Untitled Document

Of course, yours truly has been ahead of the curve for some time now about politicans, body language, and "comfortability" of candidates to voters by passing nonverbal language. See my essay: The Alpha Male Profile that I have dated, March 1999 (I better speed it up - the herd is only eight years behind me!!!).

Notebook entry, December 10th, 2007

I received this email a few days ago and knew almost instantly that this guy was a knuckle-crawler. Most likely a product of one of my Southern Strategy advertisements on Craig's List. I pretty sure that it came from Texas, but not 100% certain.. Below is my reply, with my deepest apoligies to any female readers. I was taking this guy for a ride.

Dear Will, (Approx...Dec. 7th, 2007)

I was doing a search for some information about the current scientific beliefs on the origins of homosexuality, and I came across an article, or snippet, you wrote back in 1999.

I'm writing a paper on the origins of homosexuality, so I wanted to get in touch with a few people and a few published works already dealing with the subject

_______________

I had a student write to me that he was writing a paper on homosexuality for his human sexuality class and he asked me several questions. This, in a snippet, is what I wrote back:
Dear Hubert:
Where does homosexuality fit into the evolutionary process? First off, Let's assume that by homosexuality you mean male-to-male sexual activity. I won't, in this short letter, write about female-to-female sexual activity. Well, it obviously does not pass genes into the next generation, so we can then assume that it must go deeper into why humans engage in this seemingly non-natural selection process.
__________________
That's just a snippet of the article so you remember what exactly it is I'm referencing.
Anyway, I had a few questions/wanted you to elaborate a little bit on what you were saying.

You said that the belief that you most supported was one in which during a right of passage type moment, the weaker males of a tribe, culture, whatever, were divided from the stronger males. The stronger males went out to hunt, and the weaker males stayed back to mate, thus breeding in more feminine-like tendencies.
________________
The third and most promising suggestion (by myself) is that the AMG's (all male groups) not only were hunters, but also protectors of the clan/tribe/village/group. The creation of the initiation ceremony to prove the "courage" and "strength" of the young male as acceptable into adulthood is prevalent throughout all cultures on our planet. It is a rite of passage signaling the departure from childhood into adulthood and also forms bonds of trust with the all male group. I also diffuses dependence on the family and in particular, attachment to, the "inferior" and "weak" women. Failure to be "strong" enough or "brave" enough by the individual could have resulted in his expulsion from the clan/tribe/village, and of course, certain death. Or, he could have been assigned to be with the women for protection duties, and therefore acquiring "feminine" and "gentle" traits. It has been strongly suggested by modern day feminists that females are a lot "lustier" than previously thought, (Time magazine cover story, March 8, 1999), so perhaps, while the "strong" men were off on the hunt, the "weaker" males could have been (rewarded-seduced-forced?) to mate with the females remaining in the village/clan, etc., hence the passing of "softer," more "feminine" characteristics into succeeding generations.
__________________

I have a few qualms with this belief, so I was wondering if you would help shed some light on the stance to make sure I fully understand it.

If the weaker males were the ones with whom the females were mating, wouldn't that create a shift for the entire human race? Wouldn't all children of the world just be the children of the weak men, so all children of the world are weaker themselves? I don't understand why it would be a selective process in which people all of the sudden some people were gay and some were not.

Also, even assuming that some strong men mated with females and some weak men mated with females, why is it that the weaker men spawn gay children and the strong men do not? What about being weak is it that creates homosexuality. I fail to see where the shift from being attracted to women to being attracted to men comes in.

Also, what in human nature would lead us to think that dominate men would ever let weak men mate with their wives. Doesn't that sort of go against everything we know?

Anyway, those are just a few of the things I was wondering based off of what I read.

Hopefully you can illuminate these things for me. Also, do you have any good books or articles you could suggest? Thanks

Jesse Barksdale

REPLY FROM WILLIAM A. SPRIGGS, APPROX, DEC 9TH, 2007

Dear Jesse

Ok, so you're argument goes something like this: You assume that all the females mated with the "weaker" males left behind.

