Natural Freedom
http://naturalfreedom.info/

were women in the 50's\60's really more 'natural'
http://naturalfreedom.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=706		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Sniper [ Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:  were women in the 50's\60's really more 'natural'
You said on one of the posts something like: women are born natural pimps because they know they have what men want and crave.

Now, Rion always used to say that women in the 50's or 60's were more 'natural' (better than modern women today, more normal, etc....)

Today women have the same rights and opportunities like men (and in a lot of cases: even more than men...). So I'll devide my question into three parts to make it easy:

Do you think that women in the 50's or 60's were much better than the women today?

* If the answer is Yes, is it because they had less opportunities and therefore more depended on men and as a result: had less control on men?

* If the answer is No (women in the 50's were the same like today) then they are not 'born natural pimps'. It's modern society who has taught them that....

Although you and I did not grow up in the 50's, everyone (not just Rion) are always saying that women in the 50's were more normal. The divorce rates were not like today.....

Although the question may seem not relevant, by having an answer to this question it will help me go even deeper into the rabit hole. And I want to 8-)

Anyone else besides 'The Kidd' who thinks he can help me understand this better is welcome to answer...
Author:  Star_Above [ Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
In that case men were just men back then and put women in their place, unlike the pussies of today.
Author:  The Kidd!! [ Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
Damn iPhone lag! :oops:

The 50's and 60's were before feminism and wimpism kicked into full swing. Nowadays men have worry about having their careers ruined for a sexual harassment charge...or being charged for rape because he didn't stop when she said no...even though by time she said no he was already literally halfway inserted into her vagina.

Because your average guy has these and other things to worry about, coupled with the fact they can't 'read' worth shit (or if they can, lack the backbone to follow thru), it's no wonder that society is in the state it's currently in.
Author:  Sniper [ Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
OK Kidd, so if I understand you correctly: the reason women were more normal or 'natural'
back in the 1950's is not because their nature was so good in those days- it's more because of the fact that the men were stronger (because they didn't have to worry about shit that they have to worry about today, such as : 'being charged for rape because he didn't stop when she said no...even though by time she said no he was already literally halfway inserted into her vagina').

So women's nature (generally speaking) was ugly back then as much as it is now. The only difference is: back then they could not get away with stuff that they can get away with today So we see more of their ugly nature today than men saw back in the 1950's :?:
Author:  The Kidd!! [ Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
Sniper wrote:
OK Kidd, so if I understand you correctly: the reason women were more normal or 'natural'
back in the 1950's is not because their nature was so good in those days- it's more because of the fact that the men were stronger (because they didn't have to worry about shit that they have to worry about today, such as : 'being charged for rape because he didn't stop when she said no...even though by time she said no he was already literally halfway inserted into her vagina').

So women's nature (generally speaking) was ugly back then as much as it is now. The only difference is: back then they could not get away with stuff that they can get away with today So we see more of their ugly nature today than men saw back in the 1950's :?:
Precisely. 8-)
Author:  Sniper [ Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
The Kidd!! wrote:
Precisely. 8-)
well, the truth hurts but I can handle it.

Maybe that's why men said that you need to keep women 'under a leash' and not give them full control. Because if a woman has too much control she will emasculate the man (not all women but a large portion of them).

I wrote in my post about Thailand that in some parts of Asia Women have less rights than men and men have more power. Maybe that's why some Asian women in some parts of the world are generally seen as more 'natural' -

it's not because their 'woman DNA' is different (or as Rion said: they are more grounded to nature). Maybe they just can't get away with stuff that women in the west can. So as a result they don't grow up with the mindset of: I can do anything.

But (like you said in a different post): if a man is weak and brings a woman from Asia to western soil\country and let her walk all over him. At some point she might become 'un natural'
like the women in his own country.
Author:  Sai [ Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
Sniper let me add my quarter! :lol:
From the beginning of time ( if you believe in the stories written in the Bible) , Women have been Controlling men with what they have between their legs. Naturally, some Women realize this and in turn require the Men to Jump through hoops and perform various Tricks in order to get that Twi-zat (pussy), Some women don't know the "value" of what they have and Thus a sexually disciplined Man (PIIIIIIIIIMPS) steps in and guides them on how to get something for what they have.
Now if you look at REAL American History, you will see how American Pimps flourished between the early 1900's and the early 70's .
I am Jamaican, so I don't have indepth info on this, but the early Feminist movement was largely White and Middle class.
anyway, early 1900's households were mainly Patriarchs. Women couldn't spend a dime of their Men's earnings without asking.don't get me wrong, Women worked, but they always got lower than the Men did and Men ran the show.now, as to what this Rion guy said, Women back then were kinda conditioned into being submissive, but they found out that the Majority of the Men couldn't function normally witout the poonthang, so they marched and protested for equal rights and then we have what we have today ;)

