A view of the Gorean Lifestyle and Philosophy based on the Books
Tal everyone,
In case you arrived directly to this post, I strongly suggest you read the previous ones in this series:
Being such a complex and sometimes controversial subject, slavery cannot be analysed in a simplistic or shallow way. Therefore, I’ll approach it first by framing/describing what is written in the Books of Gor, so of course not everything that happens in the Books can happen the same way in our society, but we’ll analyse that later.
In Gor, slavery is an integral part of the society, being accepted, recognized and enforced by all members of the society. The female slave is called kajira (plural kajirae) and the male slave is called kajirus (plural kajiri).
For more detailed analysis of what is a kajira, I recommend reading the following posts about kajirae:
I won’t get into much detail describing the role of a kajira (as that is being done at length in other posts), but it is important to focus that Gorean is a patriarcal society and “reenacts” life as was lived by humans through millennia following the concept of “Natural Order”. This means that Goreans believe that both sexes have distinct roles and that either of them can only feel fulfilled when acting according to their natural roles of Master and slave.
Commonly though, I am asked about male slavery and if Goreans don’t accept that males can be submissive and females dominant, because in the books there are accounts of occasional situations where a female played a “dominant” role (the infamous Tatrix of Tarna is one example) or where males were slaves (Tarl Cabot himself was enslaved at one point in the story).
Before dwelling in any deeper analysis, it is important to reiterate that as stories can’t be read at literal face value and that we must understand the principles that support the Gorean Philosophy before making any overarching conclusions based on isolated stories/quotes.
Although the books recognise the existence of male slavery, it has a very different role in the philosophy from that of female slavery and we must review all the information before jumping into the conclusion that male slavery is endorsed by the Books.
Let’s start by analysing some points regarding the female slave (kajira) considering what is the common line in the stories and therefore supports the “principle” behind this:
None of these situations applies to male slaves. In the books we mainly find report of two kinds of kajirus, the “draft slaves” and the “silk slaves”.
Starting with the draft slaves, these are “ordinary men”, just like any free man, with all the “manly instincts”, etc. with just the difference that either due to being in the loosing side of a war or being unable to pay debts, they are enslaved and submitted to hard works (in many cases for a predetermined period of time). We can say that in their core they are still Masters that for a period of time are deprived of the power to ennact their Mastery.
What about the “silk slaves”, often referred to as “tamed”? These are “docile” men, deprived of their “manly instincts”, tamed to serve submissively and please women. On the first look, these might look just like a male version of the typical female slave giving reason to those who claim that in the Gorean Philosophy both genders can be submissive, but let’s take a closer look in 2 main points:
From the analysis of all the Books of Gor, it is then safe to say that:
In conclusion, by carefully analysing all the stories and the underlying Philosophy, it becomes self evident that the Gorean Philosophy does not support the idea that men can have a submissive role. Gorean society is inherently patriarcal in which men are the natural Masters and females the natural slaves.
As an afterword and anticipating some usual backslash when this topic is addressed, let me state that the views expressed in this post (as always) are my personal perspectives and this is an analysis of things through a Gorean Philosophy perspective and in no way it is supposed to be understood as a value judgement on anyone that thinks differently. Each person lives their life the way they choose and just because I state that something is not correct or in accordance with the Gorean Philosophy that should never be understood as a critic or judgement toward those that live that way. In my perspective it is their way of living, which is perfectly fine, it just can’t be called Gorean (or in accordance with the Gorean Philosophy).
As always, feel free to share, comment and send me your feedback that is invaluable to continue to improve the content of this blog for all those that desire to understand better what is the Gorean Philosophy and Lifestyle!
List of posts in this series:
I wish you well!
©2020 – Written by Azrael Phoenix
Tal everyone,
In case you arrived directly to this post, I strongly suggest you read the previous ones in this series:
By definition a principle is “a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning”. If you agree with or believe something in principle, you agree with the idea in general, although you might not support it in reality or in every situation.
Some days ago I read a comment in one of my posts where someone mentioned that in a religion you follow strict rules/dogmas but on the other hand in a philosophy you have to understand the guidelines and discover for yourself the best way to apply it.
This comment was quite precise considering that Gorean lifestyle is based on a philosophy that on its turn is based on principles.
In one general sense, philosophy is associated with wisdom, intellectual culture, and a search for knowledge. In this sense, all cultures and literate societies ask philosophical questions, such as “how are we to live” and “what is the nature of reality.” A broad and impartial conception of philosophy, then, finds a reasoned inquiry into such matters as reality, morality, and life.
Gorean Philosophy therefore is the global set of concepts that help us navigate our life and make decisions in accordance with the mindset of the Natural Order.