Reply: I can't provide proof that ALL the females mated with the weaker males, but have you gone hunting lately to bring home breakfast, lunch, and dinner? So maybe the "shift" you are talking about has already occurred - After all, I am assuming that there are no roaming bands of males walking down your street looking to steal food from your house, tribe, or village, in the here and now of 2007. Maybe the Rush Limbaugh's and the Mitt Romney "five" who talk tough are the new modern equivalent of the "strong, though males?" Pushing a level in a Jet Cockpit to drop a napalm bomb can easily be done by John McCain or Rosie McDonnell.

I can't speak for all of the evolutionary community, but their thinking goes something like this: Big, strong, aggressive males generally tend to be sexual slobs as well. They tend to take their females for pleasure where and when they want. They consider their female partners as property and closely guard the female sexuality against "sneak" matings with other males. True knuckle-crawling fundamental males also expect their females to keep their mouth's shut and their legs open.

The theory continues that females have a brain and know how to use it, thus found that the less abusive, "weak" males a better choice especially if they could provide resources for her and her future children equal to the knuckle-crawlers. The theory continues that males tend to seek sex any way that they can, and this then can be used as a bargaining chip fby the female, more so if the man is "weak" and can't physically take it from the female. How would you choose to pass your genes if you were the woman?

Q: "Also, even assuming that some strong men mated with females and some weak men mated with females, why is it that the weaker men spawn gay children and the strong men do not?"
A: How do you know that weak males don't spawn strong males and strong males don't spawn weak, homosexual males?

Q: What about being weak is it that creates homosexuality?
A: I really can't answer that. I think in 2007 it mostly has to do with socially constructed beliefs by tough guys, verbally haranguing, or physically abusing males WHO THEY THINK ARE HOMOSEXUAL. They may not be, but being human, who wants to be subjugated by verbal and physical violence? The mere appearance of avoidance by "weak males" by tough males, may be enough to destroy reputations and social advancement in their local environments. They may not be homosexual, but are merely being "tagged" as homosexual because it is fun to kick someone's ass as a male bonded activity. Talking and acting tough may also hide any sexual secrets that the tough guys may be hiding. Ever hear of "The Down Low?"
Q: I fail to see where the shift from being attracted to women to being attracted to men comes in.
A: Can't answer it. Don't know. I tend to think that the sex drive is like static electricity and just has to be released every now and then. After the "lust" comes the Where - Attraction (after that is the "commitment" stage) -- Where does the sexual release go? I'm guessing that it's much easier for some guys to find a male willing to suck his dick or fuck him in his back pussy on Craig's List M4M personals then to go though the entire evolutionary mating dance. Rejection hurts, and maybe the "weak" male, already a "loser" in the self-assertiveness department, does not want to be rejected by another female. So the casual, M4M contact is quick, the sexual urge buildup is released, and life goes on.

Q: What in human nature would lead us to think that dominate men would ever let weak men mate with their wives. Doesn't that sort of go against everything we know?
A:Yep.
I guess you've never heard of the word, CUCKOLD? It comes from the 14th century to define a MALE whose wife has stumped him. In other words, "cheated" on him sexually. Ever heard of a Chastity Belt? "Just say No?" In evolutionary terms we call it "mate guarding." But, it's those pesky females again….making those free choices. Whatca gonna do? Well, we just have to love those cunts and we males will have to continue to devise ways to get the girls to open their legs for us. They keep raising the price of admission, and we try to BS our way in. That's why it's called the battle of the sexes.

OK Jesse,
It was nice venting there….I will consider updating the article - after all it was written almost ten years ago.

Hope all this helps,
Enjoy the Voyage.

William A. Spriggs
Evolution's Voyage

Notebook entry, December 7th, 2007 (entry made, November 2008)

Below is a letter that I sent as sort of a proposal for a film idea after being contacted by Donna Sheehan. Here's a link to the book review that I did of her work. As of Nov. 2008, nothing has come of our relationship. Oh, well, one can always dream.

Redefining Seduction: Women Initiating Sex, Courtship, Partnership, and Peace.
By
Donna Sheehan & Paul Reffell

Dear Donna.
It was great talking to you and Paul. I know that I have other fans out there, but you are the first clear and loud voices of support.

