No.2649
Some writefaggotry for you.
As brought up in the the globalized fetish thread
>>1893, here's a rough timeline (2 centuries) for women being steadily enslaved en-masse throughout much of the world:
http://pastebin.com/rZRnNgpS (It's in pastebin because it's ~3,800 words and I can't be bothered to split it up and post it here.)
There's no actual smut,just worldbuilding. Any advice on how to improve or expand on the setting would be welcome.
No.2684
>TL;DR - interesting read, great work, one or two points though - happy to help out in future.
Very well thought through OP.
There are one or two things I think need to be pointed out though.
I think the part about gene-modding is a little bit Hollywood though - too modular. Remember genes code for proteins not characteristics, change one gene and you change not just the proteins it provides the data for, but also how those proteins interact with the other proteins and how they interact with the body itself, leading to all kinds of problems (the old line about human DNA being only minutely different from dolphin DNA etc.). I guess you can just handwave it as 'future tech',but you made the effort to make the rest of it sound at least plausible so I just thought I'd point it out.
I'd also argue that the attitude most men would have (even to gene-modded, categorically inferior women) would be more paternal and caring than cruel. I might just be a little idealistic there, or not giving your social engineering points enough credit, but that seems to fit better for me at least. I'm a part of the BDSM community in RL, and that has been my experience so far, even with men who will call their women 'slave' to her face without a seconds thought as they're caning her.
Also, I'd think that the feminist nations you mentioned would probably be trying to do a lot more than just trade sanctions. If you look at the reactions modern feminists have to people who disagree with them (even one of their own elite pointing out a few facts - just look at Erin Pizzy and the feminist reaction to her work) and remember that this is today and not in a time of apparent 'hyper-feminism' you'd see a huge call in the non-patriarchal nations for more than just a frosty look, a trade embargo, and the occasional bit of crowing when the patriarchies economy hits a slight bump. I guess that could be the starting point for bio weapon plotline you mention at the end though.
In short though, awesome work mate, I'd be happy to pitch in as needed.
No.2685
>>2684Thanks.
The genetic engineering stuff does sound a bit Hollywood, but it's the only way I can see to make these social changes permanent and introduce some of the new ones (like universal harems.) It wouldn't really be 'genes for intelligence get taken off the x chromosome and put on the y one'. It would be coding the entire genome for intelligence and longevity, but with some element of the y chromosome forming the final part that actually activates all these changes. This would be with a large amount of 'future tech did it' thrown in, since it's more than a century in the future.
Stuff like leading women around in public naked would be less cruel and more showing off. After all, they own several beautiful girls, why not show them off a bit - sort of like having a sports car you're proud of. The social engineering is more to get men to agree that women need the treatment that reduces their lifespan and intelligence. Most of the actual bad treatment would come from other girls in the harem who are jealous. By the end of the timeline most men would regard women as pets rather than people, but would still love and care for them.
There would be a lot more tensions than just sanctions and posturing. It would be something like the Cold War, only with patriarch and feminist in place NATO and soviet. There wouldn't be much tension to begin with either. At first the patriarch nations would just be undoing a lot of feminist laws and encouraging women to be housewives. Most other nations wouldn't really care about this too much, other than the feminists who moved there in protest. It would be down to the patriarch nations forming a clear political axis of their own. As a result other nations form a different axis to help limit the influence of the patriarchs on themselves and each other. Tribal politics comes into play and as the patriarchs are anti-feminist, clearly their opposites should be pro-feminist. This, combined with help from the feminist immigrants helps these nations to actually take up feminism in a major way. At this point things start to resemble the Cold War more and more.
I still need to decide which nations to use in this. One one hand, North America plus Europe and Russia would provide enough people and resources that they could conceivably outcompete the rest of the world. On the other, it would be nice to see feminist individuals and institutions in these countries react. Then again, those groups and individuals could move into other countries and we can see their reactions there.
No.2686
>>2685I can see your points there, thanks for answering my questions.
In response to what you're saying about which countries to choose it gets a little tricky.
The three main candidates you've chosen there (the USA, Western Europe and Russia) are definitely prime candidates for this sort of thinking to occur, if only because feminism has been most active in at least two of them, and we can already see a growing opposition and antagonism towards feminism in the US and Europe (not so much in explicitly anti-feminist groups, yet at least, as in the general mood of many not so political people) and Russia seems to be going the same way. The problem there is that these are the homes of modern feminism, the only places where they seem to have developed all that much of a power base in politics and society. I don't really see where they would be able to go if they wanted to leave these areas (as amusing as I find the idea of feminists and SJWs trying to colonise the middle east I don't see that as a particularly likely scenario). I suppose you could argue that they could move to places like Canada and Sweden, but unless they had some colossal advantage how could they have the faintest hope of competing with an alliance of the USA, Europe, and Russia?
Even if we had every other country in the world uniting to oppose such a power bloc (you effectively have NATO and the old Soviet states working together there) it would take decades possibly centuries before their resistance to it would be at all realistic, if it ever could be. Even with China, India, every southern and central American and Asian country uniting and working together perfectly from day one they would still have an incredibly tough task in front of them.
Sorry if it sounds like I'm crapping on your work there, I'm not, it's just an interesting discussion and I'm enjoying it immensely.
I suppose I may be overstating a few things above, but if the patriarchal alliance was overseen by a shadowy 'cabal' it would seem that you can safely bet that its members would be working together much more effectively than anything the feminist opposition can put together.
No.2687
>>2686Don't worry about poking holes in stuff - it's why I've posted it, after all. I want to make sure the history of the setting is semi-plausible.
That's a good point about the feminist power base being in these countries. Perhaps it could start in Europe and the feminists start to leave for the US. With increased feminist pressure, the US starts exporting feminism even harder. It succeeds in promoting it around more of the world. Meanwhile people in the US start to get more and more fed up with this and become more sympathetic to the patriarchs. By this point (lets say ~20 years after the patriarch takeover) the rest of the world has continued to grow economically and technologically. This would be ~40 years from now, so the rest of the world would be considerably more powerful.
Meanwhile Europe has suffered from a major recession due to the turmoil in ousting feminism and the US has been pushing feminism in place of good economic decisions and quality scientific research, so both have fallen behind a little. With the US having been demographically gutted by feminism and many people now opposing it, immigration from Europe starts to tip the scales towards patriarchy. Around 50 years in the future we now have an increasingly feminist world that can actually stand up to the entirety of NATO. At some point (when geopolitics have changed a lot) Russia would join up, as it brings plenty of natural resources and space for the patriarchs to expand into.
The 'shadowy cabal' thing is just a way to organise women's position being reduced from an already marginal one. It would be something of an open secret, most people would be vaguely aware of interest groups who oppose feminism, they're just a lot busier than most people suspect. It would have started as a group determined to make sure feminism could never threaten civilisation again, but ends up evolving into something determined to make sure women can never be anything other than slaves. It doesn't even need to be included, but there would need to be a way for the genemods part to be thought up and popularised. They wouldn't be around to begin with and would be more a response to international subterfuge in the new Cold War.
No.2688
>>2687Good points
What do you think would be happening outside of the western world during this process?
If nothing else imagine the impact on Chinas economy if the western world hits a massive economic downturn (either from the slump of re-organisation or from pushing feminism over good sense). Chinas economy depends on other countries buying their goods (and taking loans from China to do so), the slump would probably be bigger (short term at least) than the 2008 credit crunch Chinas economy would probably go down the toilet fairly swiftly - especially if the new patriarchal alliance/nation would be adopting protectionist or otherwise patriotic economic practices and focuses the rebuilt patriarchal economy/ies would not be feeding China any more. Major economic problems like that would lead to political instability, that would be a fairly fertile ground for either side to capitalise on. You could use the feminist side jumping in there, to speed up their becoming a credible opposition. It might be a bit of a leap there, but it's an interesting idea.
No.2689
>>2688Something like that, yes. I would imagine that by the time the patriarchs become the dominant force in Europe, China would be well on the way to having a strong internal market, so the impact wouldn't be as great as it would be today. While a long term recession in Europe wouldn't do them any favours, the US would still be going strong at first, so there would still be large market to sell to. There would still be a fair bit of turmoil as double digit growth rates would be a thing of the past. This could be used by feminist groups, encouraged by US feminists, to gain more power and influence. With Europe struggling, it would lend credence to their claims that feminism helps the economy. The smarter people at the top might not buy it, but it would seem obvious and is the sort of thing China's new and influential middle class might go for. Chinese businesses would like it too, since it means more labour is available. It wouldn't be fully-on crazy feminism (that would start to emerge as the patriarchal and feminist nations polarise.) Something similar might happen in India, though they aren't likely to get too closely aligned with China, as proximity means they'll be more concerned with each other than the west.
Basically, Europe (apparently) shoots it's economy in the foot, resulting the great recession mk2. The rest of the world manages to recover much faster, as they aren't rearranging their entire economies and societies. This is seen as proof that feminism is superior. By the time Europe turns the corner, this opinion has become mainstream and there's no obvious indication it isn't true. At some point during this, Russia would become more closely aligned with Europe and start having patriarchal sympathies.
