Patriarchy Masterpost

I am tired of hearing people say that they want the patriarchy back, and then when someone proposes policy which is part of patriarchy, crucial to patriarchy, they start to sound a lot like progressives, claiming that certain social technologies are barbaric, medieval, outdated, that we’ve moved forward since then.

Generally, these are the kinds of people who laud Poland and Hungary’s tax cuts for families with children, as if the collective self-euthanasia of Christendom could be tidily circumscribed with a few bureaucratic incentives.

The problem is female liberation, and the solution is female coercion. Women want to be owned by someone or something. By this I do not mean rational, conscious desire. You will find the rare woman who is honest with herself on this, but in a woman, honest self-reflection is almost a mental illness, and accompanies other, real mental illnesses. Rather, women are biologically compelled to find owners, because without an owner, she and her bastard child would die in the rain on the veldt. So women wander around and misbehave, causing weak men to stay away and strong men to give her a hard slap and some strong dick to stop her annoying misbehavior. Women enjoy both the misbehaving, and getting put in their places for it.

This is commonly known as a shit test. Allowing the misbehavior is failing the test, giving her a slap and a dick sandwich is passing the test. (If you are her father, the slap is enough)

If women are left feral and unowned, they will go through their lives shit testing everyone and everything in an attempt to find an owner. The men who pass these tests are commonly referred to as “evil” by civilized society. Bikers, gangsters, drug dealers, streetfighters, slippery amoral rogues, etc. Some of them will be upstanding civic-minded alpha males like Donald Trump, many more of them will be like El Chapo and worse.

This process of shit testing and looking for an owner begins as soon as a girl can walk. If the Right wants to prevent pedophilia, prevent its little daughters from getting fucked by old men, it needs to keep its daughters on a leash rather than live in constant suspicion of other men. If men are too suspicious of each other, male cooperation and thus society fails. Rape and pedophilia hysteriae are Leftist tools that attempt to destroy society, by making men attack each other instead of rival (cooperate/compete) each other.

Men will fuck sheep and horses if they’re horny, (I’m sure you would never, dear reader, but if you put men around ewes and mares, ewes and mares will end up getting fucked) and men will fuck little girls too. Almost nobody will fuck animals or little girls if they have real, adult women; an epidemic of pedophilia is the result of sexual liberation, of men who cannot otherwise get laid and have no chance of marrying.

If you don’t want your cattle rustled, you lock em in a barn. Fucking the beasts of the field is weird and gross and degenerate, and fucking little girls is weird and gross and degenerate, but it’ll happen if you leave em unattended. If you kill every man who ever chubbed out at a cattle breeding, you’ll never be able to hire a cowboy, and if you let your daughters roam around unattended in tights and miniskirts and then attack every man who leers at them, you don’t have a society anymore.

As a man, it’s your instinct and in your interest to protect your daughters, but you’re protecting them from their own stupid, self-destructive biology. If you “protect” your daughters by giving them freedom and attacking male sexuality, they’re going to find owners in the few urban barbarians who retain that sexuality, like an old family friend of mine, an ex-Marine who sells industrial quantities of pot, deadlifts 500lbs, and makes his girlfriends wear collars and eat out of dog bowls.

If your worldview involves “making men better” or “making women better”, you are a Gnostic and an enemy; anti-human and anti-reality. Man does not have the powers of God and cannot actuate Paradise-on-Earth. And Man as an entity cannot be made moral. He can only be forced to obey moral law, and hopefully, as an individual, come to see the necessity of it with time. But that is not possible for everybody. I have come to have a deep respect for Leibniz.

But I digress. So women go through their lives looking for owners, and they will find them. But the owners women end up with are not the ones we as men need them to end up with for society to work. The dude who invented the bow and arrow would not have mated without enforced monogamy. He had caveman autism and probably wasn’t very strong or tough. In tribal polygamy, he would have spent his life trying to make himself strong and mean enough to steal a woman for himself, and probably failed. I explicated this in my last post. Enforced monogamy came first. Once it was invented, Mr. Caveman Autist could stop spending his free time trying to get a woman, and start spending it on his geeky toying around with sticks and sinews and obsidian.

And one fateful day, he tied feathers to the tiny little spear he’d been trying to throw with his bow, and it flew far and straight. He told the chief: “We can hunt better now, we will never hunger again, never lose another man to the jaws of the tigers”. The chief laughed.