well, Kidds thesis is good also :lol:
Author:  Sniper [ Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
very nice enelkei, so they whole conept of Rion's: 'women that are more grounded to nature'
looks silly
Author:  The Kidd!! [ Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
Looks silly? :?

It IS SILLY! :lol:
Author:  Star_Above [ Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
C'mon Kidd, are you sure you don't want to invest in a Rion seminar? hahaha
Author:  The Kidd!! [ Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
I don't support blatant fucking HOOEY! :lol: :mrgreen:
Author:  Sai [ Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
not the blatant one, just the COVERT ones :lol:
Author:  Sniper [ Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
Kidd and everyone else:

what do you think about religious Christian women?
I spoke with TML about this once but I want to know what you guys saw...

are religious Christian women more humble and don't try to control their men?
Author:  Sai [ Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
Religion doesn't really change a Woman. I know lot's of christian Women with fucked up attitudes. actually, some of these Women use Religion as a front to hide their shitty ways. I KNOW of instances where these Religious women actually drive their Men to Suicide.
Author:  Sniper [ Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
enelkei wrote:
Religion doesn't really change a Woman. I know lot's of christian Women with fucked up attitudes. actually, some of these Women use Religion as a front to hide their shitty ways. I KNOW of instances where these Religious women actually drive their Men to Suicide.
really?
that sucks man
Author:  The Kidd!! [ Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
Please don't get me started on organized religion...PLEASE. :|
Author:  peregrinus [ Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
The Kidd!! wrote:
Please don't get me started on organized religion...PLEASE. :|
Same here.

I could rant about it for months and still have months of material left.

Lets leave religion out of it.
That is a whole other matrix.
Author:  Azriel [ Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I have a question that may seem not relevant but it woul
I can add to this, in countries like Japan the patriarch is greatly respected, The Simpsons doesn't show over there because Bart was disrespectful toward his father.
The father puts his daughter in her place when she gets out of line and knows to respect daddy or else she'll be punished and thats why Japanese women are more "natural"

However women grow up to be "little princesses" in the western social matrix where daddy gets everything his little girl wants and its up to mammy to lay down the law, but mammy is too busy hoping that little girl grows up to be a strong women and doesnt let men walk all over her like they did back in mammy's time.

Fathers in my generation I think were raised by normally pretty religious parents so the parents nowadays want to go easier on their kids, thats my experience anyway. No one getting smacked with a ruler in school if they do something wrong I mean.

Its one generation affecting another and that one affecting the next.

Woaw, what a tangent!
Author:  TheDude [ Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: were women in the 50's\60's really more 'natural'
Reviving this thread!

I had an experience that I felt could add into the topic...
I was lounging at the pool with a few cousins (all females) a few days back.
Great weather, refreshing water, and ice cold watermelon! :D

What I observed:
One of my cousins there is a youngin, 6 or 7 years old.
She's annoying, says disrespectful things, and acts like a Princess alot...gets it from her mom.
Her mom is a straight up bitch!
She needs to put a cap on her lips sometimes.
My uncle who is blood family is an OG, he's 50 something and out of shape. His wife, up above, is in her 30's. :lol:
OG, but not Pimp Tight he is.
He dipped back to his home country on business two weeks ago, and hasn't called her in a week and a half! :lol:
I wonder why?

Anyways, long story short the older girls taught my little cousin the following phrase at the pool:
All guys are shit!
:roll:
Way to set an example.
My hope for the female enlightenment is lost.
The power of the pussy has corrupted them and there on the Dark Side.
The liberation Women have gained through the years has corrupted them.
Natural? What does that even mean.
Everyone is out for themselves, some do it more peaceful than others.
Author:  peregrinus [ Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: were women in the 50's\60's really more 'natural'
TheDude wrote:
Anyways, long story short the older girls taught my little cousin the following phrase at the pool:
All guys are shit!
Ask yourself WHY they did it...

And what the end result will more than likely be.

Then look deeper and ask yourself again.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC+01:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/