It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Origins of Sex and Power

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by caitlinfae
 



This "Conditioning" that you say causes women to reject their instinctual desires is called "Civilization"


Our sexual drives, are incompatible with Civilization, as they were formed in a VERY different environment.

Evolution, even of behaviors takes hundreds and thousands of generations to change.

Our civilization has not existed for long enough to take hold in our genetics, and thus, these instincts to "Make Beasts out of ourselves" remain.


In order to understand this completely, you would have to delve into understanding Governmental Theory, Economic Theory, Decision Theory, Hereditary Genetics, and Human Psychology.


Suffice it to say, if we did not "Pair Bond" as a species, we would not be "Civilized"

Literally.

-Edrick


Very interesting post and full of useful information. Lots of things to study there, which I will do. It's interesting that you think we're not too far from the beasts we once were....I entirely agree with you. Civilisation is such a thin veneer. Do you think instinct and civilisation are truly mutually exclusive? Our world now is still very competitive despite the change in syntax.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by caitlinfae]




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by caitlinfae
 



Very interesting post and full of useful information. Lots of things to study there, which I will do.


Thank you.


It's interesting that you think we're not too far from the beasts we once were....I entirely agree with you. Civilisation is such a thin veneer. Do you think instinct and civilisation are truly mutually exclusive?


No, they are not mutually exclusive.

But Instinct requires many MANY generations to change.

We have not been Civilized for long enough to have Civilization in our Genetic Structure.

We do not have the Instinct for Civilization.

Given enough time, this would undoubtedly happen... we would truly have Domesticated ourselves.


Our world now is still very competitive despite the change in syntax.


Yes, it is... Even the Ruling elites of the planet are complete slaves to these instincts.

The mass accumulation of Wealth and Power that the "Rulers" of the world desire...

This is but the Instinctual mating instinct taken to its final, horrible, and logical conclusion.

They want their Descendants to be the Supreme Alpha Males FOREVER.


Makes sense, don't it?


Poor fools... they aspire to rule the world, and they can't even rule themselves.


But, I shouldn't just pick on the guys...

If women's desire for a man was not swayed by wealth and personal power, the Elite's plan would not really work.

-Edrick



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonsmusic

Originally posted by caitlinfae
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 


This is a very interesting subject and I have enjoyed reading about Freud's research into this. I see your point about two bisexual women being possibly the ultimate male fantasy and it's roots in the hunter archetype (which I was talking about with a close friend just two nights ago, weirdly enough), but I suspect that there is perhaps another layer of modern meaning now attached to this scenario....that of the sexually liberated woman.

Although I don't give the free love attitudes of the '60's much weight in terms of true freedom for women and their sexual expression, I do acknowledge that they were possibly a starting point for the more equal expression of sexuality we're moving towards now. Despite the fact that it's now insanely trendy for girls to be with other girls, at least at some point in their relationship history, I really believe that many women...many more women than realise it....are genuinely bisexual. Our learned patterns and past emotional traumas can block off whole areas of expression, and perhaps when we learn to be honest about who and what we like, this is the natural state for us.

Astynax's point about the benefits of a gay son to the mother's survival will also hold true of the lesbian members of a society...more healthy, non-breeding females (and their girlfriends!
) to help raise and protect the children, without the considerable risks of childbirth to worry about.


I'm glad you see that point about "two bisexual women being possibly the ultimate male fantasy and it's roots in the hunter archetype (which I was talking about with a close friend just two nights ago, weirdly enough), "

That's synched up now isn't it
?
Females strike me as being innately bisexual.
Though my one lesbian friend who I mentioned this to did not like the idea very much.
I have mentioned this to a few straight females who have not liked the idea very much either


Though in terms of the big picture it's honestly so attractive to see two pretty women hold hands as they get up from the bar or wherever and walk to the bathroom together.
Watching two attractive females make out is even more of a turnon, though I digress.
It is something primal that gets pulled up. Something ancient I think; hence my making this thread.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by dragonsmusic]


I think someone has a bit of a think for girl on girl.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by caitlinfae
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 


I'm trying to avoid turning this into a porn thread and getting myself banned, but it would seem to work in their favour too...the girls I mean...it would be an easy way to control him, if that's what they want to do, as well as maintain their own Alpha status. Would sex be enough to do this in primitive societies? It would certainly work in ours, given the right personalities involved and women ruthless enough to use it. Maybe bisexuality in females was status dependent. Maybe the power was really with the females, and Mr Hunter was put where they wanted him? Maybe they were more inclined to be with their own sex and simply used him for babies and yet more power as the mothers of his heirs?

