Ah, women. Priestesses of Venus, keepers of culture and tradition. Free and consecrated to the public life, the purification of the interior, and the exterior.
What great injustice was done to you.
They came to bathe, to talk, to relax. "Putae", they called you. That word, derived from "publis", expressed the respect for your dedication to the public. Erotic relations did occur, and as a free person, it was your right to maintain them with whoever you pleased.
But that wouldn't last. From the east, there came a terrible pestilence. Christianity, a disease born from a region of the world which even today takes you for a second class being. Its values, committed to transform beauty and pleasure into sin. The empire faded, and the world was buried into ten centuries of darkness. But not before dragging you into the mud. No longer was putae associated with publis, but with pubis. Prostitute you became, and your house, no longer a place for the purification of the body and the mind, it became a place if sin. Along with the loss of the habit of hygiene, there came the destruction of the feminine woman.
Even now, the feminine woman is condemned, devalued, denied. Their wisdom and their eroticism are dirty and vain. Women, to show value, must strip their sexuality and become like men.
Will putae ever be considered respectful again? Unlikely. That which is beautiful and noble and fair no longer has a place in this world.
For whatever reasons human beings like to make more out of their expiriences, emotions, and activities than what they actually are to the point of obssessively or absurdly fetishizing them.
In all reality what is love? Delicious fetishes we surround ourselves with to the point of fictionalizing them within some fantastic cultural script making things appear more real than what they actually are.
In all reality "love" much like alot of human words are descriptions of nothing at all.
They merely come to symbolize humanity's absurd reflection of desiring to fetishize itself to be more than what it is.
To the wise of mind immediately such things are seen for what they are which is fake, shallow, hollow, and pretensious.
At the end of the day the human female is no different than any other female animal in behavior when it concerns exchanging sexual favors for the security and comfort of a male's material resources.
Where is love involved? What is love? Ah, the delicious lies we tell ourselves everyday under a variety of forms.
Like all other female animals the human female upon seeing what a male bids in resources and securities immediately hops on all fours spreading out her vaginal cavity to which is her symbolic exchange of accepting a male's wager to which the male proudly sticks it in her cementing the entire deal. Love is never present. Love is camouflage used by people to not think of the real motivations, reasonings, and intentions at work in relationships.
What is the actual reasoning at work in relationships of the opposite sex? Power and domination!
A woman's "love" is a hundred dollar bill folded inside a condom half way out in between their legs drenched in semen.
In civilization human relationships are no different or exempt from the rules and structures of other animals with us existing as one for that which applies to other animals surely applies to us all also.
Just as power and domination are the main focal points of other sexual mating in other species so is it the same for that of human beings where "love" plays no role whatsoever as a fictional pretentious make believe word.
We create the distinction of love, romance, chilvalry, and honor in order to perceive ourselves different from other animals but upon careful examination all we find are words describining meaningless nonexistent differences from ourselves in comparison to other species.
Civilization like any other wilderness is also surrounded by grunts, growls, screaming, howling, and a variety of other wild violent orgies serenading in it's background.
We are not so different from other animals.
This is the role of men and women beyond pointless fictional narratives that camouflage the brutal realities of actual sexual interaction.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37275 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Ah, women. Priestesses of Venus, keepers of culture and tradition. Free and consecrated to the public life, the purification of the interior, and the exterior.
What great injustice was done to you.
And what have you brought upon yourself?
Having been dominated by a mindset, a meme, women now tell themselves that were nothing more than passive participants, when they took sides and were seduced by this modernistic bullshit they now discover is unsatisfying to them...or, at least, not what they imagined it to be.
Amongst lion prides the females rally behind the dominant male when competition comes to their doorstep. But, if the old male is vanquished they quickly change their minds, go into estrus, after their cubs are slaughtered, and settle for a new King.
Maybe human females can see this attitude in themselves.
phoneutria wrote:
They came to bathe, to talk, to relax. "Putae", they called you. That word, derived from "publis", expressed the respect for your dedication to the public. Erotic relations did occur, and as a free person, it was your right to maintain them with whoever you pleased.
Unfortunately this free-love does not go well with n ordered society where males must be integrated into the whole and be made into active and loyal investors.
Sex has always been a female's only way to power, as you and the girls around here adequately show, and this had to be restricted to create stable all-inclusive empires....like today's Globalizing Jude-Christian Aemricanism. As female power was given back, in essence sexual choice, the family structure deteriorates producing "free-radicals" in the midst of a social system...a symptom of decline.
phoneutria wrote:
Even now, the feminine woman is condemned, devalued, denied. Their wisdom and their eroticism are dirty and vain. Women, to show value, must strip their sexuality and become like men.
No, dear, I know it pleases you to think so, but the feminine in both woman and man is being promoted, worshiped...it is preferred. Pretty prissy, effete, soft and delicate litle girls who, despite that, feel that they deserve institutional power because now, all are made women and so why should biological males be held in higher regard.
phoneutria wrote:
Will putae ever be considered respectful again? Unlikely. That which is beautiful and noble and fair no longer has a place in this world.
Putas are, dear. Being promiscuous is the in thing....fucking is the only way to measure yourself, your attractiveness, your marketability. Look around dear.
Did you just write more than one sentence? Interesting.
Reintroducing this lost 'feminine' aspect to our spirituality and oneness with the earth is definitely overplayed. It's viewed as the solution to all of the patriarchal madness, and left brained dominance.
That isn't to say it's not present, but I believe that there is always a balance according to the tides. Being that the masculine has become so strong, the feminine is evermore climbing within its walls.
And what have you brought upon yourself? Having been dominated by a mindset, a meme, women now tell themselves that were nothing more than passive participants, when they took sides and were seduced by this modernistic bullshit they now discover is unsatisfying to them...or, at least, not what they imagined it to be.
Amongst lion prides the females rally behind the dominant male when competition comes to their doorstep. But, if the old male is vanquished they quickly change their minds, go into estrus, after their cubs are slaughtered, and settle for a new King.
Maybe human females can see this attitude in themselves.
I disagree that women tell themselves that they are passive participants. They want to meddle with everything. It's the contradiction between the impulse of being in charge of her own destiny and the instinct of nurturing and being nurtured that creates the phenomena of the modern woman.
Quote :
Unfortunately this free-love does not go well with n ordered society where males must be integrated into the whole and be made into active and loyal investors.
Sex has always been a female's only way to power, as you and the girls around here adequately show, and this had to be restricted to create stable all-inclusive empires....like today's Globalizing Jude-Christian Aemricanism.
