But why doesn’t murder in the name of religious fervor make sense? I think that when Mr Letterman spoke, he was operating under the influence; the influence of religion itself.
As much as modern Americans consider ours a secular society, most people have been conditioned since childhood to
see religion as a goody two shoes affair. But is religion’s reputation of inherent benevolence deserved? And do all religions earn this benefit of the doubt?
Certainly paganism, or ‘witchcraft’, does not evoke this automatic assumption of holiness. Quite the opposite, to most people, wicca, or witchcraft is seen as silly or eccentric at best, and satanic at worst. Yet paganism was the sacred religion of Europe for thousands of years before it was stamped out by Christian religious fervor. And after centuries of censorship, intolerance, and bullying, we have been collectively force fed the lie that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have been a good influence, despite being patriarchal, prudish, intolerant, hostile, and at times violent by their very nature. And while we all know that acts of generosity and goodness have been performed by people of the book, it is equally clear that acts of generosity and goodness have been performed by pagans, agnostics and atheists as well.
If Nazi Germany had won WWII, and stamped out the cultures it despised, surely there would have eventually arisen an era of tolerance, generosity and goodness within Nazi institutions; reform brought about by nice progressive individuals, who happened to be raised as Nazis. Would all of these kind people have the perspective to see that the entire Foundation of their Nazi culture was corrupt?
Or given their upbringing, and considering the information available to them, would these nice Nazis try to reform Nazi culture, focusing on whatever positive aspects of Nazi ideology they could polish off and pass off as morality? When people defend their religious customs in the name of family tradition, I think of the kind Nazi grandmother in our parallel universe, who was raised in the centuries old tradition of her proud Aryan ancestors. Who cares if millions of people lost their lives, and entire cultures where obliterated? Few would question or find offense with the ‘Gypsy’ and the ‘Jew’ who now appear in cartoons, and Halloween costumes; Nobody takes those things seriously anymore. Why bother grandma with details of history, and questions about ethics? Nazism is tradition in this parallel world; It is comfortable and basically good. It seems irrelevant that the early Nazi heroes were violent and extreme. Modern Nazis hardly ever act that way anymore (after all the fight was won centuries ago). Is it worth telling grandma that Nazism took over with force, by not playing fair? Finally, in this parallel dimension, when violence erupts from a hand full of Nazi extremists, would a shocked parallel David Letterman find it hard to believe that such atrocities could be fueled by religious (Nazi) fervor?
In our dimension, religions have been imposed on us, both by the state, and within the family unit. For much of the world, religion has become a deeply rooted tradition. But there is nothing especially ‘Good’ about religion; The winners decide what is ‘Holy’, and we all loose. Thank You for visiting The Magdalene Foundation.

Many people are under the misconception that Mary Magdalene, apostle to the apostles and companion to Jesus Christ, was a repentant whore – a guilty, humble sinner groveling for forgiveness. This inaccurate picture is the result of centuries of slander by the Roman Catholic Church. Jealous of her popularity, a resentful Church felt threatened by her message and by the fact that she was a woman. Downplaying her significance as a religious leader, those patriarchal Church authorities removed her name as much as possible from the gospels, and persecuted the numerous Christian sects who regarded Mary Magdalene to be Christ’s most intimate disciple. A look at some of the earliest Christian literature gives us a glimpse into their world. The Gospel of Philip, written between 150-200 A.D., says that:

“The Savior loved Mary Magdalene more than all of his disciples, and kissed her mouth often.” (Gospel of Philip 63:34-35)

When the disciples asked Jesus “Why this is so?” he replied:

“Why do I not love you like her? If A blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and the blind will remain in the darkness.”(Gospel of Philip 64:1-10)

In other words, Jesus tells the disciples that Mary of Magdala (Mary Magdalene) is capable of understanding what they are not.

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is dated before 150 A.D. It is as old and “authentic” as the four Gospels that were approved by the Catholic Church and became part of the Christian Bible. In the Gospel of Mary Magdalene Peter says,

“Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of the woman,”

after which he asks Mary to share her secret knowledge with the group, which she does without hesitation. Like the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Mary was branded heretical and almost obliterated by the Roman Catholic Church.

AFTER CENTURIES OF MURDERING THE COMPETITION (other Christians) and destroying their literature (other gospels), the Catholic Church prevailed as the dominant sect of Christianity in the Western world. Then at the close of the 6th Century, Pope Gregory the Great officially declared that Mary of Magdala, Mary of Bethany and the nameless sinner in Luke’s Gospel were one and the same. This declaration was made in spite of the fact that in none of the Gospels, neither “Orthodox” nor “Heretical,” is Mary Magdalene ever referred to as a whore. Based on nothing but slander, this image of Mary Magdalene persists to this day.

“Even now, for most people, Mary Magdalene is a great sinner.” 1

Fortunately, a simple look at what was written about Mary Magdalene in the early years of Christianity yields a more powerful picture of this important Lady (or mythological character, as is likely the case).

Mary Magdalene is Mary Magdalene, not Mary of Bethany and not Luke’s nameless sinner. Being mentioned by name is a great distinction in the Bible, and being mentioned by place of birth as a independent person is even greater one. You don’t get your full name in the Bible by being a legendary prostitute. Nor do you get repeatedly emphasized as the principal witness to the central tenet of a new religion, unless you are perceived to be credible. Unlike the other women around Jesus:

“she alone stands out undefined by designation attaching her to some male as wife, mother or daughter; and it is as an independent woman that she is presented: this implies that she must also have been of some means, to have to choose to follow and support Christ.” 2

Quite clearly she was a woman of Means. Luke reports, for example, that her friends included the wife of a high dignitary at Herod’s Court, and that both women, together with various others, supported Jesus and his disciples with their financial resources.” 3 It is unlikely that this independent woman who had the money and freedom to support Jesus, and is known by her place of birth, was a recently retired hooker.

The suggestion that Mary of Magdalene is Mary of Bethany is also unlikely, for each Mary is introduced separately and shows different character traits. Nowhere in the Gospels is it stated or implied that they are the same woman. And why would one woman be given two different names? Did she come from two different places? Are we to believe that Mary Magdalene, with the wealth to support Jesus, and whose friends include the wives of influential dignitaries, is interchangeable with the humble Mary of Bethany, who is scolded by her older sister for not helping with the household chores? There is no reason to believe the European legend that Mary Magdalene is anyone other than herself. In all likelihood Mary Magdalene was well known and enjoyed a good reputation for early Christians to repeatedly insist that she witnessed Christ’s alleged resurrection, the cornerstone of Orthodox Christian belief.

