Post: #1

[www.sos-sex] [isme.org/English/china.htm]



i can't post links yet, so you have to put the url together yourself. i wonder how many of these girls are fat because they have less of an incentive to lose weight.

Post: #2

here's the article...



Y U N N A N P R O V I N C E, China, May 19, 2002 — In the shadows of the Tibetan range that inspired the mythical tales of Shangri-la, along the shores of Lugu Lake, things really start to heat up when the sun goes down

***

The Mosuo people perform their courtship dance, when women traditionally choose a male companion for the night or a year or a lifetime — and the men have no say in the matter.
In almost every way, this is a society where women rule the roost. They run the households, control the money, and own the land and property, all to be inherited by sisters and daughters.

"That's the way it's always been," says 69-year-old Bing Ma, with obvious pride. "A good tradition."

She is the matriarch of a typical Mosuo clan in which her siblings, son, three daughters and grandchildren all live under her roof all their lives.

Then, there's the Mosuo style of marriage called tisese, or walking to and fro — where a son works in his mother's fields all day, eats his mother's cooking, then goes to visit his wife at her mother's house, which is also where his children stay with their mother, never the father.

It may sound bizarre to a Western visitor, but anthropologists say because the men have no power, control no land, and play subservient sexual roles, they have nothing to fight over — making this one of the most harmonious societies on the planet. The Mosuo people, estimated to number around 50,000, have no word for war, no murders, no rapes, no jails.

Geography was a major factor that enabled the Mosuo people to preserve their matriarchal way of life. A few decades ago, it took a whole week for a caravan of mules to reach Lugu Lake in southwestern China from the nearest trading center of Lijiang. At present, it still takes six to seven hours of driving on a four-wheel-drive jeep along a scenic mountain highway with dangerous zigzags and breathtaking views to reach Lugu Lake from the airport in Lijiang.

During the height of Mao Tse-tung's communist rule in the 1960s and '70s, China's hard-liners forced the Mosuo people to abandon their practice of "tisese" and adopt the practice of monogamy. But when China relaxed its tight social controls during the post-Mao era, the Mosuo people reverted back to their traditional sexual practices.

Changing Times

However, times are changing for the Mosuo people. The rapid pace of modernization throughout China today has brought better roads and communications even to the shores of remote Lake Lugu, triggering an invasion of tourists — and tourist dollars.

Suddenly, farmers are leaving their fields for tour-guide jobs. Women earn money dressing up tourists in traditional clothing. And the young are starting to abandon tradition for all things modern.

Even more troubling, some male tourists here are perpetuating a myth that the tradition of walking to and fro means promiscuity or free sex. And that's what many men are coming for. There's now even a Lake Lugu red-light district, where prostitutes from other parts of China dress up as Mosuo women and offer their services.

The older generation is dismayed by all of this. For the first time, they are wondering how much longer their unique culture will survive.

Today, even their age-old courtship dance has lost its way. It's now become a nightly show in which, for a small fee, the tourists are invited to join in.

"Tourists are welcome here so they can witness our way of life," Bing Ma said. "But for those who come here looking for free sex, we do not welcome such people.

"I intend to pass on this way of life to my daughters and granddaughters," she said. "But it is difficult to say if this tradition will continue to survive in the distant future. For my part, I will do my best to ensure that our way of life is passed on to future generations."

Post: #3

Matriarchy is the natural, prehistoric order of things.

Patriarchy is what made civilisation possible.

Post: #4

These people didn't advance in a single thing for thousands of years. Men are the creators of all inventions and ideas, but they need sexual motivation to do it.

Post: #5

I am very suspicious of this. There are a few remaining gynocentric societies, and for that matter much of Africa is weakly gynocentric. But no war? No rape? No murder? Not even a fucking word for war, even though they are aware of other civilizations? Are you fucking kidding me? That sounds like unvarnished horseshit. Cultural anthropologists these days consider themselves advocates rather than scientists, so I would not be surprised if that is not true at all and merely propaganda from a hardcore cultural Marxist who despises Western civilization, men, and white people.

Post: #6

(10-13-2011 08:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  These people didn't advance in a single thing for thousands of years. Men are the creators of all inventions and ideas, but they need sexual motivation to do it.

i feel the same way. some feminist bitch posted the link on her facebook status. she and i actually had a long ass facebook debate on why this society would suck. of course she just overlook my points with hamster rationalization.

(10-13-2011 08:50 AM)Thorfinnsson Wrote:  I am very suspicious of this. There are a few remaining gynocentric societies, and for that matter much of Africa is weakly gynocentric. But no war? No rape? No murder? Not even a fucking word for war, even though they are aware of other civilizations? Are you fucking kidding me? That sounds like unvarnished horseshit. .

yeah that crossed my mind too. it does sounds fake.

