|
The truth about Sexual Monogamy
All stories on this web site are purely FICTIONAL. The people depicted within these stories only exist in someone's IMAGINATION. Any resemblence between anyone depicted in these stories and any real person, living or dead, is an incredible COINCIDENCE too bizarre to be believed. If you think that you or someone you know is depicted in one of these stories it's only because you're a twisted perverted little fucker who sees conspiracies and plots where none exist. You probably suspect that your own MOTHER had sex with ALIENS and COWS and stuff. Well, she didn't. It's all in your head. Now take your tranquilizers and RELAX.
{The following is reproduced from 'The Truth Seeker', Nov/Dec 1989
in the interest of public education. No copyright shows within the
publication, so it is assumed the information is meant to be
distributed as personal choice suggests. It is published by The
Truth Seeker Co., Inc., PO Box 2832, San Diego, CA 92112-2832.
Subscriptions are $20.00 a year US, single issue is evidently $4.00
The publication states it is a 'Freethinker's Publication Since 1873}
THE TRUTH ABOUT SEXUAL MONOGAMY
by James W. Prescott
The formal proposal by Dr. Debrah Anapol for THE POLYFIDELITIOUS
FAMILY which rejects sexual monogamy in human sexual relationships
and accepts multiple sexual relationshiops within a family of
committed, nuturing and loving relationships will, undoubtedly, be
a source of dismay and shock to many. The Orthadox/fundamentalist
monotheists will be the first to shout immorality and decadence -
only because we are now acknowledging and affirming woman's sexual
rights thta have always been denied by the patriachal male who has
claimed his polygynous nature as his natural and exclusive right.
Thus, historically, man has always claimed the right of sexual
access to many females but never could the female have sexual access
to mnay males - without being stoned to death (Deutronomy 22:13-21).
Why should it be "moral" for a man to have access to many females
(many wives) but "immoral" for a woman to have sexual access to
many males (many husbands)?
This basic sexual inequality between men and women where women
have been considered the "property" of the male has, in fact, been
a curse on humanity. It is one of the single most important factors
that has contributed toi sexual exploitation and violence against
women and children. Why is it that sexual exploitation and violence
against women and children is highest in those cultures (primitive
and modern) that are charcaterized by punishment of pre-marital and
extra-marital relationships? And conversely, why is it that those
cultures that permit premarital and extra-marital sex are peaceful
and non-violent cultures?
Specifically, in my study of primitive cultures, I found the
following statistically significant social-behavioral characteristics
of cultures that punished pre-marital and/or extra-marital sex;
1) slavery is present; 2) low female income; 3) personal crime is
high; 4) kin group is patrilineal; 5)wives are "purchased"; 6) Sex
disability is present; 7) intensity of sex anxiety is high;
8) castration anxiety is high; 9) bellicosity is extreme;
10) Military glory is strongly emphasized; 11) killing, torturing
and mutilation of enemy captured in warfare is high 12) a high god
is involved in human morality; and 13) supernaturals of the culture
are aggresive and violent.
The oppisite patterns of behavior were found to characterize
those cultures that accepted pre-marital and extra-marital sexuality.
For any objective observer of contemporary cultures, it is apparent
that the above patterns foound for primitive cultures also
characterize modern cultures. The greater the sexual restrictions
on the female the greater is the violence of that culture. Why?
And what are its implications for a major reconstruction of the
male-female sexual relationship, the family and children; and
society?
Before answering these questions it is important to note that
some of the above relationships have also been observed, in part,
in certain non-human primate species. For example, in those non-human
primate troops where the female freely mates with most or all the
males in the troop it has been found that the males are typically
protective of teh female and her offspring. The opposite pattern
is typically found in the harem organizaed trooops (one male
having exclusive sexual access and dominance over the females in
the troop). When the ALpha male is displaced by a new male in the
harem organized troop the new Alpha Male will typically kill the
nursing offspring sired by the previous Alpha male. Sociobiologists
interpet these events as evidence for the new male acting to promote
his 'genetic' fitness over the prior Alpha Male. I strongly oppose
this interpetation. A more plausible interpetation is the exercise
of dominance and power over the female which is accomplished by
the male mounting the female. This is not possible with a nursing
female, thus, the nursing infant is killed so that the female can
recycle, become sexually receptive and be mounted by the new Alpha
Male.
