Comments by "Voryn Rosethorn" (@vorynrosethorn903) on "Queens Who Had The Most Children" video.

Must have been awful for the daughters, restricted from the ability to become mothers by a mother blessed with many loving children. It sure was progressive, but was it good. We are the most progressive ever now, and we've never been more lonely and depressed.
15
@nativetexan53 Not all are of course, but statistically it's far more prevalent, same with kids raised by a single mother, they don't all end up worse off, but the vast majority do, and to a considerable extent.
4
Not really, North Africans are also white, the social construct is largely the borders we put it at (in west it continues to be the borders of historical Christendom, but the reality is that common ancestry stretches to Pakistan and includes high caste Indians (the caste system is rooted in a racial one set up by invaders a bit like in the early Muslim empire), Persians for example are much less arabised, but even the arabs are deeply interrelated, hell most jews are different due to a population bottleneck in medieval times rather than different ancestry, the massive split comes when comparing Turkic people and the like), we are very genetically different, and not acknowledging that would be a nightmare for doctors as it goes deeper than the skin and leads to different potency of disease, likelihood of illness and reactions to medication. The amount of slaves from South of the Sahara during Roman time was very limited, most slaves were greek, celt, or Germanic, also the period ended with large scale Germanic migrations. She was North African 16 generations back, which kind of makes it clear how desperate they are to link royals to this sort of nonsense, in all likelihood she was just born with a darker tone of skin, if it was from ancestry then they should probably have been looking towards possible flings with the gardener rather than ancestry so far back as to be very very minimal on the wider genetic level.
3
Sounds like they are just being friendly, unsurprisingly young guys on a history course will assume anyone on it will have shared interests and talking about it is what they do with each other. I know some of them can be a bit weird, but they are young and have limited interaction with women, especially two faced ones. People are right to call you out, mansplaning is not really a thing, the solution to someone talking about something you already know is to talk back to them about it, generally professionals in any field will do it as there is a safe bet that the vast majority of people don't know, they likely even have a set way of explaining it to make it easier to understand. If you don't know and just don't want to listen then just say so, unless mansplaining is no actual problem to a future relationship with that person there is no reason to hold back and humour people who annoy you to that extent. Realistically men don't shift their personalities all that much, if you find him a bore now it will likely only get worse as he gathers greater degrees of information with age. I have to wonder what you are in a history degree for when you don't like talking about it, all that said it's generally rude to talk about someone behind their backs, confrontation is typically how males deal with disagreements, they will be considerably more upset if they catch on to the things you have been saying behind their backs, it is fine however if you make yourself clear directly. You might consider this itself mansplaining, but I wrote this under the assumption you were stupid rather than malicious.
3
Obviously you are much more likely to be descended from someone who had more. Also is it a choice if everyone makes the same, or just a new social norm.
3
@mamavswild One of the rules of economics is that value is subjective, if you have a culture with a different value system they won't even have the framework to think about things in the same way as you. A highly religious society in which children are valued over material prosperity are just going to approach things differently. The west was also the richest place in the world back when women were having 7 kids on average, what we are seeing isn't advancement (indeed the west is only continuing due to immigration at this point) but the results of a new set of values taking hold and the sexual revolution facilitating them. Also look up the fertility rate of the middle east, other than Afghanistan it is now below replacement.
2
The biggest leap is the first, after that despite all the talk it's quite common to want a lot more, the main impediment these days is people waiting too long, the decline in birth rate is almost entirely people who waited too long and never had any, parents are having the same number of children they did 50 years ago, there are just less parents.
2
Nothing ventured nothing gained, and what more to gain than new life. Yep, there was a reason it was heavily stigmatized by the church and marriages between young people tended to come with a contract agreeing they wouldn't cohabit until 18 or so, really most people started between 16 and 22. It is better for future births and everything else if you start in your early twenties at least, the longer it is left the more complications are likely, but one in the twenties gets the body used to it and lowers the chance of problems in your 30's. Those it's really the least of our worries as average age of childbirth going up over thirty historically trends with societal collapse, civil wars and revolution.
1
No reason to be rude.
1
@Mikler472 Humans are social animals, social bonds have far more meaning than material prosperity, you are correct however that neo-libs play a role, they break down social institutions in other to rationalise and maximise economic production.
1
@Mikler472 I know they don't, but most people justify negative innovations under a Whig conception of progress.
1
Considering the fertility rate of the Victorians they were all sex positive, just not outside of wedlock or in polite conversation.
1
Lovely, God bless you.
1
More the merrier. Also there is never a prefect time, as this story shows you must deal with hardship if you want blessings. Most childlessness today if of those who wanted children but waited too long, everyone also knows many women who dearly wanted more children but were lucky enough to conceive those they did in their late 30's.
1
@theCosmicQueen Good on you.
1
Yep religion was by far the main issue, there likely weren't many as the Barbary states sat in the middle, most blacks were in the Arab world, the men were typically castrated and the women were not treated as well as European slaves (who themselves got fairly horrific treatment, being tortured to convert). Blacks were a novelty and often found employment in royal courts who wanted to ape the ottoman. Later on there were more, mostly in Portugal, colonies and various navies due to the slave trade and contact with allied kingdoms in Africa. Some ended up in Europe but they were miniscule in number and quickly got absorbed.
1
Abortion was literally a crime. It's the murder of a child, obviously a Christian society is opposed to such barbarity. The Romans used to widely practice infanticide, Christians were known to take they unwanted children left to die of exposure in and raise them as their own. If you don't want your children leave them for adoption, babies are alive in the womb and many of those aborted can feel pain. Honestly there is nothing more demonic in our society that the murder of defenceless babes in the womb by their own mothers. Either don't get pregnant or take responsibility and give the child up to life even if you will never see them again, why should personal convenience give you the right to take the life of another.
1