Sorry....bad faery surfacing.....my very bad.....


[edit on 29-12-2009 by caitlinfae]


Yes, I don't want for either of us to delve to such a point where either of us would get banned


That point about having more control of him is a great way to put it; makes a lot of sense.
They might have very easily just used him for those purposes and with those things in mind.
Though he would have been happily used and so would they have been too.
An exchange. And yes it could easily take place in today's societies.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 


Edrick has brought up some very intense points about the Elite and how they function....and I thought it was all so much simpler, which it is in a way....but now I'm going to have to go and scratch my head and think about it for a while, to see how it all fits in. Not just a silly game of "Tease him till he screams "no more.........very interesting tho.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by caitlinfae]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by caitlinfae
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 


Eldrick has brought up some very intense points about the Elite and how they function....and I thought it was all so much simpler, which it is in a way....but now I'm going to have to go and scratch my head and think about it for a while, to see how it all fits in. Not just a silly game of "Tease him till he screams "no more.........very interesting tho.


Yes , Edrick has the same effect on me too. Causes me to have to go and scratch my head and think a while.
That's why he was one of my first ATS friends and why I'm glad he picked me as one of his friends in return.

There's a lot going on here on this thread. It's not just him that has me thinking. You've got me thinking too . And I've got myself thinking as well...



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 


I think if you're going to tell me what you're thinking about, it better not be on ATS, or we will both be spanked with the Ban Slipper!


Anyway......it's this point Edrick has raised about women's desire for wealth and power driving the whole process. I'm wondering if it's still relevant. I know we're not that far from beasts, but women can have their own wealth and power now, and it's maybe not quite the draw it once was, even quite recently. Is it possible that given a more secure lifestyle as we have now that our patterns could make a quantum leap if you like....so that sex that previously based on ensuring the survival of your gene pool and food supply is shifted in focus in a very short space of time....in some people perhaps and not all, I do understand...to something that is more purely pleasure based? I know the pleasure survival loop existed for a reason, but I'm trying to see how long it might take for the survival half to wane, and leave us more vulnerable than ever. Maybe we have just too much lizard brain for such a jump though.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by caitlinfae
 



it's this point Edrick has raised about women's desire for wealth and power driving the whole process. I'm wondering if it's still relevant.


It is not so much Women's desire for these things, as it is:

Women's desire for wealth and power, AND men's desire for wealth and power to acquire a woman.

It is self reinforcing.

The purpose of society is to restrain these tendencies ion both men and women.

Male territoriality and competition precludes the close knit societies that we have... so that must be repressed.

Female Hypergamy precludes the sort of cooperation that societies need to function, so that must be repressed.

IT is still relevant, because the checks that society uses to prevent these instincts from tearing civilization apart, are being eroded, and systematically deconstructed.


I know we're not that far from beasts, but women can have their own wealth and power now, and it's maybe not quite the draw it once was, even quite recently. Is it possible that given a more secure lifestyle as we have now that our patterns could make a quantum leap if you like....so that sex that previously based on ensuring the survival of your gene pool and food supply is shifted in focus in a very short space of time....in some people perhaps and not all, I do understand...to something that is more purely pleasure based?


Pleasure is natures way of making sure that we reproduce.


The sexes are fundamentally different, because that is how our form of reproduction takes place.

Men are unconstrained from the burden of nurturing the offspring, so that they may remain strong to "Get the Job done" whatever that job may be to ensure survival.

