NationStates Jolt Archive

We (in the west) live in a world where prostitution of the body is illegal and extremely frowned upon, whereas prostitution of the mind is a way of life.

There is a stunning set of paralels between the two, but yet one is discriminated against.

With those on the lower rungs of the job both types get paid less, have less job security, tend not to enjoy the job and have to take what they can get. Whereas those on the higher rungs get paid more, have more job security, tend to enjoy the job and are able to choose which jobs they take. For instance, a street prostitute is likely to have to get into the first car that stops, whereas as an escort can refuse to take certain customers. Also, a low-level admin assistant will have to accept the first job their offered as they need the money, whereas a lawyer can pick and choose which cases he takes on.

In both jobs the employee deals with situations they might not normally commit themselves to (eg.: the escort taking a sleazy customer; or the lawyer taking on a case where he personally things the defendent is guilty, but thinks he can win their case). It is also seen that the employee might temporary cease a normal function (escort - orgasm, and lawyer - moral judgement).

So why, in today's liberal society, where people daily sell the capacities of their mind, is prostitution, where people sell the capacity of their body, seen as being bad and immoral?

Why don't you sell each then? Then tell us about your experience.

huh?

you have a problem with any kind of work?

We (in the west) live in a world where prostitution of the body is illegal

"We" do? I don't.

huh?

you have a problem with any kind of work?
I'm going to have to second that.

I don't think either is particularly "bad." Protisituion is often referred to as the 'oldest profession,' and rightly so. When you think about it, human females got to a point where they didn't have to fend for themselves in nature by sleeping with or at the very least regularly accompanying a male hunter-gatherer. By essentially 'giving' him her body, she was guaranteed protection against the elements, food, and a stable social position. It is right? Maybe not. Does that in and of itself justify the legalization of protisution? No [I can think of a hundred better reasons], but that was the way things worked, and the reason it's still around is because in a sense, it still kind of does work that way.

Also, lots of people hate their jobs, rich and poor alike [beleive it or not]. Get used to it.

Would that could, but a) I'm too skinny, b) I'm too lazy.

I don't have a problem with work par se, just their unequal treatment.

Quick book recomendation --> Belle de Jour: Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0297847821/qid%3D1095168628/202-7701519-4890221
A book originally developed from a London prostitutes blog (http://belledejour-uk.blogspot.com/).

I think the closest I'd come to selling my body would be being a dominatrix.

It sounds like a fun job. No sex with clients, cool outfits and you just have to be a bitch all day.

I think the closest I'd come to selling my body would be being a dominatrix.

It sounds like a fun job. No sex with clients, cool outfits and you just have to be a bitch all day.
i might be willing to try phone sex operator if i hit the skids and had no other way to make a living.

Prostitution is legal (but heavily regulated) in a neighboring country where I live. Years ago, in between marriages, I spoke with a nice lady from Greece who used to work in a brothel in Nevada. She had her Master's in comparative literature. Having done both sexual and "conventional" professional work, she described fairly little difference. She might've been jaded, though.

I think the closest I'd come to selling my body would be being a dominatrix.

It sounds like a fun job. No sex with clients, cool outfits and you just have to be a bitch all day.Imagine if your first client was your ex. Would that be good or bad? It's stalker-type-behaviour, but your get to be a bitch to him AND get paid. :confused:

Melkor: I know rich people may not enjoy their job, but they have a higher element of choice than poor people. This is presuming that they are rich because they are skilled in their work. In which case you could argue that they don't enjoy their job because they're too feeble minded to find the direction that they would enjoy. Whereas a poor person normally needs to take what they can get, or it is the necessary first step of the ladder.

Your hunter-gather comparison seems a bit odd. For instance, female lions are the hunters. Whilst males ARE generally stronger, I do not believe this prevents females from being apt hunter-gathers. However, what about a female with child? Well humans tend to be social, so when some females are with child and caring for the young children, the other females can be out hunting with the males. (Ack, misread the point. Still the comparison the lions still counts)

Melkor: I know rich people may not enjoy their job, but they have a higher element of choice than poor people.
Not really, no. I'd contend that everyone has precisely the same amount of choices [within a given society] but the question is who has the good ones.

This is presuming that they are rich because they are skilled in their work. In which case you could argue that they don't enjoy their job because they're too feeble minded to find the direction that they would enjoy. Whereas a poor person normally needs to take what they can get, or it is the necessary first step of the ladder.
You could argue that, but against me you probably wouldn't get very far. I've never been impressed with people who assume they know the preferences of others.

Your hunter-gather comparison seems a bit odd. For instance, female lions are the hunters. Whilst males ARE generally stronger, I do not believe this prevents females from being apt hunter-gathers. However, what about a female with child?
I wasn't talking about lions, I was talking about humans. Nature is full of species that don't operate like us at all. Human females as a general rule don't approach the resourcefulness of their animal counterparts: the same can also be said of our young, who can't realistsically be expected to fend for themselves in nature until they're at least fifteen. A wolf cub will be able to hunt and feed itself within a couple of years, but a human child by comparison will still be utterly helpless and defenseless.

Well humans tend to be social, so when some females are with child and caring for the young children, the other females can be out hunting with the males. (Ack, misread the point. Still the comparison the lions still counts)
Except that's not how it happened at all. If you've got a tribe or a clan of people out in the old wilderness, I highly doubt only one of them will be heavy with child at any given time. The notion of the woman's 'duty' as being a housemaker originated with the fact that you can't rightly go out and hunt or work really with a nearly fully grown infant in your uterus. The advancement of women in society is a relatively new phenomenon, spurred by equal parts social progress and medical innovation.

This also didn't happen because the women who weren't pregnant acted cheifly as midwives and such. I'm sure they did what they could every now and again [circumstances and temperment have inevitably forced it over the course of human history], but I'm certain women settled into their role [as men have with ours] out of necessity rather than preference.

We (in the west) live in a world where prostitution of the body is illegal and extremely frowned upon, whereas prostitution of the mind is a way of life.
Prostitution is not synomonous with 'selling', 'trading' or 'providing a service'. Unless you have conflated prostitution with one of these terms (or a similar term) I have no idea what you mean when you suggest prostitution of the mind is a way of life.

." Protisituion is often referred to as the 'oldest profession,' and rightly so. When you think about it, human females got to a point where they didn't have to fend for themselves in nature by sleeping with or at the very least regularly accompanying a male hunter-gatherer.
I think this untrue.
By essentially 'giving' him her body, she was guaranteed protection against the elements, food, and a stable social position.
Protection against the elements can be achieved by finding a cave or building a shelter. Female humams are perfectly capable of doing both these things.
Female humans are also capable of obtaining food.
As for stable social positions, you are either referring to something that didnt occur until human beings started forming sedamentary societies (a very recent occurence), or are very likely incorrect. Social position in early human societies was probably determined primarily either by a personal traits/aptitudes/abilities, or kin group membership or an admixture of these.

Nature is full of species that don't operate like us at all. Human females as a general rule don't approach the resourcefulness of their animal counterparts: the same can also be said of our young, who can't realistsically be expected to fend for themselves in nature until they're at least fifteen. A wolf cub will be able to hunt and feed itself within a couple of years, but a human child by comparison will still be utterly helpless and defenseless.
Human beings are actually very resourceful (comparitively) including human females. The young of other animals (for instance closely related primates) also do not mature into adults until their teen years.

Except that's not how it happened at all.
Actually it's probably a more likely description of early human social cooperation than your own appears to be.

If you've got a tribe or a clan of people out in the old wilderness, I highly doubt only one of them will be heavy with child at any given time.
If by 'out in the wilderness' you mean living as nomadic hunter/gatherers, then it's unlikely one would be out with a tribe or clan - when subsistence is obtained without the domestication of plants and animals the carrying capacity of land usually disallows large groups. In all likelihood most bands would not have more than a couple of pregnant people in their midst at any one time, and quite often would have had no pregnant members. Further pregnancy in most cases is not likely to prevent food gathering until around about the time the woman concerned goes into labour.

The notion of the woman's 'duty' as being a housemaker originated with the fact that you can't rightly go out and hunt or work really with a nearly fully grown infant in your uterus.
I doubt that very much. I expect any notions about women having a duty in a 'home' or 'house' didnt occur until after human beings began to domesticate plants and/or animals and live in permenent settlements.

The advancement of women in society is a relatively new phenomenon, spurred by equal parts social progress and medical innovation.
Social advancement is a relatively new phenomenon. That being the case the inferior social status of women is probably equally as relatively new.

This also didn't happen because the women who weren't pregnant acted cheifly as midwives and such. I'm sure they did what they could every now and again [circumstances and temperment have inevitably forced it over the course of human history], but I'm certain women settled into their role [as men have with ours] out of necessity rather than preference.
Early human groups were highly mobile, this included pregnant women. In your theory we have a large group (already taxing the productivity of the land) where quite some number of the members are non-producers (either because they are pregnant, midwives, or caring for young infants). Unless there really is a garden of Eden, the carrying capacity of the land and the productivity of individual members of the corporate group would not have been sufficient to prevent starvation if a group of humans acted as you suggest....to successfully abstract a living from the land without domesticating plants and/or animals, a human group had to be smaller than you appear to realise, had to be more mobile than you appear to characterise preganant women as being, and had to have a greater ratio of producers to consumers than your theory would allow.

Prostitution is OK in my book.