As the US economy begins to flag due to the crazier feminist laws and ideas, China grows and sets up it's own network of alliances (the US is exporting feminism, China is exporting goods and loans to pay for them.) This puts it in the position to be the core of future opposition of patriarchal nations. India tries to do the same thing, though with less success and more corruption. They are reasonably friendly with each other, and have agreed not to step on each others toes.
By the time European immigration and public annoyance at feminists puts the patriarchs in charge in the US, China and India would have the economies and resources to be a real counterweight to them. Europe would have fallen behind economically and the US would still be recovering from feminism. They would have a good network of global allies spread throughout the developing world too (loan money to developing nations so they can pay China to upgrade their infrastructure.) At this point it's widely believed in both China and India that feminism is good for the economy, so they encourage reasonable amounts of it. They've also learned from the lesson of the US, so restrict immigration from patriarchal countries. This gives us a huge fraction of the world population as feminists with another huge fraction as allies. A much smaller portion are patriarchs and their economies are still recovering. They are a bit richer than China and India, put the population difference puts them a little behind.
Eventually a recession would hit that would cause problems with all the money China's been lending, but the turmoil from that could be used as an excuse for a younger generation, raised to see the anti-feminist patriarchs as evil, to force their ideas on the government.
No.2690
>>2689You just have to love /d/ style macro-economics :) haha.
I'm not sure how long the more 'reasonable' brands of feminism would last in those countries (well any country to be honest). As social/political/economic movements gain power they tend to either attenuate or radicalise.
As we've seen in the real world over the last century or so with feminism they tend towards the latter, and that's without a tangible, real, patriarchal nation to point to as the evidence for the rightness of their arguments. Especially when tensions rise between the two power blocs there would be a huge amount of pressure, on both sides, for their ideologies to go further and further into their extremes. That could be a good way to explain how the patriarchal cabal find their social engineering going so well.
On a side note, it would make sense for the feminist bloc to have a directing group in power (or behind the throne), even if only as a narrative point. If we accept the gradual radicalising of both sides they would more likely become best described as anti-male.
pic related, a possible example of fashionable attire for your property.
No.2694
>>2690Heh, fapping has never been so educational.
That's a good point, feminism's tendency towards radicalisation would help to push other countries into crazy levels of feminism. As they get pushed out of patriarchal countries by the demographic shift, they move to prosperous ones and keep pushing feminism. China is willing to accept them as they bring a fair bit of money and some valuable expertise with them and are willing to go on about how evil the patriarchal nations are. This helps China's propaganda campaign to try and keep its people focused on how anything but their government is the cause of their problems. The same thing goes on in India.
As a result, western feminists get to go around Chinese universities, providing first hand 'proof' of how evil the patriarchs are and how they are responsible for all the economic problems. As a result China's new middle class grow up with increasing levels of feminist belief. As far as the Chinese government is concerned they are talking about how evil the west is more than they are about feminism, so they're willing to put up with them for the most part. Again, something similar occurs with India
The feminist bloc could be arranged in much the same way feminists are today. Various pressure groups, often with vaguely contradictory goals and ideals, but none of them willing to criticise fellow feminists. Any dissent gets shouts down has having patriarchal sympathies. Being suspected of sympathising with the national rival tends to be a career killer in many places, so most people just keep their mouths shut.
Eventually it becomes popular belief that men and women are fundamentally equal. Anything that deviates from this is seen as traitorous as it's something those patriarchal rivals of the nation would do. The crazies continue to apply pressure for more feminism, but are kept in check a little by the Cold War 2, as people do actually need stuff to keep working to remain competitive. The fact that they don't manage to get equal numbers of women in everything they want results in feminists claiming this is 'proof' of patriarchal influence and start trying to purge India, China and various allies of anyone who disagrees with them.
I'm not too concerned about the narrative. This is going to be more of a setting than a story. It'll be a bit like a watered down history book that allows you to get an idea what life would be like in any given period (I'll add a few slices of life as this progresses) and set a story there.
That pic is about the right level of vaguely futuristic and the right mix of revealing without being obvious bondage gear. I imagine gagging women before taking them out would be quite popular in many places. I could also see keeping her breasts, thighs and buttocks exposed to show you haven't needed to whip her recently would being another fashionable thing to do.
No.2695
>>2694Awesome.
To be honest I think gagging women before taking them out of the house would be fairly commonplace in the patriarchal societies. Perfectly symbolic and (honestly) I just think it looks good. Even something relatively light (as gags go) such as a very light bit gag that you can talk around without too much difficulty would become as common as ear-rings are today, if only as an aesthetically pleasing bit of symbolism. But you could easily get a smaller group of men who would fit their pets with fairly massive, humiliating or just uncomfortable gags.
One of the things I do love about that pic though is the fact that the girls facing the camera are both fitted with crotch leashes - practical and wonderfully kinky ;)
No.2696
>>2695Well, it's one way to make sure they follow when you tug on their leash.
Unless there are any more obvious holes in the setting I'm about ready to start writing version 2: now with added geopolitics.
I'll probably post it in chunks, so any major problems can be spotted before I continue to build on them.
In the meantime, a pic of a man getting ready to take three of his wives out for a walk. It's a bit more ponygirlish than I'd like, but I could see some guys dressing their women up like that and having them prance down the street on a leash in front of him. Or just go full ponygirl have have them pull a buggy. Part of a game of one-upmanship a lot of younger men tend to engage in late on in the timeline to show off how attractive and obedient their women are (at least in places where the climate allows it.)
No.2697
>>2696Not so much a hole as a question, what would happen to male homosexuals in the patriarchal state? I imagine the idea of a woman having a sexual identity as anything other than slave, pet, or toy would seem ludicrous in this setting, but what about gay men? Are they accepted quietly or thought of as bizarre perverts? Or as something else/in between?
This is looking very interesting at the moment, can't wait to see where it goes.
No.2698
>>2697Views on homosexuality would vary quite a bit from country to country. It runs the gamut from firm social disapproval (don't expect the neighbours to like you - or hire you) to being ignored as his business (he prefers to have sex with other men!? Weird, but whatever.) It would be rare for it to be outright illegal. I'll keep countries precise views on most things fairly varied so there's lots of variety for stories set there.
Many of them would still own a few women though, as women are pretty much a domestic appliance towards the end of the timeline. Someone has to do the housework after all.
Lesbians would be known about and would generally be regarded with amusement. Most girls would probably be encouraged to be somewhat bisexual, since being able to entertain a man by having sex with another woman would be considered a useful skill.
No.2699
>>2698sounds good, the variety would work well.
No.2708
Well, I have the build up to The Patriarchy taking over Europe done. As usual, any suggestions, requests for clarification or warning of gaping plot holes are welcome.
The run-up to patriarchy:
Decade 1:
In backlash against feminism is accelerated by growing economic problems, primarily in Europe. Many younger people feel cheated out of a future their parents had and a lot of older people think society has gone much to far in its drive for equality. This results in highly 'traditional' families starting to emerge in large numbers. They shun things like equal rights and many of the hobby-horses of the equality minded campaigners they blame for Europe's problems. They consider women's most apporpriate role in life to be that of a wife and mother, so therir birthrate is prodigious. Most of the adult women in the movement spend the majority of their time pregnant. They are a small group to begin with, but their big focus on rebuilding a sense around their countries means they gain a large number of converts. Their birthrate also helps, but the impact of that has yet to be felt. For the most part, they believe that families work best if the wife is obedient and takes care of the children for her husband. Within a few years they have close to ten million supporters across Europe.
Many feminist groups object to this and push for various campaigns against the neotraditionalists. The traditionalists, being accustomed to shunning popular media's representation of the sexes are unaffected by this. The feminists continue to get more and more shrill and obnoxious, while the traditionalists start to build their own media and entertainment groups. The feminists campaigns and advertisements are shrill criticisms of the patriarchs and the women that obey them. The patriarchs, for the most part, are more interested in making entertaining programs that just assume their own idealogy is true and don't try to preach about it, as they see no reason to. This results in patriarchal entertainment being far more enjoyable and many people prefer the representation of the sexes shown in it. It shows men as masculine and capable and women as feminine and attractive and is unapologetic about it - in sharp contrast to the stuff feminists come out with. This gains the patriarchs quite a lot of popular support and the majority of people start quietly wondering about how life was better back before all these social changes (there's a fair bit of rose tinted goggles involved.) Many more people start living the patriarchal lifestyle, making the feminists ever more shrill and critical.
By the end of the decade, feminists see the patriarchs as literal nazis who beat their wives. The the patriarchs see the feminists as insane, bitter old women who want to be men, while turning actual men into women. Both sides have retreated into their respective media echo-chambers and are pointing to each other and claiming this is why the opposite gender can't be trusted with power. While feminists are generally critical of all men in some way or another, the patriarchs make it clear that it's only the feminists they consider scum. Women who fulfil their duties as a housewives and mothers are perfectly reasonable and admirable. This makes many women far more sympathetic to the patriarchs than to the feminists (they also tend to find men who take charge of the relationship generally more attractive.) Most patriarchs tend to have a bit of a seige mentality when it comes to feminism, seeing themselves as constantly under attack.
