The following letter was e-mailed to me, in response to
my essay "GOD, GREED & EVE: A Personal Revelation"
which I had posted to numerous Usenet newsgroups. (I
changed his name to a fictitious one.) I replied with a
rebuttal, which follows his letter herein.
===Begin letter from Jerrold=======================
From: Jerrold R. Wazinskie
To: Truth Speaker
Subject: About your research
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:51:11 -0600
I am a former Clinical Psychologist studying now toward
degrees (after I hope a short hiatus to get several business
ventures underway) in Forensic and Cultural Anthropologies. I
think your best bet is to get on the Anthro-L list or at least
post to it via someone on it.
Current Details on this and how to contact a network of
Anthrolopogists (sorry I am working at a backup computer and
have no ready access to my notes and had to drop off the list
because of time limitations but it used to be at
ANTHRO-L@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU -- "help" in the body and the
subject should get info from a e-message)
on the WWW try:
www.nhm.ac.uk/paleonet/Places.Html
http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/afaq.html or
http://www.nitehawk.com/alleycat/anth-faq.html
http://library.adelaide.edu.au/info/socsci/anthro/ANTHROP.html
=====================================
This is a subject as a bi-sexual behavioral scientist I have
quite an interest in though haven't had the opportunity to
study it as much as I like. I will try to dig out some of my
research material but since I am in the middle of moving into
a new office...
For the hell of it here are my comments on what you wrote:
>I am also looking for some specific answers. I have been
>reading a great deal in this area and began, as would most,
>assuming that homosexuality was abnormal and unnatural, and
>that heterosexuality was normal and natural. I have found
>that one cannot as an objective researcher measure
>homosexuality against a background of heterosexuality being
>normal.
If you started out with those assumptions I must point out
then you should not consider yourself truly "an objective
researcher." Sorry but one does NOT assume before checking the
data!
And even this latest assumption is somewhat questionable.
>Furthermore, I have found that heterosexual bonds are of our
>own making, an invention that has little to do with
>male-female coition = which is procreational in the natural
>setting. In addition, homosexual bonds are also of our own
>making = which is recreational in the natural setting.
Then you are very wrong and a bit foolish.
"WE" do not invent our genetic traits not our instincts --
which we have. Nor our genetic traits. And our culture is just
as much both evolutionary and as much a part of what makes us
human as our thumbs and brain. They are not truly separable.
You have over-simplified to the point of error.
>Freud tells us that humans are born bisexual, and behaviorist
>tell us that culture determines sexual orientation one way or
>the other. From what I read of prehistoric humans and the
>animal kingdom in general, is that both are bisexual. This
>is not what I thought I would find, and since I am not the
>sort to try and make a theory fit to my hypothesis, there are
>some questions and answers with which I am having some
>difficulty. I wonder if you'd be so kind as to assist me
>here:
I don't know where you got those conclusions but i doubt you'd
find a lot of real agreement on these in the behavioral
sciences. Doesn't make them incorrect
I don't think Freud really thought we are naturally bi-sexual
(in fact the term is quite recent) but then I ain't no
Freudist either, he did think there were male and female
elements in both male and females. Freud, if memory serves,
believed is a biogenetic (evolutionary more or less) principle
with regards to both ontogenetic (pre-birth) and physiological
psychosexual development. he did think that Eros was (at first
-- until he discovered Death/Thantos) the primal force in both
males and females but regarding that as meaning he though
humans "in a state of nature" (absurd as that is really) are
bi-sexual?
Got a source on that one? I find it unlikely I am sorry to
have to say.
You have also lumped together quite variant genetic and social
factors I am afraid.
What the behavioral scientist generally terms psychosexual
traits are the socially learned ones, but there is increasing
evidence of geneticly determinant behavior patterns - let us
call them for now "instincts" though that is not quite
correct. Some of these are those associated with the physical
aspects of the sexes -- menstruation for a prime example -- or
the basic sex act itself. (so Freud was basically right here)
Sex roles and sexual behavior however are influenced greatly
by the environment. This is not what a lot of homosexuals like
to hear but it is nevertheless true. What this means however
is not the "gender" that is determined by the society but how
that gender can manifest itself. Sometimes the "contrary"
gender is enough to overcome the forces pushing toward
conformity in a puritanic and polarized society -- so we
become gay or bi-sexual despite everything. Following
interesting Sturgeon's Law about 90% of everything being crap,
or 10% being strong enough to be different...
It has been OCCASIONALLY argued (see Kinsey and other
sexologists) that if humans are naturally bi-sexual in their
genetic makeup than the "femaleness" and "maleness" of the
individual is mostly cultural. But...
Only problem is that neither in primitive tribes, in fuller
ape studies or of the mammals we share so much else with do we
see this confirmed!
We certainly see a degree of homosexuality. We see, especially
among creatures of roughly similar size gender-wise like our
closest animal cousins, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo
(pygmy chimpanzee), we see even more homosexual activity --
but not enough to truly classify them as normally bi-sexual
(though often bi-curious). And close as we were are -- humans
are not chimps.