*becomes pimp daddy*

Melkor makes good points about first the social structure of Humans---research it before you argue he's wrong. Though I would submit--females are suited to gathering--
To the main point, the issue of muscle and bone density--women are not design to hunt. Their social habits are as well counter to that practice and that is the case in any culture one can name.

I have quite a few friends who have been pros, and they were not locked into any of the molds you claim--besides breaking the law.

You put up a poll suggesting which was worse and the selections had to be either good or bad.

I say niether--it is inconsequential.

Morally speaking--Married men shouldnt seek pros. or married women for that matter.

Is the pro' immoral?

No, she is not lustful--she is a professional.

No matter if she's on the track trying to get a dime rock---or working the Ritz to get the 2007 escalade.

The cook at a McDOnalds in Iowa doesn't make as much as a Head Chef in Malibu--so what.

I dont see the problem here?

Are you asking if it should be legal--then that should have been your poll.

Because yes it should be.

Melkor makes good points about first the social structure of Humans---research it before you argue he's wrong. Though I would submit--females are suited to gathering--
Which points exactly? The one where hunter/gatherers were able to survive in larger groups than most ecological areas support, or the one where these groups too large to survive on available resources in most ecological conditions could provide sustinence for multiple non-productive members virtually continuously? :confused:

I think this untrue.
It thinks you're untrue too.

Protection against the elements can be achieved by finding a cave or building a shelter. Female humams are perfectly capable of doing both these things.
Female humans are also capable of obtaining food.
Yes and finding caves and building shelters were generally done by the men, particularly when said caves were occupied by other people who would prefer not to leave them for the sake of another tribe. You're grossly oversimplifying the situation here: of course women possess the mental faculties to obtain their own sustinence; I'm not trying to say that they didn't or that they were utterly helpless.

However, for one reason or another, they just didn't do it in most cultures; men had always been the primary hunter-gatherers, and if you're prepared to deny that then I'm completely wasting my time [not that I don't think I am already, given my past experiences with you]. The bottom line here is that they're capable of these things but not as capable as men were, [again] as a general rule. Violence has always primarily been the domain of men; whether that's violence borne out of need for food, shelter, or any other purpose is simply consequential.

As for stable social positions, you are either referring to something that didnt occur until human beings started forming sedamentary societies (a very recent occurence), or are very likely incorrect. Social position in early human societies was probably determined primarily either by a personal traits/aptitudes/abilities, or kin group membership or an admixture of these.
I don't really think that people have ever gotten ahead socially purely on their own merits--"traits" or "aptitudes" as you put it. It never has really been all about what you can do, the important thing is and always has been who you know at least in any sort of social sense. It's kind of fucked up, and I don't much care for it, but that's the way things work and I suspect that hasn't changed much from society to society, be they nomadic or sedentary [not 'sedimentary,' as we're not talking about geology, last time I checked].

Human beings are actually very resourceful (comparitively) including human females. The young of other animals (for instance closely related primates) also do not mature into adults until their teen years.
Depends on what branch of humanity we're talking about too much over the last few millenia]. A single modern woman [and probably even most men] could no more feed herself in the Amazon Basin than I can make Styx sound good. Earlier species were probably [understandably] more adept at this sort of thing, but given the lengthy gestation period for our species [say nothing of the time and energy required to raise one of us little bastards] females haven't really had the opportunity to settle into any kind of provider role; at least, not until very recently.

Actually it's probably a more likely description of early human social cooperation than your own appears to be.
In some [very early] societies, yes. In ours? No. In most? certainly not.

If by 'out in the wilderness' you mean living as nomadic hunter/gatherers, then it's unlikely one would be out with a tribe or clan - when subsistence is obtained without the domestication of plants and animals the carrying capacity of land usually disallows large groups. In all likelihood most bands would not have more than a couple of pregnant people in their midst at any one time, and quite often would have had no pregnant members. Further pregnancy in most cases is not likely to prevent food gathering until around about the time the woman concerned goes into labour.
You've obviously never been put to work in the fields when you're 8 months pregnant. Try hauling around an 8 or 10 lb hunk of mini human in your belly for a couple of months [or, more realistically, ask someone who has], and then come back and tell me that pregnancy isn't a measurable physical conern [since, after all, gathering food is in fact a physical activity] until the woman starts going into labor. Do you really expect me to beleive that Visigoth chicks rode around with hunting bows and shit when they were 8 months pregnant? I think not.

Also, if there's one things humans love to do, it's fuck. If you honestly think that we just up and didn't fuck because we were short on resources, then I've got some beachfront property for you in Montana that you'll just love. The presence of dire consequences has never stopped the human species from propagating itself. Just look at Asia for chrissakes; hell look at Africa. They're fucking like rabbits and always have been, STDs or overcrowding be damned.

I doubt that very much. I expect any notions about women having a duty in a 'home' or 'house' didnt occur until after human beings began to domesticate plants and/or animals and live in permenent settlements.
Honestly now this is just being contentious for the sake of being contentious. How can you seriously suggest that gender roles weren't at all influenced by biological and physiological factors? Women are phyically much smaller than men for chrissakes! How are you going to tell me that something like that doesn't have anything to do with it? Do you just "doubt that very much" regardless of what I say? Somehow, I think you do.

Gender roles, like any other cultural value or construct, developed over time. Biologically, men are built and programmed to be the hunters and women--quite simply--are not. To suggest that we somehow failed to account for any of this until we settled down is the height of absurdity.

Social advancement is a relatively new phenomenon. That being the case the inferior social status of women is probably equally as relatively new.
Tell that to the Phoenicians.

Early human groups were highly mobile, this included pregnant women. In your theory we have a large group (already taxing the productivity of the land) where quite some number of the members are non-producers (either because they are pregnant, midwives, or caring for young infants). Unless there really is a garden of Eden, the carrying capacity of the land and the productivity of individual members of the corporate group would not have been sufficient to prevent starvation if a group of humans acted as you suggest....to successfully abstract a living from the land without domesticating plants and/or animals, a human group had to be smaller than you appear to realise, had to be more mobile than you appear to characterise preganant women as being, and had to have a greater ratio of producers to consumers than your theory would allow.
My "theory?" What the hell is my "theory" exactly? All I really said in the passage you quote is that women acted as midwives for the ones who were pregnant--a fact, by the way, which is widely documented among historians and anthropologists. I don't remember specifying the size of the group [which is quite frankly irrelevant anyway], which I'm glad to see you've decided to do for me.

Seriously dude, give it a rest. If you disagree with the gist of a post that's fine, but don't go off on senseless tangents like this to try and prove a point. So early tribes had to be small, resourceful, and mobile.... so what? I don't think anything in what I am saying [to remind you, my overall point is merely that men have historically been the cheif providers] is contravened or dimished somehow by the fact that we used to be nomadic and travelled in [relatively] small groups.

Which points exactly? The one where hunter/gatherers were able to survive in larger groups than most ecological areas support, or the one where these groups too large to survive on available resources in most ecological conditions could provide sustinence for multiple non-productive members virtually continuously? :confused:
Who said anything about "larger groups?" When was the size of the colony in question even discussed? You're making it sound like I suggested metropolis-sized masses of people wandered around in the desert together or something. Like I said in my post above, you're being contentious simply for the sake of being contentious. You're making up nuances to the debate which did not previously exist. I dont remember bringing up population considerations or anything else. Before you came along, no stipluation had been attached as to the size of the society in question.

EDIT: one final thought occurs. If these tribes, as you put it "quite often" had "no pregnant members at all," then how did the human population even begin to expand? Did we just crawl out of holes in the ground in accordance with the availability of resources? No. People fucked, a lot of kids died prematurely, and the ones that lived fucked some more. That's how it happened; you're free to argue with me about it until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make you any more right about it.

What's worse: prostitution of the body or of the mind?

The body. More specifically, the lower booty area.

We (in the west) live in a world where prostitution of the body is illegal and extremely frowned upon, whereas prostitution of the mind is a way of life.

There is a stunning set of paralels between the two, but yet one is discriminated against.

With those on the lower rungs of the job both types get paid less, have less job security, tend not to enjoy the job and have to take what they can get. Whereas those on the higher rungs get paid more, have more job security, tend to enjoy the job and are able to choose which jobs they take. For instance, a street prostitute is likely to have to get into the first car that stops, whereas as an escort can refuse to take certain customers. Also, a low-level admin assistant will have to accept the first job their offered as they need the money, whereas a lawyer can pick and choose which cases he takes on.

In both jobs the employee deals with situations they might not normally commit themselves to (eg.: the escort taking a sleazy customer; or the lawyer taking on a case where he personally things the defendent is guilty, but thinks he can win their case). It is also seen that the employee might temporary cease a normal function (escort - orgasm, and lawyer - moral judgement).

So why, in today's liberal society, where people daily sell the capacities of their mind, is prostitution, where people sell the capacity of their body, seen as being bad and immoral?

What are you talking about. Prostitution of the mind as what? I've never heard of anyone letting someone else shove their brain into their head for pleasure. If you are talking about selling or giving your brain power than you are talking about human existance. You are freely giving away your thoughts right now on this forum. So are you a mental whore?? No, because thought is not physical sex. To compare them like you are doing is ignorance and foolishness.

The body. More specifically, the lower booty area.

They say if a working girl agrees to give you Greek, it means you have a little member. I'm afraid to ask, 'cause I'm afraid to know...