No.2709
>>2708Decade 2:
By this point the feminists are getting a bit desperate. The patriarchs aren't yet a majority, but with current birth rates it's just a matter of time. The average person is getting more and more alientated by feminist criticism and, while not actually being patriarchs, do sympathise with them more than the femininsts. The feminists, still controlling much of soft academia and many government institutions, begin trying to use the law to force people away from the patriarch lifestyle. They try to ban various media outlets, extend domestic violence laws to let the police arrest men for being the clear leader of the relationship, force extra feminist indoctrination at school, etc. Many of these laws are poorly thought out, contradictory or impossible to enforce. This kills remaining support for feminists among non-patriarchs and gets patriarchs elected in many countries across Europe. Their push to remove all recent and a lot of older feminist legislation is well received by some and at least tolerated by most (though not by feminists,) as it is focused mainly on the crazier stuff.
By the end of the decade, they have their foot in the door of European politics and demographics means they aren't going anywhere. There are now close to one hundred million patriarchs across all of Europe, mainly due to childbirth, though there were plenty of converts too. Most of them are still children at this point.
Many feminist nations are critical of Europe's reversal of so much equal rights legislation but, other than posturing, do nothing yet. Most of the rest of the world doesn't care, beyond the fact that immigration to Europe has been largely banned due to people there being sick of it. By this point oil is collapsing and with it, many oil based economies. Russia is one of these and there is a big push of Russian immigration into the parts of Europe willing to tolerate Russian immigrants. China, on the other hand, has managed to increase its internal markets to the point it is no longer entirely dependent on exports to keep its economy going.
No.2710
>>2709Decade 3:
By now the demographic rooster has come home to roost. Most young people in Europe now, grew up in patriarchal households and were raised to hate feminism. The position of the patriarchs continues to improve as these people come of age, vote and start their own patriarchal families. As younger patriarchs start to reach voting age, they start to displace older, more neutral voters. This results in even more withdrawal of feminist legislation. This receives less and less support from neutrals as the decade progresses, resulting in many of them moving abroad as patriarchal men refuse to hire or do business with woman led businesses, and laws that might force them to do so are struck down. This starts to hamper Europe's economy as various companies go under due to lack of business and growing underemployment among women (who often end up on benefits.) Many women in patriarchal families don't have their own spending money, so consumption of many retail goods declines as well.
As a result of this, some nations start trying to apply pressure to Europe to reverse its errosion of women's rights. The US is at the forefront of these, being a bastion of feminism itself (though having its own proto-patriarch movement underway.) Several free-trade agreements are abolished and a series of trade wars start (feminism being an excuse for protectionism in many of these cases.) This further harms Europe's already stuttering economy, pushing it into a long recession. The seige mentality that patriarchs have with regards to feminism is reinforced when the feminist US starts giving European feminists clear support. Even as feminism declines in Europe, it still gets blamed for most problems as it's what people are used to doing and US pressure is seen as causing many of the problems people are angry about.
By the middle of the decade there are a lot of young men and not enough jobs. Birth rates mean Europe is younger than it has been in generations, but there are still only a limited number of starting positions. Feminists in the US have orchestrated a small number of sanctions, benefits have been cut and most young women lacking their own source of disposable income. This results in reduced spending, so the European economy is busy struggling to get out of negative growth. All of this results in a massive outpouring of anger from unemployed young men directed at remaining feminists and feminist leaning institutions. To try and get the situtation under control, governments start introducing various makework schemes. Infrastructure is updated and improved, men are paid to go to university to delay their entry into the workforce (due to patriarchal ideals, this almost always means STEM or medical fields.) Women are discouraged from going into higher education as it is seen as a waste of money and are discouraged from getting a job as it's seen as taking one from a man who deserves it more. Unemployment benefits are withdrawn entirely, with men who were on them being directed to new jobs programs and women being told to stop wasting time and go get married. A large campaign is launched to convince Europeans to only buy patriarch made goods. There is still a great deal of economic turmoil, but it's blamed on remaining feminists and 'lingering feminist ideals'. Feminists and their sympathisers begin to flee the country en-masse. This frees up the jobs they'd been occupying (though most of them were in feminist organisations,) but further reduces consumption, forcing more government intervention. Eventually, governments cancel nearly all state benefits and focus on trying to boost the economy and get men into employment at the same time through manpower-hungry, but often unnecessary projects while encouraging them to spend their money on patriarch made goods and services. A lot of this is paid for by printing money, which reduces the value of European currencies and helps to make exporting more economical.
No.2711
>>2710As the economy struggles to recover and assimilate all the new employees it's getting, many community minded patriarchs start organising business networks (often with discreet government help.) This allows them to buy from fellow patriarchs and help to ensure they do their bit to prop up the economy and sometimes help keep a business that is on the verge of insolvency from failing. Other, neutral, businesses don't have such a network and suffer the full brunt of what is now looking like an economic depression. Many of the neutrals without job prospects in Europe move to the US, bringing their newfound dislike of the patriarchs with them. In many instances, patriarchs move to the US and establish themselves there, though keep quiet about their sympathies. The patriarchs continue to tighten their grip on Europe, while feminists and neutrals head elsewhere. With funding cut, many feminist organisations collapse, or are forced to try and get funding from outside sources.
Around the end of the decade, the patriarchs manage to gain a majority of votes in several nations. Though the economy is still in a depression, things are starting to be brought under control. Most patriarchs still place the blame for economic problems solely on feminists for a variety of reasons. With their newfound majority, many nations start to enact the more political aspects of patriarchal thought. As a result, women are barred from voting in all future elections and referendums. Many universities, now dependent on patriarchal government funding, stop admitting or employing women as well. To mitigate the effect of some of the sanctions, a trade agreement is signed with Russia to gain easier access to raw materials. With manufacturing and construction making up a much larger part of Europe's economy compared to a decade ago, this is more important than ever. Neither Europe or Russia have the money to go messing around near each others borders, or with each others interests, so relations remain fairly cordial.
By now, people in Europe generally have a lower standard of living than the rest of the developed world and the economy is still looking very battered. Unemployment is high, families are large and there is little to no social safety net, resulting in higher levels of extremism and violence. The more neutral individuals that can leave have done so, resulting in population levels remaining static, or even slightly reduced compared to thirty years ago. Feminism is held up as the cause for all of these problems, mainly due to most people having been brought up hearing about how evil and malicious feminists are. They also raise their children to hear the same thing; 'everything is shit right now because feminists threw away Europe's wealth and advantages on blatant lies and fantasies about women being men's equals'.
Life for the typical woman is not far off 19th century values. She would be married off in her late teens; technically she has the right to veto the marriage but a lot of girls are pressured into it. Any property she owns becomes her husband's on marriage. She can't vote and higher education is almost inaccessible for her. Social attitudes are highly conservative - no sex before marriage (for women,) wear modest clothes, etc. While it's not something people talk about openly, domestic violence is quietly accepted. Women are illogical, emotion driven creatures, after all, so trying to reason with one is pointless and you're best off giving her a firm slap if she argues.
No.2713
>>2708>>2709>>2710>>2711Hello again OP, you continue to create top tier writefaggotry :). Well played sir, can't wait for the next set, if there's anything that could be done to help just post it.
No.2715
>>2684>If you look at the reactions modern feminists have to people who disagree with them (even one of their own elite pointing out a few facts - just look at Erin Pizzy and the feminist reaction to her work)Eric Pizzy isn't really a feminist, just an activist who care's about women and men, let alone a feminine elite.
No.2722
>>2715Dude, keep your autism out of my wanking, that's cool if that's your thing, but it's not my fetish.
No.2731
Here's the first decade of official Patriarchy in Europe.
Patriarchy: Decade One:
It is the start of the first decade that history will regard as having a Patriarchal government in power. Europe is still struggling with an economic depression from the sudden surge of angry, unemployed young men driving out many businesses seen as having feminist sympathies; cuts to social benefits reducing spending, combined with various international sanctions and trade wars that resulted from anti-feminist legislation. Large numbers of unemployed young men have been taking out their frustrations on any and all perceived feminist sympathisers. This has resulted in many non-patriarchs fleeing the continent.
By this point, Europe's economy has mostly flatlined. Exchange rates are low enough that Europe is competitive with other exporters and, along with China, has easy access to Russia's natural resources. Russia has been battling its own population crisis and has been running a number schemes to try and encourage its emigrants to return. It also offers cheap land to many young Europeans who don't have jobs in Europe (though there are still few jobs in Russia.) The more feminist minded Europeans are still leaving for other countries, particularly the US, in response to the end of women's suffrage and the general attitude towards equality most young people now have. The ongoing depression has also reduced the birthrate among Patriarchal families somewhat (though still far above replacement levels,) mainly due to not having a source of steady income. Many people in power are relieved at this, as they were quickly headed for problems with over crowding.
