Shgon Dunstan wrote:Personally..... I don't really see it as all that "reversed". Yeah, women are "bigger", and are the rulers, but..... For the most part, for all of men being smaller then the women, the armies are at best split half and half, if not more towards the men, simply because the women are off "being in charge". "macho" and "manly" still seems to mean mostly what it does in the RW, and the same with "feminine". Honestly, most things seem to be the same, save for a cultural leaning towards deferral to the female.... And even that's mostly to the "leading" female, rather then the female fellow commoner right next to you.
So yeah, definitely "different", but I'd say more "twisted" then fully "reversed".
This is correct . At least according to this . However this states that males being warriors only became especially prominent when the Sarghress started doing it .
Mimians in particular are less accepting of males becoming warriors . (at least that was what I got from that)
Shgon wrote:Why prostitutes ?
Well , I tend to think people are comparing the sexual permissiveness in partners , and parenting arrangements, to say maybe the victorian era , compared to the present say . Compared to the present they're not too different , but compared to say earlier this century or the 1800's one might consider them extremely different .
Although I'm not sure why that would be so , but whatever .
