As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

This Thread Will Go Down in [History]

1959698100101

Posts

  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    edited April 23
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    Gvzbgul wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    The "how much weight can/should a soldier carry" thing is quite interesting, in regards to female soldiers.

    The Norwegian armed forces is a conscript army. The basic soldier and many NCOs are conscripts, as are seamen and various other roles. There are professional soldiers, too (COs, pilots, special forces, etc.)

    But for the last several years, we switched form "every able-bodied man" to "every able-bodied person". Young women are now also required to serve for 1 year plus regular training exercises. (I should stress that since the fall of the USSR ("Our Great Eastern Neighbour") an ever-smaller fraction actually has to do military service.)

    But women can carry less weight than men, and military equipment is sized to fit men. The latter problem is working itself out (by buying smaller sizes with different fit), but how much should the basic infrantryman/woman be expected to carry?

    It may not be a surprise that special forces is exclusively male, but we have female submarine captains and army COs.

    The only real comparison I have is from boy scouts. Our backpacking guidelines were always 20% of your weight, so that if someone got injured and their gear had to be split up, nobody should exceed 25% of their own weight. I feel like you could maybe say professional soldiers could easily go 25/33, but you always need the gear to be as lightweight as possible and the soldiers should be geared as lightly as possible as well, to make operations more feasible in general, and also to allow for more room for specialty equipment (like weather-related gear and mission-specific equipment).

    IIRC US Special Forces is mostly male, but not exclusively. This is because garrison/support staff like quartermasters and administrative clerks can be embedded as far down as the company level, so those special forces have their own supply and support staff, and all those folks are in the special forces unit and therefore have to meet the same requirements as the infantry they support.

    Again, this is all I'm pretty sure that's how that works (I am prior Army, but others may have more ... personal experience with special forces).

    All that to say I'm like 80% certain that the US Army's special forces have women in their ranks. I had an admin sergeant who was working toward going out for it.

    US soldiers are carrying 43.5kg (95.7 pounds). I don't think that fits the 25% guideline. Unless there's some absolute chonkers in the Army.

    How's that break down? Like, what're they carrying and how much does everything weigh?

    This article I found seems to break some of that down, though I only gave it a skim, because it is rather long: https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/the-soldiers-heavy-load-1

    Has the approach load for an assistant machine gunner at 140lbs. Good lord. That’s awful close to carrying 100% of my own body weight.

    Yeah that's the guy we call the "AG" because he carries enough ammo to, frankly, kill everyone in the nearest town.

    Twice.

    e: But yeah that article kind of proves the point I was making earlier; carrying an overly heavy load negatively impacts performance. The graph in that article points toward a 50 lb goal, with a standard Rifleman carrying about 63 lbs. That's ... probably about right, based on my experience and extrapolation. It's still above where I was saying with the 25/33 mark, but if 63 lbs were to be compared to one third bodyweight. The Army's height/weight standards show that a soldier 6ft tall (+/- a couple of inches) should be at least 130 lbs and not more than 226 (based on age), generally probably in the 150-170 range, so 63 is still a little high, but probably something that's manageable.

    Tox on
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    PREVIOUSLY IN HISTORY, or at least one of these history threads some time ago, the first known written use of the f-word in English was this monk scribbling a note in the margins of a book, "o d fuckin abbot". That dates to the early 1500s.

    19f4zrrgo5hh8jpg.jpg

    But now historians have found a much earlier reference: a court roll dated the 8th of December 1310: Roger Fuckebythenavele.

    oldest-F-word.jpg

    There are three references to this guy, with two in subsequent court hearings. In the third, he was outlawed. I assume there was something else going on aside from him apparently thinking he was supposed to stick it in the belly button. That being said, it's over 700 years since then, and Roger, we know what you did.


    Note: There's also a John le Fucker listed in a record dating to 1278, but there's a dispute over the name.

    JedocsarukunDisruptedCapitalistMidniteBlackDragon480HacksawShadowhope
  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    I could have sworn (heh) that the F-word was just like, a standard old/middle english word until the norman francophones thought it was crude.

