>artist changed dick flattening to penis milking
coward, if he was gonna draw incel on goth slut cringe he should have at least had the guts to stay the course

>>18544386
The fact that women perform sexual selection not men.

>>18544386
I would think that abundance from industrialization and synthetic fertilizer reduced the need to leverage your daughter's marriage that way, and the need for extended kin groups in general.

>>18544386
Christianity
It was the first institution in the world to declare that people (read here women) should only have sex if they are in full consent. It was the first religion in the world to take a woman's decision into account.

this thread is genuinely sad
the real answer is the radical legal and social changes that diminished the role and level of control the parents had over their children's sexual and romantic choices. especially with the sexual revolution and the explosion of youthful rebellion and sexual freedom, the ability of the parents to control and arrange marriages for their children collapsed. this is further underlined by the fact that radical legal change meant that these children were fully independent adults in the eyes of the state and could not be coerced into marriage; even peripheral legal incentives like the inability of women to own property separately from their husbands was eliminated, and so women became free to live on their own or with any man of their choosing, instead of being materially or legally bound to their fathers or husbands.

>>18544386
whoever wanted to destroy the aristocracy and prevent people from amassing generational wealth/land

>>18544399
that's just an incel take on things and in some scientific papers since most social studies people are incels. If i don't fuk a girl, she is not getting my baby.

A lot of women would like to be with movie star X, but movie star x has other plans

in most normal relationships, the idea of having a child is discussed between two consenting adults and is 50 / 50

women, in general, are like men without balls. yes, they know lot of guys want to screw them, but once you are above this and look at them as sissy boys, it really is up to you to pick which one you want. Sure, you may have to work a bit to get some and the effort might not be worth it, but it goes both ways.

>>18544840
oh and i forgot to answer the question. industrial revolution and the overall economic wellbeing of people as well as having less kids.

Since people used to breed like rabbits and have 10 kids, but very limited resources, daughters were just burden to parents and arranged marriages were a way to get rid of said burden. Since people didn't get around so much and in rural areas especially, were kind of gullible - young people didn't have ways to practice and date others, having the parents (dad) look out for their daughters and marry them off to at least an ok seeming dude was a way to somewhat secure their future.

It was that or sending your daughter off to be a literal hooker - sending them away from home with no resources to fend for themselves.

In normal societies, even arranged marriages were still mostly predated by some courtship where both parties involved, knew each other and were interested in the marriage. Just needed the parents approval.

>>18544831
((((((who)))))) would possibly want to do such a thing?

Urbanization and factory/wage jobs reduced reliance on family land, inheritance, or parental approval for economic survival. Young people could support themselves, weakening family control over mate selection.

Emphasis on personal rights, happiness, free will, and self-expression challenged parental authority and collective family interests in favor of individual choice.

Literary and philosophical movements (e.g., German Romanticism, broader Romantic era) glorified passionate love, emotional fulfillment, and companionate marriage over duty or alliances.

Higher literacy and schooling, especially for women, exposed people to new ideas (including Western individualism), increased autonomy, and improved bargaining power in partner choice.

Moving to cities expanded social circles, reduced tight-knit family/community oversight, and increased opportunities to meet potential partners independently.

Legal reforms (e.g., property rights), later marriage ages, and economic opportunities gave women more say and reduced economic dependence on arranged unions.

Outlawing forced/child marriages, raising minimum ages, and requiring consent (e.g., in Japan, Russia, or post-colonial contexts) accelerated change in various regions.

Mass media, transportation, and later dating apps broadened marriage markets, facilitated independent meetings, and spread ideals of romantic love.

>>18544831
Really though, that made the difference between European and Muslim states in the Early Modern period. Places like Morocco were bogged down by the aristocracy being such a parasitic drain on government.

>>18544386
>>18544942 more or less covers it
But honestly I'm more interested to see the closest the 'state appointed wife' meme got to being real. There were some states, I recall vaguely, that did at times dabble in match-making. For the most part forceful marriage practices were managed by private individuals; I'm not even sure if there are any entities (E.G. guilds or secret societies) that conducted arranged marriages. An actual entity carrying them out is a much rarer and fascinating prospect.

>>18544942
Excellent post but you forgot to include the abolishment of dowries, bride-prices, etc, which more or less destroyed the economic dimension of marriage. In general state modernization efforts really weakened traditional marriage contracts.