With the economy no longer looking like it might collapse, many European governments start for ways to alleviate demographic pressure. There are far too many young men entering the workforce for the economy to absorb them all. They come to an agreement with Russia; Europe will use it's slowly recovering financial strength to fund the development of several Russian regions, while European immigrants will help to bolster the population. Russia, preferring European immigrants to all others, agrees. Over a decade of increasingly close ties means many people in Europe and Russia have generally positive views of each other, so this goes down fairly well. The few returning Russian migrants have a generally positive view of Europe (the ones that don't left for other countries.) Most Russians view it as a chance to bolster their nation and economy, most Europeans view it as a chance to find work expanding and developing Russia's vast, empty frontiers.
As Europe's economy starts to grow again, the US continues to apply pressure to allow women's suffrage. More trade restrictions are applied, causing a few more stutters in Europe's economy. While the US is in a stronger position, it is not immune to the effects of shutting out a significant portion of the world's economy and the sanctions do hurt it as well. As many Americans are more concerned about their jobs and own economy than European politics, this places political limits how far sanctions can be taken. Many American feminists try to push for an even more hostile approach, but politicians aren't willing to lose votes by causing too much more unemployment. Feminists begin their largest media campaign yet, painting the patriarchs as evil incarnate. Unlike the last few that were tried, and the ones used in Europe before them, this campaign is actually somewhat convincing. This is mainly due to the fact they now have an actual, real life target that has significantly restricted the rights of women and is apparently destroying the economy of its host country. While there is a lot of propaganda woven in, there is enough truth that many people are convinced to support more feminist 'awareness teaching', meaning more propaganda in schools. This is supposedly to try and counteract any patriarchal ideals that might be creeping in and make young people aware of how important feminism is, but is soon turned into outright feminist indoctrination.
No.2732
>>2731Continued immigration from Europe provides endless stories about how much women are suffering. Creeping feminist legislation means many American men are getting screwed over more and more, but with the general atmosphere and hostility towards anything that sounds like patriarchy, this is ignored. This results in growing patriarchal sympathy among many men, but not with enough numbers or organisation to matter. Among the refugees from patriarchy, there are a number of former patriarchs. Some have come to disagree with the ideals they were raised with, others are just looking for work. This provides a small breeding ground for future patriarchs in the US, as children raised by these families would see the increasing power of The Patriarchy and regard it as their heritage, rather than the feminist screed they are forcefed in school. As a result of this increase in feminism, relations between the sexes deteriorate and the birthrate plummets. The US begins to allow more extensive immigration to cover the population gap.
The US starts to ramp up pressure on other countries to adopt a more feminist culture. Many officials are bribed to allow and encourage feminist campaigners to establish themselves in their countries. This has little effect to begin with, but feminists are accustomed to subverting academic institutions and, with US funding, will consolidate their hold in the coming decades. Many students from China and India continue to study in the US and begin to absorb these ideas, with the counterpoint of Europe's economic problems only seeming to confirm what they've been taught.
By the end of the fourth decade, Europe has returned to slow economic growth. Most residents are now patriarchs or are strongly sympathetic to patriarchs. Resentment directed at feminists continues, and many politicians, now having some breathing room in their budgets, are happy to pander to it. Various laws are proposed, further restricting the rights of women. Women are official banned from attending university (as it's not as if they'll make use of the degree, so why waste the money.) It becomes illegal to pay a woman more than the minimum wage (women in the workplace are just stealing jobs from men.) There is pressure to go further, but pragmatism prevents this for the time being (a number of women are supporting themselves or their families due to ongoing economic problems.) A variety of other laws restricting women are passed, but they are relatively minor in comparison (in several places curfews are enacted, banning women from going out after dark.) There is some resistance to this, but it's viewed as being down to feminist agitators and anyone who claims the Patriarchy is going too far is shouted down as a feminist and practically (and in a few cases, literally) run out of town.
No.2733
>>2731>>2732One idea did come up while reading this, with the economic problems there could be a push in Europe, during the decade you've just posted, to move to nationalised economies. It's the sort of thing that could catch on pretty easily during harder times - and would allow the patriarchal state a much stronger position to enact their policies on women in the workforce.
Just a thought.
No.2735
>>2722Don't say shit if you don't want people to answer it.
No.2736
>>2733The problem with that would be that nationalised economies tend not to do very well. Still, in a depression there would be pressure to try things like that.
Let's say that the Patriarchs originated as small, close knit communities that learned to avoid outside influence so as to avoid feminists causing them problems. As a result they tend to focus on local matters more than national ones (this would help with smoother integration into a wider federation of Patriarchs.) Rather than nationalising things, people would be more inclined towards locally run cooperatives, as they are accustomed to doing things locally. The government would confiscate woman-led businesses, on the principle they were being 'irresponsibly run' (or whatever piece of legal fiction they could best make fit) and hand them off to councils of approved community members - who are of course, all Patriarchs. Eventually things would normalise and we'd see a return to regular capitalism, but it would help reduce tension and speed up women's removal from employment.
No.2737
>>2736I wasn't suggesting that nationalising the economy would be the patriarchs ticket to economic success, stability, or recovery. I probably should have explained the thought a little better, but it seemed like something that was in character (highly controlling etc) It would also have given the feminist aligned nations a slightly easier time pushing for embargoes, punitive actions etc.
No.2738
>>2737Ah, right. I'm not aiming for them to be too highly controlling. They aren't that far removed from modern attitudes yet, they just have a massive hateboner for anything that looks like feminism. Though it could end up happening to major corporations that resist pressure to stop employing women due to multinational interests. They would be stuck trying to appease two groups that want mutually exclusive things and end up getting caught in the crossfire.
Sanctions and embargoes would be fairly easy for a feminist minded nation to push after they revoke women's suffrage. Getting other nations on board would just be a matter of showing them they'd benefit in some way.
It is a good point though. Enough companies would resist this and enough of them are international that seizing them could easily happen and that would add fuel to the fire.
No.2739
>>2738Good point, it would probably be happening from the bottom up as well, I imagine that you'd be seeing everything from grass roots boycotts to angry mobs smashing offices and shopfronts belonging to such corporations and consortia. Especially when the depression starts to bite and you get the large groups of unemployed, angry young men; under any system when you get a large enough group of young men angry something is going to get broken, either windows, or faces, or political systems. Which would be exactly the kind of energy and anger that the patriarchs could make great use of if they channelled it properly - from what we've seen of them so far they're clever political operators, so it makes sense they'd make as much of this as they could (anything from more enthusiasm for the public works to running people out of the countries).
No.3006
I've been meaning to get back to this, so here's a small addendum to decade one (seems to fit best after the first paragraph.) As usual, please point out any flaws or things that need further explanation.
---
The Patriarchs originated as small, close knit communities that learned to avoid outside influence so as to avoid feminists causing them problems. As a result they tend to focus on local matters more than national ones. Because of this, they are more inclined towards locally run cooperatives, as they are accustomed to doing things locally. In a response the depression, the government confiscates many woman-led businesses, on the principle they are being 'irresponsibly run' (or whatever piece of legal fiction they could best make fit) and making approved community members shareholders - who are of course, all Patriarchs. This is combined with widespread networking between groups of Patriarchs to help boost each others income. Many of these businesses struggle under the sudden change and disruption and their insistence on only hiring men means many older women with relevant experience lose their jobs to a man with none. Nevertheless, this does help to alleviate some of the pressure of unemployment among young Patriarchs. Combined with large government stimuli, this helps to boost employment of young men further, though does reduce competitiveness with other countries.
No.3035
>>3006nice to see this hasn't been abandoned, the added paragraph fits in well and helps flesh out the economics of the setting.
No.3288
There are five castes. People are all equal at birth, as freefolk, and can be either promoted or demoted to change caste. There is no limit to the amount of times someone's cast can change, in either direction.
Senators
>The highest caste, the senators run the republic, electing leaders of the military and foreign representatives from their own number, as well as deciding law. Senators serve for life, but can be stripped of their rights and sent back to being citizens or even lower.
Citizens
>Citizens are those who have earned the right to vote, by serving the republic in its army or some other way. They elect senators from among themselves.
Freefolk
>The default caste, with the right to own property and freely travel the republic. Foreigners resident in the republic are also considered freefolk. Everyone is born a freeman or freewoman, and remains one until promotion or demotion.
Indentured
>Former freefolk required to perform some service for an allotted time. They can be petty criminals indentured to the state or the victim of their crime for a period decided by their trial, debtors indentured to whoever they loaned money from until it is paid off, or youths who at the age of majority failed to pick up a trade, in which case their indenture lasts until they have one.
Slaves
>Those convicted of serious crimes such as murder or treason, slaves have all rights revoked and are typically sold by the state for labor. This status usually lasts indefinitely and having a higher level of citizenship restored is very rare.