Men are better at survival.

Women are more attuned to safe environments, because our offspring are practically useless for 6-10 years.

That is a LONG time for the offspring to require attention.


This is why women are "Softer" than men... why they are more empathetic than men.

Because our children are useless.


Take the Deer for example... they are born, and can walk within minutes.

It takes a human child years to do the same.

(This is the price we pay for having a Large Brain capable of Cognition, and Rationality.)

This is what "Gender" is for.

It is a trade off of duties and responsibilities.

Men and women are not the same... they are not Equal.

They are two halves of a whole.

Neither complete without the other... in a very literal sense... because they cannot reproduce without the other gender.

Likewise, their biology, behavior, and physiology are made to be complementary, and opposite.

Not the same, or competitive.

Women do not EARN wealth, because their biological function is to USE wealth, to tend to the offspring.

This is biology.


I know the pleasure survival loop existed for a reason, but I'm trying to see how long it might take for the survival half to wane, and leave us more vulnerable than ever. Maybe we have just too much lizard brain for such a jump though.


Pleasure / Pain IS the Lizard brain.


It is your Nervous systems way of telling you HOW to survive.


Here, check this out, it should help.





-Edrick



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by caitlinfae
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 


I think if you're going to tell me what you're thinking about, it better not be on ATS, or we will both be spanked with the Ban Slipper!


Anyway......it's this point Edrick has raised about women's desire for wealth and power driving the whole process. I'm wondering if it's still relevant. I know we're not that far from beasts, but women can have their own wealth and power now, and it's maybe not quite the draw it once was, even quite recently. Is it possible that given a more secure lifestyle as we have now that our patterns could make a quantum leap if you like....so that sex that previously based on ensuring the survival of your gene pool and food supply is shifted in focus in a very short space of time....in some people perhaps and not all, I do understand...to something that is more purely pleasure based? I know the pleasure survival loop existed for a reason, but I'm trying to see how long it might take for the survival half to wane, and leave us more vulnerable than ever. Maybe we have just too much lizard brain for such a jump though.


So you dont want me to tell you what I'm thinking about
?
We don't want to be spanked with the "ban slipper" as you mention, do we?

And while I can't speak for Edrick I don't think he meant that its women's desire for wealth and power that drives the WHOLE process I think he just meant it plays a very significant part in it.
He will correct me if I am wrong

Our brains are based on two main drives and one is pleasure.
So no matter whether a person is male or female the person will always be looking for what is pleasurable IMHO.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Great replies guys...thank you. I do understand the process here but this is something Edrick said that caught my attention and I'm wondering if he can expand on it?




IT is still relevant, because the checks that society uses to prevent these instincts from tearing civilization apart, are being eroded, and systematically deconstructed.



I'm really curious about why you think this is? Are we reverting to something less civilised?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by caitlinfae
 



it's this point Edrick has raised about women's desire for wealth and power driving the whole process. I'm wondering if it's still relevant.


It is not so much Women's desire for these things, as it is:

Women's desire for wealth and power, AND men's desire for wealth and power to acquire a woman.

It is self reinforcing.

The purpose of society is to restrain these tendencies ion both men and women.

Male territoriality and competition precludes the close knit societies that we have... so that must be repressed.

Female Hypergamy precludes the sort of cooperation that societies need to function, so that must be repressed.

IT is still relevant, because the checks that society uses to prevent these instincts from tearing civilization apart, are being eroded, and systematically deconstructed.


I know we're not that far from beasts, but women can have their own wealth and power now, and it's maybe not quite the draw it once was, even quite recently. Is it possible that given a more secure lifestyle as we have now that our patterns could make a quantum leap if you like....so that sex that previously based on ensuring the survival of your gene pool and food supply is shifted in focus in a very short space of time....in some people perhaps and not all, I do understand...to something that is more purely pleasure based?


Pleasure is natures way of making sure that we reproduce.


The sexes are fundamentally different, because that is how our form of reproduction takes place.

