Saturday, August 30, 2014

Spit or Swallow, Part 2: Clitoral Response Codes

Succeeding Part 1.

Initially, this one promised that this series would:
...touch upon the parable of Onan's sin, and address the impossibility of absolutist scriptural interpretations. Secondly, we'll summarize the nineteenth century and twentieth century social wars over "family" and "individual" communal arrangements, and the twenty-first century reactionary responses thereto. Then this one will cheat a little, and give you answers for human society which, for being technically non-provable here, won't count as cheating anyway, so there. We'll examine, throughout, how almost all of these philosophies are what is now called "transhumanism," or the antilife death-urge to destroy ourselves in order to alleviate the pain of existence.
We had just finished discussing how various forms of state-based sexual governance--the most popular being patriarchy and feminism--have been employed to successively break apart human communities. In this Part 2, we'll discuss the "communities" that were destroyed using these selfish variations on a theme. Pursuant to the established pattern, we'll begin with sexuality, which will exemplify, and lead us into, social arrangements as a whole.

Answers for Human Sexuality

Only the extremely skilled and durable male can produce a vaginal-only female orgasm during vaginal intercourse, while the much easier clitoral orgasm depends upon stimulation of an area that is unsuited for stimulation during two-partner intercourse. The clitoris can be clumsily stimulated during rear-entry vaginal penetration, jarring the rhythm of the intercourse itself, and even more clumsily stimulated during front-entry vaginal penetration, with a corresponding decrease in the quality and effectiveness of a coupling. Skillful lovers can adjust penetration angle to use grinding abdominal motions to offer the clitoris some stimulation during either front-entry or rear-entry, though rarely, if ever, with the focus necessary to achieve female orgasm in any significant proportion of that sex.

And yet, the muscle contractions and chemicals released during the female orgasm, whether vaginal or clitoral, increase the chances of insemination occurring, while, as mentioned before, only the most skillful and enduring men can produce a vaginal orgasm through penetration alone. What the eff, right? If the female orgasm improves chances of insemination, then--like any other factor in the rough and tumble jungle of evolution--shouldn't the genetic lines that made it to today have an easier time with female orgasms? Shouldn't vaginal stimulation be the primary determinant, and the clitoris only an aftereffect? Think of the massive gains in reproductive success, which would be enjoyed by a woman who vaginally orgasms as easily as her peers do clitorally (or, perish the thought, easier)--the math should be simple, just like the benefit to a human who would have developed a specialized sub-immune system for clearing winter phlegm or alleviating coughing fits that cause sleeplessness. Among monogamous population groups, and pursuant to the randomized mutations of Market-Style Evolution, groups with easier female orgasms should have long ago driven to extinction those groups without.

It's easy to bring a woman to a bunch of clitoral orgasms outside of a vaginal penetration situation, but that has no bearing on the getting-off of the reproductive male. So how do we reconcile this? Easy: female orgasms, like human sex, are not meant to be duopoly markets. Human women were crafted with a frontal clitoris designed to produce insemination-enhancing orgasms because they were supposed to be stimulated by a third person during mating. 20th century Earth's whining about the elusive pursuit of female pleasure is akin to 20th century Earth's whining about having it all--rewarding full-time career, thriving social life, fulfilling hobbies, personal emotional awareness, and helicopter parenting, too. Despite what Mr. Ford pretended, it simply doesn't work. It doesn't take great ape studies, or gangbang video revenue figures, to reveal what the clitoris can on its own: human sexuality is integrative.

The Judeo-Christian religious here may recall Lot's daughters' mutual pregnancy ploy subsequent to Sarah's coy introduction of Hagar, in dutiful service to the idea of being fruitful and multiplying, while Sapphic advocates may see their own correlation between the comparative manual skill level of most men, the comparative visual connectibility of most women, and the question, "How the hell did we survive this long if orgasms during MxF improve fertilization rates?"

