After being married for 14 years, I got a divorce about 18
Leatherhead months ago (she cheated). So after the divorce, I went on a few dates, some one-night stands and made some friends along the way. Honestly, I was just after one thing. I not deny that I have had some fun and wild times. Sex is well and good, but I have realized that I am missing true companionship. I started to go through some old E-mails, texts, etc and started to think about some of the women that wanted more. I bumped into someone that I have been thinking about and we are meeting for drinks on Friday. We split up because she wanted a deeper relationship, something that I WAS NOT ready for. We have chatted a few times on the phone and I have developed those "deeper feelings" that she asked for a year ago. I cannot stop thinking about her. To make matters slightly complicated, I dated a woman last weekend, who wants to me again. I have told her no and am looking forward to Friday. I feel somewhat conflicted in that should I be so deeply connected, going into 2 years now after the divorce? Am I just acting on animal impulses? She touched a spark and I just feel so alive when we talk. I am just wondering if anyone has any advice or has gone through the same thing. not change reality. As one who works with scientists almost on a daily basis, I often hear them use the words always and never. But so what? Get some beer into some scientists and they tell you amazing things they never publish ah, but that is another story Yes, things are done a bit differently in the social sciences than in the physical sciences, the nature of the beasts being different. And when it comes to social and anthropological prehistory, it is often impossible to experiment in the way experiment are done in physics. Instead of hypotheses and theories as in physics say, in the social sciences, the thinking is often more in the realm of philosophy or thought experiments. I used to debate with political science profs that it should be ed political theory or political philosophy, because except for polling data, there was not much science being done. As to the existence of matriarchy, I say there has never been such, and that is in line with what the sciences of anthropology, archaeology and social psychology tell us. Obviously, I would make that argument in a scholarly way if I were writing for publication instead of for the great unwashed of. Personally, I would be surprised if a true matriarchal culture were ever found, as women are not hierarchical by nature in the way men seem to be women form sewing circles, while men form militaries with ranks and strict internal hierarchies. But I am permeable by new data. What interests me more is evidence that before the creation of the patriarchy some 6, or so years ago, there were egalitarian societies where male and female shared power. It appears that patriarchy arose immediately subsequent to the rise of herding culture, with the subjugation and control of animal production and reproduction serving as the template for the subjugation of women and control of their econmic production and sexual reproduction by men. Would that we had methods to gain insight into the psyches of prepatriarchal peoples. Imagine an egalitarian and sexually society where there was no rape, where no were molested or raped, where men were not feared for their violence.