Sexuality control: The oldest conspiracy

Sometimes there are conspiracies that have been around for so long and are so ingrained the modern world even people who make it a point to find where they are being controlled and deny the ignorance being fed them will completely miss it.

It is my assertion that the way western civilization treats sexuality is one of those conspiracies. Please note that in the following I am purposefully not going to provide supporting evidence for two reasons: 1: All sources for this information are dubious and the information is best found by personal research where multiple sources can be easily located and 2: My goal is not to prove anything to anyone but to open a new avenue of thinking and a perspective to view information you already have.

First to show that your sexuality is being controlled it would be important to establish that it would indeed be a good idea to control your sexuality. Sex does three primary things among humans: It brings pleasure, cements social bonds, and like most all animals it is the means to reproduction if it is heterosexual sex among two fertile people with the correct timing about 40% of the time.

If you are a religious or state leader and it your goal is to secure the loyalty of your followers you need to make sure their lives are pleasant and your structure will be able to keep them fed and happy. Any ruler knows that the world being what it is will not allow this to happen all the time.

So among other things you will need to somehow instill yourself as their source of pleasure.To do this you will need to take away or limit the pleasure they can get with interactions from others.

Next you need to control any social bonds and ensure their bonds are primarily towards you as well.

Finally and most importantly you need to ensure they reproduce a lot to grow your loyalty base while minimizing extraneous social bonds.

If you look at those logical requirements that a religious or state leader would have to get people's loyalty for themselves you will see the current nuclear family heterosexual man and wife only moral sexual structure that western civilization has in place.

But isn't this natural? When you look at social patterns of indigenous people throughout history you will not find this structure as common except where there is a distinct ruling structure in place.

This suggests to me it is not natural but instead a creation by the ancient powers that be to control the populace.

I think that the strength of conviction about sexuality is another proof this brainwashing control conspiracy has worked. Judging by media reactions, and even threads here people can't keep civilized when discussing certain aspects.

In my experience people become the most agitated when they are fighting for a belief or conviction where they can't find a logical base. Just looking at and examining the straw man logic used to support most modern views on sexuality should cause one to step back and take notice.

Thus I ask not that people argue but to look at their views on sexuality and examine where they come from and why they hold those views.

I am not asking anyone to change beliefs just to deny ignorance and recognize the possibility of this ancient conspiracy.

That is an interesting view. However, looking at it based on my experience and by my observations of other family structures, it seems that the "traditional" nuclear family seems to be the most beneficial for raising and developing children. You could probably counter that is because they are being developed to conform to the traditional concept.

However, it is detrimental to normal child psychological development that the child has both a male and female role model to prepare him or her for life, in my opinion.

So, I believe your analysis is flawed in that it discounts the benefits of the "traditional" model for the benefits of a different sexual society. I am not arguing against those benefits, but I think you need to consider the rearing of children along with their procreation.

Very well-presented, insightful and thought-provoking analysis, which I appreciate.

Society and civilization is not a natural thing either, Neither is agriculture, electricity, cars, computers, aqueducts and plumbing, modern medicine, satellites, Bulk Dry Shipping, Industrial Mining, chemical engineering, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Arguing that only Natural things are Good... ON THE INTERNET, is sort of biting the hand that feeds you.

Civilization is the art of CIVILIZING the people of that civilization, meaning turning them FROM their own natural instincts, towards more rational pursuits.

Because our natural instincts, despite what you may want to believe, are in fact, totally self centered, egotistical, and the absolute antithesis of civilization or society.

You can't eat your cake, and have it too.

reply to post by redstripe1229


However, since when is the rearing of children the job of one male and one female progenator each. I mean, "it takes a village" may sound cliche in the US or western Europe, but I think many non-Western, traditional societies would agree with that cliche.

Additionally, I would argue that when you look at non-Western, traditional societies, you find in-group titles and roles that do not translate easily with Western languages. For example, in some tribes, the mother's brother (maternal uncle) is a more important father figure than the biological father.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Or is it...duhn, duhn...DUHN!

In all seriousness, I'm back and forth with this argument. My opinion, as it currently stands, is that all things you see manifest are natural, in that they have certainly come about by natural means. An otter using a rock to smash oyster shells and a monkey using a stick to extract ants are using technology - technology that is analogous to our own, though we scoff at its simplicity.

I think that it is the characteristic lack of balance that is not natural in modern products, gadgets and services, not the products, gadgets and services themselves. For example, I cannot imagine a world where international overnight bulk dry shipping could exist that would not totally skew the balance of resources in any one environmental niche (or all interdependently).

