After the last text about the pro-sexual revolution propaganda, I came across two interesting texts. One is a scientific column by Natália Pasternak n’O Globo, which basically says that the sexual revolution is a scientific thing and anyone who doesn’t like it is an obscurantist. Another is the Aceprensa article on feminists who reject the sexual revolution, which the editor suggested I translate for this Gazette.
Let’s start with Pasternak’s. As is well known, there is a biological explanation for why men tend to be more promiscuous than women: a man can impregnate several women and thus have a lot of offspring at once. A woman, on the other hand, will be pregnant for 9 months, normally with only one child; moreover, she will be fragile for a good part of this period and also afterwards, when she will have to dedicate herself to a totally helpless baby. Reproduction is much heavier for the human female; therefore, she will be much more selective when choosing to have sex. (If you have a choice, of course.) The invention of contraception doesn’t erase millennia of evolution, and this can be easily seen in the latest dating apps: men say “yes” and women say “no.” In the male homosexual scenario, the apps are not just for flirting, they have immediate sex, dispensing with a selection step. If sexual behavior were explained by the degree of oppression, gays should be more chaste than women.
Well, according to Pasternak, in the article “The myth of the passive female”, all this it is science produced by men, therefore, sexist, even if “unconsciously”. Everything changed when women entered science. I quote her: “Anthropologist and primatologist Sarah Hrdy demonstrated, in her study with langur monkeys from Southeast Asia, that copulating with diverse males was a female strategy to prevent the common practice of infanticide. If the males didn’t know whose offspring they were, they were confused and didn’t kill any. Brooke Scelza, a behavioral ecologist at the University of California, studied the Himba, an indigenous society in northern Namibia, where extramarital affairs are common for women, and they have children by several different partners. Scelza says that during the time she lived in this community, the women didn’t understand why she didn’t take the opportunity to take men to her tent.”
Skepticism, please!
I find it quite implausible that such a degree of intentionality can be proved in this little monkey here:
