Matriarchy

[Cognisant]

While replying to "Scientific & Historical Exploration of Cultures, Religions, & the Sexes" I stumbled upon the notion that a matriarchal culture would actually be better for society, and I'm going to explore that here because there's already way too much going on back there.

A matriarchal society is one in which instead of men being in charge women are in charge, which isn't terribly interesting because we already have women in positions and it doesn't appear to affect them much differently than it does men.

More interesting is a matriarchal culture now to explain what that is consider the differences in how our culture treats men and women, even in many secular libertarian cultures women aren't allowed to publicly exposed their breasts. We've all got nipples and although men generally don't have mammary glands (which are on the inside) and some women are flat and the rule still applies, clearly the rule is solely related to gender and has nothing to do with breasts. Instead it has everything to do with how breasts affect men, an effect that is being intentionally suppressed, indeed there's no hiding the fact this is rooted in religion (the source of everything terrible it seems) and religious people will admit it has everything to do with enforcing standards of modesty, in other words suppressing female sexuality.

Consider Islam, extremely patriarchal, extremely focused on "modesty" and yet your average Muslim will still go to strip clubs and purchase pornography because this modesty has nothing to do with them, it's enforcing the modesty of women that's important, but why? I think it's because women have a power over men and the men in charge don't want their power threatened, I suspect our patriarchal culture is actually an unnatural state of affairs hence society's apparent "degeneration" into immodesty and allowing women ever more power and prominence. Now that religion is losing its sway to science and education we've begun the process of returning to our natural state, to a matriarchal culture.

Let me show you what I envision and you tell me how realistic it sounds.

Probably the most fundamental thing is that in a matriarchal culture it is normal for women to give "orders" to men, the man can refuse but it's considered rude to do so unless he has some particular reason. Men still have rights of course, a woman can't just demand a man's wallet or ask him to do something illegal, if anything it's more like the power women already have over men but the difference is they're more comfortable using it. To the men in the audience if a random woman asked you (nicely) to escort her to the nearest police station or help carry her groceries to her car would you refuse? The more patriarchal of you might refuse on principle after all who is this woman and what authority does she have to make demands of you, but then again there's a part of you that likes to be helpful even if there's no reason to and that's why I believe just as many if not more would agree.

In this hypothetical world such requests happen all the time and far from being bothered by it men take pride in it, some deep part of us likes to be useful, we like clear directives, we're goal orientated, moreover if the person making the request is an attractive woman that's a nice ego boost. Indeed I can see men being distressed if they aren't regularly called upon and there being a certain hierarchy among men based on who is most popular with the ladies, as already exists to some extent.

But how did women get such incredible sway? There's two parts to it, the first is that they became comfortable with giving directives, a lot of interactions between men and women in our world suffer for a lack of adequate communication, the woman may only want to make out for its own sake, the man misinterprets it as a prelude to sex, anger is essentially broken/unmet expectations for without expectations there can be no anger. Adequate communication would be the woman telling the man in no uncertain terms what she wants (to make out) and what she doesn't want (to have sex) and most importantly asking him to agree to those terms, setting his expectations appropriately and from this he knows she's not playing games with him.

I think the reason women struggle with this straightforward communication is that they've been taught throughout their lives to suppress their sexuality resulting in them dropping hints and speaking in roundabout ways rather than stating plainly what they want, much less setting terms to agreed to. That segues us neatly into the second part, women in this hypothetical world aren't sexually repressed at all, they feel no more shame in performing sexual acts then well adjusted men do (precisely none), they do what they want, when they want and with whomever they want, consent allowing of course.

So when hanging out with women comes with the prospect of being given or asked to perform sexual favors on a whim you had better bloody believe that's men will want to do all the time and since women can obviously choose who they associate with there is ample motivation for men to do whatever they're told (within reason) so long as the requests aren't too demanding and they don't find themselves being ignored. Furthermore I imagine men in this world being a lot happier, relaxed and overall psychologically healthy because they're doing what men are clearly designed to do, what are all our fantasies if not being told what to do (given a quest) and carrying it out to appease a woman (rescue the damsel). Back in our hunter gatherer days the women who are the center of the tribe would request things and the men would carry them out, it wasn't a matter of who was in charge it was who knew what needed to be done and who was going to do it.

I think where patriarchies succeeded in our world is that they put us in a mindset that allowed our leaders to send us off to kill each other, to starve us of affection, to rob women of their power and their stabilizing influence, to get young men signing their lives away in droves just for a chance to "prove themselves", to who, and why?

 

[Rebis]

I think this flip doesn't acknowledge that both parties want power, it isn't dependent on gender.

To assign a behaviour that's fundamental to a gender, and then expecting them to play their assigned role is the exact same thinking that concentrated power in the hands of men.

So when hanging out with women comes with the prospect of being given or asked to perform sexual favors on a whim you had better bloody believe that's men will want to do all the time and since women can obviously choose who they associate with there is ample motivation for men to do whatever they're told (within reason) so long as the requests aren't too demanding and they don't find themselves being ignored. Furthermore I imagine men in this world being a lot happier, relaxed and overall psychologically healthy because they're doing what men are clearly designed to do, what are all our fantasies if not being told what to do (given a quest) and carrying it out to appease a woman (rescue the damsel). Back in our hunter gatherer days the women who are the center of the tribe would request things and the men would carry them out, it wasn't a matter of who was in charge it was who knew what needed to be done and who was going to do it.

"Women should just do their role: Clean, care and service their husband"

On the flip side:

"Men should just do quests and save the damsel in distress"

I don't think satisfaction is universal and unfortunately that isn't everyone's fantasy. Males just had the upper hand because females gave birth to the child and as a result their life was of more value. A species doesn't exist without progeny. I don't think anyone will be satisfied with someone in control of their lives, though I think technology has a fairly good grasp of everyone's lives but since it isn't a "person" people aren't too bothered. Technological binary overlords, that's the majority of what we experience in our day to day lives, that's the true overlords (maybe it'd be better to call them oversights, for now)

 

[Rebis]

I don't think that episode of futurama including death by "snoo-snoo" will be fulfilled, you hedonistic robot!

 

[Kormak]

Probably the most fundamental thing is that in a matriarchal culture it is normal for women to give "orders" to men, the man can refuse but it's considered rude to do so unless he has some particular reason. Men still have rights of course, a woman can't just demand a man's wallet or ask him to do something illegal, if anything it's more like the power women already have over men but the difference is they're more comfortable using it. To the men in the audience if a random woman asked you (nicely) to escort her to the nearest police station or help carry her groceries to her car would you refuse? The more patriarchal of you might refuse on principle after all who is this woman and what authority does she have to make demands of you, but then again there's a part of you that likes to be helpful even if there's no reason to and that's why I believe just as many if not more would agree.

