As a woman, I have observed that capitalism without a safety net is absolutely pursued, by Democrats and Republicans alike, because women and children with options and stability are not as easily manipulated as those without. Would Epstein or any ‘modeling agencies’ that are fronts for sex trafficking have the ability to lure these girls into slave like situations otherwise? Making abortions and birth control illegal or difficult adds another layer by which men can trap women who would otherwise not mate with them. 25 states require a rape conviction in order to deny parental rights to the father. And many more states are passing laws that do not consider rape a justification for abortion. How many are the same states that require a rape conviction to deny parental rights? How many that do allow rape as a justification will require a conviction?
Southern states allowed the kkk to literally get away with murder by refusing to convict lynch mobs and their leaders. How many will make it even more difficult than it is now to get a rapist convicted, if brutally suppressing women en masse is their reward? If you have to manipulate or force women to mate with you, your genes don’t belong in the next generation.
Judaism, the progenitor of the Christian religion that birthed these Jesuits so judgmental of the Wendat, was every bit as awful in judging the societies and religions surrounding them that allowed women sexual freedom. Much emphasis’ is on their disapproval of idol worship. However, it is the sexual freedom of the women in ‘pagan’, ie non Jewish, religions that I think bothered them more. In Egypt, where they describe their time as under slavery to ‘evil’ Pharaoh, women had almost equal rights to men and fertile women were desirable, regardless of whose children they bore, before marriage.
Some think they had no word for virgin even. Is this the real problem they had with living in Egypt, if they were there at all? Some scholars debate their enslavement or exodus ever occurred. Some say they were just pissed about the responsibilities of being a citizen of Egypt, which required building monuments and infrastructure during the annual flood of the Nile, but for which they were paid, usually in grain and beer.
In any case, Christianity and Islam have done more to harm human sexuality, especially that of women and their god given right to decide which men pass their genes on to the next generation, than any other religion, and both were derived from the incessantly judgmental and oppressive Judaism. Greek and Roman society was also incredibly misogynistic, but they didn’t also vilify homosexual relations or sex for pleasure. It is that odd and draconian aspect that has led to the massive guilt people feel for having sexual urges at all.
Jennie, somehow I missed your response from so long ago. Thank you for this thoughtful reply. Yes, I think that the conspiracy against the family began with the Abrahamic religions. I'm talking today with Joe Atwill, author of Caesar's Messiah, who I connected with a decade ago when I was doing serious research into this. There's far more than I can present here but I agree with those who question Hebrew enslavement. In fact, there's considerable evidence that they were the enslavers. Just prior to the chapter of Exodus is Joseph becoming the Pharaoh's tax collector in the form of grain monopoly. The pyramids have been called the Pharaoh's siloes. As it states clearly, Joseph wouldn't give them back their own seed stock until they'd given him their livestock, their land, and their lives. The dimensions of the arc of the covenant are an exact match to what's been found in the Pharaoh's crypt. And where did the gold come from with slaves to melt into a statue of a bull? There are other stories that show Abraham was really Abdi-Ashirta, a mercenary warlord represented as a jackal on stone tablets pleading with the Pharaoh to send archers because he was taking over the vassal lords' lands for his own, putting down rebellion (like Sodom, the Sea of Saddim) and claiming them for himself. I don't think women exist in the Bible. I think they all represent territories. Women and slaves are beneath mention.
One thing is for sure. People who follow any authoritarian and patriarchal religions make great slaves (or servants, if you prefer), but truly terrible masters. And that is a feature of that system, not a bug. It is by design to remove all traces of free thought so they don't question orders.
[Tereza, you are too prolific for me to keep up with. I’m still thinking about topics from three videos ago. Then, just when I thought I was making a dent in your YouTube content, I now find your radio archive on thirdparadim.org and your “Other Writings,” too. I considered trying to write a catch-up comment, but that would be too lengthy (and off topic), so I’m just going to jump back into the conversation here.]
