Regulating gender relations in the 21st century https://t.co/POPfkXiZXI
— Cyborg of Secular Koranism (@Book_of_Rules) April 5, 2025
5:00 Space starts.
7:00 White culture is trash culture?
8:00 Christian Zionism
9:00 Old Masters of naked men and women
10:00 How much should women cover or reveal of themselves?
11:00 Koranic rules of modesty
12:00 Weddings
13:00 Single mothers
Monogamy
14:00 Social constraints
Monogamy
15:00 Henry VIII
Mormon Wars and polygamy
17:00 English Reformation
Edward and Wallis Simpson
18:00 Polygamy
19:00 Responsible married parenting
20:00 Harems
Polygyny
21:00 Patriarchy
24:00 Polygamy and sodomy
Eunuchs, historically, were castrated men who served various roles in different cultures and societies. Their purpose largely depended on the time period and region, but here are the main reasons they existed:
Service in Royal or Elite Households: Eunuchs were often employed in palaces or harems, particularly in ancient empires like China, Persia, Byzantium, and the Ottoman Empire. Because they were castrated, they couldn’t impregnate women or start dynasties of their own, making them "safe" to guard or manage female quarters and concubines without threatening the ruler’s lineage.
Trusted Administrators: Their inability to produce heirs also meant they were less likely to harbor ambitions of overthrowing a ruler to establish their own family’s power. This made them loyal servants in bureaucratic or political roles, as seen in the Chinese imperial courts where eunuchs sometimes rose to significant influence.
Religious or Cultural Roles: In some societies, castration was tied to religious devotion or ritual purity. For example, in ancient India, the Hijra community (often eunuchs or intersex individuals) held spiritual significance. In the Roman Empire, priests of the goddess Cybele, known as Galli, were sometimes castrated as an act of devotion.
Slavery and Labor: In certain slave-owning societies, castration was a way to control and commodify male slaves, ensuring docility or suitability for specific tasks. The Arab slave trade, for instance, produced eunuchs for domestic service across the Middle East and beyond.
Entertainment: In medieval Europe and later in Italy, castrati—boys castrated before puberty to preserve their high-pitched voices—became celebrated singers in operas and church choirs, where their unique vocal range was prized.
The practice of creating eunuchs was often brutal, involving forced castration, and was rooted in power dynamics, control, and societal norms of the time. While their roles varied, the common thread was that castration altered their social function, often elevating their status in specific contexts while stripping them of traditional male roles like fatherhood or military leadership.
25:00 Modernisation
26:00 Wouldn't a combination of gay men and polygamous men be enough to keep society going?
Your question seems to explore whether a society could function with a mix of gay men and polygamous men instead of relying on eunuchs or other historical arrangements. Let’s break it down logically.
Gay men, by definition, are attracted to other men and typically wouldn’t contribute to reproduction in a heterosexual framework. Polygamous men—assuming you mean men with multiple wives or partners—could, in theory, handle the reproductive side of things, producing children with multiple women to sustain a population. So, yes, purely from a biological standpoint, a society could "keep going" in terms of population growth with polygamous men doing the heavy lifting on reproduction, while gay men opt out of that role.
Historically, though, eunuchs weren’t just about population control or reproduction—they filled specific social and political niches. Gay men, even if loyal or trusted, wouldn’t necessarily fit the same roles as eunuchs (like guarding harems or serving as neutral administrators) because their sexual orientation doesn’t inherently remove their ability to reproduce or challenge power structures. Polygamous men, meanwhile, might be too busy with their own families or too invested in their lineage to serve as impartial functionaries.
Functionally, a society could survive with this combo if the polygamous men were prolific enough to offset the non-reproductive gay men, and if other societal needs (labor, governance, defense) were met. But eunuchs existed for more than just keeping society "going"—they were tools of control, trust, and specialization. Gay and polygamous men together wouldn’t automatically replicate that dynamic; you’d need additional mechanisms to cover those gaps.
It’s an interesting thought experiment—society could adapt, but the structure would look very different from what eunuchs enabled in the past.
27:00 Convenience and happiness
28:00 Polygyny
29:00 Most men would die without issue when only one in every 17 men had offspring.