“It is immediately clear from the Gospels that the evangelists are careful to name her precisely, setting her apart from the several other Marys, and in every account except John’s placing her at the head of Christ’s female flowers.” 2

Does it matter?

At the dawn of Christianity, and for centuries thereafter, the character of Mary Magdalene was that of a highly influential woman, wealthy and respected. In mystical terms she was The Goddess; The Bride of Christ. The Catholic Church transformed that image to that of a repentant call girl. Those who romanticize this version of The Magdalene, should remember that very powerful women do not usually sell sex for money, and stories about very powerful women, empower women, which is why IT DOES MATTER. The Catholic Church understood that IT DOES MATTER, which is why it spent centuries attacking or ignoring the image of a woman who was at times as famous as Jesus, and considered by many to be his wife.

Fortunately, as we learn the truth about Mary Magdalene, and her centuries of slander by the Roman Catholic Church, layers of deception peel away, revealing a freshly budding truth.

WELCOME TO THE MAGDALENE FOUNDATION.

1. The Women Around Jesus by Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel (1982)

2. Mary Magdalen by Susan Haskins

3. Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln

In the beginning (of the bible) God warns Adam not to touch or to eat the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil, because to do so will bring a sure death. It turns out that God is lying.
The serpent informs the First Lady (Chava) whose name means ‘Life’, that God is just trying to keep her down.
He tells Chava “Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.”
They eat the fruit, and wham! their eyes are opened… just like the serpent said.
When God eventually realizes that the couple has defied him, he fears that they will also eat of the Tree of Life and live forever. Why Human immortality worried God is never explained. He says ‘Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.’
He casts humanity out of Eden and curses Man to struggle for a living. He curses Women by putting Man in charge of her. He increases her pain in childbirth, as well as the number of children she must bear. He posts an angel in front of the Tree of Life, to prevent us from remembering that we are eternal.
So far, this god seems like a demon; power hungry, corrupt, untrustworthy and insecure.
Throughout the Old Testament he is a plague upon his followers.
Poor Moses was minding his own business, when ‘God’ first came to him, trying to show-off with special effects. At first Moses didn’t even know who this god was, thus the lengthy introduction…”I am the God of Abraham, the God of Issac….come on, I know you’ve heard of me…”. Moses really wanted to be left alone, but God pressured him into leading the Hebrews to become a mighty nation. After decades of using Moses towards his own ends, God did not even allow him to enter the promised land, but left Moses to die alone in the desert; Not much thanks from an entity who talks about being super powerful, but seems to get humans to do everything for him. God even asked the people for silver and gold to build his tabernacle. To this day, the ‘king of kings’ is a beggar.

As for his treatment of Jesus? Imagine this; Christ is in the desert. The devil has offered him money, sex, and power. Christ resists. The devil is quiet, and pretends to go away. A moment later he claims to be God. “You did good Jesus, now its time for you to be a human sacrifice.” What a line!…Who would want good ol’ Jesus to die a horrible death but the devil?! If Jesus’ hands weren’t nailed to the cross, he’d be waving them to tell us he’d been tricked! And the orthodox Christian church went on to commit every evil act imaginable to amass and maintain it’s vast power. Now if that’s not rotten fruit, what is?

As it turns out, a lot of people have expressed this low opinion of Yahweh. Many early Christians held similar views about this ‘God’.
Gnostic Christians called him ‘Samael’, which means ‘god of the blind’. He, in turn, called them heretics and had them murdered.
After all but destroying the legitimate church, this ‘devil’ set up a mock church of the anti Christ, which dominates to this day. This should be no surprise to a Christian; Matthew warned to ‘beware of false prophets who will come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravishing wolves’. How will we know the good folk from the bad? We shall know them by their fruits, meaning their actions.
Let’s compare fruits;
Before the new testament was compiled, there were many different ‘Jesus’ stories. The orthodox church, which was hierarchical and banned women from leadership, selected several Jesus stories to create the official cannon, and then legalized all others. The stories that were chosen, celebrate Jesus’ painful death at the hands of the state.

Gnostic Christians, on the other hand, were basically egalitarian, and both men and women, took turns leading the service. They understood Mary Magdalene and Jesus to represent the potential Goddess and God man in each of us. They studied a wide variety of Gospels, and were free to create new ones.

‘Orthodox’ Christians murdered Gnostics, destroyed their texts, and wrote bad things about them. They also insisted that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were actual people, instead of mythology, and that the events in the gospels really took place, as opposed to being allegorical works based on the stories of the Old Testament.

The Gnostics considered Mary Magdalene to be a face of the Goddess. In stark contrast, the orthodox church reinvented her as a repentant prostitute. If Jesus and Mary Magdalene, real or fictional, were married, then the Vatican not only celebrates Jesus’ murder, but also called his wife a whore. Seems like rotten fruit to me.
Between these differing sects, which is more likely the real church, and which is the church of anti Christ?

The Church of the Anti Christ:

Come on, it’s only too obvious; Our societies are corrupt and so are our ‘official’ religions. No surprise there.
The branch of Christianity that survived into modern times is the church of the anti Christ. Using gospels that were chosen by corrupt leaders, the basic premise of all orthodox Christianity is that it was holy for Jesus Christ to have been killed, and that it is holy for us to celebrate his murder. The symbol of this mock church is the crucifix, which is a symbol of public execution. Used by Rome (The State) to terrify the public into submission, the cusifix is as sacred an object as the electric chair. There is really nothing holy about it. The lord is our shepherd…and shepherds exploit their sheep. And who wanted to be a sheep anyway?

The immensely wealthy Vatican, with it’s history of murder, torture, and corruption, fits every possible description of a demonic cult. For example, centuries after the birth of Christianity, and against all biblical tradition, Catholic priests and nuns were ordered to become celibate. This was done for the economic benefit of the Vatican, not for spiritual reasons. Because the Vatican required it’s clergy to donate all land and wealth to the church, family was seen as competition to the churches claim on these goods. Thus, this evil institution created ranks of allegedly celibate minions, dressed in black and white, who have a long history of abusing children. More rotten fruit.

The protestants had the right idea when they rejected the Catholic Church as evil. Unfortunately they proceeded to use the same corrupted and misunderstood gospels, and retained the devils sexism and prudish attitudes. The rotten fruit doesn’t fall too far from the tree.

Allah as the devil.

