Promiscuity is a Scourge of Humanity
I found one more quote:
"André and Dorine Gorz were consistently faithful, with a relationship of unquestioning trust, according to friends, physically and intellectually."
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2678781.ece
I am wondering, how they could get so bonded, and why men in our times are so completely emotionally disabled by promiscuity.
After some thinking, I started to see a parallel between saksuality (misspelled on purpose) and killing. Again as before mentioned, I see human behavior as the result of two independent evolutions, the evolution of animal instincts and the evolution of the rational brain controlling them. Killing others of the own species to take their resources and to eat them is a part of animal evolution, just as is promiscuous copulation to spread the own genes.
Both such behaviors are uncontrolled not only advantages, but also a hazard to the survival of a group of humans, who depend on some coherence inside the group for the entire group's survival. So the rational brain has evolved an inhibition against starting some activities, that are only suitable for adults after some careful instructions concerning wise restrictions.
There is a killing inhibition in all people, and if someone lives in civilized surroundings, he may never loose it. This is especially true for the direct killing in physical fighting, which is the way of killing under savanna conditions as the result of animal evolution. The built in inhibition to shoot at someone is probably less strong than the inhibition to strangle someone with the own hands.
The killing inhibitions can be overcome by role models in criminal subcultures, and it is on purpose overcome by training in the military. But once the inhibition is overrun, there comes habituation, until killing has become normal, unrestricted behavior void of emotions. There are many activities and actions, that a person growing up experiences the first time with thrill, elation, fear and other strong emotions, but after doing them more often, they become routine, that does not elicit emotions any more.
Once the inhibition to kill is overcome, it cannot be reinstalled. There can be laws and rules to threaten with punishment, if the trained killer kills the members of the ingroup, but the readiness to kill will persist. And when the inhibition to kill was removed by military training, this of course also removed the less strong inhibition to use violence as a method to gain some advantages.
As many other traits the relative strength of the killing instinct and the evolved killing inhibitions are different between individuals. At one end of the scales are those, whose inhibitions are maybe non-existent or very low and overcoming is easy, therefore they choose the military to be allowed to live in accordance with their natural inclinations. Others are further evolved towards being truly human and no training can ever make them ready to kill.
Unfortunately, the world history is a history of wars and of having armies. As a consequence, there has always been a big amount of men, who have been made uninhibited by training and by having been a soldier in a war. Therefore there were always those men apt to kill and to use violence in civil live. There are enough cases of soldiers returning from war and killing or abusing their wives. And the criminal and other violent subcultures of every society are certainly in part supplied with active members by the military training.
But there is another development too: The effect of the flood of realistic moving and still pictures on people's, especially on children's minds.
I had mentioned in previous entries Kanazawa and the Savanna Principle:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201002/the-savanna-principle
According to Kanazawa, by evolution, the human brain is still confounding the reality of real people and the reality of pictures, that appear to look like real people, as are movies, TV and photography. His example are people on TV becoming friends as if they were real.
This makes so much sense, that I assume the existence of the same effect also upon the destruction of inhibitions. The young caveman needed to observe the role model of his teacher to initiate him into killing and attacking the members of outgroup tribes. After watching this a few times, he then could be encouraged to do it himself.
Now already children watch killing and violence in such frequency and so realistically shown on TV from early age on, that by the time they are the first time in a situation of conflict, there inhibitions are already so fragile, that the last step to actually attack is a small one. It seems to be a doubly detrimental situation: While the fact of knowing well enough, that TV is not reality reduces to feel an inhibition as there would in a real situation, watching countless murders and acts of violence still causes disinhibition by the habituation of watching it.
I explained the killing disinhibition extensively, as it is a neutral topic to make my point comprehensible. Because I am convinced, that the evolution of the more human brain has not only evolved the inhibition to kill, but also the inhibition to promiscuity. Only the damage of a murder is obvious, while the damage caused by promiscuity is more subtle and not so obvious to those, who are themselves void of the sensitivity for deep bonding.
A deaf person cannot miss hearing music, as he had never been able to experience it. A promiscuous man cannot miss the bliss of feeling a deep bond, as he had never been able to experience it. Both are tragically disabled.
The disinhibition and desensizitation of the promiscuity inhibition are as detrimental as that of the killing inhibition. Just as the killing inhibition prevents the first killing, so the promiscuity inhibition prevents to get physically involved with strangers, it protects the privacy of the own body from being abused.
People, who seal a bond of emotional and intellectual intimacy with a bond of physical intimacy do not overcome an inhibition, because when there is emotional and intellectual intimacy, there is no involvement with a stranger. Two people can have a bond of the combined intimacy and still keep their promiscuity inhibition intact preventing them from cheating. They feel a strong emotional and intellectual bond, and when they add the physical bond, it is forever associated with the strong emotions of a bond.
