Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

[jiimbergin]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

this has become a very confused thread.

you are right, to get back to the subject in my experience the answer to the subject of this thread is NO!

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Shiny, I agree women were beaten and sold because they were female and the majority were physically weaker than men throughout history.

That is because the men were killed. If people would actually read the historical accounts they would read that women who were enslaved were typically from conquered peoples. Women were considered valuable commodities as slaves while men were rivals and vermin so they were killed. This can be learned in Sunday school reading the Hebrew invasion of the Levant. Men have this problem of falling in love with women and then they become mothers and daughters so slavery rarely sticks . I guess its really true. Make sure you kill your victims because the women were left alive to complain about their slavery. The men dead on the ground never said a peep.

However I do not agree that blacks were beaten and sold into slavery simply because they were black. Honestly that is a naive statement one born out of some sort of liberal theology that permeates the social mind in the West.

As someone of Slavic decent I quite agree. Do you think that Slavic might be related perhaps? Might be why the first place that outlawed Slavery in Europe was Dubrovnik in 1416.


The African Slaves were sold by other Africans as conquered peoples just like Greek and Roman slaves.

Blacks were slaves because they lacked the technological advancements to defend themselves in a world where man took on man, nation took on nation in a win at all costs scenario.

They were conquered so indeed.

At one time certain groups of whites (Vandals, Germans, Spanairds, Greeks, Arabs etc etc) were also beaten and sold into slavery not because of the color of their skin but because they were weaker: intellectually, militarily and technologically.

The Arabs were even up to 1888 taking slaves from Scandanavia to the Middle East when the enslavement of blacks at least in the US was over.

Marx thought slaves had it good in America compared to British wage labor.

happy to provide references to my statements on request......

[jk]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

That is because the men were killed. If people would actually read the historical accounts they would read that women who were enslaved were typically from conquered peoples. Women were considered valuable commodities as slaves while men were rivals and vermin so they were killed. This can be learned in Sunday school reading the Hebrew invasion of the Levant. Men have this problem of falling in love with women and then they become mothers and daughters so slavery rarely sticks . I guess its really true. Make sure you kill your victims because the women were left alive to complain about their slavery. The men dead on the ground never said a peep.....

a part of why 80% of women reproduced and only 40% of men.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

gwynedd, you might really enjoy that essay i linked to. it's fascinating and fun, and not at all about being pc. frankly, i recommend that essay to anyone and everyone. but i particularly mentioned it to you, gwynedd, because i think baumeister is making some of the same points you did, albeit in a more playful tone.

Like the typical comedian I find humor the best anti PC remedy with the likes of ...intolerance for a sustainable diversity ...everyone gets Mexican gardener in a classless society ...or sometimes I even use the "N" word. I will drive by a sorority house and yell Nubile out the window. I know, pretty low huh? I should probably use the V word at a frat house to make it equal. But then maybe I should use the same word? I know I'll just call everyone men. Why even have the word women? Its the W word. Its not equal. Calling a man a woman is oppressive to men...well not to men who were men but to men who were formerly called women. I just hope men who were formerly men don't try to make themselves a special word . Imagine for example if a group of people were called men , but if they were all specifically formerly men(male) and they now insisted on being called a broman. On the other hand, if we accepted it, would it be right to call mixed company men when there are also bromen? I mean why just is assume its all men when there are also bromen? Should't it be men and bromen?

[jiimbergin]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

I do consider my late wife and my current wife as my equal, but that does not mean I think we are the same. I still open the door for my wife as I did for my late wife of 46 years. I tend to do the things that my superior strength calls for as other things I do better and she tends to do things that more fits her skills. But I have no problem doing dishes or vacuuming or making the bed. Things that we both are capable of doing are shared based on who has what time. This is why I consider us equals. And I assure you that it did not affect our sex life in either marriage, other than I am now 70 years old so it is a bit different than when I was younger

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

I do consider my late wife and my current wife as my equal, but that does not mean I think we are the same. I still open the door for my wife as I did for my late wife of 46 years. I tend to do the things that my superior strength calls for as other things I do better and she tends to do things that more fits her skills. But I have no problem doing dishes or vacuuming or making the bed. Things that we both are capable of doing are shared based on who has what time. This is why I consider us equals. And I assure you that it did not affect our sex life in either marriage, other than I am now 70 years old so it is a bit different than when I was younger

Does that mean I have don't have to watch the American and Canadian women's hockey team beat each other up?

[jk]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

gwynedd, why are so intense about issues of gender roles?

[shiny!]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Shiny, I agree women were beaten and sold because they were female and the majority were physically weaker than men throughout history.