The issue here is that those concepts come to us not in a “plain” and “clear” way with a list of what you can and cannot do. Using Christianism as a comparison, in the Old Testament everything was quite simple, Jews had rules for everything they could and could not do (there were over 600 commandments, so the Ten Commandments were just the tiny tip of the iceberg)! On the other hand, in the New Testament, Jesus used a different approach and although he laid down some basic rules, most of his teaching was done using stories and parables.
The author of the Gorean Saga Books devoted his life to the study of human mindset and has published several amazing books under his true name (John Lange), from which I recommend everyone should read “The Philosophy of Historiography“.
Nevertheless, in the Books of Gor we read stories that transmit to us the principles of the philosophy and only by reading them (in case I haven’t made that clear in the previous post) can we gradually absorve the different nuances and grasp the concepts that will help us judge each different situation and make the decision that we consider is more appropriate.
Often when talking with people that don’t totally understand the philosophy I hear them defend actions that go against the Gorean Philosophy and defending their point by stating that they read once in a book that a certain character did that!!!
It is important that we keep in mind that in all stories there are heroes and villains. Just because Joker likes to wreak havoc, that does not mean the Batman story is about that! Hell, even “heroes” are human and make “less than perfect” decisions so just because the “hero” of a story on a specific occasion takes a certain action that does not qualify it as being something that defines him or that he condones in every situation.
The “main character” of the books is Tarl Cabot (at least in the first ones before the author started diversifying the roles), but even he has ups and downs, helping us understand the inner struggles all of us go through in life! Just because Tarl Cabot once did something that does not qualify that action as part of the “Gorean Philosophy”, you have to understand the framework of the situation, what is the point that is being transmitted, etc, etc, etc…
In the following posts I will try to list what (in my personal point of view) are some of the principles that guide the Gorean Philosophy (Female slavery, Honor, etc.)! Feel free to send me your comments and contribution!
List of posts in this series:
I wish you well!
©2020 – Written by Azrael Phoenix
Tal everyone,
Continuing this series of posts, I believe it is important before anything else to review (and define) the origins of the Gorean Lifestyle.
Gor is a fiction world depicted in a series of books that has become the longest-running fiction series ever existed. The first book was published in 1966 and the 35th on 2019.
The author of this series is John Lange that publishes his fiction work under the alias John Norman and his non-fiction work covers philosophy, ethics and historiography.
You can learn more about John Norman and the “Books of Gor” saga in the following posts:
The “Book of Gor” saga is a crescendo of detailed stories occurring in the planet Gor, also known as “Counter Earth”. I use the word crescendo intentionally because the books start by focusing on more generic and “practical” topics and gradually evolve into a much more rich analysis of the human mindset, description of life following the “Natural Order” and interesting new ways of depicting scenarios that not only expose the fallacy of modern days society mindset, but also amazing descriptions of the natural inner conflicts, questions, doubts, etc. that we all go through in our life.
Let me say here that for me it is critical that the books are read in the order they were published! Although there is a handful of books that might be read independently without spoiling the storyline and the evolution of the narrative, only if you effectively read them all in order can you in fact gradually absorve all the concepts and principles that are implicit in Gorean life.
This is particularly relevant considering that Gorean Lifestyle is not based on rules but on principles, which is quite simple and at the same time extremely complicated. There is no list of everything you can or cannot do, there is no detailed set of actions to be performed in specific situations, etc.
Many “cultures” / “streams” (both the ones focused on “sessions” and the ones focused on 24/7 lifestyle) work with very detailed scripts and rules. This results in very elaborate and sometimes complex things like “High Protocols”/“Low Protocols”, hierarchies among slaves with specific actions/tests that have to be achieved in order for the slave to “evolve” in the “path”, etc.
This does not exist in Gor, what you have are stories from which YOU have to distill the core principles and find ways to apply them to our life! Keep in mind, the Gorean Lifestyle, as the name states quite obviously is a way of life.
This way of life is based on the description of life in the planet Gor, but this description cannot be applied directly to our life on Earth. It would be wonderful if that was possible, but unfortunately (at least for now) that is an utopia.
Why is that, you might ask?
The simple answer is that the society described in the Books lives under a set of rules and principles that abide by and enforce what is called the “Natural Order”, recognizing and enforcing slavery, etc.
These sets of rules and principles conflict in many ways with the rules, principles and laws of the societies we live in. If the conflict is with a “soft rule”, this means that we can find ways to “bend” it and live our lifestyle as ideally as we want depending only in how open we want to be about it (and if we have the structure to face occasional criticism). But when the conflict is with a “hard rule” / law, then that is a definitive limit that cannot be passed!