In other words, a coffee maker could not exist in a void. It is the product of its natural context (though I'm sure there are some chaos theory folks who would pooh-pooh my logic and say that somewhere in the vast universe there is a Black and Decker 12-cup brewing machine wobbling up and down by a black hole for eternity, but I digress). The question is not whether an electric coffee-brewing machine is unnatural. Certainly brewing coffee is natural, as all you need is fire, water, a vessel made of clay or, hell, even a coconut shell, and some ground coffee beans. At this simplistic level, no one would have qualms over the "naturalness" of the process. Plastic parts, far-off created electricity and paper filters manufactured in the Amazon or Canada are also not "unnatural". Any unnatural aspects of them are due to their untimeliness and wastefulness.

Now, applying this concept to sexuality, my argument would be that we are all capable of getting down and dirty with the same sex for pleasure and social bonding and this is indeed very natural. The "unnatural" argument is that homosexuality does not cause procreation, but procreation is not the only endeavor looked after by humans on a day to day basis. In fact, we have words like "in heat" when referring to animals for a reason. They are not in heat all the time, they go through cycles.

Due to taboos in modern Western society, what I am about to say is speculative, but it's based on anecdotal evidence either shared in confidence with me or from experiences I've had over the span of my adolescence and adulthood. "Straight" is socially constrained, not biologically. I've known way to many heterosexual men who have bent the rules on occasion, but who do not do that as they get older or on a frequent basis. This is where the bonding comes in. All one needs to do to see how this works is to fully acknowledge what happens in prisons, in the navy and in other isolating experiences to understand why there really is no connection between sexual activity for social bonding and sexual activity for procreation.

reply to post by redstripe1229


Well of course I will counter that raising a child in a traditional manner is the best way to raise a child to conform to tradition. Which is after all the point and how this sticks.

I do agree that a child needs a male and female role models / parents it isn't because of the psychological ramifications or to learn their gender roles. I believe the psychological ramifications only exist due to the collective ego of the society and learning gender roles is similar.

Humans need male and female parents because this is how humans learn to exist in a world that contains men and women and associating trust with only one gender is detrimental no matter what sexuality a society expresses. While I am very progressive one of the few things I think is wrong is same sex partners raising children for the above reason. (Before anyone gets in an uproar I would still support their rights to do so I just happen to think it has negative effects even outside of our current repressive society)

But then I must ask is this what is being controlled? I think the answer is no. Are there other models for human sexuality that still have male / female mating with shared child rearing? Pretty much all of them because that is kinda how it works no matter what (barring surrogate parents and sperm banks.)

Just because this is how it works does this also mean the other benefits of sex must be removed?



reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I should not have used the word natural, it is too vague and a semantic trap.

I can be looking at a car and describe the tire only for you to call me an idiot because you're looking at the windshield and the final guy who sees the whole car is just shaking his head as we argue. This is using the word natural. In the big picture everything has to be natural by virtue of it's existence in the world.

There are many differing thoughts as to how far extended society as natural really is. There is no doubt humans are social creatures so I would argue society is indeed natural. And with that argument it could also be argued controlling the sexuality of the people in that society is also natural. But what I am trying to say is that while the control might be totally natural it might not be what is best for true human psychology in the pursuit of creating a better world.for the individual.

I simply disagree that human instinct is all self centered and destructive. This is the Locke Vs. Hobbs argument. This has been going on for a few years and I doubt we should tackle it here. If interested or you haven't heard of these guys here is a good brief synopsis I found: jim.com...

I can have my cake and eat it too. I always thought that saying to be a nice way to remind people they are oppressed. If you give me a cake I will eat it.(Unless it is a carrot cake I probably will give it someone who likes it)


reply to post by Sphota


It does take a village, but outside of nuclear family what incentive does that village have to take a real interest in that child's upbringing? Is there a better way for adults to bond sexually that would give a greater benefit to the children being raised? I don't know the answer. I know very few things actually all I really have is a ton of questions and a lot of assumptions.

And when I talk about control homosexual bonding is of course included but is only a small portion in my opinion. I still think the majority of humans will gain the most benefits from bonding and pleasure through a heterosexual role but you are correct we definitely can't dismiss the homosexual role in sexuality as a whole.

In my experience society , religion, states, seek to control by limiting and frowning upon all sexual activity that is not between a mating couple. This leaves a lot of sexuality out there. Homosexuality is but one among many of the taboos.

