Women/girls fashion and roles have changed a lot in the past several decades and stereotypical images are well on their way into the annals of history where they belong.

Do you think that it would enhance the quality of your life in any way and why 48hrs or is that just a random choice in terms of time?

@ASTRALMAX It would be merely to experience the feelings, and know another perspective. I enjoy being female too much to want to change.
And 48hrs was to allow for seduction and rest in between my exploits !

@evergreen Seduction, now there is difficult one to quantify and I wonder how would we gauge it. However, I do take your point about being able to experience the feelings from a male perspective and it is duly noted. I wonder how many males give due thought to how things are experienced from a female perspective..

@ASTRALMAX I've had conversation with some, that expressed the desire to see what it was like to have a woman's body ...

God dammit, you beat to that one.

take hormones - and they could be yours !

@chucklesIII Great minds think alike!

@evergreen , You know how to make a hormone? Don't pay her.

Are you referring to his application of logic in name calling when he challenged the mind state of those who disagreed with him? Or maybe you are referring to psychoanalytic vocabulary ( words derived from Greek Drama) whose termini or endings have been changed to give them a pseudo-scientific ring.

In order to do that, you have to have some pretty good pictures of how other cultures operate, how other societies operate, and I doubt many of us are at all up to that task, to any seriously competent degree. It is kind of like target practicing in the dark. As for the time element . . . . do you happen to have a time machine we can take a ride in? I find that the further you get away from your own time, the more difficult it is to understand what motivated people, or what their actual intentions were. Do you realize that you are product of your own time and how your culture affects you?

@Astralmax . . . Neither. I am referring to his writings, and only his writings.

@THHA If you have not already done so you might want to read some of the writings of Karl Krauss, a contemporary of Freud

@THHA We are all products of the culture and times in which we live to the degree that we do not reflect upon them or raise questions about the same.

The problem is, you cannot just say things like "men in the past were driven by their need for superiority" and expect it to stick. There are men like that today, of course, and it might even be provable in this time . . . but proving that it was the general case in some other time, would not be so easy.

There have existed some cultures that were actually run by women . . . can one therefore, make the statement that . . . "Women in the past were driven by their need for superiority" . . . ?

@Gwendolyn2018 I heard that Aristotle also said that women have more teeth than men but it did not occur to him to look into his wife's mouth and count her teeth. Not everything uttered by a philosopher or person who is deemed eminent bears up to scrutiny.

@Gwendolyn2018 @Gwendolyn2018 I heard that Aristotle also said that women have more teeth than men but it did not occur to him to look into his wife's mouth and count her teeth. Not everything uttered by a philosopher or person who is deemed eminent bears up to scrutiny.

@Gwendolyn2018 As I said, it is difficult to say, one usually cannot narrow it down to just one motive, for example, what was it that motivated certain humans to enslave others, was it because they had been enslaved themselves sometime in their past? Was it because they thought it was better to spare their lives rather than kill them off? Was it because they wanted sex slaves, as in ancient Pompeii? Was it because they could not find labor anywhere else? It is like saying that one color is responsible for a multi-color painting. When you claim that men had this psychological need to subjugate women, you are painting them all with one very wide brush, which might possibly be accurate if you were talking about the kings, emperors, and other power-hungry folks, but not generally. Obviously there are exceptions, for example . . . [mentalfloss.com]

In very early times, survival depended on strength, tribes with the best warriors prevailed, and there was no questioning as to who was in charge, it was essential for survival, and traditions die hard, even within those who wish to change those traditions.
Me, I do not see the matter anywhere near as important as the issue of human survival in this day and age . . . . humanity will render itself extinct regardless of how the so-called battle of the sexes turns out, unless people start to see beyond their own culture-centric, language-centric, gender-centric, ego-centric individual worlds. I see nothing that convinces me that humanity is capable of it, and, unless some new huge paradigm shift is forthcoming, like advanced transhumanism, reason and logic will never prevail, and humanity will go the way of the dinosaur.

and a lot of it wasn't. don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. society's focus on masculine superiority may well have led him to this incorrect conclusion. he was noticing one thing and labeling it another. it's an easy error to make, especially in a field of study not previously ploughed. newton got a lot of stuff wrong too; we don't diss gravity because of it. we understand why he got it wrong and focus on the right stuff.

g

@genessa yeah, but what about no vagina envy in his oeuvre? I don't read too much into that omission.

@genessa Ah, I see. Good, we agree. ?

You are too kind ...LOL

@ASTRALMAX I'm trying. Doesn't always work.

Frank McCourt said in Angela's Ashes: "we were so poor that if we awoke on Christmas Day without an erection we had nothing to play with all day".

@ASTRALMAX that was a great book!