Which points exactly? The one where hunter/gatherers were able to survive in larger groups than most ecological areas support, or the one where these groups too large to survive on available resources in most ecological conditions could provide sustinence for multiple non-productive members virtually continuously? :confused:
Those were all things you fallaciously infered--not things he said.

and as far as academics are concerned he is one hundred percent correct--the women dod not participate in the hunt and their physical design demonstrates why it would be needed for them not to---

Now your response is cute, but you completely placed words in his mouth that he never used. So you are debating with false points you made for him so you would have a base to debate his points which you were incapable of attacking directly.

So, can I have different question now?
Thanks.

Those were all things you fallaciously infered--not things he said.
Yeah, I'm glad someone else noticed that too. I double checked before posting the second time just to make sure I wasn't making an ass out of myself--but I'll be damned if I mentioned even half of this before Zagat came around.

Ah, it's a pity he signed off. Some morbid part of my brain was actually intersted in what his response might be. I hope he makes one! :eek:

Ah, it's a pity he signed off. Some morbid part of my brain was actually intersted in what his response might be. I hope he makes one! :eek:

I'll take up his flag! Lemmee go back and read his posts and find out what he was saying...

He's basically saying that the human race was largely nomadic in its civilizational infancy [that much is true] and he seems to be implying that as a result of this, women had a more dominant hunter-gathering role in these 'glory days,' as it were. He seems to contend that the perception of women as the beneficiaries [rather than provider] is a relatively new one, and wasn't created until civilization developed more or less into what it is today. I think. I've never had a particularly easy time understanding Zagat. I've been good at reading comprehension my entire life, but there are passages of his that baffle me utterly.

He's right about a few things; humans were nomadic for quite some time and occasionally our women did contribute [in some cases significantly] to the acqusition of resources. That's all well and good, but none of that is exactly a damning endictment of anything I had said previously.

I think there's some more to it, but that's the meat and bones of his thesis and I suspect it won't be expanded upon very well since the vast majority of it is made up in the first place.

He's basically saying that the human race was largely nomadic in its civilizational infancy [that much is true] and he seems to be implying that as a result of this, women had a more dominant hunter-gathering role in these 'glory days,' as it were. He seems to contend that the perception of women as the beneficiaries [rather than provider] is a relatively new one, and wasn't created until civilization developed more or less into what it is today. I think. I've never had a particularly easy time understanding Zagat. I've been good at reading comprehension my entire life, but there are passages of his that baffle me utterly.

He's right about a few things; humans were nomadic for quite some time and occasionally our women did contribute [in some cases significantly] to the acqusition of resources. That's all well and good, but none of that is exactly a damning endictment of anything I had said previously.

I think there's some more to it, but that's the meat and bones of his thesis and I suspect it won't be expanded upon very well since the vast majority of it is made up in the first place.


Okay, here goes.

Women fought off sabretooths with axes, up to the 2nd trimester. Only now, with more progressive career prospects, are women returning to their ancient role as providers.

Okay, here goes.

Women fought off sabretooths with axes, up to the 2nd trimester. Only now, with more progressive career prospects, are women returning to their ancient role as providers.
I suppose that's about as valiant an attempt as is possible under the circumstances.

I suppose that's about as valiant an attempt as is possible under the circumstances.

Thank you.

If I may introduce the use of the term "prostitution" as the selling, for money, of something that some culture's define as being too private, dignified, personal, or santified to sell, and for our purposes here include sex, but extending to self-respect, one's principals, and similar nebulous fare...

Used in that sense, I think selling out your art, your honor, your dignity, and that kind of thing, will hurt you to an extent proportionate to however much you value those things. Selling your body for sex is risky to the extent that said sex is practiced unsafely, but I think that applies to all sex.

I've met prostitutes that I truly feel were better, smarter people than me, but I don't know how diminished they feel by their practice

Both are bad, but prostitution of the mind just edges it. A leader with the right tack of tongue and language can make masses sell their thinking minds to the state, to a cause.

Look at Hitler and the Nazis.

You see nations prostituting themselves to powerful nations all the time, leading to wars and etc and oppression of populations, so prostitution of the mind just edges it.


"The greatest nations have all acted like gangsters and the smallest like prostitutes."- Stanley Kubrick

"The greatest nations have all acted like gangsters and the smallest like prostitutes."- Stanley Kubrick


Need, of any kind, is, I think, a thing that carries pain and gratification together, like an ill-matched bride and groom.

I'm sorry, I've been drinking, and I've had too much and I'm sorry and that's not an excuse, but I'm sorry.

It thinks you're untrue too.
Aha...
Yes and finding caves and building shelters were generally done by the men, particularly when said caves were occupied by other people who would prefer not to leave them for the sake of another tribe.
What makes you think that? The chances of one group of early humans coming across a cave occupied by people they have no previous social connection with is fairly slim. In fact most caves would be unoccupied most of the time due to the fact that unlike hunter/gatherer bands, caves are not mobile.
As for building shelters, where does the assumption that males would predominately build shelters come from?

You're grossly oversimplifying the situation here: of course women possess the mental faculties to obtain their own sustinence; I'm not trying to say that they didn't or that they were utterly helpless.
Actually I was under the impression that your view (as indicated by statements in your post) of early human life-ways was oversimplied.

However, for one reason or another, they just didn't do it in most cultures; men had always been the primary hunter-gatherers, and if you're prepared to deny that then I'm completely wasting my time
As a matter of fact I am prepared to suggest that it is very probably untrue. What reason is there to believe otherwise?

[not that I don't think I am already, given my past experiences with you].The bottom line here is that they're capable of these things but not as capable as men were, [again] as a general rule.
I dont think that is the bottom line. I suspect that in many early human societies females were essential to successful hunting.

Violence has always primarily been the domain of men; whether that's violence borne out of need for food, shelter, or any other purpose is simply consequential.
Really? May I ask if you pulled this idea out of somewhere other than thin air or an overactive imagination?

I don't really think that people have ever gotten ahead socially purely on their own merits--"traits" or "aptitudes" as you put it.
Is this opinion based on having good reason to reject the ethnographic evidence to the contrary?

It never has really been all about what you can do, the important thing is and always has been who you know at least in any sort of social sense.
It isnt unlikely that in at least some human groups relationships played an important role in defining 'social standing'. Which is why I suggested that such relationships were either a factor in isolation of aptitude (although I very much doubt that would be the case) or (as I consider most likely) a factor in conjunction with personal aptitudes. I find it unlikely that relationships alone would define social rank in human groups that enjoyed any longevity (ie more than a couple of generations), I find it marginally more likely that aptitude alone would define social standing (in early human groups) and most likely that both aptitude and relationships were the predominate factors in social standing in early human groups.

It's kind of fucked up, and I don't much care for it, but that's the way things work and I suspect that hasn't changed much from society to society, be they nomadic or sedentary [not 'sedimentary,' as we're not talking about geology, last time I checked].
Then I suspect you are failing to account for the smaller social groupings that most likely predominated prior to sedentary living, and the relatively egalitarian social model that characterises most (if not all) such social groups.

Depends on what branch of humanity we're talking about too much over the last few millenia].

I am also referring to anatomically modern human beings.

A single modern woman [and probably even most men] could no more feed herself in the Amazon Basin than I can make Styx sound good.
Which is utterly irrelevent given the point that was being made.

Earlier species were probably [understandably] more adept at this sort of thing, but given the lengthy gestation period for our species [say nothing of the time and energy required to raise one of us little bastards] females haven't really had the opportunity to settle into any kind of provider role; at least, not until very recently.
Nonesense. What has gestation period got to do with it?

In some [very early] societies, yes. In ours? No. In most? certainly not.
Whatever do you mean by 'ours'? And yes for most. As for 'very early', contemporary Mbuti do not so far as I can see qualify as 'very early'.

You've obviously never been put to work in the fields when you're 8 months pregnant.
I'm guessing that would make two of us.....

Try hauling around an 8 or 10 lb hunk of mini human in your belly for a couple of months [or, more realistically, ask someone who has], and then come back and tell me that pregnancy isn't a measurable physical conern
Why would I tell you that? Whether you call it a concern or a condition or blue knome, it doesnt change the fact that the necessity of eating has throughout human history being less easily met than it is in modern industrialised nations, and that treating pregnant women like China dolls is a luxery not all human groups have been in a position to indulge in.

[since, after all, gathering food is in fact a physical activity] until the woman starts going into labor. Do you really expect me to beleive that Visigoth chicks rode around with hunting bows and shit when they were 8 months pregnant? I think not.
Given the context of my comments (ie human societies who had not domesticated either plants or animals) it should be very clear that I of course am not asking you to believe anything that would include domestic animals such as horses trained to carry human beings about the place....

Also, if there's one things humans love to do, it's fuck. If you honestly think that we just up and didn't fuck because we were short on resources, then I've got some beachfront property for you in Montana that you'll just love.
If you honestly believe I suggested that humans suddenly stopped fucking, kindly point out specifically which comments of mine you believe make this suggestion...

The presence of dire consequences has never stopped the human species from propagating itself. Just look at Asia for chrissakes; hell look at Africa. They're fucking like rabbits and always have been, STDs or overcrowding be damned.
Wow, great K.O., I dont recall the last time I saw someone so thouroughly knock the stuffing out of a straw man....

Honestly now this is just being contentious for the sake of being contentious.
No it isnt.

How can you seriously suggest that gender roles weren't at all influenced by biological and physiological factors?
Why ask me that? It's not as though I have ever suggested such a thing so what on earth makes you think I would know how someone could seriously suggest such a thing?