To give a radical example, in GOR slave life’s have no value (other that the commercial value of the property they are), so a slave can be killed if the Master so decides and no one will think twice about it. It is unthinkable for a Gorean on Earth to apply that to his Lifestyle and if anyone does try to live by that in our society, he obviously cannot be called a Gorean but suffers from serious pathological problems.
This being said, the Gorean Lifestyle is based on the Books, period! The lifestyle is based on all the principles depicted along the whole series and only by reading the books you can absorve all the concepts, all the mindsets, all the subliminal information that is passed in each story.
I will repeat it again in case I wasn’t obvious the first time: You have to read the books!!!
You have many information in the Internet that is wonderful to review details, to answer some questions, etc. and the goal of this blog is exactly to help in the process, but no blog, Wiki, FAQ or whatever can ever replace the actual reading of the books (yes, all of them and ideally in order).
In the next posts I’ll start to analyze some of the pillars that define what it is to live according to the Gorean Lifestyle. In the meanwhile, continue to read the books!!! 😉 😉 😉
List of posts in this series:
I wish you well!
©2020 – Written by Azrael Phoenix
As I always like to mention, these writings are based on a personal perspective of things (except when mentioning historical or empirical facts) and should not be taken as absolute truths or in any way as an insult just because we might have totally different perspectives on a specific topic. Don’t forget, you’re in a Gorean blog, written under a particular Gorean perspective of life.
Gorean Lifestyle / Culture is characterized by several pillars, one of them being consensual slavery. This alone is far from unique, considering that in the world many thousands of people live in some sort of consensual hierarchical relationship characterized by power exchange agreements.
There is such a broad variety of types of relationships that this in fact means there is a flavor for every taste, the BDSM community, the “general kink” community, the Gorean Community, the TPE community, and others, all practice a different variant of dominant and submissive relationship dynamics.
Over the decades, there have been many influences between several of those ‘streams’ and sometimes the lines between them become blurred, but the fact is that each has its main characteristics although in many cases disagreements are plentiful regarding the actual definitions both between ‘streams’ and many times inside the ranks themselves.
One of the points in common among many of these ‘streams’ is the existence of slaves. In the Gorean Lifestyle there are slaves and they are called Kajirae (plural for kajira). But it is extremely important to keep in mind that a kajira is a slave, but a slave is not necessarily a kajira. Likewise, a Gorean Master is a Dominant, but a Dominant is not necessarily (at all) a Gorean Master.
Considering the complexity of this topic and the amount of conflicting views that are shared all over the Web, I decided to put together a compilation of thoughts on several areas that together can help to have a clearer view/perspective of what it is in fact to be a Gorean (Master/kajira).
In my next post I will start by defining the origins and sources of the Gorean Thought / Philosophy in order to define the boundaries of the philosophy, the scope of the thought and the general guidelines.
Please follow the blog and share your comments/inputs so that I can tailor the future posts in order to answer any questions that you have or address any topic you find relevant.
List of posts in this series:
I wish you well!
©2020 – Written by Azrael Phoenix
GOR AND EVOLUTIONARY SEXUAL SELECTION by _Marcus_ of Ar
Tal, all!
During the time I have been actively writing about Gorean subject matter, I have always steered clear of delving too deeply into the scientific basis for any validity which might be present in Norman’s sociobiological theories. I have done so for several reasons; first of all, there are so many conflicting theories regarding possible biological basis for human behavior that to do so would be to embark on a never-ending exercise in point/counter-point hypothesizing; and secondly, because Norman himself never saw fit to author a scientific analysis of his own work. Where Norman chose not to go, therefore, neither goeth I.
Nevertheless, it was probably only a matter of time before someone encountered some of the generalized, hyper-simplified explanations I have been tossing out on these pages and attempted to rebut them as if they were, indeed, formatted as legitimate scientific theses.
That seems to me to be going a bit overboard, in my opinion. It should be obvious that much which I have written to the pages of the Silk & Steel website, my recently critiqued essay “The Gorean Argument” notwithstanding, was written in a rather off-the-cuff manner. The very verbiage which I tend to use in my essays here is nothing if not casual, sort of a “Hey! Maybe A has something to do with B” approach.
I have never considered it necessary to write a formal scientific point paper in defense of Gorean evolutionary theory, quite frankly because the subject matter is quite voluminous, nor have I bothered to expend the time to publish any of my research to these pages. The source materials are out there for anyone to study, should they seek a greater understanding of evolutionary psychology theory as it relates to human sexual selection strategy. I have therefore left it at that.
Nevertheless, I will now scratch the tip of the iceberg and mention a few points which I feel to be somewhat supportive of Norman’s theories. I realize now that it was perhaps a mistake to leave so much open, in my earlier writings, to the selective interpretation of the reader.
