From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Jul 04 1999 - 09:40:00 MDT
[The subject line is a good hook, yes? :-)]
> Julian Leviston (julian@tcp.net.au) said:
> For most of your life, you have conditioned yourself to "see" women in
> this way. It's possible to get out of it. Unfortunately, it takes just
> as much either time or cumulative effort as it took to get you into
> this situation. It's not as simple as flipping a switch, but it is
> simple. Hard work.
It isn't "self" conditioning. It is the result of a fundamental
genetic program that may be reinforced in some environments by
cultural conditioning. You can't "get out of it" without fundamentally
altering your genetic program. All you can do is suppress it
or channel it.
"The Red Queen" goes into some detail about how sexual strategies
are (genetically) determined by the different amounts of investment
that men and women have to place into reproduction.
A society where men do not view women as "doable" (or where
women are not appraising men for their resources) is inherently
"unnatural". [Yes, you could argue that our societies as a whole
are entirely "unnatural", but I would argue that we want to
move toward societies with the maximum amount of "natural",
*self*-determined diversity, while providing the highest probability
for long-term survival.] If an individual has a need (thirst, hunger,
sex, etc.), what could be more natural than fullfilling that need?!
We (esp. in America) have a religo-cultural facade applied on top of
our genetic agendas. The entire "Western" perspective about sex has
been hugely distorted by our history.
Prostitution, for example, is an age-old outlet for that "horrible"
male sex drive. Legal prostitution does not seem to be a bad thing,
*if* as one magazine I recently browsed, pointed out, "women enjoy sex".
[I realize that this is true to greater or lesser degrees depending
on one's genetic and cultural inheritance; it certainly is not true
in those regions where female castration is practiced.]
If I were a woman who *really* enjoyed sex, and one could find
"safe" environments (like old style brothels), I think it would
be difficult to find a better job than being a prostitute.
[Now of course, women have a mixed agenda, because while
they enjoy sex, they too are driven to reproduce -- so,
if we are going to remove a man's sex drive, shouldn't
we remove a woman's sex/reproductive drive as well?
I suspect the only women who might express thoughts
similar to my own (re: prostitution as a profession) would
be those who have reproduced sufficiently, or who never
intend to or are unable to reproduce.]
Our (Western) cultural attitude towards something like prostitution
is as distorted as it is say towards sex "accessories" (now banned
from sale in the state of Georgia...). What will we collectively
"think", when the really life-like "dolls" being developed by the
Germans and Japanese become available? Can we ever get to the
point where we view releasing sexual tension as "normal" as
scratching or sneezing? Will Japanese style domination and
torture of young girls be illegal in VR environments in America
or Europe?
Prostitution was never viewed negatively until Columbus brought
back syphillis from America. It spread across Europe through the
liasons of the royalty and the military camp followers. As
the epidemic spread, prostitution became an unsafe profession
and the town fathers that had organized the public baths
and/or bordellos (as outlets for the youthful male sex drive) were
forced to close them down. This led to the rise of the middle
class and the emphasis on the "good" (faithful) wife or husband
we currently have in our culture. This perspective was promoted
by the religious community as it gave them increased power
(by having the monopolies on relieving you of the sin of
infidelity or a really bad marriage).
[There is a good discussion of this in "The Fourth Horseman"]
The "demonization" of the "male sex drive" occured because
one thinks twice about freely pursuing "natural drives"
that will make your face fall off. Our perspective regarding
AIDS in current times pales in comparison to the attitudes
towards sex that historically resulted from the spread of syphillus.
If there were safe outlets for it, would you need to
"control" the male sex drive? Would you need to distort what is
genetically true (men and women have fundamentally different
genetic programs dictating sexual strategies), with a cultural
veneer that they are (or should be programmed to be) the same?
Most of us lack sufficient exposure to cultures that are
more "natural" such as some Asian or Polynesian cultures.
In some of those cultures, men and women have a heritage that
allows them to enjoy their respective genetic programs rather
than struggle to suppress them. It may be true that you
can only have this when children are viewed as the offspring
of the "community" and cared for by the entire community
rather than by an individual couple or extended family.
Question for the hard core libertarians -- would you be willing
to pay "taxes" for the community to support of your collective
offspring in exchange for complete sexual freedom? [I.e.
most women and men viewed each other as equally "doable".]
This is not to say that there are not "equal rights" problems
regarding the sexes. These arose from the physiological fact that
men compete for mates and strength wins in many cases. Because men
are the stronger sex, they can (and in many 3rd world cultures do)
dominate & control the women. This results in the women having little
education, wealth or power, and having to do most of the work to feed the
family. The Hunger Project, has over the last 10 years or so, realized
that the subjugation of women is a major factor in the remaining
pockets of hunger and starvation in the world and has taken many steps
to educate and empower women to solve this problem.
In the past, in Western societies, women were viewed as "property"
(like slaves). The crime of "rape" was not a crime against a woman,
but a crime against the woman's husband or father (for damaging their
property). Presumably some of the perceived property damage was the result
of a husband or husband's father, who might be leaving an inheritance, not
knowing if the child of a woman who was raped, did in fact carry their
genes. The need to protect ones property resulted in the enactment of
laws against rape and prostitution. The rape laws were initially to make
clear the procedures regarding property damage reimbursement and eventually,
as the "women as property" paradigm shifted, to provide strong deterrents.