32:00 Polygyny and sodomy
34:00 Monogamy
Status
35:00 Nobody wants to do it Vincent's way either.
36:00 Artificial wombs
37:00 Government should support patriarchy.
38:00 Withholding contraceptives from couples
39:00 Secular Koranism allows polygamy of up to four wives.
40:00 Gay militant blog too radical.
41:00 Taxing bachelors more than married fathers
42:00 Secular Paganism is a different idea.
44:00 Noahide laws
Charles Taze Russell
45:00 Posterity
Probability test
46:00 Gay men and polygamists
47:00 Muslim men with more than one wife and Muslim men with no wife
49:00 Polygyny and gay men
Flat tax
Bachelor tax
50:00 A man with dependents get taxed less
51:00 Gay men and polygamists unite?
52:00 Surrogate
What would gay men get in return for giving money to a man to have an extra child?
53:00 Gay men who care about the gene pool
54:00 Ideological motivation
55:00 Being a married father living with his legitimate children
56:00 Out of sight, out of mind.
I am ideological Luddite?
58:00 Good responsible married parenting is not analogous to tarmac.
59:00 Stick and carrot
1:03:00 Solving gender relations will solve labour relations.
1:05:00 Moses: "Let my people go!"
1:06:00 What caused Ancient Egypt to become extinct?
Ancient Egypt didn’t exactly "become extinct" in the way a species might; rather, its civilization gradually declined and transformed over time due to a combination of internal weaknesses and external pressures. The end of Ancient Egypt as a distinct, independent entity is typically pegged to the death of Cleopatra VII in 30 BCE, when Egypt was annexed by Rome following her defeat by Octavian (later Augustus) at the Battle of Actium. However, this was more of a final blow than a sudden collapse—Egypt’s decline had been brewing for centuries.One major factor was political instability. By the Late Period (c. 664–332 BCE), Egypt faced a series of weak rulers, internal power struggles, and corruption within the priesthood and nobility. The once-centralized authority of the pharaohs eroded, leaving the country fragmented and vulnerable. Foreign invasions compounded this. The Assyrians sacked Thebes in 663 BCE, the Persians conquered Egypt in 525 BCE under Cambyses II, and though Egypt briefly regained independence, it was reconquered by Persia in 343 BCE. These occupations drained resources and disrupted the old order.Then came Alexander the Great in 332 BCE, who took Egypt without much resistance, founding Alexandria and ushering in the Ptolemaic dynasty—a Greek-speaking line of rulers descended from his general, Ptolemy I. This marked a cultural shift: Egypt’s traditional identity began blending with Hellenistic influences. The Ptolemies ruled for nearly 300 years, but their reign was plagued by infighting, economic troubles, and reliance on Rome for support. By Cleopatra’s time, Egypt was a client state of Rome, economically dependent and politically entangled in Roman power struggles.Environmental and economic factors also played a role. The Nile’s floods, critical to agriculture, became less predictable in later periods, possibly due to climate shifts, leading to food shortages and unrest. Trade routes shifted too, diminishing Egypt’s role as a commercial powerhouse. Meanwhile, the Roman takeover didn’t "extinguish" Egyptian culture—it evolved. Native traditions mixed with Greco-Roman influences, and later, Christianity and Islam reshaped the region’s identity under Roman, Byzantine, and Arab rule.
So, Ancient Egypt didn’t vanish overnight. It faded through conquest, cultural assimilation, and internal decay, with its legacy enduring in architecture, writing, and the civilizations that followed.
1:10:00 What caused the decline and fall of the Roman Empire?
The decline and fall of the Roman Empire is a sprawling, messy story that unfolded over centuries, with no single cause but rather a pile-up of interconnected problems. Traditionally, the "fall" is pinned to 476 CE, when the last Western Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by the Germanic chieftain Odoacer. But that’s just a convenient marker—the empire had been crumbling long before, and the Eastern half (later the Byzantine Empire) kept going for nearly a millennium more. Here’s the rundown of what went wrong in the West.