Dr. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an anthropoligist, University of Calif.,
Davis, who has studied these issues extensively in non-human
primates has made the following observations:
"To date, savanna baboons provide the best-documented example
of males drawn into the protection of particular infants through
their past (and in a few cases anticipated future) relationships
with the infant's mother. By mating with several different males,
females forge a network of alliance with males. Even though only
one male can be the biological father of the infant, several males
nevertheless often assist a female by "babysitting" or protecting
her infant, allowing the infant to forage close by, or moving to
pick up the infant should it be threatened by strange immigrant
males. In species living in particularly harsh or dangerous
environments, or where the costs of motherhood are particularly
high, as amoung barbary macaques or tamarins, females mating with
more than one male elicit far more than protection. Being Carried
about by males - typically males with whom the female had past
consort relations - is essential for infant survival.
By drawing several different males into the web of "possible
paternity", females may increase the likelihood of male protection
and even care. In addition, consortship with a male may decrease
the likelihood that he would attack infants subsequently born to
a female. Information on infanticide by adult males in some
fifteen different species of primates belonging to such diverse
genra as Presbytis, Colobus, Aloutta, Cercopithecus, Pan, Gorilla,
and Papio, make it clear that such attacks are most likely to
occur when males enter a breeding system from outside - that
is, when males find themselves in the company of mothers with
infants that could not possibly be their own."
There appear to be several different reasons why it would
behoove a female primate to spread the possibility of paternity
amoung several differnet candidates, any of whom might one day
be in the position to affect the survival of an infant either
by protecting or caring for it, or at least by not harming it.
Instead of the old Darwinian assumption that the object of the
female sexual signaling and solicitations is to mate with the
single "best" male, a new possibility is introduced: amoung
these primates, the female's goal is to mate with a range of
mates, regardless of which inseminates her>"
Other troops where the female freely copulates with most, if
not all, males include chimps, baboons, mangabeys and macaques
where in extreme cases (e.g. barbary macaques) "females change
partners eveyr ten minutes or so ans sometimes mate with as
many as three different males in six minutes." STrikingly, no
male violence against these multiplemale mating females has
ever been reported. The opposite is classically the case for the
human male primate who is typically violent against the
multiplemale mating female. Do we have something to learn from
these rather unique ancestors of ours which exhibit these rather
reliable patterns of behavior? The answer is a definate YES!
This writer could not be in more agreement with the above
observations of Dr. Hrdy for I have found precisely the same
relationships in human primitive cultures which I have summarized
above. Further, it is the variable of carrying the infant on the
body of the mother/caretaker in primitive cultures that is so
strongly predictive (80%) of peaceful and non-violent cultures
which includes lack of abuse of infants and children.
When the infant physical affectional variable was combined
with permitted pre-marital sexuality my prediction of peaceful
or violent cultures rose to 100% of the 49 cultures where this
information was available. Further, these cultures were
matrilineal where 78% of the nine cultures that also had
information on extramarital sexuality also permitted extramarital
sexuality.
Why is it that there is such an extraordinary correspondence
amoung multiplemale mating females in non-human and human primates
where these accepted multiple sexual relationships are associated
with care/nuturance of the young and non-violence against the
female?
The answer is to be found in sexual pleasure that is mutually
shared and the known relationships of brain function where
activation of the pleasure circuits of the brain inhibit the
activity of the violent circuits of the brain. As Dr. Hrdy points
out:
"Female orgasm is also not unique to humans. This peculiar
psychophysiological response, or else something very like it,
occurs in other primates; and many of those species where it is
best documented are definately not monogomous." ...and "First, the
common assumption that our ancestors were monogamous, living in
obligate pair bonds cemented by the unique sexual attributes found
amoung women is very likely wrong. The degree of sexual dimorphism
inolur species argues fore the existance of mildly polygynous
ancestors."
With respect to the evolution of the female orgasm and its
functional significance certain male anthropologists/biologists,
e.g. Dr. Donald Symons and Dr. Stephen J. Gould have dismissed the
female orgasm as "non-adaptive." They could not be in ggraver
error. WHich brings us to the heart and conclusion of this essay.