  • Kayne Red RobeKayne Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    I figured it grew out of the german verb ficken, "to have sex".

  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    the Fugger family, well known for their trade empire, was written "fucker" previously
    The last name was originally spelled "Fucker" - the first recorded reference to the family comes when Johann's son, also named Johann (or Hans), moves to Augsburg in 1367, with the local tax register laconically noting Fucker advenit, "Fugger has arrived"

    EvilCakeBlackDragon480Mayabird
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited April 26
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    I'm a giant military history nerd and absolutely want all nazis to be punched

    Same, but they're not wrong. There are a lot of shitty racist troglodytes in the military history and wargaming spaces.

    My younger brother signed up for a volunteer-staffed Civil War reenactment when he was doing some Habitat for Humanity work in the South one summer. The ratio of volunteers signing up to march on the Confederate side versus the Union was like 3 to 1. Civil War buffs come for the rebel cosplay and then stay for the Lost Causing...

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    XaquinBlackDragon480Mvrck
  • KwoaruKwoaru Registered User regular
    Lost Causplay

    Kayne Red RobesarukunXaquinMunkus BeaverButtersFencingsaxJedocElvenshaeCaptain Inertiaasofyeunvalhalla130MidniteknitdanBlackDragon480VegemytefurlionToxLordSolarMachariusMechMantisErlecHacksawMagell
  • JuggernutJuggernut Registered User regular
    Love to RP getting owned and surrendering

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    I have humored getting into historical reenactment a few times but I figure I’d have to do something old enough (Ancient Rome?) or obscure enough (The Lace Wars?) to avoid bad apples

    But ehhh I’d probably hit bad apples anyway. Probably just have to thoroughly vet each group individually.

  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I have humored getting into historical reenactment a few times but I figure I’d have to do something old enough (Ancient Rome?) or obscure enough (The Lace Wars?) to avoid bad apples

    But ehhh I’d probably hit bad apples anyway. Probably just have to thoroughly vet each group individually.

    you will 100% run into many grognards

    Kayne Red RobeDouglasDangerTynnanFencingsaxSolarElvenshaewebguy20asofyeunvalhalla130BlackDragon480VegemyteMvrckHacksawsarukunMagellStraightziTheStigNeveron
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I have humored getting into historical reenactment a few times but I figure I’d have to do something old enough (Ancient Rome?) or obscure enough (The Lace Wars?) to avoid bad apples

    But ehhh I’d probably hit bad apples anyway. Probably just have to thoroughly vet each group individually.

    you will 100% run into many grognards

    Grognards are fine. Racist jerkwads not so much.

    Unless the meaning of grognard has shifted and doesn’t mean grumbly old person who has been in the hobby for ages anymore.

    Elvenshae
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I have humored getting into historical reenactment a few times but I figure I’d have to do something old enough (Ancient Rome?) or obscure enough (The Lace Wars?) to avoid bad apples

    But ehhh I’d probably hit bad apples anyway. Probably just have to thoroughly vet each group individually.

    you will 100% run into many grognards

    Grognards are fine. Racist jerkwads not so much.

    Unless the meaning of grognard has shifted and doesn’t mean grumbly old person who has been in the hobby for ages anymore.

    I meant the racist kinda not the 'achksually' kind

    they also tend to overlap an awful lot

  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    I'm a giant military history nerd and absolutely want all nazis to be punched

    Same, but they're not wrong. There are a lot of shitty racist troglodytes in the military history and wargaming spaces.

