Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January 17th, 2011

Men may change their climate, but they cannot change their nature. A man that goes out a fool cannot ride or sail himself into common sense. –  Joseph Addison

The human character is the product of both heredity and environment, but much of the 20th century was spent arguing about which was the stronger.  By the middle of the century most liberal thinkers outside of psychology (and many inside it) insisted that Nurture was stronger than Nature; to believe the opposite required an uncomfortable admission of our animal natures that many humans a century after Darwin still preferred to deny, and the Nurture-over-Nature folk failed to recognize that in denying humans have an innate nature which transcends socialization they were in fact espousing something far more demeaning to the human spirit.  To recognize the pre-eminence of Nature over Nurture is to recognize that humans are animals, but to place Nurture over Nature is to believe we are machines to be programmed as society sees fit.

This idea of course appeals to social engineers because it feeds into their sick belief that society can and should be remade along whatever lines their “elite” leadership demands.  The neofeminists are a perfect example; by pretending that all gender differences are “socially constructed”, they deny that most gendered behavior is innate and thereby clear the way for their plan to masculinize girls and feminize boys so as to artificially create a mechanistic eunuch-culture which can be ruled by one law.  Luckily, these claims have in the past two decades fallen into disrepute; neurological discoveries, an increased understanding of endocrinology and cross-cultural and cross-species studies all show that when it comes to gender Nature is vastly stronger than Nurture.  Except in the ghettos of “women’s studies” and “queer theory” it would be difficult to find any educated person with any knowledge of the subject who still believes that the majority of male or female behaviors derive from social learning rather than hormones and brain architecture.

This does not, of course, disprove that some behaviors we associate with one sex or the other result from socialization rather than birth.  In fact, few educated people would be so dogmatic as to make the claim that ALL gendered behaviors derive from nature.  I predict that the struggle over the next few decades will be to determine which are which; those with a unisex agenda will of course try to prove that as many behaviors as possible are learned, and social conservatives will try to prove the opposite, while serious researchers attempt to remain as scientifically detached as possible so as to learn the truth.  Generally speaking, if a given behavior is linked to known hormonal, neurological or somatic mechanisms and is consistent across many cultures and primate species, it almost certainly derives from Nature, and if it has no known biological mechanism and appears inconsistently across cultures and species it very likely derives from Nurture.

Well, considering that a certain female behavior discussed frequently in this blog appears in every known human culture throughout history and also in chimpanzees, is it possible that it derives from Nature?  In other words, could it be that whores are born rather than made?  In her column of January 14th, Amanda Brooks suggests that this might indeed be the case:

Not every sex worker in the world enters the work because she has always felt a pull towards it. Many have. I know a number of women who have felt the interest from a young age, including myself (and this was before I even had a clear idea of what sex was). Conversations with these women reveal that we all say the same things about our early interest, we all became interested right before entering puberty and common myths about prostitution were not enough to dissuade us from desiring that life-path.  This is a very small sampling and it’s highly unscientific. Given what we know about genes and hard-wired behaviors — it seems more than plausible. Just as homosexual people are born, I am convinced prostitutes are born too.

My inspiration came last year after reading a US-based survey about attitudes toward gay people. The discovery of “gay genes” seems to have really turned the tide in popular thinking and acceptance of homosexuality. It sounds like an argument of convenience for prostitution. But if the range of human sexual orientation is, in fact, genetic; then how come prostitution — an extremely common sexual behavior — supposedly isn’t? What if prostitution isn’t merely a sexual behavior but is actually a sexual orientation? Why has prostitution always been viewed as a deviant behavior? How come people aren’t willing to examine the idea that a prostitute is a perfectly natural occurrence and that it’s society which has formed the deviant behavior around the prostitute?

If being a prostitute is a natural tendency for a percentage of women, then how can laws be made against who they are?

It’s quite an interesting idea, and her column is well worth reading.  The theory is of course the exact opposite of that espoused by neofeminists, who claim that all prostitutes are sexually and psychologically damaged victims who are warped into pursuing prostitution by sexual abuse.  And just as they deny evidence of biological origin of sex-based behaviors, so they deny the possibility that most women choose prostitution freely.  Those who deny any history of sexual abuse are claimed to be “in denial” or suffering from “repressed memories”; the neofeminist “theory” flies in the face of reality and so requires that reality be denied if it is to be believed.  But Amanda’s theory requires no such denial; in fact it is supported by the case-histories of many working girls I have known, who feel no sense of shame or discomfort in our profession whatsoever and indeed were fascinated by the subject from a young age – often before we even knew what sex was.  The theory certainly fits my story, which I related in my columns of July 28th, 29th and 30th.  Could there really be a “hooker gene”?  Only time and research will tell.

Read Full Post »