Women's Difficulties


Dec 5, 2008
189
1
71
If rape, pillaging and fighting for survival is the way to go for you, then by all means... For the rest of the world, we wouldn't last 5 seconds, and probably wouldn't even want to.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Back in those days there's no such thing as rape!it was called nature.It's better than how we are torching our bodies in todays world. But every one for them selves
 
Dec 5, 2008
189
1
71
Uh... no offense, Alyson, but I think you seriously need to do some more reading on the subject if you think there was no rape in pre-historic times. A great deal of life involved tribal warfare, which usually resulted in the losing sides' men being killed, and their women dragged off and used for breeding and as slaves. For as long as there has been sex, there has been rape - I guarantee you that. Up until less than a century ago, rape itself was considered spoils of war and has been for Millennias.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
No other animals have rape laws!I'm talking about cave men.
 
Dec 29, 2006
729
6
113
Witney
It depends upon what period, and what societies we are talking about. The Christian west certainly had laws against rape, and indeed every other form of sexual offence including fornication and bigamy. Rape was taboo, even during times of war - when it was considered that occupying armies had a clear duty to protect the populations under their control. This was all part of the knightly code by which Western armies were (and still are) regulated.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
I was talking about cavemen that could not even speak an language yet,in there days there was no such thing as rape.
 
Jan 28, 2003
2,525
5
223
I'm sure homo sapiens cavemen could talk. Not maybe quite as we do, but they had to cooperate, and ultimately make the decision to begin agriculture, and they painted their caves, so I think they must have been quite the chatterboxes. In any case, from what we know, their brains and voicebox structures were the same as ours, so they weren't very different. They just didn't have 10,000 years of progress - abandoning hunter-gathering, cooperation, developing technology, wars etc. - under their belts. If you could adopt a caveman baby and bring it up now, you might find it fitted in surprisingly well. Maybe a bit on the hairy side and fairly burly, but quite competent in the intelligence and language department, and not really visibly strange if dressed in low-slung jeans and clutching a mobile. They stayed 'uncivilised' for so long partly because there weren't that many of them. In primitive societies, everyone has to hunt and gather, which doesn't allow much opportunity for some genius to be left in peace/encouraged to gaze into space thinking about the wheel etc. You need larger and more specialised societies for that, where subsistence won't collapse if some people devote themselves to more cerebral occupations with an eye to the future, instead of dinner. Which, of course, is what ultimately happened.

And sad to say, Alyson, if you fancy the caveman 'naturalistic' approach to sex, even at your age of 27, you'd have been way over the hill and probably quite safe (or ignored, depending on your viewpoint). Their average life expectancy seems to have been about 30 (though I'm not quite sure how the experts know this for certain, given the relatively few skeletons extant from this era).

And personally, whatever problems we face in the 21st Century, I wouldn't swap my life as it has been for anything preceding it. Cold, verminous, diseased, childbirth/child mortality, superstitious ignorance, incomprehension, fear etc. I'm sure they had wonderful community moments that we don't, but overall, I'm happier with science, hygiene, antibiotics, modern communications, and technology. I just might have preferred to have been born 2 or 3 decades earlier than I was, but that's fairly meaningless in terms of civilisation, and is probably based on a sentimental view of my parents' generation anyway.
 
May 27, 2007
3,917
3
0
Goodness this topic reminds me of Rae Dawn Chong in "Quest for Fire". A little known movie from the 80's about Cavemen and Women and the search for fire and just how rough a cave woman had it, particularly one woman.
 
Dec 5, 2008
189
1
71
I saw that movie in school, George! Very informative - if sad.

And yes, Monica, cavemen would be able to fit in very well in this time period if given the opportunity, though they would get some weird looks. In fact, the neanderthal brain was actually a great deal larger than the homosapien's (our own) and if given the right setting, could likely put any one of us in the dust in terms of intelligence.

And Alyson, rape is also incredibly common among animals, as well. Lions for example. When a female lion is raising cubs and doesn't want to mate with the alpha male of the pride, often the male will kill the cubs and rape the mother. So much for your theory about the animal kingdom.

And Stanley, yes, while their were laws against rape in society, they weren't necessarily followed. It was mainly exclusive to your OWN people that that was the case. I suggest you check out a book called 'against our will'. It's about rape throughout the history of war. In fact, if you just randomly look it up, rape has been considered a part of conquering for as far back as war has commenced. It's about power - rarely sex.
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,045
61
308
UK
The latest analyses of average Neanderthal brain size (or rather the inside measurements of the cranium), using larger samples, suggest that the Neanderthal brain was typically smaller than that of Homo sapiens. Besides, the external dimensions of a brain tell us little compared with the surface area of the cerebral cortex, which varies with the level of convolution. The best indication of which species was more intelligent is which emerged on top, and that's us. But it could also mean that we weren't more intelligent - just more aggressive.
 