Beyond the clitoris, of course, there are monkey and ape studies, gangbang video revenues, racy anthropological theories, and corresponding sets of fantasies on either sexual side. Sperm itself reinforces the clitoral aspect of the theory: yet again, it is a smaller subset of men that can produce on-demand pregnancy in one encounter during ovulation (although that's a much larger subset than the ones who can produce a vaginal-only orgasm), and there are enough PBS videos on millions of squiggling sperm dying in the birth canal to make evident the small likelihood of success. Plenty of men struggle with pregnancy like so many wayward salmon hopping out of the water and into a set of grizzly jaws, their only hopes to make mad use of porn and Viagra during wifey's ovulation week, or to consult special doctors to nudge their little tadpoles on a little faster. Not that there's anything to be ashamed about, wunderkids--but barring high technology and networks of skilled implantation technicians, plenty of men can't get the job done. (Even if, to their own credit, they are capable of navigating, or even thriving in, many other aspects of 21st century Earth.)

And what does that add up to? Just as does the clitoris, sperm informs us that the species, the community, is best continued in group form. Which is why gangbangs and bukkake are so popular, from the Marquis all the way forward to 2014, hundreds upon hundreds of years after the atomized sex protocols were instilled in attempts to stop the growth of human populations.

Again, the Judeo-Christian religious here may take a moment to recall the stark, unquestionable command to be fruitful and multiply, following on the heels of the first woman, and may reflect also on the admonition to Onan to fuck extra-maritally as many times as it took to produce offspring, which production was far more important to Yahweh than obtaining marriage vows. The functions of the vagina and the clitoris demonstrate not only the integrative nature of lightform evolution, where mutations during reproduction result in the simultaneous development of non-random, complementary systems, but also the integrative nature of the societies in which humans are designed to live.

Multiple male partners, should the woman in question so desire, increase women's chances of conceiving, making her more successful in both the "scientific" realm, and in the "biblical" one--the supposed work of both Darwin and Jehovah is accomplished fast as the community is more assured of reliable gains in power and growth potential. For Christians, one of the highest honors for a man is to raise and love a child who came from someone else. Even putting aside the fact that so much of the Torah was about how great it was for a man to impregnate someone to whom he was not married, the entire Gospel can be viewed as the success story of God's partnership with Joseph.
"I seem to recall a story about a man named Joseph who happily raised a child that wasn't his." — Andre

“History's greatest chump. We're talking about Joe Kennedy, right?" — Pierce

Sure--in a property-based system, where responsibility is individualized by state enforcement, death and ostracism are the punishments for failure, and everyone has learned to look out only for number 1, guys like Joseph are cuckold losers who have no game. In terms of Machiavellian genetics, it's stupid to care about any genes other than "your own," but actual evolution, that of species and planet, supports communal insemination and child-rearing. Sperm are supposed to die so easily because it's all right; the most successful aggregate insemination is a group activity. Exhibitionism and gangbangs are such commonplace fetishes (and such anti-selfish ones, which would have been definitively winnowed out were pop-evolution true) because they are aspects of human communality that have survived the recent purges. Societies which did it that way had fewer missed ovulations, as well as a greater aggregate masculine investment in each child. Fifty people in a group trying to push a rock up a hill always do it faster than fifty individuals trying to be the first to get their own rock to the top (although the capitalist who pretends to be sick, then steals some of the meat while everyone else is working on the rock, will see a short-term gain and believe himself very clever for looking out for number one).

(Amidst all this, it is indeed awful to be cuckolded, or to be forced to pay for someone else's kid. Here, almost everything legal is designed to be awful and hurtful, pinning person against person, and child support payments without DNA testing no less. Just as you'd defend your wallet, filled with Federal Reserve notes, from a mugger in this society, suddenly becoming the only selfless provisioner would instantly crush you. But wallet inspectors only operate in atomized societies based around the false notions of "individuals." Most of those free rider problems disappear from integrated communities, so talking about the right way to do it is talking about how to get rid of cuckolding and mugging and free-riding.)

LGBT Relationships

Sapphic advocates, similarly, may draw their own equally pleasant conclusions from their predicted effects of the comparative de-stigmatization of FxF integrality in the society-sustaining and -augmenting process. Proper reproductive patterns do not create exclusionary processes; more importantly, perhaps, said FxF integrality strongly reduces the likelihood of internally- (and externally-, duh) repressive behaviors in individuals or groups. Ergo the sapphically inclined but socially repressed/physically ignorant no longer need to realize themselves at 20, 35, or 67, but rather, as part of the natural developmental process. In short, girls who like girls learn about what that means so automatically that they don't even have to think about it, and they gravitate toward certain parts of the community's reproductive process, instantly having a valued role, and a life plan that runs from pupil to teacher to master. All midlife epiphanies of sexuality are pre-empted; all lost years and "what ifs" are shelved among the other tomes of the New Dark Ages.