And should we never criticize such marvelous creations as empires? Could we find a flaw or two in this empire of ours? Hmm... balance of power... hm... unsustainability of large conglomerations of people... I don't feel like typing. Ask me some other time, or figure it out by yourself, most capable thinking man.
Quote :
As female power was given back, in essence sexual choice, the family structure deteriorates producing "free-radicals" in the midst of a social system...a symptom of decline.
Hahahahahahaha... ah Why don't we blame it on women again. Throw stones at the puta! Let's go for the low hanging fruit. No, satyr. It is not sexual choice that deteriorates our social system. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were lazy on this day. Hell, I am guilty of that on more occasions than I would like. But I am ever forgiving. Hit again.
Quote :
No, dear, I know it pleases you to think so, but the feminine in both woman and man is being promoted, worshiped...it is preferred. Pretty prissy, effete, soft and delicate litle girls who, despite that, feel that they deserve institutional power because now, all are made women and so why should biological males be held in higher regard.
This is not the feminine woman.
The woman who lives for her family, who perfumes herself for her husband, who sits with the children and talks. The foundation stone, which is buried under the ground, but upon which all other stones are set. That woman, is an endangered species.
Quote :
Putas are, dear. Being promiscuous is the in thing....fucking is the only way to measure yourself, your attractiveness, your marketability. Look around dear.
It is the world that we created. A world in which everything is measured by power. Where there is no value in anything in itself, but what you can gain from it.
Quote :
Did you just write more than one sentence? Interesting.
Think nothing of it. I remain by mode of operation: one like typed, one page read.
Reintroducing this lost 'feminine' aspect to our spirituality and oneness with the earth is definitely overplayed. It's viewed as the solution to all of the patriarchal madness, and left brained dominance.
Overplayed, but under implemented.
Quote :
That isn't to say it's not present, but I believe that there is always a balance according to the tides. Being that the masculine has become so strong, the feminine is evermore climbing within its walls.
Agreed on balance, disagreed on the definition of feminine.
What is the difference between modern women of the general public or population from that of occupational prostitutes?
Prostitution in ancient Greece was evaluated mostly in terms of free vs. forced labour: "Athenian morality, in short, focused on the structure of work relationships, and not on the actual nature of the labor undertaken"...
Quote :
"The two principal clusters of ancient Greek words relating to “prostitution”—those cognate to “pernanai” (“sell”) and those cognate to “hetairein” (“be a companion”).
Some scholars accordingly argue that “in general” promiscuity is the key: a pornos is a man “who constantly sells his body to different men, whereas a hetairos has a more long-term relationship with one partner” (MacDowell 2000, 14); a hetaira engaged in relationships that were “not merely occasional” (Cantarella 1987, 50; cf. Dover 1984, 147). For other commentators, “emotional attitude” supposedly identifies a pornos (-ê) as “a common prostitute,” while a hetairos (-a) is “nearer to ‘mistress’ than to ‘prostitute’” (Dover [1978] 1989, 20–21; cf. Lentakis 1999, 162). But for most analysts, neither promiscuity nor affection but “status” has been the differentiating characteristic: social position is believed to separate the high-class hetairos (-a) from the street or brothel pornos (-ê).
In fact, Greek literature is replete with tales of glamorous and brilliant women who allegedly made important contributions to Athenian civilization and politics, while supporting themselves magnificently by providing sexual services to important male leaders. Yet many scholars reject outright—as mere myth and romanticization—the very concept of prostitutes of high status: the “refined hetaira” is “a fabrication of the male mind” (Keuls 1985, 199). For these classicists, “hetaira” and “pornê” are for the Greeks merely two words covering a single form of exploitation. And for those scholars who (following Hesiod) see marriage as the functional equivalent of prostitution, the hetaira is an “ersatzfrau” (Reinsberg 1989, 87), indistinguishable in her nullity from a wife. Even advocates of the idea that there is a clear differentiation between “hetaira” and “pornê” concede that “the distinction” between the two terms “is not always sharp” (MacDowell 2000, 14).
Comic writers actually seem to fuse the two categories. Anaxilas describes the same women indiscriminately as both “hetairai” and “pornai,” while Aristophanes conflates the grouping of hetairai and pornoi (frag. 22 [K-A], lines 1, 22, 31). Athenian legislation prohibiting male prostitutes’ participation in political life, instead of distinguishing or defining the groups, treats them as a couplet, applying the law explic- itly, but without differentiation, to both pornoi and hetairoi (Aeschines 1.29). In court presentations, a single person is sometimes referred to indiscriminately in a single forensic speech by both terms. The single word “hetaira” sometimes encompasses all aspects of female prostitution (from the most dependently debased to the most independently magnificent), while the word “pornê” is occasionally used to describe a woman clearly in a long-time relationship (see Lysias 4.19; [Demosthenes] 59.30). Such inconsistencies strongly suggest the uselessness of an impressionistic search for distinguishing characteristics inherent in the specific terms, increasingly causing scholars to despair of identifying meaningful distinctions in the actual usage of words that seem often interchangeable.
In contrast, modern discursive analysis avoids an exclusively philological approach, focusing instead on the antithetical nature of the two terms and finding the differentiation, in Kurke’s words (paraphrasing Davidson), “constituted along the axis of gift- vs. commodity- exchange, identified with the hetaira and the pornê respectively.” But this approach also presents evidentiary difficulties. Dover, for example, in his detailed study of “popular morality,” concludes that for the Greeks “submission in gratitude for gifts, services or help is not so different in kind from submission in return for an agreed fee” (1984, 152). For this reason, perhaps, Kurke’s hetaira is sometimes a chameleon: “the pressure and anxieties of the male participants occasionally refashion her as a pornê” (1997, 145–46), and in certain contexts Kurke is even compelled to acknowledge “hetaira and pornê as interchangeable terms” (1997, 219 n.110).
Ultimately, however, whether unitary, binary or diverse—whether definable or impervious to definition, whether a commodity or a gift— prostitution involves payment for sex.
The disclosure by the phialai exeleutherikai inscriptions that at Athens reflect an obsessive Athenian concern not with the inherent morality of an occupation like prostitution, but with the extent of a worker’s freedom from another person’s control or supervision—in Greek terms, the relative degree to which a working individual appears to be eleutheros (free) or doulos (-ê) (slave).
