FGM removes the tissue generally required for the sating of that libido, not to mention introducing injury and wounds which can easily lead to infections that leave you with a sterile/dead female.
Fry the right part of her brain and you'll have a female with no libido. Arousal and sexual desire starts in the brain and is expressed in the genitals. But do you want that sister who inherited part of Dad's farm running off with a guy from another tribe when if you marrying her and her farm off to your best friend he'll not only like you a lot, but show a little financial appreciation? If genetics are the sole concern, the practice would work more like the behavior you see in other primates where females who run off are forcibly brought back, their pregnancy terminated, and they're reimpregnated by an acceptable male.ģ) FGM ought to just go down in the history books as stupid, excepting that most of places and times where it started can't have possibly known just how unproductive it is. If you'll note, the Koran was progressive in its time for the property rites it granted women. Part of it is to encourage chastity and monogamy among women, another part is to ensure that the women, and the property accompanying them, stays in the family. Virgins generally have no such indications.Ģ) Honor killings are very complexly motivated. Current theory on the evolutionary motivations for female orgasm is that it promotes conception, meaning you want a bride who's going to enjoy the honeymoon. Instead of a blushing virgin, you'd want somebody with demonstrated fertility (best done through prior successful pregnancy) and who's going to encourage your attentions to her. This practice is known in some cultures.) If we were worried about genetic paternity, husbands ought to have different priorities. (Assurances of paternity can be gotten in the case of a non-virgin through two months heavy isolation for the bride-to-be just to make sure she's not already pregnant. But we're talking big general issues here, so I beg forgiveness in advance.ġ) This is one part to make sure the bride isn't already knocked up by somebody else, and probably two parts to make sure she's the kind who can keep her legs closed.
And everything I say following this is gross generalization for which counterexamples are available if you look for them. #25 ::: anaea ::: (view all by) ::: May 22, 2007, 09:42 PM:įragano Ledgister at 21, the general answer comes down to passage of property along paternal lines and the perceived need for the fidelity of that line, not so much a need for assurances of genetic relatedness - a fine distinction, but an important one.
(Anybody who had doubts about the existence of strong women would have had an interesting time with my paternal grandmother or any of my great-grandmothers.) I think that's what formed my picture of the sexes, even in the dark days of the 1940s and 50s.
#Mortal shell gorf feeding full#
Exposure to the full range of possible human traits in both sexes-strength, intelligence, stability, courage, humor, beauty-ought to supply some counter-force to all but the most insidious memes about what men or women "really" are. Misogyny seems to me to flourish in cultures that separate men and women, so that, for example, after puberty the only women a young man is around are immediate family members and (eventually) his wife (who might have been chosen for him). Statistically, it looks like men are responsible for most of this, but the question is not "Why do men hate women?" but "What is it that allows anyone to behave so?" And if you really want to deal with it, you have to also account for the very large numbers of men who would not only not harm a woman (or a child or a pet) but who are positively sickened at the thought of harming anyone. Think of the daily sectarian bombings and beheadings in Iraq, institutionalized torture at Gitmo, the civil meltdown in Bosnia, whatever goes on in our prisons (all those TV-show references must has some sort of basis in reality)-the list goes on. The misogyny that shocked Whedon is only a subset of what humans have always done to to each other, and the brutality on display in that particular murder-with-audience is repeated on a daily basis, with a variety of victims of all genders and ages, all over the world.
0 kommentar(er)
