17 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyWhat you're saying doesn't make sense. You're saying that stone age men were were more civilized than when biblical laws were made. You think stone age men were civilized bloke who took things like a woman's feelings to heart, but then became less civilized as time went on, and biblical laws were made? That's obviously dumb. As bad as it was in bible times, stone age men could only have been worse.men didn't care about women's wants, especially when it came to sex.
But, in the stone age (just like now in most societies ) it isn't just the men who decides who has sex with who, it is the woman as well -if the man wants it but the woman doesn't, often the woman desire (or lack of it ) would ensure it still doesn't happen (unless you a ...[text shortened]... hat they are now and we wouldn't know exactly what those rules would have been -think stone age!
17 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseCan u give specific examples of when women contolled societies?
I didn't think you were for genital mutilation, I was just pointing out it happens on a daily basis more in the past but still.
There was a time before the Minoans that women were in control of society and it would have been evolutionarily expedient for men to please their women and thereby passing on their genes preferentially.
18 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by vivify
What you're saying doesn't make sense. You're saying that stone age men were were more civilized than when biblical laws were made. You think stone age men were civilized bloke who took things like a woman's feelings to heart, but then became less civilized as time went on, and biblical laws were made? That's obviously dumb. As bad as it was in bible times, stone age men could only have been worse.
You're saying that stone age men were more civilized than when biblical laws were made.
No, I wasn't saying THAT Although, for all we know, they generally were.
You think stone age men were civilized bloke who took things like a woman's feelings to heart,
I can assume that, just like in our society, that would have varied, sometimes being so and sometimes being not but, why not sometimes so?
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by vivifyThere may be very few if any such examples:
Can u give specific examples of when women contolled societies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy
“...
A matriarchy is a social organizational form in which the mother or oldest female heads the family and descent and relationship are determined through the female line and it is government or rule by a woman or women.
Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal.[51][52][53] According to J. M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer, and Jake Page, no true matriarchy is known actually to have existed.[48] Anthropologist Joan Bamberger argued that the historical record contains no primary sources on any society in which women dominated.[54] Anthropologist Donald Brown's list of human cultural universals (viz., features shared by nearly all current human societies) includes men being the "dominant element" in public political affairs,[55] which he asserts is the contemporary opinion of mainstream anthropology.[citation needed] There are some disagreements and possible exceptions. A belief that women's rule preceded men's rule was, according to Haviland, "held by many nineteenth-century intellectuals".[3] The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second-wave feminism, but the hypothesis is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it was never true
...”
However, woman don't need to dominate society to have control over who has sex with them. If you want to have sex with a woman and she says no, I assume you wouldn’t and that means she has control over that. Why would that been generally different in caveman days? Merely living in a cave doesn't make you savage and immoral!
18 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyBecause the further you go back in human history, the worse women were treated. Go back a bit in what what's considered "civilized" society, and women weren't given equal pay. Go back more, they couldn't vote. Go back even more, they couldn't choose their husbands and were "given away". Go back even more, they were stoned for premarital sex. Thus, it's logical to conclude that men treated women even worse when man was even more primitive.
I can assume that, just like in our society, that would have varied, sometimes being so and sometimes being not but, why not sometimes so?
18 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyEven now, women are raped. I assume you're from a western nation; if so, don't judge the world only by your area. Many nations, like middle Eastern or tribal one's, rape is a horrible and sadly common thing. And because women in these some of these nations are forced into marriage, it's not even considered rape when the man the husuband they didn't want has sex with them.
However, woman don't need to dominate society to have control over who has sex with them. If you want to have sex with a woman and she says no, I assume you wouldn’t and that means she has control over that. Why would that been generally different in caveman days? Merely living in a cave doesn't make you savage and immoral!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/third-of-girls-in-42-countries-forced-into-child-marriages/
JUBA, SOUTH SUDAN The 17-year-old beaten to death for refusing to marry a man old enough to be her grandfather. The teen dragged by her family to be raped to force her into marrying an elderly man. They are among 39,000 girls forced into marriage every day around the world, sold like cattle to enrich their families.More than one-third of all girls are married in 42 countries, according to the U.N. Population Fund, referring to females under the age of 18. The highest number of cases occurs in some of the poorest countries, the agency figures show, with the West African nation of Niger at the bottom of the list with 75 percent of girls married before they turn 18. In Bangladesh the figure is 66 percent and in Central African Republic and Chad it is 68 percent.Most child marriages take place in South Asia and rural sub-Saharan Africa, according to the population fund. In terms of absolute numbers, India, because of its large population, has the most child marriages with child brides in 47 percent of all marriages.
if this is how things are in the most tolerant and progressive age in human history, why wouldn't you thonk it was worse when man was more primal?