>1. I read nearly everywhere that the earliest prehistoric human
>males and females did not have any long term monogamous
>relationships. Is this true, and what evidence do we have
>for it - or - can we only draw such comparisons via primate
>studies ?
Then you haven't read far enough then. You cannot talk of just
the what we term now the nuclear marriage unit or just the
couple. Those early humans were interdependent families!
Clans. Tribes. You had more like a group marriage. Until power
became inheritable -- until the idea of a true elite took
hold, probably as a result of women creating agriculture
(Pandora's original box) but also earlier to some extent as a
result of the extensive trade of surplus articles between
groups going back it look like at least a million years -- so
we could have something like wealth -- then kinship was a moot
point. Incest was common. And the species suffered millions of
years as a result. But slowly enough humans were finally
available to trade members back and forth between tribes --
with both sides benefiting. Societies then developed.
The very idea of marriage depended upon separation of the
tribe into segments.
As one anthropologist put it -- humans are both naturally
monogamous (in the sense they stay together in small units --
two being the minimum -- to raise the kids) and ready to swap
partners without even waiting for the hat to drop. Infidelity
actually having a benefit in the time before parentage could
be determined or chosen from a list of sperm samples anyway.
Females seem to instinctively have the hots for the most
powerful male -- or at least one with the biological triggers
(like hard asses or lots of wealth) that triggers that
reaction. (And males go for those with good broad hips and
lots of milk) If she is married to the Best One Around --
great. But the other wives and free-women want him to father
their brats too -- and males too have an inner need to wander.
Genetically this is all for the better.
Sex and affection and the tribal-herd instinct keep families
going to raise the offspring, while plenty of
cross-fertilization due to bed-jumping insures a healthy
gene-pool.
Millions of years of genetic conditioning -- and the shaping
of human cultures -- insures this basic pattern.
From what evidence we have from our earliest history and from
paleontology basically tribes then became super-tribes and the
division of labor created what we call now marriage. And those
marriages seem to have been mostly long-term! Ditto earlier
mates in the family unit tended to pair off for life -- which
you must remember rarely was past 20-25 before the Iron Age.
of course those earlier matings took place within the
family-tribe unit. The "village" raised the children so there
seemed much less fuss about sleeping around -- assuming it
wasn't actively encouraged (genetically this was necessary for
small groups and customs developed as a result). Still there
is good evidence there were early on life-matings and there
was what we could term love. Besides humans have been about
the same critter for 100,000 to a million years. Why assume
early humans were so very different? That is just as
unwarranted an assumption as the contrary --if not more so!
>2. So far, I found only two authors disagree with the above
>statement, however I cannot find their names. Can you recall
>who they might be?
There are far more than two you will find. There are hundreds
of people studying in this field to some extent! I suggest you
keep better notes.
>3. As you know Clifford Jolly felt prehistoric males and
>females "lived apart for countless thousands of years" until
>the invention of tools, where the male hunter exchanged meat
>for the grubs/vegetables gathered by women folk. I find that
>most disagree with Jolly, but I cannot pinpoint why - do you
>know why ?
Well Jolly is not exactly considered the Einstein of
behavioral sciences you should already know. (Check out the
archives of the Anthro-L list for some rather rude comments on
him) mainly because the evidence doesn't really support him --
to answer your question. While the family-tribe certainly had
divisions of labor -- the women doing MOSTLY the gathering and
rearing and the males the hunting this was only a general
pattern at best. Old men as well as older children male and
female helped gather and rear, and some women hunted! And the
idea that ALL tribes were divided into two separate camps that
only came together when the men had enough wampum to get some
tail is rather silly and doesn't fit what we really do know
about human behavior. Unless you live in Vegas maybe...
Jolly is considered frankly a bit of a crack-pot -- but a
useful one as he makes you double-check your assumptions.
>4. Is the economic relationship model (as above) valid, and
>why/why not ?
I have I think given you a partial answer for that -- besides
economics is 99% presumptions and 1% facts -- a clumsy tool at
best. Basic needs really do not include the accumulation of
wealth which is the main pattern of economic thought after
all.
General needs include: achievement, cooperation, aggression,
autonomy, counteraction, curiosity, dependence, deference,
dominance, avoidance, nurturing, order, play, sentience, sex,
understanding, and many more -- like with the false assumption
of a General Intelligence the reality does not support it!
Nor too simplistic assumptions like Jolly's or the
neo-Marxists, or proto-Capitalists trying to make humans just
economic units. Bah humbug.
People are complex, their real needs and perceived needs
differ and vary from day to day -- hour to hour. From place to
place and time to time.
>5. What is the most valid model for prehistoric male-female
>relationships, and briefly what does it say ?
As I pointed out -- that is a question that requires taking
the actual relationship totally out of context -- you have
over-reduced.
