Like I said about Japan and India, they’re pretty much places where polytheism/paganism’s still practised en masse as far as I know about them so much so that given Europe was pagan, these two give an idea about how such faiths may’ve been practised in reality. It’s one thing to reconstruct whatever’s left of a pagan faith, it’s another to continue practising it en masse as it is in Japan and India.
Just because they’re pagan doesn’t mean they wholly endorse or tolerate witchcraft as they still fear it. As far as canid witchcraft goes, while the analogy isn’t exact the Japanese belief in vulpine witchcraft parallels that of Greco-Roman belief in canine witchcraft (as far as Hecate’s involved). Then again both canids are also associated with more ‘benevolent’ characters like Inari and Artemis.
As for India, it’s got a major trinity called the Trimurti (Shiva, Brahmin and Vishnu) with some suspicious analogues in Greco-Roman faith, albeit twice in the form of Zeus, Hades and Poseidon and in Rome, Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. It would also be parsimonious to suggest that Japanese, Hindu and European paganism are also forms of animism.
In that spirits can reside in any form and anything can be divine. Whatever the actual number of gods were involved, it shouldn’t be hard to observe the animist elements in Hinduism and Greco-Roman religion as it is in Shintoism.
There’s something like a hierarchy of needs. This starts with physical needs, then with safety, then comes belonging, esteem and finally self-actualisation. This may not always play out exactly in practise. It’s been assumed to be the same in marriage where first you have arranged marriages where matchmaking takes place to ensure safety and amend community problems. Then comes companionate marriage in terms of being suitable for one another in role and then where marriage’s there to further esteem and desire.
This might not always be the case when it comes to communities that allow semi-arranged marriages a lot like with Baka Pygmies or contemporary India where someone could marry somebody at will with peer approval and permission. That and having to service one’s future in-laws. (This is especially the case with Baka Pygmies.) I suspect this is also true for societies that favour collectivism over individualism.
This might also be true for pet ownership where in the past and even today in some communities (and among some people), if somebody were to own a pet it’s often done within reason to whatever degree. It’s even encouraged in some communities.
Not that dog walking hasn’t existed, let alone by itself but rather if dog walking had occurred in the past it was part of far more useful activities like hunting and shepherding. Conversely speaking, some people (especially in the developed world) don’t walk their dogs because for them dogs are better off guarding the house.
In the like manner that historically dogs (and cats to some degree) would be usually allowed inside for a limited amount of time because nobody wants a lot of poop and urine. The poor owner would have to continually remove it or alternately seclude such pets elsewhere within the same household.
It could be me extrapolating from personal experience but it should also be noted that dog walking for pleasure’s new. Elsewhere, as it is in the past, dog walking’s part of a more useful activity and that one of the most conventional ways to keep a pet from pooping is to seclude them to some spot.
Not necessarily cruel as much as it’s practical and saves time too.
Both of them aren’t without their own problems, especially with the former in some cases where it becomes forced. (Semi-arranged marriages combine the best of both worlds.) I think remember some of the real problems with dating is that there are way too many choices, some of it’s not good in the long run.
Like I said, arranged marriage isn’t any better but the real issue regardless of it is the ability to adjust to a loving, lifelong relationship especially if monogamy’s the aim. You could be permitted to have more than one wife in polygamy. Not so much with monogamy where you’re going to be stuck with just one forever.
Hence the saying, till death do us apart. If you’re going to be in a lifelong relationship with somebody, you should work harder at it to maintain it longer. Otherwise with all the stonewalling, cheating, masturbating to porn and stuff, it practically makes being in a lifelong monogamous relationship redundant.
If you want it to last, work harder at it.
Like I said before, there are people who do marry wealthier spouses. There was a time when marrying wealthier wives wasn’t that unheard of, especially for those either seeking financial support or to increase their status. With the latter, the wealthy (often aristocratic) wife has an appeal similar to that of someone who’s either attractive or very exotic.
In the case with arranged marriages in city-states like Florence, beauty and/or exoticism was the bonus. The main one is that she’s expected to help her in-laws in some manner through her dowry or something. Jakob Fugger did it. So could Lorenzo de Medici. Even today among some African migrants in Europe, they marry local women for the sake of getting naturalised there and sometimes expect her to do economic favours.
(Though they’re not always successful, they could’ve given a good idea of what some historical marriages were like between different communities.)
Either that or for some, like with the Fuggers or Medici wealthier women were as much of a status symbol back then as hot women are now.
I actually come to regard the arts as being a bigger threat to religion, especially the Christian faith, than science is in some regards because of the former’s potential to be used for blasphemy and other unholy things. In fact far greater than that of science, which can be used to validate Biblical opinion (on dogs, homosexuality, promiscuity and relationship problems like avoidant attachment in relation to…masturbation).
With arts, once self-expression becomes prioritised the biggest consequences involve greater recklessness, carelessness and imprudence even if it can be accidental. I somehow suspected that it’s the arts, rather than the sciences, that benefited more (or earlier) from Laïcité or secularity. In that it makes it easier to express an opinion without being censored much by the Church.
Mind you, some of the most prominent scientists in history like Isaac Newton were also Christians and like I said, it might be ironically much easier to reconcile faith with science in matters like sexology, anthropology (in relation to witchcraft), biology (in relation to canine predation and zoonosis) and statistics.
Not that art isn’t without merit but not when it’s used to (unwittingly) insult the Christian faith. Hence why arts might be more dangerous than science will ever be to Christianity.
I recall others pointing out that the most popularly read comics aren’t necessarily always about superheroes (and arguably manga for another matter). If anything, for a long time that’d go to newspaper strips but because they’re also the most accessible next to comic books that can be easily found in bookstores (especially if they’re really cheap though both can go out of stock).
Many people get introduced to comics through newspapers and even if most of them don’t become lifelong comics readers, they can and do find cartoons by chance. Newspaper comic strips are practically the most normalfag comics around by sheer accessibility. You could even browse through them online like with GoComics and Salon.com at some point.
(Many newspapers and magazines either have online editions themselves or have gone online for good.)
On a personal note, I do remember being infatuated with the Animal Crackers strip and collecting it at some point.