If not, then was was it common for all of human history until last century?

thats the hoe from attack on titan no?

>>935644630
Yes, its Ymir Fritz. Buts its the adult version of her. Not the loli version that got stuck in a pocket dimension for 2000 years.

>>935644630
Most certainly there is evidence of pornography existing throughout recorded history

>>935645177
What does porn have to do with this?

>>935644473 (OP)
Depends on your initials

>>935646819
65% of young american men are single. I get the feeling that there is going to be a huge black market for young virgin girls soon.

>>935644473 (OP)
No

>>935647927
>I get the feeling that there is going to be a huge black market for young virgin girls soon.
There already is market for these, supplied by smuggling rings and they fetch a very high price.

>>935644473 (OP)
It was common because at its basest level much of humanity and society can be explained by power, the will to power and the means of wielding it. Slavery isn’t moral within our contemporary framework however most of non/pre-christian society was not constrained by such morals but rather the power to protect oneself or the power to subjugate others. The Romans didn’t care if it was moral they did it because they could, it was completely amoral as opposed to immoral. It’s why even Aristotle wrote that some people are fated to slavery because they are fundamentally weak and subservient and possess low will to power

>>935644473 (OP)
only if it's safe, sane and consensual lol

>>935644630
Ymir*

>>935651797
An amoral individual can act immorally. if you believe morals or ethics are static (or you at least have your own morality), can it not be justified today?
p.s. Your statement: "non/pre-christian society was not constrained by such morals" implies something incorrect --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible#Sexual_and_conjugal_slavery

>>935644473 (OP)
Morality arises from only a few possible sources: God, survival, and might. Morality passed to us from God is inviolable, and under such morality slavery can never be justified. It can be forgiven, but not justified. Under survival, there are plausible scenarios where sexual slavery is a more survivable strategy than competing strategies, however the long term success of Christian society which shuns such practices is a counter point to this, showing that generally, it is less survivable. Morality arising from might alone can always justify the use of slavery, and to some degree might is the most reality-based moral foundation. However, Christendoms dominance of world military power, fueled by their magnanimity resulting in tremendous social order and thus economic power, easily turned to military and law enforcement might, is the counterpoint to this as well.

Also, sexual slavery is still common today, just not in the 1st world nations.

>>935658395
>and under such morality slavery can never be justified.
But that's completely wrong. Anon, the Bible literally has extensive rules on how you are and are not allowed to treat sex slaves. You're fuckin retarded dude holy shit.

>>935644473 (OP)
I tell myself “ No” then a bitch like Casey Anthony goes and exists

>>935658482
I don't care what the bible says.

>>935658583
>Christian
>doesn't care about bible
lmao, kike

>>935658482
> Anon, the Bible literally has extensive rules on how you are and are not allowed to treat sex slaves.
His comment is directly under mine too --> >>935655328 XD

>>935658583
We know.

>>935658606
Where did I say I was Christian? But, anyway, this universe is clearly an exercise in the allowance of Free Will. Thus, God can be said to grant free will as a sacred gift. Morality arising from God would mean morality according to God's will, and thus modeling our behavior as best we can in the fashion of God. Violating the Free Will of another of God's children would therefore be a departure from treating Free Will as sacred, and thus immoral. I do not require any ancient books, translated in any way whatsoever, to arrive at this conclusion. I need only my eyes and mind looking at the universe around me as it is today. Slavery is forgivable, but not moral.

>>935658606
>>935658690
I denounce the Talmud, for the record.

>>935658837
>Where did I say I was Christian?
It WAS heavily implied --> "the long term success of Christian society which shuns such practices is a counter point to this"

>>935658837
>this universe is clearly an exercise in the allowance of Free Will
No it's not, that shit doesn't exist. Calvin was right.

>>935658964
The long term success of Christianity is as obvious as the sky is blue, it has dramatically outcompeted all other major belief systems in almost all ways (except Talmudism, but they are on the verge of self-annihilation against Christendom, I think).

>>935659254
I find the Calvinist viewpoint to be idiotic. Without free will, then we are not made in God's image, and what use would God have for children who are automatons? What purpose could there be for God to salvage the souls of automatons through sacrificing His only begotten son? Very contradictory to Jesus' assertions and stated purpose in coming to this world.

>>935658837
>>935659254
>this universe is clearly an exercise in the allowance of Free Will.
If all events are random, then we cannot exert control over our will; If all events are determined we cannot exert control over our will; If a GOD(s) exists (specifically the omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent kind) then from their omniscience follows a lack of free-will over the events within a GOD(s) knowledge.