Women are phyically much smaller than men for chrissakes! How are you going to tell me that something like that doesn't have anything to do with it? Do you just "doubt that very much" regardless of what I say? Somehow, I think you do.
I think you've wondered off the point somewhat. I can only infer that you either have miscomprehended my comments, or prefer to joust strawmen rather than reply to my comments.:confused:

Gender roles, like any other cultural value or construct, developed over time. Biologically, men are built and programmed to be the hunters and women--quite simply--are not.
Why should we assume that the methods employed by say contemporary Mbuti were a-typical rather than typical of early human groups?

To suggest that we somehow failed to account for any of this until we settled down is the height of absurdity.
Failing to account has nothing to do with it.

Tell that to the Phoenicians.
Whilst the Phoenicians are a relatively recent group of human beings, my chances of tracking down a live one at this point in order to tell them anything seem less than slim, further what on earth would be the point of such an exercise anyway?

My "theory?" What the hell is my "theory" exactly?
I'm not entirely clear on the details, but it involves fairly large groups (compared to bands) specifically of clan or tribe size living as hunter/gatherers, with less than half of the group being capable of consistently contributing to sustinence.

All I really said in the passage you quote is that women acted as midwives for the ones who were pregnant--a fact, by the way, which is widely documented among historians and anthropologists. I don't remember specifying the size of the group [which is quite frankly irrelevant anyway], which I'm glad to see you've decided to do for me.
Perhaps you didnt mean to refer to group size. Tribes refer to groups that usually number between 1,000 and 20,000 people and given the rate of human reproduction, in a relatively short time (ie a few generations) a clan would be too large to achieve sustinence as hunter/gatherers in most ecological niches.

Seriously dude, give it a rest. If you disagree with the gist of a post that's fine, but don't go off on senseless tangents like this to try and prove a point. So early tribes had to be small, resourceful, and mobile.... so what?
I dont intend to not post just to please you or any other poster for that matter.

It's not a tangent, but rather a central point. If a women is 'too pregnant' to take part in net hunting, then how the frig is she not 'too pregnant' to walk to the next living site, and if she is 'too pregnant' to both participate in net-hunting and to walk to the next living site, what the frig is she going to eat while she's sat on her chuff seperated from the rest of the band and not able to get food? Perhaps you are thinking her band would have left a couple of balony sandwhiches in the fridge to tide her over until they all wander back to where they left her....about a year later...? :confused:

I don't think anything in what I am saying [to remind you, my overall point is merely that men have historically been the cheif providers] is contravened or dimished somehow by the fact that we used to be nomadic and travelled in [relatively] small groups.
Even if that conclusion is correct, the reasons you have given for it being correct are not.
Historically in the strict sense is irrelevent given the specific context (ie pre-literate societies).
As for the conclusion (even if we ignore the fact that the reasons you give to support the conclusion are apparently mistaken), even if I did believe that in early human societies males did most of the hunting, your conclusion still appears highly unlikely. Hunting is only one aspect of hunting and gathering.

Who said anything about "larger groups?"
Whilst it may have been inadvertent, you did. I assumed you understood the terminology you were using, and the implications of your comments (for instance the exponential increase in population of a 'clan group').

When was the size of the colony in question even discussed?
Both 'clan' and 'tribe' have particular meanings that I can only assume (based on your subsequent comments) you were unaware of when you made your earlier post.

You're making it sound like I suggested metropolis-sized masses of people wandered around in the desert together or something.
At the lower end of the scale, a tribe consists of 1,000 odd people. In comparison a simple band (25 - 50 people) that is a metropolis.

Like I said in my post above, you're being contentious simply for the sake of being contentious.
Repeating it often wont make it suddenly become true.

You're making up nuances to the debate which did not previously exist.
I'm sorry, is your point here that my reply is too nuanced? I'm confused as to how I ought to reconcile this point with your earlier point...
You're grossly oversimplifying the situation here
I agree that I am introducing nuances, that was my intention and is consistent with my belief that you have an oversimplied notion of early human societies and life-ways.

I dont remember bringing up population considerations or anything else. Before you came along, no stipluation had been attached as to the size of the society in question.
As I explain you did indeed specify size, although I'm happy to accept that this was done inadvertently. Even so, why do you doubt that a group with only 25-50 odd people (the size that most hunter/gatherer bands operated in) members (including infants and elderly members) would be unlikely to have only one heavily pregnant women most of the time?

Kill them all and let God sort it out.

Zagat, I've read your posts; I'd like to distill it down to a general thesis to ask about it, but you're the best qualifed person to present your own main theme.

What's being contested here, in the general sense?

Need, of any kind, is, I think, a thing that carries pain and gratification together, like an ill-matched bride and groom.

But the need of what? The need of being wanted, Survival or the need to have power and influence or be in the presence of power and influence to have a feeling of power and influence where before there was none, but now they are the powerful's sidekick because of the constant sucking of the proverbial, which degrades the nation, in which case non survival or no global power may have been preferred.


I'm sorry, I've been drinking, and I've had too much and I'm sorry and that's not an excuse, but I'm sorry.

I would never have guessed, no seriously, I would not have done.

Honestly.

But the need of what? Survival or the need to have power and influence or be in the presence of power and influence to have a feeling of power and influence where before there was none, but now they are the powerful's sidekick because of the constant sucking of the proverbial, which degrades the nation, in which case non survival or no global power may have been preferred.



I would never have guessed, no seriously, I would not have done.

Honestly.

Mayhap the facts of survival inflicted some of these needs on us...the things we'll do to survive.

Power and influence...I would like to not need these things, but am I then left that mercy of those who made it their highest need...

I can feel my heart beating...

Mayhap the facts of survival inflicted some of these needs on us...the things we'll do to survive.

In which case, some of the things done for survival may lead to the choice of death being taken instead.


Power and influence...I would like to not need these things, but am I then left that mercy of those who made it their highest need...

Whether you are prostituting or not, you are at the mercy of the powerful, and their whims.

The trick perhaps is becoming powerful yourself, and not by being a sidekick....how this is done is another matter.


I can feel my heart beating...

That's....nice.

Shows you're still alive and your blood's pumping etc.

In which case, some of the things done for survival may lead to the choice of death being taken instead.



Whether you are prostituting or not, you are at the mercy of the powerful, and their whims.

The trick perhaps is becoming powerful yourself, and not by being a sidekick....how this is done is another matter.



That's....nice.

Shows you're still alive and your blood's pumping etc.

What counts as being a sidekick? I'm getting imagery of "Tweeky" from Buck Rogers, but thats not what you mean.

Sorry, I've just never actually felt it beating before.

We (in the west) live in a world where prostitution of the body is illegal and extremely frowned upon, whereas prostitution of the mind is a way of life.
Prostititution of the body is illegal and frowned upon? In the Western world? :confused:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml

EDIT: one final thought occurs. If these tribes, as you put it "quite often" had "no pregnant members at all," then how did the human population even begin to expand? Did we just crawl out of holes in the ground in accordance with the availability of resources? No. People fucked, a lot of kids died prematurely, and the ones that lived fucked some more. That's how it happened; you're free to argue with me about it until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make you any more right about it.
I certainly didnt put it that tribes would at some times have no pregnant members. Rather I suggested bands quite often would have no pregnant members. This is hardly a startling suggestion given that simple bands have at the upper end of the scale approximately 50 members including males (who I am sure you will agree were not candidates for being pregnant), pre-adolesent and post menopausal females, and that at the other end of the population scale we are looking at groups of 25.

As for how the population of humanity began to expand, I would suggest that prior to domestication of plants and/or animals, very bloody slowly (relative to latter population growth).

Those were all things you fallaciously infered--not things he said.
It was a sound inference given the available information. I dont see how I am supposed to know that a poster doesnt understand the terminology that they have used. Nor do I see why it is unsound to estimate that a group that someone doubts wouldnt have multiple pregnant women at any one time but does include males, the elderly and the pre-pubescent wouldnt be somewhat larger than most ecological niches can sustain.

and as far as academics are concerned he is one hundred percent correct--the women dod not participate in the hunt and their physical design demonstrates why it would be needed for them not to---
Unless by academics you mean 'only those academics who either wouldnt doubt or outright disagree', your assertion is not correct.

He's basically saying that the human race was largely nomadic in its civilizational infancy [that much is true] and he seems to be implying that as a result of this, women had a more dominant hunter-gathering role in these 'glory days,' as it were.
No need to hark back to glory days. Modern ethnographies demonstrate that for at least some societies the contribution of females to hunting is essential to achieving subsistence.

He seems to contend that the perception of women as the beneficiaries [rather than provider] is a relatively new one, and wasn't created until civilization developed more or less into what it is today. I think.
Untill human beings domesticated plants and/or animals, the role of females in contributing food was essential. In some, perhaps even most groups, this would undoubtably have included participating in hunting activities.

I've never had a particularly easy time understanding Zagat. I've been good at reading comprehension my entire life, but there are passages of his that baffle me utterly.
If you cannot comprehend you are more than welcome to ask for clarification of specific comments. I do not mind rephrasing if you are specific about what it is you do not understand.

I think there's some more to it, but that's the meat and bones of his thesis and I suspect it won't be expanded upon very well since the vast majority of it is made up in the first place.
I'm happy to expand on any specific point I have made.