“You have always been soft”, he answered. “Now we will kill the tribe of one hundred that lives in the green valley, and take their rich lands and their women”. And so they did. The caveman-autist, who would have had zero children before, stole two more wives and had ten kids. More important than just the invention, his smart genes got passed down. And we started getting smarter, more capable, inventing technologies at a faster and faster rate. Those who practice patriarchy live in harmony with GNON. For those who do not, life is short, nasty, brutal, sexless, childless.

Patriarchy entails making sure women are owned by a man or institution of men from birth to menopause. More specifically, it means her sexual activity is proscribed by an individual man, with such proscription backed by the laws of society. Most traditionalists take this to mean that sex alone needs to be controlled, that as long as a woman’s sex is under the sway of moral law, she can be allowed full agency on other matters, like choice of marriage partner, working outside the home, going out unsupervised to socialize, etc.

If you let women choose their marriage partners, and do not force them to marry, they will all go off and make themselves available to alpha males. The 90% of women who are not pretty and well-bred enough to be chosen, will choose to not marry rather than marry a beta. They will sit and read romance novels until they become old maids, hoping some alpha widower will finally come along and choose them. Once their fathers kick them out of the house, they will become wenches or prostitutes, and there is not a whole lot of difference.

If a woman works outside the home, even if she is married, chances are that she sees her male boss as more of an alpha male than her husband, considers herself the de facto sexual property of her boss, and will probably try to pass her boss’ kids off as her husband’s. Traditionally, women are not supposed to sit around reading chicklit either. Women are meant to work and be kept busy or go slowly insane; a woman’s traditional place is in her husband’s business, as his employee as well as his wife. This ensures the proper sexual dynamic; she should end the workday with her panties soaked from being ordered around by her husband all day, and then babies are made. Women are detail-oriented and good multitaskers, a berry-picker mindset, which makes them great at busywork and terrible at leadership.

If the media had a huge, unprecedented influence on female sexuality, as many of our purple-pilled national socialists and Whig republicans like to claim, no man today would ever get laid, since our women would be constantly chasing after rockstars and movie stars, and they would be race mixing and miscegenating far more than they actually do. In reality, the alpha who is present has far more sway over women than the alpha who exists in the media. Of course what is socially acceptable and encouraged has sway over female desires and expectations, but this is minor compared to the social cues that govern female sexuality in the day-to-day present. The media also, by the way, encourages men to spend lavish gifts on women, women are expected to only put out for men who engage in Hallmark romance and conspicuous consumption, but men who get laid today are ones who defy the media-approved methods of romance.

In other words, media will never make me attracted to disgusting fat women, and it will never make women attracted to sappy romantic betas who defer to them. The media may amplify the signal of dominant high-status men, but it will never change what women consider high status, will not change their behavior of making themselves available and vulnerable to high status men.

If left alone, women will find owners and mate in a dysgenic and dyscivic fashion, so it falls to men to choose owners for women, to choose the men most valuable to society to own the best-bred, most beautiful, and most fertile women. Female consent does not play into this, not generally, but then again, female consent does not map very well onto human mating behavior no matter what you do. Our mating behavior is very similar to other mammal mating behavior, has existed in its present form long before human language. Like other mammals, our mating behavior consists of a few acts of female resistance, and then total female submission to mating. Today we call those acts of token resistance “shit tests”; in the scientific literature they are “fitness tests”. Real female resistance to mating is obvious and recognizable, it is the reaction a woman would give if a naked hobo jumped out of an alley with a rusted knife in one hand and his erect cock in the other.

If you do not believe me, just play a sex game with your woman in which you pretend to rape her, and she tries to struggle and resist you with all of her might. You will find that it is impossible to consummate the act with a squirming, struggling woman, just as it is impossible for a dog to mount a bitch who isn’t in heat, who is fighting and running away. In bondage and rough sex fetishism, even the most hardcore variants where the woman wants to pretend to be raped as realistically as possible, she has to intentionally switch to feebler, ineffective resistance in order to get penetrated and get her rocks off.