Post: #7

(10-13-2011 08:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  These people didn't advance in a single thing for thousands of years. Men are the creators of all inventions and ideas, but they need sexual motivation to do it.

Interesting. Is this scientific proved?

Post: #8

(10-12-2011 09:45 PM)Caligula Wrote:  Matriarchy is the natural, prehistoric order of things.

Patriarchy is what made civilisation possible.

I totally disagree with this statement.

Where did you get this from?

Post: #9

(10-13-2011 08:50 AM)Thorfinnsson Wrote:  I am very suspicious of this. There are a few remaining gynocentric societies, and for that matter much of Africa is weakly gynocentric. But no war? No rape? No murder? Not even a fucking word for war, even though they are aware of other civilizations? Are you fucking kidding me? That sounds like unvarnished horseshit. Cultural anthropologists these days consider themselves advocates rather than scientists, so I would not be surprised if that is not true at all and merely propaganda from a hardcore cultural Marxist who despises Western civilization, men, and white people.

What do you mean by weakly gynocentric?

Post: #10

(10-13-2011 08:50 AM)Thorfinnsson Wrote:  I am very suspicious of this. There are a few remaining gynocentric societies, and for that matter much of Africa is weakly gynocentric. But no war? No rape? No murder? Not even a fucking word for war, even though they are aware of other civilizations? Are you fucking kidding me? That sounds like unvarnished horseshit. Cultural anthropologists these days consider themselves advocates rather than scientists, so I would not be surprised if that is not true at all and merely propaganda from a hardcore cultural Marxist who despises Western civilization, men, and white people.

+1 for that succinct rebuttal! I also smelt a trainload of bullshit in all those typically feminist assertions. Reminds me of smth I read a while back about cultural anthropologists IIRC in Oceania,sometime in the 20s or 30s confidently stating conflict didn't exist-it was only until a follow up team landing at this tropical utopia discovered that interpersonal trauma was the leading cause of death! The second team simply had reliable translators.

Post: #11

(10-14-2011 11:00 AM)afronoob Wrote:  cultural anthropologists IIRC in Oceania,sometime in the 20s or 30s confidently stating conflict didn't exist-it was only until a follow up team landing at this tropical utopia discovered that interpersonal trauma was the leading cause of death! The second team simply had reliable translators.

The classic case was Margaret Meade describing Pacific Islands as idyllic utopias free of Western sexual morals. Later anthropologists encountered widespread rape. Margaret Meade's original source was a twelve-year-old girl who recanted her stories eighty years later (!), but anthropologists didn't want to believe this because Meade had become an intellectual icon.

Post: #12

(10-14-2011 10:41 AM)Moma Wrote:  

(10-12-2011 09:45 PM)Caligula Wrote:  Matriarchy is the natural, prehistoric order of things.

Patriarchy is what made civilisation possible.

I totally disagree with this statement.

Where did you get this from?

From here, Samseau posted it in another thread. It seems to have been the norm in prehistoric societies due to the difficulty of establishing paternity.

http://fisheaters.com/gb2.html

Post: #13

(10-14-2011 10:24 AM)pitt Wrote:  

(10-13-2011 08:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  These people didn't advance in a single thing for thousands of years. Men are the creators of all inventions and ideas, but they need sexual motivation to do it.

Interesting. Is this scientific proved?

Yeah. Its called history. Every leading culture was man-oriented. All cultures fell when they became women oriented. The trend is so reliable that I still have not found any counter-examples.

By man-oriented, I mean:

- property is inherieted through male-blood lines
- women cannot have sex with whomever they please

These conditions were true for America up until the last 100 years or so, and since that turning point (female sufferage):

- property (wealth) is increasingly owned by women
- women can (and will) fuck whoever

And now we're on the verge of national bankruptcy. Hooray!

Post: #14

Quote:I totally disagree with this statement.

Where did you get this from?

Quote:Interesting. Is this scientific proved?

From: /thread-5689-p...l#pid76731

Sex is the biggest motivation for men.

In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's book,The Lost World, a young man who desires a young woman's hand in marriage is told no because of his lack of prospects. The young man promises to travel halfway across the world in a land where dinosaurs still roam the earth with a team of other men and then come back to her. Of course, (spoiler!) at the end of the story, the young man arrives home only to discover that she had already married another man (didn't feel like waiting any longer). But, in any case, this illustrates that point that young men are (were?) society's greatest assets. Men took all the risks, fought empires, boarded ships for months and years in filthy conditions, spent hours scurrying books and accumulating knowledge, discovered new lands, initiated space exploration, and advanced scientific and medical research all for the sake of women (pussy).

