• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Harem Girls

Go to CruxDreams.com
haremdiscipline2.jpg

The newest member of the harem thought herself obedient enough, but must learn that in the palace harem nothing short of perfection is acceptable. Master thought he detected some hesitation from her when ordered to his bed for pleasure that morning, so he orders her to remain shackled in the slave quarters that day in a way that will remind her of her purpose in life.

discsm.jpg

As the hours go by & exhaustion grows, everyday mundane life in the harem goes on around her even as she is bound & mounted like this, ignoring her like she's not even there. By now she only hopes that the Master will arrive soon to see her unshackled himself, so that she can then show him, in front of everyone if necessary, the devotion she knows he is entitled to....
 
cynthia the inocent said:
I would think being in a harem would be a great place for a lesbian to be. I wouldnt have a problem servicing a man on occasion if need be. The cloths the girls wear are so sexy and I would love to learn their sensuous dances.
Click to expand...
seeing in tv Muhteşem Yüzyıl series seeing those all colorful shiny clothes and dresses and about polish slave who become main sultan wife and rule whole country and him like puppet think everyone will be wanna being in harem
 
cynthia the inocent said:
I would think being in a harem would be a great place for a lesbian to be. I wouldnt have a problem servicing a man on occasion if need be. The cloths the girls wear are so sexy and I would love to learn their sensuous dances.
Click to expand...

There is a historical misconception about the Harem in western culture.

It was the place where ALL the women lived in the household and MOST of it's residents were there to service the needs of the residents. For political reasons a pre-Islamic ruler might have dozens (and there are rumors of hundreds) of wives. But only a couple who were breeding for dynastic purposes. Some political wives might see their husband on their wedding day and again when he attended a function in the harem but never bed him.

In Islamic society (while limited in the number of "wives" one could have) a man could legitimize the child of a slave he owned but again for dynastic purposes (all that plotting by harem members to make sure THEIR son got on the throne) those who were breeding would be limited.

One Egyptian Pharaoh is reputed to have had over 1,000 women in his harem (not including his daughters by those women who also lived in the harem until married off) for himself, never mind slaves to do the domestic labor and help educate the young women.

Based on that, and the concept that sex between women is taboo is pretty much a outflow of Judaic custom (thru Christianity and then Islam), I'd bet good money that there was no lack of girl-on-girl to meet the "needs" of the residents. And as long as a MAN wasn't involved (which would lead to the execution of all involved) do you REALLY think any man would think about or care who was pleasing his women he had no interest in?

kisses

willowfall
 
cynthia the inocent said:
I thought they kept the harem. to entertain important guests. The Romans were very political and garnished favor of the higher ups by elaborate parties or so we learned in history books.
Click to expand...
That is just a fantasy. Harem is, as willowfall did write the word for the part of the house where women lived. Romans did not have any harems.
Romans married someone of apropriate family to produce offspring, divorces were common and not frowned about. Each household thet could afford it (wich was almost all) owned slaves. They were kept primarily kept for economic, not sexual purposes. They were workers, servants, sectretaries, teachers. Often old people, who stayed at the same household for all their life. The slaves of a houshold were called 'familia'. Business men, such as building contractors owned larger numbers of trained and untrained slaves as a work force. So did the big farms (latifundiae) in the countryside or production sites for anything you can think of.
Now, naturally in a rich household, owning - amongst others - some attractive women, these might be used for the pleasure of the owners, whenever they felt like it.
This was something 'normal' but nothing you spoke of. In the time of the Republic and Early Empire it would have been considered very bad taste to do so in public, just as naturally you visited a lupanar (brothel) from time to time, but this was nothing to be discussed.
During the late Republic and Early Empire some equestri or even freed-men came to considerable wealth. Those 'nouveaux-riches' were frowned upon and considered to be of bad taste and worse behaviour. As such they were a matter of jokes and comedies. Using slaves for sexual purposes and even offering them to visitor was one of the topics of these comedies to show how primitive and uncultivated these people were, underlining how uncommon and scandalous such behaviour was considered to be.

In real slavery sexual abuse always (maybe with the exception to modern days trafficking of women) always was a resulting peripheral issue, while the main purpose was economic.
 