I hope I addressed everyone's comments here. I am more than interested in continuing the discussion if anyone else is...

reply to post by Jinglelord

But what I am trying to say is that while the control might be totally natural it might not be what is best for true human psychology in the pursuit of creating a better world.for the individual.

Like it or not, controlling the sexuality of human beings is what brought us to this level of advancement "For the Individual"

All of the knowledge available to us stems directly from the control of human sexuality, as in the absence of this control, all you get is hypergamous harems that completely destroy any collective cooperative effort on behalf of the "Whole"

In natural "Societies" as you would put it, the default sexual selection methodology is that of the harem... a relatively small group of males having supreme sexual access to the vast majority of the mate-able females.

This leaves the vast majority of the males with absolutely NO motivation to help society, no "Skin in the game" as it were, and also leaves the "Alpha" males with little incentive to do anything besides copulate.

Society goes nowhere at all.... just rutting beasts.


Society, as it were, and civilization *IS* the Control of human sexuality... that is all it has EVER been.

The control of sexual selection to afford the most people with the best possible lives.

What you are arguing for, is in fact, DETRIMENTAL to ALL "Individuals" in society.


P.S. And no, You *CAN'T* eat your cake, and have it too... because once you EAT your cake.....


YOU NO LONGER HAVE IT!

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I think you make some good points about our society being built around sexual control. I would agree and I think that is the point that our society does work best with the sexual controls in place ands I would also agree that these controls are necessary for a society to get to a certain point. I don't know if they are required indefinitely. Just like in order for a country to industrialize workers need to be abused, underpaid and go through hell until a good infrastructure can be put in place. Then you get worker reform.

Now I have made no mention of where human sexuality would go if the controls were lessened or removed. I think there is a very good chance many people would do it exactly the same. I think a great many would change if society "allowed" and many have already changed without societies permission. I do think our biology does indicate that we have a minor polygynous tendency but polyandry has also been practiced successfully. I feel the reality is neither are truly the answer and the answer isn't going to be the same for everyone.

I am not sure what the best way about it is but I would like to find out one day. I do know the way we do it isn't very functional.

I still have my cake after I eat it... about a day later some of it leaves and I can opt to keep it (which I won't) some of it is burned as energy and some of it grows cells and is with me for a very long time.

You make good points I appreciate the help in getting this theory sorted out.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Society and civilization is not a natural thing either, Neither is agriculture, electricity, cars, computers, aqueducts and plumbing, modern medicine, satellites, Bulk Dry Shipping, Industrial Mining, chemical engineering, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Arguing that only Natural things are Good... ON THE INTERNET, is sort of biting the hand that feeds you.

Civilization is the art of CIVILIZING the people of that civilization, meaning turning them FROM their own natural instincts, towards more rational pursuits.

Because our natural instincts, despite what you may want to believe, are in fact, totally self centered, egotistical, and the absolute antithesis of civilization or society.

You can't eat your cake, and have it too.

I like this post here. When I was young and immature, a *'light'* went on over my hard head, and I *'realized'* that all knowledge and tradition going back thousands of years was wrong, and I was right, because I was a modern liberated girl.
If you reject mankind's societal restraints, evolution it'self, will correct you to see more clearly. But you wont like how it does that.

reply to post by simone50m


So I already admitted that I used an inappropriate word when I said "Natural". I should have said that the current might not be the best for human mental health and a better society.

Unfortunately it would be nearly impossible for a single person to accurately judge what would be better for human psychology through their own experiences in this society. The problem being a better part of human psychology is actually sociology. We are social creatures and nothing we try to change can happen in a vacuum.

When people are less controlled divorce rates skyrocket, cheating is regular, swinger clubs are on the rise, you name it you can find a failing in the nuclear family model. Now I think this might be right for some people but I think there is a large segment of the population it is not right for.

So the question is what is right? Can the people who find happiness in the tradition of the traditional family not negatively influence the psychology of children from non-traditional families?

The point of this post was to open the idea and hopefully get some more ideas so I can try to sort this interesting sociology issue.

reply to post by Jinglelord

Just like in order for a country to industrialize workers need to be abused, underpaid and go through hell until a good infrastructure can be put in place. Then you get worker reform.

I don't think that is necessarily the case, actually.

That is just the rich taking advantage of the poor, and not necessarily a requirement of industrializing a society.

Furthermore, I feel that your comparison rings somewhat false, as you are (intentionally or not) making a comparison of controlled sexuality to exploitation and abuse.

As if treating people in a responsible manner is somehow detrimental to individuality or society.