>>935659662
It amuses me that this argument is ever made, because it is so childish. The answer of why God has the universe set up the way He does is inherent in us being his spiritual children. Children are not robots who do as you say, they are independent beings whom you have to wisely guide, sometimes gently and sometimes harshly, to grow into worthy heirs. I can easily exert my will over my children in all ways, but such tyranny would not result in raising adults which I would be proud of. I could as well let them run wild without any corrective measures ever, but that too would result in shitty adults. I must support their self-development, using force only where necessary, and gentle guidance where most useful, but largely let them figure things out for themselves. Because my children have free will, how I must raise them is a fluid, changing thing, different for each individual, but absolute tyranny and absolute permissiveness are both terrible methods no matter the child.

>>935660070
Humans do not have free will. You just think you do.

>>935644473 (OP)
If its bad or good women would be throwing themselves into slavery just so they wont get killed alongside the men or for a place for shelter even if they would have the means to self sustain themselves because they are lazy.

>>935644473 (OP)
No slavery is ever justified, though I guess it depends how you define "slavery".
US soldiers can be legally shot for refusing orders. Are soldiers slaves? Almost nobody would say so. Some communists claim that we are all "wage slaves" because we will starve if we do not get a job and work for money. If this is slavery, then my answer would be "yes", a very specific form of sexual "slavery" is justified.

Women should be excluded from the workforce. They should be unable to get jobs to earn money to support themselves. Some young women may be supported by their parents forever, or somehow have enough savings to survive, but usually this won't work out. Prostitution should also be forbidden. Women should be faced with the following dilemma: they need a man to support them.

Removing women from the labor force would halve the labor supply, thus increasing wages for men so that they can support a woman. Women would be desperate for this support, but the men aren't going to give it away for free. The socially taught solution to this problem is this: Women must marry. Men therefore have leverage to make demands in exchange for marriage, especially of a sexual variety. Men would have an obligation to support their wives, and wives would have an obligation to satisfy their husband's sexual desires. Technically she isn't forced to let him fuck her, but if she won't, then he won't marry her and she will starve.

If this is slavery, then this is justified in the same way that people are forced to work or be homeless.

>>935659637
100% agree Calvinists are retarded. Muslims are retarded for the same reason, they don't believe in free will either.

If all we are is automatons, then there is no good and evil, there simply is what is. A building that falls and kills someone is not an evil building, rather it's builder is held responsible because he is an agent with free will. Without free will there is no morality.

>>935660700
This is true. Many times the genes that control women's behavior survived by sexual submission to the men who killed their fathers and brothers.

There are many bronze-age villages which were massacred, but the mass-graves where the conquerors dumped all the villagers noticeably lack any women between the ages of 12 and 30, because these women weren't killed, they were added to harems and went on to have a lot of rape-babies.

>>935660070
>Children are not robots who do as you say, they are independent beings whom you have to wisely guide
I agree :) --> picrel
>my children have free will
This doesn't pertain particularly to your children, just to ALL beings that have a will.

>>935660700
So, morality/Ethics don't matter?

>>935644473 (OP)
>until last century?
Its more prevalent today than it ever was. The only difference is that its not done openly.

>>935662514
I believe it serves multiple purposes, both for society to function, for a healthy state of mind for oneself and others as well for spiritual purposes. Once one overcomes the classic trappings of doing good just because it's good ones mind opens up to a whole lot of possibilities and understanding of what truly is good or evil and its unintended consequences.

For my previous post, it can be understood that a weak will or a hidden, instinctual desire can be the reason why a girl would put themselves into sexual slavery. I was viewing it from a practical perspective. Consent is involved but that doesn't always mean it makes it "good". A part of this consent comes from if its evil if you agree women are stupid who must be protected from their own stupidity, or good if you agree women have the mental capacity to make their own decisions.

>>935661967
>Women should be faced with the following dilemma: they need a man to support them.
Why? this fantasy won't actually come to fruition.
>Removing women from the labor force would halve the labor supply, thus...
The economy would crash muhahah -_-
>Technically she isn't forced to let him fuck her, but if she won't, then he won't marry her and she will starve.
In what situation would it be forced (specifically a shotgun to the head?)?
This is a fetish to you, right?
>>935662135
> Muslims are retarded for the same reason, they don't believe in free will either.
"he is not the object of any creatural attribute or qualification. He is neither conditioned nor determined, neither engendered nor engendering.": --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawhid#Mu'tazili_school
>>935662786
>A part of this consent comes from if its evil if you agree women are stupid who must be protected from their own stupidity
Women do have lower average IQs by ~5 points (σ=15), but there are plenty of women with above average IQs (should they have men as slaves, or other women?).