(...and of course, some people don't wanna play, so they can do their own thing. They can be as exclusive as they want, and no one cares. The danger to the healthy, reproductively successful sexual community is if the bitter ones, disfavored in general participation, develop ethical theories about why their covetous isolation is the only right way, and begin to murder others to break up the community and enforce a code of isolation and shame. Maybe a travel story on that another time.)

Not-so-ironically, perhaps, does the most efficient take on the Judeo-Christian "be fruitful and multiply," and the seemingly-patriarchal polygamy of the early Jews, actually provide for the enshrinement and irreplaceable valuation of lesbian efficiency and skill. Not so the atomized "traditional" marriage, though, whether manifested by a couple straight people or a couple women.

Queer theorists who didn't care about the biblical stuff may be more interested in reflecting on how the development of modern lgbt relationship mores is also heavily affected by the long-coming, eerily absolutist trends of the faux-traditional marriage meme being applied to queer couples as it has been to straight ones. Like atomized marriage taking over straight people a thousand years ago, establishing unnatural isolations and imposing socially expected behaviors upon sexual intimacy, the gay marriage thing continues to alter the fundamental nature of not only actual queer marriages, but the social expectations placed upon the courting, coupled, flirting, aloof, or lonely queer individual.

Will joint tax returns make up for the oppressive crush of the isolated old queen, now deemed a social failure rather than an independent rebel? Will identical surnames being said respectfully by tellers at the local bank counterbalance the privately-felt collateral damage of the lesbian divorcée, who watches her friends snickering over the latest $26 million lesbian Hollywood divorce displayed upon the drugstore magazine rack? As every aspect of queer emotional affection and lust becomes subject to the same propertized rules as a dinner party at Jane Austen's house, expect it to become, in the aggregate, as salaciously boring and exploitative as Straightville, USA.

Congratulations: you just broke into prison.

Answers for Human Society

Everyone loves how funny it is that older people have to get up a lot at night to take a leak. And everyone knows how annoying it is that babies do the same damn thing. And then old people are always up in the morning, taking their brisk walk in the jogging suit before dawn, going to early-bird dinner specials, and falling asleep on the recliner at seven at night.
GEORGE: (upset) Could you put a little thought into this? Jerry's gone, you could humour me. He humours me.

ELAINE: Speaking of Jerry, his father is driving me so crazy down at Peterman's.

GEORGE: You know what I do at the Yankees, when one of these old guys is breathing down my neck?

ELAINE: What?

GEORGE: You schedule a late meeting.

ELAINE: (puzzlement) Huh? What does that do?

GEORGE: These old guys, they're up at 4 a.m., by two thirty they're wiped. (animated) How did we get back onto you?!

ELAINE: (grabbing her bag and coat) I gotta split.

Elaine gets up and leaves.
Elders are lonely and disconnected, toddlers never get enough attention. Infants move slowly, elders move slowly. Toddlers want to talk and learn, and they need to hear things a lot to remember them; elders want to find out what's going on with young people, and they want to tell old stories over and over about things that are important to them, and they feel miserable and forgotten if you tell them that they told you the story about the chicken dinner at that one casino seventeen times already.

Match made in heaven: elders are supposed to take care of the young. With some level of supervision, obviously, but that's how it works out. Elders and children are designed as complements to each other, while "teenagers" (adults) and "adults" (adults) like to stay up late, sleep in, and are, non-coincidentally, the best at doing all the work that provides for elders and children.

(With young adults and young elders, there's another generalized overlap: a sexual one. Inexperienced young men and young women, barring attempts to imitate porn or match peers' movie-generated expectations, are tentative, confused lovers, worried about embarrassing themselves and wishing they knew more. At a certain point we can call "adult," they learn about themselves and others, and become more vigorous in the aggregate. Young elders, then [again, barring attempts to imitate porn or prove themselves better than Bob and Liddy], return to slower, gentler patterns, and are filled with a desire to recount experiences and be a source of learning, wisdom, and understanding. Elder women may suddenly find themselves wanting, or needing, more firm interactions, which their younger selves may have been scared of receiving from younger men, and elder men may suddenly find themselves wanting, or needing, more drawn-out, emotional, softer interactions, which their younger selves may have been too inexperienced to provide to younger women.)