18 Jan 14
2 edits
Originally posted by vivifyI think that is an unsafe application of the principle of induction. I am sure there was always rape but you cannot reliably extrapolate how well woman were generally treated in the stone age from how they were treated at various periods of time after the stone age for it would be a huge assumption that there has always been exactly the same general trend or the change in how well they are treatment with time and it would be unsurprising if there was a general deterioration in their treatment immediately after the stone age followed by a gradual improvement. The fact is, we simply cannot be sure how they were treated back then -no proper records.
Because the further you go back in human history, the worse women were treated. Go back a bit in what what's considered "civilized" society, and women weren't given equal pay. Go back more, they couldn't vote. Go back even more, they couldn't choose their husbands and were "given away". Go back even more, they were stoned for premarital sex. Thus, it's logical to conclude that men treated women even worse when man was even more primitive.
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by vivify
Even now, women are raped. I assume you're from a western nation; if so, don't judge the world only by your area. Many nations, like middle Eastern or tribal one's, rape is a horrible and sadly common thing. And because women in these some of these nations are forced into marriage, it's not even considered rape when the man the husuband they didn't want ha ...[text shortened]... progressive age in human history, why wouldn't you thonk it was worse when man was more primal?
Even now, women are raped.
Isn't that an indication that women may not necessarily be treated better now than in the stone age?
if this is how things are in the most tolerant and progressive age in human history, why wouldn't you thonk it was worse when man was more primal?
I don't make that assumption. I assume we cannot know for sure and I don't know what little evidence there is says about that. Anyway, it may not make any difference even if they were treated worse then than now for many woman even then may still have some control over whether someone has sex with them and having some control would be enough for an evolutionary effect. Many would not have been totally powerless and I would image that many societies even back then may not have necessarily generally tolerated rape.
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyI wasn't disputing whether they have zero control or not. The point is that based on human history, we can assume that primitive men caring about a woman's orgasm as an explanation for how it evolved, is a weak one.Even now, women are raped.
Isn't that an indication that women may not necessarily be treated better now than in the stone age?
if this is how things are in the most tolerant and progressive age in human history, why wouldn't you thonk it was worse when man was more primal?
I don't make that assumption. I assume ...[text shortened]... ould image that many societies even back then may not have necessarily generally tolerated rape.
18 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyThat was not my explanation of how it evolved. A stone age man not caring about a woman's orgasm wouldn't make any difference when the woman says no to sex and saying yes or no to sex only has to work some of the time for it to have an evolutionary effect.
I wasn't disputing whether they have zero control or not. The point is that based on human history, we can assume that primitive men caring about a woman's orgasm as an explanation for how it evolved, is a weak one.
18 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyThe topic is about how female orgasm developed. You said that it partly developed because men liked satisfying women sexually, and I showed why that doesn't really work. Saying yes or no to sex doesn't help explain why their orgasms evolved.
That was not my explanation of how it evolved. A stone age man not caring about a woman's orgasm wouldn't make any difference when the woman says no to sex and saying yes or no to sex only has to work some of the time for it to have an evolutionary effect.
19 Jan 14
Originally posted by vivify
The topic is about how female orgasm developed. You said that it partly developed because men liked satisfying women sexually, and I showed why that doesn't really work. Saying yes or no to sex doesn't help explain why their orgasms evolved.
You said that it partly developed because men liked satisfying women sexually,
I never said this.
19 Jan 14
Cant we agree that in stone-age times men and women were basically
the same as modern Man? And while past societies treated women badly
does that mean women were treated badly within relationships?
Also have you considered that in pre-history perhaps more women had
orgasms more easily? And that the original evolutionary reason for the
female orgasm no longer exists?
19 Jan 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59I would say to those 4 questions in the order given: yes; yes; perhaps; yes.
Cant we agree that in stone-age times men and women were basically
the same as modern Man? And while past societies treated women badly
does that mean women were treated badly within relationships?
Also have you considered that in pre-history perhaps more women had
orgasms more easily? And that the original evolutionary reason for the
female orgasm no longer exists?
19 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyLet me rephrase. You said women developed orgasms because they'd tell men what they liked, and infering that men would oblige. For the reasons mentioned, this is unlikely, and 5hus, a weak explanation for hoe female orgasm evolved.You said that it partly developed because men liked satisfying women sexually,
I never said this.