Page 21 of 21

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:38 am
by Ishtar
You've probably all seen this, but this is a quote from Daybrown from his own website:

"I've always enjoyed sci fi; if you work back from my birth, my conception was the result of the initial broadcast of Orson Wells' "War of the Worlds" on OCT 31, 1938."

Keep up the sci fi, then, Daybrown....but maybe on another type of discussion forum. :lol:

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:42 am
by Rokcet Scientist
LOL! :lol:

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:55 pm
by daybrown
The fiction of my conception is very little different from that in the Vedas. The literal truth in the verifiable facts are not nearly as important as the allegorical message. Joseph Campbell built a career out of explaining the impact of myth.

But part of the problem modern urbanites have, is that so much of it was created by people who lived in small tribes and villages, and drew their lessons from the interaction with the flora & fauna. Which urbanites now have a very limited vew to draw from.

People get their panties in a wad mostly over my perceived attack on romance and monogamy. But the DNA shows that Native Europeans evolved in villages of 150-300, Africans in tribes of 75-150, with other gene pools somewhere in the range.

You only have to look back at the record of the 19th century to see that most poeple hardly ever, if ever, got out of the county they were born in. The kind of freak seen with the banjo in "Deliverance" usta be a common site. I remember two such in 8th grade in Lancaster MN, 25 miles from the Canadian line in 1953.

Stories about inbred Ozark hillbillies were fairly common until recent times. The problem society has now with sexual fidelity largely stem from the instinct for genetic diversity in these small gene pools. History is all about cities, but its only been in the last century that most people lived there. They are not instinctively very good at it.

If you actually look into the history of marriage, you see it was invented to regulate the inheritance of the power & wealth of the warrior class. In "Life in a Medieval Village", the Abbot, who monestary owned the village in the 13th century, came by once a year to collect taxes, and charged people for marrying them. Not many bothered. The miller did, but his watermill was the most valuable investment property for miles around, and when he died, his widow took it over.

Everyone turned a blind eye to her providing sexual services to the work she needed done at the mill. When there are only 20-25 possible mates in the local gene pool, people dont have high expectations. That whole Romance movement with troubadores was geared to the sensibilities of aristocratic women, who we see still have genes, and instincts in the pool.

Nobody gave a fuck what peasant women did. And conversely, in ancient times, contagious disease took a while breaking out of the defacto quaranteen of millions of villages. Food production was so time consuming and strenuous that only the fit survived.

Thus, the devotees of the temples of Astarte could offer sexual services for a thousand years before STDs started to become a problem. We have the record of the emperor Claudius' wife fucking 365 men over the course of single day, which I believe is the record. She was more interested in sending a message to her husband than her risk of STDs.

So- 1- the peasants dont have any wealth. 2- they have a problem with inbreeding. 3- they dont have any risk of STDs.

So- why would they try to be monogamous? What's in it for them? The *last* thing a village woman would want to do, is bear more than one child by any given sperm donor.

Agreed that the pair bond existed. There are lotsa coupled figures from the Danube cultures 7000 years ago. Only thing is, they are either both women, or the sex is ambiguously rendered. It was a very durable cultural tradition. Still seen in the relationships of the Mosou today. shows a Minoan family. Mother, toddler, and her *female* lover. Note the tailored jumpsuit on the kid. 3500 years ago. Nobody in Egypt had nearly the tailoring skill these ladies wear.

But then, skip down to the THERADOK.GIF, and here we see the penthouses of At Lunus with people coming out to watch the ships come in. But look at the balconies. See the King? No. What we do see is pairs of women that sometimes have stud muffins *behind* them.

then, down on the dock below. Is that the king with his goon squad? No, I counted 19 bare breasted bimbos in miniskirts. No wonder the sailors are rowing so hard. You think the girls are there to carry cargo? <snurk>

Then too, there is the stud muffin bodhisattavah from Sibushi, just one of a whole series.

There is stuff like this all over the ancient record that go right over the heads of those who never question the Christian family values they grew up with.

It would not matter, but in noticing the time young women have taken to speak with me when there were hundreds of young men around, I gave all this some thot. Since its abundantly clear that there are not nearly enough responsible young men to marry and raise families with any more, a search thru other social models in the ancient past mite be useful.

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:06 pm
by Digit
Marriage in the UK was often 'over the broom stick' and only became a church ceremony in Victorian times as wealth increased, as DB says, this was to insure inheritance. It is only this year that the UK has recognised inheritance rights without wedlock

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:08 pm
by Beagle
I think pair bonding has been around since the pleistocene. Neanderthal burials suggest that.

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:14 pm
by Digit
Pair bonding, as opposed to a union acceptable to the state, has probably exisited as long as man Beag. But English law, in Christian times, required the union to be sanctified by the Church, ie, the State. If not, any offspring were bastards and barred from title and estate.

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:29 pm
by daybrown
Let me try to be more clear. There's no doubt whatever about pair bonding. Its seen in Bonobos for crysake. But sexual exclusivity? Naaa. And homo or hetero, whatever floats your boat.

Posted on the net was a 12th century English Monastic graveyard. Outside of a few cooks or whatever, IIRC they were all men. *70%* of the skeletons of the monks had syphlitic lesions on the bones.

The kind of hypocrisy in Christian clergy is well documented from the pope all the way down to the most humble monk. I was a Lutheran choir boy, and we all knew what happened to Catholic choir boys, but never dreamed that would ever be revealed.

Seems like the pubescent hormones have something to do with it. "The Forest People", Turnbull reports that 1/3 find a mate they keep at puberty, 1/3 go thru what we now call 'serial monogamy', and 1/3 are free lovers. He does not suggest that anyone force anyone to find a mate at puberty, but since this is when they do it, hormones play a part.

but it works for homosexuals was well. It'd be interesting to see the rate of fags in communities, like the Aborigini, where older women took boys into their beds at the time, compared to what we know now goes on in Airport men's rooms, and whether imprinting has any effect.

The pair bond in Athens was well known, And the elder was regarded as a valuable mentor for years afterwards. Yet these same men raised families with the Lesbians from Sappho.

and what did all this depravity produce? Only the greatest generations of genius the world has ever seen. I know a boy who spent the first 5 years of life with his mom living in a rural commune of faggots. he's not gay at all. He's spoiled by video games and junkfood, and has the same issue with his mom of any 15 year old. I frankly think the fags would whip his ass into shape and give him a better, more productive attitude.

And yes, the fags have the pair bond too, but their issues are not a problem that takes up the time and attention of the whole community. If the kids are going to be well taken care of whether the parents remain bonded or not, nobody really gives a fuck, and the drama level declines.

Plotinus has a charming bit of satire on the pair bond. Previous to Christian dogma taking over the power structure, there was a lot of it. Vatsayayana goes on about how the Shakti should manage her business, and do what we now call 'case management' to make sure her donors did not get into financial or emotional difficulties over her services.

Hypocrisy was not nearly the problem it is now.