I am also intrigued by this reversal and its ideological naturalization in both cases.

I think it is one of those questions which is too intersting to ever be answered satisfactorily, unfortunately

Modern science can show us that at least in our current societies women masturbate less, initiate sex less, etc. in general

The question is whether this is actually true cross culturally. While I think the ideological analysis is valid (if rather one-note in its cynicism), it’s critical to investigate if possible the actual empirical reality to see what underlying human nature is actually like (either uniform or culturally contingent)

Peter Stark's book, Young Washington is a great look at the development of Washington. He was a really interesting guy and his childhood was rough.

Also, Tom Rick's book, First Principles covers those three with a dash of Madison and their intellectual life. It was a good book. I'd recommend reading it with Forrest McDonald's Novus Ordo Seclorum.

[removed]

We were projecting power WAY before the Spanish American War. The Monroe Doctrine was all about power projection. We send gunships into Japanese harbors to force them to open ports to western trade. That was power projection. We had spheres of influence in China. We invaded Mexico multiple times. Manifest Destiny was a century-long policy of power projection across a continent. Hell, the first war we got into after independence was power projection in North Africa, a decade before the War of 1812.

The US has ALWAYS projected force outwards towards other nations. We notably avoided direct conflict with European nations when they were militarily, economically, and geopolitically more influential than us, but there's a hell of a lot of world that isn't Europe.

[removed]

[removed]

two different wars He is talking about the Wars of Independence of the early 1800's

We were nothing like a world power in the early 1800's we were still trying to establish ourselves and we were still dealing with the Brits (War of 1812)

We didn't really start projecting our force until the Spanish America War of the LATE 1800's

There was a Confederate General in the American Civil War named Simon Bolivar Buckner. His son, also named Simon Bolivar Buckner was the highest ranking American General killed in World War 2. There was American sympathy to South American Independence movement.

I still think "remember the maine, to hell with spain" is pretty relevant. We wouldnt have anything west of texas if we hadnt destroyed their empire (along with puerto rico and phillipene islands

Radical historical shift? Look around you. Women are still villified, to this day, for daring to enjoy sex. And as equally villified if we don't have sex with a man who feels entitled to our bodies. We're still either "temptresses with supernatural powers out to ruin men with their devil's pocket" or "prude femoids who only put out for alpha chads", depending on who you talk to.

So yeah, history hasn't changed. Still men trying to push the natrrative surounding women's libido and women's bodily autonomy (not to mention mens' often disgustingly-incorrect knowledge of the female anatomy).

My point is, throughout history, men have been wrong in their assumptions about the female libido, whether they thought it was higher or lower. And even to this day, men will still swear up and down one way or the other. It's an individual thing.

Jacobin is a propaganda journal and not even a biased historical source.

[deleted]

"the Soviets weren't going to send anything"

Um what about the Cuban missile crisis?? The Soviets sent troops, planes, missiles... Oh my!

"There's a reason Castro distrusted the Soviets"

I'd be interested to see the evidence for this; to my understanding Castro supported strengthening ties with the Soviets, Che did not. It was a major disagreement between the two, and is attributed a reason for their eventual falling out.

Well, when it comes to beastial lechery and untamed lust and such, while men and women tend to like sex within relationships about the same, and men's high sex drive/women's low sex drive is a bit overstated in public discourse, in terms of pursuing exclusively sexual relationships, these tend to be of interest primarily to men, with women usually (but certainly not always) having very little interest in that kind of thing. We can assume in times prior to condoms, the pill, and vasectomies, this discrepancy would have been even more stark. So the question is less "why did this belief change?" so much as "why were they so wrong about this?"

It may be an oversimplification, but it seems pretty intuitive that in societies like the Roman Empire and Europe of the middle ages and early modern period, sexual desire was seen as a bad thing generally, and women were very much marginalized. As is generally the case, marginalized groups get blamed for all of the woes of society. This isn't anything groundbreaking. The number of people I've heard blame overdose deaths Kentucky, where I live, on Latin American immigrants, is astonishing.

P.S. Dracula is my favorite book of all time!! What are you writing about?

My man idk if you’ve noticed, but most history has been written by men. Do you think maybe they might have got a few things wrong about womens sexuality? I’d say the notion that women are “less sexual” than men is an equally false idea rooted in sexism as the notion that they are “more sexual”. Women were portrayed as more sexual than men because their sexuality was viewed as dangerous in the context of a strictly patriarchal society in which paternity and property were of extreme importance and inextricably bound up with notions of family honor. In more modern times we’ve switched to a view of womens sexuality that emphasizes their passivity in contrast to a supposedly uncontrollable male libido. This both justifies a paternalistic kind of protection of “weak” women against rapacious men and also serves as a backhanded rationalization of rape (because men are simply uncontrollable, “boys will be boys” etc). These are all socially constructed ideas that reflect the gender ideology of the society they come from. Nothing about our own ideas on gender or sexuality are necessarily objectively true or more valid than previous societies. They just arise from different material and ideological conditions.

For that time I read Joseph Ellis he has biographies of all three, Ron Chernow has recent biography of Washington,David McCullough excellent book on Adams,plus Jon Meacham biography of Jefferson.

Well, otherwise men cause their own problems. It must be their lack of agency.

[removed]

Do you think this is the only thing men have historically been wrong about on women? Until very recently, especially in Western civilization, women have been treated as second class citizens, incapable of doing much of anything except be sexual temptresses. St Jerome was heavily influenced by St Augustine who believed that women were tools of the devil used to distract men with sex from their devotion to God ( I may be a little off on this, it’s been a minute since I read up on it).

That's how I felt. I had never heard of this story before.

That's absolutely nuts. Thank you for sharing.

Castro was supposed to be assassinated, there are ample quotes and statements supporting this, but he was not. And the Bay of Pigs is a swamp with only one road out. And the Cuban Expeditionary Force landed in the middle of the night, with tanks and heavy equipment. And, JFK kept changing the plan basically on a daily basis. On D-Day, he made himself unavailable on purpose, as did Allen Dulles the CIA director.

Did they really want this to succeed?

I am looking for a book about connections between the U.S. organized crime and above-ground politics - in particular the Democrat party, and prior to WW2. (Yes very specific).

I am wondering if FDR and the Democrats had any "help" staying in power at the federal level, for 20 years. They had well-oiled political machines and FDR played the nation like a fine violin, but still.