However I do not agree that blacks were beaten and sold into slavery simply because they were black. Honestly that is a naive statement one born out of some sort of liberal theology that permeates the social mind in the West.

Blacks were slaves because they lacked the technological advancements to defend themselves in a world where man took on man, nation took on nation in a win at all costs scenario.

At one time certain groups of whites (Vandals, Germans, Spanairds, Greeks, Arabs etc etc) were also beaten and sold into slavery not because of the color of their skin but because they were weaker: intellectually, militarily and technologically.

The Arabs were even up to 1888 taking slaves from Scandanavia to the Middle East when the enslavement of blacks at least in the US was over.

I was referring to the period of American slavery when blacks were bought and sold as slaves. Not Scandanavians, Germans, Spaniards, Greeks or Arabs. Blacks. The cultural mindset among a substantial number of people in America at that time was that blacks were less than fully human. That mindset still existed among many of my relatives when I was growing up in the South. When it comes to women, a similar mindset still exists today in large parts of the world.

Look at how the U.S. sanctioned and boycotted South Africa for its racist policy of apartheid. Yet, we don't sanction countries that permit discrimination and atrocities to be committed against women and girls simply by virtue of their sex. We say it's "cultural" and not our place to impose our values on them. I say that's a double standard.

When O.J. Simpson was on trial for murder of a white woman, the news commentators were all about how blacks might riot if he was convicted. No one ever suggested that women might riot if he was acquitted.

Of course women didn't riot. What I'm getting at is that we have a double standard. Our culture has evolved enough to find discrimination based on race abhorrent (people will riot against perceived racial discrimination), but discrimination based on sex is still an accepted part of the status quo (women won't riot, and if you protest against it you are ridiculed). Do people still snigger at the concept of racial equality under the law? Are people who oppose racism ridiculed? Not so much anymore.

But look at the terms bandied about by genderists to show contempt for the concept of sexual equality under the law and those who work to achieve it: Equality crap, Bra burners, Feminazis, Lesbos, "She just needs a real man to show her what's what"...

Things have gotten much, much better in the USA from when I was a girl, but the lives of women and girls in many other countries are still horrific.

[Polish_Silver]

Looking the other way

. . .

Look at how the U.S. sanctioned and boycotted South Africa for its racist policy of apartheid. Yet, we don't sanction countries that permit discrimination and atrocities to be committed against women and girls simply by virtue of their sex. We say it's "cultural" and not our place to impose our values on them. I say that's a double standard.

.

I've been wondering about that very problem for years.

We boycotted SA, but there was no international movement against The great leap forward, or Stalin's Ukrainian famine, etc. My gut is to say that left wing attrocities are the one's over looked, but I think the reality is that people are fickle. Somehow the world got worked up over SA, but not the soviet oppression of Eastern Europe.

I can see some logic to boycotting countries that violate human rights,
but the the principles need to be elaborated ahead of time, and not just applied on an ad hoc basis, which is exactly what does happen.

Major problem is, the USA backed violators for decades (Shah being example #1) and is even now violating rights
with drone attacks.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

gwynedd, why are so intense about issues of gender roles?

I am intensely against all group think. I know very well not being part of the group means for me. I also usually view declarations of goodness as the boutique of sheep's clothing where tyranny shops for its fashions. Now besides the fact that feminism is all these things, many of its forms is also a pack of lies. Lets look at voting. Women it is said were not allowed to vote. Indeed for thousands of years no one was allowed to vote. So this means that much adieu is made about perhaps a century. Now what reasons were there for this? Since there were no counting machines and it was no doubt a laborious task, it made sense to essentially vote by household with man the "head of household". Since women could not really be very independent on the frontier, especially if they were to have 10 children, 4 of whom died in infancy ,it made little sense given the resources necessary. Thus another thing I hate is judging a society in history in a time of modern conveniences. Imagine condemning a small island of 100 people for their capital punishment without a proper trial, sentencing and rehabilitation? Incarceration is a modern luxury.

Thus the modern interpretation of feminism has become not that environment and necessity tossed us around like pool toys in a tempest, but that men are inherently evil and oppressive towards women. Therefore men must be controlled , held to task, presumed dangerous and recklessness with their animal spirits . Then when one dares disagree with this, then one is accused of oppressing women. That means we oppress or grandmothers. mothers, sisters, daughters and wives. Why not walk up to a mother and suggest she beats her child if you don't agree with her parenting? So anyone who says I want to oppress women is essentially saying I hate my wife. What a vile and disgusting accusation and they toss these accusations freely.


