01jan24g Prescott (CC)
The following is not to be spread (except to restricted Doucé list & restricted Frans lists and sites) unless the below substantial exerpts from Prescott fall under Fair Use Policy of US Copyright Legislation. I'm not sure! Regardless, people can pick from my intro and annotations whatever they want. --CC
By James W. Prescott, Ph.D. Appeared in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November 1975, pp. 10-20
See James W. Prescott's web site
 |
Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence |
| |
| |
|
The message of the below abridged version of a 1975 scientific article by US researcher James Prescott is more topical now than it was at the time, because the US and similarly anti-affectionate cultures have taken harsh steps to repress the message and have since become increasingly hostile towards the essential modes of upbringing and treatment that are proposed in this article. AIDS and the typing of most cases of affectionate interaction with minors (-18) as 'child sexual abuse' are two factors that have turned the tide of sexual reform, while there never was such a concept as 'affection reform'. Many people will suppose that Western society has experienced a sexual revolution and we are now liberated. Commercial porn (the sorry substitute for the real thing) is distributed more freely, yes; dildos come in more colors, yes; and the decline of literal Christianity has affected the popularity of the term 'sin', yes (sin is now known as shame); but these shifts have nothing to do with what WE mean by sexual and affectionate FREEDOM. Freedom is not unbounded promiscuity, as fundies like to boo us with, but is instead freedom from the machinations that enslave us to our morbid love-hate fascination with sexuality and intimacy. Freedom means: respect for the natural, intuitive handling of sexuality and affection, which implies openness about relations (ever seen a monkey hide behind a tree when expressing affection?), physical intimacy for prepubescent children, sexual activity for adolescents (as opposed to absurd ages of consent stifling pubescent development), sexual pluralism, and the eradication of shame and obsession. Freedom has nothing to do with there being more abortions, more divorces, the cultivation of monstrosities, and more legal lanes for having quick, secretive sex. The average Westerner is still obsessed with sex and still wallows in the troubled implications of the anti-affectionate norm.
Still wondering how we should counter uncalled-for violence? By building more jails? A real solution is quite simple but unwanted, and sabotaged by Western governments at the cost of all that is good and beautiful. Why is this impairment continued; why have the anti-human norms not been eliminated but, instead, secularized? There is evidence for a hard-wired cultural addiction to our repression of (sexual and non-sexual) affection and our glorification of uncalled-for aggression. For some food for thought, see Akathartic and Ophionic States of Being - Alexithymia and Anosognosia by Tani Jantsang: http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/a-o-a.html and The Tree of Destruction: A Synthetic Analysis of Human Societal Problems Since the Agrarian Age by the same author: http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/all-tod.html
In 1980, James Prescott was sacked from his federal position as Health Scientist Administrator. He has become sharply critical of the US government, which has failed to listen to his findings despite loud pretensions to be concerned with countering the abuse of minors and rampant violence. Prescott is an adversary of traditionally religious morals, and that is why he is ignored. Professor of medical psychology John Money noted in a Playboy interview (July 1990) that "the only way a researcher can get Government funding is to be against sex." Prescott's pioneer work was dumped in favor of the mock 'protection of children (-18)' and the fallacious 'combat of sexual abuse', which by now equals the combat of (youth) sexuality worldwide. Among the adverse consequences of this contempt for the truth, Prescott lists (in a letter to the director of the National Institutes of Health, 3 September 1999):
"Continued acceleration of violence against children and their mothers of this nation. "Retardation of scientific research over the past quarter of a century on the brain-behavioral consequences of failed bonding in the mother-infant/child relationship. "Destruction of my professional and scientific career with terminal inability to find gainful employment in academic and scientific research institutions or elsewhere."
Thus, this is not dated research that has been refuted, but research that has been ignored (except for initial praise) and failed to be expanded. In Cosmos (1980), Carl Sagan discussed Prescott's research, evidently giving it credit. He wrote: "More work on this provocative thesis is clearly needed." The abridged article is a selection of paragraphs, mostly shortened. Tables, graphs and illustrations have been left out. Original italics are set in boldface. My notes are placed in [square brackets].
A neuropsychologist contends that the greatest threat to world peace comes from those nations which have the most depriving environments for their children and which are most repressive of sexual affection and female sexuality.