    My younger brother signed up for a volunteer-staffed Civil War reenactment when he was doing some Habitat for Humanity work in the South one summer. The ratio of volunteers signing up to march on the Confederate side versus the Union was like 3 to 1. Civil War buffs come for the rebel cosplay and then stay for the Lost Causing...
    Spoilers for real confederate flag:
    8oa3jtcwpll31.jpg

    Kayne Red RobeEvilCakeknitdanBlackDragon480furlionToxMvrckHacksawsarukunMagellShadowhopeSkeithNeveronMonwyn
  • The Cow KingThe Cow King a island Registered User regular
    Ran into a weird part of british canadian history local to my town

    A doctor was shipping orphans and kids out britain to put into work houses to abuses em for labour back before ww2 and the lucky ones got a trunk with a bible in it and now it's a collectors item

    So weird

    The bernardo house if anyone's curious

  • Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    edited April 26
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I have humored getting into historical reenactment a few times but I figure I’d have to do something old enough (Ancient Rome?) or obscure enough (The Lace Wars?) to avoid bad apples

    But ehhh I’d probably hit bad apples anyway. Probably just have to thoroughly vet each group individually.

    I 100% guarantee you that a not-insignificant percentage of people who like re-enacting ancient Roman battles have some opinions about some things

    Your best-case scenario there is some kind of ancient aliens conspiracy theorist who's only subliminally racist

    Houk the Namebringer on
    FencingsaxElvenshaeIncenjucartynichonovereasofyeunHacksawsarukunMagellSkeithNeveron
  • JuggernutJuggernut Registered User regular
    It might be fun to go find an ancient Roman historical army reenactment and find the weird fuckin Roman western civilization racist dipshits and then talk loudly and animatedly about pounding your fellow centurions in the butt before a battle.

    TheStig
  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    Dear professor did gladiators nut before they fought or did they save it

  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Juggernut wrote: »
    It might be fun to go find an ancient Roman historical army reenactment and find the weird fuckin Roman western civilization racist dipshits and then talk loudly and animatedly about pounding your fellow centurions in the butt before a battle.

    I was under the impression that no self-respecting Roman man would consent to being the reciever? (Giver being a-ok, of course.)

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    GvzbgulBlackDragon480
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    Hobnail wrote: »
    Dear professor did gladiators nut before they fought or did they save it

    yes

    FencingsaxXaquinVegemyte
  • JedocJedoc Justice. Mercy. Duty. That sort of thing.Registered User regular
    What we really need around here is some prehistoric reenactors. Half of the group dresses up like neanderthals and half like homo sapiens and we spend the afternoon reenacting long periods of low-intensity competition over hunting and gathering territories with some light cannibalism and maybe a little interbreeding if the vibe is right.

    Kayne Red RobeasofyeunTheStig
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Jedoc wrote: »
    What we really need around here is some prehistoric reenactors. Half of the group dresses up like neanderthals and half like homo sapiens and we spend the afternoon reenacting long periods of low-intensity competition over hunting and gathering territories with some light cannibalism and maybe a little interbreeding if the vibe is right.

    Then you'd just run into long and pointless arguments with "evolutionary psychologists" saying how all the women should stay in their caves as nature intended, not to mention endless debates about who's supposed to be the "alpha".

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    ElvenshaeasofyeunV1m
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Registered User, ClubPA regular
    I’m more of an epsilon myself

    Twitch Channel
    Steam: munkus_beaver
    Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but it dies in the process.
    http://www.ccfa.org/
    Depressperado
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    .
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I have humored getting into historical reenactment a few times but I figure I’d have to do something old enough (Ancient Rome?) or obscure enough (The Lace Wars?) to avoid bad apples

    But ehhh I’d probably hit bad apples anyway. Probably just have to thoroughly vet each group individually.

    I 100% guarantee you that a not-insignificant percentage of people who like re-enacting ancient Roman battles have some opinions about some things

    Your best-case scenario there is some kind of ancient aliens conspiracy theorist who's only subliminally racist

    Oh, the grad student provost at my university in Germany was heavily into ancient battle re-enactment. He had a 'social bonding' thing for the students that was re-enacting the battle of the Teutoburger Wald every year, and always cast himself as Armenius/Herman Ze German. Apparently if he didn't like you very much you got to be a roman and huddle in the middle of a clearing while the favoured German troops threw paintballs at you from the trees.

    ... I guess that's actually an anti-Roman thing but it had a very similar vibe.

