Brexit
has now been over-shadowed by the revelations which started in
Hollywood and the entertainment industry and have moved on to
questions about MP's overstepping the mark. This is nothing new.
My
admiration for Niall Ferguson's writings in the Sunday Times is
well-documented, but this week it is his compatriot Sarah Baxter who
stole the lime-light with her essay on the sex scandal culture we are
embroiled in. (How fitting, we use the word “embroiled” as a
noun to describe what was originally a verb meaning to immerse in hot
water to now in the past participle meaning “in hot water” -
marvellous language English!)
I
particularly like her sub-title: A decaying Tory party once fell to
Blair: this time the hard left are waiting.
Amen.
We
have been here before. At the 1993 Tory conference John Major
stressed the idea of family values. This is usually seen as fertile
ground for the Conservatives with its rather nostalgic view of the
shires as being (as well as Tory through and through) the bastion of
good taste, good manners and No Sex, Please – We're British. Had
he not been in the middle of a four year affair with Edwina Curry at
the time perhaps his keynote might have been more authentic.
Sarah
reminds us that even at that time the peccadilloes of politicians
were well known and well documented. She recounts being
propositioned by Stephen Milligan, the Tory MP who was found dead in
his flat a few months later whilst wearing nothing but stockings and
suspenders and with an orange in his mouth. (Some kind of party that
must have been!)
The
debates which followed tore the Tories apart. The Maastricht rebels
made Major's government look silly and weak. The stage was set for
Tony Blair's New Labour to take over Downing Street.
(I
really like the next bit!) And so here we are two decades later
with Brexit and Sexit dominating the news. Splits over Europe: sex
scandals: an enfeebled Conservative government and an emboldened
Labour opposition (even with or perhaps in spite of Jeremy Corbin
still being the leader) and ministers who may well have done or said
things in the past which they now wish they had not - wondering how
long they can last.
Sarah
does like a diatribe, and she gives both barrels to almost everything
and everyone who has been a “sex pest” since. To her credit she
invokes the spirit of, if not the actions of, Julia Hartley-Brewer
who (apparently) told Michael Fallon she would punch him in the face
if he didn't watch his wandering hands. Bravo. Most men would
understand that sort of comment as a No – I'm not interested.
Julia's point is that men in positions of power just don't get it.
We
need to take a step back. Clearly men who force women into sex
either by physical force (rape) or coercion (could still be rape) are
acting outside of society's acceptable norms. Unfortunately, by
pretending that this is a new phenomenon, advocates of a New Deal for
women are in danger of obscuring the point. Let's get back to
basics.
Take
a look at:
What's
this got to do with it? Simple, men in positions of power have been
taking steps to mate with as many women as possible for at least the
last 70 000 years (Toba eruption and subsequent population
bottleneck) and probably longer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Biologically
men are mutants. Women have 23 perfect pairs of chromosomes. Men
have the odd y chromosome where there should be an x. Men have no
biological function other than fathering children. Unlike our close
relatives, the bonobos, the chimpanzees and the gorillas, homo
sapiens has been forced to adopt quite different sexual, reproductive
strategies.
Look
at our closest relatives: Firstly, bonobos.
Because
of the promiscuous mating behaviour of female bonobos, a male cannot
be sure which offspring are his. As a result, the entirety of
parental care in bonobos is assumed by the mothers. This is true
of humans also and forms the basis for human sexual relations.
Putting it simply, females can always be sure the baby they are
carrying is hers – males cannot.
Most
studies indicate that females have a higher social status in bonobo
society. Aggressive encounters between males and females are rare,
and males are tolerant of infants and juveniles. A male derives his
status from the status of his mother. The mother–son bond often
stays strong and continues throughout life. While social hierarchies
do exist, and although the son of a high ranking female may outrank a
lower female, rank plays a less prominent role than in other primate
societies.
Sexual
activity generally plays a major role in bonobo society, being used
as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of forming
social bonds, a means of conflict resolution, and post conflict
reconciliation. Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been
observed engaging in tongue kissing. Bonobos and humans are the only
primates to typically engage in face-to-face genital sex, although a
pair of western gorillas has been photographed in this position.
(One wonders who the brave soul was who did the
photography on that one?)
Secondly, chimps
When
we can look at the structure of behaviour between the two species.
There is a well known stereotype that Chimpanzees are more likely to
use violence to settle problems while Bonobos have sex to resolve
conflicts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee#Social_structure
In fact chimps live in a very ordered society where males mate
whenever they get the chance and females sometimes trick the Alpha
male and mate with lower-ranking males when he is not around. In
general, they are much more
aggressive than bonobos.