Lauded by comic poets as a democratic and ethically desirable alternative to other forms of nonmarital sex (Eubulus frag. 67 and frag. 82 [K-A]; Philemon frag. 3 [K-A]), prostitution gained social legitimacy from its association with the goddess Aphrodite, who was believed to aid hetairai in securing wealthy clients and whose cult sites (outside Attica) sometimes offered “sacred prostitutes.” The shrine of Aphrodite Pandemus, in Attica near the acropolis, was said to have been built from the proceeds of one of Solon’s innovations, the state’s purchase and employment of female slaves as prostitutes. Despite the doubtful historicity of this tale, the laudatory connection of democracy’s founder with the foundation of brothels does provide startling insight into a fourth-century Athens that treated prostitution as a “ ‘democratic’ reform” (Kurke 1999, 199), “as an intrinsic element of the democracy” (Halperin 1990, 100). And through its “tax on prostitution” (pornikon telos), Athens—which never did restrict “victimless sexual conduct” (Wallace 1997, 151–52)—was an active accessory to the sexual labors of its residents (Aeschines 1.119).38 Even the city’s goddess, Athena, titular deity of crafts, listed prostitutes among her benefactors (Harris 1995, 144–49), and a monument honoring a famed hetaira stood on the Athenian acropolis next to a statue of Aphrodite (Pausanias 1.23.2).
Another form of labor, however, did evoke moral outrage. Athenians uniformly disapproved of free persons engaging in work that required regular and repetitive service for a single employer on an ongoing basis over a continuing period—what we would term a “job.” For free Athenians, a pervasive moral tenet was “the obligation to maintain an independence of occupation . . . and at all costs to avoid seeming to work in a ‘slavish’ way for another” (Fisher 1998a, 70).
In Aristotle’s words, “the nature of the free man prevents his living under the control of another” (Rhetoric 1367a33). Isocrates (14.48 ) equates hired employment (thêteia) with slavery (see also Aristotle Rhetoric 1367a30–32). Isaeus laments the free men, and Demosthenes the free women, compelled by a “lack of necessities” to labor for pay: free people “should be pitied” if economic necessity forces them into “slavish” (doulika) employment (Isaeus 5.39; see also Demosthenes 57.45 and Martini 1997, 49). Receipt of a salary (misthophoria) was the hallmark of a slave. When the Athenian state required coin testers and mint workers to perform services on an ongoing basis, legislation explicitly provided for the payment of misthophoriai to the skilled public slaves (dêmosioi) who supplied these services (and for their punishment in the event of absenteeism) (SEG 26.72, lines 49– 55).
Even lucrative managerial positions were disdained by free persons: most supervisors accordingly were slaves, even on large estates where high compensation would have been required to motivate free but highly skilled individuals (see Xenophon Oeconomicus 12.3). Thus, in Xenophon’s Memorabilia (2.8 ), Socrates proposes permanent employment as an estate supervisor to Eutheros, an impoverished free man. Such epitropoi, Socrates notes, were well compensated (6) for even routine services (3). But Eutheros curtly rejects the suggestion: managing an employer’s property was only appropriate for a slave (4).
Athenian morality, in short, focused on the structure of work relationships, and not on the actual nature of the labor undertaken. Confounding modern expectations, the same labor functions might be performed indiscriminately by slave workers or by free “foreign residents” (“metics”) or by “citizens” (“politai”). (In fact, the shoes for the public slaves working at Eleusis were made by a cobbler who was a politês! [IG 22.1672.190; see also lines 70–71].)
In the Athenian navy, politai, metics and slaves served together as crew members without differentiation of status or work assignment: a master and his slave even appear often to have been rowers on the same trireme. Within Athenian households, free women worked alongside domestic slaves at many tasks. Yet the willingness of Athenian “citizens” to do the same work as foreigners or slaves was accompanied by a scrupulous effort to avoid even the appearance of being “employed” at a job. Service outside the Athenian household by free persons was usually for a single specific task or for a limited period of time and seldom exclusive to a single employer: we typically encounter Athenian businessmen working on their own for a variety of customers, or agents undertaking a limited task for an individual client. Even slaves attempted to avoid the appearance of “slavish employment”: the Athenian institution of “servants living independently” (“douloi khôris oikountes”) permitted unfree persons to conduct their own businesses, establish their own households, and sometimes even to own their own slaves—without much contact with, and most importantly, virtually without supervision from, their owners. The presence, or absence, of supervision and control was a critical, perhaps the central, factor in Athenian evaluation of work situations.
Athenian aversion to the dependence inherent in salaried employment meant that in principal providing sex in brothels was appropriate only for slaves. In actual practice, numerous opportunities for self-employment of free persons in craft or trade, and the wide availability of paid public positions, left only slaves (and family members) as potential employees for the many Athenian businesses (workshops, stores, brothels, banks, and numerous other ergasiai) that needed the labor of individuals over a continuing period of time. “Nowhere in the sources do we hear of private establishments employing a staff of hired workers as their normal operation” (Finley 1981, 262–63 n.6). Athenians assumed, correctly, that persons performing repetitive functions in a commercial context—whether bank staff or sexual workers—were likely to be slaves. At Kolonos Agoraios, the site of Athens’ incipient version of a labor market,54 douloi constituted virtually all of those standing for hire (Pherecrates frag. 142 [K-A]).
Most slaves, however, worked “at home,” that is, within the house- hold (oikos) with which virtually all persons at Athens, both free and unfree, were affiliated (Aristotle Politics 1253b6–7). As an entity encompassing the physical attributes of a residence, the complement of mem- bers now (or in some cases previously) living in that residence, and the assets and business activities relating to those members, the oikos was the physical location of virtually all retail establishments, workshops, and craft and trade activities (see Demosthenes 47.56; Menander Woman from Samos 234–36; Pollux 1.80).
Even the permanent physical premises of an Athenian bank were usually coextensive with the personal resi- dence of the trapeza’s proprietor (Demosthenes 49.22; 52.8; 52.14). As a result, at Athens, “ ‘firm’ and private household” were, in Moses Finley’s words, “one and the same” (1981, 69; cf. Plácido 1997),58 and so, for those slaves working in brothels, their oikos was likely to be both their place of work and their residence.59 Aeschines actually describes a single house that was used in turn as a business place and home by a doctor, smith, fuller, and carpenter and also as a brothel (1.124; cf. He- rodas 2.36 with Cunningham 1971, 88 ).
Substantial ancient evidence shows that “the prostitution of slaves was paradigmatically based in brothels” (porneia) (Flemming 1999, 43; cf. Davidson 1997, 90–99; Kapparis 1999, 228–29) and that pornai—in contrast to the predominantly free hetairoi and hetairai chronicled in the literary tradition—were predominantly slaves (doulai). Aeschines makes explicit the contrast between free hetairoi and slave pornoi when he urges Timarchus, charged with prostitution, to respond to the accusations not as a pornos, but as a prostitute who is a free man (1.123).