Marriage was a way to direct men's sexual energy into something productive by taking risks, dangers, building up society, and maintaining civilization in exchange for the hand of a chaste woman in marriage.

Now, all of that has vastly changed. Incentives drive behavior. If men see that doing X will get them Y, even though doing W will benefit society as a whole and progress civilization, then they're still going to do X.

Take Roosh, for instance. I'm not trying to pass judgment, and I admit that I would've probably made a similar decision to his, but Roosh had an advanced science degree and was doing noble work in cancer research. Now, his job may have been dull or boring, but I bet if it were the 1950s and Roosh had a faithful pretty wife to come home to with food on the table, I think Roosh would have continued what he was doing because at least he has pussy.

Sex is the engine of society. Men are the donkeys, and sex is the carrot stick tied to a pole held in front of the donkey to move forward. Give the donkey the carrot, and no work gets done. Give men sex, and they'll say, "Why even bother."

Single men (a.k.a. bachelors) have very few expenses apart from food, rent, power bills, and all the basic necessities. Men are survivors and hunters. America is based on consumer economy based on buying and spending. More marriages equal more families which equal more people which equal more demand for products.

A married man with children will do anything for money.

Married men tend to contribute more to the economy and society because it's in his self-interest to raise his children in the best environment possible so his genetic offspring can flourish. Hence, the rise of civilization.

More bachelors equates with less productive output since they have little to no self-interest in contributing to society or the economy when they live care-free lives and have only themselves to look after.

Post: #15

If the children are all "everyone's" and "everyone" works, yet women alone choose their male partners, it sounds suspiciously like the society we have been moving towards. The ultimate combination of female hypergamy and tyranny of the alpha male, with some 10-20% of the most attractive men fathering all the children, and the rest being slaves who only work to raise their spawn. Fair and harmonious my ass.

The only difference is that this Mosuo culture is driven by females, whereas the order prehistoric tribes were driven by males. But the end result is the same - tyranny of the few strongest and slavery for all the rest. The fact that there is no war just means the oppression is total, not that the society is just! There is no war in North Korea either.

p.s. apologies for thread necro, came from one of the links below the thread

Post: #16

(10-16-2011 05:35 PM)blurb Wrote:  More bachelors equates with less productive output since they have little to no self-interest in contributing to society or the economy when they live care-free lives and have only themselves to look after.

I'm a bachelor and don't plan to ever marry, however as an older guy I see that money is going to play an ever increasing role in my ability to attract young women. I work hard to raise my status in all possible ways, including financially.

The argument makes sense that if a lack of marriage options leads a man to opt out of dating altogether, then he will be LESS motivated to be OVER productive. However if his sexual strategy is to become more of a top dog in order to compete, marriage doesn't enter into it. In fact he'll work on maintaining a high level of drive longer if he continues to remain in the dating market.

Post: #17

It's not simply that men were incentivized to earn more in patriarchal societies. It's also the case, in in Doyle's Lost World, that they were driven by cultural norms to achieve great things. No, most men didn't go to South America in search of dinosaurs but most guys in Britain in the 19th century and early 20th century for example were expected to go to war if the country needed them. And if they didn't, it was considered a stain upon their manhood - which explains the phenomenon of girls giving men who shirked military duty and stayed home white feathers.

Today, women in Anglo nations and in other Westernized countries appear to care less for achievement and professional experience than they once did - hence the rise of game.

The other contributor to civilization's decay is that when women enter into men's professional fields, they tend to bureaucratize and formalize what had been informal and based more solely upon productive contribution. Women are good at being on committee's and taking time to deliberate, which is one of the reasons everything takes so much longer today than it once did. Men, in times past, were more willing to bend the rules and make up things as they went along, as long as it got the job done. They rewarded creative thinking in a way that women normally do not. Try reading Charles Murray's book on the Apollo mission or Tom Wolfe on the early computer industry - it's all about smart, risk-taking men breaking the rules and flying by the seat of their pants and not caring about formal hierarchies, corporate or government policies, and appearances. This is why Silicon Valley has, until recently, been dominated by start-ups which have tried to resist in their early phases employing many women. The ascendance of female executives in the industry is symptomatic of the industry's rise to maturity, i.e. decadence.

Post: #18

(10-13-2011 08:50 AM)Thorfinnsson Wrote:  I am very suspicious of this. There are a few remaining gynocentric societies, and for that matter much of Africa is weakly gynocentric. But no war? No rape? No murder? Not even a fucking word for war, even though they are aware of other civilizations? Are you fucking kidding me? That sounds like unvarnished horseshit. Cultural anthropologists these days consider themselves advocates rather than scientists, so I would not be surprised if that is not true at all and merely propaganda from a hardcore cultural Marxist who despises Western civilization, men, and white people.

