*Penetrative Sex Only when Willing to Raise a Child*

Post Reply New Topic

This difference in physical capacity might partly explain the division of labour but it doesn't explain why, almost without exception, women did not have the freedom to leave home and work elsewhere whenever they wanted, to live without a male escort/owner/guardian.

Most women have always done all sorts of work that earned money long before the industrial revolution, for as long as civilisation has existed, in the cottage industries/crafts, the farms, the bakeries, other shops, and making pots, textiles, etc etc etc. And when the industrial revolution happened women worked in the mills and factories because it was the work that they had always done, just mechanised.

The difference is that they began demanding rights ( to go with this work ) to match the ones that had been gradually doled out first to the proprietaires and then to all white men and then black men. It was the campaign for black rights which gave them the idea. Rights which would allow them to exist independently of men without incurring censure, which would allow them to own their own money, buy their own property, live on their own, ( if they wanted to ).

.

The fact is that for the last 10,000 years, until 50-100 years ago in the "developed" world, there was a taboo against "lone women". A woman without a man was, ( generally ), a scandal/shocking to social mores. Even now the term "loose woman" has a seriously perjorative meaning.

An unattached woman was seen as somehow immoral. I think it may have been because if a woman lived alone it meant that somewhere, as a result, there was a "lone man", who constituted a threat to the peace and stability of society. The term was insulting to the woman because it was a woman's duty, as a member of society, to be attached to a man.

The people who invented the solution to "lone males", and set up this system, probably sincerely believed that so long as men comported themselves in a civilised way with the woman allotted to them by the system, respected and appreciated her for her contribution to the wellbeing of society, women would not suffer from the arrangement.

Now that the taboo has been exploded a significant minority of men are finding themselves alone again. Women only divided themselves up amongst all ( or most ) men when they "had to", as part of a kind of social contract. And only tolerated this system so long as men remembered why it existed and appreciated what women did towards the stability of society, ( rather than excluding them from other human rights for example ).

I wonder what solution society will come up with this time for the increasing numbers of depressed, frustrated, indignant, miserable men who find no steady partner. Even if humans have become civilised to the point where ( most ) lone males are no longer likely to become violent/dangerous/a physical menace to society, ( if excluded for most of their lives from relationship with a woman ), there is the question of the gene pool.

The "lone woman" taboo ensured that most men, whatever their "qualifications", got a chance to reproduce, and meant that many genes were reproduced which under the "jungle" system would not have been. This has probably, over the 10,000 years the system has been in place, resulted in a greater variety of genes in the gene pool, which may have contributed to human versatility/adaptability, ... ... or its decline .

Perhaps sexual-services provided/paid for by the state/government is not such a crazy idea after all.

.

Never said anything about them being superior. Just...different. Probably a high percentage of AS working on the atom bomb. The first weapons were probably invented by nerdy Aspies fed up at having sand kicked in their faces by knuckleheads. Got to take the blame for the bad effects of technology, too.


Some of us have *never* thought that a crazy idea!

On females as a 'civilizing' influence on males: In general yes, but then some really awful male behaviour is an attempt to impress the females. Men who demonstrate they are the meanest knucklehead by perpetrating or threatening violence against the weaker knuckleheads, are *never* short of a date or 10.