By
Joshua
Michail
24
December, 2014
Why do we have such a problem with
“slut” shaming? Why are women expected to wait for someone to approach
them about sex? Why do all too many women expect a knight in shining
armor to rescue them from the ivory tower? Why do we feel guilty for
our sexual urges? There are many various attitudes toward the subject
of sex. Unfortunately, the more common ones are detrimental to
individual health and happiness. Of those, many are even a handicap to
society, and more importantly to the individual. As I had written in my
previous essay on this subject – Sex; Attitude and Greatness, back in
2012, a very large part of sex boils down to attitudes. The reality is
that sex is mostly mental, and only partly physical. Of course, that's
not to ignore, exactly, the physical part of it, without which sex
wouldn't be possible. But, even touching, kissing, etcetera are
stimulation of nerve endings, which send signals up the nervous system
to the brain, where the action is interpreted and understood. In that
way, even the physical is largely mental. My point here, however, is
about how we think of sex. We all have some expectations, some
preferences and desires, we even have beliefs outside of sex that
influence how we think of sex. More importantly, these attitudes and
beliefs all affect our enjoyment of sex.
Some
people might disagree with me about what I'm about to say, mostly the
religious, I'm sure. If there's anything that is universally true about
sex it's this – sex is natural and one of the most beautiful
experiences of life. In fact, we could say life is ultimately all about
sex, after all, most organisms struggle to survive long enough to
reproduce. It's almost as if that is it the point of life. Worse still,
for most organisms this struggle is paramount and not enjoyed, rather
it's only the fulfillment of an undeniable instinct. Sex is ultimately
an endless fight for survival. It is a fight, first for the organism,
to obtain a mating partner. This often leads to fights between two or
more competing animals, like rams locking horns to determine a winner.
Those rams are not just trying to win the battle, they're trying to win
the mating partner. This is part of the process of evolution. Nearly
everyone has heard of – and most people understand – natural selection,
the process in which as creatures evolve the traits that don't hinder
an animal's survival can be passed on to the next generation if it
reproduces. But, the male peacock's elaborate and beautiful tail
patterns, just like the ram's horns and ability to win the fight with
other rams, is sexual selection. In the process of sexual selection the
evolution is driven by development of traits that make an animal more
attractive to potential mating partners. The male peacock's tail
feather patterns serve no function to help it survive, but they do help
it obtain female peacocks to have sex with, and thus produce young
peacocks with his genetics. The ram's horns are not particularly useful
for his daily survival either, he doesn't use them to get food, and
most likely doesn't use those horns to defend against predators. The
ram's horns more-or-less only help it to win the fight for dominance
for the sole purpose of mating. Just a little aside – sexual selection
and natural selection are not mutually exclusive forces in the process
of evolution. I thought I'd add that point in case anyone did not
already know, we all know there are too many misconceptions out there.
But don't
think that evolution, or nature, is sexist because females often also
develop traits that help them obtain mates. Nature often favors in the
females greater ability to produce offspring or to provide for them.
So, while it may not seem as obvious when we look at the various
species, sexual selection does happen in females too. If a female can
produce numerous offspring the species is more likely to survive. If
the female can be more attached to her young, the species has a better
chance at being continued because the young have a better chance at
achieving sexual maturity thanks to mother's help is surviving to
adulthood. This means that female forms often have been selected by
males for what seems to be a greater ability to raise young to maturity
or produce more young. In human females, for example, broader hips are
instinctively perceived as a desirable trait. People have even
demonstrated an intuition regarding a woman's hip and sexual selection
when they say: “That woman has child-bearing hips!” Likewise, the
breasts of human women has evolved do to sexual selective pressures,
since the roundness of the buttocks has become less obvious and
constantly displayed when we began walking upright, the breasts began
becoming bigger and rounder and more noticeable. While the butt is
visible from behind, it's not visible from the front – where it happens
that the breasts are to be found. When males have a choice in mates, a
female with the traits that seem most desirable is most likely to get a
mate. While sexual selection is usually geared toward greater strength
and ability to survive in males, in females it's usually geared toward
greater ability to reproduce and care for the young. Either way, all
species select for the best chances that the species will long endure.
The
process of evolution has long been at work in humans, as well. And
sexual selection has also been a very potent influence on humanity,
even to this day. One example is the average size of the human penis.
