What is the oldest profession?
The oldest: Prostitution. The most lucrative: prostitution. The most persuasive: prostitution.Since the three principle drives in the human species is to eat, drink and have sex, I think that its pretty clear that screwing for remuneration was right there at the beginning.Around the fire in the cave, the female sought out the Alpha male and traded tail for security and food. Pretty basic Quid Pro Quo deal. Since there was no marriage, and the argument that there was pair bonding is likely a modern female fantasy, its pretty clear it was a business arrangement.Researchers say that the shape of the male human penis head evolved since it is effective in scooping out the semen of other males from the female vagina. So much for our ancient grandma’s being monogamous. The old caves of our ancestors probably looked like a camp out at the playboy mansion in the 1960’s but without Bill Cosby and his drugs.Even today its petty clear from tests that women prefer the better provider and the man with the obvious alpha male traits to his couch potato cousin.As too tool and weapons making…pu-shaw! Given the choice between a cheese burger and coke or a naked babe begging for it. What do you think any guy would choose?The preference has not changed in millions of years. Sex always trumps food. After sex guys will think about food, and video games. So in modern parlance they think about food and weapons and tools. If you have a babe, you do not need to fight for her, you might have to to keep her. But that comes afterwards.Weapons and tools were needed to kill food, and to hold hunting grounds. Tools to process the food. But before all that you needed sex and females needed to attract and bargain for and win a male.So bartered sex or prostitution came first without question.Tools and weapons only came AFTER the tribe reached a population level where it needed to expand as it out stripped local food supplies. All that sex required a food denser in protein, fat and energy: meat.All this transpired AFTER the bedroom negotiations were history.Age old quesiton: THISOR THIS
The Lord of the Rings (creative franchise): Does Tolkien associate stereotypical characterizations of the East with evil?
Here's how Tolkien described the appearance of orcs:...they are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes; in fact degraded and repulsive versions of (to Europeans) the least lovely Mongol-types-The Letters of J. R. R. TolkienYou can see that they are very much in the image of 'yellow peril' hysteria cartoons of the time:Political cartoon from 1900's depicting a Chinese man killing a European womanSo you could say that Tolkien had some racially charged imagery in his books, but if we just ended with that half-truth it's as good as lying. So let's go deeper. As a kid reading Tolkien I was really fascinated by the Easterlings, Haradrim, Southrons, the oriental people of Middle Earth. Watching the movies when they came out in theaters it was cool to see the Easterlings clad in gold, but they didn't have much screen time after that. I had access to East Asian media via anime, manga, movies though so I didn't think much of Tolkien's depiction of Asians. Overall I favored media made by Asians anyways. Lord of the Rings is cool, but is it Samurai Troopers (Ronin Warriors) cool?Looking up Tolkien's actual thoughts on race though I see he was very progressive even by today's standards:My sentiments (on the bombing of Hiroshima) are more or less those that Frodo would have had if he discovered some Hobbits learning to ride Nazgûl-birds, 'for the liberation of the Shire'. Though in this case, as I know nothing about British or American imperialism in the Far East that does not fill me with regret and disgust, I am afraid I am not even supported by a glimmer of patriotism in this remaining war...I should have hated the Roman Empire in its day (as I do), and remained a patriotic Roman citizen, while preferring a free Gaul and seeing good in Carthaginians...Yes, I think the orcs as real a creation as anything in 'realistic' fiction: your vigorous words well describe the tribe; only in real life they are on both sides, of course... -The Letters of J. R. R. TolkienRemember Tolkien had this sentiment at a time that US news organs were calling Japanese people rats to be exterminated and British publications still talked about what a jolly good time imperialism in India was. If you want to read more about Tolkien and race, check out Andy Lee Chaisiri's answer to Why are all the people (men, elves, dwarves) in The Lord of the Rings (movie series) and The Hobbit (movie series) Caucasian?
What are your opinions on Freud's theory of personality? As in the ID, ego, and super ego?
There’s reality and there’s models of reality. If you prefer, let’s call them paradigms.Which one is right? The one that works.If a traditional chinese medical practitioner thinks in terms of 5 element theory and acupuncture points, that is the model he works to. A medical doctor may think in terms of physiology and pharmaceuticals. A chiropractor thinks in terms of mechancal manipulation. Which one is the best? The most effective one. Who decides whats most effective? The one who is affected.So as for Freud, the terminology he uses is useful, but all terminology is, in the end, metaphorical and in many cases, arbitrary. As is Jung’s, as is Maslow’s et al. They are all saying “if we look at it this way, then…”People may go from one mode of therapist to another to find something that works. One proves to be more effective. I have come to believe that, all other things being equal, it is often the individual practitioner and the relationship with the client that is ineffective or effective. Sometimes staying with the same type of treatment but with a different person can do the trick.No modality is completely appropriate for every person. Any good practitioner brings skills and qualitiese that are unique to them, things like insight, empathy, maturity, experience, and possibly training and wisdom from more than one discipline.