However also being one to mind the details, I take note in modern times that with smaller families and less integration with extended families women have lost some of their traditional protection. Thus there is a place to afford civil protection. Yet this created serious side effects allowing women to experiment with attractive but less reliable men. In traditional societies young women were not merely protected but also discouraged from making poor choices. Modern society replaces those protections, but without the guidance. Thus the single mama phenomenon was born. So now civil society has had to react again with hunting down the dead beat dads. Yet this is reactionary and as we can see young women often make their own future grim. Men are not bad, but there are bad men. Thus it goes back to my contention that justice is no easy task.

It would take volumes to go through the everything wrong with these polemics. Its what tribalism managed on its own. Small societies guide themselves by their own contextually rich common laws. They know all the circumstances and can judge rightly. That is why I believe justice is in the direction of states and local government. Good intentions to protect any group will just become tools of oppression on a large scale. Show me who has been made happy.

[jk]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

I am intensely against all group think. I know very well not being part of the group means for me. I also usually view declarations of goodness as the boutique of sheep's clothing where tyranny shops for its fashions. Now besides the fact that feminism is all these things, many of its forms is also a pack of lies. Lets look at voting. Women it is said were not allowed to vote. Indeed for thousands of years no one was allowed to vote. So this means that much adieu is made about perhaps a century. Now what reasons were there for this? Since there were no counting machines and it was no doubt a laborious task, it made sense to essentially vote by household with man the "head of household". Since women could not really be very independent on the frontier, especially if they were to have 10 children, 4 of whom died in infancy ,it made little sense given the resources necessary. Thus another thing I hate is judging a society in history in a time of modern conveniences. Imagine condemning a small island of 100 people for their capital punishment without a proper trial, sentencing and rehabilitation? Incarceration is a modern luxury.

Thus the modern interpretation of feminism has become not that environment and necessity tossed us around like pool toys in a tempest, but that men are inherently evil and oppressive towards women. Therefore men must be controlled , held to task, presumed dangerous and recklessness with their animal spirits . Then when one dares disagree with this, then one is accused of oppressing women. That means we oppress or grandmothers. mothers, sisters, daughters and wives. Why not walk up to a mother and suggest she beats her child if you don't agree with her parenting? So anyone who says I want to oppress women is essentially saying I hate my wife. What a vile and disgusting accusation and they toss these accusations freely.


However also being one to mind the details, I take note in modern times that with smaller families and less integration with extended families women have lost some of their traditional protection. Thus there is a place to afford civil protection. Yet this created serious side effects allowing women to experiment with attractive but less reliable men. In traditional societies young women were not merely protected but also discouraged from making poor choices. Modern society replaces those protections, but without the guidance. Thus the single mama phenomenon was born. So now civil society has had to react again with hunting down the dead beat dads. Yet this is reactionary and as we can see young women often make their own future grim. Men are not bad, but there are bad men. Thus it goes back to my contention that justice is no easy task.

It would take volumes to go through the everything wrong with these polemics. Its what tribalism managed on its own. Small societies guide themselves by their own contextually rich common laws. They know all the circumstances and can judge rightly. That is why I believe justice is in the direction of states and local government. Good intentions to protect any group will just become tools of oppression on a large scale. Show me who has been made happy.

i think this post expresses a lot of interesting and worthwhile ideas, and in a tone that makes them more accessible [to me at least] than your prior posts. somehow the angry-seeming, hostile-seeming tone of your prior posts made it harder to extract the ideas.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

i think this post expresses a lot of interesting and worthwhile ideas, and in a tone that makes them more accessible [to me at least] than your prior posts. somehow the angry-seeming, hostile-seeming tone of your prior posts made it harder to extract the ideas.

+1

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

i think this post expresses a lot of interesting and worthwhile ideas, and in a tone that makes them more accessible [to me at least] than your prior posts. somehow the angry-seeming, hostile-seeming tone of your prior posts made it harder to extract the ideas.

Of course I was angry. I was being insulted because I was harsh on the idea of equality by calling it crap but harsh to no one. I am quite ruthless on ideas no doubt, but I would ask anyone to to find where I initiated a personal attack. Simply show me where I initiated the conflict as a personal attck and I will prompty appologize anywhere and at anytime.

One thing I can say is I think I know the underlying principe that puts me at odds with modern society. People have begun to think humans are masters of invention. We are miserable in this task. We are masters of discovery. Thus if we all become a monoculture we will begin to invent all things including justice. We will stagnate and die. Food today for example was treated like a fashion. And now since the ill effects are being felt new ideas are trying to be invented. Suchi went with wasabi because its antibacterial.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15246236

Its not an optional spice. Nor was it optional to not lye process corn.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6357846

Nor was beer a luxery and a vice.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...i-and-ulcers1/

We did not whimisically invent fashions , we discovered neccessity.