Over a very long time, millions of years in the transitional species
from which humans evolved, and in humans for around one hundred fifty
thousand years, females have chosen to mate with males who had more
desirable penises. So, straight ladies, whatever your thought about
human penises you can thank, or blame, your ancient women ancestors.
But, males have also influenced the evolution of the female human body.
Broader hips have long psychologically suggested a greater ability to
birth children. Broad hips have long been seen by many ancient men as a
sign of fertility. It's true that breasts on women evolved in part
because the round rump, which is seen in many mammalian species as a
sort of sexual lure for males, are not as clearly visible when the
female is seen from the front because we walk upright, but there's
another possible not-mutually-exclusive reason. Larger breasts have
long been seen by our ancient male ancestors as a sign of a woman's
greater ability to nourish children. And, obviously, well-nourished
children have a greater chance of growing up to be healthy adults who
can pass the family genes on to another generation. Men have preferred
these features over such a long time that the average woman's body is
shaped as it is now. Psychology is a science that can help us better
understand sex, and not just in understanding how humans have evolved
due to sexual selection.
In all
these things about us humans, psychology explores us and explains us. A
few things follow here as an example. Women have long found a man's
wealth to be key factor in determining his attractiveness, though most
claim otherwise. It does make sense that historically there's been an
evolutionary reason for this. A partner who can provide for the
children will, naturally, mean children who will grow up healthier and
be able to continue the species. However, things have changed. Women in
many societies around the globe now work. And many of them are able to
provide for their children without relying on a man's wallet. The man's
wealth is becoming less valid as a factor for attraction. Likewise,
starting with the harvesting of milk from cows and sheep and continuing
with the invention of baby formula, a woman's breast size has been less
valid as a factor for determining a woman's attractiveness. The fact is
that we carry many legacies of our evolution in our current attitudes
about sex. Much of these attitudes are have outlived their usefulness
to the species. Of these outdated attitudes, some are harmless, but
some are really quite detrimental.
Puritanical views have long perverted and permeated American views on
sex, and to a lesser degree much of western views, as well. Pervasive
in western culture is the Christian view that sex is not beautiful, but
rather “sinful” and “dirty” – and much of this is true of Islam, as
well. The idea that sex is some kind of disgusting thing that should
only be done in the context of marriage is traditional among the most
conservative of people. Why should this be? Because, the archaic view
expressed by the early fathers of Christianity is that sex only exists
to cause there to be more Christian souls to go out and dominate the
globe. This is also true of most religions. Today religions continue to
dominate our culture with their self-serving beliefs about controlling
people, with unnecessary shame and guilt and fear. Now, one might think
that promoting promiscuous sex would have been more effective at
enlarging the ranks of the religious, but they had a reason against
that. They wanted to make sure that the children were ensured to be
members of the particular religion. If the children were born to unwed
parents the children could be taken to any church or any religion. It
served the religion's need to control its members and and to grow the
religion's numbers, but there was another reason for sex being limited
to marriage only. It actually mattered in terms of inheritance and
family lines. Such restrictions were meant to ensure that a man's
property would be inherited by his actual child rather than some other
man's child. With a marriage, there was a recognized social contract
between the man and woman involved, and it meant that there was a legal
setting for the estate distribution. Again, today these things are less
relevant. With the invention of DNA testing we can now conclusively
prove a child's parents, further a person can choose to leave his or
her estate to anyone or any group named in a legally-binding document
called a will. The religious reasoning is something that can't be
justified in the modern era.
Monogamy
is not natural, exactly. It's true that for the survival of our
species, since children require around 15 years to reach maturity
pair-bonding of the parents served this interest. We evolved to form
family units in which the father and mother cooperated to provide for
and protect the young. I say fifteen years, but that's arguable, give
or take a few years. The point is that it takes many years before a
young human would be able to survive without parents taking care of him
or her. Still, we evolved societies into which we live for all our
lives, and which continue the benefits we gained as a child from having
parents and family working together. But, at odds with this
pair-bonding trait we evolved is another evolutionary trait found in
both men and women. This is a trait that is so powerful that it's the
underlying force making marital infidelity actually a fairly common
occurrence. In males, of most species, the ability to spread the
genetic code to create as many offspring as possible has been a great
force in ensuring the survival of a species. Ours is no exception to
that fact. In females, particularly in humans, there evolved a tendency
to find a mate to bond with who can provide well, but to seek to
reproduce with other males who have more desirable physical traits. A
woman is predisposed biologically, by evolution, to settle down with
the man who has wealth, but to have affairs with men who seem to be
more fit and healthy. In either case, our species evolutionary legacy
is conflicted and neither trait is ethically better or worse than the
other. These just are the facts about our evolution and our nature. So,
this leads to a problem. How do we reconcile our enlightenment and our
nature to best suit ourselves? As long as we deny our nature we will
find ourselves less happy and healthy than we can and ought to be.