The arly males and females formed family groups (we know this
from studying their middens and camps and so forth) in which
the tasks were both shared and divided among themselves,
depending.... On circumstances.
Generally the males did the hunting or fishing or such, and
generally the females gather the roots and berries and yams,
but neither role was until the development of what we call
"civilization" hard and fast categories. Males dug the deeper
roots, females hunted birds and hares and fished also, both
helped raise -- as did the entire group -- the children who
also helped out from as soon as they could. Pairs often did
form lasting relationships -- even exclusive ones (unless the
customs of the group bid otherwise). Both tribes also traded
both articles and men and women among themselves. They also
got together and partied hardy from the remains in a some
caves and sites and from tribal behavior in recorded times.
And who was the father? Who knew?
And most I suspect really did not care as long as it lived!
Most kids -- please always remember -- did not. Marriage and
monogamy are a luxuries for a tribal group on the edge of
constant starvation, disease, or eaten by bigger predators! And
later by neighboring tribes...
>6. Since methods of contraception were invented much later
>(herbs etc.), if women were pregnant and child-rearing most of
>the time (one assumes they would have been if contraception
>was not available at the outset), then how would males have
>further expressed their sexual appetite ? Is this possibly
>why homosexuality occurs ? Or am I thinking too narrowly,
>maybe without social indoctrination, males and females would
>have engaged in all form of sex (much as the bonobo chimps
>do). What do you know ?
They had the word NO even back then. And a kick in the nuts
cools a male off REAL fast.
And while the woman was nursing -- and they tend to nurse
quite awhile in many "primitive" tribes -- there was no
conception generally. Plus most babies were stillborn or died
before two -- very few making it past five. That is why many
naming ceremonies wanted till then or even 11-13!
The wholesale sexual fun and games reported among the pygmy
chimps has been called into question -- especially as it
applies to early humans who lived most of their lives under
far harsher environments. Now when they did have the chance to
have a good orgy they probably stuck it in or licked or
whatever whatever they could grab.
But as a general rule? In some ways the chimps are still stuck
in Eden. Or a bath-house...
>7. Have you read up on any reasons why homosexuality occured
>in prehistoric times ? This is assuming that homosexuality is
>a minority behavior - it might not have been.
Odd question? Why not IF it occured -- and there seems no good
reason to think it did not -- is there? I don't know of any.
And it probably WAS a minority activity simply because the
very survival of the clan depended upon LOTS of kids so a few
could survive to carry on! But then men were often together
without women (or only a few at best -- and if hunters
themselves probably capable of resisting advances). And women
to had their groups. When religion came in this became even
more ritualized and exclusionary.
It's been a long day. You've smoked (pipes have been found in
Ice Age caves) or drunk (they keep pushing the invention of
beer back and back) or eaten yourself into a state of bliss.
You huddle, for warmth (yeah sure), with a GOOD friend and
probably cousin under the bearskin before a crackling fire.
You are probably no more than 15-16 years old. You get horny.
You KNOW your cousin is hot to trot too...
But then go home to your mate.
>8. Has any research yielded much to say that males are more
>attracted to females than males in the prehistoric
>non-indoctrinal setting ? Or could the attraction have been
>equal ?
How would such research be done I wonder with regards to an
actual "non-indoctrinal" environment?
But what has been done, within the realistic limitations,
suggest quite strongly that yes -- MOST males are generally
more attracted to females. Females mostly to men. Not all. But
the general majority. It also suggests that most males are
generally somewhat attracted to other males and females
(perhaps a tad more so) to females. There are no pigeon holes
in human behavior.
>9. What else can you possibly tell me about human sexuality
>that would agree with the bisexual hypothesis, or am I barking
>up the wrong tree?
I think you might be unless you broaden your presumptions and
perspectives here. And your definitions.
IMHO females are very much more likely to be comfortable in a
homosexual relationship if the societal pressure against it
were not so great. In fact I might even go so far as to say
females are more bisexual in general nature than the male --
but I think this is part of the more pragmatic nature of the
female psyche.
And there more flexible nature gender-role wise. There is
evidence of sexual differences in rigidity of personality too.
men are less capable of dealing with contradictions -- they
like things nicely ordered. Black and White.
Women see the grays.
I will also say that to some extent males and females ARE
bisexual in that they can change there sexual roles to fit the
environment. Like men and women in prisons forming (sometimes
quite affectionate) homosexual relationships that they abandon
instantly upon release. Old time sailors and nuns and others
in single-sex environments did much the same.
"Any port in a storm" as us ex-swabbies would say...
But under the more "normal" circumstances of a family-oriented
grouping or society homosexuality will remain a minority
activity. This is partly a result of greater sexual equality
-- but I'll let you figure that one out (but a hint -- check
out the ACTUAL sex practices in Helenistic and Roman
society)...
Jerrold R. Wazinskie Ph.D.