Okay, here goes.
Women fought off sabretooths with axes, up to the 2nd trimester. Only now, with more progressive career prospects, are women returning to their ancient role as providers.
Dont be silly, men fought the sabretooths, women were too busy dealing with T-rex....:rolleyes:

Zagat, I've read your posts; I'd like to distill it down to a general thesis to ask about it, but you're the best qualifed person to present your own main theme.

What's being contested here, in the general sense?
I am contesting that
When you think about it, human females got to a point where they didn't have to fend for themselves in nature by sleeping with or at the very least regularly accompanying a male hunter-gatherer. By essentially 'giving' him her body, she was guaranteed protection against the elements, food, and a stable social position
is true.

Zagat, this is, quite frankly, the most utterly ridiculous thing I've ever read in my entire life, and I am not kidding. You're basically telling me here that men weren't the cheif providers in early society [an admirable start, since last time we "debated" you didn't bother to make any points at all], which is just about as ridiculous as anything else I've heard from you. I frankly have not the foggiest notion just what the hell you've been reading, but whatever it is has got to conatin more fallacies and inaccuracies than the goddamn Bible, which is saying a lot.

Your latest post contains so many single sentence responses that it makes my head hurt just looking at them. In most cases, you deconstruct one point, splitting it up and answering it as if it were in fact three or four. My favorite is when you break up my post in the middle of a sentence, quite clearly demonstrating to me that you're either not paying any attention to what I'm saying at all, or you are but you've made up your mind about what I've said before you even read it. It's probably a subtle combination of both.

That said, I will try to answer some of the things you've said, as you've already gone back on yourself several times quite marvelously, and to me there are few things more exhilirating than pointinng out the shortcomings of others. It's just so fun!

What makes you think that? The chances of one group of early humans coming across a cave occupied by people they have no previous social connection with is fairly slim.
In fact most caves would be unoccupied most of the time due to the fact that unlike hunter/gatherer bands, caves are not mobile.
As for building shelters, where does the assumption that males would predominately build shelters come from?

What makes me think that is the fact that men are physically built and mentally programmed for undertaking certain [predominantly physical] tasks. Ever watch westerns? Ever notice how when the Indians raid a camp, the raiders are generally men? American Indians are a shockingly recent example for use in this context, but their habits as a culture are somewhat similar to the tendancies of early humankind in general. They hadn't developed the notions of civilization that we [Europeans] had [many were still nomadic, and they had not domesticated animals], but even so they still had gender roles. Men built the shelters, to put it bluntly, because they were the ones most physically suited for the task. That's not an "assumption," that's a goddamn fact, a fact which you can easily learn for yourself by examining a male's physique compared to that of a woman's.

Be careful here, because it's a very easy mistake to make to assume that I'm saying with this that women never built shelters or never hunted or provided or what-have you. Again, my point is that men have historically been the providers; history and anthropology are on my side, my friend; not yours.

As a matter of fact I am prepared to suggest that it is very probably untrue. What reason is there to believe otherwise?
You're telling me now that women were the primary hunter-gatherers in early society?

There's plenty of reason to beleive otherwise; most notably our physical characteristics, and not to mention things like anthropology, wirtten history... and... yeah. Little, inconsequential things like that.

Really? May I ask if you pulled this idea out of somewhere other than thin air or an overactive imagination?
Name me one war started by a woman who wasn't Joan of Arc [Helen of Troy doesn't count]. Part of the reason why Joan is such a notable historical figure is because she was a woman who chose to engage in armed combat. Somehow I doubt anyone would have made a very big deal out of her if women had trafficked heavily in violence.

Seriously man, everyone from scientists to poets to politicians have noticed that men are more violent than women. Again, you're contesting my claims simply because they're my claims, as this supposition is quite clearly insane.

Also, don't give me any more of that shit about this "not being relevent" [sic], since history is filled with accounts of violent men whereas violent women are much more rare. Ever wondered why nearly all serial killers are men, or are you going to challenge that fact too?

It kills me that you're trying to tell me that modern humans are "actually very resourceful (comparitively) including human females" [your own words] but turn around when I point out that a modern man couldn't feed himself in the Amazon [where there techincally exists an abundance of food], you're quick to double back and say it "is utterly irrelevent given the point that was being made."

Your point, I feel compelled to remind you, is that modern man is "actually very resourceful (comparitively) including human females." My point [which is somehow now 'not relevant'] is that wilderness survival is no longer a skill we possess. Yes, I said that twice for a reason. I strongly suspect after your reply to this, I'll wish I'd have said it three times.

Why would I tell you that?
I don't know, but you just did. I quote: "Further pregnancy in most cases is not likely to prevent food gathering until around about the time the woman concerned goes into labour."

You're basically saying that pregnancy isn't really that big of a deal, and that women were strong enough to provide while in such a state; a task that they are no more physically prepared for then they are mentally prepared for at that point. Ever wonder why women get maternity leave? Because being pregnant is a big deal--it's not something you can just shrug off in order to go hunting with the guys.

If you honestly believe I suggested that humans suddenly stopped fucking, kindly point out specifically which comments of mine you believe make this suggestion...

Gladly.

If by 'out in the wilderness' you mean living as nomadic hunter/gatherers, then it's unlikely one would be out with a tribe or clan - when subsistence is obtained without the domestication of plants and animals the carrying capacity of land usually disallows large groups. In all likelihood most bands would not have more than a couple of pregnant people in their midst at any one time, and quite often would have had no pregnant members. Further pregnancy in most cases is not likely to prevent food gathering until around about the time the woman concerned goes into labour.
[emphasis added]

If not having any pregnant women around isn't a sign of people just not fucking, I don't know what the hell is.

Wow, great K.O., I dont recall the last time I saw someone so thouroughly knock the stuffing out of a straw man....
An amusing attempt, but I'm not buying it. Anyone intelligent enough to work a keyboard can understand the point I was making and how it tied in with what you had said earlier. Playing dumb with me isn't going to work, pal.

Why ask me that? It's not as though I have ever suggested such a thing so what on earth makes you think I would know how someone could seriously suggest such a thing?

Let's recap, shall we? I maintain that as a result of our decidedly bulkier [and in my opinion, generally inferior ;) ] physique has lent us to a certain role; it's made certain things like, say, construction and hunting and killing things easier for us comparatively than it has been for women. I maintain that after centuries upon centuries of hunter-gatherer behavior, man emerged as the cheif provider, because raising young'uns ain't no walk in the park and it would be nearly impossible to do both at the same time, at least before the Industrial Revolution [glory be!].

You have suggested on numerous occasions that none of this matters, and that women have historically been on at least equal footing with the male gender insofar as resource gathering and general conquest is concerned. I contend that since we're built differently [a biological factor] we're more suited to certain tasks. You contend that this is not the case [without, by the way, bothering to explain why], clearly 'suggesting such a thing.'

Whilst the Phoenicians are a relatively recent group of human beings, my chances of tracking down a live one at this point in order to tell them anything seem less than slim, further what on earth would be the point of such an exercise anyway?
You'll never convince me that you thought I was actually telling you to find a live Phoenician to question on the matter; rather my point is that gender roles are not a "recent" consideration, as you suggested in your previous post.

It's not a tangent, but rather a central point. If a women is 'too pregnant' to take part in net hunting, then how the frig is she not 'too pregnant' to walk to the next living site, and if she is 'too pregnant' to both participate in net-hunting and to walk to the next living site, what the frig is she going to eat while she's sat on her chuff seperated from the rest of the band and not able to get food? Perhaps you are thinking her band would have left a couple of balony sandwhiches in the fridge to tide her over until they all wander back to where they left her....about a year later...?
Ask an anthropologist. I imagine they found things to do, and someone eventually figured out a system for transporting pregnant cargo. I'm certain they had to 'suck it up' [so to speak] a little bit, at least compared to modern times. That does not mean that pregnant women were ever capable of hunting dinner.

Even if that conclusion is correct, the reasons you have given for it being correct are not.
Historically in the strict sense is irrelevent given the specific context (ie pre-literate societies).
As for the conclusion (even if we ignore the fact that the reasons you give to support the conclusion are apparently mistaken), even if I did believe that in early human societies males did most of the hunting, your conclusion still appears highly unlikely. Hunting is only one aspect of hunting and gathering.
Honestly now, this is just fucking ridiculous. Even the most hardcore N.O.W. nutjob will admit that men did the goddamn hunting, and put the proverbial dinner on the table for centuries upon centuries upon centuries. I seriously cannot fathom how you would come to the conclusion that men didn't do the bulk of the hunting. If you seriously think this [and aren't just saying it for the sake of arguing, which I supsect is the case], you really ought to brush up on your anthropology. I suggest this site. (http://www.aaanet.org/resinet.htm)

I don't think you could find an anthropologist on the entire planet who would disagree with the generalizations I've made so far. In hunter-gatherer societies, men usually hunt and women usually gather. They provide, in their own capacity, but in an entirely different manner.

Also, there is no functional difference between the use of the terms "clan" or "tribe" that I'm aware of; they're synonymous--and in this context, utterly interchangeable. If I may:

tribe P Pronunciation Key (trb)
n.
1. A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent.
2. A political, ethnic, or ancestral division of ancient states and cultures...

clan P Pronunciation Key (kln)
n.
1. A traditional social unit in the Scottish Highlands, consisting of a number of families claiming a common ancestor and following the same hereditary chieftain.
2. A division of a tribe tracing descent from a common ancestor.
3. A large group of relatives, friends, or associates.

[source: dictionary.com]
The words are listed as synonyms in almost any Thesaurus you might care to read.