It is the same effect as with Pavlov's dog. First his mouth watered, when he saw food, then when he saw the food and heard the bell, and then when he only heard the bell. First the couple feels bonded and committed by emotional and intellectual intimacy, then the feel bonded by adding physical intimacy to emotional and intellectual intimacy, and then even the physical intimacy by itself makes them feel bonded. With their sensitivity intact, they can forever preserve a healthy promiscuity inhibition, that makes them recoil from physical encounters without a bond.
I admit, I am void not only of empathy but even of the imagination, how someone can perceive his body as so alienated from his mind and personality, that he can have his body use a woman's body as a tool, a kind of a toilet, and forget her completely unaffected afterwards. But I know, that the majority of men are such emotional cripples. Even worse, they even claim, that their disability should be considered as the norm of society.
Dorine and André Gorz met in 1947 and married in 1949. When I grew up in the 50s and 60s, the environment was still pretty much the same as it was for them. I grew up with no TV. But even though TV started in Germany in the 50s, it was black and white for years to come, and the effect of confounding pictures with reality seems logically depending on color pictures. In those days, saksuality was a part of the world of adult couples, there was abstract knowledge, there were weird rumors between curious kids, there were novels, but there was no visual pollution of every day life. Curious kids had to seek information, it was nowhere pushed upon them. Women were decently dressed, there were no commercial selling things by using saks to do so. Physical intimacy had its place in the privacy of the couple. Therefore young people had a chance to enter their first intimate relationship or marriage with their full potential of the sensitivity to get deeply bonded by the combined treble intimacy.
Nowadays children grow up in the visual pollution of an oversexed world. This pollution is everywhere, on TV, on newspapers, commercials and the web. People's minds get poisoned by that visual pollution and it is as unhealthy as the pollution by bad air. A child, who has seen countless saksual activities on TV with the same emotional understanding as watching people play tennis together, is too desensitized to ever learn to associate physical intimacy with creating an emotional and intellectual bond. If the promiscuity inhibition has been destroyed by role models, norms of society, TV, the web or peer group pressure, before the person has reached the maturity to be able to feel an emotional and intellectual bond with a partner, then this person has lost a quality and ability most probably irreversibly, that makes humans truly human.
I found one more quote:
"André and Dorine Gorz were consistently faithful, with a relationship of unquestioning trust, according to friends, physically and intellectually."
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2678781.ece
I am wondering, how they could get so bonded, and why men in our times are so completely emotionally disabled by promiscuity.
After some thinking, I started to see a parallel between saksuality (misspelled on purpose) and killing. Again as before mentioned, I see human behavior as the result of two independent evolutions, the evolution of animal instincts and the evolution of the rational brain controlling them. Killing others of the own species to take their resources and to eat them is a part of animal evolution, just as is promiscuous copulation to spread the own genes.
Both such behaviors are uncontrolled not only advantages, but also a hazard to the survival of a group of humans, who depend on some coherence inside the group for the entire group's survival. So the rational brain has evolved an inhibition against starting some activities, that are only suitable for adults after some careful instructions concerning wise restrictions.
There is a killing inhibition in all people, and if someone lives in civilized surroundings, he may never loose it. This is especially true for the direct killing in physical fighting, which is the way of killing under savanna conditions as the result of animal evolution. The built in inhibition to shoot at someone is probably less strong than the inhibition to strangle someone with the own hands.
The killing inhibitions can be overcome by role models in criminal subcultures, and it is on purpose overcome by training in the military. But once the inhibition is overrun, there comes habituation, until killing has become normal, unrestricted behavior void of emotions. There are many activities and actions, that a person growing up experiences the first time with thrill, elation, fear and other strong emotions, but after doing them more often, they become routine, that does not elicit emotions any more.
Once the inhibition to kill is overcome, it cannot be reinstalled. There can be laws and rules to threaten with punishment, if the trained killer kills the members of the ingroup, but the readiness to kill will persist. And when the inhibition to kill was removed by military training, this of course also removed the less strong inhibition to use violence as a method to gain some advantages.
As many other traits the relative strength of the killing instinct and the evolved killing inhibitions are different between individuals. At one end of the scales are those, whose inhibitions are maybe non-existent or very low and overcoming is easy, therefore they choose the military to be allowed to live in accordance with their natural inclinations. Others are further evolved towards being truly human and no training can ever make them ready to kill.
Unfortunately, the world history is a history of wars and of having armies. As a consequence, there has always been a big amount of men, who have been made uninhibited by training and by having been a soldier in a war. Therefore there were always those men apt to kill and to use violence in civil live. There are enough cases of soldiers returning from war and killing or abusing their wives. And the criminal and other violent subcultures of every society are certainly in part supplied with active members by the military training.
But there is another development too: The effect of the flood of realistic moving and still pictures on people's, especially on children's minds.
I had mentioned in previous entries Kanazawa and the Savanna Principle:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201002/the-savanna-principle
According to Kanazawa, by evolution, the human brain is still confounding the reality of real people and the reality of pictures, that appear to look like real people, as are movies, TV and photography. His example are people on TV becoming friends as if they were real.