File: luce.jpg (22 KB, 236x236)

22 KB JPG

>>18544386
Here's the True Answer:
Christianity

Before Christianity, marriages are nothing but business partnerships for families. It is the Patriach who decides who marries who

Then came Jesus who said
"he who loves his parent more than me cannot be with me"
This led to many youths choosing the Church over their families and this was done by THEIR families

They have found letters after letters from families who straight up calls for the disownment of their children simply because they decided to convert to Christianity.
In the old world, being kicked out of your clan is a death sentence. But because they were instead adopted into the Church, they did not just survived, but thrived and created their own families of their own choosing.

Christianity's effects on matrimony sticks out like a sore thumb in historical records

Before Christians, every clan, big and small, boasts about their geneaology that extends all the way to the gods. Each clan claims a divine lineage and authority to claim a certain theological and political seat.

But after Christians, it straight up vanished outside of the upper echelons.

Clans will not reappear again until the Feudal era wherein local lords had to take a record of all the serfs who work under him and would be entitled entry inside his castle in times of strife

>>18544386
Well first you have to remember that arranged marriages were never the norm except for the upper classes. The vast majority of people throughout history married for love, it's just that the fact that Joe McPeasant married his childhood sweetheart Jane McChurl wasn't really of importance to historians and chroniclers, while the arranged marriages of Kings and Queens had massive effects that affected the course of history and empire. Sure there were more stringent boundaries on who you could marry (not outside your religion, your father probably had some greater or lesser level of veto power, nothing gay) but within those boundaries people married who they wanted to. Every time someone tells you something about marriage being a "business arrangement" remember that none of these people had any fucking assets could make a "business arrangement" with. At most there was some system of dowry which limited your choice to someone of roughly the same social strata, but you would generally only really know people of your same social strata in the first place.
Now as for why it fell out of fashion even among the Upper Classes? Mostly the switch to Capitalism and the fading of old clan structures. When wealth is no longer tied to inheriting and consolidating land claims, and political alliances are now decided by Parliaments running institutions based upon concepts of universal citizenship instead of which clan is intermarried to which other clan, power is no longer dependent upon marriages. Making your daughter suicidally miserable by marrying her to some fat bastard out of a hentai no longer gains you anything, Marrying some bitch wife you hate no longer gets you anything, so why make yourself or your daughter miserable for no reason?

>>18544386
universal womens suffrage I imagine.

>>18544945
That’s just a feature of Moroccans, not aristocrats.

Arranged marriages were always outdated.
This type of system worked because women who wanted a modest standard of living were forced to get married and settle down instead of riding the carousel.
Women weren’t meant to say no to 95% of men and still have all the benefits of a married individual.
Men guarantee reproductive security for women (having hopitals, stores, and police a woman can rely upon during her not vulnerable times) so women are obligated to do the same for men.

>>18544386
>>18544399
The push came from incels. A random psycho can now practice and perfect his routine, until he masters it well enough to get women to fuck. They basically saw it as some kind of insane opression that they couldn't borrow someone's wife or daughter to fuck.

>>18544942
What do you mean, ronantic love, Chudd? Today it's called "stalking".

>>18544971
>>18544942
Stigmatizing of incest as well. First Cousin Marriage was fairly normal, and in a general sense incest is advatageous for ensuring a certain resource security and guaranteeing a cooperative network, the effects of which accumulate over multiple generations. Marrying out to consolidate anothers resources carries the double edge of the open question of who really owns what and thus leads to the risk of having them potentially consolidating yours as opposed to the other way arounds.

>>18544386
Look at india and their very very charismatic creative and hot loving men.

>>18544386
It was me. I don't like arranged marriages.

>>18544455
>>18544999
No, arranged marriages were a thing under christianity

>>18544999
Arranged marriages happened in medieval Europe and still happen in Latin America you retard

>>18545341
-10 Izzat

>>18544386
>What event in history made society abandon the idea of arranged marriages?
Boomers/the Sexual Revolution. All the way up to the 50s marriages were still more transactional than about love.

>>18544386
Universal suffrage.

>>18544386
If OP pic became reality, incels would complain about their government arranged looksmatch gf and claim that they could perform better in the sexual free market.

>>18544399
They shouldn't though. Its why we have lower birthrates now.

>>18545239
Ill stalk you, sissy boy

>>18546092
I highly doubt it. Also, that could simply be mediated by letting men do the choosing.

>>18545687
>>18545695
I never said it vanished. But it was the catalyst that led to its banning

Slavery
Arranged Marriages
Public decency
Infanticide

All were banned by Christian pressure, slowly over time

>>18544942
>dating apps
>spread ideals of romantic love.
xd

>>18545695
Arranged marriages aren't really a thing in Latin America anymore, they've fallen out of fashion since about 50 years ago.

>>18546279
Learn to read