The laws against prostitution were again property or "control" laws.
In many cultures/historical situations, daughters have/had a negative
market value (you had to pay a dowry to unload them). Presumably the
market value increases (becomes less negative or even positive) in
inverse relation to the availability of women who are inexpensively
"doable". A young man who can't get it elsewhere will demand less
(or persuade is father to demand less) to get some... Fathers or
husbands also have less control over women who are free to pursue
the "oldest profession".
So we have a situation where many of our attitudes regarding a natural
genetic program are being dictated by quirks of history and/or male
desires to protect his property values or "control" his women!
The problem in the U.S., perhaps due to some feminist extremists,
is that the just desire women have for equality, has evolved into a
form of discrimination against men. Men "naturally" view women
as "doable". To demand other than this is no different from demanding
that an individual with a genetic quality (I'm intentionally not
using the word "defect"), such as deafness "hear" or blindness "see".
The desire or demand that men give up there genetically programmed
perspective, or educate themselves or their children to be less "male",
would be the same as demanding that deaf individuals must "hear" or that
they must bear non-deaf children! Such attitudes disrespect the
qualities of an individual and stigmatize and minimize diversity.
The problem is that all of the cultural history, laws, desires, etc.
have been (or will be) invalidated by the march of technology.
(a) Vaccinations or genetic reprogramming will significantly
reduce the risks from contagious dieseases (even AIDS).
(b) Developed and developing methods of birth control
(for males as well as females) can eliminate the problem
of undesired children.
(c) Genetic tests can determine with 100% certainty, the paternity
of a child. In non-communal societies (with appropriate
legal systems), these tests can be used to create and enforce
the financial responsibility for the support of a child.
So most of our current behaviors, cultural attutides and laws
are or will be inappropriate for the current/near future situation.
- Should we legalize prostitution and provide government managed
brothels to create an outlet for that "horrible" male sex drive?
[This might be one way to reduce the tax burden...!]
[I'm aware that in many countries where this message may be read,
prostitution is in fact legal and in some cases unionized. My
focus is on stimulating thought in other jurisdictions.]
A question (for the female readers only) -- (given a, b & c above)
would you "do" a man that you weren't particularly attracted to
but who was rated 7-10 as a sex partner by an independent panel
and who had a "biocompatible" immune system for the phase your
hormone cycle was in at the time you were in the man's proximity?
[We know the male answer, so there is no point in responding... :-)]
The Japanese already have a personal digital assistant/bot-variant
that broadcasts & receives self-qualities & desires and provides
notification of proximity matches for those nites out on the town.
It seems someone is missing a business opportunity for providing
the "independent review" combined with the MHC (immune system)
genotyping. The development of such a database might begin to
"normalize" the "doability" desire between the sexes.
- Should we require (by law) vaccinations against STDs (when they
become available)?
[There is a balance between the risk you present to society
as an unvaccinated potential carrier vs. the minimal costs/risks
(small but finite) that vaccines may pose to you as an individual.]
We are approaching the carrying capacity of the planet (w/o
nanotech) [and and will eventually approach the carrying capacity
of the solar system]. Unfettered reproduction reduces the resources
available to us all and/or reduces our quality of life by secondary
effects when we as indivduals don't pay for damage we cause (such as
global warming caused by fossil fuel consumption).
Increases in human longevity will make these problems much worse.
So ---
- Is reproduction a "fundamental inalienable right" or should it
be a privilege?
- Should we require (mandatory by law) 100% effective birth control
at the onset of puberty?
- What should be the criteria for the reversal of a mandatory
non-reproductive status?
Possible options:
(a) Sufficient resources to raise children in an "optimal" environment?
(b) Demonstration of the possession, by natural genetic heritage or
paid-for engineering, of a genetic program "guaranteed" to produce
children that will not be a burden or detriment to society?
(c) Purchase of the right to have a child (even a defective one?) when
a slot becomes available due to an accidental death or upload?
- Should there be a market for "reproduction" slots?
- Since we have clearly limited resources, should the "privilege"
of reproduction, require a legal "commitment" to die or be
uploaded (into a more efficient space/energy form)?
- Or do we pre-empt the reproduction debate by the requirement
that access to treatments that extend longevity beyond 120
years (or uploading) require a commitment for "self-compression"
when material/energy resources become a limited?
[It is worth noting, that the discussion of "reproduction" would also
apply in uploaded form to the number of backup copies or "save states"
you can make while consciously testing a self-evolution path.]
- And finally, if we do develop the ability to "control the sex
drive" by drugs or genetic modifications, who gets to decide
the people who should be "treated"? Does one want to give the
legal system this power?
[America historically has had an history of flip-flopping on whether
judges could dictate "personality/permanent-physical-alterations" to
individuals who break the laws.]
Food for thought,
Robert Bradbury
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:23 MST