Perhaps a redefinition of some of the primary elements which I have drawn upon in my work here might do much to clarify the mistaken misinterpretation which some have drawn from my writing, in their assertions that Gorean theory seems to be based in some invented pseudo-mythical prehistory in which everyone was the fantasy equivalent of Conan, dwelling in an environment where everyone fought everyone else for the chance to get a bit of nookie. : )
Further, I must admit I find it vaguely insulting that those who have chosen to critique the generalities which I have expressed in essays such as the one mentioned above, actually seem to believe that I have no clue regarding the intricacies of sexual selection in the human animal, of the role which culture plays in that process, or of the various hypothetical models of prehistoric interaction currently being studied by various anthropologists in the field.
When someone approaches an anthropologist (I happen to have more than a few friends who work in that field, so believe me, I know) and asks a question of them such as “Are women genetically programmed to behave submissively to all men?” or “Was physical combat the only pertinent factor in prehistoric sexual selection?” said anthropologists have a hard time taking the question seriously. Because the answer to both of the above questions is a resounding “no.” The process of human sexual selection is, and has always been, much more complex than that. But as long as questions such as those described above are asked of scientists and social scientists, there will continue to be a dearth of understanding regarding what Norman was actually talking about.
To begin: In my opinion, Norman was describing, in his work, not some all-powerful urge for all females to fall down and worship the men around them. Rather, he was discussing a particular peculiarity in engrained human female sexual selective response. Ergo, he was discussing a built-in mechanism which, when not countermanded by societal or cultural intervention, can often result in an extremely powerful physiological attraction of a certain type of female towards a certain type of male. “Submission,” that all-powerful buzzword of the BDSM set, is a series of interactive response behaviors in which that attraction is expressed and solidified. First comes attraction, based in part upon engrained female reproductive strategy behaviors, then, if a particular type of reciprocal bond is established, occurs the onset of “submission” behaviors.
Is there any evidence which supports this?
Norman’s work is similar in many ways to theories which are advanced in Tiger and Fox’s The Imperial Animal, considered by many to be the seminal work on the subject of evolutionary psychology. Norman’s theories seem to be firmly rooted in the scientific discipline known as sociobiology.
For the record, pure sociobiological theory does not assert that all human social behavior is determined by genes. Rather, it states that there are three distinct possibilities:
The Gorean viewpoint holds that of the three possibilities related above, the third possesses the highest truth value: that Homo sapiens, though possessed of a relatively fixed genetic code, retains the ability to evolve. The speed at which such an evolution might occur is hampered by current technological advances and cultural trends which have resulted in much of the human race experiencing an extended period of “survival downtime” wherein basic survival is no longer as difficult to achieve. The speed of evolutionary process tends to manifest itself in direct relation to the necessity of genetic alteration dictated by environmental factors. Hence, in many cases, cultural dictates have outstripped the rate of evolutionary change required to alter the biology of the human race to match them.
There have been quite a few modern anthropological studies, fully meeting the criteria of postulational-deductive science, which delve into the effects of genetics on human behavioral compulsion. Joseph Shepher’s work on the incest taboo and sexual roles, Mildred Dickeman’s studies on hypergamy and sex-biased infanticide, William Irons’ study of the relation between inclusive genetic fitness and the local set of evaluational criteria of social success in a herding society, Napoleon Chagnon’s work on aggression and reproductive competition in the Yanomamo, William Durham’s work on the relation between inclusive fitness and warfare in the Mundurucu and other primitive societies, Robin Fox’s expressed research on the relation of fitness to kinship rules, Konner and Freedman’s work on the adaptive significance of infant development, and James Weinrich’s studies on the relationship of genetic fitness and the details of sexual practice; all dealt with the relationship of genetic encoding to human behavioral function.
One of the most frequently used methods to study genetic effects upon the individual is to compare the similarity between identical twins, who are known to be genetically identical, with the similarity between fraternal twins, who are no closer genetically than ordinary siblings. When the similarity between identical twins proves greater, this distinction between the two kinds of twins is ascribed to heredity.
Using this and related techniques, geneticists have found evidence of a substantial amount of hereditary influence on the development of a variety of traits that affect social behavior, including number ability, word fluency, memory, the timing of language acquisition, sentence construction, perceptual skill, psychomotor skill, extroversion and introversion, homosexuality, the timing of first heterosexual activity, particular sexual preferences, likes, dislikes, and various behavioral tendencies.
