, well, interesting Evo Psychy thoughts on domestic violence. You might have to read these next bits a couple of times before it makes any sense at all. I’ve bolded some of the more striking bits.
Strong men were better at fulfilling the obligations of being fathers and women who chose those strong men left more progeny, so men became bigger and stronger over time as their genes spread. This is why women hitting men is still seen as less serious than the reverse: she is testing his strength and endurance in the face of pain to gauge his ongoing suitability as a mating prospect. A man who hits a woman – even defensively hitting her back – is displaying a weak intolerance for self-control in the face of pain and society reviles him regardless of the viciousness of the provocation unless he takes on an impressive amount of damage first.
Men who selected women based on markers for fertility – youth, breasts, hips and swayback – also were more successful at reproduction. To the dismay of modern feminists, these mate selection preferences still dominate human coupling: women still swoon for strong, successful men and men still have standards for women’s attractiveness. Weirdly, feminists still rigorously enforce the unequal violence standards that disadvantage weak men while they oppose beauty standards that equally disadvantage ugly women.
As far as I can figure it out, he’s suggesting that “unequal violence standards … disadvantage weak men” because weak men have less self-control and are more likely to hit women.
In other words, he seems to be miffed that women might prefer big burly men who don’t hit women to “weak men” who do. And he seems to think that women not wanting to date men who beat them is somehow akin to dudes putting “no fatties” in their personal ads.
Wow. Even after five years of doing this blog, I’m still surprised at the perverse ingenuity of MRA misogyny.
Løvenskiolds claims to be a Man Going His Own Way. I suggest he continue Going His Own Way, as far away from the rest of us as possible.