    The other person I know who is very into reenacting ancient battles is a big deal in greek warfare afficionado circles and has run experiments trying to test out myths and theories about their warfare tactics and formations.
    He's also a conspiracy theorist and Alex Jones listener and almost certainly pretty racist, so if anything the re-enactor bit is the least objectionable part of his personality.

    Hacksaw
  • JuggernutJuggernut Registered User regular
    Juggernut wrote: »
    It might be fun to go find an ancient Roman historical army reenactment and find the weird fuckin Roman western civilization racist dipshits and then talk loudly and animatedly about pounding your fellow centurions in the butt before a battle.

    I was under the impression that no self-respecting Roman man would consent to being the reciever? (Giver being a-ok, of course.)

    Yeah you know I'm not 100% how that actually worked. Granted it's not something I've really looked into but I think the basic gist was as long as it wasn't a free born Roman, like go nuts, as long as you're uh, I don't super know the terminology here, pitching? But it still kinda seems a little hazy to me. Rome seemed to be kinda contradictory in some ways. To the outside observer Roman's just did absolutely nothing but bone on the reg constantly but there's also accounts of them being grade A prudes? Like, yeah go nuts but don't actually go nuts because then you have poor self control but also recline in your dining room lined with frescos of people going hog wild.

    I dunno, somebody with more knowledge of the Roman's kinky shit chime in here and edumacate me.

  • ChicoBlueChicoBlue Registered User regular
    Look, fellas.

    Someone here's gotta get their prostate thumped so right.

    tyniccB557Juggernut
  • valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    edited April 26
    Juggernut wrote: »
    Juggernut wrote: »
    It might be fun to go find an ancient Roman historical army reenactment and find the weird fuckin Roman western civilization racist dipshits and then talk loudly and animatedly about pounding your fellow centurions in the butt before a battle.

    I was under the impression that no self-respecting Roman man would consent to being the reciever? (Giver being a-ok, of course.)

    Yeah you know I'm not 100% how that actually worked. Granted it's not something I've really looked into but I think the basic gist was as long as it wasn't a free born Roman, like go nuts, as long as you're uh, I don't super know the terminology here, pitching? But it still kinda seems a little hazy to me. Rome seemed to be kinda contradictory in some ways. To the outside observer Roman's just did absolutely nothing but bone on the reg constantly but there's also accounts of them being grade A prudes? Like, yeah go nuts but don't actually go nuts because then you have poor self control but also recline in your dining room lined with frescos of people going hog wild.

    I dunno, somebody with more knowledge of the Roman's kinky shit chime in here and edumacate me.

    I attribute the bolded part to them being an organized political entitity for almost a thousand years.

    Heck, here in the US, we had the sexual revolution in the 60's and 70's and by the 80's, conservatism had come about as a backlash.

    valhalla130 on
    V1m
  • GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    Most (of the famous) debauchery was Upper Class right? It's not unusual for societies to have a strict moral code and a corrupt upper class that flaunts them.

    XaquinDisruptedCapitalistFencingsaxvalhalla130MrMonroe
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    Gvzbgul wrote: »
    Most (of the famous) debauchery was Upper Class right? It's not unusual for societies to have a strict moral code and a corrupt upper class that flaunts them.

    It’s also very common to perform character assassination of a rival by painting them as a corrupt person that flaunts the rules of society. And clearly, whatever my rival is doing (or rather what I am accusing them of doing) is the gravest threat to our precious Roman society.

    FencingsaxKanaLordSolarMachariusErlecElvenshaeHacksawButtersvalhalla130Skeith
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    Suetonius loved shit talking most of the caesars and hated a lot of the senatorial class

    BlackDragon480InquisitorFencingsaxhonovereElvenshaeHacksaw
  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    In conclusion, Ancient Rome is a land of contrasts

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
    FencingsaxcB557RMS OceanicKanaElvenshaeHacksawsarukunvalhalla130IronKnuckle's GhostMunkus BeaverV1m
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    knitdan wrote: »
    In conclusion, Ancient Rome is a land of contrasts

    I will not be answering questions

    Fencingsaxknitdansarukun
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    Juggernut wrote: »
    It might be fun to go find an ancient Roman historical army reenactment and find the weird fuckin Roman western civilization racist dipshits and then talk loudly and animatedly about pounding your fellow centurions in the butt before a battle.