Demosthenes warns that if Athenian juries do not uphold laws relating to citizenship, the work of pornai will fall to the daughters of “citizens,” but that hetairai will be indistinguishable from (other) free women (59.113). Menander sets the pornê in direct antithesis to a free woman. The abject slave whore of The Arbitration, working for a pornoboskos who has hired her out for twelve drachmas, is a pornê (see lines 136–37, 430– 31, and 646); in the Woman from Samos, the confident sex mate of the wealthy Demeas, is a free hetaira (cf. lines 30–31, 748–49).
For Menander there is a natural conflict between the free woman and the slave pornê: the slave is more manipulative and in her knavery knows no shame (see, for example, Arbitration frag. 7). Herodas likewise assumes that pornai are slaves: to protect his pornai, Battaros invokes a law dealing with doulai (2:30, 36–37, and 46–48 ). Indeed, the words “pornê” and “doulê” occur together so commonly that a study by the Italian scholar Citti has concluded that mention of the term “pornê” in ancient Greek necessarily evokes the mental image of a doulê: the two words form “una coppia nominale,” “a verbal coupling” (1997, 92). Thus the defendant in Lysias 4, seeking to have a woman give evidence under torture, refers to her not merely as a “slave” but as a “slave pornê” (in Greek “doulê pornê” [4.19]). In fact, her characterization as a “doulê” is based only on the defendant’s characterization of her as a pornê: the plaintiff insists that she is free (4.12 and 14), and no evidence (other than her characterization as a doulê) suggests that she is enslaved.
Theopompus, the fourth-century historian, emphasizes the linkage between the two terms in describing a certain Pythionike, a slave who had belonged to three separate owners, and was therefore “thrice a doulê and thrice a pornê” (“tri-doulon kai tri-pornon”) (Athenaeus 13.595a [= FGrH 115 F 253]). A scholiast explains a passage in Demosthenes by offering the example of “douloi and sons of pornai” (Dilts 1986, 274, Scholion 69). Libanius, in a rhetorical critique, brands Aeschines as an individual born of a father who was a doulos and a mother who was a pornê (Foerster 1903–27, 8.301–2). And, as one might expect, the fullest examples of this verbal combination are to be found in patristic works (see John Chrysostom, PG 59.165.23 and 63.554.12).
Within their brothels, Athenian prostitutes—like other slaves— would have received instruction in the provision of sexual services. Athenian society functioned through an enormous network of hun- dreds of distinct occupations, most unrelated to agriculture. To maintain this diverse specialization in the many fields requiring knowledge and skill (tekhnai) (see Xenophon Oeconomicus 1.1; Pollux 4.7 and 22)65— handicraft, catering, and medicine, for example—douloi and doulai nor- mally received substantial training, vocational education that free persons often lacked. Slaves working in trapezai were taught the intricacies of finance and accounting, and slaves working as prostitutes are known to have received specialized training, sometimes starting in childhood. Yet even the best educated and most highly skilled douloi generally also performed domestic labor within the household. Thus slaves working as doctors or doctors’ assistants are known to have devoted part of their time to household duties (Garlan 1988, 68; cf. Kudlien 1968; Joly 1969). (Aeschines, charging Timarchus with betraying his free status by acting in a slavish fashion, specifically accuses him of combining work as a prostitute with a purported pursuit of training in medicine [1.40]).
This pattern of having more than one assigned task provides the context for a division of labor in which some female slaves worked as both prostitutes and wool workers. Brothel prostitution and wool working were important Athenian businesses in which women’s services were dominant. Female pornai, believed to be more numerous than male pornoi (Davidson 1997, 77), typically worked under a senior woman who “knew how to run her business . . . and how to keep the women under strict control” (Kapparis 1999, 207; cf. Carey 1992, 94). Similarly wool working—“the characteristic area of feminine expertise normally cited by ancient authors” (Brock 1994, 338 )—was entirely dependent on female labor. Although many free women were skilled in this craft and often supervised or even worked along with their slaves, the actual production and servicing of textiles were almost entirely the work of unfree women.
Aristotle, in defending slavery as natural and necessary, focuses on this tekhnê and its slave workers: so long as shuttles could not spin by themselves, owners would have need for slaves (Politics 1253b33–54a1). Even under the sting of unwonted poverty, the Athenian Aristarchus only reluctantly put his free female dependents to work producing wool, and even then he himself refused personally to be involved in the labor (Xenophon Memorabilia 2.7.12). With good reason: because wool working was identified as a strictly fe- male activity, a man so engaged was ipso facto marked as effeminate (see Midas [Athenaeus 516b], Sardanapalos [Diodorus Siculus 2.23], and Kallon [Diodorus Siculus 32.11).
In a clever ditty by Nicarchus, a woman has placed spindles and other equipment connected with Athena on a raging fire. For this woman, wool working is an impoverished (“famished”) occupation appropriate only for “base females” (“kakôn gynaikôn” [Palatine Anthology 6.285.5– 6]). In contrast, prostitution offers a “pleasured life” (“terpnon bioton”) of festivals, revelry, and music in which Aphrodite, freeing her from wool working, and “sharing in the [new] labor,” will be her 10-percent partner (lines 7–10). In another epigram, a woman named Bitto dedi- cates to Athena the textile apparatus of the work she hates, “the tools of impoverished enterprise”: emulating Paris, she’s casting her vote for Aphrodite’s labor instead (Palatine Anthology 6.48 ). Yet another woman—whose sexual labors have reaped finery through lucrative assignations—would choose now entirely to abandon wool working (6.284), an option not available to the subject of a further epigram, an aging female who in contrast has had to abandon lucrative prostitution and is now left only with the impoverished yields of wool working (6.283).
The unexpurgated texts of the phialai exeleutherikai—showing that “women seem just as likely to have jobs as do men” (Todd 1997, 122)— thus make good sense: slaves working in wool can be properly de- scribed as talasiourgoi (“wool workers”). They need not be denominated by modern scholars as “housewives.” Earnings from prostitution—and useful relationships developed from this métier—would have provided a financial and/or personal mechanism for obtaining freedom, and slaves who commanded earnings from prostitution would likely have figured prominently among those gaining manumission. Not surprisingly, therefore, some of the freed slaves carry names that are typical Athenian designations for sex workers—Glykera (“Sweetie”) and Malthake (“Softie”).