People are constantly in search of new forms of pleasure, yet most of our 'pleasure' activities appear to be substitutes for the natural sensory pleasures of touching.
[One such substitute 'pleasure' activity is a fascination with violence; another is the consumption of numbing drugs. It seems that antidepressants have become very popular. Were humans meant to thrive on medication? Drugs are aliens introduced into the body; agents who are told: "You solve the problem FOR me (for my body), I can't do it on my own."]
As a developmental neuropsychologist I have devoted a great deal of study to the peculiar relationship between violence and pleasure. I am now convinced that the deprivation of physical sensory pleasure is the principal root cause of violence. Laboratory experiments with animals show that pleasure and violence have a reciprocal relationship, that is, the presence of one inhibits the other. [...] A raging, violent animal will abruptly calm down when electrodes stimulate the pleasure centers of its brain. [...] Among human beings, a pleasure-prone personality rarely displays violence or aggressive behaviors, and a violent personality has little ability to tolerate, experience, or enjoy sensuously pleasing activities.
The hypothesis that deprivation of physical pleasure results in physical violence requires a formal systematic evaluation. [...] Cultural anthropologists have gathered exactly the data required to examine this hypothesis for human societies -- and their findings are conveniently arranged in R. B. Textor's _A Cross-Cultural Summary_ (New Haven, Conn.: Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) Press, 1967). Textor's book is basically a research tool for cross-cultural statistical inquiry. The survey provides some 20,000 statistically significant correlations from 400 culture samples of primitive societies. [...] The results clearly indicated that those societies which give their infants the greatest amount of physical affection were characterized by low theft, low infant physical pain, low religious activity, and negligible or absent killing, mutilating, or torturing of the enemy.
The results [...] indicate that societies which inflict pain and discomfort upon their infants tend to neglect them as well.
Adult physical violence was accurately predicted in 36 of 49 cultures (73 percent) from the infant physical affection variable. The probability that a 73 percent rate of accuracy could occur by chance is only four times out of a thousand.
Of the 49 societies studied, 13 cultures seemed to be exceptions to the theory that a lack of somatosensory pleasure makes people physically violent. [...] Consequently, it is meaningful to examine the sexual behaviors of the 13 cultures whose adult violence was not predictable from physical pleasure during infancy.
When the six societies characterized by both high infant affection and high violence are compared in terms of their premarital sexual behavior, it is surprising to find that five of them exhibit premarital sexual repression, where virginity is a high value of these cultures. It appears that the beneficial effects of infant physical affection can be negated by the repression of physical pleasure (premarital sex) later in life.
[When is 'later in life'? At any rate, this is the pubescent stage: when nature indicates that bodies are fertile and ready for mating. This has great implications for states and nations that worship a high age of consent, ranking any and all sexual activity, regardless of the context, as 'statutory rape' and punishing such activity as real rape would be punished.]
The seven societies characterized by both low infant physical affection and low adult physical violence were all found to be characterized by permissive premarital sexual behaviors. Thus, the detrimental effects of infant physical affectional deprivation seem to be compensated for later in life by sexual body pleasure experiences during adolescence.
[Obviously, 'as well as' is better than 'either, or'; see further down for statistical corroboration.]
In short, violence may stem from deprivation of somatosensory pleasure either in infancy or in adolescence. The only true exception in this culture sample is the headhunting Jivaro tribe of South America. [...] The Jivaro belief system may play an important role, for as anthropologist Michael Harner notes in Jivaro Souls, these Indians have a "deep-seated belief that killing leads to the acquisition of souls which provide a supernatural power conferring immunity from death."
The percent likelihood of a society being physically violent if it is physically affectionate toward its infants and tolerant of premarital sexual behavior is 2 percent (48/49). The probability of this relationship occurring by chance is 125,000 to one.
[A]dditional clusters of relationships link the punishment and repression of premarital sex to large community size, high social complexity and class stratification, small extended families, purchase of wives, practice of slavery, and a high god present in human morality.
[The three highest correlative percentages are: social complexity is high (87%), sex disability is high (83%) and high god in human morality (81%). Also interesting: community size is larger (73%). This supports my theory that large societies are breeding grounds for corruption and repression, due to impersonal politics and the development of elaborate bureaucracy. Federal elections in the US, for instance, have nothing to do with democracy. They are bought and won by corporations, not people.]
