During the days of Rome when the Circus Maxius existed to occupy the minds of the economically deprived and overpopulated empire of Rome prior to the suppression of the feminine divine in Roman culture, there existed an age called the Pornocracy.  I invite you to research the phenomenon on your own; the concept entertains me.  😀

 

It was customary at the time for a Roman landowner to be away at war for long periods of time, and it was also customary for Romans to keep slaves, although they had a responsibility of care towards them, and Roman law dictated that a father could not cut a disabled child from his will.  In essence really, all Roman citizens were to some degree slaves to the State, because Rome was first established as a fortress city by a band of brigade men who abducted women called the Sabines in order to establish a sovereign city state during the time of the Visigoths, Osigoths, Celts, Thracians, and Gauls.

 

The Sabine women belonged to a local tribe, and were abducted by the first generation of Romans from their husbands and children.  Ten years later, when they had settled into their enslavement and had children, the men of the Sabine tribe raided Rome and killed the men and children.  This incident is recorded in history as the Rape of the Sabines, and the interesting thing is that the rape they refer to is actually the fact that the women actually tore their own skin in agony at the amount of trauma that they endured at the hands of the men that they loved, and the loss of their children.

 

Because of the sacrifice of the Sabine women, women were more or less enshrined in Roman Law with full rights and agency, even if they held slave status.  This is a very interesting facet of law often disregarded, since most military and political history focuses on male leaders.

 

Temples of education were established in order to house newly arrived female slaves, who were forced to undertake advanced education in philosophy and science and social dictates, and could not leave until a man paid for the right to have sexual intercourse with her, because it was believed that by having intercourse with a temple prostitute that man could achieve access to the source of divinity.

 

These women were held in enormous regard in Roman society, and held the company of the Legion members at the Circus Maximas and helped to establish public policy through the art of grace, manners, wit, and rhetoric.  In fact, there is a woman called Theodora who was both the mistress of one Pope and the mother of another, and helped to establish the Julian line.

 

Christianity was adopted as a state religion in order to dictate how the citizens of Rome should spend their time, essentially, because in the earliest times of Rome, the city state was composed of….  well, ghettos, really.  And remember, ghetto actually refers to an enclosed district, rather liked a fenced in community these days.

 

The early Doctors of the Catholic Church established laws regarding a social contract between the people who lived within the walled confines of Rome in the early days, and included people such as Theocylides, Maximus Decimus – who truly did exist, and who co-ruled Rome for some time.  Women of high status were in fact encouraged to have children by gladiators, and female gladiators also existed.

 

The Circus Maximus existed to distract the citizens from the ever increasing costs of empire building in terms of the loss of men, and to enure people to the violence of the city itself.  People of high status were expected to attend daily, and watch, and smile and laugh in order to impress the Consulate.

 

The Pornoacracy essentially meant that the temple workers sat in the stands and observed the horrors in front of them and kept powerful men company while slaves worked on the lands on the outskirts.

 

Paul’s doctrine in the New Testament is essentially a direct attack on the practise, and reduced the status of women under the law, and turned the temples into nunneries.

 

I find it very interesting that whenever people discuss things like terrorism, no one ever considers what i looks like from this perspective.  Much of the doctrine that regards women in Christianity closesly resembles sharia because of what is called the self policing effect; when people are forced to live in crammed quarters they develop a pattern of behaviour dictating custom.  Under true sharia for example, the wife cannot refuse the order of her husband, even if it is to kill.

Sharia itself is an interesting words, because lingusitically it reflects

 

exactly what it is — spiritual energy; shards; being reproved by the eye with sharp looks and condemnation  for a form of personal conduct.  Which eventually escalates to clothing policing, and then eventually to whether or not she is allowed to smile at another man.