Zungur said:
That is just a fantasy. Harem is, as willowfall did write the word for the part of the house where women lived. Romans did not have any harems.
Romans married someone of apropriate family to produce offspring, divorces were common and not frowned about. Each household thet could afford it (wich was almost all) owned slaves. They were kept primarily kept for economic, not sexual purposes. They were workers, servants, sectretaries, teachers. Often old people, who stayed at the same household for all their life. The slaves of a houshold were called 'familia'. Business men, such as building contractors owned larger numbers of trained and untrained slaves as a work force. So did the big farms (latifundiae) in the countryside or production sites for anything you can think of.
Now, naturally in a rich household, owning - amongst others - some attractive women, these might be used for the pleasure of the owners, whenever they felt like it.
This was something 'normal' but nothing you spoke of. In the time of the Republic and Early Empire it would have been considered very bad taste to do so in public, just as naturally you visited a lupanar (brothel) from time to time, but this was nothing to be discussed.
During the late Republic and Early Empire some equestri or even freed-men came to considerable wealth. Those 'nouveaux-riches' were frowned upon and considered to be of bad taste and worse behaviour. As such they were a matter of jokes and comedies. Using slaves for sexual purposes and even offering them to visitor was one of the topics of these comedies to show how primitive and uncultivated these people were, underlining how uncommon and scandalous such behaviour was considered to be.

In real slavery sexual abuse always (maybe with the exception to modern days trafficking of women) always was a resulting peripheral issue, while the main purpose was economic.
Click to expand...
I guess you cant believe half of what you are taught in school. Same goes for what they taught in sunday school. They only wanted to brain wash us
 
cynthia the inocent said:
I guess you cant believe half of what you are taught in school. Same goes for what they taught in sunday school. They only wanted to brain wash us
Click to expand...

You're being very nice when you say 'only half'. In effect you can believe FACTS (example armies X and Y met on this day in this battle) that are taught.

It is interpretation when education falls down because it is filled with current bias.

Or historical myth, example a Centurion being at Christ's crucifixion. There WERE NO Legions in Palestine at the time of Christ's execution. Legions were up in Syria and down in Egypt but none in Palestine. There may have been a small contingent of Legionaries (more likely non-Italian auxiliaries) as body guards for Pilate. Even if there was a Centurion on Pilate's staff it is highly unlikely he would have wasted his valuable time hanging around the execution site of a minor criminal.

Interpretation is taught because it agrees with the objectives and biases of those in power. If you live long enough you see facts may get supplemented or confirmed based on new evidence (archeological or first hand accounts in many cases). You will see interpretation change radically based on prevailing biases even in a short time period.

To bring it back to Rome for an extremely long time it was accepted (based on Roman writings) that the Carthaginians sacrificed children to their gods. In the 1960s there started to be a movement that the idea was just 'Roman propaganda' as Rome started to become the villain in academic circles and then that became the accepted teaching (being passed along to future teachers by those supporting that view).

Funny thing, not that long ago archeologists working working at a Carthaginian site unearthed a sacred well with a massive number of children's bones at the bottom. WHY they got there no one can say for sure but factually it looks like the Romans may have been more on the mark that 1960s western liberal educators.

Facts are hard evidence.. bias is emotional.

kisses

willowfall
 
willowfall said:
Funny thing, not that long ago archeologists working working at a Carthaginian site unearthed a sacred well with a massive number of children's bones at the bottom. WHY they got there no one can say for sure but factually it looks like the Romans may have been more on the mark that 1960s western liberal educators.
Click to expand...
That's the thing with facts: the fact is just that children were treated differently than grow ups, when they died (in Bronze Age Near East they were often not buried in the cemetry, but inside the houses underneath the floors. Very oftne children's burials are completely missing, as in the case of Viking Gotland etc.). This is perfectly normal in many cultures. The rate of small children dying in their first year is rather high in pre-modern societies, even if they were as advanced and cultivated as the Carthaginians.
Nothing in the find you mention suggests that any of the children died from other than normal causes. So: still Roman propaganda.
An interesting fact is that everything about burials of other cultures, whether in Archaeology or Anthropology, that is different from the observers culture tends to be interpreted in a negative way, while each and every culture assumes that only their own treatment of the dead is tha one and only loving/respectful/correct way. That's why we have so many records of 'cannibals', none of which stands a critical analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom