Sex, Power & Cruelty

Following from the last post there is a second aspect to cruelty, that of its relation to sex. A lot of pornography and sexual activity involves cruelty. If the degraded person does it willingly then it submissing behaviour, but in its extreme form where it is done unwillingly then it is cruelty. Immediately the relationship to power can be seen. A woman who performs degrading acts like blowjobs or anal sex etc too willingly is considered negatively as in a slut or whore. The 'power' value of the act is greater if she has to be seduced, and in some way a mythical quality like respect is tainted. I wonder whether there is a female counterpart to this?

So why is power an aspect of sexuality? A power that can seek its source in the inflicting of pain?

One of the key features of the animal kingdom is that most animals can be distinguished into a female and male form: that is sex. Sex is strictly not to do with reproduction but the mixing of genes. Many bacteria and protozoans perform gene mixing with reproduction occuring separately. In sexual species however where gametes cannot meet each other so easily, the creation of a small mobile haploid gamete (the sperm) and a large nutricious stationary gamete (the egg) provide both the gene mixing and the creation of the new individual in one act. The growth of the metazoan (what we call the animal) around the sex cells then occurs in the female (by definition).

Now the feature of the male as being the carrier of small mobile gametes distinguishes him from the female who invest more in the egg. Her increased investment means that she is needs to get it right and is more choosy of a mate. It means that she has a greater interest in the off spring and also that she is less 'fit' than the male during gestation. The male as I have commented before has a much dfferent strategy. He cannot be sure that the females children are his own. Two strategies thus exist for the male: become territorial and lock the female up (Sheherezade etc) , or 'put it about' (Don Giovani etc). It seems that males are involved in both, and females are receptive to both also - however the female does need to trick some man into providing for the offspring during gestation. This is not a universal: in phalaropes (a type of bird) famously the male sits on the eggs, and in sea-horses the same. Quite what environmental challenges led to this I do not know (but am sure someone is researching as I write). In humans where the off spring are born prematurely to get them through the birth canal which has been narrowed by the shift to upright walking - and also require the longest nurture of any animal the cost to the female is huge and her need of support is huge. While feminists reject marriage and the need by men to control female reproduction to ensure they are supporting their own children, I wonder whether they also reject marriage and the suuport that a female derives from it? Feminism is in uneqivocal terms - claptrap. Its spirit of liberating women from oppression is noble, but it has been hijacked from the outset by ignorant and selfish people who have multiplied the oppression. The result has been the abandonment of a whole generation and the undermining of western humanity.

Returning to the point... built into the sexual distinction then are profound inequalities. Clearly the female should be larger to cope with the greater physical investment and in birds and reptiles etc this is true. In humans however where the investments are more shared it is the male who is larger. I imagine that human males spend a lot of time in territorial disputes. As I have commented on at length in this blog it is apprent to me that most of our daily life is spent in status squabbles be that getting the better car, the bigger house, or just the sharper suit. Women famously respond to status: a platinum card will bed more women than a gold I have been reliably told. I've also realised that women are involved in furious status squabbles also. Life in a harem is extremely difficult because of the infighting for favour by the lead male. However because of the physical aggression expressed by the male in territorial disputes, women rarely resort to physical violence. Power in women is achieved by more subtle and passive methods: for example being beautiful, gossiping (bitching) etc. By way of evidence I've mentioned before that I studied rabbits for by Zoology Bsc dissertation. They spend as much time watching for predators (which will kill) as they do watching out for each other (who will kill also!). Humans have few predators: we spend all out time watching out for each other. If war brings any good things it is that intra-community squabbles will diminish as the extra-community power squabbles intensify.
So finally the issue of cruelty. Neuroscience has done one good thing - it has shown that in the male at least sexual activity and physical violence occur in the same part of the brain. We can use this as an analogy for their similarity. One of the key status elements in the male is his ability to have sex. Thus a sexual encounter for the male can be more than just a sexual encounter - it is an act of status. For the female I believe she gains her status from the status of the guy whose harem she choses to join. If she sleeps around it doesn't work because at root it is female choice! However once in a harem she will vie to be #1. If she is the only girl in the harem then she can't prove her status! So large harems, or guys with multiple partners are attractive in this strategy.
Given the intimate relationship between sex and status then it is no wonder that power becomes a currency in the sex act. A sexual act involving power is "sexy". Thus cruelty from the previous analysis can become "sexy".

Now it is important to understand how this has been arrived at. It is only when the ego seeks freedom from other people, and seeks freedom by seeking dominance over other people that cruelty can seem positive. However it is only positive from the glass cage of the ego. The ego doesn't realise that the apparent freedom is really cheese on a mouse trap. By cutting itself off from sexual partner, or fellow human the ego is becoming isolated and imprisoned. How ironic that a situation should ever arise where the ignorant ego can enter a prison and think that it is freedom! Thus the cruel self becomes emprisoned. The future is loneliness, sadness, powerlessness and sadness - complete dejection and rejection.

For these reasons such a big deal is made of love and sex. Love is the opposite of cruelty. Love is true freedom but it involves taking risks and the ego must risk losing in order to gain. Jesus dying on the cross should remind us all (X-ianian or otherwise) that death is nothing to be afraid of and is a risk worth taking for Universal Love.

However I still have much to analyse because why should Sex & Love be connected where power and aggression are such intimate bedfellows with sexuality? Neuroscience will show us that Love is a completely different part of the brain to sex and aggression!