I haven’t read anything by David Buss, so I’ll limit my commenting on your framing of his claim that “men are wired to seek multiple partners who are as young and fertile as their social status allows.”
Frankly, I just don’t buy it. As you suggest, Buss’s monkey-brain claim strikes me as an intellectual scapegoat for his own inclinations toward coeds. I am so tired of the academic bromide—dressed up in impenetrable specialist terms—that we are all just wired that way, that nature made us do it. The term “evolution” can have very precise and measurable meanings in some very limited biological contexts regarding adaptation—the size and shape of a finch species’ beak may change to exploit a new food source, for example—but I hate it when the term evolution is substituted for “big boss of us all”, especially by ostensibly agnostic or atheistic proselytizers of science (or scientism). It is a truism that a certain percentage of any species must reproduce for the species to survive, but that doesn’t mean every man becomes a complete automaton driven by Evolution to “bonk a half-dozen attractive young things walking down the street.” If Buss said something like that, his high opinion of male virility exceeds even his exaggerated faith in evolution.
Also, just a few remarks about your point that “The question isn’t really why middle-aged men want to have sex with 20-somethings, it’s why those women would have sex with them.”
First, like everything else in The Western Empire, it would not be surprising for some (maybe many or most) young women to parley sex into getting a share of money, power, status and fame, and maybe—a distant second—with ensuring offspring are well cared for. I haven’t done the math, but these days it’s probably much less than one percent of twenty-something males who have attained fame/fortune/power so early in life, so what’s a twenty-something female to do if she can’t find a similarly aged pro-athlete, rock star, film director, Tick-Toc dancer, Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Davos young leader, trust-fund baby, or even a med/law student (preferably from an Ivy League school)?
My single 31-year-old step-daughter tells me her dating interest in older men has a lot less to do with money, power and status, and much more to do with finding a grownup for dinner conversation. It’s not new to recognize that males mature slower than girls intellectually (and that even geezers often still act like teenagers), but it’s my recollection this female head start was pretty much over by the early to mid twenties. I’m not trying to justify sugar daddies, but this “failure-to-mature” syndrome seems to now affect boys/men well into middle-age (and perhaps beyond)’ and to have become epidemic and possibly incurable. (Or has this always been the case?) Of course, that said, there is no doubt the geezer who gets even platonic attention from fertile females will misread the younger woman’s innocent motives and get the crazy idea he’s “still got it.” (Yes, I’ve warned my step-daughter about this.)
I feel sorry for our younger generations for various failures of our system, but I’m starting to wonder if the worst is yet to come. Are you familiar with the “lying flat movement” in China? It’s especially affecting young working class people, and refusing to have children is a key component. I’d like to hear Buss explain that behavior in the context of monkey-brain Evolution.
I'm not that prolific, Jack, you're tapping into a lifetime of frustrated attempts to get my ideas out there--and all of my family is grateful you're taking the pressure off of them! Thanks for checking out my radio show and other writing.
And on David Buss, thanks for saying what I only implied. I just did a search on his personal life, which I'd resisted before, but the only mention listed him as single.
But the exciting material, I thought, was on Graeber and Wengrow. I'm loving that book, I'm so grateful you reminded me I had it. I'm planning a future episode on Kendiorock called Muskrat Love ;-) And I see what you mean about their use of the word autonomy for what I maybe call sovereignty.
I hadn't heard of the lying flat movement but looked it up in China and in the US where it's called r/antiwork. That's really interesting but, in retrospect, seems inevitable. We're in the generation of one-child per family in China, is that right? These would be the millennials of the single child household. I listened to something during the pandemic about The Burn-Out Generation. For those trying to make "something" of themselves, it's a rat race of freelancing and social media (because you have to, not want to). We're definitely heading off a cliff.
And your list of eligible bachelors made me laugh out loud! Yes, the pickings are slim. Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
Dec 1, 2022·edited Dec 1, 2022Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Patriarchy basically forces women to use sex as a sort of currency. As the issuers of their own currency, women have every incentive to keep its value high. While men, the users of the currency, have every incentive to keep its value low enough for them to be able to afford to use it. Meanwhile, elite men seek to keep its value just high enough to price non-elites out, but still not so high as to price the elites themselves out. And both genders are ultimately poisoned by this highly toxic and utterly dehumanizing paradigm. Paradise well and truly lost.
In contrast, under matriarchy, or at least in the absence of patriarchy, sex is generally not treated as a currency or commodity, as there is literally no need to. The game is not rigged. So many problems are thus solved as a result.
Has dating become covert prostitution, where men are seen by women as johns and women are seen by men as whores?
Contraception detached love and fertility, turning, as predicted, future mothers into mere objects to be manipulated and even bought, while turning future fathers into mere objects to be manipulated and even bought (with pleasure).
Love became lust... for pleasure... men seeking more sexual/company, women seeking more material/company. Dating became a transaction. Using means abusing. Letting be used means letting be abused. Interestingly, both sides abuse and are abused.
Contraception-based relationships means just a commercial joint venture. A barter of selfishness. Selfless marriage has been changed for selfish slavery (to the material world), called sexual freedom!
What explains the higher STD rate, the higher abortion rate, the lower marriage rate, the higher divorce rate, the higher domestic violence, the childhood trauma and diminishing fertility rate around the world?: the destruction of the real meaning of lifelong selfless fertile love until death, through contraception.
Guess what explains the growing unhappiness, depression, phobias, disorders and teen/young adult suicide? sexual selfishness.
All that evil destroying adult and children’s lives is resulting in this:
If you think that relationships weren't transactional before, you need to read more Jane Austen, Fred. The stakes were extremely high. Women are always selling themselves in a system where raising children isn't the purpose of society, but rather making the rich richer. It's not contraception that's the problem when no one can afford to raise a kid now that the mortgage has risen to two incomes. What this article showed with David Graeber's research is that societies where women are in control and have a strong community are the healthiest for children.
As a woman, I have observed that capitalism without a safety net is absolutely pursued, by Democrats and Republicans alike, because women and children with options and stability are not as easily manipulated as those without. Would Epstein or any ‘modeling agencies’ that are fronts for sex trafficking have the ability to lure these girls into slave like situations otherwise? Making abortions and birth control illegal or difficult adds another layer by which men can trap women who would otherwise not mate with them. 25 states require a rape conviction in order to deny parental rights to the father. And many more states are passing laws that do not consider rape a justification for abortion. How many are the same states that require a rape conviction to deny parental rights? How many that do allow rape as a justification will require a conviction?
Southern states allowed the kkk to literally get away with murder by refusing to convict lynch mobs and their leaders. How many will make it even more difficult than it is now to get a rapist convicted, if brutally suppressing women en masse is their reward? If you have to manipulate or force women to mate with you, your genes don’t belong in the next generation.
Judaism, the progenitor of the Christian religion that birthed these Jesuits so judgmental of the Wendat, was every bit as awful in judging the societies and religions surrounding them that allowed women sexual freedom. Much emphasis’ is on their disapproval of idol worship. However, it is the sexual freedom of the women in ‘pagan’, ie non Jewish, religions that I think bothered them more. In Egypt, where they describe their time as under slavery to ‘evil’ Pharaoh, women had almost equal rights to men and fertile women were desirable, regardless of whose children they bore, before marriage.
Some think they had no word for virgin even. Is this the real problem they had with living in Egypt, if they were there at all? Some scholars debate their enslavement or exodus ever occurred. Some say they were just pissed about the responsibilities of being a citizen of Egypt, which required building monuments and infrastructure during the annual flood of the Nile, but for which they were paid, usually in grain and beer.
In any case, Christianity and Islam have done more to harm human sexuality, especially that of women and their god given right to decide which men pass their genes on to the next generation, than any other religion, and both were derived from the incessantly judgmental and oppressive Judaism. Greek and Roman society was also incredibly misogynistic, but they didn’t also vilify homosexual relations or sex for pleasure. It is that odd and draconian aspect that has led to the massive guilt people feel for having sexual urges at all.
