Sex and Control

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

In Western Civilization, the ‘Cultural Left’ represents State / Government / Secular moral values while the ‘Cultural Right’ represents Religious Abrahamism / Christianity / Judaism. In either case, both systems as societies, seek to dominate and control the sexual impulse and ‘Choice’ of individuals. In Abrahamism, “Traditionalism” is the path most follow to marry within a Church. The Church acts as third-party, and as representative of ‘God the Father’ (Patriarchy). Marriage then is at the approval of society’s highest Patriarch.

This is opposite of Cultural Leftism that sets itself on Eugenics and overall reducing population. The Left doesn’t want males to reproduce. And if they do reproduce, then Leftism wants these males weak, servile, and subservient to the State / Government / Partisan political party. Thus “Marriage” according to Leftism is merely a legal formality and general, broad agreement, with no real substance. Homosexuals can marry. Transexuals can marry. Reproduction is not the intent of marriage according to the Left perspective. Rather it is the ability to access Welfare and State resources, as a means of ‘buying back’ votes.

Whether Left or Right however, both sides of Civilization require vast “education” (ie. propaganda, dogma, indoctrination) into their respective systems. While Leftists generally don’t want the masses to breed, the Right wants their flock to breed, as long as Husband and Wife are subservient to (the Abrahamic) God. The religious Right depend upon an abstraction, and an appeal to a mystical All-Father. The secular Left however, more pragmatic, depends on indoctrination-itself. Under Locke and Rousseau, the Left relies on their ‘Secular’ perversion of Abrahamic morals, ethics, and traditions. Leftism cleverly ‘rewords’ most terms, labels, and concepts of Abrahamic tradition, and then reasserts them among the Left.

This creates the illusion of Parity and “Choice” throughout Western Civilization. This is why many philosophy hobbyists and enthusiasts deny this choice and reject “Free-Will”. It implies that you can ‘escape God’, of the Church, when the secular system does not actually change in content or character – at least, not at its core. Either system requires Subservience of its Subjects. Males are not intended to be disloyal. Disloyalty is perhaps then the biggest ‘Crime of Humanity’ of all. Leftism ultimately must appeal to Nationalism, as National Laws and National Identity are its bedrock. While on the Right, the appeal is to the Christian “Protestant” or Jewish God of Abraham.

2 Likes
2

Throughout Western Civilization the primary reason why sex with a teenage girl (13-18) is illegal, is because the Secular State does not want young girls ‘owed’ to disloyal and “Criminal” males, especially before they are indoctrinated with Leftist pathogens. The intent is for the State to insert its Memetic programming into Western females before they become devoted and owed to their mate.

Among the religious right, this is Explicit and not Implicit. The Church will not marry a male, not of their church, to a female of their church. This is why, among the Right, there are many cases of underage marriage, or polygamy, as long as the male is devout to the Church. Indoctrination takes place in both circumstances, whether Left or Right. But they are categorically different in their direction.

The stronger the Church power and influence, the more demands and restrictions it places on both its male and female subjects (like chastity and virtue). The stronger the State power and influence, the more thorough its ‘public schooling’ is to ensure that females are indoctrinated with “Western Values” before being impregnated. Furthermore, the State offers rewards (Welfare) to its mothers. It does not care so much about the biological father staying around, since a bastard child is easier to manipulate and control through its indoctrination centers / schools / mass-media.

1 Like
3

Interesting posts, but yes, in civilization the goal is to control female reproduction for political aims, because whoever controls females the males will surely folllow in obedience.

It’s a strategy that has played itself in a variety of ways for thousands of years.

4

Yes but it’s more of an image thing with the left, and as such imagination, a media supported process that is thwarted, so that Freudian economic prowess can overcome the historicism anger by which control of the origin of social intercourse can be relegated to the levels of myths.

In fact such images are suppressed by a transformed imagination that evolves into a technological technique, necessarily developed out of the ennui and boredom of a declining power of a powerless populace, at the height of their image-making.

There is no exit to this preverbial flow. The generations of future succeeding waves of childish civilizations want,need a new start.

Why? The successfully lasting images become less reflective, and more refractive, modern along the way, breaking into atomistic minimally invasive parts for the design of newly emergent, feeble re-creators.

5

How do you believe the government or church should interfere or influence into the realm of private domain of the family unit? How do you deal with such in your own life / affairs? In my opinion, females are deeply and intuitively invested in society, leaning only slightly ‘left’ or ‘right’. Females are not extremists in anyway, and will realign their morals with respect to a fundamental change in political or religious power. Females are malleable in general, while males tend to ‘go down with the ship’ with their political and religious loyalties.

1 Like
6

Are the male/female differentiation rests on more dynamic, less topical subsummations as the animus/anima subset?

Or, such a religious and acultural architecture less a matter of interpretation on moral grounds, and more a lean on political changes and biases?

If so, how credible are such interpretations, also in your opinion?