Antagonism to the idea of working under a master should not be con- fused with antipathy to labor itself. Numerous Athenians were self-employed in a great variety of pursuits. According to Xenophon, in ad- dition to farmers, the Athenian Assembly was full of clothes cleaners, leather workers, metalworkers, craftsmen, traders and merchants (Mem- orabilia 3.7.6). Many free residents followed entrepreneurial pursuits (see Thompson 1983; Garnsey 1980), and many others pursued specialized callings, including prostitution (Harris 2002).
Athenian morality mandated clear manifestations of egalitarian independence of occupation. Sexual labor was no exception.
Free Athenian purveyors of erôs sought carefully to avoid all suggestion of dependence, and sought to manifest their autonomy through elaborate, sometimes seemingly recherché, mechanisms. Thus, among the hetairoi of Athens, contractual arrangements for sexual services—whether directly explicit, as in Lysias 3, or constructed with greater complexity, as in Hyperides 5 (see E. E. Cohen, forthcoming)—were the norm. References to such contractual arrange- ments were so commonplace that the phrase “whoring under contract” (“sungraphê”)—a usage popularized by a prominent politês who had worked as a prostitute—had become idiomatic in local discourse (Aeschines 1.165).
The occupational ethics of a free Athenian prostitute, however, are perhaps displayed most compellingly in Xenophon’s description of Socrates’ meeting with the hetaira Theodote as “a woman of the sort who sleeps with men who are persuasive”—emphasizing her freedom of selection—whose livelihood comes from the benefactions of men who have become “friends” (Memorabilia 3.11), an indication of the extent to which her relationships have been elevated from the master/ servant or customer/commodity variety to one in which she possesses the independence inherent in personalized reciprocity.
Socrates is awed by the domestic world she controls: like Chrysis, Theodote lives in luxurious surroundings, apparently with her mother, in a home furnished sumptuously in every way; she dresses and adorns herself consummately, and is accompanied by a retinue of finely outfitted and attractive maidservants (3.11.4–5). Exploring the sources of her prosperity, Socrates’ queries (“do you own land? rental property? craftsmen?” [3.11.4]) assume that she herself might be a citizen (politis) whose possessions include real estate and slaves. When Theodote asserts total indifference to Socrates’ efforts to help her increase her income from her “friends” through systematic pursuit of “fine and wealthy” benefactors (3.11.9), they each are playing appropriate roles.
Xenophon, seeking to refute the charge that Socrates was a deleterious “destroyer” of the young (1.1.1 and 2.7.1), offers in these Memorabilia examples of how the sage was in fact a practical dispenser of sound ideas, including business advice, such as the suggestions that brought prosperity to Aristar- chus and his female relatives in the wool business. But Theodote in her turn is careful to manifest the values of “free” Athenian labor. She herself has no desire or capacity to implement Socrates’ schemes to maximize profit (3.11.10), but she is willing to let him work for her (3.11.15). She spends her time posing for artists, forcing potential customers like Socrates and his friends to wait (3.11.2–3). Whatever the reality of her situation, here Xenophon, as so often, presents a portrait of shimmering but unconfirmable verisimilitude, highly seasoned with Socratean irony: Theodote, providing services in a manner and context appropriate to a free person, is the reification of the Athenian imaginaire (self-image): she works for her living but can plausibly claim that she does so to her own benefit and that of her “friends.” By modern Western standards, she is at best a pretentious sexual worker earning a fine living from a dubious occupation, but in Athenian context she is a practitioner of a liberal profession, an erotic métier appropriate to a free person. For Athenians such independence was, morally, infinitely more commendable than the slavish conditions of brothel labor." [Edward Cohen: Christopher Faraone, Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World]
We mustn’t’ be too harsh on females and their shifting of judgments and loyalties. They are fulfilling their reproductive role, by constantly gauging the male’s virility, his ability to construct and impose order over himself and others; she is constantly testing the fluctuating social tides, trying to adjust to new hierarchies, and new political dynamics. She does so because she has to. Her reproductive role imposes upon her vulnerabilities she must compensate for. Women need stable, consistent, ordered environments to feel safe enough to become pregnant, give birth, and raise, to the age of independent maturity, an offspring.
Her constant testing of the male, challenging his authority, measuring his strength, his creative talents; her unremitting changing of her mind, trying to adjust to shifting conditions she cannot predict; her flexible loyalties, choosing the most promising, durable order available, in a world of cycles… are all part of her nature – part of her agency, as genetic/memetic filtering mechanism, and as supporter of the strongest, healthiest, creative, the most ordered entity, determined by temporal viability, consistency, stamina: its quality, represented by appearance, indicating inherited potential for order(ing), combined with how this applies in the present, as potential indicated by performance – sexual performance being but one aspect of it. This combination projected as forecasting resilience against (inter)active cosmic, and social fluctuations.
A woman must judge which power of stabilizing, consistency, of order, will make her role easier, and which one will ensure her place within it. Her flexibility is an adaptation to cosmic Flux. She, intuitively, knows the male’s bravado, his posturing, his power is ephemeral, and unreliable. She is governed by a reality before man’s interventions upon nature, and his establishment of cultural rules.
She is still an agency of nature, forced to abide by male laws and his social conventions; secretly laughing at their presumptions, and arrogance, and in regards to Nihilistic ideologies, their naiveté. She innately knows there are forces no man can match, and she bides her time, and keeps her insights to herself, watching, measuring, waiting, sniffing the winds for the slightest sign of transference.
I enjoy be harsh on females, only in a sexual context where it seems naturally justified. One could say it does border on abuse, but i do associate the inflicting physical pain as a form of emotional connection..outside of that, i don't think it really matters? They are just..there...existing in the world like other creatures. They are there for us to do whatever we want with, like little pets..because like..what else would they be..these modern environments are just a larger opportunity for their expression, an expression of what we already know...the paradigm beneath that opportunity causes them to destroy themselves....you know, just because they appear silent doesn't mean they don't actually reinforce and confirm everything i said about this.. They love it!..to put it another way, every female on ILP at some point has PMd me...let's just leave it at that shall we? even that echo whore on here tried to get at me at some point..
perpetualburn
Gender : Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-04 Location : MA
We mustn’t’ be too harsh on females and their shifting of judgments and loyalties. They are fulfilling their reproductive role, by constantly gauging the male’s virility, his ability to construct and impose order over himself and others; she is constantly testing the fluctuating social tides, trying to adjust to new hierarchies, and new political dynamics. She does so because she has to. Her reproductive role imposes upon her vulnerabilities she must compensate for. Women need stable, consistent, ordered environments to feel safe enough to become pregnant, give birth, and raise, to the age of independent maturity, an offspring.