Also, if you talk down to me like that one more time I'll reach through that monitor and pull off whatever part of your face my fingers happen to curl around.

I certainly didnt put it that tribes would at some times have no pregnant members...

In all likelihood most bands would not have more than a couple of pregnant people in their midst at any one time, and quite often would have had no pregnant members.

How's that crow taste? I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but why bother, when you can't even keep consistent with yourself? I can't debate with an opponent like this; any further attempts on my part is time that would be better spent trying to cut down a redwood with a rubber chicken.

Also, please read the second quote in my signature. It's shockingly appropriate here.

What counts as being a sidekick? I'm getting imagery of "Tweeky" from Buck Rogers, but thats not what you mean.

Imagine a bully in a school playground, with a snivelling kid in tow who laughs when the Bully tells a joke, and does the Bully's bidding.

That's a sidekick in the terms we talk of here.


Sorry, I've just never actually felt it beating before.

Makes you feel alive, don't it?

We (in the west) live in a world where prostitution of the body is illegal and extremely frowned upon, whereas prostitution of the mind is a way of life.
[snip]
Huh? Speak for yourself, but over here in the west prostitution (of the body) certainly isn't illegal :rolleyes:

I'll say, certainly both is fine! :D

How's that crow taste? I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but why bother, when you can't even keep consistent with yourself? I can't debate with an opponent like this; any further attempts on my part is time that would be better spent trying to cut down a redwood with a rubber chicken.

Also, please read the second quote in my signature. It's shockingly appropriate here.

You lose more puddy tats that way. :)

We (in the west) live in a world where prostitution of the body is illegal and extremely frowned upon, whereas prostitution of the mind is a way of life.

There is a stunning set of paralels between the two, but yet one is discriminated against.

With those on the lower rungs of the job both types get paid less, have less job security, tend not to enjoy the job and have to take what they can get. Whereas those on the higher rungs get paid more, have more job security, tend to enjoy the job and are able to choose which jobs they take. For instance, a street prostitute is likely to have to get into the first car that stops, whereas as an escort can refuse to take certain customers. Also, a low-level admin assistant will have to accept the first job their offered as they need the money, whereas a lawyer can pick and choose which cases he takes on.

In both jobs the employee deals with situations they might not normally commit themselves to (eg.: the escort taking a sleazy customer; or the lawyer taking on a case where he personally things the defendent is guilty, but thinks he can win their case). It is also seen that the employee might temporary cease a normal function (escort - orgasm, and lawyer - moral judgement).

So why, in today's liberal society, where people daily sell the capacities of their mind, is prostitution, where people sell the capacity of their body, seen as being bad and immoral?

If prostitution is defined as "renting out one's mind or body for a mutually agreed-upon price," I see nothing wrong with it in any situation.

Zagat, this is, quite frankly, the most utterly ridiculous thing I've ever read in my entire life, and I am not kidding. You're basically telling me here that men weren't the cheif providers in early society [an admirable start, since last time we "debated" you didn't bother to make any points at all], which is just about as ridiculous as anything else I've heard from you. I frankly have not the foggiest notion just what the hell you've been reading, but whatever it is has got to conatin more fallacies and inaccuracies than the goddamn Bible, which is saying a lot.
Stating it is so doesnt make it so. If you want to convince me of anything I dont already believe, you'll need to use sound arguments rather than blustering...

Your latest post contains so many single sentence responses that it makes my head hurt just looking at them. In most cases, you deconstruct one point, splitting it up and answering it as if it were in fact three or four. My favorite is when you break up my post in the middle of a sentence, quite clearly demonstrating to me that you're either not paying any attention to what I'm saying at all, or you are but you've made up your mind about what I've said before you even read it. It's probably a subtle combination of both.
You surely realise that a sentence can contain a number of points not equal to one? It seems to me that since you have expressed that you have difficulty comprehending my comments that it might make things easier for you if I responded in smaller 'bites', at least in so far as where one sentence (to which I am replying) expresses more than one point.
As I have pointed out, if you have trouble comprehending the intended meaning of some comment I have made, specify the comment and I will clarify. If you think I have not understood what you intended by a comment (or comments) that you have made, then specify the comment and why you think I have misunderstood. Otherwise I will necessarily believe that your objections and blusterings are simply attempts to mask your inability to come up with an argument that addresses my comments, or is otherwise relevent to the discussion.

That said, I will try to answer some of the things you've said, as you've already gone back on yourself several times quite marvelously, and to me there are few things more exhilirating than pointinng out the shortcomings of others. It's just so fun!
It's good to know you are enjoying yourself!

Three things [each in response to the respectve sentences above]:

What makes me think that is the fact that men are physically built and mentally programmed for undertaking certain [predominantly physical] tasks. Ever watch westerns? Ever notice how when the Indians raid a camp, the raiders are generally men? American Indians are a shockingly recent example for use in this context, but their habits as a culture are somewhat similar to the tendancies of early humankind in general. They hadn't developed the notions of civilization that we [Europeans] had [many were still nomadic, and they had not domesticated animals], but even so they still had gender roles.
The question is what makes you think that finding caves and building shelters was generally done by men. That is of course (as I would have thought was obvious) an entirely different question to the one you appear to be answering when you state "What makes me think that is the fact that men are physically built and mentally programmed for undertaking certain [predominantly physical] tasks".

Men built the shelters, to put it bluntly, because they were the ones most physically suited for the task. That's not an "assumption," that's a goddamn fact, a fact which you can easily learn for yourself by examining a male's physique compared to that of a woman's.
No it isnt a fact. Who is better suited to a task is only one factor.

Be careful here, because it's a very easy mistake to make to assume that I'm saying with this that women never built shelters or never hunted or provided or what-have you. Again, my point is that men have historically been the providers; history and anthropology are on my side, my friend; not yours.
History (strictly speaking) is post-literate, so not particularly relevent when we are discussing early hunter/gatherer societies.
Anthropology is not 'on your side'. Some anthropologists might agree with you, but others would disagree.

You're telling me now that women were the primary hunter-gatherers in early society?
No I'm not.

There's plenty of reason to beleive otherwise; most notably our physical characteristics, and not to mention things like anthropology, wirtten history... and... yeah. Little, inconsequential things like that.
Written history? How many hunter/gatherer groups can you name whose culture included literacy?
Where exactly are you getting your ideas about anthropology from?
As for physical characteristics, I dont see quite what you mean. Both women and children are quite capable of walking and clapping their hands while making loud verbal utterances. Given that this is a necessary aspect of successful net hunting employed by modern hunter gatherer groups, what reason have I to believe that the same has not been practised by significant numbers of our hunter/gatherer ancestors, or that if it has been practised women and children were somehow superfluous in the past in contrast to their essential participation amongst more recent hunter/gatherer people?

Name me one war started by a woman who wasn't Joan of Arc [Helen of Troy doesn't count].
Ignoring the fact that it is highly unlikely that our early hunter/gatherer ancestors actually engaged in warfare, Joan of Arc didnt start a war.

Part of the reason why Joan is such a notable historical figure is because she was a woman who chose to engage in armed combat. Somehow I doubt anyone would have made a very big deal out of her if women had trafficked heavily in violence.
Joan of Arc is a recent figure. She is historical whereas your notion about females having sex with or at least accompanying a male until they no longer needed to fend for themselves in nature, makes no sense at all unless you are referring to pre-history. The cultural group that made a big deal out of Joan was characterised by established gender roles, it cannot inform us as to how or why those gender roles initially come into being.

Seriously man, everyone from scientists to poets to politicians have noticed that men are more violent than women.
No everyone has not. Even if they had, that wouldnt tell us whether or not human males have a greater tendency to violence than human females.

Again, you're contesting my claims simply because they're my claims, as this supposition is quite clearly insane.
Not I'm not. Whyever would you think that I were?:confused:

Also, don't give me any more of that shit about this "not being relevent" [sic], since history is filled with accounts of violent men whereas violent women are much more rare. Ever wondered why nearly all serial killers are men, or are you going to challenge that fact too?
If I think some comment is irrelevent and feel inclined to post as much, I will do so.
Whether or not in a particular society one gender shows a greater tendency towards violence than another doesnt tell us whether or not one sex has a greater tendency towards violence than the other.

It kills me that you're trying to tell me that modern humans are "actually very resourceful (comparitively) including human females" [your own words] but turn around when I point out that a modern man couldn't feed himself in the Amazon [where there techincally exists an abundance of food], you're quick to double back and say it "is utterly irrelevent given the point that was being made."
I dont think it really does kill you (I would consider not posting if I actually believed I was causing you serious physical harm).
Human beings are most certainly resourceful. That doesnt mean they are without limitation. Whether or not a male or a female could survive alone in some particular environment isnt relevent to whether or not human beings are resourceful unless you narrowly define resourceful so that your statement becomes entirely circular. I think being able to land on the moon requires at least as much resourcefulness as running down gazelle even though the kind of resourcefulness required is not of identical type. You are welcome to disagree of course.

Your point, I feel compelled to remind you, is that modern man is "actually very resourceful (comparitively) including human females." My point [which is somehow now 'not relevant'] is that wilderness survival is no longer a skill we possess. Yes, I said that twice for a reason. I strongly suspect after your reply to this, I'll wish I'd have said it three times.
Actually your point was that females didnt need to fend for themselves due to accompanying males. Apparently the fact that a lone male cant fend for himself somehow in your mind supports your argument that females become dependent on males because the males fended for both of them and any resulting off-spring....
Whether or not a lone person can survive in the Amazon is so far as I am concerned neither here nor there because human beings typically didnt live like that in pre-history.