There are many cases of unconsensual sex that a woman later feels good about, and does not consider to be rape under the modern definition, and many cases of consensual sex, or the consensual lack of sex, that a woman later feels bad about and thus considers to be rape, because in the former example a shit test was passed, and in the latter, a shit test was failed. Normal human sexuality, and female fantasy, resemble marriage-by-abduction, where a high-status male sweeps a woman off her feet and spirits her away to an isolated location despite her feeble protests. If you have ever had sex according to contractual verbal agreement, you will realize that it feels odd, unnatural, and unromantic, like hiring a prostitute, and she will likewise get feelbads from it.

Frat parties have been memed as dens of rape since the 80’s, and yet they are full of nubile young feminists loosening their inhibitions to this day. Many men are very angry about Muslim rape gangs in Europe, but women are not very angry about them and continue to find reasons to be around gangs of horny sand people. Any definition of rape based on the female point-of-view is legally and logically unsound, and results in all men becoming rapists, because rape is redefined as all sexualized interaction, from eye contact to coitus, that makes women feel bad at any point in time. Instead we have to use a definition of rape from premodern times; Rape is sex that the girl’s father and brothers feel bad about. It is a military phenomenon, terrible in the eyes of the conquered society’s males but passe, even fun, in the eyes of the conquered society’s women. To the Aztec man, Cortez was a rapist. To the Aztec woman, Cortez was an immaculate conquering sex god.

Now, no moral system, no religion, and no male ownership has total power over the horniness of teenagers, so it’s often the case that unmarried young men and women find a way around Daddy’s watchful eye to fuck each other. Rather than unilaterally declare this rape and hang a lot of potentially good and useful men, and send a lot of fertile young women to nunneries and whorehouses, the beautiful institution of shotgun marriage was invented. (“halberd marriage” is a lot less catchy) Now, Jesus cares about marriage coming first, but GNON doesn’t, as long as your first partner is also your last. Based on England’s great church records, it was fairly common in the 1500’s for the bride to be showing a pregnancy at her wedding. Shotgun marriage is pretty great. The girl’s father might not have thought you were alpha enough to marry his daughter, but you can always prove him wrong by seducing her, reintroducing the ancient and beautiful social technology of marriage-by-abduction.

Male ownership of women needs to be backed by religion. In the event that the husband is beta, the religion, if aligned with male interests, supplements his ownership, takes some of the alpha male duties off the shoulders of the beta husband, becomes the wife’s owner in her own mind. It is oft remarked by great minds that women are more outwardly religious, and this is true. The Church becomes part-owner of the wife. It has demands of her, and she likes being ordered around and made to do things that impose on her. Have kids, don’t deny your husband pussy, cover your hair in public, don’t be alone with other men. Leftism, as religion, fulfills this role of Daddy today. Get tattoos, pierce your body, take drugs, sleep around, get fat, eat pussy, get abortions, all things that crater female sexual status in the eyes of prospective husbands. Women like being dommed by a religion. Leftism doesn’t fail shit tests. If a girl shit tested the Church, she got burned at the stake. If she shit tests Leftism, she gets howled at and ostracized by polite society, which is almost as bad as getting burned alive for a woman.

It also needs to be backed by the sovereign, which entails allowing the principle of the freehold, that every man is an alpha on his own property, and the guest is temporarily lower status be he King or Lord. If a man is prevented from being a king under his own roof, if some bureaucrat or priest invades the sanctity of his home to try and make him more moral, he will lose the ability to control his women, his wife will cuck him and his daughters will become whores. If a rich man needs shelter in the home of a peasant, the rich man follows the peasant’s rule and does him deference and homage, because this is necessary for patriarchy to continue. This right of the freehold is given to the commoner in exchange for loyalty, military service, and upholding the Church’s morals. (A “right” is not inherent and god-given. A right is a contract, a form of property that is held in exchange for another intangible.)

Marriage is a contract, a trade of intangibles. A man must love and cherish his wife. That means think of her as a part of his family rather than as a brood mare, and protect her (You can’t be forced to feel romantic love; love is a familial emotion, and a conscious act of judgement). A woman must honor and obey her husband, which means exactly what it sounds like. If you want women to want to marry, just like Amish girls want to marry, you need to give a wife higher status than an unmarried virgin, and far higher status than a whore. Women will not want to marry unless whores and unwed mothers have no legal and social protections, thus unmarried women who do not live with their fathers need to be left to die in a gutter in the rain, and if you do, women will not be whores, and will marry, will act virtuously.

