[deleted]

But none of them survived till our days, right? We only know about it from Medieval sources?

[removed]

Don't miss out on these 3 simple tips for selling your talkative wife.

[removed]

His legacy in modern day Afghanistan, and beyond, continues to astound me. It's such a shame that we will likely never find his body or burial site. Damn you Caligula!!

In1846, Polk declared war on Mexico as a land grab for Texas, California & Oregon.

That's drawing a real fine line that I don't really see the need for.

Advisors aren't ground troops, the US has advisors in every country. "In 1954, the French suffered a catastrophic defeat at Dien Bien Phu, bringing their colonial reign to an end. Some U.S. officials had pushed for air strikes, including the possible use of nuclear weapons, to save the French position. But Dwight D. Eisenhower, who succeeded Truman, demurred, refusing to involve the United States in another major conflict so soon after the Korean War."

https://www.history.com/news/us-presidents-vietnam-war-escalation

Kennedy is who threw the US into Vietnam.

Brush up on your history.

An interesting aside....Simon Bolivar Buckner (the first) was an old and dear friend of Ulysses S. Grant. Indeed, he attended Grants wedding and helped him out of severe financial hardship during his "lost years" before the war. Buckner was one of three senior confederate officers in charge of Fort Donaldson when it fell to the North. The capture of this strategically located fort being Grant's first major victory of the war. While the other two generals escaped, Buckner chose to remain and surrender the fort to his friend. Unfortunately, he discovered that friendship went only so far in times of war, as Grant, in response to a note from Buckner, demanded "unconditional surrender" from his old friend. Buckner was more than a tad miffed, but complied, upon which the two old friends caught up with each others lives over the next several days. Twenty+plus years later, Buckner was an honor guard at Grant's funeral. Edit to Add: Buckner's son was the result of a late-in-life second marriage.

Thanks. I like this:

>Lorraine Daston

>I think of history as a discipline, one that invented and is still inventing ever new rigorous methods for not only the cross-examination of the sources we have, but even more importantly, the discovery of sources we don’t yet have.

>I look upon the integration of many different strands of evidence braided together into a strong rope of argument in history as identical, philosophically to the practices of any science. This is one of the reasons why the history of science is, of use to science and scholarship.

>All of these methods, which constitute, taken in toto, rigor in any given scholarly or scientific discipline develop at different times under different circumstances.

>Without knowledge of how differently, for example, in medicine, clinical observation and randomized clinical trials developed, you have no clue, no foothold in the next task, which is: how do you weigh these two kinds of evidence? How do you integrate them?

>And that holds, I think, mutatis mutandis, for all scientific disciplines. So that’s one good reason why the history of science is of use to not only the sciences, but all branches of scholarship.

>November 1, 1955 — President Eisenhower deploys the Military Assistance Advisory Group to train the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. This marks the official beginning of American involvement in the war as recognized by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Why are you lying? We know when soldiers went into Vietnam, it was under Eisenhower.

[removed]

No soldiers had been deployed to Vietnam until Kennedy, Eisenhower was adamant about that. Well documented. Eisenhower had no appetite to get the US into another war.

Kennedy got the US into Vietnam to show he was "tough" on Communism.

https://www.google.com/search?q=slavery+in+qing+china&rlz=1C1CHBF_enJP763JP763&oq=slavery+in+qing+china&aqs=chrome..69i57.2989j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[removed]

The key is the word "majority", which is actually untrue.

Maybe the "majority" of the very few women you have interacted and are willing to discuss this with you. But not necessarily the 51% of the population at large.

[removed]

[removed]

If you take a college course on Women’s History and Sociology, this topic is mentioned a bit. First of all, proportionally speaking, there are a very few source materials written by and for women, which gets even more accentuated the further you go back in time. Which means us today are left to try to make a complete picture with very few pieces and loads of bias towards "The Male" side of societies. Additionally, the sexual repression in society of Victorian times is exactly what lead to an increase interest in all kinds of ideas around human sexuality, including the work of Sigmund Freud (eventually). Why? Because people often times are attracted or curious to the forbidden, to the taboo topics.

Not to mention, the expansion of European colonization mean an imposition by force of a very specific brand of ideology with certain concepts of Christianity interwoven. We are still living the after effects. There was an active extermination campaign of other cultures, hence we have incomplete pictures of the mindsets for these topics.

This has nothing to do with the fact that many women seem content to have satisfying masturbation lives aided by toys. Potentially a majority of young single women who live alone probably own a masturbation toy I would guess. So yes many women do feel comfortable with that even if some don’t explore sexuality in other ways on the masturbation side women seem to have gotten rid of most hangups.

Oh yes, in some middle age societies of Europe, if a woman was raped she "dishonor the family", and often would be married off to her rapist. I can't remember the era, but in ancient Roman societies the Paterfamilia decided if a baby lived or died, and often if it was a girl she would be abandoned to the streets. Not too mention the women in these [wealthy] families had loads of restrictions even to leave the house.

sigh idk, when you are called "dirty", "slutty", "careful, you will give boys the wrong idea" etc on the regular, even for non-sexual things one tends to be wary in discussing/exploring our sexual lives. Not too mention the role of religion in blaming women for "getting kicked out of paradise", "dishonoring the family" etc.

The term "nuo fu" is indentured slave they existed well into the mid-19th century. Slavery was one of the biggest reason why the republic of China collapsed as the government was backed by major landlords who openly promoted the practice. They would be closer to feudal european household servants. Rich households would always have a few household servants to do the house chores and work the stables.

The practice was so common that people never thought of leaving the landlord's property as they could be fed, have a shelter, get an education and even inherit part of the property in some cases. This differs from the slaves in the americas as there was no inherent belief in a racial caste system. In most cases, indentured slaves were either sold by relatives to pay back loans or sold themselves to escape poverty.

If interested, you can read about the collapse of the Shang Dynasty and the dynamics that slavery played in that era. Ever since the Zhou dynasty took over, they made a point in abolishing slavery and embraced feudal caste systems. Still slaves in all but name. Silver lining is they had the right to not be brutally killed by their masters for ritual purposes. Chattel slavery was indeed abolished, at least according to the laws, some 2500 years ago.

I think some people are mistranslating the term for indentured servitude in the Qing and Ming laws as "chattel slavery". The Qin state's penal punishment for "war criminals" was the closest thing to chattel slavery. But even then, it was the outlier. Not the norm. They only just won a free for all war against 6 other states. There was bound to be widespread repression.

>The question is whether this is actually true cross culturally.

It's a fairly established finding in the field of human evolutionary psychology that they do. And numerous biological explanations for that have been articulated; the long and short of it is that women are more biologically invested in their sexuality than men are because they carry and give birth. Biologically speaking it carries more risk for them. Hence the behavior pattern whereby men initiate courtship.

So from a biology perspective it's fairly accepted that yes, much of the generalities you speak of are indeed cross-cultural phenomena. Though the specifics of sexual norms may vary widely by culture.