First, your characterization of some goofy fantasy you dreamed up that you thought I was saying is a farce and completely inaccurate. I did not imply or state anything remotely like what you described in your comment regarding some sex fantasy thing. In fact, I believe I stated literally the opposite: that polyamory is not about sex, or mostly not, anyway.
Why add the stuff about men watching women sexually touch each other, with desire in their hearts, which somehow makes them better men?
What I put forth in my comment is not imagined. This is after a lot of research. This is not a sex fantasy. This is in fact part of a strategy called P-FACTS, a people-focused, adaptive, truly comprehensive, tactical, strategy that was brought to me by "official" people. You would not believe it if I told you.
This was not obvious, dude.
By the way, I took the liberty of correcting your spelling and punctuation. You're welcome.
It is not natural to ask a woman to get up in the middle of the night and breastfeed her baby every night while the baby grows strong. It is more natural to share that duty with other women on an informal rotation.
No, it is not more natural to share your middle of the night breastfeeding duty with other women. If you think it is, you better restructure your entire society. Back to the drawing board!
Women love other women's bodies and being touched and massaged. But men aren't as inclined to do that.
First of all, some women don't love to touch each other's bodies, because they aren't gay (female homosexuals).
Next, I am not sure if you mean 1) men are not as inclined to touch and massage women's bodies as other women are, or that 2) men are not inclined to touch and massage other men's bodies.
If its #1, you're crazy. Men love to touch women's bodies. A "massage" can be offered but, of course, often turns into massaging a couple areas not usually treated by an actual massage therapist.
If you mean #2, men don't like to touch other men's bodies, I guess you've never heard of male homosexuality either, and so have no right to design a utopia.
That's because, as primates, we evolved for millions of years in a polyamorous environment, where woman-to-woman contact, be it sexual or not, was readily available anytime.
Anytime? You imagine that in the Neolithic Era, a horny woman could just ask another woman to stop tanning leather or drying fish immediately, and get busy and give her an orgasm right here, right now?
That way a woman gets all the emotional and other care she needs from people who are more genetically wired to give that to her, in the best way, usually by other women.
Women are good at identifying and handling emotions, I'll give you that. It might be hardwired; it might be cultural. That doesn't get the men off the hook, however. Men repress their emotions during war. Men that repress their emotions, their normal growth pains, sadness, loneliness, etc., cause wars.
And when a man sees her coordinating and collaborating in life, as well as in bed, with other women, if she desires that, he adores and desires her even more, because he finds her giving and feminine coordination and collaboration with other women very attractive, whilst he is allowed to be a masculine man and a wonderful father. These are our masculine and feminine inclinations that evolved in a polyamorous environment.
Please explain to me how I got what you said wrong:
But this doesn't fit into your imagined scenario and sex fantasy of bare-breasted women passing their babies around to each other in the night, after they get done with the massaging and sexual touching and being observed by the men who then want to have sex with them.
You said "desire." I said, "want to have sex." Same thing.
I think you are trying to be conflicting instead of assuming I already knew what you said in your comment. Because I did. No one is saying a woman should not be breastfeeding her baby, if that's possible. What I'm saying (and maybe this is partly my fault for not fully explaining, but maybe you could have asked questions, instead of assuming, which is usually the better way to go) is that when a woman is in need of help of any kind, including, but not limited to breastfeeding, when it is detrimental (to the baby, the mother, or the family to do so), it is great and often life-saving to have multiple mothers available to help.
You clearly have an assumptive mind. Please check that. That is not an insult. That is simply a feedback.
Assumptive, a rare word meaning accepted as real or true without proof. Do you mean I assumed I understood you when I didn't? Please point out what I got wrong, especially about the sexual touching and the passing of babies around between lactating mothers.
I framed my statement in a way that is colloquially understood and recognized as useful...
No, you really didn't.
... not knowing I would be scrutinized by lactation consultants.
Some women have specialized knowledge about and experience with female biology. Surprise! I also breastfed three children without asking friends to be my wet nurse.
I believe everything in your comment is something I've already considered.
Please.
Whether I accurately articulated my point well is arguable. I'm a finance investments guy, not a writer, expert on women's studies, or a sociologist.
Oh really? You don't say. Why then are you creating this society in your mind, over six years, partly based on women touching each other and nursing each other's kids while the men watch them with increasing desire in their pants?
But I do work with people who contend that what I wrote is, whether you like it or not, much more in line with what I describe as our BioSelf targets, but that's a whole other topic I will be presenting in a different public forum at some point.
Nice cop out.