Now I have made no mention of where human sexuality would go if the controls were lessened or removed.

They would go exactly where our instincts dictate, a hypergamous polyandrous society, where harems are the norm, and most men are left out of reproduction and procreation, with the addition of a declining (non-replacement) birthrate.

(This is because of the double whammy of relatively small groups of men having heightened sexual access, and birth control technology so that while they "Raise the expectations and requirements of women" they do not father as many children as their sexual activities would "Naturally" indicate.

I think there is a very good chance many people would do it exactly the same.

Our society has not been based upon monogamy since the 60's

I think a great many would change if society "allowed" and many have already changed without societies permission.

Again, this has already happened, which is why there is a great difficulty for forming pair bonding relationships among the general population.

I do think our biology does indicate that we have a minor polygynous tendency but polyandry has also been practiced successfully.

Yes, if your population base is merely hundreds strong.... in a civilization with millions of people, the "Best" men (as seen through the eyes of women) is such a small pool that most men are left out in the cold, and thus have no incentive to keep society functioning.

I am not sure what the best way about it is but I would like to find out one day.

No, we are going to (as is consistent with human history) find out ALL THE WRONG WAYS to do this.

I still have my cake after I eat it... about a day later some of it leaves...

Yes, some of it leaves, and once you digest it, it is no longer cake.... unless you are saying that your arms are not *ARMS* but still the undigested food prior to consumption.

some of it is burned as energy and some of it grows cells and is with me for a very long time.

The average replacement time for matter in your body is only a couple of months.

You make good points I appreciate the help in getting this theory sorted out.

NP, thanks for the thread!

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I do think that the wealthy taking advantage and leveraging this for growth is required to fully industrialize. Not my idea just so happens to be one of the things from main stream history that makes sense to me.

Controlling people by leveraging their sexuality is an abuse. And contrary to to what many say I feel it is a detriment to society.

I feel it is detrimental because sexuality wasn't allowed to evolve instead it is tightly controlled. People will gravitate towards what works and what makes them happy and I don't think that is the world you're envisioning. I feel like this is the reason there is a lot of unhappiness.

I also disagree about the no monogamy since the 60s. In the 60s monogamy really took hold. It was no longer acceptable for men to have mistresses, housewives had a harder time hiding activities with the milk man etc etc... All because it was brought into the open.

It is from this that we see a huge media influx preaching true love, romance etc etc...

I don't think we've begun to find where humanity really needs to be yet. In fact I think traditional morals are stronger than ever. Its just the media is saying otherwise to get people really going and to support their traditional values stronger.

Ever try to put together a swinger party or do anything that is outside the "norm"?

It isn't easy and there aren't a lot of people who really want to try something new out there...

Originally posted by redstripe1229
That is an interesting view. However, looking at it based on my experience and by my observations of other family structures, it seems that the "traditional" nuclear family seems to be the most beneficial for raising and developing children. You could probably counter that is because they are being developed to conform to the traditional concept.

What about tribal cultures? Are their children worse off because they don't have a "nuclear family?"

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

P.S. And no, You *CAN'T* eat your cake, and have it too... because once you EAT your cake.....


YOU NO LONGER HAVE IT!

Actually, you can have your cake and eat it too. I bought two identical cakes, I ate one and left the other in my fridge.

Really, it works.

reply to post by Sphota


We as humans have evolved past the point where sex is only used for reproduction. Sex is used for pleasure and emotional needs and bonding with another person, whatever the reason is. Everyone is bisexual but society creates a gender binary which creates homophobia and homophobia would not exist without the gender binary.

I liked the conspiracy that said tptb encouraged heterosexual sex to breed more slaves.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


you sound just like a catholic priest with those arguments

lol harems

and men being left without partners double lol

ZOMG!!!!without imposed order we'd go out of control!!!! triple lol

both of the above require that women be subordinate and submissive to men
read a little about the history of the kelts and other societies there's this thing that really pisses of the patriarchate: it's called polyandry or women with more than one husband.

the nuclear family is a PRODUCT of industrialization, ego ergo sum, not "natural" it's an imposition by TCOTBIP nothing else.
also known as divide and rule, subdivide and and strengthen the rule.

reply to post by Jinglelord


OP S&F
it should be obvious that the so called war of the sexes is probably the oldest example of divide and rule/conquer

this may be of interest to you:

Welcome to the
S A H A R A S I A
Resource Page

The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse,
Sex-repression, Warfare and Social Violence,
In the Deserts of the Old World

Evidence for a Worldwide,
Climate-Linked Geographical Pattern
in Human Behavior

James DeMeo, Ph.D. link to Saharasia homepage

from the website homepage:

Human Violence is Unnatural. Perpetual War is Not Inevitable.