Loehlin and Nichols, for example, studied aspects of the environment and performance of 850 sets of twins who took the National Merit Scholarship test in 1962. The early histories of the subjects, as well as the attitudes and childrearing practices of the parents, were taken into account. The results showed that the generally more similar treatment of the identical twins did not explain the greater similarity in general abilities and personality traits manifested between sets of twin, or even in their shared ideals, goals, and vocational interests. It seems evident that these similarities are based in aspects of genetic identity.
Frank Salter, of the Max Planck Institute, was an avid defender of sociobiology and its theories. A particularly interesting read is Daniel Dennett’s work, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, in which he defends Darwin against those who would rewrite him to reflect modern trends of scientific thought. But the validity of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is hotly debated, particularly by the social scientists, many of whom assert that genetic structure and biological factors have little or nothing to do with human behavior and the resulting development of human culture.
In addition, recently a book was published entitled “A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion,” which scientifically explores the possible biological forces which contribute to male sexuality, based upon the principles of evolutionary psychology. And which makes assertions which seem to be functionally identical to many of Norman’s own, as they appear in the Gor books (I add that that book, even before its publication, came under fire for the politically incorrect nature of many of its proposals. Which is what reputedly happened to Norman, and eventually resulted in his blacklisting and censorship in the late eighties. Apparently there are some theories which scientists are not supposed to propose, no matter what their evidence suggests).
In order to determine whether or not Norman’s arguments in favor of ethical naturalism in regards to human behavior hold any water, and whether or not his assertions regarding the biological basis of human sexual selection have any merit, we must answer the following questions:
Recently, there has been a trend in which many biologists have used Darwin’s principles of sexual selection as a coherent theoretical framework for the study of sex differences across hundreds of studies and across scores of species.
At the same time, social scientists have, for the most part, been studying sex differences from a completely different theoretical perspective: gender roles. That mode of thought suggests that most nonphysical human sex differences are the result of the culturally-mediated social roles that are adopted by boys and men and girls and women. Too often, it seems, this belief that human sex differences are entirely based upon the adoption of such roles has been accepted wholeheartedly, without nearly enough critical observation.
The Mechanisms of Evolutionary Selection
Any event, occurance, process, or environmental condition that in any way influences daily existence, life, death, or reproduction is a potential selection pressure. Each such selection pressure affects the individual whom it affects. In many cases, even slight differences between individuals can determine which of those individuals will survive to reproduce, versus those who will die. In such instances, the process of evolutionary selection is taking place.
Because of this selection, the individuals who happen to possess whatever characteristic influences survival and reproduction will, understandably, survive in greater numbers than their peers. If these specific characteristics are inherited, then the survivors will produce offspring who also possess characteristics different than other members of the same species (conspecifics).
If these characteristics continue to influence life, death, and reproduction in the offspring’s generation, then the process will repeat itself. Over generations there will be an alteration in the selected characteristic: the average individual in the population will have developed different characteristics than those possessed by the average individual several generations earlier.
This process, natural selection, alters species to better fit their ecology. The only requirement for natural selection to function is that the particular beneficial survival trait must vary from individual to individual, and that some part of this variability must have a genetic basis. Under such conditions, selection occurs, whether the trait is physical, physiological, or behavioral.
Behavioral characteristics, in order to evolve, must therefore possess variability, and a genetic basis. Heritable individual differences provide the raw materials for evolutionary selection. Since nearly all features of human anatomy, physiology, behavior, cognitions, etc, display individual variability which is at least partiallyly heritable, they are all, therefore, vulnerable to variable selection pressures.
Still, the process is not as simple as it appears. For instance: particular selection pressures can diminish or erase heritable variability, making them no longer heritable. Therefore, some traits which have shown great selection variability in the past may no longer be heritable (e.g, the genetic pattern which standardizes basic physical elements in Homo sapiens may no longer be prone to drastic change– humans have two arms and two legs, for example, a trait which is inherited but no longer variable on a large scale).
Some human traits that seem to display heritable variability have avoided being subjected to extreme selection pressures, and some variable heritable traits are only subjected to selection pressures when certain conditional modifiers are met, such as adjustment to a particular climate or environment.
The process is always occurring, though what traits are affected depend upon the current level of selection pressure being applied by external forces, which can vary from generation to generation or from one geographical region to another.
Under the correct conditions, the process of selection goes into “sleep mode,” as it were. When food is abundant and predators and parasites are scarce, certain selection pressures which deal directly with survival issues are weak, and most individuals survive to reproduce. Individual differences in survival traits are not particularly important under such conditions.