In the end, there is no female liberation, just like there’s no political liberation. Female liberation will end in women finding masters who are far, far worse. Like a nation, there is a lot of ruin in a woman.


18 thoughts on “Patriarchy Masterpost

  1. Very good, very comprehensive. But I’m always a bit confused when reactionaries like you and Jim talk about rape. In your example of a “naked hobo jumped out of an alley with a rusted knife in one hand and his erect cock in the other”, is this an actual rape because the hobo is low status?
    Is the rape determined by the level of status or because of the hobos method of acquiring sex?

    Does marriage by abduction automatically make a man high status?
    There was a case in the news recently where a guy broke into a girls home and murdered both her parents with a shotgun and kidnapped her. Was her escaping a shit test that he failed?

    Also that story about that guy that makes his girlfriends wear collars and eat out of dog bowls was pretty cool.


    1. If a woman screams and runs away from an aggressive male advance, like the naked hobo, it’s pretty obvious that the man is a criminal and you can punish him. If a woman voluntarily goes with a man into a closed room, and they fuck, “rape” in the modern understanding cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy.

      When the Nazis invaded France, many Frenchwomen were gleefully fucking Nazis. Injuns often abducted White women, who ended up happy in their Injun tribe. So yes, often happy to fuck their parents’ killer. “Stockholm syndrome” is normal female sexuality.


  2. Hey Aidan, awesome post, so many great notions there. I wonder about Leibnitz, each time I hear him mentioned, it is by trustworthy people in the spirit of the highest respect. He was thrown around in introductions to Goethe’s Faust a lot and his monism seems like the only sensible frame around. I have never read anything by the guy though.

    I have a pet theory that monism is so grossly underdeveloped because monists find better and more fun things to do than to write useless tomes.

    I find the first article the most problematic. You propose a policy like this. Then what happens? Are we going to vote on it?
    I admit that using this frame of common action is a good vehicle to get these truths out there – which is good, but in the end, there actually should be something we can do about stuff together and that thing will not be “reestablishing patriarchy”, esp at the outset.

    I had a post in draft on similar, I have pushed it out:

    If your worldview involves “making men better” or “making women better”, you are a Gnostic and an enemy; anti-human and anti-reality.

    True and truly awesome.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Leibniz was a mathematician and a philosopher. As a mathematician, he invented differential calculus. As a philosopher, he was famously mocked by Voltaire for claiming that we live in the “best of possible worlds”.

      I’ve come to believe it in the sense that things won’t get a whole lot better, people won’t get a whole lot better, but we can always get a whole lot worse. Voltaire might’ve agreed with Leibniz and become a staunch monarchist if he’d seen the firebombing of Dresden, the Somme, and the Holodomor.

      The practicality of implementing stuff like this is a whole ‘nother can of worms. Most likely, I’m describing the moral framework of a small warrior band that takes power after anarcho-tyranny becomes pure anarchy, but there’s a chance we get an Augustus who manages to put things like this into motion.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You are an optimist. It is just as possible, that the Empire will not fall, that the pressure will just keep rising, that gradually using your own judgment will be suppressed almost completely, that man will become simply an implement of his own language, fully justified, completely social, perfectly well-adjusted and self-contained. No real hate, no real love. New drugs for boys. A job in a corporation that will no longer be called that, since no one would understand, since the whole world will be that…


      2. It could very well play out as you describe, but a society in that state is easy picking for anybody militant. It could not stop me from forming a Christian Taliban in the Rocky Mountains, breeding at an 8.0 fertility rate for four generations, and then sweeping through the soft and degenerate cities with fire and sword.

        It could not stop the actual Taliban, or Russia, or China, or Africa’s growing population, or any power that could conceivably rise in the following centuries. They all want it, so it’s a matter of when and who rather than if. Some of them would be better masters than others, best would be if we could save ourselves before it comes to getting conquered.

        But I will rest easy knowing that the Enemy will be destroyed one way or another despite feeling the urgency of having to do it soon.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Yes, you are right, I missed this one. There are people that value the family over everything else and in the long run, obviously this is the winning strategy – in any ideological frame.

        And whatever form the fight will take, if direct responsibility, direct authority, just dealing with other people face to face gets the upper hand, I am kind of cool with that…

        Thank you for serious answers, I appreciate your graphomania.