Hmm.. I think people who take orders from others unless under contractual obligation such as exchange of labor for profit are kinda pathetic and even then there is a fine limit. The gender of the one giving the order is irrelevant, what society thinks of me refusing is also irrelevant. I do what I want and deal with the consequences, laws & social rules are meant to be broken. There has better be an upfront reward, I dont like to work for free. ^^; this is why I hate telling people what to do lol.. especially in relationships.. and expect her to have a very strong degree of autonomy & agency.

This might be cheasy, but if i oversimplyfy things, this imo is 100% true (read the text in the video)

But how did women get such incredible sway? There's two parts to it, the first is that they became comfortable with giving directives, a lot of interactions between men and women in our world suffer for a lack of adequate communication, the woman may only want to make out for its own sake, the man misinterprets it as a prelude to sex, anger is essentially broken/unmet expectations for without expectations there can be no anger. Adequate communication would be the woman telling the man in no uncertain terms what she wants (to make out) and what she doesn't want (to have sex) and most importantly asking him to agree to those terms, setting his expectations appropriately and from this he knows she's not playing games with him.

Hmm, it would be nice if women would drop the whole psychological manipulation in favor of being clear and honest about what they want. Its not hard to understand them tho once you get used to it. Mind games are kinda annoying tho. So yeah, this is a plus.

So when hanging out with women comes with the prospect of being given or asked to perform sexual favors on a whim you had better bloody believe that's men will want to do all the time and since women can obviously choose who they associate with there is ample motivation for men to do whatever they're told (within reason) so long as the requests aren't too demanding and they don't find themselves being ignored. Furthermore I imagine men in this world being a lot happier, relaxed and overall psychologically healthy because they're doing what men are clearly designed to do, what are all our fantasies if not being told what to do (given a quest) and carrying it out to appease a woman (rescue the damsel). Back in our hunter gatherer days the women who are the center of the tribe would request things and the men would carry them out, it wasn't a matter of who was in charge it was who knew what needed to be done and who was going to do it.

oook... women are not ^^ damsels in distress. Women are quite lewd and even more sexual then guys. :S they just need the right setting and the ok from you.. When all of this clickks into place you'll have a hard time keeping up with her apatites. e_e I have been asked before if I want to do BDSM with her and other kinky shit. :/ turns out that I am what she called "vanilla" and we weren;t all that compatible after all. I'm not sure this is a good idea now. starts backing off towards the doorway

I think where patriarchies succeeded in our world is that they put us in a mindset that allowed our leaders to send us off to kill each other, to starve us of affection, to rob women of their power and their stabilizing influence, to get young men signing their lives away in droves just for a chance to "prove themselves", to who, and why?

Well thats easy, I mean have you seen the 80% ? Not the sharpest tools in the shed. Example today truck driver locked his keys in the cabin, I had to drill the cabin's door and unlock it that way. In his exitement... he shut the door again witht he keys still inside.. and it locked again.. the fucking retard. bangs head against a brick wall
e_e I tell you this is how retarded unpractical ideologies & religions spread, ppl just eat that propaganda right up, they don't think.

I don't think we are going to kiss and make up even if you get rid of the patriarchy, if only it would be that simple lol.

 

[scorpiomover]

While replying to "Scientific & Historical Exploration of Cultures, Religions, & the Sexes" I stumbled upon the notion that a matriarchal culture would actually be better for society, and I'm going to explore that here because there's already way too much going on back there.

There are matriarchal societies ALREADY. It's a question of WHICH societies would be better if they were matriarchal, i.e. what properties of a society would lead to more improvements under a matriarchy than a patriarchy.

You already outlined one: strong and forthright women. A society where the majority of women were stronger and more forthright than the men, might do better under a matriarchy than a patriarchy.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

it would likely be worse on average than "the patriarchy". the oedipal mothers/mad queens would probably dominate everyone and nanny state everything until all that remained were hysterical children unable to function at anything without constant state permission/supervision/approval (as can be seen now in much of the west)

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Someone recently made an argument to me that Women are the primary transmitters of units of culture. I think this is an oversimplification, yet I can't deny that while I far more greatly resemble my father in temperament, my mother's memes are more dominant in all her children. It is difficult to say if such a dynamic is common enough to be more than arbitrary. I found the hypothesis hard to disprove. More unbiased observation is necessary, but a definitive model shall likely continue to ellude.

 

[Marbles]

Female breasts are of sexual interest, male barely are (no pun intended). I would say covering them is akin to men covering their genitalia. Modesty serves an important function in limiting sexual behavior where it is unwelcome. That allows more effective cooperation, and individuals to not focus on their sex appeal in situations where there are more important considerations. If women didn't cover their breasts, unisex workplaces would probably become less efficient, which would be a challenge to egalitarianism.

We are still a long way from having a matriarchal society, and if testosterone in linked to ambition (and indeed sacrificing health and so many other values), I don't see matriarchy widespread any time soon. I think religious double standards are more about men controlling women than men fearing women in control. In an urban environment it is very hard to make sure your wife isn't adulterous, and culture (which has been dictated by men) has tried to remedy that since the neolithic. There is a very strong evolutionary pressure for men to seek control over women. I've seen estimates that 10-20 percent of children have a different father than they are told. Imagine what that number would be if there was no birth control. Men are not driven by calculation but rather instincts in seeking this control. They are acting from instincts that do not take birth control into account. They may be driven by fear equivalent to a society in which 50% of children are raised by the "wrong" father. Imagine what an immense waste of resources it is to raise a child that isn't yours for 18 years, and how genes evolved at a time of extreme scarcity would dread that. Also, think how scared parents would be that their daughter got pregnant with a man who would not support her.

Quest for benefits might seem like a good deal, but keep in mind that women consider 80% of men less attractive than the mean. There probably wouldn't be much snusnu for the average Joe. This is also an important selling point for many religions. In Islam, not only won't you be among the 80% of guys who don't procreate, you will get 72 (or what is it?) virgins in heaven if you blow yourself up in the name of God.

@Inexorable Username I figure this ties into your religion and gender thread, and that you might find it interesting. I've been thinking about making a reply there, but the topic just seems so immense I can't do it justice. Very interesting topic, though.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

So I chased down your paternity statistics, a hot topic that makes for great slanderous headlines. Your best support is a 30% nonpaternity number that comes from from parents who are either suspicious or unsure of paternity and thus sought paternity tests. You might want to recalibrate. Or at least make sure you understand the concepts of biased and unbiased sampling. Take a statistics class or at least get in the habit of analyzing your sources before you make them the foundation of your worldview.

 

[Marbles]

Considering that the 30% number comes from parents who are either suspicious or unsure or paternity, you might want to recalibrate. Or at least make sure you understand the concepts of biased and unbiased sampling. Take a statistics class or at least get in the habit of analyzing your sources before you make them the foundation of your worldview.