Thirdly, gorillas
Gorillas live in groups called troops. Troops tend to be made of one
adult male or Silverback, multiple adult females and their offspring.
However, multiple-male troops also exist. A Silverback is
typically more than 12 years of age, and is named for the distinctive
patch of silver hair on his back, which comes with maturity.
Silverbacks also have large canine teeth that also come with
maturity. Both males and females tend to emigrate from their birth
groups. Females stay with the dominant male in order to get
protection and ensure that their offspring survive.
Finally, humans
People are designed for monogamous relationships. Unlike our closest
relatives, human babies are born completely helpless and rely on the
mother/father partnership to provide the necessary security and
protection. It takes two parents to bring a baby to adulthood. This
fact impacts human sexual behaviour.
So does the early hunting strategy of humans. We work together. We
communicate. We devise group strategies to obtain food. We cannot
use the bonobo strategy for there is no incentive to help your pals
when you are not sure the tribe's offspring are genetically yours.
We can't use the chips strategy either. Unless males can be sure
their offspring are actually theirs then they is no incentive to
stick around. Better to try your luck elsewhere and often. Perhaps in
very early human groups the gorilla strategy might have worked –
but not for long. Gorillas are vegetarians. Humans are omnivores
and it was the intake of meat which probably drove the early hominid
species differentiation. And, crucially, once we adopted bipedal
locomotion human females were in deep trouble. Evolution began to
favour giving birth earlier and earlier in the gestation cycle. Hips
could not become wide enough fast enough. The result: human babies
are born very poorly developed compared to other apes. They are
functionally helpless. So, if mothers have to spend all their time
caring for them, how will they get enough food to eat? Fathers.
This still applies today. Women are superficially attracted to the
most handsome males. But, crucially, they do not all wait in a line
for him to impregnate them. If they do, they know they will be on
their own trying to raise their offspring. (Single mums today do
have it much better than at most times in history, but their babies
are inevitably disadvantaged) Far better to form a pair-bond
with another male – one who may not be a superman but who will work
his socks off to make sure you get enough to eat – and share in the
child-rearing duties.
The exception, of course, is the attraction of powerful males,
usually in terms of money (Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch) to much
younger more attractive females. This is the problem in UK politics
in the news today.
Enough of socio-biology. The fact is rape has always been present in
societies from the earliest biological time. In historical times, we
have: the rape of the Sabine women, “slave-rape” during
Greco-Roman times, Jus Primae Noctis
(http://www.fibri.de/jus/arthbes.htm),
right through to the experience of slave women in the Deep South of
America, the fall of Berlin and its subsequent rapes almost on an
industrial scale, the Islamic State sex-slaves and Boko Haram. The
list is long. Faced with imminent death (as with Russian soldiers in
Berlin) or the imminent decline and fall of your culture (Sabine
women), or the perceived need to breed out your enemies (Jus Primae)
or inculcate your brand of religion (Boko and Islamic State), men
will try to obey Law 2 (reproduction). Law 1 – self-preservation.
When I “taught” sex-education to 15 year-olds, I used this
illustration: boys, you are on one side of a wide river, you can
swim fairly well, your favourite Page 3 (Sun newspaper) girl is on
the other side giving you the “come hither look”. What do you
do? To a man they would all jump in the water. Same scenario,
except the rive is infested with crocodiles. Result: a bit of
bravado and then the acceptance that jumping in is a poor option.
There is no doubt that rape is an abhorrent crime. But, then again,
is that all rape, every rape, consensual sex that becomes rape? Walk
down the Prince of Wales Road in Norwich on a Friday or Saturday
night and see what some of the “ladies” are wearing. If they are
assaulted is some of the blame laid at their door? Can members of
the “oldest profession” be raped? What was black and white now
becomes Fifty Shades of Grey (no pun intended).
In my misspent youth, I read a lot of “trashie books”. I remember
a Matt Helm novel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Helm)
where our hero, played by Dean Martin in the movie versions, has
been captured by the uber-bad guys, along with his wife. Matt is in
one room and the thugs have his wife next door. The thugs threaten
to rape her unless Matt does whatever they want. ( I forget the
precise details ). So Matt decides to do nothing, rationalising that
whilst the rape will be unpleasant it's not as bad as killing her,
and he might buy some time to effect their escape. (Which, of course
is what happens, as he is the hero).
Am I justifying rape? No – not ever – not in 21st
century western society – not in general. Will efforts to clean up
the Westminster cesspit prosper in this area? Probably not, for it
goes against millennia of ingrained biological and sociological
norms.
No comments:
Post a Comment