>>935662786
Morality is always goal-oriented.
A "good" racecar is fast, but a "good" tow-truck may not be.

Generally, morality is evaluated by what best supports the long-term survival and well-being of civilizations and those within them. Sexual slavery is generally bad for this in the long run, but there are situations where pressure is necessary to convince women to breed, as a society that produces no children will not survive.

>>935663046
Morality is not necessarily based on fertility: -->https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

>>935663025
>Women should be removed from the workforce precisely because capitalism needs to be kept out of the home, since corporate interests are destroying the family for the sake of squeezing more work from people for the same amount of money. Women have duties in the home, so that their men can focus on "paid" work without falling to pieces. We need to prevent corporations from being able to steal this domestic labor from the home.

The economy did JUST FINE for thousands of years when women were restricted to home work. That same logic is what drives people to say "we need infinity pajeets to flood our countries or else the economy collapses!".

The economy might recede, but it will stabilize to the new equilibrium. A lot of firms will go bankrupt in the process, but new firms will grow up to replace them. There is no such thing as a permanent economic collapse so long as law-and-order is maintained.

>>935663025
I wasn't trying to imply that dumber people should be slaves, I was implying dumber people don't have the capacity for decision making.

>>935663046
Yes, generally other moral systems survive better then others, and if it fails then its easy to assume it was a bad moral system. Sometimes moral systems are created that are self destructive.

>>935663221
Antinatalism is a cringe suicide cult of retards who ought to be rounded up and shot.

Society will be better off once they are all extinct. The problem is that they are hell-bent on striking out at those of us who won't drink their koolaid. Because of this, we can't just wait for them to die off on their own, we have to fight back and exterminate them like the cancer cells they are.

>>935663276
>moral systems are created that are self destructive.
I do believe that objective morality exists, however I also think that it can be proven that it cannot be derived from pure logic.

I generally think that there's no reason to not adopt Thomistic Ethics, where a thing is "good" if it fulfills it's natural ends. This may be an arbitrary choice, but it's just as valid as any other arbitrary choice would be, and it neatly lines up with centuries of pre-existing moral philosophy.

>>935649936
Yes, this was my point. Human sex trafficking.

>>935663430
>however I also think that it can be proven that it cannot be derived from pure logic.
That's the thing. Cold logic kills this world. Even if something is beyond any doubt 100% factually correct, if it is cold and uncaring then nobody will adhere to it unless absolutely necessary. And honestly, I don't think we are ever meant to know what is objectively good or evil with a line drawn in the sand. People have a habit of bending rules beyond its original intentions.

>>935663245
>The economy did JUST FINE for thousands of years when women were restricted to home work.
Yes, kind of; in the pre-industrial era women didn't commonly work outside of the house (they didn't have salary or W-2 jobs), but in the modern era things are INCREDIBLY different; Women contribute vastly to the economy: --> https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-female-percent-of-total-labor-force-wb-data.html excerpt: "Labor force, female (% of total labor force) in United States was reported at 45.59 % in 2024, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators" and https://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-day-in-the-u-s-economy-without-women/ excerpt: "How exactly would a day without women affect the economy? According to the Center for American Progress’ calculations based on the labor share of the gross domestic product, or GDP, and women’s relative pay and hours of work, women’s labor contributes $7.6 trillion to the nation’s GDP each year. In one year, women working for pay in the United States earn more than Japan’s entire GDP of $5.2 trillion."
>>935663276
>Yes, generally other moral systems survive better then others, and if it fails then its easy to assume it was a bad moral system. Sometimes moral systems are created that are self destructive.
I think "bad" means something reductive (narrow) to you.
>Antinatalism is a cringe suicide cult of retards who ought to be rounded up and shot.
Okay.

>>935663430
> however I also think that it can be proven that it cannot be derived from pure logic.
Can't derive an OUGHT from an IS.

>>935664166
Pushing women into the workforce was done to drive down wages, the same reason that illegal immigrants are being force-fed into the workforce.

Remove them, and wages for White American Men will skyrocket back to what they should be.