Human sexuality and sexual pleasure are at teh core of the
evolution of human spirituality which is a consequence of the
evolution of human consciosness and love. In my theoretical
treatment of this phenomena I have proposed a four stage process
of orgasmic state and/or love that corresponds with different
levels of brain integration or consciousness. These are summarized
in Table I which relates these four neuropsychological states of
pleasure (Relexive/Dissociative, Associative, Integrative;
Transcendental) with different stages of brain fuction/integration;
philosophical/moral status of the culture, and the spiritual state/
level of the individual.
Unfortunately space limitations do not permit a further
discussion of Table 1, however, it's study will illustrate the
complexity and extraordinary significanse of our sexuality where
"integrated" sexual pleasure is essential for peaceful, harmonious
relationships and the developement of our spiritual conscviousness
of love. Non-intergrated pleasure (Stage I) is not true pleasure
but apparent pleasure (tension reduction) and is the stage that
sexual exploitation and violence occur.
Before concluding, a word of caution is in order. As Dr. Hrdy
has stated : "Certainly I would not argue that promiscuity is
currently adaptive for women anywhere in the world." I have
mixed reactions to this statement. First the use of the term
"promiscuity" is always applied to the female (non-human and human)
and never to the male. It is time to eliminate this term which is
inherently pejorative and sexually discriminatory from our
scientific and literary language. Her basic message, unfortuneatly,
is correct. Women will still be punished and even killed by
violent males for the exercise of their sexual rights and natural
destiny.
The ultimate human spiritual-sexual state, however, can only
be realized when the human female (whose brain is uniquely designed
for the spiritual-sexual state) is completely free to express her
sexual love according to her own terms which means multiple
sexual relationships without fear of male reproach, control or
violence. For this to occur the developing brain of the infant/
child must be encoded and programmed with pleasure (affectional
bonding) for the neural circuits to develop to make possible the
spritual-sexual state later in life. Unfortunately, just the
opposite is happening in most human cultures of today where
infant/day care centers, e.g., provide little or no affectional
bonding with anybody.
If the human male was wise (which he is not) he would relaize
the significance of affectional bonding throughout life and that
he would be an extraordinary beneficiary of this new affectional-
sexual-spiritual path.
It is the path of the TAO or Tantric Buddhism with at least one
important exception. The TAO and Tantric Buddhism emphasizes the
male as the primary path for sexual-spiritual developement where
the female sexual energy is, in fact, being used and exploited
for the benefit of the male sexual-spiritual state. Contemporary
scientific findings from a variety of diosciplines (only partly
alluded to here) refute this male chauvinistic view of the human
sexual-spiritual developement.
Although, THE TAO and TANTRIC BUDDHISM represent the most
enlightened of the patriachal cultures, particularly, with respect
to human sexuality they are significantly limited because of their
subordination of women to men and their conceptual errors concerning
the truth of female spiritual-sexual energy. The extraordinary
insights of Wilhelm Reich is partially corrective of these errors,
e.g. "Sexually awakened women, affirmed and recognized as such,
would mean the complete collapse of the authoritarian ideiligy"
(See 'The Mass Psychology of Fascism' and 'The Function of The
Orgasm').
The correct view is that human sexual-spiritual developement
must follow the path of the feminine and that is why Teilhard de
Chardin stated : "Woman is, for man, teh symbol and personification
of all the fulfillments we look for from the universe...The feminine
is the most formidable of the forces of matter." (The Evolution
of Chastity).
REFERENCES:
de Chardin, Teilhard. The Evolution of Chastity. In: Toward The
Future (R. Hague, ed/Trans.) Harcourt, Brace-Jovanovich,
New York 1975.
Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. The Primate Origins of Human Sexuality. In:
The Evolution Of Sex (Robert Belig and George Stevens, eds)
pp. 101-136. Nobel Conference XXIII. Harper and Row Publishers.
San Francisco 1988.
Prescott, James W. Body Pleasure and The Origins of Violence.
The Futurist, April 1975.
Prescott, James W. Affectional Bonding for the Prevention of Violent
Behaviors: Neurobiological, Psychological and Religious/Spritual
Determinants. pp 109-142. In: Violent Behavior Vol. 1:
Assesment and Intervention. (L.J. Hertzberg, et al. eds). PMA
Publishing Corp. New York. 1990.
Reich, Wilhelm, The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, New York 1973.
Reich, Wilhelm, The Function of the Orgasm. Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
New York. 1942.
#30
|
|