The relationship between small extended families and punitive premarital sex attitudes deserves emphasis, for it suggests that the nuclear Western cultures [where parents-child(ren)-type families are regarded as discrete groups] may be a contributing factor to our repressive attitudes toward sexual expression. The same can be suggested for community size, social complexity, and class stratification.
Not surprisingly, when high self-needs are combined with the deprivation of physical affection, the result is self-interest and high rates of narcissism. Likewise, exhibitionistic dancing and pornography may be interpreted as a substitute for normal sexual expression. Some nations which are most repressive of female sexuality have rich pornographic art forms.
[Consider also that a lot of art is melancholy in nature: a creative sublimation of substantial depression.]
Societies which value monogamy emphasize military glory and worship aggressive gods.
According to FBI statistics, both murder and aggravated assault increased 53 percent between 1967 and 1972, while forcible rape rose 70 percent.
[The following are my calculations. FBI statistics indicate an approximate 90 percent increase of forcible rape (not including non-forcible statutory rape) between 1972 and 1999. Murder and nonnegligent (willful) manslaughter decreased by approximately 17 percent between these years, and aggravated assault (nonlethal attacks that could have resulted in murder) increased by approximately 133 percent between the same years.]
In addition to our rape statistics, there is other evidence that points to preference for sexual violence over sexual pleasure in the United States. This is reflected in our acceptance of sexually explicit films that involve violence and rape, and our rejection of sexually explicit films for pleasure only (pornography). [...] Apparently, sex with pleasure is immoral and unacceptable, but sex with violence and pain is moral and acceptable.
A questionnaire I developed to explore this question was administered to 96 college students whose average age was 19 years. The results of the questionnaire support the connection between rejection of physical pleasure (and particularly of premarital and extramarital sex) with expression of physical violence.
[As governor of Texas, anti-abortionist and former alcoholic George W. Bush twice signed laws that designate funding for abstinence-until-marriage education (Texas House Bill 1, 97 & 99).]
Respondents who reject abortion, responsible premarital sex, and nudity within the family were likely to approve of harsh physical punishment for children and to believe that pain helps build strong moral character. These respondents were likely to find alcohol and drugs more satisfying than sex. The data obtained from the questionnaire provide strong statistical support for the basic inverse relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure.
Another way of looking at the reciprocal relationship between violence and pleasure is to examine a society's choice of drugs. A society will support behaviors that are consistent with its values and social mores. U.S. society is a competitive, aggressive, and violent society. Consequently, it supports drugs that facilitate competitive, aggressive, and violent behaviors and opposes drugs that counteract such behaviors. Alcohol is well known to facilitate the expression of violent behaviors, and, although addicting and very harmful to chronic users, is acceptable to U.S. society. Marijuana, on the other hand, is an active pleasure-inducing drug which enhances the pleasure of touch and actively inhibits violent-aggressive behaviors. [...] For similar reasons heroin is rejected and methadone (an addicting drug minus the pleasure) is accepted.
Animals deprived of touching early in life develop impaired pain perception and an aversion to being touched by others. They are thus blocked from experiencing the body-pleasure therapy that they need for rehabilitation. In this condition, they have few alternatives but physical violence, where pain-oriented touching and body contact is facilitated by their impaired ability to experience pain. Thus, physical violence and physical pain become therapies of choice for those deprived of physical pleasure.
If we accept the theory that the lack of sufficient somatosensory pleasure is a principal cause of violence, we can work toward promoting pleasure and encouraging affectionate interpersonal relationships as a means of combatting aggression.
[Accept this theory? Somato-Sensory Deprivation was abbreviated SAD. Along came Seasonal Affective Disorder in 1988, and the abbreviation for Prescott's neglected theory had to be changed; it is now (not) known as S-SAD.]
We should give high priority to body pleasure in the context of meaningful human relationships. Such body pleasure is very different from promiscuity, which reflects a basic inability to experience pleasure. If a sexual relationship is not pleasurable, the individual looks for another partner. A continuing failure to find sexual satisfaction leads to a continuing search for new partners, that is, to promiscuous behavior. Affectionately shared physical pleasure, on the other hand, tends to stabilize a relationship and eliminate the search. However, a variety of sexual experiences seems to be normal in cultures which permit its expression, and this may be important for optimizing pleasure and affection in sexual relationships.