No.3306
>>3288is this thread happening at the same time on halfchans d?
No.3307
>>3288That seems like a fairly reasonable civilized form of government, better than democracy, not as scary as absolute monarchy, but this is a sex board.
It seems to me that a tribe or nation in which women were property of their fathers with few or nor rights, until swapped or sold to their husbands whereupon they become the property of their husbands with few or no rights, would substantially outbreed a society with emancipated women.
But really, something more brutal would be sexier, as large numbers of women mass bred under conditions resembling a piggery, and then sold off in large numbers, never having experienced life outside a tiny cage in a facility crowded with hundreds of other women until sold.
All the children born in the facility are female, because produced by cloning, or males eliminated by selective abortion at an early age, male slaves not being very profitable.
No.3330
No.3331
The facility can more reliably produce cute girls if we impregnate them with cloned eggs.
No.3332
>>3307>That seems like a fairly reasonable civilized form of government, better than democracy, not as scary as absolute monarchy, but this is a sex board.I like settings that work for sexy slavery and also make sense ignoring that. Where you could tell a tale without sex coming up.
>It seems to me that a tribe or nation in which women were property of their fathers with few or nor rights, until swapped or sold to their husbands whereupon they become the property of their husbands with few or no rights, would substantially outbreed a society with emancipated women.What would happen to a woman with no owner? Would there be any way for a woman to escape her father/husband? How would women be treated without rights?
>But really, something more brutal would be sexierPersonally I like things that aren't necessarily brutal, but can be. For example, in your property idea, a man can still own women and breed them.
Maybe there's a kind of foster home or workhouse for women with no owners, where they're made to earn their keep, perhaps through prostitution or breeding.
No.3335
>>3332Japanese system before McArthur changed it, women who wander off go to jail until male relative collects them. Women who are orphaned, widowed, abandoned go to nearest male relative. If nearest male relative is son, son is of course required to honor his mother, but young women ordinarily assigned to older male relative.
In the Japanese system, abandoned or widowed women were assigned to nearest older blood kin - the patriarch, normally father or grandfather, but sometimes uncle etc if orphaned.
Yemeni Jews assigned widows to nearest kin or rightful heir of husband.
Both systems normally quite humane, but entirely legal and proper for very bad things to sometimes happen.
No.3336
Finally got around to the next part.
Patriarchy: Decade Two:
Europe's economy continues to improve, though it is still behind other developed nations. The continent is now dominated by Patriarchal politics and anything that even vaguely resembles feminism is ostracised, if not outright illegal. The ever growing pool of young men now have at least some form of job available to them, though emigrating to Russia is still popular. Many still choose to head to the US, despite feminist influence there. In some cases this is ideological, they want to help spread Patriarchy to the rest of the world. In other cases they are just drawn to the greater wealth found in the US.
Relations between the US and Europe continue to deteriorate. As more young Americans are raised to believe in a heavily politicised form of feminism, they start to approve of waging ever more aggressive economic warfare on Europe. While this continues to stall Europe's economy, it has gotten used to not having access to many US markets and relies on its own and the rest of the world, which is far less interested in its internal politics. US voters become increasingly pro feminist and push politicians to continue to put pressure on Europe. Due to the influx of non-patriarch refugees from Europe, the US has near open immigration as a big part its policy. This helps to boost its population and economy as many women owned businesses fled there. As Europe is now dominated entirely by Patriarchs, there are very few feminists coming from there now, but the policy has become a cornerstone of US policy with regards to Europe (land of the free, nation of immigrants, etc.) Even when it's clear the immigrants coming in are now almost all Patriarchs, policy still isn't changed, as a few of them are still looking to leave the Patriarchal lifestyle (or claim to be.) The fact that a constant influx of immigrants helps boost the economy also helps prevent interest in limiting immigration. Many believe that former Patriarchs will see the error of their ways and integrate, especially with all the feminism pushed in schools. In reality, many men who immigrate are well aware of the propaganda that gets pushed in the US (having heard plenty of propaganda about it back home.) They often arrange for private or homeschooling for their children, so they are largely cut off from feminist indoctrination and know how to counter the stuff they are exposed to. Many Americans, sick of the increase in feminism tend to end up getting on well with the Patriarchs and are starting to grow more sympathetic towards their ideals.
As Europe's economy continues to recover at a faster and faster rate, it can afford to start paying for major projects. Part of this is increasing development in Russia, which is hungry for both investment and labour. While still competeing with China for influence there, extensive immigration and a small dispora that has partially returned has left Russia more amenable to Europe. Political and economic ties continue to strengthen and a variety of free trade and not-quite alliances are signed (while memories of the Cold War have mostly passed, there is still some lingering bad blood about political spats that occurred afterwards.) Most of Russia's ire is directed at the US due to the belief that the US somehow sabotaged Russia's economy (Russia's economic problems are actually due to building their economy around oil, decades earlier.) With Europe-US relations at an all time low (at least at the government level,) it's easy for many Russians to to sympathise with Europe.
As men who were raised in the patriarchal lifestyle start to enter higher office, various ideological groups that have existed since the beginning of the movement start to polarise. These new parties are largely pan-Patriarchal, rather than nationally based. Some want to back off the anti-feminism a little. They are quickly ostracised, with the rest learning to keep quiet about such views. Most of them want to continue to curtail women's rights, but disagree on how far it should go and how it should be done. While most of them will do little for the foreseeable future, they will end up becoming major powerbrokers in European politics and will form the core of the new political parties (the current parties are set up for fighting feminism and their approaches are starting to get a little stale.)
No.3337
>>3336In other countries, feminism continues to entrench itself in academia and use these ties to start spreading to other institutions (this is both helped and hindered by varying levels of corruption.) In the US the population of patriarchs continues to grow at an exponential rate. It is still being ignored as most of those in patriarchal homes are still children. Feminists attempt to pass various laws banning homeschooling, but the American public has grown thoroughly fed up with their steady expansion of government and is beginning to push back. Combined with Europe recovering much of it's economic strength and the US starting to falter due to ever increasing quotas and politics in place of competence, more Americans are starting to question whether or not Patriarchy is as bad as is claimed. They haven't gained a majority yet, but they are enough to halt the flow of feminist legislation. Patriarch birthrates in the US continue to be the highest by far and many American families are adopting some of their less extreme ideals.
Towards the end of the decade, birthrates in Europe have started to skew towards boys, as many parents see them as good insurance for retirement. The fat that daughters cost money to raise but contribute nothing to the families finances also helps push this trend. Governments makes various half-hearted attempts to legislate against this as they realise from Asia's example that such an imbalance will make things difficult for them. Unfortunately, central governments are still not entirely trusted, despite the complete removal of feminists. Eventually, some men start asking for dowries as reward for putting their time and effort into raising a daughter. This is encouraged by the government as it allows them to reduce the imbalance without appearing to be interfering in peoples lives. There is significant fluctuation in the exact amount asked for as supply and demand is sorted out, but the 'price' soon settles.
By the end of the second decade Europe is undergoing ever increasing levels of economic growth. The US economy is starting to feel the effects of feminist interference. It still has a larger GDP per capita, but is growing at a noticeably slower rate. Many major companies adhere to quotas and diversity requirements. Smaller companies often ignore them and use contacts among the growing population of patriarchs. American Patriarchs are far less severe in their attitudes (at least in public,) both due to social and legal risks and the fact many of them are essentially 'converts' from feminism. They now make up a sizeable minority of Americans and feminists have irritated enough of the rest of the population that they can no longer get their every demand agreed to. Russia is essentially a member of the loose-knit alliance of European states that makes up the Partriarchy, albeit a distance one.
Restriction of women's rights has continued, with the vast majority of women now having their lives essentially dictated to them by their nearest male relative. Education is completely split among genders, with girls being limited to a primary level of education. After this they are sent to various forms of finishing school, which focus on indoctrination, homemaking, childcare and feminine behaviour. Most girl are sold into marriage by their fathers at around the age of sixteen. While they technically have the right to refuse, doing so is seen as an indication of feminist tendencies, which can get her declared incorrigible. This means she can be sent to a variety of specialised 'treatment centres', which attempt to break her out of her willful mindset. Most of these places are genuinely trying to help what they see as mentally troubled girls, though some do cross the line into abuse and just terrorise girls into obedience. After marriage, her husband has a similar level of power over her, as she can't enter into contracts, drive, get a job or own property. After her husband's death, she would go to live with one of her sons (or failing that, nearest male relative) and help his wife learn her place.
---
As usual, if anything doesn't add up, or needs further explanation or seems like it's been missed entirely, please let me know.
No.3339
>>3335I like the thought of a girl who is inherited by her brother. He wants to be kind to her, but she'll be locked up if he isn't her owner and they both know she's expected to serve him. She's good as serving as his wife, too, so eventually neither of them think giving her any independence is a good idea.
No.3344
>>3339A fairly common situation was that the old man dies, his considerably younger wife and young children are inherited by his oldest son, who is of course required to honor his mother, but has total authority over his sisters.
