>>112453If we take the Freudian remark seriously, "Daddy issues" just means that you want to be like the girls who satisfied your father because they got his attention, not that you want to bone daddio. If you don't know your father, then either you'll imitate your mother or you'll be like the girls who get paternal affection from men, but because those other men aren't your father then that "paternal affection" often comes with sex, which means it's not actually paternal affection because obviously paternal affection should be non-sexual (hence the stigma around 'daddy issues'-types being 'broken'; they want what they can't get, because what they want doesn't exist and even if it did exist, by getting it they would no longer want it. This is most people, it's just easier to identify in archetypes).
>>112494And here we see the root cause. People can't want or desire something just because they want or desire it. It has to have some other motive - men being attracted to women cannot just be because they desire women, it has to be a secret ploy to subtract our power. The same is true for us; we can't simply want to be with a man. There needs to be an explanation/excuse for our sexual conduct outside of "because I wanted to," for example, "I just wanted to use him (for his money, or for his status, or for his power)," or "I had sex but it was because I wanted children," or even the highly controversial "I was drunk so I didn't know what I was doing (i.e. I deflect all responsibility,
he should have known better, nevermind if we were both drunk [NB: I'm not a MRA but we have to accept our own hypocrisies if we want to grow])." I have never heard: "Yeah, we had sex, but it was only because I wanted to." This is a sin, and it's equally a sin for men, so we instead construct narratives about why we do/don't want the thing, because the alternative is to think that sometimes we just
want things and there's no explanation, there's no free-will controlling it. We are told how to want, and we are therefore unhappy.
Fathers instinctively know that young men don't want to "posses" or "strip the rights" of their daughters, but they do know that the young men have carnal desire - fathers were once those young men. On one hand this is hypocritical, and on the other hypercritical (of themselves). To the father, the daughter is a reflection of him - a "good father" would show his daughter what a gentleman is like so that she doesn't fall for the ungentleman. If the sister fails at this (demonstrated by multiple boyfriends), then she is rejected (either overtly, or in the manner that OP describes). If the daughter falls for a gentleman, then the father has "fulfilled his role". Hence the tradition of asking for the daughter's hand - the father accepts the husband as an extension of the family because the husband reflects and symbolises what he would like others to think of the family. It is not that the father "possesses" the daughter and is the only one able to give her over to another (because there are enough counterexamples of women eloping), it's entirely symbolic of our desire for the illusion of power, not over each other, but over ourselves.