I don't think anyone has mentioned 30%, supplied sources, or misunderstood principles of statistics. If you wonder about my sources, I will see if I can dig them up, but there is a more polite way to ask.

Now you are also editing your posts after I have responded to them, so I think I am done here.

 

[Marbles]

This The Atlantic article operates with 5 percent points lower numbers than I suggested, but substantiates the point I was making, and is highly credible as these things go:

Who’s Your Daddy?

The unintended consequences of genetic screening for disease

www.theatlantic.com

Some communities have lower rates, some higher, but grad students in genetics are taught 5-15 percent. What triggers you about this? I am not describing the world as it ought to be, I am describing it as I believe it is.

 

[washti]

why hugh jackman adopted kids with his older wife (she had 2 miscarriages) instead changing woman and not wasting resources on not his genetic progeny? please don't say that it's cause he's mutant.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

why hugh jackman adopted kids with his older wife (she had 2 miscarriages) instead changing woman and not wasting resources on not his genetic progeny? please don't say that it's cause he's mutant.

Because he probably already has like 50 kids

 

[washti]

if so, why he is officially supporting not his own?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

It’s Hollywood, baby. Gotta maintain an image.

 

[Marbles]

why hugh jackman adopted kids with his older wife (she had 2 miscarriages) instead changing woman and not wasting resources on not his genetic progeny? please don't say that it's cause he's mutant.

Because he probably already has like 50 kids

This actually made me laugh out loud... I wonder if my neighbours heard me :P

I'm not suggesting men are singularly driven by the need to raise their own offspring, washti, only that it is an evolutionary engine of genes and memes which has lead to a lot of morally reprehensible practises in religion and culture in general. The potency of the mechanism needn't be very strong for it to shape culture over millennia. Men get vasectomies all the time.

 

[washti]

It’s Hollywood, baby. Gotta maintain an image.

you mean no mum of 50 kids would contact the always scandal giddy journalists, or he won't be having massive alimony court calls?

 

[washti]

There is a very strong evolutionary pressure for men to seek control over women. I've seen estimates that 10-20 percent of children have a different father than they are told. Imagine what that number would be if there was no birth control. Men are not driven by calculation but rather instincts in seeking this control. They are acting from instincts that do not take birth control into account. They may be driven by fear equivalent to a society in which 50% of children are raised by the "wrong" father. Imagine what an immense waste of resources it is to raise a child that isn't yours for 18 years, and how genes evolved at a time of extreme scarcity would dread that. Also, think how scared parents would be that their daughter got pregnant with a man who would not support her.

Man control woman cause their fear of wasting resources on not their own progeny. It's instictual.
That's what I get from it.

I'm not suggesting men are singularly driven by the need to raise their own offspring, washti, only that it is an evolutionary engine of genes and memes which has lead to a lot of morally reprehensible practises in religion and culture in general.

So by what else they are driven in this women controling? Especially now. And how really it is this instinct now?what happened with it? Is it barren, void? It was just a matter of technology? (vasecotomies, pills). Did men stop wanting to control women altogether?

also what mean that genes would dread. are genes having emotional life?

 

[Marbles]

The instinct is still there, for instance men with blue eyes prefer blue eyed women, because if their offspring then have brown eyes, it is an indicator that something is wrong. At least that is what evolutionary psychologists make of it.

The woman controlling is probably strongly driven by the mechanism I described (but there are bound to be many other factors). What I was saying is that men have more values (both instinctual and moral) than making sure they pass on their personal genes, which explains Huge Jacked man and vasectomies.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I would reason that men have the opposite of the instinct to control women, exactly because of this cuckold situation. In prehistoric times men probably had no clue who their offspring were so there would no point in trying to control anyone. And if you did try to control you would just end up getting cucked. Better to just spread the seeds as widely as possible and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Marbles]

I see your point, but don't you think that in a small tribe, everyone would have a fairly good idea of what was happening in the bushes? You don't have to avert all sex outside the partnership, but any you do avert increases the odds that a child is your own. I'd say our ancestors had a better idea of what their partners were doing than we have. Since jealousy exists as a trait, it must serve some evolutionary function.

 

[washti]

for instance men with blue eyes prefer blue eyed women, because if their offspring then have brown eyes, it is an indicator that something is wrong. At least that is what evolutionary psychologists make of it.

it isn't. majority of people have brown eyes.
maternal grandma (brown), maternal grandpa (grey) - paternal grandmother (blue) paternal grandfather(brown)
my mother (grey) - father (brown)
I (grey), my brother(brown)


you don't have more chances that your kid will have blue eyes if both parents have it. This seeking for same eye color partner is just narcistic tendency.

 

[Marbles]

for instance men with blue eyes prefer blue eyed women, because if their offspring then have brown eyes, it is an indicator that something is wrong. At least that is what evolutionary psychologists make of it.

it isn't. majority of people have brown eyes.
maternal grandma (brown), maternal grandpa (grey) - paternal grandmother (blue) paternal grandfather(brown)
my mother (grey) - father (brown)
I (grey), my brother(brown)


you don't have more chances that your kid will have blue eyes if both parents have it. This seeking for same eye color partner is just narcistic tendency.

That explains all the blue eyed people in China.

 

[washti]

-.- your ancestor eye color plays role in what color your kid will have. It's not that simple as mating people of same eye color.- that was my point.

 

[Marbles]

You are right, that is why I wrote that it would be an indicator that something is wrong, rather than a guarantee that something is wrong. Say your monkey forefather had 30 children. He and everyone in his harem had blue eyes (I know monkeys don't have blue eyes, but fuck off :P ), only 20 of his children had blue eyes. He chose to focus his resources on these children, and a higher percentage of them than his brown eyed "children" grew up to have offspring of their own. His controlling nature payed off evolutionarily, and his controlling genes were passed on.

This could also be the reason why people prefer partners who look a little bit like them, but there are other strong mechanisms driving that.

 

[washti]

Say your monkey forefather had 30 children. He and everyone in his harem had blue eyes (I know monkeys don't have blue eyes, but fuck off :P ), only 20 of his children had blue eyes. He chose to focus his resources on these children, and a higher percentage of them than his brown eyed "children" grew up. His controlling nature payed off evolutionarily, and his controlling genes were passed on.

That could be the reason why people have narcistic tendencies. especially your monkey forefather.

 

[redbaron]

i don't think any historical concept of a society built on the assumed values of a gender has any chance of working effectively in the modern environments they're so irrelevant to

 

[Cognisant]

I think this flip doesn't acknowledge that both parties want power, it isn't dependent on gender.

To assign a behaviour that's fundamental to a gender, and then expecting them to play their assigned role is the exact same thinking that concentrated power in the hands of men.