Her constant testing of the male, challenging his authority, measuring his strength, his creative talents; her unremitting changing of her mind, trying to adjust to shifting conditions she cannot predict; her flexible loyalties, choosing the most promising, durable order available, in a world of cycles… are all part of her nature – part of her agency, as genetic/memetic filtering mechanism, and as supporter of the strongest, healthiest, creative, the most ordered entity, determined by temporal viability, consistency, stamina: its quality, represented by appearance, indicating inherited potential for order(ing), combined with how this applies in the present, as potential indicated by performance – sexual performance being but one aspect of it. This combination projected as forecasting resilience against (inter)active cosmic, and social fluctuations.
A woman must judge which power of stabilizing, consistency, of order, will make her role easier, and which one will ensure her place within it. Her flexibility is an adaptation to cosmic Flux. She, intuitively, knows the male’s bravado, his posturing, his power is ephemeral, and unreliable. She is governed by a reality before man’s interventions upon nature, and his establishment of cultural rules.
She is still an agency of nature, forced to abide by male laws and his social conventions; secretly laughing at their presumptions, and arrogance, and in regards to Nihilistic ideologies, their naiveté. She innately knows there are forces no man can match, and she bides her time, and keeps her insights to herself, watching, measuring, waiting, sniffing the winds for the slightest sign of transference.
If a woman is always shifting loyalties and judgements then why should any man respect her for natural role as a genetic/memetic filter. I.e. What good is her taste if it's so changeable? And if she's always changing how can she properly choose what is "most ordered"... Or is that in wanting what is most ordered, she ironically chooses what disdains her most?
_________________ And here we always meet, at the station of our heart / Looking at each other as if we were in a dream /Seeing for the first time different eyes so supreme / That bright flames burst into vision, keeping us apart.
perpetualburn
Gender : Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-04 Location : MA
I enjoy be harsh on females, only in a sexual context where it seems naturally justified. One could say it does border on abuse, but i do associate the inflicting physical pain as a form of emotional connection..outside of that, i don't think it really matters? They are just..there...existing in the world like other creatures. They are there for us to do whatever we want with, like little pets..because like..what else would they be..these modern environments are just a larger opportunity for their expression, an expression of what we already know...the paradigm beneath that opportunity causes them to destroy themselves...
What's this paradigm?
_________________ And here we always meet, at the station of our heart / Looking at each other as if we were in a dream /Seeing for the first time different eyes so supreme / That bright flames burst into vision, keeping us apart.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37275 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
If a woman is always shifting loyalties and judgements then why should any man respect her for natural role as a genetic/memetic filter. I.e. What good is her taste if it's so changeable?
She keeps men on their toes, always maintaining and increasing their awareness, power, performance in relation and competition with other males etc.
Her tastes are reflections of her environment, shaped by culture (education, socialization religion etc.) the meme, and by the past/nature, determined over thousands of years of evolution - a nurture/nature mix. The two may come in conflict if the meme she is impregnated by is a Nihilistic one - then this conflict will externalize as dysfunction, paraphilia, fetishism, hysteria, schizophrenic disparity between what she says, expressing her convictions (memetic dispositions), and what she does, expressing her innate drives (genetic dispositions). The latter dominates in her youth, but as her libido wanes the former begins to take over - depending on her quality of mind, or what organ in her organ hierarchy dominates. The brain being less affected by attrition is less affected by time - agape is more durable than eros, and in conjunction they are formidable, timeless. The shift is gradual and depending on her starting genetic potentials results in intellectual dispositions taking over in her later years.
Males, also, choose. They select which female they wish to seduce. If he is base he chooses according to physical health, beauty....if he is even less than base he chooses to seduce anyone, and any thing. If he is more sophisticated, he selects using mental, as well as her physical symmetry, health, proportionality. As such higher males prefer more masculine thinking females.
perpetualburn wrote:
And if she's always changing how can she properly choose what is "most ordered"... Or is that in wanting what is most ordered, she ironically chooses what disdains her most?
What is ordered does not change, the one claiming to be it changes in relation to environment. Power wanes, order atrophies, is reduced by the attrition of (inter)activity, - by relentless of Flux.
Women have a shorter fertility window. They judge, invest and then protect their investments. If these investments fail, and she is young enough, she begins anew. It's this that makes her sexual choice so crucial, and her so careful in making it.
She, eventually, must take a chance, based on her evaluations, and then live with the consequences.
The direction their evaluations take - whether they are from mind towards body, or body towards mind, as I've explained elsewhere - {[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} - will determine what traits, what potentials, she will use to gauge quality of order in the male; his potential to resist attrition. This potential will be transferred to the child.
Order is apparent physically as symmetry, organ proportionality (durability, beauty, strength, flexibility etc.)...this affects the primitive female, and her primal mind - or it exhibits itself as mental symmetry, as creativity, humour, charm (social flexibility, reading of others etc.). More intelligent females are seduced mentally, and their body's as a consequence - more simple females are seduced physically and then their minds justify it after-the-fact.
Here is the difference of eros and agape...the latter more long-lived than the former, because the physical atrophies, is affected by attrition quicker than the former - "love/lust" founded on eros quickly dissolves, the seven year period being decisive.
Intellectual women begin with agape, and then the erotic grows in them....perhaps simultaneously, depending on the appearance of the male. If she compromises too much, her body will contradict her mind, by remaining cold, unable to climax, uninterested in sexual contact. Base females begin with the erotic, and then, maybe, agape develops, depending on the degree of charm and personality present in the male. She tolerates any inferiority once she's been seduced, proportionally to her circumstances and her mental quality. Monogamy is a restriction that limits her options, and so is paternalism, explaining feminism and its disdain for it.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:15 pm; edited 5 times in total
Her "goodness" is in the changeable aspect of her filtration, or can refer to the refinement aspect of the filter, relative to the ongoing fluctuation of reality because there are no absolutes, in this case..security, stability etc..This is why they are more geared to move towards wealthy men, purely for the wealth, even if it involves them eventually leaving intentionally. It's seductive but more promising since the system set up the circumstances. We can say, the filtration mechanism has been corrupted due to the modern nature of the environment, if you want to put it like that, or the modern environment exposes a larger picture of the filtration, or the nature of woman...the respect is relative, not only individually, but also in the context of time as women are a means to an end. She naturally "chooses" what is most ordered because of the chaotic nature of her essence, it's a demanding response.
I'm not even going to answer your question to me because I feel like this obviously known, especially here!..you can find fragments in what i just wrote...
It seems like there have been many whom have realized the consequences of releasing the female beast, but never tend to go the extra mile and bring up the possibility of releasing the male beast in response to this. How long will it be? Until they begin to listen to the voice that has been repressed in the dark?
