Advisingly speaking, are women grown-up children?

>>33224276 (OP)
That's a given

no, children are not capable of years long Machiavellian resentment schemes

>>33224276 (OP)
We can be. Emotional dysregulation is a bitch. But so can men.

Sure anyone can be an adult child depending on environment, learning disability, autism, trauma, mental illness, neurotism, personality disorders, etc. Did you need advice on something OP?

>are women grown-up children?
Yes. That is why I have yet to hear a compelling argument against lowering the age of consent back to its historical age, roughly 14 or so. Women never truly mentally mature past childhood so it is a completely false narrative to say that "they need to mature so that they can make good decisions for themselves".

Girls need to be married young and guided by their husband. This is the natural order.

>>33224614
That argument is the same as the one about cmmunism being able to work if it were done with the right people in charge.
Depends on human nature, and humans are self serving shitheads. So it would not work.

>>33224627
It worked for literally all of human history though. Can you explain how it wouldn't work when it was the norm since literally the dawn of man and only became taboo in the past 50 years or so.

>>33224640
Becausenow we need dual income earners. We've also lost most sense of community, medical research has shown that it's not as optimal to have women have kids that young because of the demands on the body, and a billion other things. Today's men couldn't handle the responsibility of taking care of another adult. I don't care what your power fantasy is, it's just not feasible with most of them. They're too coddled.

>>33224664
These are all problems that would be fixed by returning to traditional marriage models. I mean, the only reason we need dual incomes now is because women started entering the workforce instead of being wives and mothers. And I believe that if men got married younger too, it would make them more responsible earlier. You don't just become an adult by osmosis. You have to start acting like an adult to become one. Ironically, if people were married and had kids younger, they would mature faster and be less coddles which is something our society desperately needs. Also, most 14 year old girls have the body of an adult woman. There is no additional risk having children if you are a biologically fully formed adult.

>>33224689
A quadrillion other things would have to fall into place for any of that to be remotely possible. You don't start with the trad model of ye olden times when not a singular aspect of it fits with modernity and how economically and morally fucked it all is.

>>33224276 (OP)
All adult humans are grown-up children, anon.

>>33224696
It's not about force. The current model is forced. It's about loosening restrictions that are ostensibly meant to "protect women" but in reality are leading to societal decay and population collapse. If you just lowered the age of consent to 14 it would be a step in the right direction. Things naturally fall back into place when they aren't being artificially propped up.

>>33224689
And no. Just because you look like you have adult bits and bobs doesn't mean you're designed to start pumping out kids. You can ≠ you should, medically.

>>33224703
You're retarded.
Immigration. Housing. Inflation. Current political policies. Current mindsets around marriage and children. Food quality. Resources.

>>33224276 (OP)
One of the most fascinating things I experienced is seeing extremely competent, responsible and smart career women turn into little girls when things get intimate. You'll never see that side of them unless there's some attraction between you two, but it's pretty cute.

That's why I always say you shouldn't take women too seriously, like you should treat them the way you treat a little kid. Obviously it's more nuanced than that; a smart woman's opinion at work or about finances, etc is just as valuable as anyone else's. But I mean like, when your gf is moody or gets annoyed, don't take her too seriously and get dragged into it. Just treat her like you would your imaginary 9yr old daughter and you'll find that things get much easier

>>33224706
Literally this is objectively wrong. Humans are the only species on the planet that waits years upon years after reaching sexual maturity to have kids. Even if there is a marginally higher chance of risks during childbirth with a younger girl. The way that people tend to phrase this argument is that having a baby at less than 18 is practically a death sentence. People also say that the brain doesn't fully develop until 25. Is that a valid reason to raise the age of majority to 25?

>>33224276 (OP)
It was Carl Jung or Arthur Schopenhauer that said something like that.
My internet is such a mess.

Can someone find the quote?

>>33224726
The brain development business is a tbd, and anything regarding psychiatry is founded on mostly just an attempt to use patterns as grounds for diagnostic criteria instead of hard data and physical proofs.
And yes. We're also the only ones that have complex civilizations, conversations, and taxes. We don't even fully mobilize until a couple of years after birth, and we also live significantly longer. So waiting makes sense.

>>33224750
Okay well in my opinion. Women become turbowhores and destabilize society and cause all of those bad things that you mentioned precisely because they aren't handed off from father to husband like they used to be. I wont change your mind and you wont change mine so I'll just leave it at that.

>>33224760
And men become coddled, psychologically dysfunctional children that can't take care of themselves. We're just not in a great place for trad anything to happen, trad values haven't applied in years. You can blame women for it, or you can accept that it was decisions from people that don't give a shit about either one and just want money from lobbying and wars.

>>33224779
I will say one last thing since you brought it up. I do not blame women in general. It's just that it is a fact that the family is the building block of all cultures and we currently live in a society where people don't start families until they are like 35. No wonder our society is crumbling. The basic building block is becoming less and less common. This isn't men or women's fault. It is the fault of our system artificially emplacing barriers that restrict the ability for people to create families at a young age which was the historical norm. I don't even consider this a return to tradition because I genuinely believe it will someday be seen as the progressive stance to put family rearing as the most important aspect of society as it should be.

>>33224807
And there's where we agree. See? Not impossible at all.

>>33224830
Yeah brother. I'm just in it for the debate. No hard feelings.

>>33224837
It's no big. I come off as overly empassioned, and it's because of how aggravated I am at the state of the world on like every level. I can't do anything about it, and it ravages my ass a bit to just watch it all crumble.
Thanks for the talk.

>>33224276 (OP)
yes, as mothers they must retain the ability to relate to infants
https://www.bitchute.com/video/K5dRfMYoDqFs

>>33224276 (OP)
>Advisingly
I won't read another thread written by an Indian who learned English as a second language.

>Doesn't know a word and don't care to search about it
>"Heh, they must be Indian"
Go read a book.