Like Moses, Mohamed was a simple man who was minding his business when he was unexpectedly called upon by Yahweh. In this case, Mohamed was struck with the classic signs of demonic possession; his throat tightened, and his body started shaking. He then started channeling Yahweh’s new word. He was scared, almost threw himself off a cliff, then asked his wife what she thought… and we have all paid the price for her terrible judgment. In an act of admirable but regrettable faith she concluded that these events must be good, because ‘God’ wouldn’t let this happen if it were bad. Given her approval, Mohamed was the vehicle for this clever demi-god to deliver a newer, more refined version of his new world orders. And as was the case with the story of Moses, serving this demon led Mohamed and his followers to slaughter thousands of people in the name of religion; How much more evil can it get?
Unrivaled for its poetic beauty, the Koran is truly a thing of another world. The question is, which other world, and do we want to be ruled by it in this one? Line after line of elegant prose directed at men, give a revised set of orders which are much in line with the Bible’s Old Testament. But in the Koran, Adams wife is no longer mentioned by name, and the story of the Tree of Good and Evil is only eluded to. If I were Yahweh, I’d want to clean up that story as well. Muslims and Christians have a long history of discrediting Judaism. Could it be that this Devil has been trying to cover up his own humble beginnings? God only knows.

Thank you for visiting The Magdalene Foundation

How does anybody read the first few pages of the Bible and continue to believe that the god described therein is
supreme, omniscient, omnipotent, or trustworthy? Genesis 3 describes a metaphysical conspiracy, not a religion.

In both Genesis 1 and 2, God creates the world, animals, and the first people; a predictable beginning for a creation myth. Then in Genesis 3, the story gets weird when god cautions the first man, Adam, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because it is deadly. In the original Hebrew version of this story, Adam’s wife is named Chava which means life. The serpent comes along and asks her, “did god tell you not too eat something?…”

Now, there is some background information that can not be ignored. The ancient Goddess of antiquity, a world famous superstar at that time, was known for eating the fruit of knowledge, from her sacred fig trees, or Tree of Life. She consorted with serpents, which had symbolized wisdom in that part of the world for a long, long time. She shared all of these goodies with her son/lover, who was also a god.

So back to Life in the garden, we have this translation of the words of the author of Genesis:

‘And the serpent said unto the woman: “Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.” And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together.’

Following this eye-opening event, our star couple seems to descend into a classic bad trip; feeling vulnerable, ashamed or naked. God returns, blindly asking where they are. Upon discovering that the humans have this important new insight, God utters the incriminating cry of dismay, “Look! The man has become like one of us, with the knowledge of good and evil.” He blames the man for being influenced by woman and, in his frustration, he reveals to all, that it is Woman who is harder to control than Man. His disgust at Man for trusting Woman (the Goddess) over him is apparent in his cursing Man to labor over the earth in vain. His rage against Woman and his desire to keep her down are evinced in the curses he heaps upon her: to give birth to a greater number of children, to suffer extra pain in labor, and worst of all, to be forced to obey and desire Man – the dumb clod who fell for God’s bullshit the first time. It is worth mentioning that these curses hearken back to an earlier time when people lived by gathering from the land, when women had fewer children and less painful birthing, were less dominated by men, and had a better understanding of their own bodies all; likely realities in pre agricultural societies.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are a conspiracy to plunge humanity into a deep sleep, creating an army of blind followers, who in turn, impose these religions on others (family members included). The details and methods are encoded in this story of Adam and ‘Eve’.

1. Understand that Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden represent free, enlightened people who know how to live by gathering food from the land. They also represent the pagan civilizations of the ancient world which knew “Eve” to be the Great Goddess and who celebrated the knowledge of good and bad, life and death.

2. Do away with a true knowledge of good and bad, also called Karma, the age-old understanding that actions have repercussions which will likely return . Replace this truth with the notion that it is good to obey God’s word, however preposterous or corrupt, and it is bad to disobey God’s word for any reason.

3. Do away with humanity’s understanding that we are all eternal, divine pieces of the miracle of existence, and replace it with the lie that we at one time did not exist, but were later created by a single, all-powerful, all-knowing god who is in control of the world and will decide our fate upon our death.

4. Impose God’s curse, which happens to be the reality of living in an agricultural-based warrior culture; make most of the people work hard to barely survive by creating poverty and a class system. Make women have more children and encourage misery in childbirth. These scenarios are only possible with a food surplus, a sedentary lifestyle, and the suppression of woman’s knowledge of fertility awareness, birth control and abortion.

5. Put men in control of women. This form of “divide and conquer” is an effective way to confound the population. Remember that Adam was content to believe God’s deceptive warning. It was Chava (Eve) who decided to do what she wanted to do based on her own conclusion that knowing the truth is more desirable than being obedient to a liar. Who is the Hero of this story?

So, did the author of Genesis really think highly of God? Would a loyal fan show us that God curses humanity and keeps us from the tree of life, lest we live forever, and be as gods?

The author of Genesis spells it out for us: The difference between ourselves and the gods is the knowledge of good and evil, the understanding of our divine, eternal nature, and nothing much else.

It shouldn’t bother humans to be naked in the garden, for when we read the story of Genesis in this light, it is clear that it is the emperor who wears no clothes.

WELCOME TO THE MAGDALENE FOUNDATION.

The following is an open

letter to Dr.Laura

penned by a US resident, Jim,

which was posted on the Internet.

It’s funny, as well as informative.

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from
your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend

the homosexual lifestyle,

for example,

I simply remind
them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord
- Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what
do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is, how can I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35: clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 10:11, it is a
lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though
this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with animals?

For example, It was not long ago that male scientists proposed the image of “man the hunter and tool maker” as the courageous and innovative leader of human evolution, while a passive ‘woman the follower’ lingered in his shadow. Presented as scientific theory, these outdated ideas now seem less like science and more like male fantasy.

Equally fantastic, and no more scientific are theories that early woman was the sole evolutionary force of humanity, stoically raising local children in all female communes…men roaming in the background, occasionally coming forth to share food or mate; Had males merely inseminated women, only to flit off into the night, then men, investing nothing in the care of their offspring, would not be choosy at all. Yet, women’s fatty breasts and hips are advertisements to prospective males because, apparently, enough men did stay to raise their offspring, and increase their survival rates. Equally, men’s relatively large penis size implies an evolutionary adaptation to please his mate; evidence that early woman had choices, and that man sought to gain her favor. And so we see that women’s and men’s bodies seem to have actually evolved to please each other, and that’s something that didn’t happen overnight.

Thank you for visiting The Magdalene Foundation

R. Brian Furguson says that Human Beings have not always created war. In his 2003 article for Natural History Magazine, he explains that where there has been warfare, there is usually “lots” of evidence.