I do expect a concentration of power to occur however I'm not expecting people to play to assigned roles, rather I'm saying that if women weren't indoctrinated into being submissive and ashamed of their sexuality they would naturally have more influence over society, indeed I believe we would all be happier in this more natural state of being.

"Women should just do their role: Clean, care and service their husband"

On the flip side:

"Men should just do quests and save the damsel in distress"

That is a gross oversimplification, my point was that trope exists because men are naturally driven to seek approval/praise from women. Consider why do men want war medals or trophies of any kind for that matter, who are they trying to impress?
Who, being impressed by a medal/trophy, would make you happiest?

Males just had the upper hand because females gave birth to the child and as a result their life was of more value. A species doesn't exist without progeny.

A male's life has more value because females give birth?
I think you've got that backwards.

I don't think that episode of futurama including death by "snoo-snoo" will be fulfilled, you hedonistic robot!

Haha yeah what I'm talking about is likely inevitable and just as likely won't occur in my natural lifetime.

Hmm.. I think people who take orders from others unless under contractual obligation such as exchange of labor for profit are kinda pathetic and even then there is a fine limit. The gender of the one giving the order is irrelevant, what society thinks of me refusing is also irrelevant. I do what I want and deal with the consequences, laws & social rules are meant to be broken. There has better be an upfront reward, I dont like to work for free. ^^; this is why I hate telling people what to do lol.. especially in relationships.. and expect her to have a very strong degree of autonomy & agency.

I totally get where you're coming from and in retrospect "orders" was probably the wrong word to use hence why I put it in quotes to indicate I was using it as a label for a concept rather than the meaning of the word itself. This is totally miscommunication on my part, I realize an order isn't just a request it's a request backed up by consequences, that it's implicitly non-optional whereas the concept of "orders" that I'm talking about is entirely based on consent. In the hypothetical matriarchal culture women don't have the literal authority to giver orders to you, rather their influence is such that you would likely consent to any request made as though it were an order, not because you have to but because you want to.

This might be cheasy, but if i oversimplyfy things, this imo is 100% true (read the text in the video)

Am I a fool or a trickster?

Hmm, it would be nice if women would drop the whole psychological manipulation in favor of being clear and honest about what they want. Its not hard to understand them tho once you get used to it. Mind games are kinda annoying tho. So yeah, this is a plus.

Keep in mind this isn't their fault, this is what they've been taught to do, women aren't naturally any more timid or less forthright then men (why would they be?) this is the result of conditioning that's so ubiquitous you can't see it until you pay attention to the details (double standards) and start pulling at the threads.

oook... women are not ^^ damsels in distress.

Just noting the frequency of the trope, which says more about men than women imo.

Women are quite lewd and even more sexual then guys. :S they just need the right setting and the ok from you.. When all of this clickks into place you'll have a hard time keeping up with her apatites. e_e I have been asked before if I want to do BDSM with her and other kinky shit. :/ turns out that I am what she called "vanilla" and we weren;t all that compatible after all. I'm not sure this is a good idea now. starts backing off towards the doorway

EXACTLY! That women are less sexual than men is a myth perpetuated to suppress their sexuality or more accurately to get them to repress it themselves. Of course that's a generalization, everyone has their own appetites, however unless anyone wishes to correct me the fact that women have hidden ovulation cycles and are always "on heat". In the sense that they're never have periods of sexual inactivity like animals do, except maybe menstrual periods, but then again I've been with women who wanted to have sex during their period to make it pass quicker. (is that true?)

Yes I got menstrual blood on me, for some reason I'm a lot less bothered by blood from the source than from a pad.

I don't think we are going to kiss and make up even if you get rid of the patriarchy, if only it would be that simple lol.

It's not so much who is in charge as what the culture is, there's a lot of ideas we're indoctrinated with that we're unaware of being indoctrinated with because they're all around us all the time.

it would likely be worse on average than "the patriarchy". the oedipal mothers/mad queens would probably dominate everyone and nanny state everything until all that remained were hysterical children unable to function at anything without constant state permission/supervision/approval (as can be seen now in much of the west)

I live in a nanny state called Queensland, I only just made that connection and it amuses me to no end, anyway the nanny state has nothing to do with gender politics and everything with conservatives eroding our freedoms, most female politicians are actually in the opposition. Would they be better? I dunno.

Someone recently made an argument to me that Women are the primary transmitters of units of culture. I think this is an oversimplification, yet I can't deny that while I far more greatly resemble my father in temperament, my mother's memes are more dominant in all her children. It is difficult to say if such a dynamic is common enough to be more than arbitrary. I found the hypothesis hard to disprove. More unbiased observation is necessary, but a definitive model shall likely continue to ellude.

Would you agree that women (older women specifically) play a major role in perpetuating clearly hypocritical modesty standards?

Female breasts are of sexual interest, male barely are (no pun intended). I would say covering them is akin to men covering their genitalia. Modesty serves an important function in limiting sexual behavior where it is unwelcome. That allows more effective cooperation, and individuals to not focus on their sex appeal in situations where there are more important considerations. If women didn't cover their breasts, unisex workplaces would probably become less efficient, which would be a challenge to egalitarianism.

Under the current paradigm in which men are (generally speaking) sexually frustrated and affection starved I can certainly see exposed breasts being a distraction, indeed by the same reasoning having women in the workplace at all is distracting. Often when an attractive women passes by my "pod" (sort of a low walled cubical for six) the men (admittedly myself included) stop work to perv only to immediately resume when she notices the lull in keys clacking and people talking. Then again this happens fairly regularly and tends to be the same women walking past, no doubt aware what they're wearing is form-fitting or short and it's not like we're on a major thoroughfare, I'm sure they know what's up.

In tribal societies where women are all topless all the time the men don't spend all their time gawking at boobs, granted I'm sure they do look but these societies still function so it can't be harming their productivity too greatly. If anything these societies which are assuredly less repressed than our own (if any anthropologists want to weigh in that would be great because I know fuck all about this) may in fact benefit from women largely being the ones to direct and motivate the men rather than those men seeking to appease women through the roundabout and unreliable method of being financially successful.

Indeed that is a the primary reason more traditional/conservatively minded men want women out of the workforce, not because they hurt productivity or because there's not enough jobs to go around but because it undermines how money motivates men. In of itself we don't give the slightest fuck about money, in of itself we don't care about name-brand shit or the food at fancy restaurants or what model of car/phone we use, that's all just preening and feathering the nest. It's why men go camping, we only need the bare essentials to be happy and we reduce ourselves to that to get away from society's nonsense, but eventually we end up sitting around a campfire talking about women and a day or two later we're compelled to head back to where they all are.