President/CEO
===End letter from Jerrold=======================
===Begin my reply=======================
Hi Jerrold
Nice to meet you. We must talk more. I address the issues
below where I can.
---"Jerrold R. Wazinskie" wrote:
>
> I am a former Clinical Psychologist studying now toward
> degrees (after I hope a short hiatus to get several
> business ventures underway) in Forensic and Cultural
> Anthropologies. I think your best bet is to get on the
> Anthro-L list or at least post to it via someone on it.
> Current Details on this and how to contact a network of
> Anthrolopogists (sorry I am working at a backup computer
> and have no ready access to my notes and had to drop off
> the list because of time limitations but it used to be at
> ANTHRO-L@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO. EDU -- "help" in the body and
> the subject should get info from a e-message)
>
> on the WWW try:
> www.nhm.ac.uk/paleonet/Places.Html
> http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/afaq.html or
> http://www.nitehawk.com/alleycat/anth-faq.html
> http://library.adelaide.edu.au/info/socsci/anthro/ANTHROP.html
> =====================================
>
>
> This is a subject as a bi-sexual behavioral scientist I
> have quite an interest in though haven't had the
> opportunity to study it as much as I like. I will try to
> dig out some of my research material but since I am in
> the middle of moving into a new office...
It will be nice to exchange ideas as you seem most
knowledgeable.
> For the hell of it here are my comments on what you wrote:
> >I am also looking for some specific answers. I have been
> >reading a great deal in this area and began, as would most,
> >assuming that homosexuality was abnormal and unnatural, and
> >that heterosexuality was normal and natural. I have found
> >that one cannot as an objective researcher measure
> >homosexuality against a background of heterosexuality being
> >normal.
> If you started out with those assumptions I must point
> out then you should not consider yourself truly "an
> objective researcher." Sorry but one does NOT assume
> before checking the data!
I did check and objective science categorically states that
heterosexuality is by no means natural. Male-female coition
is natural but beyond that any male-female relationship which
contrives to make the sex act natural for recreational
purposes is barking up the wrong tree. And condoms are not
found on trees. They are unnatural devices as is the pill,
herbs or any other 'cultural' invention made to divert or
control nature. Male-female penetrative sex leads to
procreation, but when it is used for recreation (where
contraception would have to be used) it cannot be said to be
in any manner natural by any stretch of the imagination. No
amount of theory would be able to deny such logic.
> And even this latest assumption is somewhat questionable.
> >Furthermore, I have found that heterosexual bonds are of
> >our own making, an invention that has little to do with
> >male-female coition = which is procreational in the natural
> >setting. In addition, homosexual bonds are also of our
> >own making = which is recreational in the natural setting.
> Then you are very wrong and a bit foolish.
As a Clinical Psychologist you would know Margaret Meads work,
who said "Rigid heterosexuality is a perversion". Also
socio-biologist Vern Bullough stated "If males and females
were 'made' for each other, then they would have been 'made'
more alike, both biologically and psychologically."
You would understand the biological part especially the
recreational sex problem. As a psychologist you would know
the psychological problems, one major differences being that
males are INNATELY numerico-spacial and that women are
INNATELY verbal. These are not learned culturally and nor
can they be changed that much.
> "WE" do not invent our genetic traits not our
> instincts -- which we have. Nor our genetic traits. And
> our culture is just as much both evolutionary and as much
> a part of what makes us human as our thumbs and brain.
> They are not truly separable.
I don't get the first line here, but I agree that culture is
evolutionary. I am saying that no matter what we invent
(culture) that males and females were 'made' to procreate, but
that's it. Nature simply does not care that they cannot
recreate naturally or that they are so different (bio and
psycho - logically). Read Richard Dawkins "River Out Of
Eden". 'DNA just is, and we dance to its music ... as long
as DNA survives !' (quote verbatim)
> You have over-simplified to the point of error.
The saying goes that it takes a fool to complicate things and
a genius to make it simple. I am not saying you are a fool
... you are not. But for how long must you and I suffer the
foolish scientists who have constructed evolution to suit
their heterosexual ideals. There is overwhelming evidence
that males and are as insatiably attracted to females
NATURALLY. Indeed in tribes like the SIWANS men will fight and
kill for a boy rather than a female ... and at any cost ...
and they are totally homosexual in their bonding - Not
heterosexually, but they do perform male-female coition when
necessary. Just as the animals have their matings seasons
... which as also SHORT!
> >Freud tells us that humans are born bisexual, and behaviorist
> >tell us that culture determines sexual orientation one way
> >or the other. From what I read of prehistoric humans and
> >the animal kingdom in general, is that both are bisexual.
> >This is not what I thought I would find, and since I am not
> >the sort to try and make a theory fit to my hypothesis,
> >there are some questions and answers with which I am having
> >some difficulty. I wonder if you'd be so kind as to
> >assist me here:
> I don't know where you got those conclusions but i doubt
> you'd find a lot of real agreement on these in the
> behavioral sciences. Doesn't make them incorrect
I get them from comparing one discipline against another to
sort out the untruths that certain scientists put forth. If
primal myth, archeology and primate studies start finding
points of commonality, by Occam's razor we a sure to find
better truth.
