“Hi Baby,
“So the Great Khan has come down from his mountain. Write an article of the 10 Commandments you think would make a “good” woman. I know you’ve alluded to what traits you like in past articles, but number them. If it’s 3 things make it 3.”
-Ajay
This is quite simple.
Without considering those qualities that all persons might have, the Khan has recently delegated to me the sacred knowledge of woman management in all of its simplicity.
-1. The ideal woman first knows that she is property, of a man or a family, that her role is one of attachment.
-2. This woman than—according to her inclinations—attaches herself and accepts that she is property of one of these specific owners, a man or a family. When a woman fancies herself an agent of destiny rather than its vessel she becomes like a knife held as common property in the village square wielded by whoever might snatch it up.
-3. This woman, then, as the insistent [some of these women cannot be turned out] or passive property of a man and or family, then finds her purpose in maintaining the cohesion of her family and or supporting her man.
-4. Ultimately, the best of these whole, undeluded women will insist that their family share an identity with a group capable of and inclined to protecting the family unit.
-5. Transcendently, the best of these shall not tolerate a man who must have a master. To be owned by a slave is no security at all for the passive, and for a matriarch of a family to be attached to a man who has no potent agency of his own and follows the ruthless blindly is to be a mere breeder of slaves.
There you have it, Ajay, a woman has a need to be owned and the good woman recognizes that as the truth implicit at the base of her condition and does what she can to insure that the scale of human ownership is kept on the human level and does not progress to an acquiescence to some monstrous system of people farming.
On Bitches
link › jameslafond.blogspot.com
Your Trojan Whorse
James, one would have to travel back to the Ancient Germany to find one of these.
I'm still working on that time machine...
To point 5, only Conan could possess Belit.
Yes, which makes this individual and subjective, all the more human.
I'd say that's a pretty good description of how it should work, if you realize that's it's being stated as transliterated from Mongolian or a Turkic derivative, the language and idiom of the old Khans. You could probably soften in up in English a bit and say exactly the same thing, although that wouldn't be LaFondian.
You left out the Man's responsibility in this deal, though. Although the Khan may have his own rules, his men, the ones who fight for him and make it all work, and who are looking for this kind of woman, have a responsibility of their own. IFF (if and only if) he finds a woman that fills this role faithfully, he must realize that she has no reason to do that unless:
1) He fills her need for security and affection (something beyond sex) which implies
2) Exclusivity. She cannot have the security she requires if he is out hosing other women and thereby neglecting her.
Years ago, it was "physical" security - a safe place to raise her children, food and shelter for her and the children, and the knowledge that she wouldn't be casually raped by another member of the tribe or by an enemy. Today that place has been taken by "financial" security - the knowledge that she will have what she needs to fulfill her role.
Gotta have 'em both or it won't work ....
Of course I left out the man's responsibility.
I don't want to be summed back to that dank barrow mound for a reprimand.