Jennie, somehow I missed your response from so long ago. Thank you for this thoughtful reply. Yes, I think that the conspiracy against the family began with the Abrahamic religions. I'm talking today with Joe Atwill, author of Caesar's Messiah, who I connected with a decade ago when I was doing serious research into this. There's far more than I can present here but I agree with those who question Hebrew enslavement. In fact, there's considerable evidence that they were the enslavers. Just prior to the chapter of Exodus is Joseph becoming the Pharaoh's tax collector in the form of grain monopoly. The pyramids have been called the Pharaoh's siloes. As it states clearly, Joseph wouldn't give them back their own seed stock until they'd given him their livestock, their land, and their lives. The dimensions of the arc of the covenant are an exact match to what's been found in the Pharaoh's crypt. And where did the gold come from with slaves to melt into a statue of a bull? There are other stories that show Abraham was really Abdi-Ashirta, a mercenary warlord represented as a jackal on stone tablets pleading with the Pharaoh to send archers because he was taking over the vassal lords' lands for his own, putting down rebellion (like Sodom, the Sea of Saddim) and claiming them for himself. I don't think women exist in the Bible. I think they all represent territories. Women and slaves are beneath mention.
One thing is for sure. People who follow any authoritarian and patriarchal religions make great slaves (or servants, if you prefer), but truly terrible masters. And that is a feature of that system, not a bug. It is by design to remove all traces of free thought so they don't question orders.
Well-said.
[Tereza, you are too prolific for me to keep up with. I’m still thinking about topics from three videos ago. Then, just when I thought I was making a dent in your YouTube content, I now find your radio archive on thirdparadim.org and your “Other Writings,” too. I considered trying to write a catch-up comment, but that would be too lengthy (and off topic), so I’m just going to jump back into the conversation here.]
I haven’t read anything by David Buss, so I’ll limit my commenting on your framing of his claim that “men are wired to seek multiple partners who are as young and fertile as their social status allows.”
Frankly, I just don’t buy it. As you suggest, Buss’s monkey-brain claim strikes me as an intellectual scapegoat for his own inclinations toward coeds. I am so tired of the academic bromide—dressed up in impenetrable specialist terms—that we are all just wired that way, that nature made us do it. The term “evolution” can have very precise and measurable meanings in some very limited biological contexts regarding adaptation—the size and shape of a finch species’ beak may change to exploit a new food source, for example—but I hate it when the term evolution is substituted for “big boss of us all”, especially by ostensibly agnostic or atheistic proselytizers of science (or scientism). It is a truism that a certain percentage of any species must reproduce for the species to survive, but that doesn’t mean every man becomes a complete automaton driven by Evolution to “bonk a half-dozen attractive young things walking down the street.” If Buss said something like that, his high opinion of male virility exceeds even his exaggerated faith in evolution.
Also, just a few remarks about your point that “The question isn’t really why middle-aged men want to have sex with 20-somethings, it’s why those women would have sex with them.”
First, like everything else in The Western Empire, it would not be surprising for some (maybe many or most) young women to parley sex into getting a share of money, power, status and fame, and maybe—a distant second—with ensuring offspring are well cared for. I haven’t done the math, but these days it’s probably much less than one percent of twenty-something males who have attained fame/fortune/power so early in life, so what’s a twenty-something female to do if she can’t find a similarly aged pro-athlete, rock star, film director, Tick-Toc dancer, Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Davos young leader, trust-fund baby, or even a med/law student (preferably from an Ivy League school)?