Once the process of sexual reproduction had evolved into existence, an integral part of the life history of all members of sexually reproducing species was to obtain a mate with whom to procreate. Where this process becomes complex is that factors of individual variability, which result from the gene-mixing which occurs through sexual reproduction, also determines that all potential mates are not inherently equal. This interesting state of affairs gives rise to competition for the most suitable mate, or the greatest variety of mates. The processes whereby mates are selected, and the competition behaviors which result from this, are known as sexual selection.
Sexual selection is a complex, active process that is influenced by numerous factors, among which are various sex differences, the costs and benefits of reproduction, and especially the ecology of the species. There are additional factors which impact upon this process, cultural and societal dictates included.
The necessary dynamics of this process tend to express themselves as aspects of female choice of mating partners, which gives rise to male-male competition over access to mates, or efforts to control desirable resources which females require to support their progeny.
Pay attention, Goreans, because this is important: at its heart, the process of sexual selection is primarily a manifestation of female choice. Females determine what natural aptitudes indicate desirability in a male as possible breeding partner. The males then proceed to engage in competition behaviors which:
Once this basis has been established, and the dynamics of female choice and male-male competition are in place, we may then begin to study the mechanisms which influence the various expressions of the differences between the sexes which relate to sexual selection, be they biological, behavioral, and cognitive. This is where sex homones come into the picture. The body maintains its own internal breeding strategy, and provides the appropriate sex hormones to compel psychological,emotional, and physical behavior.
The majority of sex differences which are present in Homo sapiens are also present in other primate species. One of the most intensely researched area of primate social behavior is the area of male-male competition. Human males, like many other high primates males, compete in certain contexts via physical attack and physical threat, in an effort to establish social dominance over other competing males. Gorean thought holds that these behaviors still occur in the human animal. History and science seem to bear this out.
Depending upon the current environmental dynamic, the place one occupies in this reproductive pecking order can have serious reproductive consequences for individual males. Often, depending upon the context, only the most dominant (alpha) male sires offspring. How social dominance is achieved, however, is determined by the specific structure of the particular social grouping. It may be achieved by one-on-one physical contests, willingness to cooperate within a specific male group, the display of a high degree of intelligence, or even by the social support of females in the group, either the young females or the older matriarchal females.
The specifics of female choice remain, to a certain extent, a mystery, and have not been studied nearly as closely as male competition behavior. Current research suggests that females in most primate species do prefer some males to others, though the reasons for this have not been fully explained, and seem variable. For the most part, it seems that primate females base their choices upon possible risks of infanticide (no one wants to mate with someone who is going to kill your children) and the possible level of social support which the male may provide to the female. In some cases, the overall choice seems to be based upon the level of protection which the potential male mate can provide to the female and her young against possible abuse or attack by other males.
Female-female competition also occurs in most primate species. This behavior, however, seems to be associated with competition among females for resources, rather than mates. Access to high-quality food, for instance, which has long term consequences in regards to the health of the female and her young. This might be seen as an indication that part of the female primate’s reproductive strategy concerns security and longterm health benefits for both she and her potential offspring.
Female choice is an extremely large part of the reproductive “mating dance.” But what about male choice? Where does that enter into the equation?
Male choice is evident among the higher primates, also, and is an important factor in reproductive behavior. Male choice appears to be based on the nature of the relationship between the male and individual females and on implicit reproductive concerns. This is where the possibility that female submissive behaviors influence the male’s choice of possible mate enters the picture.
If certain types of relationship behavior are attractive to the male, then this may well be a factor in whether or not he selects a particular female with which to mate. Apart from any such concerns, male primates tend to seek mates who display signs that they are particularly fertile. There have been studies regarding the development of female human breast size, waist-to-hip ratio, et all, which allude to the possibility that these physical traits may well have been selected for as indications of female fertility.
The most obvious and measurable effect of male-male competitive behavior in primates is the evolution of males who are larger and stronger than females of the same species. The existence of male-male competition in the primate species, and the extent to which it has been practiced, seems to determine how great is the difference of physical size between the two sexes of a primate species. These size differences seem to be far less in species where male-male competition is based upon male-male cooperation within the group.
Here I quote David C. Geary from his book “Male, Female;The Evolution of Human Sex Differences” (for the record, much of the information I have included here is paraphrased from elements of his work):
“The consistent relation between physical sex differences and the intensity of male-male competition allows inferences to be drawn about the likely nature of male-male competition in our ancestors. Beginning with our Australopithecine ancestors and continuing to modern humans, males are physically larger than females. When these patterns are combined with the patterns of male-male competition and female choice that are evident in extant primates inferences can be drawn about the potential pattern of sexual selection during the course of human evolution (Foley & Lee, 1989).”