Men are unconstrained from the burden of nurturing the offspring, so that they may remain strong to "Get the Job done" whatever that job may be to ensure survival.

Men are better at survival.

Women are more attuned to safe environments, because our offspring are practically useless for 6-10 years.

That is a LONG time for the offspring to require attention.


This is why women are "Softer" than men... why they are more empathetic than men.

Because our children are useless.


Take the Deer for example... they are born, and can walk within minutes.

It takes a human child years to do the same.

(This is the price we pay for having a Large Brain capable of Cognition, and Rationality.)

This is what "Gender" is for.

It is a trade off of duties and responsibilities.

Men and women are not the same... they are not Equal.

They are two halves of a whole.

Neither complete without the other... in a very literal sense... because they cannot reproduce without the other gender.

Likewise, their biology, behavior, and physiology are made to be complementary, and opposite.

Not the same, or competitive.

Women do not EARN wealth, because their biological function is to USE wealth, to tend to the offspring.

This is biology.


I know the pleasure survival loop existed for a reason, but I'm trying to see how long it might take for the survival half to wane, and leave us more vulnerable than ever. Maybe we have just too much lizard brain for such a jump though.


Pleasure / Pain IS the Lizard brain.


It is your Nervous systems way of telling you HOW to survive.


Here, check this out, it should help.





-Edrick


That video is awesome
I'm going to watch all of those.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by caitlinfae
Great replies guys...thank you. I do understand the process here but this is something Edrick said that caught my attention and I'm wondering if he can expand on it?




IT is still relevant, because the checks that society uses to prevent these instincts from tearing civilization apart, are being eroded, and systematically deconstructed.



I'm really curious about why you think this is? Are we reverting to something less civilised?


Let's see... You seen the pole dancing doll for young girls?

You notice the mentality of the "Privileged Princess"?

The demonization of men in the media? Portrayed as oafish, useless, stupid, and lucky enough to have found a Beautiful, smart, angelic wife who saves him every day?



Alternatively... The Extreme "pornification" (Making porn out of) all media.

Sex selling Everything from Beer to Car insurance.


Men are being taught to become "Players"

Women are being taught that they are too good for everyone (And at the same time, that promiscuity is perfectly healthy.)


Encouraging Promiscuous Hypergamy for women.

and Encouraging serial promiscuity for men.


IT has a habit of reducing the reproductive rate to near zero.

No society can survive this.

-Edrick



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 



That video is awesome
I'm going to watch all of those.


"This is John Galt Speaking" from Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged"

A wonderful, and thought provoking piece of literature.

-Edrick



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Thank you so much for all of this. I'm gonna have to process for a while.....I wanna get this right. I see all of those things around me, although I hadn't heard of the poledancing doll. I'm kinda horrified. I also see the reaction to it though, and am aware of how many people don't think it's ok, so maybe what we need to be worried about is whether or not this type of behaviour will reach critical mass before it's curbed. Such a complex topic, and I'm too full of curry to think straight and give it the scrutiny it deserves!
I too will watch all those videos too. Do you think we can be self regulating without being stifling? Is there ever a middle ground?
Can I add you as a friend btw?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by caitlinfae
 



Thank you so much for all of this. I'm gonna have to process for a while.....I wanna get this right.


Thank you.


I see all of those things around me, although I hadn't heard of the poledancing doll. I'm kinda horrified.


Horrified is an understatement.

Let's see what I can dredge up on the intertubez...

"Pole Dancing Doll"
blogs.parentsociety.com...

Here is an interesting article on the subject
www.tellinitlikeitis.net...

And Another article
cafephilos.wordpress.com...


I also see the reaction to it though, and am aware of how many people don't think it's ok, so maybe what we need to be worried about is whether or not this type of behaviour will reach critical mass before it's curbed.


Well, the problem is mainly in learning.

The younger the kids are, the less they know, the less experience they have, the less able they are to provide for themselves.

If you get Kids... having Kids... they are effectively going to be stuck in a cycle of perpetual poverty.