Internally, Rome was a mess. Political instability was rampant—emperors were overthrown or assassinated with alarming frequency (think 26 emperors in 50 years during the 3rd-century Crisis). The Senate lost power, and the military became kingmaker, propping up whoever could pay or fight best. Economic troubles didn’t help: heavy taxation to fund endless wars and bloated bureaucracy drained the populace, while inflation soared as emperors debased the currency. Trade networks faltered, and reliance on slave labor (which dwindled as conquests slowed) stifled innovation and wrecked small farmers, widening the gap between rich elites and a restless underclass.
Externally, the pressure was relentless. From the late 4th century, waves of Germanic tribes—Visigoths, Vandals, Huns—pushed into Roman territory, driven by their own migrations and the Huns’ aggression under Attila. The sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410 CE and the Vandals in 455 CE were humiliating blows. Earlier, the empire had overextended itself; by the 2nd century, it spanned from Britain to North Africa to Mesopotamia, and defending those borders was a logistical nightmare. The army, once a disciplined machine, grew overstretched and increasingly filled with "barbarian" recruits less loyal to Rome.
Then there’s the split. In 285 CE, Diocletian divided the empire into East and West to make it manageable, but the West got the short end—poorer, less urbanized, and more exposed to invaders. The East, with Constantinople as its glittering hub, thrived longer. Cultural shifts added strain: Christianity’s rise challenged traditional Roman values, and while some argue it unified the empire spiritually, others say it diverted resources (like to church-building) and softened Rome’s martial edge.
Environmental factors might’ve piled on too. Climate changes around the 4th and 5th centuries—cooler, wetter conditions—could’ve disrupted agriculture, while plagues (like the Antonine Plague earlier and later outbreaks) slashed populations and weakened the tax base. Lead poisoning from pipes and wine vessels is a debated theory, but it’s speculative at best.
By 476 CE, the West was less "conquered" than hollowed out. Germanic kingdoms like the Ostrogoths and Franks filled the vacuum, blending Roman and tribal ways. The Eastern Empire carried on, but the Western Roman Empire as a political entity was done—death by a thousand cuts, not one fatal stab. Its legacy, though, stuck around in law, language, and culture, proving Rome didn’t so much "fall" as fade into something new.
Yes, a "bachelor tax" of sorts was imposed in ancient Rome, though it wasn’t called that exactly. It was part of a broader set of laws under Emperor Augustus aimed at boosting marriage and childbirth among Roman citizens. Around 18 BCE, Augustus introduced the Lex Julia de Maritandis Ordinibus, one of his moral and social reforms, which penalized unmarried men and childless couples while rewarding those who tied the knot and had kids.The idea was to reverse a perceived decline in traditional Roman family values and shore up the population, especially among the elite, who were increasingly dodging marriage and parenthood. Unmarried men between 25 and 60 (and women between 20 and 50) faced financial penalties, like being barred from inheriting property unless they wed within a certain timeframe—100 days after a relative’s death, in some cases. They also got lower priority for public offices and privileges, which hit hard in a status-obsessed society. Meanwhile, married men with three or more kids (ius trium liberorum) scored tax breaks, career boosts, and exemptions from certain duties.It wasn’t a direct "pay this tax for being single" system—more like a web of incentives and punishments. Enforcement was spotty, though, and plenty of Romans grumbled or found loopholes, like fake engagements. The poet Ovid even got himself exiled partly for mocking these laws in his cheeky writings. Later, under the Lex Papia Poppaea in 9 CE, Augustus doubled down, tweaking the rules to close gaps, but the upper classes still resisted. The laws faded after his reign, though similar ideas popped up later under emperors like Nero.So, yes, Rome effectively taxed bachelors—not with a single bill, but by rigging the system against them. It was less about revenue and more about control, demography, and keeping the Roman bloodline going. Didn’t fully work, but it sure annoyed a lot of toga-wearing singles.