> I don't think Freud really thought we are naturally bi-
> sexual (in fact the term is quite recent) but then I ain't
> no Freudist either, he did think there were male and
> female elements in both male and females. Freud, if
> memory serves, believed is a biogenetic (evolutionary
> more or less) principle with regards to both ontogenetic
> (pre-birth) and physiological psychosexual development. he
> did think that Eros was (at first -- until he discovered
> Death/Thantos) the primal force in both males and females
> but regarding that as meaning he though humans "in a
> state of nature" (absurd as that is really) are bi-sexual?
Got a source on that one? I find it unlikely I am sorry to
have to say.
Freud not only said this, but so did his disciple Stekel.
Moreover Freud said "All men are repressed, latent or overt
homosexuals". He also covered up the real and innate desires
underlying thumb-sucking (phallus), anal movements (prostate)
and worship of the phallus by BOTH males and females. And
these are innate desires.
> You have also lumped together quite variant genetic and
> social factors I am afraid.
I must do so for the layman, and indeed since my study is
comparative. There is also a grey area between genetic and
social factors, but I do try to separate them when I can. When
I have proof then I say that something is innate e.g.: infant
studies show males are INNATELY numerico-spacial, females are
verbal - which proves that later socialization has nothing to
do with these psychological differences.
> What the behavioral scientist generally terms
> psychosexual traits are the socially learned ones, but
> there is increasing evidence of genetically determinant
> behavior patterns - let us call them for now "instincts"
> though that is not quite correct. Some of these are those
> associated with the physical aspects of the sexes --
> menstruation for a prime example -- or the basic sex act
> itself. (so Freud was basically right here)
No scientist would say there is a sexual instinct to guide
male to female ... or male to male for that matter. What
'instinct' there may be is what is called a 'reflex' which
certain fish have in their mating dances. However we must
remember that even in the mating season when male-female
coition is desired, the smell or other signals will also
trigger homosexuality.
Sexual behavior is learned, and each society will determine
through its laws which sexual orientation is desired. In the
Siwans one would hardly say that a gay gene was present, or
some 'instinct' to make the whole tribe gay. And so
vice-versa with heterosexuality.
However, two things we do know are that when males and females
get together they have enormous difficulties which is why as
Dr C A Tripp says, we find the 'eternal male bond' and 'the
eternal charges against women'. Again we see Bullough's bio
and psycho differences echoed and confirmed here.
> Sex roles and sexual behavior however are influenced
> greatly by the environment. This is not what a lot of
> homosexuals like to hear but it is nevertheless true.
I fully agree ...
> What this means however is not the "gender" that is
> determined by the society but how that gender can
> manifest itself. Sometimes the "contrary" gender is
> enough to overcome the forces pushing toward conformity
> in a puritanic and polarized society -- so we become gay
> or bi-sexual despite everything. Following interesting
> Sturgeon's Law about 90% of everything being crap, or 10%
> being strong enough to be different...
Gender has nothing to do with hetero and homosexuality, so
let's drop that nonsense.
> It has been OCCASIONALLY argued (see Kinsey and other
> sexologists) that if humans are naturally bi-sexual in
> their genetic makeup than the "femaleness" and "maleness"
> of the individual is mostly cultural. But...
Such concoctions have been disproved recently where they found
that biological gender is for instance not at all influences
by genes/chromosomes or the like in some reptiles. Indeed
gender arise from temperature differences. Eggs closer to the
center of the 'nest' are male and those far out become female.
> Only problem is that neither in primitive tribes, in
> fuller ape studies or of the mammals we share so much
> else with do we see this confirmed!
Not at all so. And in those very few species that appeared
to mate for life monogamously, we now know quite differently.
DNA of the 'husband' at the time seldom matches the eggs in
the nest (birds) etc.
> We certainly see a degree of homosexuality. We see,
> especially among creatures of roughly similar size gender-
> wise like our closest animal cousins, the common
> chimpanzee and the bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee), we see even
> more homosexual activity -- but not enough to truly
> classify them as normally bi-sexual (though often bi-
> curious). And close as we were are -- humans are not chimps.
Not so. Bonobos have female-female bonding and the males all
stick together under protection of the mother. They engage
in as much, if not much more, homosexual than heterosexual
behavior.
While there is a different slant on what constitutes
homosexuality in standard chimps, there certainly is no
heterosexual pairings either. Even the rose-tinted spectacled
Allison Jolly had to admit that.
> >1. I read nearly everywhere that the earliest prehistoric
> >human males and females did not have any long term
> >monogamous relationships. Is this true, and what evidence
> >do we have for it - or - can we only draw such comparisons
> >via primate studies ?