“The best evidence comes from collections of skeletons, which can still bear witness to the violence of war: the embedded points of spears, arrows, or other weapons…” “….solitary skulls, missing skulls (strongly suggesting that war trophies were taken). Mass burials or the absence of burial, as well as disproportionately few battle-age men in cemeteries, are also signs of war. But nothing like tribal warfare could be going on without leaving some signs in a good collection of skeletons”

So what do we see when we look at the archaeological record? For starters it seems that some of the things that were once considered evidence of warfare, have now lost their punch:

“Many hominid remains once thought to establish the most ancient evidence of homicide or cannibalism were actually gnawed be predators, or just suffered postmortem breakage.”

And when evidence of war is finally present?

“The ancient Middle East provides some of the best evidence for the emergence of war from a warless background.”

“The first walls of Jericho (dating from between 10,500 and 9,300 years ago) were once taken as conclusive evidence of war, but they are now understood to be built for flood control, not defence.”

“There is a certain ironic logic, given recent events, that the regular practice of warfare that has continued without interruption down to the present, began about 10,000 years ago in what is now northern Iraq.”

“Signs of war appear beginning 8000 years ago (6000B.C.) along the mountain routes through southern Turkey….Large group confrontations-war- appear by 6000 years ago (4000B.C.)…

…In Central Asia…the remains of hunter-gatherers show no signs of war, but war was clearly going strong by 5000 years ago (3000 B.C.)…The archaeological record in China shows that though millet was under cultivation at least 8000 years ago, no signs of war appeared for more than a thousand years after that…Elsewhere in China except for a single skeleton with a point embedded in it’s thigh, there are no hints of war until 4,600 years ago (2600 B.C.). Then rammed earthen walls and other signs of war occur throughout the core areas of historical China.”

“The first clear evidence of warfare in the (American) southwest dates from less than 2000 years ago…”

“In sum, if warfare were prevalent in early prehistoric times, the abundant materials in the archaeological record would be rich with the evidence of warfare. But the signs are not there…”

But what if R. Brian Furguson is wrong? Perhaps a starry eyed dreamer wearing rose colored glasses, Mr. Furguson’s wishful thinking has affected his powers of reason, leading him to see only what he wants to see. Maybe a more sober minded scholar would have a different point of view.

Georges Roux is about as sober a historian as could be asked for.

Born in France in 1914, Mr. Roux lived with his parents in Syria and Lebanon from the ages of 9 to 21. He graduated from the university of Paris with a degree in medicine, yet his interest in ancient near eastern history led him to pursue oriental studies in Paris, along with his medical career. In 1950 Mr. Roux joined the Iraq Petroleum company as a medical officer, spending 9 more years in the middle East. According to Penguin books “His original research work in southern Mesopotamia and the articles he wrote for the specialized periodicals such as Sumer and the Revue D’Assyriologie have won him admission to the restricted circle of professional archaeologists and assyriologists.” Georges Roux is no starry eyed dreamer.

In his book “Ancient Iraq” Roux reviews thousands of years of prehistory in the first few chapters. here is a very quick summary of what he reports:

From the Mesolithic (middle stone age) 9000-7000B.C.

From level B1 if Shanidar cave and the open-air site of Zawi Cheni Shanidar we find; “microlithic (small stone) flint flakes…and bigger implements such as grinder, querns, mortars and pestles…probably used to grind wild grains and pigments. Other novelties were awls made of bone and sometimes decorated with geometric designs, and such body ornaments as bone beads and pendants, animal teeth and colored stones”. Roux writes that skeletons found in an on-site cemetery showed signs of disease and tooth decay, with no mention of injury due to violence (although Roux does speculate that the skeletons at Zawi Chemi, where each of the 8 adults was accompanied by that of a child, were the result of some “awful ritual”).

From Karim-Shehir we find “objects which can be regarded as agricultural tools: flint sickle blades, chipped and ground stone hoes, and milling stones.”

At Mlefaat we see that “The tools consisted mostly of stone celts and mortars.”

At Phase III of Tell Mureybet, located on the Euphrates river, we see “wider multi-roomed rectangular houses made of limestone blocks.”

And regarding Tepe Ali Kosh, Roux writes that ” The presence on the site of obsidian tools…and of cowrie shells as ornaments indicate relations with faraway Armenia and with the much nearer gulf.”

From the Neolithic (new stone age) 7000B.C.-

From Jarmo we see that the inhabitants ” lived in square multi-roomed houses made of pressed mud, with mud ovens and backed in clay basins sunk in the ground. They ate with bone spoons, sewed with bone needles…and could weave and plait flax, and perhaps wool….These people adorned themselves with simple clay or stone necklaces, grooved bracelets of marble and shell pendants, buried their dead under the floor of their houses, and modeled clay figures of animals, and of a …pregnant woman…” Roux offers 6750 B.C., almost 9000 years ago, as a likely date for these artefacts. Speaking further of this era Roux states that with the exception of Jericho (see above)… “all of these were modest villages…and apparently unfortified.”

“The people who lived in those villages used stone bowls, baskets made waterproof with bitumen and probably skins and gourds as containers, but they already handled clay with some skill to build the walls of their houses….and to model figurines of animals and women.”

From the Hassuna period 5800-5500 B.C. at Tell Hassuna:

“houses were very similar to those of present day Iraqi villages. Six or seven rooms were arranged in two blocks around a courtyard…Grain was kept in huge bins…bread was baked in domed ovens…flint sickle blades, stone hoes, clay spindle whorls, and crude clay figures of naked and apparently seated women were present.

From the Halaf period 5500-4500 “the settlements are still of village type and size, but cobbled streets…indicate some municipal care taking.” “No less interesting¦are some of the small objects found at Arpachiyah and elsewhere amulets in the form of a house, a bull’s head or a double ax, and terra-cotta figurines of doves and women.” Roux writes that “Whatever the origins of the Halifians, there is no evidence of brutal invasion; in fact all we know of them points to a slow infiltration of peaceful people”

After describing several more eras of apparently peaceful civilization Roux finally reaches the last days of prehistory and the dawn of historical time at about 3750-2900B.C. Ironically this entrance into the age of warfare falls under the chapter “Birth of a civilization”. As marshes gave way to dryer country, we read that many villages disappeared, their inhabitants moving to bigger centers which became towns. Irrigation was developed but “…led to the concentration of power and wealth in a few hands and in a few places, to further technical progress, remarkable architectural and artistic achievements, but also to armed conflicts”.

Georges Roux never actually says that warfare is absent from thousands of years of our archeological record, but that is what he reports.

But enough about our distant past. What do we make of tribal warfare now?

