Once again, we can’t have any serious debate or discussion. I don’t see myself as a feminist or anything similar, but just your text is a monument to fallacy and distortion for both sciences and any form of decency.
Once again, do not mistake explaining biological realities understood by ancient peoples as equal to modern sentiments.
I won’t answer point after point, as basically there are too much things to comment. This means I reluctantly have to leave aside a number of insults your post is filled with.
Stick to the issues.
The forum readers will judge how you consider the Yazidi women taken by ISIL in Iraq, for instance.
I am not applying modern sensibilities to historical realities.
I’ll answer on one point though, as I think this reveals your twisted manner of thinking:
Ok. Now if I am not applying modern sensibilities to historical realities then I am not applying my own standards to historical accords… Put it this way the majority desert Bedou people became the country of Saudi Arabia under Abdul Aziz around the turn of the last century.
Most modern western people do not agree with Saudi social ethos, however that doesnt mean we can’t understand it while being separate to it.
The difference is a man doesn’t take a woman by force to rape her like she’s some kind of stupid animal being deprived of any intellect and only animated by instincts.
An ancient man takes a wife by force for any number of reasons, to raise sons, for fun, etc. This is VERY prevalent, for example its also mentioned multiple times in the Biblical account. There are even Levitical laws specific gto how to conduct this.
Consequently it was normal, but then we are not talking about people with a 21st century societal code.
As for your ‘stupid animal’ comment, you grasped the complete opposite of what was written in plain text. Here it is again:
“A female human is a fully sapient being, it requires a process to program a human to act with the same level of drive as a lioness”
On the contrary, he goes through a number of steps considered as usual and decent in the society he lives in, most commonly one essential step being such a practice as dowry, that is seen sometimes as a “price” paid to his wive(s) family.
We are discussing captive women not women purchased with a bride price.
I hope you do understand the difference between what is captured though violence and trade?
Then this man has to ensure a minimal standard of living to his wife. Failing to do that may, depending on the society he lives in, be resolved with a divorce, a feud, a social exclusion, etc.
And it’s only then that he may have (an)other wive(s), the whole process being closely checked by the whole society.
Nice sentiment, but sadly inaccurate. It is taken as a given that if a dominant male in a primitive culture that expands though violent aquisition will want to feed the women he breeds with. Reality assumes so. However it need not go further than that.
Take the Bedou as examples again, wealth was determined by number of camels a man has, but in reality unless a man was a lord and had other men following him, there was not too much difference between a wealthy tribesman and anyone but the poorest. In the Bedou culture a man was responsible for his own success, and could fashion an inheritence for his sons, but unless they too were strong what they inherited could be taken from them. If you did not stand up for yourself your camels would be taken from you. Taking your wives is different in Islamic law because that would be adultery, but you would lack for additional wives and those you had could and likely would leave you. I was quoting when I said a man has as many wives as he could control, that was the Bedou tribal way until only a few generations ago, and the cultural ramifications still have echoes in Saudi culture.
As an example, it has long been a common practice in parts of Western Africa to see wives as a symbol of social prestige for the men, all those wives having to be over-weighted and as white-skinned as possible, because this meant their husband had the means to avoid them working (so keeping away from the sun) and lot of food to feed them.
I have no problems believing that. But look at what you are saying. To keep wives away from the sun you have to keep them indoors, to do that you have to have a large established camp or a sedentary society. The Greeks idealised pale sedentary women, except Sparta which idealised sporty women. Going back to the bedou, if a man had the resources he would provide his women with permanent shelter. a special subdivided tent or tents with additional material for veils, and a special howdah that fits on a camel so she travels under a tent and the sun is kept from her. I do not know in the case of the Bedou if they idealised paler skin women, never looked into that to be honest, but they evidently idealised contained women, and still do.
Yes several wives is a sign of prestige, it also means several sons and a wider genepool from which to select/emerge the primary heir. This is plain and obvious enough it should be desirable for pre-literate societies as depicted by the game.