I don't know, but you just did. I quote: "Further pregnancy in most cases is not likely to prevent food gathering until around about the time the woman concerned goes into labour."
You're basically saying that pregnancy isn't really that big of a deal,
No I'm not.

and that women were strong enough to provide while in such a state;
Not necessarily all of them, merely enough that we are here having this conversation today.

a task that they are no more physically prepared for then they are mentally prepared for at that point.
Whether they were prepared or not is not the point. Plenty of people I know were not prepared for plenty of things they none-the-less muddled through.

Ever wonder why women get maternity leave? Because being pregnant is a big deal--it's not something you can just shrug off in order to go hunting with the guys.
Eating is not something one can choose to not do for long periods of time in order to have 'maternal leave'.

Gladly.
[emphasis added]

If not having any pregnant women around isn't a sign of people just not fucking, I don't know what the hell is.
You are confusing necessary with sufficient. If no one is fucking a necessary cconsequence is no pregnancy (putting aside modern technological methods of achieving conception), if no one is pregnant it is not a necessary consequence that no one is fucking.

An amusing attempt, but I'm not buying it. Anyone intelligent enough to work a keyboard can understand the point I was making and how it tied in with what you had said earlier. Playing dumb with me isn't going to work, pal.
I'm not playing dumb. I never stated anyone was suddenly not fucking so your arguments against such a suggestion is simply an example of how to beat up on strawmen.

Let's recap, shall we? I maintain that as a result of our decidedly bulkier [and in my opinion, generally inferior ;) ] physique has lent us to a certain role; it's made certain things like, say, construction and hunting and killing things easier for us comparatively than it has been for women. I maintain that after centuries upon centuries of hunter-gatherer behavior, man emerged as the cheif provider, because raising young'uns ain't no walk in the park and it would be nearly impossible to do both at the same time, at least before the Industrial Revolution [glory be!].
How do you reconcile this with ethnographic evidence to the contrary, say the Mbuti?

You have suggested on numerous occasions that none of this matters, and that women have historically been on at least equal footing with the male gender insofar as resource gathering and general conquest is concerned.
I have made no comment that indicates the role either gender has had in conquest. As far as resource gathering is concerned, there is good reason to believe that females have always played an equally significant role to males in most hunter/gatherer societies.

I contend that since we're built differently [a biological factor] we're more suited to certain tasks. You contend that this is not the case [without, by the way, bothering to explain why], clearly 'suggesting such a thing.'
I have not suggested any such thing.

You'll never convince me that you thought I was actually telling you to find a live Phoenician to question on the matter;
And you'll never convince me that my comments are actually killing you. Seems we both know flippancy when we see it...

rather my point is that gender roles are not a "recent" consideration, as you suggested in your previous post.
I did not suggest any such thing.

Ask an anthropologist. I imagine they found things to do, and someone eventually figured out a system for transporting pregnant cargo. I'm certain they had to 'suck it up' [so to speak] a little bit, at least compared to modern times. That does not mean that pregnant women were ever capable of hunting dinner.
I wouldnt dare show my face in the anthropology department ever again if I asked a question so obviously based on ignorance of early hunter/gatherer lifeways.
A system for transporting pregnant cargo indeed! You try suggesting that one to an anthropologist and see if they can keep a straight face...


Honestly now, this is just fucking ridiculous. Even the most hardcore N.O.W. nutjob will admit that men did the goddamn hunting, and put the proverbial dinner on the table for centuries upon centuries upon centuries.
Well ignoring the rather silly notion of applying the fallacy of appeal to authority, to the most hardcore N.O.W. nutjob, it seems likely that early hunting gathering groups gathered more than they hunted.

I seriously cannot fathom how you would come to the conclusion that men didn't do the bulk of the hunting.
Even if I did, this wouldnt necessitate that I believe that the majority of food resources were obtained through hunting.

If you seriously think this [and aren't just saying it for the sake of arguing, which I supsect is the case], you really ought to brush up on your anthropology. I suggest this site. (http://www.aaanet.org/resinet.htm)
While I disagree with your opinion of my anthro knowledge, thanks for the link, I'll have a look at the site when I've finished this post.

I don't think you could find an anthropologist on the entire planet who would disagree with the generalizations I've made so far.
What do you mean by find? Does coming across them without looking count?

In hunter-gatherer societies, men usually hunt and women usually gather. They provide, in their own capacity, but in an entirely different manner.
That isnt necessarily true. We know from (relatively) modern accounts that net hunting is a successful hunting method and given the lushness of the Congo homeland of the Mbuti, if they cant successfully net hunt (ie capture enough to meet the subsistence needs of the group) without the participation of women and children, why should we believe otherwise of our early ancestors?

Also, there is no functional difference between the use of the terms "clan" or "tribe" that I'm aware of; they're synonymous--and in this context, utterly interchangeable. If I may:

tribe P Pronunciation Key (trb)
n.
1. A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent.
2. A political, ethnic, or ancestral division of ancient states and cultures...

clan P Pronunciation Key (kln)
n.
1. A traditional social unit in the Scottish Highlands, consisting of a number of families claiming a common ancestor and following the same hereditary chieftain.
2. A division of a tribe tracing descent from a common ancestor.
3. A large group of relatives, friends, or associates.

[source: dictionary.com]
In anthropology a tribe is a particular kind of social group, and a clan is another kind of social group. Hunter/gatherer societies for the most part resided and operated as bands not as tribes (which are considerably larger and include formalised leadership positions) or in clans (which become quite large after a generation or two and are socially particular at any rate given that human societies have different ways of reckoning kin).

The words are listed as synonyms in almost any Thesaurus you might care to read.
I think I'd rather go with the anthropological use of the words in an anthropological discussion, rather than the dictionary or a thesaurus.

Also, if you talk down to me like that one more time I'll reach through that monitor and pull off whatever part of your face my fingers happen to curl around.
Talk down to you how? I dont recall talking down to you, although I'm not convinced you could honestly make the same claim in regards to your comments - either the ones directed to me or the ones about me. As for your threat, I'm not too worried. In the event that you get your hands through my monitor, a live Phoenician will chop them off.

How's that crow taste? I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but why bother, when you can't even keep consistent with yourself? I can't debate with an opponent like this; any further attempts on my part is time that would be better spent trying to cut down a redwood with a rubber chicken.
The two comments are not inconsistent. Perhaps you ought to check out that link you provided, if it doesnt elucidate the difference between a tribe and a band, it isnt worth the time it took you to post it.

Zagat, that is the most annoying use of quotes ever.

Ladies and gentlemen, I do beleive the above post speaks for itself. I really don't see any reason to go on with this. Zagat is quite frankly grasping for some very enormous straws, and answering him at this point would be an excersize in tediousness more than anything else. I'm not really getting anything out of this; it's not a particularly worthwhile or intellectually stimulating excersize, so I'm gonna grab my rubber chickens and head out to California.

Zagat: if you want to take this as a concession of defeat, fine. You win: I'm done, this is fucking stupid as hell, and I'm not answering your points [where you even deign to make any] because they're so goddamn ridiculous I don't even know where to begin. I'm not wasting another three hours of my life so you can be cheeky with me and ignore everything I say; waffling around my points all the while failing to make any significant counters of your own. If I were you, I probably wouldn't even waste my time responding to the posts I write, because I've encountered you three or four times now and I can say with confidence you have not sufficiently challenged a single point that I [or anyone else I've ever seen you argue with] have ever made. You're a "guerilla debator," who challenges his opponent without seeing a need to clarify your own position. I'm sick and goddamn tired of making enormous posts which are "answered" by way of 150 one-line answers to selected bits of my post.

Have a nice life, please for the love of Christ stay the hell out of mine.

In both jobs the employee deals with situations they might not normally commit themselves to (eg.: the escort taking a sleazy customer; or the lawyer taking on a case where he personally things the defendent is guilty, but thinks he can win their case). It is also seen that the employee might temporary cease a normal function (escort - orgasm, and lawyer - moral judgement).



Do not liken street prostitutes to lawyers. My grandfather was a defense lawyer in Youngstown Ohio (Crimetown, USA up until the 80s) he had to defend people he knew were guilty because that was his job. It is also an integral part of the American justice system. So your comparison to prostitution is insipid, ignorant, and idiotic.

Nature is full of species that don't operate like us at all. Human females as a general rule don't approach the resourcefulness of their animal counterparts: the same can also be said of our young, who can't realistsically be expected to fend for themselves in nature until they're at least fifteen.
Funny thing is, now that we in the west all live in rational societies, we can live and die without ever learning to fend for ourselves in nature.

Funny thing is, now that we in the west all live in rational societies, we can live and die without ever learning to fend for ourselves in nature.
That's true, but then again that's not really challenging to my point. I'm not saying we have to do these things anymore; my point is that a lot of us couldn't do it to save our soul. Of course, some iterations of modern man [paricularly those who live in ridiculously impoverished areas like Africa] still live off the land, but the physical and mental characteristics related to wilderness survival have been somewhat blunted, especially since the Renaissance; at least among whites.

Basically, what I'm doing here is answering to the inevitable comparison of women to lioness hunters, since if I fail to do so someone will undoubtedly point out that femals from other species can hunt and stuff--as if all of that somehow invalidates my arguments.

