Many low-tier witches - Few hig-tier wizards setting

>>53882385

How would a medieval society be affected by that?
I mainly choose women as the ones having a lot of weak magicians because I think it fits better the archetype of the witch, who has a small, subtle magic but is also a wise woman with a lot of hidden knowledge.
And the flashy wizards tend to be men.
The idea is that maybe more than half of the women can do cantrips - very small spells like light up a fire without tools and many other things boosting their productivity in their tasks - but maybe 5-10% have enough magical knowledge to practice hedge magic, a more overtly supernatural but still subtle magic that can only use the laws of nature instead of ignoring or twisting them like the wizards do.
These 5-10% are the proper witches and they can also use boosted cantrips, meaning they are often fairly independants and self-reliant.

I guess it would empower women but not really change gender roles, men are still doing heavily intensive menial jobs that women are unable to do but they are not stuck with very low value menial jobs in top of raising children.
The Witches probably have their fair share of influence and power in society.

The Wizards are a lot more powerful and have not the limitations of even hedge magic but they are rare.
But I am not sure how rare or powerful they should be and it could be the difference between a magical elite and a few demigods.

I guess that maybe it spreads the idea that some men are just exeptionnal even if women as a whole have some powers most men will never have?

>>53882385
>Men have a complex but fragile spiritual organ
The dick? It's the dick right?

File: 1401150267653.gif (1MB, 640x325px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x325px

>>53882385
So it's like intelligence, where men occupy both extremes while women are merely average? Explain to me how low magic aptitude is evolutionarily favorable? Because low intelligence can be, given by the fact that criminality is simply an alternative reproductive strategy (think about it like this: what gets women soaking wet are either succesful psychopaths like Christian Grey, or gangster thugs. Your average high school English teacher is deemed boring).

>>53882402
The penis isn't really all that complex to the hormonal shitfest that is the female reproductive system. I also still really, REALLY want to kick a woman in the vagina, but I still haven't find a situation where I can do this and get away with it. I'm honestly wondering if I could pay a prostitute to let me cuntpunt her.

Have you made all of these 'what if women were less capable of magic' threads recently OP?

>>53882544
No but I was inspired by the ones talking about how magic didn't had to be the same for man and women in that magical realm thread but it's barely related.

>>53882402
Is there a less comical way to describe it?

>>53882563
You still attract autists like this >>53882441

>>53882441
I kinda want to make the invention of magic something emergent like some aspects of tool use or language that we didn't evolved "for" (rather many coincidences made them possible and most of the important we have are so recent we didn't changed at all)
So it probably comes from some random sexual dimorphism from a non-vital immaterial organ connected to the astral or something like that - maybe very intelligent animals connected to it are more mentally stable or have some spark of creativity helping them to survive- but there hasn't been any pressure towards making it robust or complex and neutral evolutionnary traits can be random. (and it has only been an advantage for the wizards when magic was discovered as their more complex organ make them more powerful, and later a disadvantage as now most humans are born with too much deformed spiritual organs for most males being able to have magic)
Magic was probably discovered only a few tens of thousands years ago so it's not like evolution had an influence on it.

>>53882591
>still
I already said I didn't made these threads.

>>53882573
The willy! The todger! The peanus weenus! The johnson! The micky!

>>53882573
Probably, but if the setting specifically describes it as an "organ" most players will immediately go for a dick joke.

>>53882735
How would you do it then?

>>53882735
Just make it even more obvious:
>men can charge their full magical power in a matter of moments, but once they blow it they're spent and won't charge at all for a while. The spent period increases with age, but herbal supplements can help.
>women have to work harder to charge at a slower rate, but once they hit peak they can just keep going over and over again with the right stimulus

Bad idea and all of these "men are better wizards" threads are started by beta cucks. But that describes most of this board.

>>53882848
>when you see memes everywhere
what the fuck is wrong with all you today?

File: 1373641956288[1].png (35KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 700x700px

>>53882847
https://books.google.nl/books?id=ucXNiBzGL2kC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=robert+kinsey+multiple+orgasm&source=bl&ots=YQp52QU6pA&sig=FP2ssE6X8GWVVH6DrfPPN8CUx84&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9soGSpMnUAhWFh7QKHbQoD4oQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=multiple&f=false
Page 56

https://books.google.nl/books?id=MpRnPtmdRVwC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=robert+kinsey+multiple+orgasm&source=bl&ots=KqGsgoL1Ad&sig=llV6guQHJkouDlZwo7GyAXLgNKU&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9soGSpMnUAhWFh7QKHbQoD4oQ6AEIUDAF#v=onepage&q=robert%20kinsey%20multiple%20orgasm&f=false

http://erectiledysfunctiontopic.blogspot.nl/2009/04/male-orgasm.html

According to Kinsey not only are men capable of multiple orgasm, but more men actually report attaining them than women. I don't get where the meme of only women being multi-orgasmic comes from, and all women being multi-orgasmic at that (I'm not going to say the f-word, but we're all thinking it).

>>53882914
It probably comes from people who have sex.

>>53882930
>You said something that goes against my beliefs about sex, you must be a virgin.

File: DB695C3F8CAB2A8F7DCF7DF7F3D6556944D01DA7[1].jpg (46KB, 288x358px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 288x358px

>>53882930
What is this even supposed to mean? Yes, to a non-multi-orgasmic man who has a lot of sex it appears as if women are exclusively capable of multiple orgasm, because from the male end he only has his own experience while from the female end he probably has about 10 experiences (of which statistically speaking 1 or 2 will be multi-orgasmic). But that's exactly why objective data is so important, because it supercedes personal anecdotes. Or are you upset and resorting to calling me a virgin because of that? There's absolutely nothing to be upset about.

>>53883009
You set it up too cleanly with your self-aware ackshually post m8. I've never had a multiple orgasm nor has any man that I know of, but if you have please share. I have experienced pushing through the refractory period but I don't find that very comfortable, and the subsequent orgasm is weak.

The intention behind the first post was humour and now I feel we're about to go through an /r9k/ bitchfest, which I'm so tired of, but let's see.

>>53883121
You are the one bringing up /r9k/.