> Then you haven't read far enough then. You cannot talk of
> just the what we term now the nuclear marriage unit or
> just the couple. Those early humans were interdependent
> families! Clans. Tribes. You had more like a group
> marriage. Until power became inheritable -- until the
> idea of a true elite took hold, probably as a result of
> women creating agriculture (Pandora's original box) but
> also earlier to some extent as a result of the extensive
> trade of surplus articles between groups going back it
> look like at least a million years -- so we could have
> something like wealth -- then kinship was a moot point.
> Incest was common. And the species suffered millions of
> years as a result. But slowly enough humans were finally
> available to trade members back and forth between
> tribes -- with both sides benefiting. Societies then
developed.
I understand the theories, however we don't have the evidence
and thus archeo-anthropologists cannot and will not say any
theory is accurate. As for fossil finds and other residuals we
also find ochre and polished obsidian (mirrors) which could
have been used by women to make them more attractive to men.
How silly we are to think humans would be different to their
ancestors the next evolutionary day we emerged from them.
Suddenly, on day one of human evolution form the primates
human males are all suddenly and only and insatiably attracted
to females ... and females with all their bio and psycho
problems. What a load of wishful thinking some scientists
employ ... what hogwash.
> The very idea of marriage depended upon separation of the
> tribe into segments.
And that was a social invention ... hardly anything to do with
nature and our ancestors. Marriage for purposes beyond the
noble too ... mainly greed in the end.
> As one anthropologist put it -- humans are both naturally
> monogamous (in the sense they stay together in small
> units -- two being the minimum
Wishful thinking, for primate don't show this pattern in any
general manner at all.
> -- to raise the kids) and ready to swap partners without
> even waiting for the hat to drop. Infidelity actually
> having a benefit in the time before parentage could be
> determined or chosen from a list of sperm samples anyway.
> Females seem to instinctively have the hots for the most
> powerful male -- or at least one with the biological
> triggers (like hard asses or lots of wealth) that
> triggers that reaction. (And males go for those with good
> broad hips and lots of milk) If she is married to the
> Best One Around -- great. But the other wives and free-
> women want him to father their brats too -- and males too
> have an inner need to wander. Genetically this is all for
the better.
Yes, all that makes sense. DNA wants to survives and see the
best genes win out in the offspring, but that does not explain
why male and female were so attracted to one another that they
stayed together eternally. For such to happen is against all
odds as I have shown above ... and recreation can never then
be said to be natural (as I said above).
> Sex and affection and the tribal-herd instinct keep
> families going to raise the offspring, while plenty of
> cross-fertilization due to bed-jumping insures a healthy
> gene-pool.
I agree with DNA wanting a healthy/diverse gene pool, but that
lends no credence to why male and female need to do anything
other than procreate.
> Millions of years of genetic conditioning -- and the
> shaping of human cultures -- insures this basic
> pattern.
That would not explain the Siwans and 48 of the other similar
tribes studied by Ford & Beech, for how would homosexuality be
the 'basic pattern' ?
> From what evidence we have from our earliest history and
> from paleontology basically tribes then became super-
> tribes and the division of labor created what we call now
> marriage. And those marriages seem to have been mostly
> long-term! Ditto earlier mates in the family unit tended
> to pair off for life -- which you must remember rarely
> was past 20-25 before the Iron Age. of course those
> earlier matings took place within the family-tribe unit.
> The "village" raised the children so there seemed much
> less fuss about sleeping around -- assuming it wasn't
> actively encouraged (genetically this was necessary for
> small groups and customs developed as a result). Still
> there is good evidence there were early on life-matings
> and there was what we could term love. Besides humans
> have been about the same critter for 100,000 to a million
> years. Why assume early humans were so very different?
> That is just as unwarranted an assumption as the
> contrary --if not more so!
Yes I agree with most of this, but again, heterosexuality was
invented, and moreover, against nature, for other purposes too
... greed, power etc.
> >2. So far, I found only two authors disagree with the above
> >statement, however I cannot find their names. Can you
> >recall who they might be?
> There are far more than two you will find. There are
> hundreds of people studying in this field to some extent!
> I suggest you keep better notes.
I lost them to another researcher. I keep excellent and
varied notes. You sound a bit off the cuff ???
> >3. As you know Clifford Jolly felt prehistoric males and
> >females "lived apart for countless thousands of years"
> >until the invention of tools, where the male hunter
> >exchanged meat for the grubs/vegetables gathered by women
> >folk. I find that most disagree with Jolly, but I cannot
> >pinpoint why - do you know why ?
> Well Jolly is not exactly considered the Einstein of
> behavioral sciences you should already know. (Check out
> the archives of the Anthro-L list for some rather rude
> comments on him) mainly because the evidence doesn't
> really support him -- to answer your question. While the
> family-tribe certainly had divisions of labor -- the
> women doing MOSTLY the gathering and rearing and the
> males the hunting this was only a general pattern at
> best. Old men as well as older children male and female
> helped gather and rear, and some women hunted! And the
> idea that ALL tribes were divided into two separate camps
> that only came together when the men had enough wampum to
> get some tail is rather silly and doesn't fit what we
> really do know about human behavior. Unless you live in
> Vegas maybe...Jolly is considered frankly a bit of a
> crack-pot -- but a useful one as he makes you double-
> check your assumptions.