Ladies and gentlemen, I do beleive the above post speaks for itself. I really don't see any reason to go on with this. Zagat is quite frankly grasping for some very enormous straws, and answering him at this point would be an excersize in tediousness more than anything else.
Hang on, I thought it was just so fun not to mention exhilerating to point out others' short comings. If my post is merely grasping at enormous straws, rather than tedium, replying should be an absolute delight, like an early Christmas present....:confused:
I'm not really getting anything out of this; it's not a particularly worthwhile or intellectually stimulating excersize, so I'm gonna grab my rubber chickens and head out to California.
Really, no longer 'such fun' and 'exhilerating'? Worried that the more you reply the sillier you'll look more likely.
Zagat: if you want to take this as a concession of defeat, fine.
LOL, methinks someone protests too much. "oh it's too much fun and exhilerating, yet a waste of my time and tedious, by the way the other person is self contrary'....aha you keep telling yourself someone's falling it Melkor...chances are someone actually is, I just dont happen to be that someone.:D
You win: I'm done, this is fucking stupid as hell, and I'm not answering your points [where you even deign to make any] because they're so goddamn ridiculous I don't even know where to begin.
Really, well let me help you out with that; why not begin by demonstrating that 'tribe' and 'band' do not in the field of anthropology describe very distinct and different social groupings/structures both of which include an implication regarding population level, or give an example of an early hunter/gatherer 'pregnant cargo transporting system', or explain why net-hunting wasnt used by early hunter/gatherer groups, or you could just grab yourself a piece of crow pie instead. Happy eating to ya!
I'm not wasting another three hours of my life so you can be cheeky with me and ignore everything I say;
The only parts of your posts that I might have ignored would have been the parts that border on (if not cross) the line re the forum TOS. waffling around my points all the while failing to make any significant counters of your own.
Name a single point you have made that I have not provided a counter argument to.
If I were you, I probably wouldn't even waste my time responding to the posts I write,
Nonsense, if you were me you would do exactly as I do because you'd be me.
Really Melkor that's not even a good try. I'll respond to whatever post I wish to respond to. I post for my entertainment not yours. If you happen to not like what I post, or your ego is threatened by my comments, I dont see that as being my problem. I'll post whatever I feel inclined to, within the limits of the rules of this board and silly inane attempts such as this 'dont even bother to reply' nonsense will not make the slightest difference to my inclinations.
because I've encountered you three or four times now and I can say with confidence you have not sufficiently challenged a single point that I [or anyone else I've ever seen you argue with] have ever made.
You have encounted me less than a handful of times and even though my posts number in the hundreds you are able to make such broad and sweeping statements about the content of them all? Since appearing right is so important to you, one would think you might try to avoid such silly and obviously unsound arguments that. Who exactly are you trying to impress with such silliness? Hopefully not me because I can confirm that I'm not falling for it for so much as a single second.
You're a "guerilla debator," who challenges his opponent without seeing a need to clarify your own position.
It's not my fault if you fail to comprehend the points contained within a text even if I happened to write the text.
I'm sick and goddamn tired of making enormous posts which are "answered" by way of 150 one-line answers to selected bits of my post.
Really, and only a post or so back it was 'fun' and 'exhilerating'....bitten off more than you can chew perhaps....?
Again I repeat my invitation - specify a single point you think I have not answered.
Have a nice life, please for the love of Christ stay the hell out of mine.
I hope you too have a nice life and even have some advice that might help you along the way.

You know you cant change reality just by desiring reality were different to the way it is, since you didnt create reality, isnt it more sensible to adapt than to try to 'wish it' different? The point being that if one recognises the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows, but if one insists on maintaining contradiction, they might as well abdicate their mind since they have exited reality....pretty words, but useless when the most heed you pay them is lip service because you think it's a cool pose.

Honestly Melkor, take a chill pill, relax, enjoy the ride, and try to accept that other people can know things you dont, and can even have a better reasoned point of view than yourself, without you're being diminished by admiting as much to yourself. Trust me the 'I cant admit they're right if it means I'm wrong' attitude only leads to missed opportunities to progress from being wrong to being right.

Zagat honestly, stick a fork in it. I'm almost embarrased for you. Seriously.

EDIT: and by the way, if you think you're rock solid, try asking some of the people around you about what they thought about our "debate" and who made the better points. I'm not one to put much value in a consensus, but I think you'll find rather quickly that your conceptions are most patently false.

Zagat honestly, stick a fork in it. I'm almost embarrased for you. Seriously.
LOL, I find it hard to believe you still think I'm going to stop posting because you tell me not to.

EDIT: and by the way, if you think you're rock solid, try asking some of the people around you about what they thought about our "debate" and who made the better points. I'm not one to put much value in a consensus, but I think you'll find rather quickly that your conceptions are most patently false.
No I wouldnt find that at all. For some strange reason (call it a personal quirk) when it comes to anthropology I take the opinion of professional anthropologists more seriously than I take the opinion of virtually (to me) anomynous posters on an internet forum...I suspect this is a function of my preference for good sense over common sense.

Then go tell an anthropologist what you just tried to tell me and see how he reacts.

Now, mind you I wasn't ever actually able to glean your actual position being that it was never stated and every "point" I had to answer to had to be mostly inferred, as you have no thesis statement other than "Melkor is wrong and I'm right." You speak of "points" and "counterarguments" in your responses, but I find them shockingly absent.

Then go tell an anthropologist what you just tried to tell me and see how he reacts.
What for? Are you under the erroneous impression that the imformation contained in my posts comes from some source other than anthropologists?

Now, mind you I wasn't ever actually able to glean your actual position being that it was never stated
Sure it was. But I'll repeat myself for your sake.
I contend that the statement
When you think about it, human females got to a point where they didn't have to fend for themselves in nature by sleeping with or at the very least regularly accompanying a male hunter-gatherer. By essentially 'giving' him her body, she was guaranteed protection against the elements, food, and a stable social position
is erroneous.

and every "point" I had to answer to had to be mostly inferred,
No, rather you preferred to infer things neither stated nor implied rather than addressing what actually was stated. Thus the suggestion on my part that you are a sure winner in the 'Melkor vs Strawman' bout...

as you have no thesis statement other than "Melkor is wrong and I'm right."
Not only blatently incorrect but apparently quite egostically self-inflated. I am contesting a statement, I really dont give a toss who made the statement. I believe the statement was wrong and so contested it. You seem to keep implying that my point in posting is somehow related to you personally rather than to my opinion of the statement that I am contesting. Do you suffer from a generalised persecution complex, or an over-inflated sense of self importance, or is there some other explanation for why you interpret that you personally (rather than my opinion of the statement that happened to be made by you) are a motivating factor in my posting?:confused:

You speak of "points" and "counterarguments" in your responses, but I find them shockingly absent.
A more accurate description would be that you simply fail to find them...

Out of (genuine) curiosity do you actually have any good reason to believe that your knowledge of anthropological concepts and understandings is unlikely to be wrong or are you simply running with the assumption that since it happens to be your opinion it must necessarily be true?:confused:

I know rich people may not enjoy their job, but they have a higher element of choice than poor people...

Oh, man. I could write a book based on that sentence alone.

Ahem. *coughs a bit to clear throat and prepare speaking voice*

What you have to consider, in my opinion and from herein out, in all seriousness, is that all people all the time have choices. However, those choices are often a) limited; and b) unseen because said people are far too busy arguing with each other whether they have choices as opposed to actually finding and using said choices.

For example. The man taken to a prison camp in Evil Nation A, where he is to be beaten for several weeks, granted medical care to prevent death, and then, after said pointless exercise of beating-and-treating, is to be executed.

It might be said that such a man has no choices at all - but is that really true? He can be bitter; he can be sad; he can be morose; he can be defiant; he can resist all that his captors do, or he can submit to all they demand or insist upon; therefore he still has choices. They're limited to his environment, but the choices remain.

I could go on further there, but leaving that aside for one now...

>insert appropriate quote of people leaving the topic in favour of bashing each other with wordy sentences without adding anything to the actual debate beyond snideness<

Now, what's the point in debating if you get bogged down in who's right and who's wrong? Who cares who's right and who's wrong? That's not really the point of a debate, not when you really think about it. A debate is a collective of ideas and ideals, not a selection of blunt instruments with which to beat each other to death.

Of course, debate can be used that way, but it's not very productive and rather pointless.

In fact, you might call it a 'prostitution of the mind to a lesser ideal,' eh?

Since, after all, one can be described as 'selling out' by impeding the process of free discussion - selling out to those who would interrupt that process and distort it because they either do not feel capable of adding to it, or have nothing of note to add, and/or simply enjoy the 'sound' of their own voice. Or the curve of their own characters, I suppose I could say, since it's a textual medium.

'Selling out' in such a way is comparable to the streetwalker who 'sells out' to a client - she may feel she has nothing to currently add to society, or perhaps society feels she has nothing to add (more often the case), and therefore they have only the 'sound' of their own voice... ie, they are cut off from certain aspects of society.

So ruining debate through petty squabbling is probably the worst and most foul sort of prostitution of the mind one could possibly find; at least the prostitute's voice has worth and value - the squabbling debater is a waste of space, effort, and time. That's not intended to be insulting to anyone in particular, or indeed even those who fit into that category - rather, I'm simply stating fact. Squabbling is counterproductive.

I suggest further that insults, veiled or otherwise, are typically considered to be a concession to the other side's viewpoint.

He who casts the first rock, loses the last argument. : )