a recent, temporary, social wound, to be healed,

rather than a basic pattern of nature or human nature.

Yaaaaaa! The world is saved.

Unlike common chimps, bonobos have a more gracile or slender build, longer legs that stretch while walking, a smaller head, smaller ears, a thinner neck, a more open face with a higher forehead, thinner eyebrow ridges, reddish lips, and long fine hair parted in the middle - in other words, traits that place them much closer in appearance to humans. The genitals of bonobo females are rotated forward like those of human females, making it possible for them to have face-to-face sex like humans rather than with the male mounting like most other primates. . . .

. . . social interactions among bonobos are far less tense and aggressive than even among common chimps. This is not to say that there is never any violence or aggression. But . . . their aggressive behavior is mild, and their behavior in general shows high tolerance, especially between different sexes and among females. .. . unlike common chimpanzees, bonobos have never been observed to kill others of their kind.

But not only are bonobos generally more pacific and gregarious. Of equal interest is that their social organization is not male dominant. In fact, as we will see, theirs is a society in which females, particularly mothers, play key social roles.

These apes also do a good deal of food sharing, which is frequent among humans but rather rare among other primates except between mothers and children. Bonobos, particularly female, not only tend to feed together peacefully; they also frequently approach each other asking that food be shared. Indeed, although there is some question about whether female-male or female-female bonding is most important, [several scientists] stress the importance in their social organization of what one terms "strong bonds between males and females" and "high female sociability."

. . . among these primates, sexual relations play an important role in promoting social relations based more on mutual benefit - or more specifically, mutual pleasure. . . . Most other animals copulate only as an act of reproduction. But for bonobos nonreproductive copulations diminish hostility and help to establish and maintain intimacy between females and males.

Sex that serves purposes other than producing offspring is, of course, something else bonobos share with our own species. So also is the fact . . . that in comparison to the somewhat boring, functional sex of the common chimpanzee, for bonobos, sex of every conceivable variation - from French kissing and fellatio to masturbation and group sex, as if . . . they were following the Kama Sutra. Add to this the fact that pygmy chimpanzees [bonobos] sometimes have sex face to face (rather than like most primates, including the common chimp, through male mounting), the fact that females in this species can be sexually active much longer than other animals (including common chimps) and copulate much sooner after giving birth, what we see among bonobos is suggestive of an important evolutionary development. This is an evolutionary movement toward sex as a means of reinforcing social relations based on the give and take of shared sensual pleasure rather than on coercion and fear.

All of which leads to still another aspect of . . . the bonobo's impassioned eroticism - one that may surprise some readers. This is that a striking aspect of pygmy [bonobo] chimpanzee society is what we would call lesbian sex.

. . . Female A approaches female B, stands or sits nearby, and stares into B's face. If B shows no response, A may demand attention by touching B's knee or foot with her foot B may then respond by a slight gesture, such as turning to meet A's gaze. Then either of them may invite the other, by falling on her back, or hanging from a branch. They embrace face to face, and begin to rub each other's genitals together . . . rhythmically and rapidly.

"In The Beginning, There Was Affection."

(. . . and all this time I thought it was "The Word" that started everything going . . . hmmm . . . (smile) . . .)

Anyway, I take all this to mean that the massive, very personal, face to face, highly individualized and deeply complex interactions that characterize humans, and humans alone, are more deeply imbedded in our genes than I had previously thought, going back two or three species at the least - several million years. The intensive social and emotional cooperation characteristic of humans in particular, being thoroughly embedded and integrated much more thoroughly, in terms of how many species back, and how many hundreds-of-thousands of generations back, than I was previously figuring.

I like that lots; it's certainly very helpful and it makes research sohoooo much easier - more room to breath, so to speak. The more tens of thousands of generations, or even hundreds of thousands of generations, involved in the advancement from apes to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, especially regarding social interactions, the more easily explained are the fantastic advances in our common-to-all-humans, genetically endowed, spectacularly social, depthful, attractive, and personally interactive behavioral system.

(I think when I first thought about that matter of "how much time" it took the human system to develop, was while reading Richard Leaky, of the 'blue blood' paleoanthropological family - both parents, Louis and Mary Leaky, made major finds. Anyway, Richard kept pushing the dates [of earliest human evolution] back, to six, eight, ten million years ago ("Origins"), while the more 'brash' Donald Johanson ("Lucy" was aptly named for 'Lucy in the sky with diamonds'), kept pulling them forward, to five, four, three million years ago (where you've got a better shot at actually finding some bones . . .).