  3. I still can not believe you get away with such truthism’s without the feminazi’s all over your ass. Most of what you have said caused Dr. Jordan Peterson to become a pariah to the left, liberals, (who really don’t get it) and especially the feminazi’s. It’s amazing that when shown in a test using pictures of a alpha male (muscular & strong) and beta males (thin, weak and piercing’s in the nose especially) even feminazi’s choose the alpha or they refuse to play your sexist games. I am raising my twin 9 year old grandchildren from birth (boy & girl) which makes for interesting styles of being open and honest with them. It’s been only 150 years since women mostly due to being single from the civil war started demanding equal rights and Edward Bernays with his “Torches of Liberty” so they could smoke in public added to their demands for equal rights yet they do not know how they were played as a massive mind control experiment. Sigmund Freud and his nephew Bernays started consumerism thus went Western civilization.


    1. I’m not anywhere big enough to have people mad at me, and hopefully I stay that way.

      It’s tempting to blame individuals for the decline, but I see it as a world-historical phenomenon. People like Freud only gain traction because the trail is well-blazed for them already.

      In 1750, the ducking-stool was still used in England. In 1800, it was unheard of. In 1850, arranged marriages were gauche and old-fashioned.


  4. All “alpha” status must be structural: period. Men, as a category, would be socially over women, in general. That would be the only way it would ever work.


  5. I generally agree, but I am trying to poke holes into it anyway, because it weirds me out how 100-150 years ago everybody was redpilled on e.g. race, 2-300 years ago a lot of writers were redpilled on e.g. democracy, but while they were generally more redpilled on women than today, hardly anyone was *this* redpilled on women. Why is it something our generation has to discover? I would be more comfortable with the taste of this pill this if it was considered something entirely common sense in 1750 or so and documented in many books.

    So one possible hole. There is this theory that our ancestors became patriarchical when they moved up north into colder climates and less fertile lands where women could not do agriculture on their own, like in Africa. So women depended on men for food supply, had no choice but to submit or starve. So it means patriarchy did not require complicated social enforcement mechanisms, it was just like: miss, do you want to eat?

    Why does it matter? Because people are difficult to control. Food or money is easier. Hard to prevent slaves from escaping, easier to guard the granary. Yes, women might love to be enslaved but there is always that more alpha guy whom they would rather be enslaved to. Food is easier to control.

    So if the above model is true, women were only indirectly controlled, through controlling food. And food was scarce enough up to the end of the Malthusian era. And for the upper classes the way to wealth was to inherit lots of land, not to get paid for work. And if a noble woman has a choice between obeying and staying noble or running away and maybe trying to eke out a living out of sewing clothes…

    I don’t know if this model is true. You have a good model of patriarchy -> evolution of IQ, and we know cold climate -> evolution of IQ, so maybe cold climate -> men control food supply -> indirectly control women -> evolution of IQ is true. The first steps of women’s lib seem curiously just after the Malthusian era, but then again most Prog ideas also came just after the Malthusian era.

    So it would answer my worry, i.e. the lack of so brutally redpilled books from 1750 or so: as long as food was scarce and it required big brawny men tilling the land with oxen, women agreed to being controlled easily…


    1. I’m glad you’re trying to poke holes because I believe nuance can only be achieved thru dialogue, so my style is to make a generalized and exaggerated claim in order to provoke debate.

      Once social mechanisms become encoded in culture, people forget about them. Race realism was something taken for granted in the sense that “of course my people are better than you heathens”. Considering your own people better than the Others is probably older than even chimps. When a culture is functioning properly, it doesn’t self-examine its assumptions and tenants, in just the same way that I take my digestion for granted until I start shitting blood. So medieval Europe isn’t going to be particularly concerned about how and why the Saracens and Moors were their lessers. In just the same way, it isn’t going to think about how and why they control their women and restrict their sexuality.

      I would question the assumption that agriculture came first as a matter of course. The “technology” of agriculture was known about long before people actually started settling down and practicing it. Hunter gatherers followed circuitous migration routes. They would plant seeds in one place, and when they came back around next year, hopefully there would be some food left for them to harvest. Alcohol was fermented the same way, left buried in the ground to mature until the tribe came back to that spot. For many years, the hunter-gatherer ate more and more nutritiously than the early farmer. Hunting trains a man for war and agriculture does not. Agriculture requires a man to work longer hours and have less free time.