    I was under the impression that no self-respecting Roman man would consent to being the reciever? (Giver being a-ok, of course.)

    Pretty much. After successfully negotiating a military/naval alliance with the king of Bithynia-Pontus when he was in his early 20's (Rome was looking to seize a city on Lesbos and needed naval cover and help ferrying the legions), upon returning to Rome Julius Caesar was hounded by rumors that he acted as a honeypot to get the ships the Romans wanted. So for the rest of his life/career he was derisively referred to as the "Queen of Bithynia".

    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
    Elvenshae
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Gvzbgul wrote: »
    Most (of the famous) debauchery was Upper Class right? It's not unusual for societies to have a strict moral code and a corrupt upper class that flaunts them.

    The vast majority of what we know about life in ancient, classical, and medieval times is from the rich(also male) perspective

    BlackDragon480
  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    You might as a future I presume octopus person historian assume that I am doing a spiteful character assassination when I say the Duke of York is a child victimising serial sex pest who hides in a big spooky evil compound but that's just a true thing, octopoid

    tynicThe Cow KingCaptain InertiaLordSolarMachariusHacksawDouglasDangerJedoc
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Hobnail wrote: »
    You might as a future I presume octopus person historian assume that I am doing a spiteful character assassination when I say the Duke of York is a child victimising serial sex pest who hides in a big spooky evil compound but that's just a true thing, octopoid

    All I heard is that he marched 1000 men up a hill, and then marched them down again.

    DisruptedCapitalist
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    Hobnail wrote: »
    You might as a future I presume octopus person historian assume that I am doing a spiteful character assassination when I say the Duke of York is a child victimising serial sex pest who hides in a big spooky evil compound but that's just a true thing, octopoid

    theres already precedent for this, but also possible slander and coercion with Joan d'Arc's primary companion and almost national hero Gilles de Rais, whom may or may not have kidnapped, assaulted and then murdered up to 600 children
    major content warning about the description of his confessed crimes


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais

    BlackDragon480valhalla130
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    edited April 27
    Juggernut wrote: »
    Juggernut wrote: »
    It might be fun to go find an ancient Roman historical army reenactment and find the weird fuckin Roman western civilization racist dipshits and then talk loudly and animatedly about pounding your fellow centurions in the butt before a battle.

    I was under the impression that no self-respecting Roman man would consent to being the reciever? (Giver being a-ok, of course.)

    Yeah you know I'm not 100% how that actually worked. Granted it's not something I've really looked into but I think the basic gist was as long as it wasn't a free born Roman, like go nuts, as long as you're uh, I don't super know the terminology here, pitching? But it still kinda seems a little hazy to me. Rome seemed to be kinda contradictory in some ways. To the outside observer Roman's just did absolutely nothing but bone on the reg constantly but there's also accounts of them being grade A prudes? Like, yeah go nuts but don't actually go nuts because then you have poor self control but also recline in your dining room lined with frescos of people going hog wild.

    I dunno, somebody with more knowledge of the Roman's kinky shit chime in here and edumacate me.

    Rome had a quite different way of thinking about gender and sexuality than the modern west does. In terms of sex there's basically two genders, the superior and the inferior. As long as the superior is the one receiving the pleasure and the inferior is providing the pleasure, that's "straight" to the Romans. That can commonly mean penetration but also intercrucal sex, handjobs, whatever else they got up to.