(Best I can recall, in the books, the argument seemed to presented as some sort of academic or professional rivalry, or esoteric dispute about when to date the first human, but my sense about it was that this was really a question of how many generations it actually took to form, set, and adjust, many times over, this massively advanced affectional system which underlies all the rest of the advances - if it took one hundred thousand generations, or some amount of time like that, which was Donald's idea, it might have taken some tricks of nature, but if it was three times that, taking say, over three hundred thousand generations, or anyway, a much longer amount of time, which was Richard's idea, well then, all the advances are explained to have taken place, well, more anyway, in its own sweet time. Or maybe something like that . . . I kind of liked Johanson's writing style better, but I was sort of rooting for Leaky's idea . . . that time anyway . . .)

Anyway, I never did buy all that stuff about humans being just another form of animal - any more than a bear is just another form of plant life. Humans; big change; something new under the sun. That's what I think, anyway . . .

Well, Riane doesn't say all that; just me going off . . .

Well, anyway, after reading that part about the bonobos, I was thoroughly drawn in; 'Riane, you have my full attention'. Eisler is clearly reaching for the moon, and, according to me, as a matter of science in the letter and the spirit of the term science, and on this central issue to all the sciences, indeed, central issue to all life, she's closer than any other writer that I know of.

Her general theme in this book, "Sacred Pleasure" is that, in the genetically formative situation, the primary bonds, the bonding that maintained the cooperative organization of the tribe -that is, the bonding that provided the major, vital interpersonal 'gridwork' for the survival of this particular species (us) - is (at least) twofold: parent/child attachment bonding, which is our inheritance from earlier species, and adult/adult sexual bonding, which, in this range and depth, is fundamentally new with us. And as for the sexual part, which is the theme of the book, it is mostly, but certainly not exclusively, male/female sexual, and often, but not exclusively, monogamous.

I guess the idea is, that the sexual bonding between adults was an important way that the enormously different 'personalities', experiences, and tensions within the tribe members were exchanged, ameliorated, reconciled, perhaps in some sense, even 'merged'.

And in ways that, I think, Riane hasn't gotten to yet, the intelligence property, that is, the 'solving' system, and high level ideological development as well, is massively enhanced, shifted, or destroyed through this sort of merging . . . hugely advantageous all around when its handled properly; massive destruction when there's coercion - rape - involved. But all that's, I suppose, another story . . . that gets into what I've figured out . . . what my books are about . . .

So, anyway, getting back to Riane (I think), well, anyway, it's likely that, when pre-humans were first forming ideas about 'high level patterns of nature', that is, as early humans were forming ideas about what we now call 'religions' - be it some crude squinting at one's long-term expectations for the world, a million years ago, or concrete explicit understandings written in signs and symbols of a hundred thousand years ago, or the more formal stories passed down for a thousand generations, of twenty thousand years ago - those "stories", 'religion'-type stories, and the life and death, high level "guidance ideas", that such stories provided, were very likely to have been associated with this most intense and powerful, personal bond - and solving bond - between humans, namely sexual activity.

Well, anyway, some of that's Riane and some of that's me. My own feeling is that, in humans in particular, the "union of sperm and egg" constitutes about twenty percent of the function of sex (whereas in other animals, it's more in the range of 70% or 90% of the function of sex). What the sexual system evolved into in humans, was, a whole physical, neural, behavioral system designed primarily for a deeply personal, carefully selected, emotional, and, as Riane puts it, pleasure bonding, with the "sperm-to-egg" aspect merely being one, low level element in a much larger, overall sexual system. Starting way back, a couple of species ago - sometimes the sperm-and-egg union comes into play, and most times it doesn't. But in any event, it's not the point, or not the main point anyway. In humans that is, of course. And, to this degree, at this level, in humans and humans alone. Like advances in function of so many other human behavioral systems, sex in humans was not mainly designed for formal procreation - gamete procreation anyway; I think it is mainly designed for something else.

Well, I'm kind of groping for words here, as I think Eisler does sometimes . . . this whole field is, best I can tell, not yet sorted out quite enough . . .

Anyway, by 'Sacred Pleasure', I think she means that the highest level 'sacred', and 'religious', understandings, were, for all the reasons given, most closely associated with the most intense, and thoroughly pleasurable adult bondings, that is, affectional, particularly physical bondings, explicitly including sexual activity. That seems to be what she's talking about.