Infant male circumcision in the United States, when performed on gentile (non-Jewish) babies, is typically a medical procedure done shortly after birth, often within the first few days or weeks of life. It involves surgically removing the foreskin, the retractable fold of skin covering the head (glans) of the penis. Here’s how it generally goes:The ProcedurePreparation: The baby is placed on his back, usually on a padded board or restraint device to keep him still. The genital area is cleaned with an antiseptic to reduce infection risk. Parents may be present or wait outside, depending on hospital policy.Anesthesia: Local anesthesia is commonly used to minimize pain—either a topical cream (like EMLA) applied beforehand or an injectable anesthetic (like lidocaine) administered via a small needle at the base of the penis (dorsal penile nerve block or ring block). General anesthesia is rare for newborns due to risks.Separation and Clamping: The foreskin is gently separated from the glans if it’s still adhered (normal in newborns). A device is then used to isolate and remove the foreskin. Three common tools are:Gomco Clamp: A metal bell fits over the glans, the foreskin is pulled over it, and a clamp crushes the skin to cut off blood flow before it’s excised with a scalpel. Takes about 5-10 minutes.Plastibell: A plastic ring is placed under the foreskin, tied off with a suture to cut circulation, and left on. The foreskin dies and falls off with the ring in 5-10 days—no cutting needed during the procedure.Mogen Clamp: A hinged metal device flattens the foreskin, protecting the glans, and a scalpel removes the excess in a quick snip. It’s fast but requires precision.Cutting: Once clamped or tied, the foreskin is sliced off. The doctor ensures the glans is unharmed and bleeding is minimal (clamping usually controls it).Aftercare: The site is dabbed with petroleum jelly or antibiotic ointment and loosely wrapped with gauze to prevent sticking. Healing takes about 7-10 days. Parents are told to watch for excessive bleeding, swelling, or signs of infection (rare but possible).Context and StatsIn the U.S., circumcision became routine for gentile boys in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pushed by medical theories about hygiene and disease prevention (e.g., reducing urinary tract infections or sexually transmitted diseases later in life). Today, about 55-60% of newborn boys are circumcised, per CDC data, though rates vary by region, ethnicity, and parental choice—it’s higher in the Midwest, lower on the West Coast.NotesIt’s elective for gentile families, unlike in Jewish or Muslim traditions where it’s ritualistic (e.g., Jewish brit milah on day 8).Pain management has improved since the 1990s—studies show babies feel it without anesthesia, so it’s now standard.Complications (bleeding, infection) are rare, under 1%, if done by trained pros.That’s the gist—straightforward, quick, and mostly uneventful when handled in a clinical setting.
In the United States, male infant circumcision is an opt-in procedure at hospitals. It’s not performed automatically—you have to explicitly choose it. When a baby boy is born, parents (or legal guardians) are typically asked whether they want the procedure done. Hospitals don’t assume consent; they require affirmative permission, often via a signed consent form, before proceeding.This stems from it being an elective, non-therapeutic surgery for gentile babies—there’s no immediate medical necessity, unlike, say, fixing a congenital defect. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says benefits (like reduced risk of UTIs or penile cancer) outweigh risks, but not enough to recommend it universally, leaving it to parental discretion. So, staff present it as an option, often during prenatal visits or post-birth discussions, alongside info on risks and aftercare.Some hospitals might nudge harder than others—circumcision rates vary widely (e.g., 80% in the Midwest, 30% in the West, per 2010s CDC stats)—but it’s never opt-out. You won’t wake up to a surprise snip. If you say no or don’t bring it up, they skip it, and the kid goes home intact. Private facilities might differ slightly in how they pitch it, but the legal and ethical standard is clear: it’s your call.
In the United States, whether parents have to pay extra for male infant circumcision depends on a few factors: insurance coverage, the hospital, and whether it’s done in-hospital or later outpatient. Here’s the breakdown:
In-Hospital CircumcisionWith Insurance: Most private insurance plans (e.g., Blue Cross, Aetna) and Medicaid in many states cover newborn circumcision as an elective procedure if done shortly after birth (within the first 28 days). It’s often bundled into the delivery or newborn care costs, so there’s no separate out-of-pocket charge beyond deductibles or copays for the hospital stay. Medicaid coverage varies by state—about 40 states cover it, but 10 (like California, Oregon) don’t, citing it as "non-medically necessary."Without Insurance: If uninsured or if insurance doesn’t cover it, parents pay out of pocket. Costs range from $150 to $400 at a hospital, depending on location and facility fees. It’s cheaper in-hospital because it piggybacks on the birth process—no separate visit.Outpatient or LaterIf delayed beyond the newborn period (e.g., weeks or months later), it’s usually done at a pediatrician’s office, urologist, or clinic. This shifts it to a standalone procedure, and costs jump—$300 to $1,000+—since it involves a separate appointment, possibly more anesthesia, and sometimes a specialist.Insurance may still cover it if deemed "medically necessary" (rare), but otherwise, it’s all on the parents.