In most mammals, the male has little or no direct involvement in his offspring. Therefore, the male reproductive strategies of these species tend to be largely involved with simple male-male competition, and the female reproductive strategy tends to concern itself with obtaining the best genes for her offspring (i.e, getting more buck for her bang). Humans, however, display a far greater level of parental investment.
When both parents invest in offspring, and there are differences in the quality of care or genetic make up which the parents provide to their offspring, then the elements of female-female competition and male choice suddenly become much more important. They do not supplant male-male competition and female choice– but they do become much stronger factors in reproductive strategy.
Human sexual selection is highly complex and often varies among cultures and historical periods within a culture. Competition behaviors can be altered by cultural dictates or expectations, along with value systems. For instance, the definition of “success” and “valued resources,” both of which may be important in determining the female reproductive strategy in female choice.
What might have formally been a leadership position in the clan or tribal group may be transposed into having a high paying job, of some other form of social prominence. In addition, the resources which a female seeks to obtain to secure a better future for her offspring may no longer be access to food or tribal resources, but may now be such culturally valued resources as a large house with a four-car garage, a large bank account, etc. Nevertheless, research shows that men who are considered “successful” by their particular culture typically have more wives and children, or at least more reproductive opportunities, than males whose culture determines are less successful.
The fundamental motivating agenda of complex organisms, including human beings, seems to be the effort to establish some measure of control over the social (people), biological (food), and physical (territory) resources that encourage survival and reproductive success. The evolutionary process seems to have selected for individuals who have the means and motivation to obtain some measure of control over the above listed resources.
In primate societies where relatively intense male-male competition occurs, not only are the males larger, on average, than the females, but the males tend to mature later than the females and experience a larger growth spurt during puberty. In species where there is little male-male competition, males are the same size (on the average) than are the females, and they mature at an identical rate. The fact that human beings conform to the larger-male/different-growth-rate dynamic detected in male-male competitive species seems to indicate that male-male competition has been an extremely large part of the human social dynamic during the evolution of Homo sapiens.
Phylogenetic Relationships
Our social arrangements most closely resemble those of the high order simian primates, which are genetically our closest living relatives. This makes sense. It seems to be an established fact that we share a common ancestry with these primates, and if human social behavior is influenced by genetic predispositions in behavioral development, which modern scientific evidence tends to support, then the argument that modern Homo sapiens is still subject to behavioral pressures which were bred into us during our prehistory makes much sense.
It is widely believed that complex forms of human behavior are controlled by polygenes (genes scattered on many chromosome loci), which affect their owner through a powerful array of physical control systems, including elementary neuronal wiring to muscular coordination and “mental set” induced by hormone levels.
What is the relation of genes to culture? Many social scientists discard the findings of sociobiology because they believe that variation in human cultures can have little or no genetic basis. The social scientist is interested only in variations in behavior which are the direct result of the twin factors of culture and the environment. Sociobiology is interested in the more general features of human nature and the limitations that exist in the environmentally induced variation. By studying the features of human social organization and comparing them to the organization of other, closely related, primate species, sociobiology attempts to reconstruct the earliest evolutionary history of social organization and to discover its genetic residues in contemporary societies.
The Myth of the “Submission Gene”
This ubiquitous “submission,” which everyone seems to spend so much time talking about, is too often misclassified as being some kind of miraculous psychological or biological force. But it is not, in and of itself, a specific genetic trait; i.e, there is no single “submission gene” which some people possess, which others do not, and which is passed along from generation to generation.
The same is true for “dominance.” Some people insist upon treating dominant personality trait-packages as the result of some miraculous “dominance gene.” This is about as far from the truth as can be imagined.
I have, in the past, repeatedly been confronted by individuals who either wish to infer that I believe there is some kind of magic recipe for “dominance,” or who insist upon treating what we might call “dominant behavior” as a unique shopping-cart item which one can either be born with, or born without. That is totally ludicrous. Nevertheless, you’d be amazed by how much time I’ve spent trying to explain my take on the causes of dominant behavior to them. Semantics always seems to get in the way, for some reason.
The reality is much simpler. Neither “dominance” nor “submission” are specific identifiable genetic traits in Homo sapiens. Rather, both are categories of personality traits. What we might refer to as “dominance” and “submission” are fairly broad sets of genetic traits, which are either supported or repressed by one’s active culture, which act as survival modifiers. In a procreative paradigm, they can also function in cooperation with one another to generate specific sexual attraction by those who possess those traits toward a particular personality type, or type of individual.
Both sets of genetic traits (as well as countless others), which came into existence in the human animal through natural selection, in response to environmental factors which existed throughout most of human prehistory, give rise to certain genetically engrained behavioral patterns in relation to same-sex competition, and procreative male-female mating strategies.