So, then the question arises: if healthy sexual activity was originally associated with the some of the most powerful, positive, helpful, high level 'spiritual', and thoroughly desirable operations in life, if that sort of association is, by the nature of the system, built-into our existence,

how oh how in the world did sex ever get associated, as it did, big time in recent millennia, with rape, sin, filth, violence, 'base emotion', anti-human aggression, coercion, harm, and damage of every sort. How in the world did this ever happen?

Well, the body of the book itself is actually a 'casting a wide-net' type summary of what is known now about the most relevant issues - what has gone wrong; the whys and wherefroms - affecting and enforcing violence against women. Well, it's really about human-harming-human violence altogether, but for Riane, harm to women in particular is the special focus.

Eisler works within the framework of history, treating the last ten or fifteen thousand years as the primary focus of study. Thus, when she recounts events, she does so, not in the context of the last hundred, or thousand, or five thousand years being "all history", nor in the context of these "dominator" societies being the only way things have been. Events are described in the context of all these horrors being a problem that has arisen relatively recently, and that can and should be solved. And she constantly notes and cites scores of people, hundreds of people, who were, over all the ages, and are, at this time, doing just that.

. . .

. . . Well, I have to stop writing this now, by any means necessary, so to speak. This has obviously gotten way way out of hand . . . I've got pages and pages of notes to add . . . and time is passing . . . yikes . . .

All I can think to say is that I think that Riane Eisler has written at least two very good books - "The Chalice and The Blade" and "Sacred Pleasure", and I think that a widespread understanding of at least the first, if not both, would go a long way towards altering, way way for the better, general perceptions regarding the way things can be. And, very much therefore also, altering for the better the way things become. Especially, in this case, regarding sexual relations. But also regarding that other phenomenon, the specific subject of this group, namely, sex-related violence.

Best wishes to all . . . please, please, please,

---- neil


___________________________


Note One: In the Appendix of "Sacred Pleasure", there is a listing of seven, one-sentence descriptions of the "Partnership" framework, side-by-side with directly contrasting descriptions of the "Dominator" framework. She's also written a third book on this subject in particular; I think it's called "The Partnership Way".

Note Two: At the 'Paradigm from California' web site, there is a one-page list of differences between what I call the "work out well all around" paradigm and the "work out poorly for some/most/all" framework. The Gif version is at:

http://imaginenine.com/pdmnm504.gif

Also at my site: http://imaginenine.com/tables.pdf (Acrobat). This is a large (750k), but very graphic set of tables with fifty or so, clear-cut differences between the 'work out well' and the 'work out poorly' sets of ideas. This *.pdf file requires the free download of an Acrobat viewer from Adobe's web-site. These "tables" were designed to complement the full 'paradigm summary', also at the site. (The tables are also available, actually, in regular html, also at the site.)

Note Three: I haven't made any distinctions between Riane's descriptions of the two frameworks, and my descriptions of them. That's because I haven't noticed any differences between what she's talking about and what I'm talking about, and occasion has not come up in my mind for me to think about it. Maybe I should also mention that I've never had any contact with Riane Eisler, or anyone who's ever even heard of her, and I have no idea, really, what she would make of all this . . . I just sit here all alone, reading books by candlelight under damp blankets, shivering in the dark and cold, and things go 'round in my head . . . for all I know, she might find the whole thing highly offensive . . . I never can tell about these things . . .

I guess the main difference really is, she doesn't yet take into account things like the nature of truth, or the primacy of caretaking, or the or the real, main function of sex among humans, or . . . see, those are things that my books are about, and, while, because she's published, I can take into account what she knows, because I'm not published, she can't take into account what I know. I think that's a big problem here . . .

Note Four: I really can write short, cute little one sentence or one paragraph type book reviews. For anyone interested, I've placed on my webserver a collection of notes I posted to this group on about two dozen books. It can be found through the "Book Notes" link from my home page (which is at http://imaginenine.com), or can be accessed directly at:

http://imaginenine.com/22-books.htm

There's also a cruder text version at:
http://imaginenine.com/22-books.txt

best wishes again . . . --- neil

________________________

Neil R. Miller
neilm@imaginenine.com

Paradigm from California
http://imaginenine.com

Written from mid-September, 1996
and posted on November 20th, 1996

Stop Rape
________________________

*** Note regarding an earlier section:

(Speaking for myself, I feel compelled to mention something here, particularly as regards some recent events in this group. This is not Riane talking, but rather my own idea. There is a sharp difference between understanding something as a system - as in a "woman-focused" system, or a "matrifocal" system, or a primarily feminine system - and an individual part of that system, as in an individual man or an individual woman. A difference between a part of a system, and the system itself. It's pretty well known that when workers organized to obtain better conditions, a famous industrialist said "I can always get one half of the working class to kill the other half", and in fact, he pretty much did just that. I think it's pretty well accepted that such persons as Margaret Thatcher, or Phyllis Schlafly, or Indra Ghandi were or are, Not operating in the interests of a feminine or woman-focused system, while such persons as Martin King, and Mahatma Ghandi certainly were. Generally speaking, in my opinion, both the physiology and socialization of women tend to render them more inclined to a cooperative, feminine system, and the socialization of men often tends towards a more violent and competitive behavior, individual cases very often go the other way. This is particularly true in the current age, when a very sophisticated right-wing can use a person's personal desperation to turn them against themself, and against the world, and also a particular man can arrange himself in a supremely cooperative and anti-dominant manner. In fact, both cases occur, often, in our society in particular.

(Thus, while I am personally certain that we would all be much better off, and nature has specifically designed for, women to generally hold, in partnership with men, or in the majority, the highest level positions of influence and power in society, I think it is a huge mistake to presume that a particular woman or a particular man is always going to conform to the general physiological and socialization tendencies as regards partnership/cooperation or domination/violence. In fact, any woman can be manipulated into operating in a manner that thwarts cooperative social behavior, and particularly given the general desperation of so much of the population at large, such manipulations are constantly being arranged from the highest levels of the foundations, academia, publishing, the mass media, and all of the powerful institutions of society. Through their financial power in particular, these people can arrange, very often outside the consciousness of those they affect, all sorts of cooperation-defeating, one-against-the-other modes of behavior in persons in every sector of society, including within opposition movements.

(It is well known that the revolutionary workers of France and Germany were manipulated into killing each other by the millions in WWI, and all that they'd been building for generations before; much as the workers of the AFL and the IWW were manipulated into essentially destroying each other here in the early part of this century. Manipulations pitting various nationalities and "races" against one another to the detriment of all, down to this very day, are all too well known. The horrors in Bosnia and Ireland are yet more cases of desperate people's being ferociously turned on one another with an almost unbelievable self-destructive intensity. In my own experience, the woman's movement of the early '70s, primarily through the vehicles of the foundations and the mass media, also fell tragically victim to these insidious manipulations - exploiting the general desperation of progressive people, women and men alike.

(Particularly given the outcome of the recent elections, in which women generally played an important role in holding the White House against what, again in my opinion, would have otherwise been an overtly fascist onslaught, I would expect such manipulations to again rise to a fever pitch.

(Thus, while I am personally certain that nature's system, the human social/behavioral system which evolved as the human system, calls for a generally feminine, woman-focused system throughout the hierarchies of societies, that should never be taken to mean that a person's gender in particular renders them fit or unfit for promoting or destroying a woman-focused, or matrifocal system. There is no contradiction there whatsoever. I do feel, in the light of events both historical and immediate, especially, again, in the wake of the recent elections, it is extremely important to keep this particular issue firmly out on the table and in the clear light of day.)

(I can't quite articulate this well enough at the moment, so I'll just conclude with something from my very first post to this group, one year ago:


Across all class lines, across all races and gender,
across all of the most exotic cultures of the world,
across all ages in every corner of the planet,
across all epochs in all history;
across all family backgrounds, across all religions,
and across all adventure, all trauma, and all journeys,

the allies of cooperative-based persons,
the allies of the feminine,
the allies of all humanity,
and indeed, the allies of nature itself,

are, first and foremost, principled persons, that is,
persons who never-lie-about-what-they-understand
the truth to be, to anyone.


Because 'partnership', and 'work-out-well-all-around' fits the singular reality, never changing Science of this bioecosystem, and 'dominator' and 'work-out-poorly-for-some/most/all' does not, for that specific reason - "never-deliberately-misreporting- perceptions", across everywhere, is the key.

--- again, best wishes to all,

---- neil


________________________

. . . and nobody seems to like him,


they can see that he's just a fool . . .


---- john and pals, in the dream time . . .

The paper is part of the "Paradigm from California" series,
© Neil Robert Miller, 1978-1997

neilm@imaginenine.com