We are still a long way from having a matriarchal society, and if testosterone in linked to ambition (and indeed sacrificing health and so many other values), I don't see matriarchy widespread any time soon.

In my first post I underlined society and culture to emphasize I wasn't talking about the former but rather the latter, not so much who's in charge but rather how our indoctrination to certain concepts makes us think.

I think religious double standards are more about men controlling women than men fearing women in control. In an urban environment it is very hard to make sure your wife isn't adulterous, and culture (which has been dictated by men) has tried to remedy that since the neolithic. There is a very strong evolutionary pressure for men to seek control over women. I've seen estimates that 10-20 percent of children have a different father than they are told. Imagine what that number would be if there was no birth control. Men are not driven by calculation but rather instincts in seeking this control. They are acting from instincts that do not take birth control into account. They may be driven by fear equivalent to a society in which 50% of children are raised by the "wrong" father. Imagine what an immense waste of resources it is to raise a child that isn't yours for 18 years, and how genes evolved at a time of extreme scarcity would dread that. Also, think how scared parents would be that their daughter got pregnant with a man who would not support her.

I think this is symptomatic of modern society, in ages past (less than 100 years ago even) people didn't travel much and had large families with high mortality rates so if one of your children was actually your brother's, cousin's or the milkman's (who is still probably on a few branches away from you) that wasn't a huge deal genetically as you share a lot of your genes with them, indeed it could be argued that infidelity is good for genetic diversity and thus the overall health of any given regional gene pool.

Indeed this goes both ways, in ages past the care of children was shared by the family as a whole, often including extended family and even the wider community. Even in my own childhood I spent some time on Russel Island which is a fairly rural community and there kids would often eat and sleep at each other's houses. So if there's infidelity going as long as you're participating it's not a waste of resources because the community is effectively pooling their resources to raise the children. For a tribal community this pooling of resources would be a matter-of-course as given their relatively low populations and limited healthcare it's important to the tribe as a whole that there actually are enough surviving children to carry on the tribe.

Quest for benefits might seem like a good deal, but keep in mind that women consider 80% of men less attractive than the mean. There probably wouldn't be much snusnu for the average Joe. This is also an important selling point for many religions. In Islam, not only won't you be among the 80% of guys who don't procreate, you will get 72 (or what is it?) virgins in heaven if you blow yourself up in the name of God.

If a not ugly guy is potentially useful to you and you don't have indoctrinated compunctions about using what you have to get what you want would you be adverse to making out with him? Of course in our world that's a dicey prospect because modesty standards rule out casual make outs thus implying that when you do make out with someone you want something more from them leading to misunderstandings and hurt feelings.

Using men in this manner sounds exploitative but my whole point is that it isn't because that's the way we're wired, that rather it would be profoundly beneficial to our psychology to receive the affection we're starved of regardless of the terms (well within reason) indeed even men in relationships suffer for the fact that we're not really designed for monogamy, almost every adult man I know has been caught cheating at least once and that's just the ones who (and the times they) got caught.

 

[redbaron]

wow so much suffering imo

if you're in a relationship that's agreed upon monogamy you could also try an exciting concept called, "just not cheating on someone"

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not suggesting men are singularly driven by the need to raise their own offspring, washti, only that it is an evolutionary engine of genes and memes which has lead to a lot of morally reprehensible practises in religion and culture in general.

I think it's more the memes than the genes, men who find out about children not being theirs are often incredibly emotionally torn by the prospect of abandoning "their" children even though said children aren't genetically theirs. Rather the real motivator for them leaving is the infidelity itself, in a society where affection is strictly rationed out the idea that someone else received the affection he had to work hard for is huge blow to a man's self esteem.

In "Scientific & Historical Exploration of Cultures, Religions, & the Sexes" Inexorable Username spoke about unicorns, men who are able interact with women both intimately and casually and I believe this is because they aren't affection starved, they don't see affection from women (thus the women themselves) as a precious resource to be secured and jealously guarded.

wow so much suffering imo

Indeed.

 

[redbaron]

if you unironically consider it suffering to be in a monogamous relationship, then just don't enter into one

doing this and then breaking the trust of the person you're with is just kinda pathetic.

 

[Kormak]

-.- your ancestor eye color plays role in what color your kid will have. It's not that simple as mating people of same eye color.- that was my point.

Is this why I have an Adidas tracksuit in Hungarian colors and like squatting while drinking palinka and stuffing my face with semechki?

 

[Rebis]

Males just had the upper hand because females gave birth to the child and as a result their life was of more value. A species doesn't exist without progeny.

A male's life has more value because females give birth?
I think you've got that backwards.

I don't think that episode of futurama including death by "snoo-snoo" will be fulfilled, you hedonistic robot!

Haha yeah what I'm talking about is likely inevitable and just as likely won't occur in my natural lifetime.

My point doesn't make sense, I must've fused the points "Males have the upper hand because females gave birth to a child" and "Females gave birth to a child so as a result their life was of more value. A species doesn't exist without progeny" that's why they were a so-called "Damsel in distress.

Hedonism bot:

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Often when an attractive women passes by my "pod" (sort of a low walled cubical for six) the men (admittedly myself included) stop work to perv only to immediately resume when she notices the lull in keys clacking and people talking. Then again this happens fairly regularly and tends to be the same women walking past, no doubt aware what they're wearing is form-fitting or short and it's not like we're on a major thoroughfare, I'm sure they know what's up.

Man, when I live in Scandinavia I forget how savage the rest of the world is. Like, this sort of stuff would not be not considered normal by any stretch of imagination here.

Its probably why most people from US etc who talk about equality etc sound to me like radical feminists while in fact they have completely normal views relative to where I live.

 

[Kormak]

I'm not suggesting men are singularly driven by the need to raise their own offspring, washti, only that it is an evolutionary engine of genes and memes which has lead to a lot of morally reprehensible practises in religion and culture in general.

I think it's more the memes than the genes, men who find out about children not being theirs are often incredibly emotionally torn by the prospect of abandoning "their" children even though said children aren't genetically theirs. Rather the real motivator for them leaving is the infidelity itself, in a society where affection is strictly rationed out the idea that someone else received the affection he had to work hard for is huge blow to a man's self esteem.

In "Scientific & Historical Exploration of Cultures, Religions, & the Sexes" Inexorable Username spoke about unicorns, men who are able interact with women both intimately and casually and I believe this is because they aren't affection starved, they don't see affection from women (thus the women themselves) as a precious resource to be secured and jealously guarded.

wow so much suffering imo

Indeed.

e_e if she cheated on me, lied to me and had me raise her & his kids on my resources... it means she stole from me. The first reaction is pain, the secondary reaction is anger and an urge to not merely kill, but destroy her.. to find the motherfucker she cucked me with and vent my rage... an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. Rage vengeance, divorce.