Dec 5, 2008
189
1
71
I respectfully disagree, Bob. There are a few archeologists who have been trying to perpetuate the theory that Homosapiens have the larger brain, but in fact it is the Neanderthal. Their explanation for this is that they had bigger heads, but not as much filling it - something fairly ridiculous in my opinion. The general archeological community agrees that the adult Neanderthal brain capacity was quite a bit larger than the current Homosapiens, something concurred by a teacher who I have remained in relative contact with who did a lecture on it in my school, has taught at various Universities on the subject of prehistoric man, and who has two sons who are archeologists studying the field.

While there is more than one person studying something, inevitably there will be differing opinions on it, but the lone holdouts have very little evidence to back their theories as no brain tissue survives to confirm their theory. The majority of these opinions also surfaced in the 30's and when the historical community was more unwilling to accept that cavemen could have had higher intelligence than our entire civilization. While in the past EARLY Homosapiens indeed did have larger brain capacities, it has dwindled extensively since then, and our current brains for the last few million years have been a great deal smaller than that of the Neanderthal. Likely none the less efficient, but still smaller (I remember a figure of 10-20% somewhere in the back of my mind).

Here is an article on the matter :

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2008/09/neanderthal.html
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,045
61
308
UK
It doesn't matter, Kat, because it's irrelevant. The average male human brain is larger than the average female brain, but any man who thinks that significant would hardly be demonstrating a higher level of intelligence.
 
May 27, 2007
3,917
3
0
Hi Kat,
I saw that movie in school, George! Very informative - if sad.
Did you know it was based on a French Novel written in 1911.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_Fire

Yes the Movie was sad.
sad.gif
My Brother and I were watching it on HBO back in the 80's when my Mom came home and made us change the channel. Seems her and my sister saw it and she didn't want us watching it. Well, anyways I never got to see the end of it. Never really wanted to. But it's a good movie!
happy.gif
 
May 27, 2007
3,917
3
0
In fact, if you just randomly look it up, rape has been considered a part of conquering for as far back as war has commenced. It's about power - rarely sex.
Very true, if unfortunate! It's true also what you were saying about the lions too, Kat.

Often in the days of old (High Middle Ages is what I've studied) if was common to steal a woman or rape her during the hundred years war, especially if she was not of the nobility.

Unfortunately if a child resulted 9 months later the said infant usually ended up on the church step or in a ditch, left in the woods. Of course society was very different back then.
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,045
61
308
UK
It was not uncommon in the Middle Ages for animals to be put on trial, found guilty (presumably not by a jury of their peers) and punished for crimes like criminal damage, theft and murder. The defendants were generally domestic animals, and records show that pigs were the most likely to have criminal records. As there were no animal prisons most of the guilty were executed by hanging. Some with good lawyers got away with banishment from the community, but none were ever sentenced to a fine. Can't say I've ever heard of any livestock collared for rape, but 'witch's familiars' (generally cats) were sometimes involved in bestiality charges, which were generally a frame-up. I'm not making this up!
 
Dec 5, 2008
189
1
71
>>"Can't say I've ever heard of any livestock collared for rape"<<

Go read any story from Greek History - although I do question the validity of these! :p

>>"Often in the days of old (High Middle Ages is what I've studied) if was common to steal a woman or rape her during the hundred years war, especially if she was not of the nobility."<<

Oh yes, this is the case in wars for pretty much all of history. Look at the ancient Greeks. Blatant historical and literary inaccuracies aside, Troy had it right on the money when they said rape the women and throw the babies from the walls. Homer wrote about it in the Illiad because it was a fact of life - women were a part of the spoils of war, just like gold and jewels.

This went on all the way up to this century. Thousands and millions of women were captured and kept as 'comfort women', aka - sex slaves. Here's a quote from an article in the New York Times about them.

"These were not commercial brothels. Force, explicit and implicit, was used in recruiting these women. What went on in them was serial rape, not prostitution. The Japanese Army’s involvement is documented in the government’s own defense files. A senior Tokyo official more or less apologized for this horrific crime in 1993... Yesterday, he grudgingly acknowledged the 1993 quasi apology, but only as part of a pre-emptive declaration that his government would reject the call, now pending in the United States Congress, for an official apology. America isn’t the only country interested in seeing Japan belatedly accept full responsibility. Korea, China, and the Philippines are also infuriated by years of Japanese equivocations over the issue."

And a direct quote from a soldier:

"The same day, veteran soldier Yasuji Kaneko admitted to The Washington Post that the women "cried out, but it didn't matter to us whether the women lived or died. We were the emperor's soldiers. Whether in military brothels or in the villages, we raped without reluctance.""

And yes, Quest for Fire is definitely a good movie if you have any kind of inclination towards that kind of thing. Personally, I love the past. Can't say the same thing for my entire history class who were 5 seconds away from blowing their brains out, but I enjoyed it!!!
happy.gif
 

Similar threads