>>935644473 (OP)
Realistically nowadays, no, probably not ever, especially in a country that has had a democracy for a long time.

But in fantasy, yeah I'd imagine it would be very sought after. A girl of your choosing you get to fuck however you want? Besides the slaves, who wouldn't want that? Sure, I'd feel guilty after I nut, and perhaps even fall in love with some of them. But the idea of using and abusing a cute girl whenever I want is so hot. If she's a good slave, I'll just treat her like a typical 1950's housewife. You don't have to be in chains as long as I know you're loyal. Cook, clean, and most importantly, take care of your body. I'd even allow my slave wife to leave the house to buy things that make her feel better, and also to buy new clothes to tease me with.

I'd say also to be the bearer of my children, but I don't want kids. Fuck that. Even if I don't have to take care of them. I just don't want kids.

>>935663635
>objectively good or evil
Nothing is.
>>935665135
>Pushing women into the workforce was done to drive down wages
Why?
>Remove them, and wages for White American Men will skyrocket back to what they should be.
Adjusted for inflation, Americans in the 1950s on average earned $44,166 vs. $62,010 in 2024: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2025/median-weekly-earnings-were-1302-for-men-1083-for-women-in-fourth-quarter-2024.htm and
>>935665263
> I'd even allow my slave wife to leave the house to buy things that make her feel better
"ZIIIIIP" hear that? That's the sound of her running away at warp-speed.

>>935666065
and* https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-009.html

>>935666087
Wait, this is family income; Individual income will be way lower (this is 1950s data).

>>935644473 (OP)
Last woman on earth says no and tries to kill herself?

>>935666153
>>935666087
>>935666065
For https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-010.html the inflation adjusted data for individual income in the U.S. in 1951 is: $37,225

>>935644473 (OP)
ITT: Makes shit up in his sick head.

>>935666426
Actually OP is attempting to outsource it.

>>935666426
I don't know man

>>935666426
>>935666675
>>935667324
OP here. Excuse my shitty spelling, but I was just saying that ancient cultures really did not give a fuck. Virtually all of them had harems or some form of sexual slavery.

>>935644473 (OP)
It can be justified in most worldviews, not in a Christianity infused one like the one the west has today. Slavery was eradicated because of Christianity in a nearly 2000 years process that shifted the whole moral landscape that ruled the world tens of thousands of years, the Romans wouldn't even think of a world without slavery, the Muslims even in the 1800s still said getting rid of slavery was against their religion. England practically forced the world to "abandon" it... Anyways.
To answer your first question: if you're Christian no, it can't be, if you're not, who the fuck cares? What makes freedom or integrity worthy of keeping? Your grandma?

>>935655328
You're wrong and your Wikipedia article mistaken and narrow, I can get into why of anybody cares.

>>935667785
Islam still has sexual slavery.

>>935644473 (OP)
sex slavery is retarded because its only fun if shes begging for it, if she isnt, you arent even a man. if you have to enslave a woman to get sex, you ARE a woman and need to get dicked down like a bitch.

>>935644473 (OP)
because people are animals and we didn't have the means by which to enforce a cease and desist on those types of operations. now, technology helps out with that, and yet a black market for human trafficked sex slaves persists to this day.

>>935668039
The only smart answer in this thread
inb4 anon comes back with "but my biblical concubines" or some crap

>>935644473 (OP)
i dont want to engage in the whole debate because its retarded but i really want to respond to this top of the line retard line

>If not, then was was it common for all of human history until last century?

Things that humans did for a long time have no bearing on things humans should be doing. Anyone that says stuff like this as an implication that the past was better than current quality of living for most of the planet is a subhuman room temp IQ retard

Human sacrifices existed for centuries, they dont work, its just retarded

A bunch of weird rituals, medicines, habits, myths and other things get perpetuated by old times and have been consistently proven to do nothing besides waste your time, resources, life and whatever else

Old cultures are mostly filled with uneducated garbage and myths that do not need to be brought into a modern educated society


And no, your claim that old times were better because you could cheat on your tradwife and she wouldnt leave you because you could beat the fuck out of her doesnt make the past better than the present

>>935644473 (OP)
>>935644630
King fritz's personal cumslut lmfao

bluh bluh not an incel i'm specially different from all those other incels who are exactly the same as me bluh bluh

>>935672119
real

>>935644473 (OP)
Of course. Lots of women would be better off as sex slaves. Just look at social media.

>>935672125
Yep.