7

Concerning Hominid male-female relations in general, our specie is not too far removed from chimpanzees and apes. A main difference in Humanity though is our ability to abstract the ‘Alpha Male’ position as representation of either Political Government (military) power, Secularism / Leftism, and then Religious Deities (God), Church / Rightism. Females owe themselves accordingly, usually by tradition.

If your biological father is a servant of the Church, then his children probably will be too.

Most humans are born into their Class and position in society. Very few “rise up” from when and where they’re born.

1 Like
8

Yes, but such abstractions, are resourced from two variable sources of manifestation, the earliest, remnant, albeit not so far, and the more objectively active and retroactive sources of above linked differentiation.

So would it mean, in terms of a shortened time scale, that such object must more than probably approach, a satisfactory balanced , more lasting structural unification near to certainty than just mere probability?

I gain this opinion through the sensei opportune of Buddhist influence, per the lean to the Orient beginning with Goethe. (This too is merely a ‘feeling’ , an anti reductionist process which turns reasoning upside down) Kierkegaard cannnot , does no go that far, and in that sense, it’s similar to the trend for equanimity that even goes back to synthetic thinking, perhaps, not directly though.

9

How did we go from the Old Testament polygamy to supposedly patriarchal man-made laws that requirement men & not just women to be loyal? Crazy, isn’t it?

I guess they were tired of getting in big fights over women or something. Or maybe they were tired of fighting with their wives?

I bet there is a better history behind this. Somebody come tell us. Everybody wanted to be qualified as a church elder, even if they weren’t a church elder? What’s the story?

10

A majority of women or females are basically herd creatures where they’re about total obedience to institutional authority and whatever is basically socially politically popular. They’re very materialistic where they’re all about comfort, luxury, and convenience in almost everything that they do. They’re non-thinking about the world largely and if they do think about the world at all it usually revolves around the most simplistic naive utopian nonsense you can ever imagine of which unfortunately is why in the west the majority of women are mindless neoliberal drones. When you present them with unpleasant realities that contradicts their utopian naiveties or fantasies they get upset because they have the emotional mental maturity of children. I basically look at the majority of women as being mental children because that’s exactly what they are.

There is a minority of women that can think for themselves who you could say are worthwhile, but not many where if you find one I suggest you keep her because they’re few and far in between for men. Those kind of women are a very rare prize in life.

I love my wife and we have a daughter together, I would do anything for them, but beyond my own family I can’t really say I have a high opinion of women at all concerning the majority of them. Life experiences have taught me that I just can’t take a majority of them seriously at all on much of anything.

[I have one daughter and five sons. ]

1 Like
11

So, I was mistaken about the “young man”. We must be roughly the same age.

As for women, my personal experience with them showed me there are equal levels of superficiality and of depth amongst them. Some are definitely shallow-headed herd animals who care about nothing but makeup, fancy clothing, easy money and hip boyfriends. Some, however, are incredibly more centered, balanced and reasonable than most men.

For me the female is the ultimate survivor. She is cunning and she adapts much better than man to most abrupt changes. Being born to be a mother, she tends to be more charitable and understanding. This typical female characteristic leads us to think they’re all emotion manipulators, extremely naive and, as you say, not much different from children.

A woman can either save or ruin a man’s life. I’ve known examples of both. Women who completely changed guys from useless nobodies into decent men, and also women who drove guys to the brink of madness. I’ve always been careful about dealing with them, as finding the right one would mean a great luck in life, and finding the wrong one would mean hell on earth.

The essential thing is that men cannot exist without women and vice versa, so both parties have to learn to see the good side of each other.

1 Like
12

Monogamy makes more sense, economically, than polygamy, as most men can’t afford to keep a lot of wives. I think it has nothing to do with a desire to force men to be loyal to their wives, as men were never known for restricting themselves strictly to marital sex. Instead of many wives, they adopted the “one wife, many mistresses” solution.

1 Like
13

I’m not sure that’s something that they needed to adopt (as the collective of all men that makes such decisions)… because that was always part of it, too. I mean, you have stuff recorded in the Bible about Judah just pulling into town and having sex with this prostitute … and then it turns out to be his widowed daughter-in-law (Tamar). He tried to dress it up like it was temple prostitution, which was apparently more socially acceptable in that time… as opposed to your run-of-the-mill prostitution. Plus they had concubines and had children (considered legitimate) by their wive’s maidservants… like it was no big thing as long as their wife was OK with it.

So…how did we get to monogamy? Just tell me.

14

What does Google say?

Monogamy, while often seen as a traditional relationship structure, has a complex and evolving history. It wasn’t always the dominant form of human pairing, and its prevalence has varied across cultures and time periods. While some researchers believe it has deep roots in our evolutionary past, others point to social and cultural factors as key drivers.

Here’s a look at the history of monogamy:

Early Human History:

Not Always Monogamous:

Evidence suggests that early humans, and even some primates, were not strictly monogamous.