R. Brian Furguson writes that for years following Napoleon A. Chagnon’s 1968 anthropological study ‘Yanomami: the fierce people’, the example of the Yanomami tribe of Brazil and Venezuela has been widely taught in anthropology classes as a model for Human nature.

“engaged in endless wars over women, status and revenge, the Yanomami were supposed to exemplify the human condition of eons past”

Regarding his own 1995 work ‘Yanomami Warfare: A Political History’ Furguson writes that he “described how the Yanomami have been coping with European intrusions since the 1700s…Yanomani wars were tightly linked to changes in the European presence. Recent wars…seemed to have been fought over access to steel tools and other goods distributed by Westerners.”

Continuing on this theme Furguson says that in the fall of 2000, journalist Patrick Tierney published “Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon”, a book which blamed the anthropologist Chignon for instigating the very wars he became famous for writing about. Furguson then reports that some anthropologists felt that

“missionaries…were more at fault than any anthropologists”

and that

“no one paying attention to this controversy still claims that the Yanomami wars can be understood without taking into consideration the tribe’s highly disrupted historical circumstances.”

Furguson goes on to say that

“studies which go far beyond the Yanomami are questioning the idea that war has always been part of the human condition. It looks as if, all around the world, what has been called primitive or indigenous warfare was generally transformed, frequently intensified, and sometimes precipitated by Western contact…Indigenous warfare recorded in recent centuries cannot be taken as typical of prehistoric tribes peoples.”

So what’s up with war?

As for why we did start warring, Furguson offers several possible conditions: permanent settlements “with a vested interest in their lands, food stores,…fishing sites, people no longer could walk away from trouble.”, population growth causing more competition for resources, the development of a social hierarchy with it’s own selfish agenda, and “an increase in long distance trade, particularly prestige goods: something else worth fighting over.” Finally …war was often associated with severe climactic change that broke down the subsistence base.”

Furguson finishes his article with the opinion:

“My view is that in most cases – not every single one – the decision to go to war involves the pursuit of practical self interest by those who actually make the decision….from New Guinea ‘big men’ to kings and presidents, leaders often favor war because war favors leaders.”

On that note, The Magdalene Foundation reminds us that we, the followers, choose the leaders, and we can only be led where we are willing to follow.

THANK YOU FOR VISITING THE MAGDALENE FOUNDATION

It seems that every day some prudish assumption about gender and sexuality is overturned by reality, and reality is that animals have diverse, even “homo”, sexualities:

The world is, indeed, teeming with homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered creatures of every stripe and feather. From the Southeastern Blueberry Bee of the United States, to more than 125 different bird species worldwide, the “birds and the bees,” literally, are queer. ((Biological Exhuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl, 1999 ))

They’ve been keeping it from us: There are homosexual and bisexual animals, ranging from charismatic megafauna like mountain gorillas to cats, dogs, and guinea pigs. There are transgendered animals, transvestite animals (who adopt the behavior of the other gender but don’t have sex with their own), and animals who live in bisexual triads and quartets. ((“The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals” by Susan McCarthy (salon.com) 1999 ))

On every continent, animals of the same sex seek each other out and have probably been doing so for millions of years. They court each other, using intricate and beautiful mating dances that are the result of eons of evolution. Males caress and kiss each other, showing tenderness and affection toward one another rather than jus hostility and aggression. Females form long-lasting pair bonds?or maybe just meet briefly for sex, rolling in passionate embraces or mounting one another. Animals of the same sex build nests and homes together, and many homosexual pairs raise young without members of the opposite sex. ((Biological Exhuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl, 1999 ))

Homosexual behavior occurs in more than 450 different kinds of animals worldwide, and is found in every major geographic region and every major animal group. ((Biological Exhuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl, 1999 ))

Some homosexual animals have one-night stands and some have long marriages. Gay and lesbian geese stay together year after year. Bottlenose dolphins don’t form male-female couples, but males often form lifelong pairs with other males. Some are interested only in males, but others are bisexual and happily indulge in beak-genital propulsion and more with male or female alike. ((“The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals” by Susan McCarthy (salon.com) 1999 ))

Homosexual behavior is seen in animals as far removed from homosapiens as seagulls and elephants.**3 (Human Nature) ((Human Natures: Gene, Cultures, and the Human Prospect. Ehrlich, Paul R. (pp. 69,86, 207) ))

Homosexual behavior occurs in most birds and mammals, including all our immediate primate relatives. (( Tree of Origin: What primate behavior can tell us about social evolution. Frans deWaal, editor))

Yet now we find that many a zoologist turned away in shame or disbelief and did not forward mother nature’s liberal message. The knowledge that animals are frequently homosexual or bisexual has been suppressed by a conservative branch of scholars…how unscientific.

“Zoology is a very conservative profession,” and focusing on animal homosexuality is not the road to success. One researcher documented homosexuality in sheep, but didn’t publish until she got tenure. ((“The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals” by Susan McCarthy (salon.com) 1999 ))

Apparently researchers have been cloaking their observations in academic terms that disguise the reality of gay animal sex:

A female ape wraps her legs around another female, “rubbing her own clitoris against her partner’s while emitting screams of enjoyment.” The researcher explains: It’s a form of greeting behavior. Or reconciliation. Possibly food-exchange behavior. It’s certainly not sex., Not lesbian sex. Not hot lesbian sex.

Six bighorn rams cluster, rubbing, nuzzling and mounting each other. “Aggressosexual behavior,” the biologist explains. A way of establishing dominance. ((“The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals” by Susan McCarthy (salon.com) 1999 ))

At times, the very word “dominance” itself becomes simply code for “homosexual mounting,” repeated mantralike until it finally loses what little meaning it had to begin with. ((“The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals” by Susan McCarthy (salon.com) 1999 ))

Of course underestimating animal intelligence is an easy way out:

The idea that animals can’t tell each other’s gender and accidentally have sex or form homosexual pairs has the age-old appeal of making animals look really, really dumb, but doesn’t hold up in the face of evidence that animals know quite well who they’re hitting on. ((“The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals” by Susan McCarthy (salon.com) 1999 ))

And let’s not overlook plain old omission:

Sometimes it just seems better not to bring it up. One researcher discovered homosexual mounting in white-tailed deer, yet when an 800-page book on white-tails was published, the researcher co-wrote the chapter on behavior with no mention of it.