Whom he typically trades for wives for himself and his younger brothers.
This is actually a pretty good arrangement for the sisters, because their sister's in law are hostages for their own good treatment.
Of course he might sell his sister for cash, rather than trade her for a wife, in which case his sister has no protection against mistreatment.
No.3363
>>3344>his considerably younger wife and young children are inherited by his oldest son, who is of course required to honor his mother, but has total authority over his sisters.What if she's only his step-mother? That allows her to be closer to him in age, not a blood relative, and depending on culture gets rid of the "honor your mother" custom.
No.3365
Sons generally inherited their father's wives, so if he had a bunch of young wives ...
In the Hebrew system, though not in most other patriarchal systems the sons were theoretically forbidden to sleep with their father's wives even after he died, but this seems to have been completely ignored in practice. When King David died, Adonijah told Solomon that if Adonijah could have the Abishag, the newest and youngest wife of his father King David, then Solomon could have the Kingdom and all David's other wives
To which Solomon replied that he would have both, and if he had to give up one or the other, would rather the give up the Kingdom than Abishag.
Evidently Abishag was one hot chick.
Solomon then murders his half brother Adonijah, thereby decisively settling the question of who inherits what.
So, Adonijah got killed disputing possession of Dad's hot new young wife with his brother.
No.3366
>>3365That, I take it, is Abishag giving Adonijah and Solomon an inspection of the assets of ther dead father's estate.
No.3370
>>3336>>3337Any comments on this?
No.3378
>>3337Most of the worldbuilding is kind of boring. Could go the other way around and still tell the same story.
The juicy part of the world building is:
>>Restriction of women's rights has continued, with the vast majority of women now having their lives essentially dictated to them by their nearest male relative. Education is completely split among genders, with girls being limited to a primary level of education. After this they are sent to various forms of finishing school, which focus on indoctrination, homemaking, childcare and feminine behaviour. Most girl are sold into marriage by their fathers at around the age of sixteen. While they technically have the right to refuse, doing so is seen as an indication of feminist tendencies, which can get her declared incorrigible. This means she can be sent to a variety of specialised 'treatment centres', which attempt to break her out of her willful mindset. Most of these places are genuinely trying to help what they see as mentally troubled girls, though some do cross the line into abuse and just terrorise girls into obedience. After marriage, her husband has a similar level of power over her, as she can't enter into contracts, drive, get a job or own property. After her husband's death, she would go to live with one of her sons (or failing that, nearest male relative) and help his wife learn her place.Concerning Incorrigibles:
Supposing a girl keeps running away from dad or husband without reasonable excuse.
Suppose a girl does not want to get married, but does want to have sex. Or suppose she gets married, and then has sex with someone other than her husband.
At that point you are going to need an outright coercive solution where she just gets assigned to some male and compelled to serve him, like it or not.
No.3380
>>3378I've being trying to show how the world is slowly changing with the rise of patriarchy, but I suppose it is starting to get a bit bogged down in detail.
As for incorrigibles, I imagine the process would be something like:
- A girl is too much trouble for her father/husband to handle (running away, sleeping around, etc.) He has plenty of ways of dealing with her already, as only serious domestic violence is illegal - giving her a good slap is just seen as a normal part of most relationships (even more serious stuff, while technically illegal, is usually ignored.) While women can move about freely for the most part (except under curfews) consistently doing so without permission can lead to:
- He gets some professional to agree she needs to be brought under control. This is easier in some countries than in others, but basically requires that she has been actively rejecting his authority. Several countries allow a man to just drop her off at a centre and have her dealt with however he wishes.
- Good treatment generally consists of councillors trying to determine why she misbehaves and coming up with solutions for those concerned to work on. If that doesn't work she can be sent to more intensive courses that are basically boot camps designed to break her spirit/terrorize her into obedience for fear of being sent back. Some girls just have a crazy streak and can't be broken this way, they would probably end up in some form of institution.
This is only two decades into patriarchy and the next update should include a general reorganisation of laws that would formalise ownership of women (though it would be called guardianship or something, rather than ownership.)
No.3405
So if some sort of worldwide female enslavement was enacted tomorrow (let's handwave it say all men just decided 'fuck this' and made women slaves,) how long would it take for women to adapt? How many do you suppose would come to, if not like it, then at least tolerate it?
No.3424
>>3405In the ancestral environment, if a man was enslaved, this was genetic death. He is then unlikely to have descendents. If a women was enslaved, well, that was the usual way she got impregnated by the semen of the fittest man around.
Natural selection and sociobioligy predicts that women are strongly inclined to adapt to slavery quickly, comfortably, and easily, that a free woman, like a dog without a master, is distressed, tense, upset, and uncomfortable, whereas males are more apt to be recalcitrant.
No.3646
it would be awesome to see more writefaggotry on /d/ in 4chan, but I certainly think this is some quality stuff even if it doesn't directly ticle my fancy. I like to take my world building with a heaping dose of character development and focus.
No.3647
>>3424>>3405not completely true but a nice fantasy. Honestly it is going to be dependant on what kind of slavery it is. am I allowed to be killed? what kind of limitations are common for slaves? can we have hobbies? is it common to wear clothes? If women are still allowed most of the conviniences they've enjoyed before, but are forced into the new profession of serving men as their "job" I can see it being something thats tolerated eventually, when its proven that theres no escape. the harsher the change, the longer and more devastating the resistance.
No.3681
>>3647I imagine it as being full on chattel slavery, so a man could legally kill a woman he owns, but he'd be destroying a valuable piece of property, so it would be extremely rare (about the same as the murder rate IRL.) Limitations would mostly depend on the master as well. Having useful hobbies would be encouraged, though something considered gender inappropriate might banned. Clothing would still be allowed (and would be a requirement due to climate in large parts of the world.) As far as jobs go, something 'stereotypical 50's housewife', except you're property would be the general attitude.
No.3687
>>3681I'd say clothes would be a requirement to keep civility as well. As long as nakedness is considered intimate, of course.
No.3982
>>3687The important function of clothes is to prevent inadvertently revealing one's true sexual preference and true desires, which are often a secret even from oneself.
Seems to me a master would want to know his slave's true desires, so would want her to be normally naked around the house, but, depending on what those desires were, would not necessarily want other people to know, hence likely to keep her clothed in front of other people.
But if his slave girls were well trained so that at a word they would focus their attention entirely upon their master, the potential inconvenience of slave girls going naked in public would be limited.
Well, they would be limited in a society where there was very strong and effective enforcement of man's property right in his slaves. Depending on the feasibility of a slave girl running away to someone else, the owner may wish to to not only conceal those parts that can become aroused, but also the face, when in public, to prevent arrangements being wordlessly and furtively.
Or he might conceal the face when in public, but not those parts capable of becoming aroused, so that the truth can be seen, but wordless deals cannot be made.
No.3987
Let's say that practical concerns about clothing aren't an issue. It's the future, feminism and women's lib have been banned and most people live on climate controlled space stations or something. Society in this particular location is homogeneous, insular and law abiding, so concerns about your property being stolen or used without your permission are minimal. How might clothing habits for women develop?
A lot of that would depend on the availability of women. If it's common to grow huge numbers of women in exowombs and sell them, then female sexuality is far less valuable. We could easily see younger women being regarded as pets and being put on display like showdogs when out and about. If we're only getting women the old fashioned way, men would likely be more conservative in how they are treated, if only because she's probably the only one he's getting.
I'll assume that women are being grown and sold en-mass, as is it's a future scenario then the tech for exowombs and gender selection should be widely available. Once women are being sold as slaves, it's only a matter of time before entrepreneurs step in and start producing more of them, more cheaply than regular families can. There will almost certainly be genetic engineering to ensure your new slave is as close to perfect as modern science can get her, so that will be another point against natural born women. Once they stop being sisters and daughters, it won't take long to stop viewing them as people, so regarding them as a source of entertainment will have little resistance. This will be exacerbated by women being bred and raised for obedience.
Once women are regarded as obedient sources of amusement, we'd have maybe a generation or two before men start outdoing each other with evermore outlandish ways to show off their property. This would probably end up being a couple of generations form of conspicuous consumption. Eventually, people would get bored and the really outlandish stuff would be seen as things old men do, so this trend would calm down a lot. It would, however, have become fairly well ingrained that you can customise your woman however you want.
Most sexy clothing tends to work best by hinting at what's underneath, rather than showing it, so women would probably wear cloths, albeit skimpy ones. Overt symbols of ownership would probably have become popular at some point, although might have fallen out of fashion at this point. While female enslavement would still be popular, making obvious displays of might could easily fall out of fashion simply because there's no point in showing everyone she's your slave - after all, what else would she be? That said, you could easily see simply collars taking the place of wedding rings. As some form of identification would be needed, a tattoo or implant (or both) might be made required, though the tattoo might be optional.
TL;DR, most women would wear skimpy clothing like pic 2 here
>>3982and might have a tattoo with their owner's name somewhere.