As our social inventions fail we continue to blind ourselves to the discovery that they are lacking. And the solution to the failure of these invensions is to suppress and destroy dissent and opportunties for discovery. And if our progress leads to monoculture then we are progressing by consuming the source of discovery, and its just as much a finite resource as rare earths or oil.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

That is because the men were killed. If people would actually read the historical accounts they would read that women who were enslaved were typically from conquered peoples. Women were considered valuable commodities as slaves while men were rivals and vermin so they were killed. This can be learned in Sunday school reading the Hebrew invasion of the Levant. Men have this problem of falling in love with women and then they become mothers and daughters so slavery rarely sticks . I guess its really true. Make sure you kill your victims because the women were left alive to complain about their slavery. The men dead on the ground never said a peep.

Yes, I quite agree. The slaves were taken from conquered people, women, men and children. Most of the men were killed but some taken as slaves. The women brought back and incorporated into society in various fashions.

Since you are of Slavic descent then you know the word Slavic = slave, because those people were the ones the Romans took as slaves first (by proxy of geography).

Should modern Slavic people now take up arms against the Italians and demand reparations?

They were conquered so indeed.

For the better part of 2500 years the West, Levant and North Africa left the Africans of sub-Saharan Africa alone. I wonder why that is? The only conquerors who seemed to care from about 700 AD to 1400 (aside from Egypt which was not black and served as the bread basket of the Roman empire for hundreds of years) were the Arabs who conquered all of North Africa and established a few cities, namely the much ballyhooed city of Timbuktu, and of course all the cities in Morocco, Libya etc and the eastern horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea).

Imagine how Bartholomew Diaz felt or what he thought when he landed in present day South Africa while trying to find a safe route around Africa (again avoiding the sub-Saharan portion of the continent) in the 1480's and saw tribesmen running around in only loin clothes with wooden weapons?

I can only imagine that he must of thought these people were very primitive since he came from great cities, castles, agriculture, writing etc in Europe. If the African people had great cities (like China or India) where spices were sold and commerce was conducted I am sure the African people would never had been slaves (at least in the sense of transporting them across the ocean to the new world).

Why did the Europeans never take Chinese as slaves even though they virtually conquered the east coast of China around Hong Kong etc? Yes, I am sure few were taken just like Indian indentured servants in Trinidad and Tobago or the ones used as wage slaves in UAE today.

Questions rarely asked.

[jk]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Of course I was angry.

understandably, you felt anger. how you expressed yourself at that point was a choice, and if your goal is to be understood, you might want to be more strategic in how you choose to say what you say.

I was being insulted because I was harsh on the idea of equality by calling it crap ...

i think in this discussion people were assuming different definitions of "equality." some people took it to mean identical in every way, as in mathematical equality. others took it to mean something more abstract, such as "equal before the law," i.e. equal in rights but not in properties [and when i say "properties" i don't mean real estate, i mean it in the way someone might say that a mathematical object has certain properties, say transitivity or commutivity. or the way we might say that someone is more skilled or able to perform some specified task].

One thing I can say is I think I know the underlying principe that puts me at odds with modern society. People have begun to think humans are masters of invention. We are miserable in this task. We are masters of discovery. Thus if we all become a monoculture we will begin to invent all things including justice. We will stagnate and die. Food today for example was treated like a fashion. And now since the ill effects are being felt new ideas are trying to be invented. Suchi went with wasabi because its antibacterial.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15246236

Its not an optional spice. Nor was it optional to not lye process corn.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6357846

Nor was beer a luxery and a vice.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...i-and-ulcers1/

We did not whimisically invent fashions , we discovered neccessity.

As our social inventions fail we continue to blind ourselves to the discovery that they are lacking. And the solution to the failure of these invensions is to suppress and destroy dissent and opportunties for discovery. And if our progress leads to monoculture then we are progressing by consuming the source of discovery, and its just as much a finite resource as rare earths or oil.

you are packing together a lot of ideas here, and the connections among them are not completely obvious to me. i don't know what it means to say that people think they are masters of invention. certainly there are things we call inventions and even things recognized as "inventions" by being patented. you seem to mean something both broader and more profound, but i'm not sure what you have in mind.

your observations about the biology of food preparation, and those about the dangers of monocultures certainly make sense to me. you then jump to "social inventions" without making clear what that encompasses, though i suppose you are talking about the concept of "equality." i think i could guess how you think this kind of concept would "suppress and destroy dissent and opportunities for discovery," but my guesses may or may not be a description of what you have in mind. also it is not clear to me in what manner we are "consuming the source of discovery." so you might want to unpack those conclusions if you want to be fully understood.