A report on killer whale behavior that described homosexuality in male orcas was reissued as a government document for the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission with those passages — and only those passages — deleted. ((“The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals” by Susan McCarthy (salon.com) 1999 ))

So what has been omitted? Hot animal sex. For example:

The actual type of genital contact varies widely. Full penetration in male anal intercourse occurs in some species (for example, Orang-utans, Rhesus Macaques, Bison, and Bighorn rams), while female penetration of various types occurs during lesbian interactions in Orangutans (insertion of the finger into the vagina), Bonobos (insertion of the erect clitoris into the vulva), and Bottlenose and Spinner Dolphins (insertion of a fin or tail fluke into the female’s genital slit) ((Biological Exhuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl, 1999 ))

Oral sex of various kinds also occurs in a number of species. ((Biological Exhuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl, 1999 ))

Male Stumptail Macaques even perform mutual fellatio in a sixty-nine position. ((Biological Exhuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl, 1999 ))

Males also perform so-called penis-fencing: in this rare behavior, thus far observed only in the field, two males hang face to face from a branch while rubbing their erect penises together as if crossing swords. The sheer variety of sexual and erotic contacts in bonobos is impressive, especially if we include sporadic oral sex, massage of another individual’s genitals, and tongue-kissing. ((Human Natures: Gene, Cultures, and the Human Prospect. Ehrlich, Paul R. (pp. 69,86, 207) ))

And homosexual couples make great parents.

In a detailed study of parental behavior by female pairs of Ring-billed Gulls, scientists found no significant differences in quality of care provided by homosexual as opposed to heterosexual parents. They concluded that there was not anything that male Ring-billed Gull parents provided that two females could not offer equally well. This case is not exceptional: homosexual parents are generally as good at parenting as heterosexual ones. Examples of same-sex pairs successfully raising young have been documented in at least 20 species, and in a few cases, homosexual couples actually appear to have an advantage over heterosexual ones. Pairs of male Black Swans, for example, are often able to acquire the largest and best-quality territories for raising young because of their combined strength. Such fathers–dubbed “formidable” adversaries by one scientist–consequently tend to be more successful at raising offspring than most heterosexual pairs. ((Biological Exhuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl, 1999 ))

Even the notion that we are neatly divided into females and males turns out to be something of a fairy tale:

The traditional view of the animal kingdom–what one might call the Noah’s ark view–is that biology revolves around two sexes, male and female, with one of each to a pair. The range of genders and sexualities actually found in the animal world, however, is considerably richer than this. Animals with females that become males, animals with no males at all, animals that are both male and female simultaneously, animals where males resemble females, animals where females court other females and males court other males–Noah’s ark was never quite like this! Homosexuality represents but one of a wide variety of alternative sexualities and genders. ((Biological Exhuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl, 1999 ))

And it gets weirder…

Many animals live without two distinct genders, or with multiple genders. In hermaphrodite species, for instance, all individuals are both male and female simultaneously, and hence there are not really two separate sexes; in parthenogenetic species, all individuals are female and they reproduce by virgin birth. A number of other phenomena in the animal kingdom?for which we will use the cover term “transgender”?involve the crossing or traversing of existing gender categories: for example, transvestitism (imitating the opposite sex, either behaviorally, visually, or chemically), transsexuality (physically becoming the opposite sex), and intersexuality (combining physical characteristics of both sexes). ((Biological Exhuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl, 1999 ))

Transsexuality or sex change is a routine aspect of many animals’ lives, especially in invertebrates: shrimp, oysters, and sow bugs, for example, all undergo complete reversals of their sex at some stage in their lives. ((Biological Exhuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl, 1999 ))

Ironically, one need not look into the future or on alien worlds to find appropriate models: shape-shifting and morphing creatures are not merely the stuff of fantasy. The animal world–right now, here on earth–is brimming with countless gender variations and shimmering sexual possibilities: entire lizard species that consist only of females who reproduce by virgin birth and also have sex with each other; or the multigendered society of the Ruff, with four distinct categories of male birds, some of whom court and mate with one another. ((Biological Exhuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl, 1999 ))

But why? If the biological goal of living creatures is to reproduce, how does homosexuality fit into the evolutionary picture? Diversity as a survival strategy is just one of many answers:

Successful life forms are characterized by diversity, so changing environments don’t wipe them out. That diversity often extends to sexuality. Thus bisexuality and homosexuality are characteristics not of twisted nature, but of generous nature. ((“The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals” by Susan McCarthy (salon.com) 1999 ))

If homosexuality has any genetic component at all, why is there so much of it? Why was it not edited out by natural selection? Several compensating advantages have been suggested. Perhaps gays benefit their immediate kin. A family with nonreproductive adults who are splendid uncles and aunts may do significantly better than a family without. Another explanation is that many gays do have children… [I]n a more tolerant culture, many people now living as straights would also be bisexual…. If pure homosexuality is one end of a continuum, possibly with multiple genetic as well as multiple environmental causes, there may also be multiple advantages to having some of those genes: for oneself, one’s offspring, one’s family, and even one’s group. After all, according to the ancient Greeks, a soldier could hardly be expected to die for his fellow men if he was not also capable of loving them. (( Tree of Origin: What primate behavior can tell us about social evolution. Frans deWaal, editor))

Bruce Bagemihl coined the phrase biological exuberance for his theory of diverse animal sexualities, and for the title of his amazing book:

Bagemihl formulates the charmingly named theory of biological exuberance, of which homosexuality is one manifestation. He wants to unlink biological analysis from the idea that reproduction–and hence, heterosexuality–is all. Biology must accept the apparent purposelessness of sexualities, he argues. Sexual pleasure is “inherently valuable” and “requires no further justification.” ((“The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals” by Susan McCarthy (salon.com) 1999 ))

Bagemihl closes his book with a reminder that societies have not always been so narrow minded:

Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological Exuberance brings us full circle–back to a way of looking at the world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves binary oppositions, uniting dualities while simultaneously cherishing unlikeness. It suffers difference, honoring the “anomalous” and the “irregular” without reducing them to something familiar or “manageable.” And it embraces paradox, recognizing the coexistence of contradictory and seemingly incompatible phenomena. It is about the unspeakable inexplicability of earth’s mysteries, which are as immediate as the next heartbeat. Biological exuberance is, above all, an affirmation of life’s vitality and infinite possibilities: a worldview that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable. A world, in short, exactly like the one we inhabit. ((Biological Exhuberance:Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Bruce Bagemihl, 1999 ))

“Darwin assumed that females were ‘coy’, holding themselves in reserve for the one best male. Yet field studies for primates suggested that, once again, the behavior of females was more variable than expected. Females could be ‘promiscuous,’ like males, if by that term we mean attempting to mate with many partners….. Whatever else these apes and monkeys are up to, it’s obvious that selecting the one best male from available suitors–as Darwin imagined female choice would work–is scarcely the whole story.” ((Mother Nature: Maternal instincts and How They Shape the Human Species. Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah ))

“By the end of the twentieth century, sociobiologists had revealed that females were anything but passive or sexually coy, and certainly not less evolved. Females were the genetic custodians of the species, and through their mate choices–when permitted–directed the course of evolutionary change” ((Mother Nature: Maternal instincts and How They Shape the Human Species. Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah ))

New technologies, such as DNA testing, have given us insight into female sexual behavior in the wild that was once only guessed about, and guessed about quite incorrectly.

