|
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 |
They're like pixies, but get out of breath quickly.
 "I was working on this skin for a week, and you post a picture of a damn turd right in my thread!" |
|||
|
 |
Do you mean this Pixie from the UK?  K2    "Does this make my Hien look big? I love my Ha-40's & teh Swallow" |
|||
|
 |
Panties are a bourgeois affectation comrades. After the revolution, all will be free to chose between any one of three sizes of unisex thermal undergarments, available in starched white linen or light grey wool.
I think we need to ban non-political postings in political topics... |
|||
|
 |
  "Do not build your community around a game.... Build your game around a community" "Wearing a cup won't help either" Hatchetforce Staff GhostRecon.net | Aggression WhiteKnight77 | Blackfoot Studios | John Sonedecker Interview 2 |
|||
|
 |
something that Men have been trying to get Women out of since they were invented ***************************** BSS_CUDA Co-Founder of my family U.S.Navy retired 1978-1982 U.S.S. Belleau Wood LHA-3  BSS214.com That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed. you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman. Jester : TopGun |
|||
|
 |
man are you ever lost if your lap that sort of thinking up what sort of morally vacant people do you hang out with . because what your taking in is a load of BS honor , loyalty , commitment - these are rewards that a man gives himself  |
|||
|
 |
Logic and truth. If by "morally vacant" you mean the people I listen to then, that would be scientists and psychologists. As opposed to a big noodly monster in the sky. ------------------------------------------------------------ "Of all lovers perhaps none is more unrequited than a liberal humanist. History makes fun of him. Misanthropes deride him." - Harper Magazine |
|||
|
Nice! Wilhelm Reich reader here maybe? Excellent... I must say your posts are really interesting, same with Andy, TY! I'm really impressed about how you guys (UbiZoo members) are able to make a civilized discussion on such sensitive subjects like this far more easily than the ones about turn radius or acceleration!  OK, Here is my contribution  :http://www.scientificamerican....crets-of-the-phallus Regards!  RegRag1977 aka B.Impulse1-6 |
||||
|
|
|
The scientific truth, as opposed to 'gods', is that we weren't designed at all. Modern Homo sapiens is a product of an evolutionary process, rather than design. We certainly owe most of our genetic makup to evolutionary pressures exerted on our hunter-gatherer ancestors, rather than modern 'civilisation', so whatever 'human nature' is, it has little bearing on contemporary views on marriage.
Marriages, and the rules we have about them, are not products of nature, but instead cultural artifacts, shaped no doubt to some extent by our undelying genetic makeup, but so diverse that any attempt to argue that a particular form of human behaviour is 'natural' on 'not natural' is almost entirely meaningless unless backed up by cross-cultural exidence, and always so strongly filtered by subjective judgement that any definitive conclusions are probably unobtainable. Having said that, though, one can, if careful, say a few things about 'marriage' as a common sociocultural phenomenon. Firstly, that it is common. Defining exactly what constitutes 'marriage' is not easy, but one can always fall back on the old anthropologists definition for something that is otherwise undefinable but everyone agrees exists, 'you know it when you see it'. Beyond this common core, almost everything you can say about the subject is so full of exceptions and special cases that talking about marriage as a human institution, as opposed to marriage within a particular sociocultural context, is largely speculation. Looking at particular cases though, there are patterns. British social anthropology in particular seems to have spent much of the twentieth century looking for these patterns, classifying them, and generally treating the subjects of its enquiries as specimins for a butterfly collection. Interesting in its way, but not very helpful if you want to find out what marriage 'is', as opposed to discovering how creative people can be in making up rules about what it ought to be. As a species, we do seem to have a tendency to want to formalise social relations, and structure society according to relatively fixed rules, or at least attempt to shape relationships according to the rules while acknowledging that real people don't always fit in to them. What these rules are, of course, can be so different from one society to another that trying to suggest that they are themselves 'natural' as opposed to the result of our desire (possibly itself partly 'natural') to make up rules about what ought to be natural is just plain wrong. People are too complex, and too willing to argue that the rules that apply to others need not apply to themselves, for any fixed social structure to remain in place anyway. That is 'human nature' - awkward bleeders to study, but fun to be a part of... |
|||
|
Very good post  To me the major changes in "marriage" occured with the historical shift from matriarcal society to the patriarcal one in which we are living. What is very interesting is that there seems to be a correlation between how the goods are produced and shared in a society, and the way the marriage/sexuality is organized. The patriarcal society is nothing but a very short period of time in the history of mankind, (compared with the matriarcal one). Family as it exists now (modern western society)says nothing at all about humanity in general. This message has been edited. Last edited by: RegRag1977, Regards! RegRag1977 aka B.Impulse1-6 |
||||
|
|
|
RegRag1977, have you been reading Engels 'Origin of the Family...'?
A correlation, possibly, though a fairly loose one. As for preexisting matriarchal societies, this is a pretty contentious assertion to make, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find many specialist in the subject who would put it as simply as that. I'd like to continue this discussion, but have to leave it for now... |
|||
|
If you have to ask, does that mean you go without?  |
||||
|
|
|
Only when wearing clothing (which makes no sense either) or nothing at all.....seeing a theme here? K2 "Does this make my Hien look big? I love my Ha-40's & teh Swallow" |
|||
|
|
|
Provided you use Marxist dialectics, of course you can. Otherwise, find another thread to hide in. Or if you're keen, I'm sure there are websites dedicated to the topic. Of course panties, like marriage, are a sociocultural construct, but of little obvious relevance to Marxist philosophy - I'm sure someone will have studied them from a cross-cultural perspective too (I see a potential PhD thesis in this if they haven't...), but it is getting a little off topic.  |
|||
|
 |
Airmail, like I was saying, I think you're both right and wrong. Right, because there are plenty of cultures where the concept of family as Mom, Dad, and the kids is absent and they seem to get on alright. Right, because it's clear that an extended family is a very good way to raise children. And right because fidelity to one mate is a struggle for so many, and the common occurance of mistresses and lovers, covertly or not.
But, wrong because there are so many that have found the deepest happiness in the embrace of just one. And wrong, because some fires, once started, never go out. And I havn't studied this under professors or read about it in some anthropology book. But poets and playwrights know something about it, as do those who have looked into such a fire. It is mystery, the how and the why of it. But there is no questioning the truth of it. It is. Having your thoughts governed for correct content by a bunch of university prigs and wannabe dictators at home is anti-freedom. -Edie Ernst |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