As it's somewhere comfortable and climate controlled, I imagine something like the breast skirt in the pic being fashionable, plus another skirt of about the same size, allowing easy access to most of her. It might be a tradition to make her go bare breasted if she's for sale of something.
No.4073
>3dpd
GET THE FUCK OUT
No.4091
Anyone else ever imagine all modern-day women somehow being magically enslaved overnight, either by altering reality like Q from Star Trek, rewriting history or somehow reprogramming men to suddenly see all women as pets/livestock?
No.4154
>>4091The historical norm has been that women have had a legal status similar to that of pets.
The Christian Church has been pushing for female consent to marriage for about a thousand years or so, but until around 1790, what the church wanted was not taken all that seriously.
So, rather than imagining some hypothetical magical or superscience transformation that causes men to lower female status to that of pets, I wonder what is stopping us from doing the sensible thing and lowering female status to that of pets tomorrow.
No.4166
>>4154That's not true at all, can you please explain what you're talking about.
No.4176
>>4166Roman Republic. Husband had the power of life and death over his wife, father had power of life and death over his children.
Classic Greece. Female consent irrelevant, legally and socially.
Hebrew Israel. Female consent irrelevant. Death penalty for various kinds of female misconduct, but the husband is not entitled to carry it out himself. Daughters are sold for money, wives purchased for money. Women are property, daughters are property of the father. If father dies before selling daughters, sisters become property of brothers.
Despite the Christian Church demanding female consent for marriage, this was widely ignored in the English speaking world up to the seventeenth century. You got a wife if you passed the interview with her father.
We have references to women being bought and sold in the market place. Cromwell captured and sold for sexual purposes huge numbers of Irish women, after the fashion of ISIS.
During the early settlement of Australia, convict women were assigned to men largely on the basis of willingness and ability to take care of the resulting children, it being implicitly assumed that the assignment was sexual.
No.4177
>>4166If women are free, they will fuck around. If women fuck around, children will be not be born due to contraception, abortion, infanticide, or non reproductive sex. If born, get killed or ejected by stepdads.
Societies that allow women freedom don't reproduce, so disappear from history.
No.4181
>>4154If you were somehow able to legally reduce all women to the legal equivalent of pets tomorrow, how would you enforce those laws, and what exactly would those new laws be?
No.4211
>>4181How might we get back to the situation where women had a legal and social status similar to that of pets.
OK, let us assume a military coup:
President Hillary follows Obama's example of legislating by executive decree and budgeting by executive decree.
US troops find themselves deep in umpteen wars with no clear purpose or victory condition where the rules of engagement are that they have to avoid hurting anyone, and have to be nice to everyone.
US troops are up to their neck in lawyers from the state department to make sure US troops commit no human rights violations, such as shooting an enemy without first giving him a fair trial. Ninety percent of the army are people in logistics who seldom get shot at, and most of the promotions go to transexual lesbian mestizos in logistics.
The Republicans get sick of Hillary ignoring republican passed laws and budgets and executive decreeing her own laws and budgets, call for a coup. Soldiers respond to the call by sending both Democrat and Republican politicians on permanent vacation - to Alaska.
Regimental commanders of actual fighting men will contract with civilian camp followers for their own logistics. Most of the logistic section of the army gets fired, become civilian logistic contractors, or get transferred to activities where they will get shot at. Sodomy is once again a breach of military discipline, and there are no more transexual officers.
First action of the new military dictatorship is to issue new rules of engagement: Lawyers, hostiles, suspected hostiles, and people who just look ugly are to be shot on sight. Any structure that might provide cover to hostiles shall be set on fire. Troops may make out with cute girls and shoot the brothers, fathers, or husbands of pretty girls if they get stroppy about it.
Having adjusted the rules of engagement in foreign lands, the military dictatorship notices that when a soldier is on the battlefield and away from his wife, his wife commonly engages in sexual misconduct, divorces him, and takes all his assets. So, now it is time to change some laws on the home front.
No.4212
>>4181How might we get back to the situation where women had a legal and social status similar to that of pets.
The dictatorship is pissed of by wives fucking around while soldiers are on the battlefield, so rolls back marriage law to the 1950s, early 1960s. Wife has a legal and social obligation to have sex with her husband. No divorce except for fault. Husband is head of the household and may physically discipline his wife to ensure she performs her wifely duty.
Next stop 1800s, the military make cuckoldry and white knighting a crime.
No.4213
>>4181How might we get back to the situation where women had a legal and social status similar to that of pets
Next stop. Franco's Spain, eighteenth century England, and Japan before MacArthur.
These measures fail to entirely stop wifely misconduct against soldiers serving far away
So, following the laws of Timore Leste and pre MacArthur Japan, all women belong to some family, which family is represented by the patriarch of that family. If a woman is away from her family without leave, she goes to jail until a member of her family collects her.
If there is some problem with this, (dysfunctional family or incorrigible misbehavior by the woman) she may be reassigned to the family of the man she was fucking, or, if he will not or cannot have her, assigned to some suitable male, as incorrigible women were assigned during the early settlement of Australia in the late eighteenth century..
As in Timore Leste and some arab countries, a woman cannot have her own monetary instruments. Her credit cards, bank account her cell phone are actually her father's or husband's credit cards and cell phone, and he can trace her using them, or stop her from using. She needs her husband's or her father's permission to buy plane tickets.
There is a central database, or, as with credit ratings, several central databases, containing the the iris data and marital status of most women. You can take a photo of a woman's eyes, and immediately get back from the internet her marital status, what male is responsible for her, and where she is permitted to be.
And if she is not where she is permitted to be, you are supposed to take her there.
No.4320
>>4211>>4212>>4213Demonstrating that the normal social order ordained by God and Man is now a type D fetish
No.4326
>>4320Don't worry. The pendulum will swing back eventually.
No.4431
>>4326It will, however I'd be wiling to bet it'll just start to swing back after we're all dead / geriatric.
No.4465
Not sure if OP is still developing this, but I had some suggestions for tweaks and a few ideas for expanding the potential for smut.
The gender imbalance period is kind of a weak point, where norms could rapidly shift back and the patriarchy lose its control over the government.
Ideally you'd want to power through that period as fast as possible, while also setting the stage for future developments.
Would it be likely for the patriarchy to have an old taboo against sex-selection, due to it being used mostly against men in the previous era?
In response to the drop in demand for daughters, forward-thinking members of the loose cabal might start offering "charity schools" for unwanted girls--possibly subsidized by the government or even women's welfare activists. Maybe they'd develop naturally from the older institutions for "troubled" (disobedient) girls. These would become the gold standard for female education within a decade, and 'regular' girls schools would start imitating their curriculum.
Once bride-prices/dowers became a thing (not dowries), the patriarch-run schools would become very profitable businesses, and in the absence of bothersome laws would readily adopt horrific methods to maximize profits and further their investors' social agenda.
Since a girl's status is now wholly dependent on the men in her life, these fatherless girls would be the first big shift towards women becoming chattel slaves rather than "family". There's nobody looking out for them, and once delivered to their "husbands" the old complaint of "what would her father think of the way you're treating her?" would lose its sting.
This also provides the loose association of patriarchs a profit motive for organizing into a real "cabal" (to lobby the govt for their business interests, since they'd be the ones getting polygamy and lowered schooling age passed).
Their business practices and ideology would reinforce each other as they adapted their sense of morality to justify increasingly callous and dehumanizing treatment of their "products".
In their secretive "charity clinics for wayward sluts", you'd find the first tentative experiments in deliberately breeding women to be better products. And in their boardrooms and clubs the rule "women should serve the men that guide and protect them" would gradually change to "women exist to serve their owners"
TL;DR, am not OP, but am just as much of a faggot.
No.4466
>>4465>Not sure if OP is still developing thisI'm still working on it, albeit slowly.
The gender imbalance is being introduced mainly to make women more disposable (and because who doesn't want a harem.) While it would normally result in a shift back, I'm planning on having genetic engineering make that effectively impossible (reduced intelligence and lifespan in women, increased in men.)
Charity schools would be a good way to start having marriage shift into formal slavery. There would need to be a large number of girls going through this system in order to grant it influence significant enough to affect the government. It might be best to have this occur early on and be another bone of contention between the patriarchs and the feminist world. This would mean there would need to be a way for it to transition from a government or charity run school for troublesome girls into a business that sells domestic slaves, as dowers wouldn't be a thing yet. As the economy would still be shit, perhaps it becomes expected for a man to contribute to his new wives school to help keep it running. Over time this helps introduce the idea of dowers as regular father complain about spending time and money raising daughters for free. A media campaign by the girls schools helps promote dowers, since it means no competition from women being given away for free.
As it transforms into a business, it slowly loses any compassion towards the girls and starts bribing fathers a decent sum to sell them their daughters at a younger age, so they can sell them on at a profit. They would probably transition to a more respectable 'finishing school' type of thing around this point. They would also start petitioning to lower the marriage age, since every business want to move its stock as fast as possible. Gender selection in favour of girls would soon start to occur as there would be profit involved. At some point they would start pushing to allow second wives or concubinage in order to increase demand.