“For years researchers assumed that females in these groups mate exclusively with their male counterparts, thereby maintaining male investment in territorial defense and parental care. It turns out, however, that these monogamous arrangements are not all that they seem–recent genetic paternity tests conducted on a wide variety of bird species have confirmed that extra-pair fertilizations are far from rare.” (( Tree of Origin: What primate behavior can tell us about social evolution. Frans deWaal, editor))

“The fathers not only lived outside the study sample, but included males that the observers had never ever seen the female traveling with, much less mating with.” ((Mother Nature: Maternal instincts and How They Shape the Human Species. Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah ))

“Even in Chimpanzees it seems that females have more choice than observers (and presumably their own males) suspect. DNA tests of chimps born in Christophe Boesch’s troop in the Tai Forest of the Ivory Coast showed that 7 of 13 troop offspring were sired by males outside the community. This means that females were successively sneaking away unseen to find partners elsewhere…. it suggests that all the herding, corralling, fighting, and seducing by chimp community males still may not succeed in limiting females’ choices.” (( Lucy’s Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley, Allison))

And we see that being the alpha male may not be what it’s cracked up to be….

“Worse yet for cherished ideas about behavior, four of the males in the chimp community were dominant during the study period, but two of them fathered no offspring (within the group) while dominant. So much for the notion that dominance is necessarily coupled with high reproductive output…” ((Human Natures: Gene, Cultures, and the Human Prospect. Ehrlich, Paul R. (pp. 69,86, 207) ))

Apparently females have alternative methods of exerting mate choice, and sneaking around behind the backs of dominant males is a highly successful strategy.

“This new awareness of female reproductive interests is transforming our understanding of animal mating systems. Wherever males attempt to constrain female reproductive options, we can expect selection for traits that help females evade them” ((Mother Nature: Maternal instincts and How They Shape the Human Species. Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah ))

And we see that sexual loyalty to a mate is no more natural in females than in males:

“In fact, fidelity is a phenomenon that seems to occur only when males can impose it on females, either directly through their greater social power or brute force, or indirectly through controlling the resources that females and their offspring require. In sexually egalitarian societies like those of bonobos and marquis, females have both less fear from males and more equal access to resources than do most other female primates. The fact that the most liberal attitudes toward human sexuality are found in societies where women have similarly independent social status and economic means is entirely consistent with the broader patterns across primates” (( Tree of Origin: What primate behavior can tell us about social evolution. Frans deWaal, editor))

Size Difference

For mammals generally, the size difference between females and males tells us something about their mating habits. Where females and males are the same, or nearly the same in size, they tend to have monogamous mating systems. In this context, “monogamy” means that a single male is paired with a single female, both of whom defend territory and care for young, although either partner may occasionally mate with an outsider. While many monogamous animals pair for a season, some such as gibbons, pair for life.

Where males are much bigger than females, as is the case with gorillas, we see a system where the most powerful male beats back the competition and maintains a harem.

“This association of monogamy with equality in size and of polygamy with inequality of size was noted as early as the nineteenth century….These correlations have stood the test of statistical analysis by modern researchers with more and more reliable data”. ((The woman that never evolved. Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah. (pp.24, 134-135,25, 72) ))

Human males are not substantially bigger than females, indicating an evolutionary history of partial, or “quasi-monogamy”.

“In other words, body size suggests, on average, that early human males might have had two or three mates at a given time, while testis size suggests that women also found more than one simultaneous mate over the eons that our bodies were evolving.” (( Lucy’s Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley, Allison))

Testes and Sperm Competition

For male primates, humans included, the size of the testes relative to body weight, indicates how many mates the female of the species typically has.

“Human testes weigh about the same as those of a 450-pound gorilla, which suggests that men compete with men at the sperm level more than gorillas compete with other gorillas. Because gorilla groups are widely separated, a gorilla female is not likely to go off among the giant nettles to mate with a neighboring male unless she opts to change groups completely. It would be taking a huge physical risk to sneak off for an adulterous liaison and sneak back, hoping to escape detection…. Gorillas compete by muscle power to establish a harem; they do not need to compete by quantities of sperm.” (( Lucy’s Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley, Allison))

“Males who produce more sperm flood out their opponents. Chimpanzees and bonobos, whose females mate with many males, have far larger testes for body size than humans, and much larger than gorilla harem masters. Chimp testes are about 4 ounces for a 100-pound gorilla; gorillas are about 2.5 ounces for a 450-pound animal. Gorillas keep rivals away by teeth, muscles, and reputation, and so do not have to share their mates. Human testes weigh about 2.5 ounces for a 175-pound man–suggesting that our females are more promiscuous than gorillas, but less so than chimps” (( Lucy’s Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley, Allison))

Penis Size

The enormous male gorilla, who fights competing males, and keeps a harem of smaller females to himself, has a tiny little penis. He doesn’t have to be a great lover, just a great fighter. Fortunately, most human males differ from this, themselves having relatively huge members.

“Another peculiarity of humans is that the penis is twice the size for body weight as that of any other primate. Indeed, gorillas and orangutans are strikingly under endowed in this respect. Among bonobos, the penis is longer than our own, but thinner… the two apes with most frequent sex, ourselves and bonobos, are the two with huge penises.” (( Lucy’s Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley, Allison))

And while male scientists like Jered Diamond, and Paul R. Ehrlich offer amusing and rather contrived theories about why this is so (see below), we see that female scientists like Allison Jolly, and Sarah Hrdy simply point out what would seem like common sense to almost any woman: the large human penis is probably the delightful result of generations of sexual selection by human women, and this indicates that early women had choices, and preferences as well..