I realize that you are still months away from finalizing the film, but I am a great fan of George Lakoff, the linguist, who’s book, “Don’t think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate” teaches us progressives how to “frame” the issues and win arguments with CONservatives. Basically, what your film has to do is to boil the issue down to a bumper sticker frame idea (that is how the CONservatives are so successful).

Thus: If the grand theory of evolution (or the meaning of life) is about solving the problem of passing our genes into the next generation, then the meaning of life really is about sex because that is how we humans pass our genes.

Thus, I suggest that the opening of your film begin with a very short version of the Greek play (400 B.C?) LYSISTRATA by Aristophanes.

To quote from www.temple.edu/classics/lysistrata.html, “The plot is as simple as it gets. Athenian women, fed up with the Peloponnesian War, barricade themselves in the Acropolis and go on a sex strike to force their husbands to vote for peace with Sparta.”

“Lysistrata, the third and concluding play of Aristophanes’ War and Peace series, was not produced till ten years later than it predecessor, the Peace, viz. in 411 B.C. It is now the twenty-first year of the War and there seems as little prospect of peace as ever. A desperate state of things demands a desperate remedy, and the Poet proceeds to suggest a burlesque solution of the difficulty.”

Well, I guess striking for sex in order to stop war didn’t work because our species is still busy kicking ass and killing in the name of: (fill in your cause de jour).

So the middle of your film should then move to Geoffrey Miller and sex selection and the reason males go to war. And of course, that is the “peacock theory” of “building, gathering, or showing off ‘stuff’” in order to impress the female into thinking that HE is a suitable candidate for her, and, more importantly, for the survival of her children.

I don’t know what you have planned for the ending, but I strongly suggest that you try to get Frans de Waal on board. His latest book, Our Inner Ape: a leading primatologist explains why we are who we are” practically starts crying tears of lost opportunity writing about the female-dominated bonobo species with their open sexuality and lack of violence in their societies. To quote de Waal:
“Bonobos simply do what they do because it provides optimal survival and reproduction in the environment in which they live” p. 124.

The environment” in which bonobos live is LUSH, AND BOUNDTIFUL WITH PLENTY OF RESOURCES FOR SURVIVAL. As opposed to the chimpanzee environment where competition for limited resources reins, thus increasing competition amongst males for sexual access. And then the FEMALES chimpanzees had an epiphany: If sex were limited in exchange for total sexual access, then her progeny could benefit more by the formation of a “nuclear” family.

And to quote de Waal again:
“The dilemma of how to engender cooperation among sexual competitors was solved in a single stroke with the establishment of the nuclear family. This arrangement offered almost every male a chance at reproduction, hence incentives to contribute to the common good…the family, and the social mores surrounding it, allowed us to take male bonding to a new level, unheard of in other primates. P. 125.

“What makes the bonobos so appealing to us is that they have no need for any separation of these domains: they happily mix the social with the sexual. We may envy these primates for their “liberty,” but our success as a species is intimately tied to the abandonment of the bonobo lifestyle and to a tighter control over sexual expressions.” P. 125

So, our “success” as a species is that we can destroy our planet in 30 minutes with enough WMDs that can eliminate all living creatures except the cockroach in order to “protect” the nuclear family?

In the concluding moments of your film, you need to dwell on the “Madonna/Whore” complex. Who “created” the idea of “good” female behavior vs. “bad” female behavior? (I’ll give you a clue: it wasn’t me as a male -- heck, when I was a teenager, I would have loved to been in a room where a “loose” female wanted to “use” me).

You also should conclude your film and tell the feminist audience that it was Phyllis Schlafly who defeated the ERA – Equal Rights Amendment in 1982 by arguing that: “The ERA would take away the “special protection” the “Christian tradition of chivalry” offered women – in other words, the “right” to be “supported and protected” by men. ‘Those women lawyers, women legislators, and women executive promoting ERA have plenty of education and talent to get whatever they want in the business, political and academic world,’ is how one anti-ERA letter distributed to Ohio state legislators put it. “We, the wives and working women, need you, dear Senators and Representatives, to protect us.” New York Times book review, “She Changed America,” by Judith Warner, January 29, 2006.