      I believe that patriarchy must have preceded agriculture (exclusive agriculture and not supplemental as in some African societies). A man will not fight and die over a patch of ground unless he has a wife and kids to protect. In polygamous societies, if you’re worsted in battle you run away and hope to fight another day. We see this in the combat of primitive tribes. If you’re a farmer and you flee a battle, you starve to death when your crops are plundered. In man-to-man combat with primitive weapons, both sides will take wounds. The man in a polygamous society who hasn’t mated will run when he is wounded and the man with a wife and kids cowering behind him will not. We see this dynamic in the conquest of Mexico when Cortez was attacked by Injun forces dozens of times his own size. Generally, every single conquistador would be wounded in multiple places and hold rank, because that’s what a civilized agricultural soldier is trained to do, whereas Injuns would flee when wounded, breaking their own battle lines, making them think that the White man was invincible because he took wounds and kept fighting, and disheartening their own compatriots making a rout more likely.

      I do consider it a very good point that in colder climates, we take monogamy more for granted. It’s probably true that in winter lands, European man thinks women are coming to him of their own will when they are driven into his warm arms by the coming of winter. And thus we form higher opinions of female agency than the Chinese or Arab man, and don’t police female sexuality as zealously. But Man would not perform agriculture in a cold climate, which is an insanely risky act of daring and will, without reproductive security. You have no free time for courtship when you spend 12 hours a day farming. And women would still prefer to spend the winter as one of many girls in Conan’s smoky longhall. Conan himself would be happy to oblige them.

      But then again, monogamy was likely invented in the hot fertile (at that time) lands of the Middle East. It certainly grew powerful there. That’s a land where women can sustain themselves on agriculture, but it’s not a land where men can protect themselves from hostile tribes. Your theory explains Northern Europe, but it does not make sense for the warm and fertile river valley civilizations. My theory that patriarchy was invented to gain a military advantage and thus was moral law enforced by God and King explains both of them.

      There are plenty of half-red-pilled books from 1750, but there are many brutally red pilled books from the 1500’s and earlier, that only spare the messy details of sex for the sake of decorum. For example this song, in which a young virgin goes out and gets fucked by an itinerant rogue, and in the chorus blames the tree he fucked her behind. Beowulf is about killing the delinquent bastard son of a single mother, and then going to chop the mother’s head off for good measure. Malory’s Le Morte de Arthur is about evil women using their pussies to break up a male fellowship.


  6. I’ll reserve the rest of my poke-holing ideas until I finished reading William Tucker’s Marriage and Civilization – How Marriage Made Us Human. There is an interesting idea at the beginning: the winners of monogamy are not only low-status men but also high-status women whose access to a high-status man under monogamy is exclusive and not challenged by younger and hotter women. Makes sense. But why does it seem like we cannot recruit high status women to support monogamy? In fact it seems the problem started right at the top: the “courtly love” of Medieval France.


    1. Women don’t care all that much about whether their access to a high-status man is exclusive or not, though they will fight their own status games to be #1 in the harem and fight for higher status for their own kids.

      High-status women did win under monogamy from an objective point of view, because the wife’s children are legitimate and the mistress’ children are bastards, but they can’t be recruited to support monogamy because women follow power. If you force women to accept monogamy they will defend it heart and soul but if you force them into another arrangement they will defend that one. Female nature is to submit to authority and they are good intuitive judges of who has power and who does not. Any game theory or evopsych that denies or ignores this will miss the mark.

      I use ‘high-status’ and ‘low-status’ in the context of women because that is how women see men, but male hierarchies are more complex. The low-status man in male terms is still a loser under monogamy and the mid-status man, the guy who’s useful and necessary to the man-in-power but is invisible to women, is a huge winner.

      Dalrock is big on courtly love being a problem, though I think his view is clouded by relying excessively on later interpretations of courtly love, especially from the Victorians. I’m personally not sure if the problem started with courtly love or the Renaissance’s misinterpretation of the Classical but I need to do my own research from primary sources before I pass judgement. What I do know is that the contemporary critics of courtly love became part of the literary canon while its defenders and romanticizers did not until long after the fact. So I will need to do some digging to uncover the writings of those who lived through courtly love and either describe it objectively or are in favor of it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s