“The possibility has been raised that substantial penis length is related to sperm competition and ejaculation as close as possible to the egg, an explanation that seems unlikely….” **5(Paul R. Ehrlich) ((Human Natures: Gene, Cultures, and the Human Prospect. Ehrlich, Paul R. (pp. 69,86, 207) ))

“…Jared Diamond concludes that the function of a large penis is to show off to other males. He may be influenced by his time in New Guinea, among people whose chief clothing is the exaggerated and erect penis sheath. It is true that men’s genitalia seem to interest other men, in urinals and locker rooms, more so than women. But the reproductive advantages of giving pleasure to females, promoting mate choice, and stimulating female orgasm by tactile means should not be underestimated” (( Lucy’s Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley, Allison))

“Both female and male acquired permanent attractiveness–big breasts, big penis–which continually advertised both sexiness and reassurance to the mate.” **4 (Sarah Hrdy) ((Mother Nature: Maternal instincts and How They Shape the Human Species. Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah ))

Female Shape, Sexual Selection, and Quasi-Monogamy

For species whose males invest little or nothing in rearing young, females are very choosy in selecting the best mate. Males of these species compete to be chosen, and are not themselves choosy. This is not surprising since the female is biologically limited in the number of offspring she can produce, and invests heavily in that production. For her, mating indiscriminately with many males is not a good reproductive strategy; a better plan is to mate with only the best males. For a male of such species, however, contributing nothing but sperm, the act of mating is a low investment affair. For him, mating many times, with many females, does increase his chances of producing surviving offspring, his only real limitation being the number of females who are willing to mate with him. Therefore, the male’s best reproductive strategy is to invest his energy into being as attractive as possible to those choosy females. When a species develops characteristics that have no value other than to attract mates, we get the beauty and wonder that is produced by sexual selection. The most famous example of this is the magnificently tailed peacock, whose elaborate train does nothing to enhance survival, but is necessary for attracting mates. To the choosy peahen, herself undecorated, the tail advertises quality. In fact, researchers have found a truth in such advertising; peacocks having long, richly decorated tails with symmetrical patterns show better immune health than their small-tailed, less ornate, or lopsided brothers. So much for low investment males. For high investment males, however, the tables turn, and the gender that is usually chosen has earned the right to choose.

“Male choice does occur, however, in monogamous (or quasi-monogamous) species like sea-horses and humans, where both mates have a similar interest in their brood and are willing to spend time assessing, and being assessed by, potential mates…. It is less often pointed out that playing hard-to-get is also a male trait wherever that male has high parental investment in the offspring of his official mate.” (( Lucy’s Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley, Allison))

Permanent Breasts and Buttocks

“Breast milk is secreted by milk glands, not the fat that surrounds them, which indicates nothing about milk production. Flat-chested and big-breasted women are equally able to feed babies, as are chimps, who have nothing visible but a nipple. Wide pelvic bones aid easy birth, but panier fat deposits alongside the pelvis do nothing of the sort… women’s fat is distributed in the same zones as other mammals but particular fat deposits are exaggerated, like any other sexually selected signal…. The hourglass shape of nubile young women signals the same primitive message to young men. The contrast between small waist and wide hips and breasts says that the woman is fertile (as evidenced by her breast and hip fat) but not pregnant (as evidenced by her small waist). It is the waist-to-hip ratio that attracts mates.(Of course, even waist-to-hip ratio, real and preferred, is affected by culture. Machinga Indians of the upper Amazon think thin-waisted women look starved, not attractive.)” (( Lucy’s Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley, Allison))

Permanent breasts, buttocks, and fat hips are products of sexual selection. Having no function other than to attract mates, these qualities indicate that early men where choosy about who they stayed to raise young with. If men had not been a valuable part of the early human family then women would not have evolved to be continuously attractive and sexually receptive to them.

Sex as a Social Lubricant

“Sex for passion, for intimacy, for relief of tension, even for material reward, for all the reasons people now make love–sex in early humans became a sexual lubricant…. Sexual eagerness evolved in women along with their other social needs.” (( Lucy’s Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley, Allison))

Most animals mate only when it is time to reproduce. But humans, like bonobos, have evolved a highly social sexuality. In fact, you could say that our highly social sexuality has evolved us.

“…[I]n his 1967 book, the naked ape, Desmond Morris argued that the development of continuous receptivity, breasts, buttocks and orgasm in women was critical to the evolution of human beings because they cemented the pair-bond between mates by providing mutual rewards for both partners. The reduction of body hair and the unusually large size of the male penis compared with that of chimpanzees and gorillas are explained by similar arguments about mutual attraction.” ((The woman that never evolved. Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah. (pp.24, 134-135,25, 72) ))

Monogamy, what is it good for?

Monogamy has its good points. Males who help rear young increase the chances that their offspring survive by watching for predators, guarding against other males, feeding, and nurturing.

“Monogamous males also help with child care. They are fairly sure of paternity, so they are good fathers.” (( Lucy’s Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley, Allison))

“But then why tolerate a male? Perhaps for his help in watching for predators…probably the males stayed originally as paladins, and then gradually made themselves useful as nannies.” (( Lucy’s Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley, Allison))

Primates are especially monogamous, monogamy being several times more common in primates than is typical of other mammals.

“Among mammals generally, primate males stand out for the unusual role they play in rearing offspring….primate males are not just fighting machines, built to conquer other males and reap their rewards in copulations. Were this the case the primate female would be a different creature, vastly more submissive, less assertive, and less complex …” ((The woman that never evolved. Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah. (pp.24, 134-135,25, 72) ))

Yet like so much in life, monogamy is a trade off. A male who stays to rear young greatly reduces his opportunity to roam great distances looking for new females. And with such a heavy investment in his mate, the monogamous male also has a vested interest in her behavior. If she has sex with other males, than he stands the chance of raising someone else’s offspring, himself potentially remaining childless.

“…preventing female primates (or birds for that matter) from pursuing extra-group partners is a problem common to pair-bonded males alike.” (( Tree of Origin: What primate behavior can tell us about social evolution. Frans deWaal, editor))

From her point of view, the female who bonds with a male must share her territory and its limited food supply.

“But along with clear-cut benefits of having males around…their presence also imposes a variety of costs…some are minor and easily discounted (for example males take up space). Other costs are chronic and more serious: males usually compete with young for finite resources…” ((The woman that never evolved. Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah. (pp.24, 134-135,25, 72) ))

The female may also find herself with reduced opportunities to join with other mates. This is the root of the battle of the sexes, for females have a tendency to roam as well. So why did females evolve such a strong and persistent wanderlust? The reasons are many: to obtain superior genes from a male who is other than her “official” mate, to gain support from a variety of men who know that they may be the father of her children. to set up potential “back-up” daddies should her mate abandon her or die, and to stave off infanticidal males who won’t risk killing a child that might be theirs.

Thus monogamy, or the appearance of it, is a compromise that curtails the mating opportunities of both partners.

“This in turn, could invoke severe conflict both between the mates and within the female’s own psyche over how much she was committed to stick with her official mate, and how much she was still free to roam.” (( Lucy’s Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley, Allison))