The kids are innocent in all of this, it is not their fault, but they carry the genes of their father and mother... not mine. Their father is a sneaker male and their mother is a promiscuous whore. The logical course of action is to defer custody to her and remarry.

In the absence of an afterlife, all that matters really is your biological progeny, as this life is all there is. In this light, they stole a lot from me... and justice will either be served or I will ruin them financially, emotionally, mentally, skirting the law for the rest of their miserable lives, while I remarry. I will make the rest of their lives a living hell.

Adultery is theft. Its a crime and must be punished accordingly.

 

[Cognisant]

Man, when I live in Scandinavia I forget how savage the rest of the world is. Like, this sort of stuff would not be not considered normal by any stretch of imagination here.

I may have dramatized a tad to make my point.

e_e if she cheated on me, lied to me and had me raise her & his kids on my resources... it means she stole from me. The first reaction is pain, the secondary reaction is anger and an urge to not merely kill, but destroy her.. to find the motherfucker she cucked me with and vent my rage... an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. Rage vengeance, divorce.

See this is more extreme than simply the loss of resources, this is deeply personal, if it were a biological thing you would want to kill the kids and make your own (as a lion would) but instead you want absolutely nothing to do with her or insofar as you do it's purely for vengeance, that this could have happened to you is deeply offensive and as much as there is anger there is also despair, a lion would not be so emotional.

 

[Kormak]

See this is more extreme than simply the loss of resources, this is deeply personal, if it were a biological thing you would want to kill the kids and make your own (as a lion would) but instead you want absolutely nothing to do with her or insofar as you do it's purely for vengeance, that this could have happened to you is deeply offensive and as much as there is anger there is also despair, a lion would not be so emotional.

Yeah. I would not take custody of the kids tho, but I would consider them innocent & victims in all of this. I'm not a lion, which would kill the kids, mate with the female again.

 

[Cognisant]

Now suppose we took resources away as a factor, suppose all children are raised in state run boarding houses and your taxes don't change depending upon how many children there are, if your partner has a child by another man does that still upset you?

Assuming it will (indeed that it made practically no difference to your feelings at all) lets move on to the next example, same as before but now your relationship is polyamorous, you live in a tribe of multiple men and women all of whom have intimate relations with each other, so long as you know some of the children are yours does it matter if some of them are half-brothers and half-sisters?

My point is that we're not genetically monogamous, that it's a cultural meme, in other words we're not like lions or chimpanzees or baboons which have one alpha male which is more or less the only breeding male until a usurper kills him or at least drives him off. If humans were like that we males would all be psychotic and there would be far fewer of us as a result, instead I think we're genetically more like bonobos but a patriarchal culture was a successful meme because it made us more violent.

I assume you know what happens when chimps cross paths with bonobos?

"Christianity did not become a major religion by the quality of its truth, but by the quantity of its violence" - Michael Sherlock

Of course in the age of nukes, dead-man switches and autonomous killing machines being violent is only useful if your opponents aren't spiteful and if humanity has a single defining trait that separates us from the animals it's spite. Every predator on Earth has an instinctual wariness of us, no other species takes vengeance like we do, no other species will kill every tiger in the area just to be sure they got the one who dared.

 

[Kormak]

Now suppose we took resources away as a factor, suppose all children are raised in state run boarding houses and your taxes don't change depending upon how many children there are, if your partner has a child by another man does that still upset you?

I would never allow my kids to be raised by the state and I disagee with paying taxes to fund state run institutions which indoctrinate my kids. Since I'd be forced to accept these due to mob rule, I'd be angry about this part, looking for loopholes or a way to get out, as well as angry about her having kids with another guy. When it comes to sex I know through experience that I'm "vanilla" and I have never met a woman who didn't have a higher sex drive than me. I don't get jelous, but I will cut her off and tell her to leave that is a certainty. The idea of screwing her while another man screwed her possibly the day prior is simply disgusting and this kind of behaviour runs contrary to my nature so it is also a point of incompatibility. If other people prefer other types of realtionships, that is their thing, I don;t care what they do. I know through experience that I'm a hihly competitive "K-selected" monogamous heterosexual guy who enjoys meaninful intimate relationships with women who have a lot of agency, autonomy and are not insecure unstabe mental wrecks with isses & outlandish irrational beliefs, who would wish to have some other guy's kids as well as mine. :P for fuck's sake I avoid onenight stands, because I can't fuck a woman if I don't get to know her first... just sex is a huge turnoff.

Assuming it will (indeed that it made practically no difference to your feelings at all) lets move on to the next example, same as before but now your relationship is polyamorous, you live in a tribe of multiple men and women all of whom have intimate relations with each other, so long as you know some of the children are yours does it matter if some of them are half-brothers and half-sisters?

It matters because the risk of inbreeding is very high. Such a community inevitably ends in a genetic disaster... not to mention that the whole place sounds disgusting. I'd probably fall for a woman there, get upset that she screwd another man, probably would beat the guy to a pulp in a fit of rage and just get the hell out of there ... the experience will probably haunt me for the rest of my life.

My point is that we're not genetically monogamous, that it's a cultural meme, in other words we're not like lions or chimpanzees or baboons which have one alpha male which is more or less the only breeding male until a usurper kills him or at least drives him off. If humans were like that we males would all be psychotic and there would be far fewer of us as a result, instead I think we're genetically more like bonobos but a patriarchal culture was a successful meme because it made us more violent.

This is untrue, promiscuous sex, free love, experimentation and various types of relationships are the norm among teenagers. At least where I come from. The cultural expectations are to have sex early, with many partners & experiment. If not, you are looser. Example it never crossed my bisexual girlfriend's mind that I would reject having sex with her and her best friend or that I would eventually break up with her because of stuff like this, and her other esoteric "wiccan" beliefs. I'm 33 dude, Ive been around the block, I'm tired of this garbage and kinda just want to settle down at this point with someone who is stable.

e_e I have done some questionable stuff tho... like having sex with a married woman, she already moved out by that point tho and they were seperated, but It was all kinds of wrong and fucked up, by the end of it it didn't even bother me that she ran off with the guitarist from the local band... There were other stuff like BDSM... e_e why can't women just be fucking normal. Who the fuck cries after sex... and WHY!? Why chose to not talk to me about it? Lots of odd stuff and drama. I totally expect poligamy to be hell tbh. The sheer amount of shit a man has to deal with from women in relationships is incredible, its like they are still children.

I assume you know what happens when chimps cross paths with bonobos?

"Christianity did not become a major religion by the quality of its truth, but by the quantity of its violence" - Michael Sherlock

I assume the chimps rip them apart... quite literally. :/ those things are quite strong.. stronger than humans.

