Classes, Communication in Marriage, and Gene Turbulence

 

 Commoners are so inept they need their lord to micromanage their sexual relationships. This is where you get rigid cultural norms detailing every aspect of things like marriage. The local lord gets tired of hearing about how easy or difficult it is for every bloke to get it up. 

 "Speaking broadly here ofc but men are notorious for being clueless and thinking things are fine, going with the flow, etc, in marriages. And women are notorious for being ineffective at communicating *in terms men understand* when they're frustrated or unhappy"
 https://xcancel.com/st_louis_stan/status/1982531322599055446

 Since commoners are nonverbal, obviously they can't speak to their spouse. The lord has to do both the hearing and speaking for them. """marriage counselling""' Unless everything is decided already and there's nothing to talk about. Don't like the standard arrangement? Try being a nun. Or a tramp, I suppose. The lord is already underpaid. Don't expect bespoke artisanal marriage arrangements. Not that a commoner can read what I just wrote or adjust their expectations if they could.

 The upper classes' ability to speak to one another both makes the rules unnecessary and makes them immune. However, nobody has tried being honest about the chasm between the classes. Officially the uppers also have to pretend. They get tired of it, then break the rules for everyone. Conveniently the normies like being oppressed and tormented, and having all their marriages shattered for no reason is right up their alley. Otherwise you would find soyciety is run for the upper classes, whether you want it to be or not. What they want, they get. Everyone who might object, doesn't count.

 Depressing commoner fertility is highly eugenic. What they want and what's good for them and for society is all the same thing. Having strong marriage norms was dysgenic, which is what caused modernity and china in the first place. Ref: Hesiod, iron age. Unbreakable marriages make for good taxpayers in the short term, you see.

 Bonus: there are many more upper-class men than upper-class women. There simply aren't enough marriageable upper-class women to go around. The same thing happens with the roles reversed for working-class women. 

 If there aren't tons of monks, cads, or fatalities, some of the upper men have to marry bimbos. Which means you get bastards even if they happen to be born within wedlock. Plus all the bastards the rakes are mass-producing.

 Refresher: bastards are satanic due to the conflict between upper-class adaptations and lower-class adaptations. E.g. sometimes they're highly competent and nonverbal. E.g. you get charismatic ambitious speakers, who can barely dress themselves, let alone wisely lead anyone else. 

 Meanwhile the bimbos can barely handle being barefoot and pregnant. She gets banished to the kitchen to spare the poor lord her company. He can handle it - simply manipulate her - but why would he bother? She's a mere concubine or haremite, even if she's his only available hole. She notices the other lords' wives aren't like that, and, especially if there are one or two other bimbos in the circle, this causes further problems.

 If you don't send scores of working-class women to the nunneries, they run out of other working-class men to marry. Polygamy aside, criminals and vagrants are their only choice. Apparently there's a niche of women who enthusiastically embrace this option, so clearly there weren't enough women sent to nunneries. Hybristophilia is merely making a virtue of necessity, it turns out.

 Do I have to point out the connection with feminism, or can I take it for granted? Consider the difference in character between wannabe-upper-class feminism and hybristophobic feminism. Follow the money etc etc.

 

 P.S. Reminder: they keep saying killing women reduces the size of the next generation, but this is total crock. Women can have 10+ children, but only need 2 survivors. If you kill half the women, it only means there's twice as much food and space for the women left over and twice as many of their kids survive. If TFR is 1.5, that means one woman can cheerfully take the place of five other women and still be bringing the average up. 

 However, if you kill too many men, nobody is hunting or farming and it doesn't matter how many women you didn't kill, since all of their children starve. See also: the other side's large armies. 

 Men don't protect women out of some Darwinian imperative. It's a status thing. A man wants a pretty woman, therefore another man tries to take the pretty woman merely to spite him (status), therefore hot chicks become loot. If you can guard your loot it shows you're strong, then the other cowardly men don't bother you. If you let the loot fight obviously the result is [it gets looted]. Therefore the loot loses the ability to fight at all, and ugly loot is still loot; it can't rise above being loot, and it's still pseudo-loot. We can imagine a soyciety with monogamous upper classes, middle classes, and polygamous lower classes, but we do have to imagine. Owning treasure is a crime; commoners would never be permitted to keep, mutatis mutandis, more loot than lords.