While this is generally true, that cultural anthropologists and sociologists, as a rule, are hardcore leftists or cultural marxists, it's almost irrelevant because of the following point:

Quote:It may sound bizarre to a Western visitor, but anthropologists say because the men have no power, control no land, and play subservient sexual roles, they have nothing to fight over — making this one of the most harmonious societies on the planet. The Mosuo people, estimated to number around 50,000, have no word for war, no murders, no rapes, no jails.

This would mean that they would be WHOLLY unequipped to survive in battle against any other tribe. The only reason they did survive was presumably because they were so isolated. We know from studies of hunter gatherers, and the general course of history, that violence has always been prevalent. That is why a configuration like the Mosuo's is so rare.

Of course, that society is a leftist dream. They'll claim it's desirable because there is no violence, but just as desirable to them is the inversion of the distribution of power between the sexes. Furthermore, a Mosuo-like society is completely at the mercy of any rival society with a warrior class. Put these Mosuo next to Sparta, and see how long they remain independent.

And that's another essential element of this leftist dream - this can only work if EVERYONE were to submit to it. Failing that, they would lose miserably to the first invasion.

Post: #19

Nice, gotta read Samseau's article tonight after the gym.

Post: #20

This is *kind of* relevant: Equality in Barbarism

Quote:Indeed, this seems to indicate that women’s relative power is stronger in more primitive, anarchic and despotic environments, whether they are our contemporary urban ghettoes or early medieval barbarian kingdoms. Many other examples, such as 12th century Mongolia and early colonial era Iroquois tribes point to this phenomenon. In fact, as far as I know, in barbaric, warlike societies, as opposed to civilized or hunter gatherer societies, women have the most power and freedom of all. In example after example, one can see the relative status of women decline as societies become more orderly, literate and settled. Contrast Homeric Greece to Athenian civilization. Pre-imperial to Confucian China. Jahiliyyah to the Caliphate — the list goes on.

Post: #21

(10-07-2012 05:21 PM)P Dog Wrote:  This is *kind of* relevant: Equality in Barbarism

Quote:Indeed, this seems to indicate that women’s relative power is stronger in more primitive, anarchic and despotic environments, whether they are our contemporary urban ghettoes or early medieval barbarian kingdoms. Many other examples, such as 12th century Mongolia and early colonial era Iroquois tribes point to this phenomenon. In fact, as far as I know, in barbaric, warlike societies, as opposed to civilized or hunter gatherer societies, women have the most power and freedom of all. In example after example, one can see the relative status of women decline as societies become more orderly, literate and settled. Contrast Homeric Greece to Athenian civilization. Pre-imperial to Confucian China. Jahiliyyah to the Caliphate — the list goes on.

... And isn't Western civilization currently in the process of becoming less civilized?

Just a thought.

Post: #22

(10-07-2012 05:26 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 05:21 PM)P Dog Wrote:  This is *kind of* relevant: Equality in Barbarism

Quote:Indeed, this seems to indicate that women’s relative power is stronger in more primitive, anarchic and despotic environments, whether they are our contemporary urban ghettoes or early medieval barbarian kingdoms. Many other examples, such as 12th century Mongolia and early colonial era Iroquois tribes point to this phenomenon. In fact, as far as I know, in barbaric, warlike societies, as opposed to civilized or hunter gatherer societies, women have the most power and freedom of all. In example after example, one can see the relative status of women decline as societies become more orderly, literate and settled. Contrast Homeric Greece to Athenian civilization. Pre-imperial to Confucian China. Jahiliyyah to the Caliphate — the list goes on.

... And isn't Western civilization currently in the process of becoming less civilized?

Just a thought.

The author agrees with you.

Quote:The question, then, is whether feminists, when presented with the opportunity, would deliberately create the conditions of barbarism. That feminists romanticize a golden past of female empowerment, even going so far as to suggest that ape society is superior to our own, seems to suggest that they will. Perhaps, then, it isn’t so much that feminists want to change civilization, but rather – consciously or not – they aim to dismantle it.

If so, that may be exactly where we’re headed.

Athlone said it first that we're devolving back to our pre-Agricultural Revolution society.

Post: #23

Women: emotions. Men: logic.
Guess what science and technology needs: logic or emotions?

Post: #24

Africa ....weakly gynocentric ?????

I guess you don't know many African men and their families do you ..........???

Post: #25

(10-07-2012 08:12 PM)kdolo Wrote:  Africa ....weakly gynocentric ?????

I guess you don't know many African men and their families do you ..........???

You misunderstand - it's not that patriarchy is sufficient for civilization, but necessary.


So while you can have patriarchy without civilization, you cannot have civilization without patriarchy.