There probably wouldn't be a taboo against sex selection in favour of women, it's more against women being put in positions of power. It would eventually become considered bad for a woman's mental health to be burdened with making any major decisions. Any man that grants his women power would be considered pathetic at best, and on par with child abusers at worst.
No.4468
>>4466Oh, I should've been more specific. I meant female bargaining power increasing in private relationships if an entire generation goes by with women being in the minority (a la china).
Even without institutional power, they'd have a lot more weight socially, as would the less-patriarchal men who'd be more likely to have daughters (and marry those daughters to less extreme patriarchs).
Charity schools instead of pro-male sex selection would cut out a lot of that problem.
I noticed you had 'neo-feminists' appear really late in the setting. Do you think there might be "women's welfare activists" causing trouble long before then?
That could lead to some neat conflict within countries, as well as funny and ironic situations when the progressive patriarchs subverted and perverted well-intentioned laws passed by the conservatives to protect women's welfare.
Like, harsher laws against prostitution to protect their chastity would be twisted into informal curfews by the police. And single working women out at night would end up arrested for prostitution and sent to reformatories...
The worldbuilding's awesome. Anyone with some imagination could come up with thousands of cool stories in any era of your setting. 10/10 would fap to.
No.4473
Here is an attempt at some writefaggotry for you guys. It's an attempt to build the foundation of a story using the world op has created. Any and all opinions welcome.
There was a rare moment of peace. Swallowing hard to keep the mounting tears at bay as Johannes stod up with some effort. He was not as young as he used to be, far removed from the athletic man of his youth but yet he soldied on through through life. It had become harder without Marcy, that was for sure but he had not given up and instead worked as hard as he could to provide for his family. That was the way he had been raised and the way he tried to raise their children. Most of them were already grown, but four of them were still in kindergarten and raising them alone sometimes seemed like an arduous task.
Rubbing his eye with the back of his hand he let his gaze dance over the withering granite of her gravestone and the red roses he had placed in front of it. “I’m going keep on fighting Marcy, you know I will. But the kids need a mother and I know you wouldn’t object. Next time, I’ll bring the kids. Goodbye Marcy.” Johannes mumbled as he turned around and walked away. The gravel of the cemetary’s walkway cunched under his feet and then he really did cry.
Some men might have looked down on him if they could see him now, driving along the motorway back to his home, red eyed and with pursed lips but they knew naught of the struggle he and Marcy had gone through. When they were still both young and in college they had been equally appalled by the increasing hostility towards everything they stood for and was. Johannes smiled as he remembered how Marcy once had handed her jacket to a half naked woman on campus, believing that she had been raped. When it turned out that she was part of some kind of protest against sexism Marcy had just stared at her bewildered.
They had come to lean on each other for support as the world around them seemed to grow madder for each passing day. To him, Marcy had been the perfect woman. She had been slender, lean and beautiful with alabaster skin and a pair of deep set blue eyes. Johannes almost cried again when he remembered how she used to put up her silken smooth blond hair in a bun behind her head as she was working.
It had not been long before they had gotten married and he started his career as a therapist. She had only worked as a nurse for about a year when she got pregnant, and he could still remember the feeling of complete and utter bliss when she had told him. Seven more children she had given him, numbering eight in total. It had at times been difficult to maintain a stable financial situation but Marcy had always dutifully looked after their home as Johannes put in long hours into his sessions or his writing. She had died just before he got his breakthrough, muddling the joy he felt over finally being published and read.
The first long book he had written had been a thorough analysis of the post-modern female culture in the United States in which he argued that a return to more family oriented values was impossible and instead he proposed a new way forward, something he had simply called the new man. In Johannes’ mind the new man doctrine was focused on building the social and psychological framework of the man so strong that women would gradually shift back into a more traditional, submissive role. He viewed this as a way forward into something better for society, and it had become immensely popular.
It goes without saying that he had become the target of a torrent of abuse, not only from fringe groups on the left but also from the mainstream media. This was so long ago Johannes didn’t really think of it as real anymore, it felt to him as the memories of a dream long forgotten. Society had changed so much since when he was young it was impossible to understand just how deep the transformation was. When he and Marcy had been to school, not only had admissions been equally divided between men and women but some girls had even argued that men should be banned from certain spaces on campus and even walked around half naked. When his youngest daughter Ellie reached the age of maturity she would be happily married to a man of his choice.
No.4474
File: 1427213113122.jpg (96.43 KB, 801x598, 801:598, tumblr_mzljqa15R01rkc8x6o1….jpg)
>>4473The thought of handing her over at the altar made Johannes feel a little bit better. He loved his sons and daughters equally and he was glad that society had come to a point where a woman’s true potential wasn’t wasted on something like higher education. The bliss of motherhood Johannes thought was the singular highest honor a woman could achieve in her lifetime.
That was when it hit him. It was today he was supposed to meet with Mr. Dalton. He had after some time as a widower started looking around for a new wife, and even though no one could replace Marcy he needed a wife. The agency he had contacted had been very helpful and even though it was only ten years after the big vote they had a surprising record of delivering obedient and loyal wives. It was a problem for many men, since a lot of the girls offered up by their fathers had been at least teenagers when the vote passed, and a lot of them didn’t take to kindly to the change in direction their lives had taken. They had however, promised him a minimum of fuss, and the agency director Mr. Dalton had arranged for a meeting with him, a potential new bride and her father.
A few hours later Johannes was sitting in the well lit office of Mr. Dalton himself. Black and white photographs of married couples lined the walls, and he noted that almost all of them featured older men and women in their twenties who rarely smiled. Mr. Dalton noticed his wandering gaze and apologetically spoke up. “Marriage Mr. Bloom is my business, not love. Love is something that is built, not magically conjured up in an instant regardless of what people might have believed. A bride need not smile to be a good wife, and here at Dalton and Sons we recognize that distinction.”
Johannes nodded silently, waiting for the corpulent man to finish. “The girl I have for you today is one of the best. She is only twenty-four and our medical examination of the girl assures us that she is a virgin. She claims not to be but when no penetrative sex has occurred, that I guarantee. She might be rude and boisterous at first, but she’s young and even though she won’t smile, she’ll make a good wife in time. Speaking of the devil.” Mr. Dalton said and stood up with open arms as a surly old man entered his office. “Mr. Mason, very welcome!” He said and gestured towards two empty seats. The harrowed man only grunted in reply as he walked towards the chair, tugging on leash he held in hand.
“Ouch! Be a bit more careful you prick.” The voice of a young woman came. Johannes stared at her as she was lead past him and roughly pushed down into a chair by her father. “This is Jillian.” Mr. Dalton said with a smile on his face. “One hundred and thirty two pounds, five foot seven and twenty four years of age. She is a real price, well worth the commission.” He said proudly.
As she was being described like some kind of good to be haggled over Jillian’s face adopted a resentful look, staring back at the fat man with hate in her eyes. “I can see what kind of man you are, you pig! You got a fucking mustard stain on your shirt and your suspenders make you look like a fag!” Jillian spat out angrily. Mr. Dalton however, didn’t seem to mind. “And as I hinted at earlier, she’s a bit feisty. But that shouldn’t be a problem now should it Mr. Bloom?”
As he spoke, Mr. Dalton walked around Jillian and stroked her long auburn her back to reveal more of her face to you. She had a set of high cheekbones and a creamy complexion which hinted on that someone, her father or the agency had forced her to put on makeup and styled her hair for this event. A small bruise appeared on her chin as he collected her hair in his hand and Mr. Dalton’s face grew red. Staring at her father, angry wrinkles appeared around his eyes. “I think I told you not to bruise her in time for this meeting Mr. Mason.” He said coldly.
“She wouldn’t put the collar on so I had to make her.” Her father said, looking down on his feet.
“I’m truly sorry about this Mr. Bloom; here at Dalton and Sons we don’t deliver damaged goods. If you wish we shall return your commission to you or find you another wife.” He said as servile as he could. You only grunted in reply, not wanting to sit through another one of these meetings. “Its fine, I’ll take her.”
“Are you sure?” Mr. Dalton said, raising an eyebrow. “Alright. If that is your wish.” He said, gesturing for her father to hand over the leash to Johannes. “Mr. Bloom has already signed the necessary legal paperwork, pleasure just sign right there Mr. Bloom” Dalton said, pointing to a dotted line on a contract. Her father signed with shaking hands and Johannes found himself in possession of a new wife.
No.4514
>>4474What era are you thinking for that one? Reads nice--would be even better with some proofing. Good characterization and dialogue, esp.
No.4517
>>4514I was thinking that this takes place just a decade
No.4518
>>4517(Whops, accidentally hit reply!) ... after women have actually lost their freedom. I'll get around to produce some actual smut soon enough. Any and all ideas are appreciated.
No.4761
http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/stories/wholestory.php?storyid=3047Thread seems dead, so have a fic (also dead) about women being enslaved.
No.10621