The atomized family, besides breaking apart communities as a whole, was part of the process of destroying age interaction. From mandatory school grades to the degradation of wages and ownership to the development of the retirement home, elites' antilife strategy has been to separate the young from the adult from the old. Children used to be cared for by their parents, their extended family, their village, and, well, everyone. Then, the "family" focus turned that into just the different generations of one patriarchal line, and then public schools and Social Security turned that into just the young and two adults of one patriarchal line. Kids were pushed out the doors to civics classes, while elders were pushed out the doors to eat creamed corn and crap their pants in front of a TV, and get bedsores down to their bones.

Growing up with elders who looked after you, and seeing adults care for those elders, is a real "compact among the generations," entirely different from Social Security. Like CPS, modern "old age" policies take tax money from working adults--who then have to work harder, and neglect their children and elders more, to pay those taxes. The tax dollars create billion-dollar industries of state old-age and youth prisons, where the children and elders are suffering, bullied, robbed, and neglected, and most importantly, severed from each other. Schools and retirement homes net billions of dollars in endless construction, technology, and drug costs, while putting walls between people who need each other the most. Children grow up under state supervision, listening to lectures and watching movies, and feeling so terribly alone that they kill themselves, or want to. Elders move toward death under state supervision, listening to lectures and watching movies, and feeling so terribly alone that they kill themselves, or want to.

...and through it all, the people who are paying for it see less of the results of their work. Sally is in school, sitting in the library during recess, hoping she can finish this chapter of her new favorite book before she has to hurry back to a room with forty other kids in it and watch an educational film about "The National Flags of Eastern Europe" before filling out a worksheet about the same. Mary is taking another double shift, crying inside about how she never has time for herself, never sees Sally or Grace, wondering where all the money is and why the apartment feels so damn sad. And across town, Grace is in her wheelchair on the front porch, thinking about the war, about John, about the nurse that just quit, and about that book she read once.

It's a poem about Hell, it's a circus of shadows. Sally's school gets a $6,400 subsidy from Washoe County public schools per attending student. Mary pays 25% of her hourly to DC, 12% to Nevada, $67 per month to Washoe County passed through her rent, and 8.1% more to Nevada when she buys something at the store on the way home. Grace's rent at the stage 2 memory care facility is $4,000 monthly, about a third of which is deferred by Medicare, and some of which her DMV pension covers. Laugh, little clowns, aren't the lights all so pretty?

What once would've been seen as insane is now the normal. So yes, there will be mandatory cameras inside your master bathroom, just as 30-year-olds and 40-year-olds will eventually be prevented from seeing each other without the supervision of a licensed midlife care supervisor. No, no, that's going too far; they do it slick, remember? No one'll actually be watching; there'll just be all these subtle but absolutely unquestionable social arrangements, a whole network of them built on top of each other, that makes it so that 99.9% of what happens is what would happen if a midlife care supervisor were actually watching. The beauty of the panopticon, remember, is its efficiency: you don't actually need to be watching all the time. What matters is that they feel like you are. So elders who shouldn't be toileting alone slip and hit their heads on the sink and die all the time, and dejected teenagers who shouldn't be wandering alone swallow bullets all the time, not because people are actually watching them, but because they've gotten the distinct impression, from somewhere, that they're supposed to be isolated.

You want to talk about idealism? Yeah, haha, how funny, the idea that everyone, or just "most people," could believe in something greater than themselves, and adhere to it when nobody's watching. The power of collectively imposed expectations is massive, which is why those kids are swallowing bullets when they feel that they're rejected. And all based on a mere sixteen years of subtle implications, never quite spelled out specifically, saying how things are supposed to be. So yes, let's talk about idealism, and how the evil ones actually believe in their own ideals, and that belief is what propels them to structure a society where, on a completely empty road you've driven a thousand times before, you still occasionally check your speedometer or wonder if you remembered your license. It's inefficient to set up a billion-dollar industry of extracting taxes from poor people to fund accountants and buildings and garages and assistants and secretaries to count numbers, which numbers fund accountants and buildings and garages and cars and guns and uniforms and badges and cops to enforce taxes, which taxes fund state programs and accountants and buildings and garages and cars and vans and ramps and wheelchairs and bedpans and old copies of Gone With The Wind, which things take awful care of the elders that get shoved out of their houses.