[Note well! Many people restrict and oppose sexuality and affection, and research related to it, by proposing the threat of unbridled lasciviousness (as though rape isn't lascivious). While (excessive) pornography is in itself a substitute for the real thing, the US President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography concluded in 1970 that there was little empirical evidence to declare that exposure to sexually explicit materials is associated with the causation of delinquent or criminal behavior among youth and adults (Scott and Cuvelier, 1993). Regardless, the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations campaigned and acted severely against pornography.]
Available data clearly indicate that the rigid values of monogamy, chastity, and virginity help produce physical violence. The denial of female sexuality must give way to an acceptance and respect for it, and men must share with women the responsibility for giving affection and care to infants and children.
About 25 percent of marriages in the United States now end in divorce, and an even higher percentage of couples have experienced extramarital affairs.
[In 1997, the likelihood of new US marriages ending in divorce was 43 percent; source: http://www.divorcemagazine.com .]
This suggests that something is basically wrong with the traditional concept of universal monogamy. When viewed in connection with the cross-cultural evidence of the physical deprivations, violence, and warfare associated with monogamy, the need to create a more pluralistic system of marriage becomes clear. Contemporary experiments with communal living and group marriage are attempting to meet basic needs that remain unfulfilled in the isolation of a nuclear marriage. We must seriously consider new options, such as extended families comprised of two or three couples who share values and lifestyles. By sharing the benefits and responsibilities of child rearing, such families could provide an affectionate and varied environment for children as well as adults, and thereby reduce the incidence of child abuse and runaways.
The family bath should be large enough to accommodate parents and children, and be equipped with a whirlpool to maximize relaxation and pleasure.
We should recognize that sexuality in teenagers is not only natural, but desirable, and accept premarital sexuality as a positive moral good.
[This urgent recommendation is diametrically opposed to the craven moronic cop-out slogan of 'consenting ADULTS' (+18), especially despicable when uttered by gays. Note also that 'patriarchy' is not the dominance of males. It is the dominance of ADULT males.]
Parents should help teenagers realize their own sexual selfhood by allowing them to use the family home for sexual fulfillment. Such honesty would encourage a more mature attitude toward sexual relationships and provide a private supportive environment that is far better for their development than the back seat of a car or other undesirable locations outside the home. Early sexual experiences are too often an attempt to prove one's adulthood and maleness or femaleness rather than a joyful sharing of affection and pleasure.
The use of sex to provide mere release from physiological tension (apparent pleasure) should not be confused with a state of sensual pleasure which is incompatible with dominance, power, aggression, violence, and pain.
It needs to be emphasized here that I advocate somatosensory pleasure stimulation as a therapeutic procedure to correct the abnormalities due to somatosensory pleasure deprivation. [...] The success of somatosensory therapy in isolation reared monkeys reported by Harry F. Harlow and Stephen Suomi ("Social Rehabilitation of Isolate-Reared Monkeys," _Developmental Psychology_, 6 (1972), 487-496) when other forms of therapy have failed in these animals, provide further encouragement and support for the utilization of touch and body movement therapies in the treatment of emotional disorders.
On the contrary, our prisons have been designed to maximize those conditions that are responsible for the violence and imprisonment of the social offender.
The reciprocal relationship between pleasure and violence is such that one inhibits the other; when physical pleasure is high, physical violence is low. When violence is high, pleasure is low. This basic premise of the somatosensory pleasure deprivation theory provides us with the tools necessary to fashion a world of peaceful, affectionate, cooperative individuals.
[James W. Prescott, Ph.D. is a developmental neuropsychologist and cross-cultural psychologist. He was Health Scientist Administrator, Developmental Behavioral Biology Program, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Director, Institute of Humanistic Science and of BioBehavioral Systems. For an up-to-date curriculum vitae and for the story of today's repression of essential research for the sake of the parasitic continuation of government-sponsored inhumanity, see http://www.violence.de
End]
- -
Chris Canter
No part of the original content of this e-mail should be construed as encouraging, advocating, counseling or condoning the violation of any law.
Niets uit de originele inhoud van deze e-mail moet worden geïnterpreteerd als aanmoediging van, bepleiting van of instemming met de overtreding van enige wet.