Of course in the age of nukes, dead-man switches and autonomous killing machines being violent is only useful if your opponents aren't spiteful and if humanity has a single defining trait that separates us from the animals it's spite. Every predator on Earth has an instinctual wariness of us, no other species takes vengeance like we do, no other species will kill every tiger in the area just to be sure they got the one who dared.

^^ scary... but its why we have peace at the moment.

 

[Marbles]

In tribal societies where women are all topless all the time the men don't spend all their time gawking at boobs, granted I'm sure they do look but these societies still function so it can't be harming their productivity too greatly. If anything these societies which are assuredly less repressed than our own (if any anthropologists want to weigh in that would be great because I know fuck all about this) may in fact benefit from women largely being the ones to direct and motivate the men rather than those men seeking to appease women through the roundabout and unreliable method of being financially successful.

I think there is a lot of speculation, here, and that we both know fuck all about tribal societies. I read a scientific american article once suggesting that sexual modesty developed to increase productivity. I personally believe it was also about controlling sexuality, but I could of course be wrong. Myself, I wouldn't mind topless women, but it might get cold here in Norway.

Indeed that is a the primary reason more traditional/conservatively minded men want women out of the workforce, not because they hurt productivity or because there's not enough jobs to go around but because it undermines how money motivates men. In of itself we don't give the slightest fuck about money, in of itself we don't care about name-brand shit or the food at fancy restaurants or what model of car/phone we use, that's all just preening and feathering the nest. It's why men go camping, we only need the bare essentials to be happy and we reduce ourselves to that to get away from society's nonsense, but eventually we end up sitting around a campfire talking about women and a day or two later we're compelled to head back to where they all are.

I can't relate to that, not even when I was a teenager, but you could be speaking for the majority of men. I don't know. I believe power holds an attraction of its own to men. Men do not consciously seek power only to attract females.

In my first post I underlined society and culture to emphasize I wasn't talking about the former but rather the latter, not so much who's in charge but rather how our indoctrination to certain concepts makes us think.

Yeah, sorry. I'm still not quite clear on what you meant by that. Do you mean that positions of political power will not be dominated by women, but social interactions will? Who knows... I think it is and will be context dependant. It always annoys me how men drown out women at parties (not least because women tend to be much better conversational partners), and it also annoys me how whipped some men are in accommodating their partners. I would truly like to be in an equal relationship, where my gender is insignificant.

I think this is symptomatic of modern society, in ages past (less than 100 years ago even) people didn't travel much and had large families with high mortality rates so if one of your children was actually your brother's, cousin's or the milkman's (who is still probably on a few branches away from you) that wasn't a huge deal genetically as you share a lot of your genes with them, indeed it could be argued that infidelity is good for genetic diversity and thus the overall health of any given regional gene pool.

That describes the environment our ancestors and social animals in general evolve in. Since sexual jealousy is a strong drive in most (all?) cultures, and exists in so many social animals, the trait not being genetic but cultural would be incredible to me.

That infidelity is good for the genetic health of humanity is undoubtedly true. One man can impregnate an infinite women, but women can only have a baby every nine months. The optimal genetic health is achieved when the strongest men impregnate as many women as possible, while at the same time genetic diversity is maintained. Luckily for our inner childs raised on Disney movies, humanity is so extremely specialized that society benefits from a diverse gene pool (that way we can have many different types of people, suited to different professions)

Indeed this goes both ways, in ages past the care of children was shared by the family as a whole, often including extended family and even the wider community. Even in my own childhood I spent some time on Russel Island which is a fairly rural community and there kids would often eat and sleep at each other's houses. So if there's infidelity going as long as you're participating it's not a waste of resources because the community is effectively pooling their resources to raise the children. For a tribal community this pooling of resources would be a matter-of-course as given their relatively low populations and limited healthcare it's important to the tribe as a whole that there actually are enough surviving children to carry on the tribe.

This is speculative. Here in Norway (and in international media), the role of women in viking societies is discussed ad nauseum. Today's scientist contradicts yesterday's. If we cannot know what tribal societies did a thousand years ago, we certainly cannot know how they lived throughout our evolution. Except, we can look at modern hunter gatherers and primates. They all exhibit jealousy. Humanity is not an anthill, but we do not consist of solo predators, either. We are somewhere in between. We pool our resources, but we also hoard them for personal use.

I don't mean to be rude, but I feel like I am losing sight of the wood here, for all the trees. Do you agree that jealousy is a genetic trait, which can be restrained or exacerbated by culture? Because that is all I am saying.

If a not ugly guy is potentially useful to you and you don't have indoctrinated compunctions about using what you have to get what you want would you be adverse to making out with him? Of course in our world that's a dicey prospect because modesty standards rule out casual make outs thus implying that when you do make out with someone you want something more from them leading to misunderstandings and hurt feelings.

Using men in this manner sounds exploitative but my whole point is that it isn't because that's the way we're wired, that rather it would be profoundly beneficial to our psychology to receive the affection we're starved of regardless of the terms (well within reason) indeed even men in relationships suffer for the fact that we're not really designed for monogamy, almost every adult man I know has been caught cheating at least once and that's just the ones who (and the times they) got caught.

If you take sex out of the picture, I think it's a more likely scenario. I mean, it's only a quantitative difference from our current society. I guess that is your point. I completely disagree that it would be healthy for society, not least because of jealousy, but that is too comlpex for me to substantiate. It is an interesting thought. I really appreciate how you explore all these different topics with an open mind, it is always interesting to read your threads. I hope I'm not too bothersome in my nitpicking.

Also, I don't have any friends I know have cheated on their partners. I really don't think they have. I've never done it myself, either, and while I cannot rule out it happening in the future, I really hope I will never inflict that kind of suffering upon someone I love.

 

[Marbles]

Lmao... Literally the moment after writing this, I put on episode 07 of modern love. The first scene is of a nature documentary. Speaking of gorillas, the narrator goes:

"And now, in a scene as old as time itself, the female, now a mother, presents her baby to the father. It is a tense moment. Males have been known to reject their young if they are in any doubt as to whether or not they are the father. Or even to eat them."

That is a truly weird coincidence.

 

[Kormak]

I can't relate to that, not even when I was a teenager, but you could be speaking for the majority of men. I don't know. I believe power holds an attraction of its own to men. Men do not consciously seek power only to attract females.

Power is it's own reward, confidence & freedom are the side products, all together lure in women like moths to a flame..

 

[Cognisant]

"And now, in a scene as old as time itself, the female, now a mother, presents her baby to the father. It is a tense moment. Males have been known to reject their young if they are in any doubt as to whether or not they are the father. Or even to eat them."

Keep in minds gorillas have an alpha, the silverback, who is only the alpha insofar as he's the biggest meanest male around. When he is defeated his usurper will kill any young that aren't self sufficient so as to free the females to mate with him. Obviously humans aren't like that, we have hierarchies and those in positions of power tend to have better access to females but we don't go around killing each other's children.