In addition to this, the cumulative effect of a population that reproduces earlier and earlier is a BOOM of population growth.

They are too young to understand responsibility... they don't need to be taking responsibility for another human life, they can't take care of themselves yet.

In addition to this, you have the effect of the Mixed gender classrooms.

And when you are that young, and the hormones are raging... good luck keeping to your studies, ya know?


Do you think we can be self regulating without being stifling? Is there ever a middle ground?


Yes, there is always a middle ground.

Life itself is about balance.

If a species is too static, it stagnates and dies.

If a species is too chaotic, it cannibalizes itself.


All life exists in the gray area between the two extremes.


Being self regulating, without being stifling is all about volitional cognition.

The ACT of choosing a course, with full understanding of what it means.


For example:

Children like sugary sweets.

If they had the "Freedom" to eat as they wished, they would eat cake and ice cream forever.

Adults, possessing knowledge and experience, know that this diet is unhealthy, and will eventually cause health problems.

The strictness of enforcing a diet with sparse sugar may seem stifling to a child, but it is for its long term interest.


This is the inherent STRUGGLE of mankind...

The battle between perusing the pleasure of the instinct, and the intellect to know when to stop, or say no.

Or, in other words...

Just because it FEELS good, does not mean that it IS good.


Can I add you as a friend btw?


Of course!

-Edrick



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Edrick....more excellent stuff....I will be back tomorrow with a list once I've watched all those vids. For the meantime, it's tea, custard creams and Day of the Triffids...we all need bubblegum sometimes.


U on my friend's list.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 


Freud has his problems; which is I why I touched on that in the thread. This thread is about much more than this. Do you have a specific opinion about the thread? Does it bother you?

A happy New Year to you, dragonsmusic. I quote the opening lines of your opening post:


If Freud is correct in this postulate of his then humans are born in a state much like that which was considered natural by ancient societies; specifically the ancient Greek and Roman empires. And it would mean that everyone is bisexual.

Freud was wrong in this postulate--if, indeed, it really was his postulate and not some misinterpretaion. Such an error at the commencement of your argument is more than enough to invalidate the rest of it.

Even if we lay this aside, it is too widely known to require much spelling-out that ancient societies had different ideas about what was considered natural. This is true of Greece and Rome, where different social mores obtained at different times. This, too, is enough by itself to invalidate your argument.

Is everyone bisexual? It depends, I suppose, on what you mean by bisexual. If you mean it in the sense that all or most adults may be able to derive some sort of pleasure from copulation with another member of their own sex, then perhaps we are all a little bit bisexual. If it means we find ourselves attracted, though not necessarily in a sexual way, to others of our sex, then we are all a little bit bisexual in the same way that every adult who is fond of children is a little bit of a paedophile; but to insist on that formulation would be ridiculous, not to mention derogatory.

If you mean everyone is bisexual in the sense that we all want to copulate with members of both sexes, then, quite obviously, the statement is wrong.

So, then, to answer your questions: yes, I have a specific opinion of the thread. It is not very high. If you were to better define the thread topic and present your arguments more cogently, my opinion would probably improve.

As for my having 'a problem' with it, well, I suppose I do, in a way. My problem is best expressed by quoting you again:


Females strike me as being innately bisexual. Though my one lesbian friend who I mentioned this to did not like the idea very much. I have mentioned this to a few straight females who have not liked the idea very much either.

You see the problem? Your thread is offensive to women.

It's sexist.

As for the mighty-hunter-surrounded-by-fawning-females scenario you draw, it makes for a nice fantasy (especially for adolescent boys who have trouble enough attracting the attention of even one girl at a time) but there is no evidence from history or biology to support it. Whenever men die in large numbers, women do too. Usually in larger numbers.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



You see the problem? Your thread is offensive to women.

It's sexist.

As for the mighty-hunter-surrounded-by-fawning-females scenario you draw, it makes for a nice fantasy (especially for adolescent boys who have trouble enough attracting the attention of even one girl at a time) but there is no evidence from history or biology to support it. Whenever men die in large numbers, women do too. Usually in larger numbers.