Evolutionary Theories:

Two main theories explain the potential evolutionary roots of monogamy in humans:Infanticide Prevention: One theory suggests that monogamy evolved to protect offspring from infanticide by unrelated males.

Paternal Care: Another theory proposes that monogamy arose to ensure males could provide care and resources for their young, leading to increased offspring survival.

Shift to Monogamy:

Some research suggests a shift towards monogamy among early humans around 3.5 million years ago.

Cultural and Societal Influences:

Ancient Civilizations:

In ancient Greece and Rome, while social monogamy was promoted, sexual infidelity with concubines and slaves was often tolerated.

Rise of Christianity:

The spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire was a significant factor in promoting monogamy as a central tenet, emphasizing the exclusivity of marriage and reserving bodies and desires for one another, as Feeld Magazine reports.

Medieval Period:

Christianity continued to solidify monogamy as the dominant form of marriage in the Western world during the Middle Ages.

Modern Era:

While monogamy remains a prevalent societal norm, there’s been a growing recognition and acceptance of diverse relationship structures in recent times.

Monogamy Today:

Diversity in Relationship Styles:

Many individuals and communities are exploring and practicing various forms of non-monogamy, including open relationships and polyamory.

Generational Differences:

Some studies suggest that younger generations, like Gen Z, are expressing greater comfort and openness to non-monogamous relationships than previous generations, as Newsweek reports.

In conclusion, the history of monogamy is not a straightforward narrative of linear progression. It’s a story shaped by evolutionary pressures, cultural norms, and evolving societal values. While monogamy has been a dominant force, particularly in Western societies, it’s crucial to acknowledge the diversity of relationship structures that have existed and continue to exist today.

My two cents:

Marriage to a single woman is much more practical than having a lot of potentially troublesome wives under the same roof. Unless you’re dead rich, which is rarely the case, and can afford a confortable life to six, eight, twenty wives, you’d rather have a faithful wife taking care of your home, raising your children, and always available for sex, than be always searching for sexual partners and for the risks involved with it. Makes sense then that the Christian doctrine of monogamy became widespread, and is nowadays basically the norm in all Western countries. Obviously, Christianity posits that monogamy is an order from the Almighty, not a product of logical reasoning, and I bet that’s really your point here, you’re probably willing to say Christianity does make a lot of sense in this particular regard, and, yes, it does.

15

Nobody has told me where this order came from. Perhaps you would like to explain? The only thing I can think of is the requirement that elders have one wife only. …but that is not from God, as far as I know (and one can be faithful to more than one person, as long as they are both/all OK with that). However, the Bible does paint the first instance of bigamy (Lamech) potentially in a negative light—and there was always chaos among the many-partners relationships. Then there’s Deuteronomy 17:17, but that just means don’t have 500,000 wives. It doesn’t mean only have one.

Assuming that as given…so why the shift away?

So it’s a matter of limiting the chaos. Not a moral matter. I think even Paul would concede that point in 1 Corinthians 7… but he would probably add that if you’re going to limit the chaos down to one wife, why not limit it down to zero wives? …and he answers that in verse 9. You know what I love about Paul in this passage? There are no double standards, he is all “eff that noise” about long engagements, and he doesn’t shame people if they can’t stay within his suggestions, which he is careful to point out are not commands…and, finally, he can see how a single woman would be happier single… if she can avoid burning with passion, of course.

…and that’s all I have to say about that.

16

My first reaction to the above was amusement.

If I had to rely on a man to “exist” , I shudder to think where I would be today.

Probably, homeless and broke.

I do not belong to the ‘sisterhood’ and have always been self sufficient even in marriage and he was ‘dead rich’, as Max Maxx describes it.

17

are they all your children from the one marriage?

1 Like
18

There is the other side of this.

There are men who expect and demand women to look, act and not think. To dress expensively, to wear the most expensive perfumes, have the sexiest underwear and to pander to the ‘man’ in her life who is her sole means of financial support and
if she does not adhere to his strict demands then there are plenty of women waiting in line, no not waiting in line, chomping at the bit to be secure and connected to a man for all the wrong reasons and as he wants this woman for all the wrong reasons.

It is a two way street.

1 Like
19

Backdrop to my contributions above:

Then there is the scenario of not going anywhere in your mind because everything is approaching you from outside — and no one is telling you/others no, or violating your/their consent. Still, it is impractical (chaotic… focus-robbing) to say yes across the board.

…but that just brings me back to …if it is focus-robbing to say yes across the board …why not say no across the board? And on the flippity flip… If it is good to say yes to one in order to escape burning with passion, why not say yes across the board in order to escape burning with passion? And that is the conundrum. roflmao I need a nap.

20

Then get your ass off the computer and spend time with your family. Appreciate what you have. Some of us do not have the privilege.

3 Likes