Hur viktigt är det i manosfären att tjejen är oskuld?

Family structure is the most important risk factor in child abuse and infanticide. Children who live with both their natural (biological) parents are at low risk for abuse. The risk increases greatly when children live with step-parents or with a single parent. Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be abused than children who live with both biological parents.

Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child abuse than children living with both biological parents.[55]

Infanticide is a subject that some humans may find discomforting. Cornell University ethologist Glenn Hausfater states that "infanticide has not received much study because it's a repulsive subject [...] Many people regard it as reprehensible to even think about it." Research into infanticide in animals is in part motivated by the desire to understand human behaviors, such as child abuse. Hausfater explains that researchers are "trying to see if there's any connection between animal infanticide and child abuse, neglect and killing by humans [...] We just don't know yet what the connections are."

Infanticide has been, and still is, practiced by some human cultures, groups, or individuals.[citation needed] In many past societies, certain forms of infanticide were considered permissible, whereas in most modern societies the practice is considered immoral and criminal. It still takes place in the Western world usually because of the parent's mental illness or violent behavior, in addition to some poor countries as a form of population control — sometimes with tacit societal acceptance. Female infanticide, a form of sex-selective infanticide, is more common than the killing of male offspring, especially in cultures where male children are more desirable.

Amongst some hunter-gatherer communities, infanticide would sometimes be extended into child cannibalism. This is documented in many regions, but particularly amongst pre-colonial Aboriginal Australian tribes. Infants and young children would often be killed, roasted, and eaten by their mother and sometimes also fed to siblings, usually during times of famine. In non-filial cases when a child was "well-fed" and in the absence of its mother sometimes a man or the whole community would kill and consume the child.

Think about it. Have you ever heard of a civilization where the concept of 'marriage' didn't exist? I didn't think so. Because marriage is at the very root of civilization. Civilization, a word derived from the root 'civitas' meaning city, denotes a high stage of social development and organization. The relation between civitas and civilization is not accidental. Advanced organization was only possible and due to the construction of first cities. Before agricultural revelation circa 10k BC, humans were indistinguishable from animals. They were living in herds, in a state of nature, guided solely by their animalistic instincts. There was no institution of marriage in those hunter gatherer societies, because there was no need for such an institution. Marriage was a cultural technology that was introduced to bring reproductive discipline in the face of a harsh Malthusian reality: that the growth of a population confined to a restricted area should be kept in check. Before marriage, the cost of child rearing was effectively socialized: the fathers of the children were not determined, and the entire tribe was responsible of taking care of the women and the children. After building the first cities and the invention of marriage, the cost of child bearing was privatized. This meant that if the married couple did not have the means to take care of their offspring, they were not going to reproduce like rats. This also meant that if a man wanted to leave a genetic legacy after him, he had to channel his energy towards production, benefiting the entire society. Thus Patriarch was born. Patriarchy is therefore simply civilization. Without patriarchy, there is no production, no security, no organization, no society as we know it. Without patriarchy, there is no civilization. Did you ever notice how every invention, every monumental structure, ever grand idea, every artifact of culture, every social innovation is the product of men?

That's because patriarchy is a way of channeling man's lust into productive endeavor. It promises guaranteed pussy in exchange for his labor. It thus harnesses beta male's production by integrating them into the sexual market. When you think about it, the fact that the majority of our men are able to mate is very unnatural. In sexually dimorphic species, usually only the alpha males get to fuck pussy. But not under patriarchy. Under patriarchy, even the beta as fuck, hell even omega men get to marry. And so instead of idling, jerking off, playing video games, they channel their energy towards production. This ensures accumulation of capital. This is simply what civilization is.

Now, note that chastity, sanctity of marital wows and so on are just natural implications of the marriage technology. They ensure that the male has guarantees over his genetic reproductive success in return for his labor. That is how you harness male's labor. Without those guarantees, he won't commit, he won't give up his labor so easily. Thus when you introduce degeneracy into society, males simply start opting out. That's what we see today as NEETs, MGTOW and herbivore men. We're at an advanced stage of civilization decay. The collapse is very near.

Anyway, the 'degeneracy = societal collapse' trope we so often see in religious scripture is real. It's there for a reason. So, yeah, sexual liberation is really that bad.