Yeah... about that...


tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...
The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,” he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.


So.... when you are not right...

That makes you *WRONG*


Understood?

-Edrick



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 

I see you're still peddling that obnoxious male-supremacist bill of goods, Edrick. What a lonely occupation yours must be! Still, I suppose you regard it as a calling, well worth the frustration and sacrifice...

Take a look at my first post in this thread, which glancingly addresses the subject of mating hierarchies and harem formation in humans and other social animals. In what respect am I wrong?

Any man who thinks women want to be concubines is severely addled. What women want--and have always wanted--are exclusive rights to a desirable man. You don't find that in harems, which is why they must be assembled and maintained by force or the threat of it.

It is natural for women to be attracted to high-status males, but it takes some very twisted reasoning to turn that into a propensity toward concubinage and lesbianism.

The asymmetry in ancestral sex ratios does not in any way support a thesis that women are genetically programmed to be concubines. It is quite sufficiently explained by the fact that for most of history and--it seems--prehistory, women were property. Rich, powerful men collected them, and women themselves had no say in the matter.

Indeed, since harems usually contain rather more than two members, the fact that the male-female disparity is only two to one suggests that the plucky young things managed to cuckold their thuggish lords and masters at every possible opportunity. Good for them.

[edit on 6/1/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



I see you're still peddling that obnoxious male-supremacist bill of goods, Edrick. What a lonely occupation yours must be! Still, I suppose you regard it as a calling, well worth the frustration and sacrifice...


I see that you are still denying reality to more placate your politically correct Masters, I hope that it is worth the intellectual slavery...


Take a look at my first post in this thread, which glancingly addresses the subject of mating hierarchies and harem formation in humans and other social animals. In what respect am I wrong?


I already addressed that in my response to you...

That you are STILL unaware of it, implies that you never bothered reading it.


Any man who thinks women want to be concubines is severely addled.


And, if you wouldn't mind... go ahead and tell me where that was said in this thread...


What women want--and have always wanted--are exclusive rights to a desirable man.


Yes, you are correct.

But you are also lacking in a fundamental understanding that Women are attracted (As a Whole) to a VERY SMALL GROUP of the "Best" men.

That invariably leads to a supply/demand dichotomy.

Where the men who women WANT are WANTED by LOTS of women, and thus, have no incentive to settle down with any single woman.

THUS forming the "Informal" harems, where women are all competing for a very few males, who have absolutely NO reason to pick just one, thus denying them access to the rest.


It is natural for women to be attracted to high-status males, but it takes some very twisted reasoning to turn that into a propensity toward concubinage and lesbianism.


I can see that you (As per Ususal) missed the entire point of the argument.

You do that alot, don't you?


The asymmetry in ancestral sex ratios does not in any way support a thesis that women are genetically programmed to be concubines.


They are genetically programmed to be HYPERGAMOUS.

They are genetically programed to desire a VERY SMALL PORTION of the male population.

The harems of today are "Informal" in that they are maintained by the females own desire to "Peruse" the exclusivity of a very few males who are NOT going to be exclusive to them.

1% of the male population cannot be exclusive to 100% of the female population... Surely you understand basic mathematics?


Rich, powerful men collected them, and women themselves had no say in the matter.


It is the exact same situation now...

Rich powerful men STILL collect harems, but they no longer have to enforce it, they no longer have to support them, and they no longer have to even do the work of aquireing them.

Women, by being "Freed" are *CHOOSING* the same harem structure of the ancient past.


Indeed, since harems usually contain rather more than two members, the fact that the male-female disparity is only two to one suggests that the plucky young things managed to cuckold their thuggish lords and masters at every possible opportunity. Good for them.


Now you are just making crap up...

That is merely an assertion, and in no way backed up by observation, facts, etc...

Listen, for the good of yourself, you have to stop being led by the mainstream media "Political Correctness"

You are mentally ENSLAVED to this system, and it is so patently obvious, that I can smell your shackles from here.

-Edrick




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join