Is this the biased heterosexual opinion or is there indeed
some truth in what Jolly says one wonders. Indeed, I could
agree males and females lived in a commune together, but why
would they have lived two by two as male and female,
especially if there were no laws to determine which sexual
PLEASURE they enjoyed ... and indeed especially since they did
NOT KNOW that coition led to baby-making (we still find
rituals around fires to make the women pregnant in some
primitive tribes) ... and especially considering the MALE BOND
and ETERNAL CHARGES AGAINST WOMEN ... and MOREOVER and most
important of all, especially since the PROSTATIC (male-male
only) orgasm is the highest pleasure known to humankind !!!!!!
> >4. Is the economic relationship model (as above) valid,
> >and why/why not ?
> I have I think given you a partial answer for that --
> besides economics is 99% presumptions and 1% facts -- a
> clumsy tool at best. Basic needs really do not include
> the accumulation of wealth which is the main pattern of
> economic thought after all.
The bonobos are challenging are aggression model, power-play
model and maybe even our socio-economic models
> General needs include: achievement, cooperation,
> aggression, autonomy, counteraction, curiosity,
> dependence, deference, dominance, avoidance, nurturing,
> order, play, sentience, sex, understanding, and many
> more -- like with the false assumption of a General
> Intelligence the reality does not support it!
But the most basic desire is SEXUAL PLEASURE and it will often
win out.
> Nor too simplistic assumptions like Jolly's or the neo-
> Marxists, or proto-Capitalists trying to make humans just
> economic units. Bah humbug.
I agree, but there may be quite some truth in what they say
... much of all things is based on human greed, most
especially heterosexuality and its propaganda
> People are complex, their real needs and perceived needs
> differ and vary from day to day -- hour to hour. From
> place to place and time to time.
Well, exactly ... so where is the hard and fast rule of
male-female insatiable and persistent desire
> >5. What is the most valid model for prehistoric male-female
> >relationships, and briefly what does it say ?
> As I pointed out -- that is a question that requires
> taking the actual relationship totally out of context --
> you have over-reduced.
One must if one is to cut the bullshit I'm afraid. I find
no-one answers that question as no-one I am sure knows what to
say. Their evidence is poor, based on biased viewpoints more
often than not, and ASSUMING that heterosexuality is some act
of nature. Indeed how many know the difference between
heterosexuality and male-female coition. And we call this the
world of academia ???
> The early males and females formed family groups (we know
> this from studying their middens and camps and so forth)
> in which the tasks were both shared and divided among
> themselves, depending.... On circumstances.
And still nothing shows the long-term monogamous relationships
some desire to see between male and female.
> Generally the males did the hunting or fishing or such,
> and generally the females gather the roots and berries
> and yams, but neither role was until the development of
> what we call "civilization" hard and fast categories.
> Males dug the deeper roots, females hunted birds and
> hares and fished also, both helped raise -- as did the
> entire group -- the children who also helped out from as
> soon as they could. Pairs often did form lasting
> relationships -- even exclusive ones (unless the customs
> of the group bid otherwise). Both tribes also traded both
> articles and men and women among themselves. They also
> got together and partied hardy from the remains in a some
> caves and sites and from tribal behavior in recorded
> times. And who was the father? Who knew?
I agree with the swapping of roles, though it is hard to
imagine a women running at super speed before the bra was
invented ... etc.. We must not forget that there are many
things males and female do not want to share due to different
interests (innate psychological differences). Are men
naturally attracted to babies. They certainly are not
verbalizers nor do they have bosoms ???
> And most I suspect really did not care as long as it
> lived! Most kids -- please always remember -- did not.
> Marriage and monogamy are a luxuries for a tribal group
> on the edge of constant starvation, disease, or eaten by
> bigger predators! And later by neighboring tribes...
The constant starvation and disease model is not as accurate
as it sounds it could be. One thing is for sure, they could
not OVERBREED and out eat their food sources. Any level of
the ecological cycle that over eats the next will cause
devastation. Was the balance thus due to homosexuality or
must we believe this disease model that magically seems to
select humans, but leaves the animals species relatively
unscathed ???
> >6. Since methods of contraception were invented much later (
> >herbs etc.), if women were pregnant and child-rearing most
> >of the time (one assumes they would have been if
> >contraception was not available at the outset), then how
> >would males have further expressed their sexual
> >appetite ? Is this possibly why homosexuality occurs ?
> >Or am I thinking too narrowly, maybe without social
> >indoctrination, males and females would have engaged in all
> >form of sex (much as the bonobo chimps do). What do you
> >know ?
