>The foulest Babylonian custom is that which compels every woman of the land to sit in the temple of Aphrodite and have intercourse with some stranger at least once in her life. Many women who are rich and proud and disdain to mingle with the rest, drive to the temple in covered carriages drawn by teams, and stand there with a great retinue of attendants. But most sit down in the sacred plot of Aphrodite, with crowns of cord on their heads; there is a great multitude of women coming and going; passages marked by line run every way through the crowd, by which the men pass and make their choice. Once a woman has taken her place there, she does not go away to her home before some stranger has cast money into her lap, and had intercourse with her outside the temple; but while he casts the money, he must say, "I invite you in the name of Mylitta". It does not matter what sum the money is; the woman will never refuse, for that would be a sin, the money being by this act made sacred.What do you think of this practice? Was it good for society since it would humble the various women and make her a better citizen.
>>18492304I think it's pretty cool
imagine the gonorrhea
>>18492304is this source jewish? why should I trust it
>>18492304I'm sure it reduced incel chimpouts.
>>18492304>with some strangerNo way rich bitches from good families had to do any of that performative humiliation ritual. Just pay the priest a cow or whatever and get a pass.
>>18492322YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WOMEN.
we should bring it back
>>18492322This is correct. Have a (You).
>>18492322this, sounds like some ancient gooners made up stories about them having to whore themselves out
>>18492586That's always how it is. The people "over there" always have bizarre religious practices which involve A) sacrificing children or B) wild orgies. Or both.
The only reason Greek Herodutus considers it "foul" is because its heterosexual
>>18492304No evidence that this ever occurred.
>>18492594We literally have prove of that though. Brown people are just wicked, twisted fucking animals.
>>18492492Meds now
>>18492304Herodotus also said Egyptian women peers standing up and that one of the pyramids at giza was built using blocks paid for by royal prostitution at a rate of one block per fuck. You just have to be dubious. Open to the possibile stuff, but dubious.
>>18492318>generation raised on the internet doesn't know how to spend five seconds quickly checking something on a search engineEvery fucking time.Also, if that didn't immediately code as Herodotus to you without even knowing the quote or needing to look it up, you have a twelve-year-old's knowledge of history and need to get the fuck off my board forever.
>since it would humble the various women and make her a better citizen.I think you're looking at it backwards, I'm sure that was part of the thought too, but it's more for the men to get over pussy. The enthrallment caused by it often causes men to reduce themselves ideologically to that of a women (as not to offend their excessive emotional sensitivities), as well as make rash decisions in their earlier hormonal periods, for better or worse. The influenece of this is amplified by the fact that women generally posess less agency, and seek affirmations/guidance of others as consequence, and that courting (outside of appearance) is a performative act by men to women. This causes women as the recepient class to determine social norms, as they operate more as a mass, exceptions to the rule amongst them are much rarer, and so if you manipulate them you also manipulate the men enthralled by them (which when combined with the women themselves comprise probably >80% of society). Similarly in a sexual sense, men are more attracted to the reproductive aspects of it and thus to sex, whereas women value more the approval/affirmation of their appearance and the feeling of having a desirable man desire them (and the consequent stability/servitude/security that may come with that). Of course, obviously, men value companionship, and women value appearance, and it's not that simple but the nuance of the motivation on both sides has a tendency to differ, and the above is part of that. (1/2)
So as a result of all this, by having men freely capable of having sex, you rid the populace of pussywhipped men, who themselves may have been capable of, at least, decent course, if not for their primitive addiction. Think of how much of a common mans life choices in any period of time revolve around being sexually appealing to women or being in a place where one would desire to reproduce with you, the entire concept of multi-generational housing has been consistently lost wherever women are afforded more influence for this reason. And so now your average stud is broke at 30 paying the landlord jew, while enlightened basement dwellers are sexless forever. I've sometimes thought to myself, half jokingly, how different the world would be if it was customary for a mother to have sex with her son to inaugurate his coming of age, it's essentially the same concept but minus the std/pregnancy roulette, and in a less shameful/performative context.And so to answer your first question, I think it's on the right track and though superficially appearing primal, and perhaps was in motivation, is regardless, a much more honest attempt to rectify man's animalistic portion, even if not the ideal implementation. And even though in a sense it's unfair because one side is burdened with an issue caused by both, It's still deserved because women themselves have rarely ever shown themselves to have anything impactful/interesting to offer anyways, and so aren't the ones deserving of being pandered too, and also it is the most natural course because the only other way to rectify the issue is a behavioural shift of women to posess greater agency, but that wouldn't happen without eugenics, and so rectifying it from the male pov is much more easy to implement. (2/2)
>>18492304This is based as fuck, we should do this
Fake but definitely not gay. Pretty cool in fact, and very egalitarian. Christcucks could never. Interesting to set it as a precursor in a region that would give way to harems ontop of the abrahamic valuation of chastity, but I guess one king got sick of sloppy seconds.
>>18495146>Interesting to set it as a precursor in a region that would give way to haremsThat was the Gr**k and P*rsians' doing, wasn't it? Fucking Arabs had matriarchies going on before the Greco-Roman religion and faggotry took hold with a certain camel merchant.
>>18494229As addition everyone participating needs to be dressed in same costume to make it even more depersonalizing.
>>18492304Sodom and Gomorrah were real cities, but there's no evidence that it was custom to rape visitors.