And it's hilarious, in a godawful sort of way, when those same poor tax-paying people desperately apply for jobs as "care assistants" at the retirement home, so that they can make $9.50 an hour wiping rancid shit from wrinkled asses, on a part-time basis, so that they can afford to live in a 600 square foot studio apartment in a building next to the railroad tracks. And it's even funnier when they get fired for missing work for going to a mandatory workshop to learn about how to sign up for a program that will get their child pre-kindergarten care from an institution that their taxes, when they were working at the grocery store a few years ago, helped pay for.

If you believe that that shit can happen, then there is nothing else you won't believe. And since that shit already has happened, welcome to idealism. The message can be changed. No lazy commune, even with free beer and heroin delivered hourly by genetically engineered winged unicorns, could possibly be as ass-backwards fantastical and impossibly unworkable as the steaming corpse-flavored wonderland of 2014 America.

Continued in Part 3.

3 comments:

  1. Well, so what? This sounds awfully close to all the evolutionary psychology just-so 'scientific' stories flooding the internet news feeds.

    Even if we agree that there is some sort of evolutionary optimal sexual behavior, there is no evident or proper form of social organization that can follow from that.

    Spartan's custom to throw sickly babies off the cliff makes total sense evolutionarily, but I suspect many people would at least hesitate before resurrecting it, and also present day Congo is one of the best hotbeds for human evolution (i.e. not much evolution takes place without high infant mortality).

    There is no disputing that what we have now is awful, but I don't think you are showing that we somehow we have the obvious answers. Besides, even in the most sex-positive primitive cultures, you still find some degree of attachment to one's immediate kin and hut.

    Plato's "Republic" describes a totally communal existence (down to the sharing of women and children), and the picture is somewhat completely different from what you are envisioning - a rational, perfect reproduction factory totally emptied of the irrational, loving idiosyncrasies most people would associate with their children and family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Even if we agree that there is some sort of evolutionary optimal sexual behavior, there is no evident or proper form of social organization that can follow from that."

      Human sexuality is designed to be integrative, but that doesn't mean that it's "evolutionarily optimal."

      Firstly, yes--killing sickly babies is one kind of "evolutionarily optimal" behavior, but only in the short term. In the long term, guiding the sick into some kind of useful function is more optimal. Short-sighted war societies' failures to make strength out of weakness, instead of grabbing the fastest, shoddiest strength, find themselves unable to compete in the long run.

      As far as sex, this one isn't saying that "group sex" is evolutionarily optimal in the market-based sense that we tend to think of, now, when discussing "optimal." What human sex is meant to do is make everyone feel connected, to the species and to the offspring. Properly done, it increases overall fertility rates and genetic diversity, producing aggregate gains in a strain's improvement over time, but more importantly, it integrates the community. People feel more love and belonging, and they fight and work that much harder, and roll through suicide and depression that much less frequently, for the betterment of more people overall.

      For "evolutionarily optimal" alone, look at it this way: breed a few generations of bulldogs, and they rip the throats out of their competitors. Several generations later, the bulldogs have hip- and shoulder-joint problems, persistent coughs, and are largely unable to survive without enduring pain and extensive veterinary treatment.

      So, too, with this first few dozen generations of selectively bred "elite humans." Look at, e.g., how hideous the European nobility is.

      "Besides, even in the most sex-positive primitive cultures, you still find some degree of attachment to one's immediate kin and hut."

      That's correct, although we should rarely, if ever, trust the reports given by western anthropologists investigating "non-contacted cultures" which have actually been contacted long ago and heavily influenced by world society. And more power to them--yes, kin and hut and soul-mate and favorite toy and special friend will always be there, and should always be there.

      Communal ideas as presented to people have typically been ruses. Like communism, or the sexual revolution, people have used the idea of "share, and freedom!" to trick others into systems of giving up their own possessions, in order that they be managed by an ideological elite. That's not what we're trying to do here, though. Human sexuality, just like feeding human children, is nothing like that. Private property can exist happily alongside the enforced prevention of starvation, just as monogamy can exist alongside fostered gangbangs. In fact, monogamy and private property are more secure in such climates.

      Delete
  2. Well, if you find an exit out of this world, on its own terms, you will be the first thinker in the history of humanity to successfully do so.

    ReplyDelete