Currently, much of civilized western society, and a large part of the modern world, is in a state of evolutionary “survival downtime”– ergo, quite often modern man is freed from the rigors of formerly existent selection pressures by his existence in a non-competitive environment where daily survival issues are much less pressing. In such an environment, when food is abundant and predators and parasites are scarce–selection pressures are minimized and most individuals survive to reproduce. Survival traits are not especially important under such conditions.
Still, the gene patterns remain. The genetic preprogramming which formerly supported successful survival and mating strategies still exists, and will continue to exist until such time that Homo sapiens has evolved beyond it, a process which will take countless generations to occur.
It will continue to exert subtle psychological pressures on human behavior, and can result in numerous symptomatic behaviors in which the human animal’s metaphysical culturally induced value-systems attempt to circumvent instinctual response initiators which are a deeply engrained part of the human being’s inbred survival instincts. Old survival and selection pressures will be culturally replaced by new ones, though perhaps far too swiftly for the evolution of the physical and genetic model of the human animal to match.
As long as that situation is in effect, biologically engrained mating pressures and selection processes will continue to manifest themselves in human social interaction. Sexual attraction will remain a matter of survival strategy, and human biology will continue to support the old agendas built into the human genetic imprint.
Submission
Submission is not a single behavioral trait; rather, it seems to be a behavioral act and emotional response inspired by genetically engrained survival strategy. Genetic mating pressures and selection pressures have created within the human animal a preprogrammed behavioral agenda in relation to survival issues. In human society, sexual selection is almost universally based upon the choice of the female.
Therefore, when a heterosexual female human being encounters a male who triggers the necessary switches which invoke the ancient survival agenda (health, success, strength, power) she typically experiences sexual attraction. When this occurs, quite often she begins to establish particularly powerful emotional bonds with the male whom she has selected as the attractive mate (bonds which, due to the difference in male vs. female mating strategies, the male often does not share, or experiences in a different way).
In any event, upon consummation of the relationship, the female often experiences a certain psychological “leap of faith” in which she emotionally transfers power over her body into the control of her selected mate, one who has satisfied (to a variable extent) the conditions of her procreative survival strategy.
If the male in question satisfies the conditions of her procreative survival strategy to a particularly high order, i.e he is a particularly smart/healthy/strong/ independent/powerful specimen, then it is the Gorean belief that she will experience a deep sense of satisfaction, an almost spiritual “surrender.”
That is, as I understand it, precisely what John Norman is talking about when he discusses “submission.”
It seems to me that some women would naturally be more responsive to this particular form of emotional bonding than would be certain others. Much would depend upon other external factors, including cultural indoctrination and life experience. But it also seems evident that unless the female in question was possessed of a radically different genetic structure than that possessed by other females, or unless she had been either culturally trained against it or had endured life experiences which served to interfere with her natural response, that this process of response to the consummation of her sexual selection would be almost universal.
Summation
This, then, is my personal interpretation of how evolutionary science fits into Gorean thinking. It is my hope that, this having been written, henceforth I will be subjected to fewer indignant responses to some of the more simplistic explanations of basic evolutionary science I have tossed up on these pages in the past.
Then again, a few years back I authored an essay in which I commented that Goreans seem to feel it is beneficial to “control and diminish weaker and less adaptive elements” of their society, at which time I was referring in a rather general sense to the need to deal with criminal and socially maladjusted individuals who fail to contribute to their society. Nevertheless, a particularly paranoid muckraker chose to interpret that particular phrase to indicate that Goreans are Nazis who want to lock up the physically handicapped in concentration camps. So, there is no accounting for willful misinterpretation, it would seem. : )
In any event, the evidence is out there. Go see for yourself. You don’t have to agree with it– the merits of sociobiology are being hotly contested in anthropological and sociological circles at this very moment, and have been for years.
But there seems to be plenty of supporting evidence that our genes contribute to our behavior, and that sexual selection in human beings has much in common with sexual response behaviors in other high primates. And that where those primates now are, we once were. That being the case, what sexual selection behaviors might we still be subject to, from our ancestral past? And might not our current state of “evolutionary downtime” be subjecting us to non-biologically-related cultural pressures, which countermand the dictates of our heritable genetic identity?
You be the judge.
I wish you well!
_Marcus_
Suggested Reading:
Male, Female; The Evolution of Human Sex Differencesby David C. Geary
Ever Since Adam and Eve: The Evolution of Human Sexualityby Malcolm Potts And Roger Short
Primate Sexuality: Comparative Studies of the Protosimians, Monkeys, Apes, and Humansby Alan F. Dixon
Darwin’s Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern Worldby Micheal R. Rose
Copyright © 2000 Marcus of Ar, All rights reserved.