Contraception is an unnatural/invention.
I know a great deal about bonobos. Check the web and type
just bonobo without the 's' first.
> They had the word NO even back then. And a kick in the
> nuts cools a male off REAL fast.
Why would a male kick another male if he could experience the
highest orgasm known (Prostate)
> And while the woman was nursing -- and they tend to nurse
> quite awhile in many "primitive" tribes -- there was no
> conception generally. Plus most babies were stillborn or
> died before two -- very few making it past five. That is
> why many naming ceremonies wanted till then or even 11-13!
Yes, this could have been so ... and again it is culture/
invention/unnatural.
> The wholesale sexual fun and games reported among the
> pygmy chimps called into question -- especially as it
> applies to early humans who lived most of their lives
> under far harsher environments. Now when they did have
> the chance to have a good orgy they probably stuck it in
> or licked or whatever whatever they could grab.
Many other animals show the same, and NO ANIMAL bonds
heterosexually in our HUMAN TERMS ... I can tell you much
about this.
> But as a general rule? In some ways the chimps are still
> stuck in Eden. Or a bath-house...
Standard and Bonobos are not at all the same. Standard are
aggressive, bonobos are peace-loving etc.
> >7. Have you read up on any reasons why homosexuality
> >occurred in prehistoric times ? This is assuming that
> >homosexuality is a minority behavior - it might not have
> >been.
> Odd question? Why not IF it occurred -- and there seems no
> good reason to think it did not -- is there? I don't know
> of any.
Screw the IF if you pardon the expression. Why wouldn't a
male without social prejudice and concocted laws NOT want
extremely pleasurable homo sex ???
> And it probably WAS a minority activity simply because
> the very survival of the clan depended upon LOTS of kids
> so a few could survive to carry on!
The most homosexual tribes have the highest fertility rates,
so that theory does not wash.
> But then men were often together without women (or only a
> few at best -- and if hunters themselves probably capable
> of resisting advances).
And where did the men spend their male excess and desires
(libido) ??? if there were no women ... not that I think women
were the ultimate desire by any means.
> And women to had their groups. When religion came in this
> became even more ritualized and exclusionary.
Indeed women's differences were excused as Eve being sinful.
We all know the role religion had in enforcing heterosexuality
for noxious purposes (greed, power, ego etc.)
> It's been a long day. You've smoked (pipes have been
> found in Ice Age caves) or drunk (they keep pushing the
> invention of beer back and back) or eaten yourself into a
> state of bliss. You huddle, for warmth (yeah sure), with
> a GOOD friend and probably cousin under the bearskin
> before a crackling fire. You are probably no more than 15-
> 16 years old. You get horny. You KNOW your cousin is hot
> to trot too...
> But then go home to your mate.
I don't think so. Not if you mean the mate is always the
opposite sex. The Siwans and the animals show a different
picture in too many instances. Humans being the most
different between the sexes of all species, biologically and
pscyhologically ....
> But what has been done, within the realistic limitations,
> suggest quite strongly that yes -- MOST males are
> generally more attracted to females. Females mostly to
> men. Not all. But the general majority. It also suggests
> that most males are generally somewhat attracted to other
> males and females (perhaps a tad more so) to females.
> There are no pigeon holes in human behavior.
We find males and female are more attracted to males than any
other situation, hence the MALE BOND and ETERNAL CHARGES
against women. Desire in the phallic and other psycho-sexual
stages show this too, hence why Freud told us not to become
FIXATED ... now really !!!
> IMHO females are very much more likely to be comfortable
> in a homosexual relationship if the societal pressure
> against it were not so great. In fact I might even go so
> far as to say females are more bisexual in general nature
> than the male -- but I think this is part of the more
> pragmatic nature of the female psyche.
How can one judge in a hetero-biased society. If males were
not socialized to deny their female traits, they would also
bond sexually with males more easily.
> And there more flexible nature gender-role wise. There is
> evidence of sexual differences in rigidity of personality
> too. men are less capable of dealing with
> contradictions -- they like things nicely ordered. Black
> and White.
> Women see the grays.
Men would too if they were hot made into half-beings by
denying their female traits
> I will also say that to some extent males and females ARE
> bisexual in that they can change there sexual roles to
> fit the environment. Like men and women in prisons
> forming (sometimes quite affectionate) homosexual
> relationships that they abandon instantly upon release.
> Old time sailors and nuns and others in single-sex
> environments did much the same.
Yes they return to what they KNOW in a hetero-biased society.
But what if the society was not so biased in socialization
> But under the more "normal" circumstances of a family-
> oriented grouping or society homosexuality will remain a
> minority activity.
But in nature it would be different. Check my site out and
we can talk some more. It is :
http://www2.fortunecity.com/village/birdcage/91/
Keep well
Truth Speaker
===End my reply=======================
If you have comments or suggestions, e-mail me at truthspeaker@gay-bible.org.