Hidden Costs?Hospitals don’t always break it out as a line item unless you ask. If covered, it’s folded into the delivery bill (which can hit $3,000-$10,000 total with insurance adjustments). Uninsured families might see it itemized, and some report surprise fees if they didn’t clarify coverage upfront.Bottom LineCovered: No extra cost beyond standard birth expenses.Not Covered: Yes, $150-$400 in-hospital, more if delayed. Check your plan or state Medicaid rules—about 1 in 5 families face some out-of-pocket hit if insurance balks.It’s not free unless fully covered, but it’s not a budget-buster either—more a question of whether your policy sees it as "worth it."
1:42:00 What conditions could male infant circumcision prevent?
Male infant circumcision is linked to preventing or reducing the risk of several medical conditions, though the benefits are often modest and context-dependent. The evidence comes from decades of studies, mostly observational, with some randomized trials, particularly from Africa. Here’s what it might help with:
1. Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)
How: The foreskin can harbor bacteria, especially in infants when hygiene is tricky. Removing it lowers the chance of bacteria climbing into the urethra.
Evidence: Uncircumcised boys have a 10-fold higher UTI risk in the first year (about 1% vs. 0.1% in circumcised boys), per studies like the 1985 Shaikh review. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) notes this drops significantly after infancy.
Impact: UTIs are treatable with antibiotics, but in rare cases, recurrent infections can scar kidneys. Circumcision’s benefit here is strongest early in life.
2. Penile Cancer
How: Chronic irritation, poor hygiene, or HPV infections under the foreskin might increase cancer risk. Circumcision eliminates that environment.
Evidence: Penile cancer is rare (1 in 100,000 men in the U.S.), but almost nonexistent in circumcised men. A 1990s study in Cancer Causes & Control found uncircumcised men had a 3-fold higher risk, often tied to phimosis (tight foreskin).
Impact: It’s so rare that circumcision isn’t justified solely for this—hygiene and HPV vaccination matter more.
3. Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)
HIV: The foreskin’s inner lining is rich in immune cells that HIV targets. Trials in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa (2005-2007) showed circumcision cut male HIV acquisition risk by 50-60% in heterosexual sex. The WHO backs it in high-risk areas.
Other STIs: Studies (e.g., 2017 The Lancet) suggest a 10-20% lower risk of herpes (HSV-2) and HPV in circumcised men. Syphilis and gonorrhea links are weaker or inconsistent.
Impact: Significant in regions with high HIV rates; less so in places like the U.S. where condom use and treatment access dominate prevention.
4. Phimosis and Balanitis
Phimosis: When the foreskin won’t retract (normal in babies, problematic later), it can cause pain or infections. Circumcision cures it outright.
Balanitis: Inflammation of the glans, often from trapped moisture or bacteria, hits uncircumcised men more (3-11% lifetime risk vs. near-zero post-circumcision, per Urology studies).
Impact: Both are manageable with hygiene or steroids, but circumcision prevents recurrence.
5. Partner Benefits
Cervical Cancer: Women with circumcised partners have a slightly lower HPV-related cervical cancer risk, per a 2002 NEJM study—maybe 25-30% less.
Impact: Small effect, dwarfed by HPV vaccines and screening.
Caveats
Magnitude: Benefits are real but not game-changers. UTIs drop from 1% to 0.1%; penile cancer’s already a long shot. STI protection matters most in specific populations.
Alternatives: Good hygiene, condoms, vaccines, and antibiotics can address most of these risks without surgery.
Risks: Circumcision has a 0.2-0.4% complication rate (bleeding, infection), per the AAP, which is low but not zero.
The AAP (2012) says benefits outweigh risks enough to justify access, not to mandate it. Critics argue the absolute risk reduction is tiny for most conditions in developed countries. It’s a trade-off—some prevention, but not a cure-all, and the call’s largely cultural or personal.
1:52:00 "Barbaric"
No comments:
Post a Comment