    So the most obvious part of that superior/inferior dynamic to us is that males were by default superior and females were inferiors. But there were other, equally important aspects. Age, wealth, class, citizenship - all of these things determined the correct way for a person to act during sex. The most famous example of this is the political slur against Julius Caesar, that he was the "Queen of Bithynia." The slur was not that young Caesar was having sex with a man, it was not homophobic in the sense that we define it. But his opponents claimed that he was the inferior to the non-roman king of Bithynia, that he was the one being penetrated. Caesar was still relatively young at this point and for a normal citizen it might not matter, but Caesar was already the head of his respectable family - the pater familias - a rich clan. For a pillar of Roman society to be in a subservient relationship to a foreigner - it was morally shocking, not because of the sex but because of the gender. OTOH young boys and teens in inferior sexual relationships to men was considered a totally unremarkable part of conventional sexuality, and as in many other cultures there was frequently a pretty explicit list of expectations and rights that those inferiors could still expect to be honored.

    It's also worthwhile considering this view of sex and sexual relationships in terms of larger Roman society. Roman society was built on a system of patronage (patrocinium), with poorer families swearing loyalty to a richer client. Much like a family relationship or a marriage, patronage was heirarchical, you couldn't just walk away from it without strong cause, but there were also explicit obligations on both sides of the relationship. And when slaves were freed or bought their freedom their relationship with their owner did not end, they still maintained a patron/client relationship as a citizen. You could think of this as a way of keeping the slave inferior, and that wouldn't be entirely incorrect, but it also placed the slave within the framework of Roman society and gave them an in to further opportunities. A slave-owner couldn't simply try to save money by throwing his slave out on the street penniless, for instance.

    Anyway point being that in the Roman worldview social relationships, family relationships, and even sexual relationships - matters that we think of as being inherently private, separated off from the public sphere - were not private, isolated matters to the Romans. They were public, small fractal portions of the entire Roman social network. A pater familias like Julius Caesar taking on the wrong role in bed raised questions about whether he could maintain his role expectations in other aspects of his life, as a politician representing Rome, as a patron representing client families, as a moral man in society. But the fact that the sex was with a man was not by itself the problem. Like I said earlier, the gender divide is much less about male/female than superior/inferior.

    On the other hand for folks like clients, slaves, a young man who isn't the head of his family... If men like that want to be penetrated by older, richer men, it's not only OK, it's a demonstration of their correct understanding of hierarchy and an inferior's duty. And it's not viewed as troubling or as prostitution if a young man is sexing an older man in exchange for favors such as education or a higher station, etc. But again, ONLY if you're an inferior. If Julius Caesar - the guy who's supposed to be handing favors out - is exchanging sexual pleasure in exchange for political favors, then how can you as one of his clients trust that he properly respects the rules of obligation and hierarchy that keep you in money for bread and wine?

    And yes, this view of sex is very much assuming that only 1 person is gonna be enjoying the sex. In practice obviously we're talking about human beings and things happen, but there's still strong taboos about how exactly they're receiving that pleasure.

    EDIT: and of course from the viewpoint of the ruling elites, if you're just giving out handies and pining after cute foreign boys, you're not upholding the dignity and power expected of your class. If you don't act "properly" as a patriarch than it undermines the all-powerful image that your class needs to keep to maintain their position.

    Kana on
    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
    FencingsaxBlackDragon480GvzbgulcB557JuggernutchromdomErlecElvenshaesarukunIronKnuckle's GhostYoshisummonsVegemyteIndie WinterOld world monkeySkeithIncenjucar
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    "Caesar conquered Gaul, but Nicomedes conquered Caesar." - Roman Graffiti

    BlackDragon480
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    "Caesar conquered Gaul, but Nicomedes conquered Caesar." - Roman Graffiti

    And that was scrawled more than 30 years after the event.

    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
    FencingsaxRMS OceanicKayne Red Robe
  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    Juggernut wrote: »
    Love to RP getting owned and surrendering

    I was gonna make a joke about not kinkshaming and how some people actually pay good money to be dominated and humiliated.

    And then I was like, "well no I probably shouldn't toss that into the History thread, no need to sexualize it."

    And then I finished reading the page

    Captain InertiaBlackDragon480ElvenshaesarukunKayne Red RobeTynnanJedocVegemyteSkeith
This discussion has been closed.