I'm The Duke University Freshman Porn Star And For The First Time I'm Telling The Story In My Words

[RainDog]

276. It's basic to (marxist) feminism

like other marxist understandings - it seems they were often better at descriptives of history than prescriptives for a future.

You might like to read this - http://www.isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family.shtml

Radical feminists have argued that any woman who participates in modern marriage is participating in the prostitution of women (as one is the partner of the other).

...Just to note that some actual radical feminists view traditional female reactions to porn, etc. as their unwillingness to acknowledge their own participation in a cultural system - they "other" the offense of recreating the conditions of oppression of women by participating in the system of property, etc.

The point, at this point, is that aligning with a madonna/whore or wife/prostitute separation for women continues to recreate the terms of oppression for all women.

It's competition. That's where shaming of other women comes from - fear of losing their financial stake or emotional security within marriage by the threat of another female.

Engels thought that uncoerced monogamy would be the outcome of a marxist revolution, but he didn't know much of anything about humans that we now do, as far as being able to describe our human culture by looking at our physiology, in comparison to other primates, as descriptive of our way of being outside of the cultural changes we've made and the lies we've told ourselves.

If a male has, for himself, no competition for sexual reproduction, his scrotum is smaller in relation to other primates. Gorillas, who don't compete for access, have small testes. Common chimpanzees, who have very promiscuous sex, have huge testes in comparison. Humans, who have moderate levels of promiscuity, have testes that are within the middle of such comparisons. Female sexual promiscuity, someone might say, determined the size of testes...over hundreds of thousands of years, by the moderately promiscuous activity of females among our ancestors.

There are various reasons females might have had for promiscuity in the past, including confusing paternity among males to protect a child from infanticide, or increasing the number of males who thought they had a stake in a child's well being because they might be the father - that's a theory of the origin of "it takes a village" within primatology - in a long distant past.

This evolved into control of female reproduction through creating two classes for women, that are solely determined by who owns property - women became property as a condition of marriage to insure a male's heirs were the ones benefiting from his accumulation of property. Religion reinforced this - the subjugation of women was for the purpose of property accumulation.

In the past, women had courtly love and affairs, whatever, if they were upper class, did as they pleased as poor women -but females have never been monogamous as part of their evolutionary physiology. Now we have "serial monogamy" with no fault divorce. As a species, we do not mate for life unless we choose to do so, and in studies of paternity, even "mated for life" females have children from other males, based upon DNA testing. They just don't announce it because it's not in their financial interest to do so...at least, again, that's what our genetic past tells us.

Some people think women have a lower sex drive (perceived) after marriage because they're bored, not because they have a lower sex drive. It's not that they don't want to have sex. They just don't want to have sex with the person they love who is the father of their children.

The penis has evolved in response to female physiological changes related to upright walking, aka bipedalism, with the human pelvic girdle serving to stabilize our upright walking and making it possible to bear the weight of, say, pregnancy at the same time.

You're welcome, guys.