[Genghis Khan]

I've recently gotten very interested in the Ancient Greeks. I've read Plato, Aristotle, the stoics (granted the stoics like Marcus Aurelius were Roman).

The question I have: is there a book on gender relationships/dynamics or how to raise a family? I'm wondering if there is some ancient author who has written about these issues, basically is there an ancient Roosh?

Or was it just so obvious back then that men and women were different animals and what their roles should be that no one decided it was worth the effort to write it down?

[Cortés]

I recently read the Iliad, and while the theme doesn't really involve gender, its pretty interesting to see how the Achaean warriors viewed conquering Troy for the sake of essentially fucking Trojan hoes. Many of the characters motivation for some of their actions is influenced by the idea of carrying off women as a prize. It may not be exactly what youre looking for, but hey if youre a Greek history buff, its a must read.

[aletheia]

Sex roles/relationships were of course discussed in classical works but I don't think there were any treatises/dialogues on the subject. Plato's Republic advocates gender equality but my advice would be to take everything in his dialogues with a grain of salt, since he wrote ironically/esoterically. To a man the classics were 'gender' realists.

Women did have what appears to us to be unreasonable restrictions placed on their freedom, but when you consider the context, i.e. constant war with continuous existential threats to society's survival, such restrictions were necessary. Their child-bearing capability (i.e. ability to replenish the male and in particular male warrior population) and child-rearing skills were too important. And perhaps most crucially, too much freedom for women meant a higher chance of men, most importantly promising young men, becoming softer and less duty-inclined.

All that said, female virtue was admired and their great deeds recognized. 'Antigone' by Sophocles is a good example.

[TheMaleBrain]

(06-28-2016 12:05 AM)Cortés Wrote:  

I recently read the Iliad, and while the theme doesn't really involve gender, its pretty interesting to see how the Achaean warriors viewed conquering Troy for the sake of essentially fucking Trojan hoes. Many of the characters motivation for some of their actions is influenced by the idea of carrying off women as a prize. It may not be exactly what youre looking for, but hey if youre a Greek history buff, its a must read.

You usually go to war for the spoils. Those are "gold" and "women".
That was the motivation in ancient times, unless you were defending your land. This is what leaders promised their soldiers.

[EDantes]

I'd read about the lifestyles of hunter-gatherer cultures since they are the most 'natural' state of man and woman.

Basically in hunter-gatherer societies men who were the strongest leaders and protectors were also the best providers, so women were naturally drawn to them. If a man couldn't fight, hunt, or stand up to conflict or adversity he was economically very unreliable.

(Women were also allowed to hunt and fight if they could do it meritocraticly, but the majority of women simply weren't physically capable like men are; just like while the NFL actually doesn't prohibit women from joining, there are none who can or want to play in it with the men). Ironically hunter-gatherer women did more actual physical work than most "liberated" Western women do today.

They were also more or less polygamous - the men who were the best leaders and providers had the first pick of women and were allowed to have multiple wives if they could support them. Basically women weren't concerned with men having multiple 'physical' partners so long as he was 'emotionally faithful'. (An example of this dynamic is seen in the film The Godfather; when Carlo's wife Connie learns he's physically involved with another woman she isn't too flustered, but when Carlo breaks a dinner date with Connie to go see the other woman instead, she becomes furious).

Though I believe "hookup culture" was frowned upon; if a man took a woman he was expected to protect and provide for her and her offspring.

There was also a much stronger 'natural order' in effect to prevent promiscuous behavior, since societies were small and close-knit; if a man slept with other men's wives, or abandoned a woman or a kid he would be target for revenge by a father, brother, etc. And if a woman was a whore it would quickly get around the entire tribe and she would be shunned.

I believe in some cases monogamy was preferred as far as raising children was concerned (or just for potential drama avoidance regarding jealousy between wives), but a man simply having 'multiple women' wasn't a cultural taboo; in the West this taboo may have been started by the early Catholic Church. In a way though the jealousy concerns with polyamory aren't that much different than concerns of 'sibling rivalry or favoritism' regarding children with brothers or sisters versus single children, so the fact that polyamory is taboo yet having multiple kids isn't seems disproportionate.

---

So the most 'natural' state of man seems to be meritocratic, polygamous patriarchy - men were expected to be strong protectors and strong providers (versus irresponsible philanderers or henpecked husbands), having multiple women wasn't frowned upon if a man could support them, and women were allowed to do a job if they were capable, but generally speaking weren't capable of competing with men in hunting or fighting, and there was no 'affirmative action' designed to 'even out' the results in favor of 'equality'.

(Most of the social changes seem to be the result of increased technology, such as the invention of agriculture, industrial revolution, and shift from people living in tribes or villages to large industrialized areas, where traditional masculine work and ethos has sadly become less economically valuable, in favor of androgynous "service jobs" which require no hunting or fighting or physical skills that we see today in modern service economies; this likely plays a role in the 'androgenization' of modern Western cultures as a whole; with the qualities that traditionally made men the best providers being more relegated to industries such as military combat roles, professional sports, etc).

[Perfectionist]

Polygamy has to be the most natural state of men - at the very least, having two wives at a minimum... it keeps both women in competition with each other, so maintaining control over them.

Ideally, the wives would be bisexual - so opening up the possibility of awesome threesome sex... and reducing the chance of them cheating on you as they would keep an eye on each other, and no doubt fuck each other, when youre not available.