_________________ Once more, with knowing.
The meek shall inherit the Earth, but the Noble shall take it.
perpetualburn
Gender : Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-04 Location : MA
Her "goodness" is in the changeable aspect of her filtration, or can refer to the refinement aspect of the filter, relative to the ongoing fluctuation of reality because there are no absolutes, in this case..security, stability etc..This is why they are more geared to move towards wealthy men, purely for the wealth, even if it involves them eventually leaving intentionally. It's seductive but more promising since the system set up the circumstances. We can say, the filtration mechanism has been corrupted due to the modern nature of the environment, if you want to put it like that, or the modern environment exposes a larger picture of the filtration, or the nature of woman...the respect is relative, not only individually, but also in the context of time as women are a means to an end. She naturally "chooses" what is most ordered because of the chaotic nature of her essence, it's a demanding response.
I'm not even going to answer your question to me because I feel like this obviously known, especially here!..you can find fragments in what i just wrote...
Quote :
the paradigm beneath that opportunity causes them to destroy themselves...
But why do they destroy themselves? Because of a bad environment?
_________________ And here we always meet, at the station of our heart / Looking at each other as if we were in a dream /Seeing for the first time different eyes so supreme / That bright flames burst into vision, keeping us apart.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37275 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
It seems like there have been many whom have realized the consequences of releasing the female beast, but never tend to go the extra mile and bring up the possibility of releasing the male beast in response to this. How long will it be? Until they begin to listen to the voice that has been repressed in the dark?
Great find... Someone should invite him to KT.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37275 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
"The name Myrrhine is derived from the Greek word for “myrtle,” which in slang is used to refer to a woman’s vagina. Myrrhine is also an extremely common name for prostitutes and courtesans…
The lexicon of marriage does not always designate iustum coniugium, legitimate citizen marriage; hence persons described as “vir,” “coniunx,” even “uxor,” “sponsus,” and “maritus,” are not actually married in the eyes of the law (see Copley 1956, 103, 165).
Propertius 3.20 demonstrates how elegy plays with the language of legal wedlock: it is riddled with marital vocabulary, including references to technical parts of the wedding ceremony (“foedera ponenda,” “signanda iura,” “scribenda lex” [15–16]; “Amor . . . suo constringit pignora signo” [17]; “pactas in foedera . . . aras, novo sacra marita toro” [25–26]). But the lover is here addressing a woman whose man has left (1–4), and he offers himself to her not as a husband but as a boyfriend: “Your house would be fortunate, if only you had a faithful boyfriend! / I shall be faithful: run into my bed, girl!” (fortunata domus, modo sit tibi fidus amicus! / fidus ero: in nostros curre, puella, toros) (9–10).
Independent courtesans in Rome could make agreements, contracts, with individual men, by which they would enter into cohabitation without becoming owned concubines; such arrangements were supposed to be exclusive, though there was no single formula (see Zagagi 1980, 118–20, and Herter 1960, 81–82). The contracting man, known simply as the vir, paid an annual fee, the merces annua, which guaranteed him rights to the courtesan. These rights had all the legal force of the lex at Propertius 3.20.16 (see also leges at Asinaria 234, 747, and 809), and their rights (iura) were a matter of custom and private agreement rather than law.
The word “vir” does not necessarily designate a husband, and that the apparently marital relationships of elegy are not citizen marriages, but what Lyne (1980, 240), citing Stroh (1979, 333–37), calls “de facto marriages.”
Ars 2.545 distinguishes between a man with rights over a woman by custom or contract and the actual husband of a legal wife (legitima uxor). Such a distinction hardly needs to be made unless there are pseudomarital relationships that use the vocabulary of marriage.
The elegiac puella [i]s unmarriageable, as a woman under the control of neither husband nor pimp (nor father), a woman making her living by the sexual attraction of men who have money and property, a woman of social independence if not financial security, a woman who can say both “no” and “yes” to sexual propositions without fear of legal or communal reprisal. This description identifies her as an independent courtesan, the one woman an elite Roman male needed to persuade.
Professional obligations to dine, drink, and socialize called for calculation rather than spontaneity. Indeed, the ability to keep track and control of competing interests and agents required careful attention, even if that watchfulness must often have been contrarily disguised as loss of control.
Genuine loss of control is the great taboo for the courtesan, who must above all else keep her head. To maintain her lover’s interest without becoming too easy, too boring, or too demanding, she must play a complex game of seduction and refusal; she must keep up her income; and she must be alert against the possibility of violence. Her job is to keep her suitors impassioned enough to keep supplying her with money and material possessions. Further, her economic condition requires her to make all her money while she is young—and her impending old age is the one threat that her lovers hold out against her, as she will attract no more lovers once her professional viability has expired. She must attract more than one lover at a time and she must be able to keep more than one in suspension even at the same party. Further, she knows that her relationship with any given man can neither last for very long nor support her adequately in its duration. Thus, when she goes to a dinner party she must either be on the lookout for new clients or find a way to engage with her side clients, keeping her vir satisfied all the while. Hence her complex choreography of communicative eating and drinking (even sneezing), of prearranged signals, of quick cloakroom rendezvous. To balance competing male anxieties on such an evening, when her every action is under observation by more than one party, whose interests are opposed, requires a cool head and a great deal of self-control (another problem for the anxious males). The women who successfully navigated their way through the Scyllas and Charybdises of male anxiety and sexual jealousy must have been formidable characters indeed, and posed a significant, if short-lived, threat to elite Roman masculinity." [Kelly Olson: Faraone, Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World]
"Repugnance and fascination are the twin poles of the process in which a political imperative to reject and eliminate the debasing ‘low’ conflicts powerfully and unpredictably with a desire for this Other”. Stallybrass and White present several accounts of the desire of a higher-class man for a woman of low social status, including Freud’s boyhood fascination with his governess.
The Romans consistently placed actors and prostitutes at the bottom of the ladder in terms of their legal status. Numerous republican-era statutes ascribe to both professions infamis status (as well as to a number of other despised occupations, such as gladiator, gladiator-trainer, and pimp).
Catharine Edwards (1997) has discussed the ways in which the Ro- mans in the early imperial era viewed actors, prostitutes, and gladiators as low, shameful, yet desirable performers; she argues that the Romans associated public performance of any kind with immorality, especially if women were involved. Her findings are supported by Dorothea French’s study of the status of mime actresses in the Christian era of the Roman Empire (1998). Both scholars make the case for a Roman tendency to view women who “performed” in public as whores, both figuratively and literally (French 1998, 296).