If human females gave free and open access to males at all times then there would be no reason to form coalitions to gain resources that lead to the waging of wars. So, if sex (or the limited access to sex) (the passage of genes) is the cause of war, then logically, sex, is the cure for war. It’s not rocket science. It’s simple, but at the same time, difficult, because the Phyllis Shaftey’s and the “Victoria’s Secret Mafias” of attractive women who benefit the most from male competition in the world would stop it. But, we as a species, at now at the brink of knowledge when we should hear the argument.

So that is how your film should end with a call for the “consciousness raising” concept of a world where women are more in control then they think. As a evolutionary feminist purists understand: Women got us into this mess, and women will get us out.

Men are aggressive and go off to wars to accumulate resources in which to attract females. But if you give them sex three times a week their aggressive tendencies – well, go limp. That is how I suggest you “bookend” your film, with the opposite solution to the opening: The SEX FOR PEACE – by LYSISTRATA. By merely, creating a “fictional” ending for the end of war.

Now, my suggestion for the sign: WILL FUCK FOR PEACE is the ultimate news camera grapping political sign at rallies. Of course, such an obscene sign would get attention, but most likely would not make it to air time….but it could create buzz at street level which could lead to serious discussions for the reason behind the sign. Perhaps some replacements?
Will Fornicate for Peace,
Penis Pounders for Peace,
Hard Cocks Cause Wars
(here’s an oldie, but goodie: Make Love, Not War)

Yeah….they’re all funny, and lower the argument to “street threatre” action, but then, that is how you get noticed -- and as the Neil Simon song says: “You Gotta Have a Gimmick”…..like getting a bunch of women together, have them strip naked, and form the peace symbol with their bodies. Right?

But, you are the artist in charge – it’s your CHOICE women.

Love you more.
“You May Say I’m a Dreamer, But I’m Not the Only One.”

Bill Spriggs
Evolution’s Voyage

Notebook entry, December 1, 2007
A most interesting development has appeared on The New York Times online edition for today's date. It is an article under the Technology Section/"WHAT'S ONLINE sub-section: "As Always, an Unequal Pie, by Dan Mitchell. I will quote the first two paragraphs:

The distribution of wealth lies at the heart of political economics. Nations and empires have risen and fallen, and millions have died, as a result of humanity's struggle to decide how (or whether) to divide wealth.

But for all that, the level of wealth inequality has remained remarkably consistent over the last 2,000 years, according to a recent study by Branko Milanovic, a researcher with the World Bank, and two economics professors, Peter H. Lindert of the University of California, Davis, and Jeffrey G. Williamson of Harvard Universtiy.

Here is the link to the PDF file paper at Harvard - be aware that it is 88 pages in length, but most of it is mumbo-jumbo graphics. The meat of the paper is only 24 pages long.
I don't know how long the online link will be online, so you better get it while the "gettins" good. I have prited the pdf file out and I have placed it in my archives.

Pre-Industrial Inequality: An Early Conjectural Map
Branko Milanovic, World Bank
Peter H. Lindert, University of California - Davis
Jeffrey G. Williamson, Harvard University
August 23, 2007
http://economics.harvard.edu/faculty/williamson/files/Pre-industrial_inequality.pdf

Here is the opening paragraph to tempt you to continue:

"Did our pre-industrial ancestors have incomes and life expectancies as unequal as they are today? Or is inequality largely a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution? How does inequality in today's least developed, agricultural countries compare with that of ancient societies dating back to start of agriculture? Did some parts of the world always have greater income inequality than others? Was inequality augmented by colonization? These questions have not been answered yet, for want of sufficient data. Our effort to gather these data has not been easy, even though we were well warned of the pitfalls facing any attempt to explore ancient and pre-industrial income gaps between rich and poor."

The reason that I considered this "most interesting" is that I wrote an essay back in 2002 about the Resource Ratio Theory that focused on the evolutionary gap between the resource rich and the resource poor. I have placed the link below.

The Resource Differential Intolerance Ratio Theory:
The gap between the very rich and the poor; do we see the evolutionary connection?
By
William A. Spriggs
January 5, 2002
"The very rich are different from you and me."
F. Scott Fitzgerald
The Great Gatsby

http://www.evoyage.com/BillsEssays/IntoleranceRatio.htm