[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?
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.
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.
[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... :-)]
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?
[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.]
[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