 

[Cognisant]

I will concede that I've gotten off track with ployamorous reproduction which wasn't part of my original concept and I see now isn't a defensible position.

 

[Marbles]

Keep in minds gorillas have an alpha, the silverback, who is only the alpha insofar as he's the biggest meanest male around. When he is defeated his usurper will kill any young that aren't self sufficient so as to free the females to mate with him. Obviously humans aren't like that, we have hierarchies and those in positions of power tend to have better access to females but we don't go around killing each other's children.

I meant nothing by it, it was just a funny coincidence. Are you sure humans never killed the children of enemy tribes, though? We certainly killed and continue to kill our own children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
All that is required for the mechanism we discuss to be shaping genetics is a small level of neglect of children you suspect aren't your own.

I will concede that I've gotten off track with ployamorous reproduction which wasn't part of my original concept and I see now isn't a defensible position.

No, I get it man. It is a tangent. I just thought it interesting in light of the religion and misogyny thread.

 

[redbaron]

Often when an attractive women passes by my "pod" (sort of a low walled cubical for six) the men (admittedly myself included) stop work to perv only to immediately resume when she notices the lull in keys clacking and people talking. Then again this happens fairly regularly and tends to be the same women walking past, no doubt aware what they're wearing is form-fitting or short and it's not like we're on a major thoroughfare, I'm sure they know what's up.

Man, when I live in Scandinavia I forget how savage the rest of the world is. Like, this sort of stuff would not be not considered normal by any stretch of imagination here.

Its probably why most people from US etc who talk about equality etc sound to me like radical feminists while in fact they have completely normal views relative to where I live.

sheltered scandinavian finds the regular occurrences of other cultures shocking

news at 10

i encounter at least one similar instance per day at my work

insofar as i can tell, it's the norm for a lot of males in australia to be like this. cognisant also lives in a shitty city/state where it may not just be common, but the actual norm

 

[Cognisant]

If you take sex out of the picture, I think it's a more likely scenario. I mean, it's only a quantitative difference from our current society. I guess that is your point. I completely disagree that it would be healthy for society, not least because of jealousy, but that is too comlpex for me to substantiate.

I’m making several assumptions which each work off the others, I’m assuming that in a society where women aren’t indoctrinated into the patriarchal culture of modesty that due to having a sex drive equal to (if not greater) than men they would be just as if not more promiscuous as men. However I’m not strictly talking about sex, there’s a lot of activities that fall under the purview of intimacy and that’s what I mean by being more “promiscuous”, that they would have little compunction about engaging in intimate activates, i.e. making out, petting, foreplay, non-coital sexual favours. There will of course always be some trepidation around coital activities as there exists the risk of pregnancy or the transmission of STDs, although I imagine in such a society family planning services and related healthcare would be a much higher priority. In summary apart from unprotected sex (which even men are wary of for exactly the same reasons) women would have much the same attitude towards sexual activities as men, that being absolutely zero fear of being seen as easy or being labelled a slut. If you call a man a slut there’s this moment of confusion as he tries to figure out whether he should feel insulted or proud, does that not seem to you a massive double standard?

Following on from this I believe women would be more comfortable engaging in these casual intimate activities if men were less possessive/presumptuous which are both symptomatic of a culture in which affection is rationed out to them in a strictly controlled manner. When Inexorable Username explained her concept of unicorns I wondered what a society where all men are like that would look like and how could it come about, really this all more about the expression of affection than sexual gratification but being restricted to unambiguously platonic interactions makes such expressions extremely limited.

Now there’s two foundational assumptions I could be wrong about, the first being that women would want to motivate men to be useful which itself is based on the assumption that men are useful but as I mentioned before in a modern capitalist society there’s very few things women actually need men for. It’s like attractive women going to a bar intending to flirt and have men buy drinks for them, it may save them some money but they have their own money so such behaviour is really more for its own sake, they don’t want the drinks so much as they want the attention. By the same principle some men would still be set to benefit from women being more willing to be casually intimate but they would be the exception, the ones whose attractiveness is significantly above average. Most men would be no better off and I can see the resentment of being left out so to speak being the factor that enabled a patriarchal slut-shaming culture to gain prominence in the first place, in which case such a culture being re-established is practically inevitable.

The second assumption is that even if men are useful it may be the case that women just aren’t interested in engaging in casual intimacy regardless of their freedom to do so in which case this entire discussion is pointless.

 

[Kormak]

sheltered scandinavian finds the regular occurrences of other cultures shocking

news at 10

i encounter at least one similar instance per day at my work

insofar as i can tell, it's the norm for a lot of males in australia to be like this. cognisant also lives in a shitty city/state where it may not just be common, but the actual norm

Scandinavians are strange. I hear there are hand grenade attacks there nowadays. I know a family living in Malmö (the wife is from here), they decided to move to the countryside out of fear for their 2 daughters.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

sheltered scandinavian finds the regular occurrences of other cultures shocking

news at 10

i encounter at least one similar instance per day at my work

insofar as i can tell, it's the norm for a lot of males in australia to be like this. cognisant also lives in a shitty city/state where it may not just be common, but the actual norm

Scandinavians are strange. I hear there are hand grenade attacks there nowadays. I know a family living in Malmö (the wife is from here), they decided to move to the countryside out of fear for their 2 daughters.

I lived in Stockholm for about 2 years and never really felt comfortable, there’s always an eery feeling that something is about to happen. About 2 months after moving back to Norway there was a bomb that went off right next to the neighborhood I used to live in. Also around the end of my stay in Stockholm, 3 of the subway stations in the city were officially declared no-go zones; places where they for example wouldn’t do ticket controls without police escort.

 

[Marbles]

sheltered scandinavian finds the regular occurrences of other cultures shocking

news at 10

i encounter at least one similar instance per day at my work

insofar as i can tell, it's the norm for a lot of males in australia to be like this. cognisant also lives in a shitty city/state where it may not just be common, but the actual norm

Scandinavians are strange. I hear there are hand grenade attacks there nowadays. I know a family living in Malmö (the wife is from here), they decided to move to the countryside out of fear for their 2 daughters.

I lived in Stockholm for about 2 years and never really felt comfortable, there’s always an eery feeling that something is about to happen. About 2 months after moving back to Norway there was a bomb that went off right next to the neighborhood I used to live in. Also around the end of my stay in Stockholm, 3 of the subway stations in the city were officially declared no-go zones; places where they for example wouldn’t do ticket controls without police escort.

I hear billionaires are hoarding New Zealand citizenships for whwn western civilization falls. Perhaps we should get some for Iceland, Serac. Start an INTP enclave up there.