[Bluto]

(06-30-2016 12:19 AM)EDantes Wrote:  

I believe in some cases monogamy was preferred as far as raising children was concerned (or just for potential drama avoidance regarding jealousy between wives), but a man simply having 'multiple women' wasn't a cultural taboo; in the West this taboo may have been started by the early Catholic Church. In a way though the jealousy concerns with polyamory aren't that much different than concerns of 'sibling rivalry or favoritism' regarding children with brothers or sisters versus single children, so the fact that polyamory is taboo yet having multiple kids isn't seems disproportionate.

---

Monogamy in marriage was popular before the Catholic church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Ancient_Israel
Roman and Greek men officially married one woman at a time, however, sex with slaves were not officially a reason for divorce. Outside of that, spot on.

To the original topic. It depends on the culture(including religion) and age. Remember most women died between the age of 25 to 35 due to complications during pregnancy, so a man who was in a culture practicing monogamy would most likely have had a few wives before he dies and even than some societies had their limits on Monogamy that we don't have today.(Look above about Romans and Slave Girls) Regardless of when and where you are, Monogamy was more popular than Polygamy, but the "Hookup Culture" that we have today is basically something that we have not seen since the caveman age where we are basically procreating like most animals do.

[EDantes]

(07-03-2016 10:15 PM)Bluto Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 12:19 AM)EDantes Wrote:  

I believe in some cases monogamy was preferred as far as raising children was concerned (or just for potential drama avoidance regarding jealousy between wives), but a man simply having 'multiple women' wasn't a cultural taboo; in the West this taboo may have been started by the early Catholic Church. In a way though the jealousy concerns with polyamory aren't that much different than concerns of 'sibling rivalry or favoritism' regarding children with brothers or sisters versus single children, so the fact that polyamory is taboo yet having multiple kids isn't seems disproportionate.

---

Monogamy in marriage was popular before the Catholic church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Ancient_Israel
Roman and Greek men officially married one woman at a time, however, sex with slaves were not officially a reason for divorce. Outside of that, spot on.

Varied by the culture, but in the Bible polygamy was never forbidden; it was made taboo within Christianity by the early Catholic Church.

Quote:

Monogamy was more popular than Polygamy, but the "Hookup Culture" that we have today is basically something that we have not seen since the caveman age where we are basically procreating like most animals do.

I believe monogamy was viewed by some cultures as more ideal in as far as raising children and family stability was concerned.

[Bluto]

(07-04-2016 07:53 AM)EDantes Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 10:15 PM)Bluto Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 12:19 AM)EDantes Wrote:  

I believe in some cases monogamy was preferred as far as raising children was concerned (or just for potential drama avoidance regarding jealousy between wives), but a man simply having 'multiple women' wasn't a cultural taboo; in the West this taboo may have been started by the early Catholic Church. In a way though the jealousy concerns with polyamory aren't that much different than concerns of 'sibling rivalry or favoritism' regarding children with brothers or sisters versus single children, so the fact that polyamory is taboo yet having multiple kids isn't seems disproportionate.

---

Monogamy in marriage was popular before the Catholic church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Ancient_Israel
Roman and Greek men officially married one woman at a time, however, sex with slaves were not officially a reason for divorce. Outside of that, spot on.

Varied by the culture, but in the Bible polygamy was never forbidden; it was made taboo within Christianity by the early Catholic Church.

Quote:

Monogamy was more popular than Polygamy, but the "Hookup Culture" that we have today is basically something that we have not seen since the caveman age where we are basically procreating like most animals do.

I believe monogamy was viewed by some cultures as more ideal in as far as raising children and family stability was concerned.

You are correct that the old testament does not forbid Polygamy. The link that I quoted did point out that Monogamy was the norm in Pre-Christian culture. Quoted from the article:

" In Israel's pre-Christian era, an essentially monogamous ethos underlay the Jewish creation story (Gn 2) and the last chapter of Proverbs.[56][57] During the Second Temple period (530 BCE to70 CE), apart from an economic situation which supported monogamy even more than in earlier period, the concept of "mutual fidelity" between husband and wife was a quite common reason for strictly monogamous marriages."

There is more of course, but I don't want to quote the whole article here.I am not saying that Polygamy was not taboo, it just was not popular in Israel for more than a few generations before Jesus was Born.

The thing with Monogamy is that while I agree that it provides a more stable environment for children and family formation, it also allows for more bio-diversity in that you have less of a chance of inbreeding from happening. When most people lived their whole lives within 20 miles from when they were born in the ancient world this was a real problem. Most societies in the ancient world gravitate to Monogamy as optimal, whether it is Native American Societies to Greco/Roman or Chinese societies. There was more polygamy then as opposed to now, but even then it was usually the men of wealth or higher class back then who could afford the extensive household.

[Lunostrelki]

In old China it was perfectly normal for men to take concubines, especially if they could not have male children by their primary wives. Men of modest wealth could afford one or two. From a moral and ideal standpoint monogamy was best*, but in my opinion concubinage made sense as a way to pair excess females (remember that these were the days where patriarchy was at its heyday and men were used to dying off in heavy labor or warfare without marrying) with men and families who would take care of them.

Chinese feminists and communists would later use concubinage as one of the most wicked symbols of old Chinese society, bringing out all kinds of brutal stories with tragic endings for the hapless girls trapped in such a setup. No doubt it was true to some extent, but my impression is that like all "injustice" SJWs rally against, concubinage actually worked out pretty well overall.

*=There are tons of stories exalting virtuous women whose husbands died young and stayed widowed rather than remarry, and at at least one account praises a man who would not take a second woman even though his wife could not bear him a son.