This makes so much sense, that I assume the existence of the same effect also upon the destruction of inhibitions. The young caveman needed to observe the role model of his teacher to initiate him into killing and attacking the members of outgroup tribes. After watching this a few times, he then could be encouraged to do it himself.
Now already children watch killing and violence in such frequency and so realistically shown on TV from early age on, that by the time they are the first time in a situation of conflict, there inhibitions are already so fragile, that the last step to actually attack is a small one. It seems to be a doubly detrimental situation: While the fact of knowing well enough, that TV is not reality reduces to feel an inhibition as there would in a real situation, watching countless murders and acts of violence still causes disinhibition by the habituation of watching it.
I explained the killing disinhibition extensively, as it is a neutral topic to make my point comprehensible. Because I am convinced, that the evolution of the more human brain has not only evolved the inhibition to kill, but also the inhibition to promiscuity. Only the damage of a murder is obvious, while the damage caused by promiscuity is more subtle and not so obvious to those, who are themselves void of the sensitivity for deep bonding.
A deaf person cannot miss hearing music, as he had never been able to experience it. A promiscuous man cannot miss the bliss of feeling a deep bond, as he had never been able to experience it. Both are tragically disabled.
The disinhibition and desensizitation of the promiscuity inhibition are as detrimental as that of the killing inhibition. Just as the killing inhibition prevents the first killing, so the promiscuity inhibition prevents to get physically involved with strangers, it protects the privacy of the own body from being abused.
People, who seal a bond of emotional and intellectual intimacy with a bond of physical intimacy do not overcome an inhibition, because when there is emotional and intellectual intimacy, there is no involvement with a stranger. Two people can have a bond of the combined intimacy and still keep their promiscuity inhibition intact preventing them from cheating. They feel a strong emotional and intellectual bond, and when they add the physical bond, it is forever associated with the strong emotions of a bond.
It is the same effect as with Pavlov's dog. First his mouth watered, when he saw food, then when he saw the food and heard the bell, and then when he only heard the bell. First the couple feels bonded and committed by emotional and intellectual intimacy, then the feel bonded by adding physical intimacy to emotional and intellectual intimacy, and then even the physical intimacy by itself makes them feel bonded. With their sensitivity intact, they can forever preserve a healthy promiscuity inhibition, that makes them recoil from physical encounters without a bond.
I admit, I am void not only of empathy but even of the imagination, how someone can perceive his body as so alienated from his mind and personality, that he can have his body use a woman's body as a tool, a kind of a toilet, and forget her completely unaffected afterwards. But I know, that the majority of men are such emotional cripples. Even worse, they even claim, that their disability should be considered as the norm of society.
Dorine and André Gorz met in 1947 and married in 1949. When I grew up in the 50s and 60s, the environment was still pretty much the same as it was for them. I grew up with no TV. But even though TV started in Germany in the 50s, it was black and white for years to come, and the effect of confounding pictures with reality seems logically depending on color pictures. In those days, saksuality was a part of the world of adult couples, there was abstract knowledge, there were weird rumors between curious kids, there were novels, but there was no visual pollution of every day life. Curious kids had to seek information, it was nowhere pushed upon them. Women were decently dressed, there were no commercial selling things by using saks to do so. Physical intimacy had its place in the privacy of the couple. Therefore young people had a chance to enter their first intimate relationship or marriage with their full potential of the sensitivity to get deeply bonded by the combined treble intimacy.
Nowadays children grow up in the visual pollution of an oversexed world. This pollution is everywhere, on TV, on newspapers, commercials and the web. People's minds get poisoned by that visual pollution and it is as unhealthy as the pollution by bad air. A child, who has seen countless saksual activities on TV with the same emotional understanding as watching people play tennis together, is too desensitized to ever learn to associate physical intimacy with creating an emotional and intellectual bond. If the promiscuity inhibition has been destroyed by role models, norms of society, TV, the web or peer group pressure, before the person has reached the maturity to be able to feel an emotional and intellectual bond with a partner, then this person has lost a quality and ability most probably irreversibly, that makes humans truly human.
Ruthless promiscuity of the fittest has been a way of evolution to increase the fitness of the species, so the tendency for promiscuity would have spread accordingly, causing more and more suffering to individuals, who needed monogamous bonding to be happy. Fortunately spreading of promiscuity was limited successfully by saksually transmitted diseases until very recently. Monogamous couples were spared, while the more someone was promiscuous, the more he risked to be killed by such a disease, before he could spread his horrible genes too much. Then slowly, human evolution added the promiscuity inhibition as an additional stop to the spreading of promiscuity.
But now, things are changing in a dangerous way. The promiscuity inhibition has lost its protective influence, and the progress in medicine has gone so far, that saksually transmitted diseases do not rid the gene pool of the promiscuous, before they can spread their genes.
The future is bleak. One of the most valid results of the evolution of the human brain, the capacity for monogamous deep bonding, is at the risk of disappearing and being replaced by the predominance of animal instinctivity.