The fact
that there are women who want to silently suffer a mediocre experience
is saddening and ultimately self-destructive. The idea of putting up
with not getting the most out of sex because of not wanting to
disappoint will backfire. It's true that many younger people, with
their tremendous amounts of inexperience, are more prone to not
communicate properly, but they need to be encouraged to communicate.
Fundamentally, by trying to please one's partner by not offering
instruction and not communicating, one is building resentment and
frustration in oneself and one's partner. Also, when one discovers
one's partner has not been fully engaged it most certainly is a serious
disappointment and ruins the experience. By doing this, some women are
causing two people to become resentful of the woman in question,
herself and her partner. The notion of quietly accepting poor
performance needs to be put to an end. Though it may be true of some
men, it is almost exclusively, in this issue, women causing their own
problem. I believe this condition is largely due to archaic notions
that still afflict us. Even today, popular culture suggests women are
supposed to be submissive and to use sex as a tool instead of enjoying
it for their own pleasure. So many socializing forces, such as many
women's magazines and romance movies and fairy-tales still perpetuate
the destructive narrative and bad advice.
If women
try experimenting with themselves, and then have completely honest and
straightforward talks with their partners about what works for them,
then sex would likely be far more enjoyable for most. It seems that
many women have some kind of hang-up about both masturbating and about
communicating with their partners. That's not to say that there aren't
guys who don't listen, of course there are, but there's also no reason
for a woman to assume that sex can't be great, or better. Most guys
really do want to satisfy their partners, and no one is a mind-reader.
In fact, no one, of either gender, is a mind-reader. No one can know
things that are not told to them. And, it is unreasonable and
inexcusable to continue to behave as if it's fair to expect people to
be more than who and what they are. It's unjust to think that one's
partner should live up to and perform like the fantasies that have been
implanted by corporate interests like Hollywood and molded by corrupt
influences like the Puritan church of hundreds of years ago. I believe
it is high-time we as a species move into the modern era – we need to
evolve out of the stagnate cesspit of the out-dated misconceptions.
This is only going to happen as we continue to challenge the standard,
and help to enlighten others.
Sex is
the most beautiful thing people can do with each other, intimately.
Sex, however, is not love. Love and sex can and do often go together,
but one ought not to confuse these two separate things. Many people
believe that sex with someone they love is beautiful, and they're not
wrong, but sex is beautiful even without love. In a way, sex gets a bad
rap on that regard, because many people ignore the fact that love is
separate from sex. But, I blame religion for that, and many more mental
handicaps. Religion must be expelled from the bed sheets. The single
greatest toxin to humanity and to sex is religion. The fact that people
feel guilt for doing and enjoying a natural and beautiful thing is
something that religion alone has foisted upon us. If we are half as
wise as we like to think our species to be, we must change our ways. We
can no longer afford to pretend that we are not what we are. Our
concepts of marriage romantic relationships must change, we ought to
embrace our nature. We can, of course continue to marry the ones we
love, but we should expect and embrace the fact that sex is not and
never has been and never will be confined to marriage. We must accept
that we could forge a new model, the family remains, but why not have
multiple wives for each man and multiple husbands for each woman? Why
not accept polyamory? After all, not only do we naturally desire more
than one partner for the rest of our lives, in regards to sex, but we
are perfectly capable of loving more than one partner at the same time.
We must also embrace the rights of women to be equal to men, including
in their sex lives. Why should we look upon a woman who enjoys sex as
someone to be shamed? It's a shame on us if we continue this “slut
shaming”. We must not interfere with women as they pursue
their sexual satisfaction as they see fit, and embrace the happiness
this brings not only those women, but also ourselves as a society. We
must shed the severe hindrances that make life less happy.
Copyright © 2014 by Joshua
Michail
All
Rights Reserved.
|