It is of great importance to have a correct understanding of female
sexuality. This is important because more myths circulate about female
sexuality than about male sexuality.
One myth is that female sexuality is fundamentally different from male
sexuality. They claim, for example, that the female sex drive is weaker
than the male sex drive, and that girls and women are less interested
in sex, and more interested in love. Or they say that girls and women
are genetically primed to seek long-lasting relationships, while boys and
men supposedly are genetically programmed to seek sex with as many
females as they can get.
Scientists allegedly have even discovered a gene in lower mammals that
allegedly is responsible for the character tread of favoring monogamy.
Gene Transfer Enhances Pair Bonding In Monogamous Voles
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/09/010917075347.htm
The reasoning why allegedly, girls and women seek longer monogamous
relationships, and men seek a multitude of sexual relationships sound very
convincing indeed. It's maximizing procreation. Women will achieve the
best procreative success if they have intercourse not with many men,
but just with one who is highly committed to the survival of the
offspring.
Men, on the contrary, are said to achieve the greatest procreative
success if they impregnate as many females as possible.
Now, even if these theories make biological sense, and even if genetic
make-up is involved, they are still wrong if applied to humans who have
achieved self-cognition.
The most important element of self-cognition is that we are aware, and
have accepted, that our individual lives only last for a limited period
of time, and that our lives definitely end with our individual deaths,
and that our selves become for ever non-existent with our deaths.
For genetically determined life forms (which is: all biological life
forms), self-cognition certainly was an operational accident, because it
negates its success.
There is one effect of self-cognition that overrides all genetic
determination: self-cognition allows us to realize that our own interests can
well be in conflict with the interests of our genes. And, ironically,
our genetically programmed capability to adapt makes it easy for us to
decide, in cases of conflict, in favor of our own interests, and against
the interests of our genes.
The interest of our genes is procreation at all costs, even if this
should mean misery, suffering, and self-sacrifice for us. It is even in
the interests of our genes that we vacate the surface of this planet when
we only are a burden to the next generation of our genes, as having to
take care of us when we are old can be a handicap for the procreative
success of our genes which already are in their next generation.
But our own interest is to stay around for as long as this is not
associated with unbearable suffering; our own interest is not to sacrifice
ourselves for coming generations, but to have a pleasant, even an
exciting life, and to end it in a gentle death.
The opposition between human consciousness (especially what I call
self-cognition) and the interests of the selfish genes has been discussed,
but not sufficiently explained by Richard Dawkins in his book “The
Selfish Gene”.
Lecture on Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/introser/dawkins.htm
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925
Consciousness, with is less than self-cognition and scientific death
awareness, is a product of evolution, and has thus come into existence
gradually.
William James and the evolution of consciousness
http://cogprints.org/1327/00/Evolution_of_Consciousness.pdf
Consciousness is a rather complicated brain function, more complicated
than the digestive functions of the liver, or even the sensual
functions of the eye.
How consciousness functions in detail has been explained by Daniel
Dennet in his book “Consciousness explained”.
A review of Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v1/psyche-1-04-korb.html
Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett
http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661
Before proceeding, I do want to point out that consciousness is not
cognition, and self-consciousness is not self-cognition.
Self-consciousness is “to have some ideas about oneself”, while self-cognition is “to
have some ideas about oneself that are founded on science, of objective
truths”.
It’s a typical case of what dialectical materialism considers a change
of quantity into quality. For an easy explanation of this phenomenon in
dialectical materialism, see the following link and proceed to the
phrase “the proposition of the transformation of quality into quantity””
August Thalheimer: Introduction to Dialectical Materialism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/diamat/11.htm
Consciousness proceeds to self-consciousness, and both can accumulate
to a certain quantity, steadily increasing the competitive edge of the
organism, used by our gene to propagate themselves.
But at a certain quantity, self-consciousness becomes self-cognition,
and the brain, which is part of the organism used and abused by our
genes to propagate themselves, realizes that its interests are different
from the interests of the genes. Self-cognition happens when the brain
realizes that it is not in our interest to sacrifice ourselves for coming
generations, but to have a pleasant, even an exciting life, and to end
it in a gentle death.
Now, the above-cited content of self-cognition is exactly the same for
males and females. For this reason, it is irrelevant whether and if
females may be genetically programmed to be more willing to sacrifice
themselves for their offspring, or whether they are genetically programmed
to stay with one partner even if it means sexual boredom.
Self-cognition anyway overrides any genetic programming that is in
conflict with the interests of one's self, as opposed to the interests of
one's genes.
But self-cognition is not something we are born with. Children have no
self-cognition. And if any of us were to be born and to grow up on an
isolated island, among others who have also never had contact with the
rest of the world, we could not achieve self-cognition (even though we
would still be equipped with self-consciousness). We would not know
about the nature of our individual deaths, and nothing about the universe,
and nothing about the fallacy of all religions (and other mythical
obstacles to self-cognition).
For self-cognition is not biologically inherent in us, but a cultural
and intellectual achievement in opposition to our genetic programming.
And because access to education has throughout the ages been easier for
men than to women, there have, quite possibly, been more men in history
who have achieved self-cognition than women.
But nowadays, self-cognition is attainable with equal ease for men and
women, and the consequences each sex can draw from self-cognition are
exactly the same: that optimal sexual experience, followed by a gentle
death, is the most sensible pursuit in life, and not to sacrifice
oneself for future generations.
Now, even as we have achieved self-cognition, whether we are male or
female, we still have to deal with our emotions, which are genetically
shaped. We all emotionally care for our children, especially when they
are small, and even if self-cognition lets us be aware of the conflict
between our own interests and the interests of our genes, we may
emotionally decide in favor of what our genes demand. And this may well be more
pronounced on the part of women than on the part of men.
I can judge this from own experience, and not just theoretically. I do
have children with more than one woman. And they are all very well
taken care of. And even though my children do not live with me, I am very
concerned about their welfare, and I could not enjoy my freedom if my
children would suffer.
And because I assume that comparative emotions are even more pronounced
in women, it is of such great importance that any sexual liberation of
women first of all addresses child welfare.
As for the above-cited article on the monogamy gene. Read it again, and
you will come across the following sentence:
“Because vasopressin has been shown to increase anxiety in rats, the
scientists also tested the voles in a maze that measures general anxiety
and found that the experimental group exhibited more general anxiety
than the control groups.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/09/010917075347.htm
I doubt that the preference for a known sexual partner in itself is
based on genetic determination. I assume that much rather, monogamous
preferences in any species are related to levels of anxiety. If we, and
apparently prairie voles, are in states of increased anxiety, we will
naturally exhibit rather monogamous tendencies.
Which is why safety (the kind that can be provided only by strong
government) is intrinsically related to sexual freedom. And because human
females are physically weaker than human males, their sexual freedom
benefit from safety is even greater than that of males.