Actors and prostitutes were both infamis; they were both versions of the Roman masculine subject’s low-other. But a crucial differ- ence separated them from citizen women, eunuchs, foreigners, slaves, or even gladiators: actors and prostitutes operated under the sign of the fictional, the feigned, the fake. Actors and prostitutes could thus be seen as equivalent: the actor is a prostitute, the prostitute is an actor.
The fact that the meretrix in Roman Comedy is so often accused of lying is another sign of the interrelatedness of prostitutes and actors; the sincerity of her affections is never above question.
Whether they are “good,” sincere courtesans who are truly in love with their young men—the proverbial hookers with hearts of gold—or “bad,” self-serving, conniving whores, all meretrices in Roman Comedy display a metatheatrical ability to seduce, charm, and deceive, and all of them display an awareness that they have to take certain measures to ensure their own financial security. And regardless of whether a given meretrix is “really” good or bad, most meretrices are accused of being bad (that is, faithless, self-interested, and mercenary) at some point during a given play, whether by the adulescens, his slave, or both.
The adulescens typically complains about the two-facedness of the meretrix: when he has money, she is sweet and welcoming, but when his money runs out, she shuts him out of the house.
In this way, the meretrix in Roman Comedy functions as a figure for the actor; she feigns for a living, enchanting the spectator. And therefore, the adulescens, who oscillates between rapturous delight and desire for his beloved girl, and bitter, disillusioned contempt for his mercenary whore, functions as a figure for the Roman theatrical audience, oscillating between delight in theatrical pretense and suspicion of the performance and the performers that they are watching. Neither view is “the” Roman view of prostitutes or actors—both were available in Roman culture, and audiences could tap into either one at any given moment. But the more the adulescens desires the meretrix, the more bitterly he feels he has been duped when she shuts him out of the house—and the more the audience enjoys the actor, the more anxious they feel about their desire for empty spectacle and literally infamous performers.
The meretrix appears in a number of Plautine plays, and whenever she has a significant speaking role, she functions as a figure for the actor. The Plautine meretrix is an expert dissembler, sometimes compared explicitly to an actor, who typically tells her “director” that she needs no coaching in deception.
The third component of the correspondence between the actor and the prostitute at Rome is their shared custom of cross-dressing. Both female prostitutes and male actors (which is to say, all actors, except for mime actresses—who were commonly assumed to be whores) cross-dressed as part of their professional presentation: female prostitutes wore the toga, and male actors regularly costumed themselves as women to play female roles.
The assumption of the toga is a complex cultural signifier. To contemporary Westerners, cross-dressing signifies gender deviance, perhaps gender defiance (thus, e.g., Butler 1990). But a woman dressing as a man can also signify within a culture what Marjorie Garber calls the “progress narrative”—that is, she “has” to cross-dress because it allows her access to opportunities or resources that she could not gain access to as a woman.
To the Romans, the woman wearing a toga signified that her sexual appetites exceeded the womanly ideal; she had “masculine” levels of lust (see Parker 1997, 58–59). The final significance of the toga for the Roman prostitute: it signified that she acted. It was her costume. The prostitute’s toga worked like any actor’s costume: it called attention to the appearance-reality gap (that is, to the fact that she was a woman, but not one wearing a palla, not a good woman), even as it worked to assimilate the woman wearing it to her known role. It both revealed and concealed." [Ann Duncan: Faraone, Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World]
But why do they destroy themselves? Because of a bad environment?
The modern man is no longer a middle man to protect the women from themselves, thus she will destroy herself through other men and possibly women, or by herself.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37275 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The instinctual, genetic, desire to mate with the superior translates into the social, memetic, desire/need/want, to marry upwards, using monogamy, and the restrictions imposed upon sexual behaviour sin both males and females, to climb the socioeconomic status ladder. The female’s psychology determined by her organ hierarchies, manifests as a personæ dominated wither by body, organs other than brain, or her brain, and external stimuli, collected into abstractions. This difference between body/mind determines the female’s sexual proclivities, and her standards of evaluating a male entity’s quality. A more physical female will use instinctual, genetic criteria: instinct evaluating symmetry, proportionality, first and foremost. A more cerebral female will use mental symmetry, psychological proportionality, and how these relate, and compare to memetic criteria, and ideals. Her standard is an idea(l), a human construct, a meme, which all men are compared to and none manage to live-up to. A female dominated by body, or an organ other than her brain, will place higher emphasis on internal, esoteric, intuitive, sources of judgment, and will be a more direct agency of nature – nature being the sum of all past nurturing. Her brain will only add to her judgment, validating it, or excusing it, once her body has spoken. A female dominated by mind, or brain dominated by stimuli it collects from external, exoteric sources, reasoning and abstracting, will be more idealistic, in that she will use socioeconomic, cultural abstractions to judge all and everything. In her case masculine competition occurs in the arena of idea(l)s, and all are judged in reference to it. Hypergamy in the latter case takes the form of finding and committing, and giving herself to the strongest, most virile, most healthy meme. The particular male is judged in relation to the meme, and his genetics are secondary.
The first type will be seduced and demand the highest price, as evidence of a male's seriousness, from a single male - her proofs and judgments will be physical (phenomena) - idea(l)s will be secondary to this primary standard, increasing or decreasing the effect upon her. The second will be seduced and demand the highest price, as evidence of a male's seriousness, from an idea(l) - her proofs and judgments will be intellectual (noumena), but, since idea(l)s have no corporeal presence, particularly ones produced by nihilistic memes, she will also need to find a phenomena, a "real" male representing her memetic idea(l), to the greatest degree possible - the physical will be secondary to this primary standard, increasing, or decreasing the effect upon her.
An inferior female will be distinguished from the superior one accordingly. For the physical type it is one who gives herself to quantities, rather than of quality males, exposing a low physical standard of evaluation. for the intellectual type it is the one who gives herself to multiple idea(l)s, simultaneously, rather than the highest, exposing a low intellectual level of evaluation.
In both cases the female’s motive is to raise her estimation, her esteem; her value, within the environment she is forced to live in. Raising her value makes her judgment, her sexual role of choosing, more potent, more respectable. Value is always in reference to time/space making the mind/body psychological divide relevant. The more physical female will judge presence, as manifestation of past/nature within a confined perceptual-event-horizon. Her temporal/spatial standards will be shallow. The more intellectual female will judge using the more timeless, unaffected by space/time, abstractions, broadening and deepening her perceptual-event-horizon. In relation to this noetic standard all phenomena will be juxtaposed and evaluated, including males.