The Human Species is By Nature Loving, Cooperative and Peaceful.

There is a Real Early Peaceful Period in the Archaeological Record.

The Concept of a "Naked Violent Ape" or "Violent Genes" is a Modern Fantasy-Falsehood.

Early Climate Change Towards Saharasian Deserts at c.4000 BCE led to the
First Widespread Appearance of Violent Human Societies, who have
Favorably Perpetuated Themselves over the Centuries by Conquest of more Peaceful Societies.

Those are the findings from James DeMeo's Saharasia!

James DeMeo's Saharasia is the largest and most in-depth scholarly study on human behavior and social violence around the world which has ever been undertaken. The findings summarized in Prof. DeMeo's book cover the entire globe, from early prehistory into modern times, integrating on world-maps a full sweep of standard research data from the fields of archaeology and history, plus an in-depth cross-cultural review and mapping of data from over 1000 distinctly different human societies, from standard anthropological data bases. It employed standard cross-cultural correlation tables on over 60 different variables, plus geographical mapping and quadruple blind research procedures to insure objectivity, and all the basic starting assumptions are clearly elucidated in advance. The work also incorporates his own personal field research in the deserts of the Middle East and Southwestern USA. No great knowledge of maths or scientific methods is required to follow the logic and research to their conclusions, though the book is clearly written for scholars. An early period of generally peaceful social conditions is documented in prehistory, but with a major shift towards patriarchal-authoritarian and decidedly violent social conditions across the Saharasian region after a major climate-shift from wet grassland-forest conditions towards harsh desert conditions at c.5000-4000 BC. Major epochs of cultural diffusion are also presented on maps, showing how violent patriarchal authoritarian, sex-repressive and child-abusive behaviors were carried outward from their Saharasian origins to nearly every corner of the globe. It presents previously-unknown geographical patterns in dozens of different human behaviors, beliefs and social institutions representative of human violence and warlike aggression, such as slavery, castes, genital mutilations and a low women's status. The findings have been praised by many, published in scientific journals and magazines, cited repeatedly, but in largest measure have been willfully censored out of the discussion by most within the editorial power-circles of modern academics and mainstream journalism, which continues to embrace the flawed and disproven theories of "violent genes" or other "original sin" concepts. None of those theories, nor anything like them, can stand in the face of the new evidence presented in Prof. DeMeo's Saharasia.

if you combine DeMeo's Saharasia with McKenna's Stoned_Ape_hypothesis_of_human_evolution you have an excellent working explanation for why psychopaths rule the world:
as the mushrooms died off and became more difficult to obtain the means of identifying and dealing with psychopaths was lost and they came to power imposing one of the oldest conspiracies in the world [the subject of your thread] the oldest conspiracy is that which is known as "The Nightmare of "history"]

kep ' em coming folks, i won t reply yet, but i do sure love a well-mannered, informative discussion, with great and well presented arguments on both sides

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


I wish there were alerts so we knew when our threads were being added to! I miss so much.

I think that this really does add significantly. I honestly believe the greatest vehicle to promote violence is sexual repression. If you can build up your society and limit sexual expression people will without a doubt become more violent, and in turn easier to control...

Yes, if your population base is merely hundreds strong.... in a civilization with millions of people, the "Best" men (as seen through the eyes of women) is such a small pool that most men are left out in the cold, and thus have no incentive to keep society functioning.

This just isn't true. The pool of attractive men is so large and diversified that few men would be left out of the mating any more than they are now. I'm not going to suddenly be attracted to the big burly hairy chest, rippling muscles, "perfect specimen" of men that will now control these harems. You're forgetting female CHOICE. Women aren't going to suddenly drop the people they already love and start allowing themselves to be mated by these few powerful men. In guys happen to like nerds. And I am more likely to be whit a woman anyway.

That WON'T change for me.

reply to post by kylioneXsushi


Thank you so much for introducing logic!

I never said anything about men collecting harems anyway and feel that if all sexual mores suddenly stopped and everything had to be rebuilt to match today's society you would not get harems at all.

Harems happen in a patriarchal society just as in a matriarchal society many women would lose.

Which leads to another important point: When a society is based on anything but sexual equality and one sex assumes a dominant role both genders come out worse than they would in a society without a dominant gender.