My single 31-year-old step-daughter tells me her dating interest in older men has a lot less to do with money, power and status, and much more to do with finding a grownup for dinner conversation. It’s not new to recognize that males mature slower than girls intellectually (and that even geezers often still act like teenagers), but it’s my recollection this female head start was pretty much over by the early to mid twenties. I’m not trying to justify sugar daddies, but this “failure-to-mature” syndrome seems to now affect boys/men well into middle-age (and perhaps beyond)’ and to have become epidemic and possibly incurable. (Or has this always been the case?) Of course, that said, there is no doubt the geezer who gets even platonic attention from fertile females will misread the younger woman’s innocent motives and get the crazy idea he’s “still got it.” (Yes, I’ve warned my step-daughter about this.)
I feel sorry for our younger generations for various failures of our system, but I’m starting to wonder if the worst is yet to come. Are you familiar with the “lying flat movement” in China? It’s especially affecting young working class people, and refusing to have children is a key component. I’d like to hear Buss explain that behavior in the context of monkey-brain Evolution.
I'm not that prolific, Jack, you're tapping into a lifetime of frustrated attempts to get my ideas out there--and all of my family is grateful you're taking the pressure off of them! Thanks for checking out my radio show and other writing.
And on David Buss, thanks for saying what I only implied. I just did a search on his personal life, which I'd resisted before, but the only mention listed him as single.
But the exciting material, I thought, was on Graeber and Wengrow. I'm loving that book, I'm so grateful you reminded me I had it. I'm planning a future episode on Kendiorock called Muskrat Love ;-) And I see what you mean about their use of the word autonomy for what I maybe call sovereignty.
I hadn't heard of the lying flat movement but looked it up in China and in the US where it's called r/antiwork. That's really interesting but, in retrospect, seems inevitable. We're in the generation of one-child per family in China, is that right? These would be the millennials of the single child household. I listened to something during the pandemic about The Burn-Out Generation. For those trying to make "something" of themselves, it's a rat race of freelancing and social media (because you have to, not want to). We're definitely heading off a cliff.
And your list of eligible bachelors made me laugh out loud! Yes, the pickings are slim. Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
Patriarchy basically forces women to use sex as a sort of currency. As the issuers of their own currency, women have every incentive to keep its value high. While men, the users of the currency, have every incentive to keep its value low enough for them to be able to afford to use it. Meanwhile, elite men seek to keep its value just high enough to price non-elites out, but still not so high as to price the elites themselves out. And both genders are ultimately poisoned by this highly toxic and utterly dehumanizing paradigm. Paradise well and truly lost.
In contrast, under matriarchy, or at least in the absence of patriarchy, sex is generally not treated as a currency or commodity, as there is literally no need to. The game is not rigged. So many problems are thus solved as a result.
Has dating become covert prostitution, where men are seen by women as johns and women are seen by men as whores?
Contraception detached love and fertility, turning, as predicted, future mothers into mere objects to be manipulated and even bought, while turning future fathers into mere objects to be manipulated and even bought (with pleasure).
Love became lust... for pleasure... men seeking more sexual/company, women seeking more material/company. Dating became a transaction. Using means abusing. Letting be used means letting be abused. Interestingly, both sides abuse and are abused.
Contraception-based relationships means just a commercial joint venture. A barter of selfishness. Selfless marriage has been changed for selfish slavery (to the material world), called sexual freedom!
What explains the higher STD rate, the higher abortion rate, the lower marriage rate, the higher divorce rate, the higher domestic violence, the childhood trauma and diminishing fertility rate around the world?: the destruction of the real meaning of lifelong selfless fertile love until death, through contraception.
Guess what explains the growing unhappiness, depression, phobias, disorders and teen/young adult suicide? sexual selfishness.
All that evil destroying adult and children’s lives is resulting in this:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
If you think that relationships weren't transactional before, you need to read more Jane Austen, Fred. The stakes were extremely high. Women are always selling themselves in a system where raising children isn't the purpose of society, but rather making the rich richer. It's not contraception that's the problem when no one can afford to raise a kid now that the mortgage has risen to two incomes. What this article showed with David Graeber's research is that societies where women are in control and have a strong community are the healthiest for children.
Very well-said overall.