Wednesday, 10 November 2010

Sexual Evolution

By William Bond

This blog can be purchased as a normal book at.-

You can see a list of my other books at. -

Published in November 2010

Feminism, Femdom and Matriarchy



Chapter One – The Clitoris Problem                                       

Chapter two - Male Masochism                                                 

Chapter Three - Bonobo Sex                                                      

Chapter Four - Does Size Matter?                                              

Chapter Five - The Aquatic Ape Theory                                    

Chapter Six - The Evolution Of Large Breasts                           

Chapter Seven - Why Do Men Like Blowjobs?                          

Chapter Eight - Homosexual Evolution                                         


Gender Politics in Archaeology.         

Did Women Once Rule The World?    

Femdom and Matriarchal Politics



Picture taken from a wall painting in the Roman city of Pompeii. The whole city was destroyed and completely buried during eruption of the volcano Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD.  This preserved pictures like this, which would have been normally destroyed when Christianity took over Roman religion.
 I have been asked a number of times if there is any proof that there was a Matriarchal age in the past.  Although there is a lot of evidence for this, most of it is in the hands of patriarchal minded academics that have very little interest in letting the public know about it. We can see this in the Marija Gimbutas controversy.  She was an archaeologist who wrote books about the ancient Goddess worshiping Neolithic civilizations and for this reason was condemned by other academics for writing ‘popular’ books about this subject.  Yet in spite of her efforts most of the general public are still ignorant of the Neolithic civilizations that existed before the Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamian.
Excavating Neolithic sites, archaeologists have discovered a lot of evidence to suggest that Women ruled these early civilizations, but the trouble is that many people find this hard to believe. After all, throughout history we have been used to brutal alpha males who have ruled countries by force and violence.  So it comes to a surprise to learn that what archaeologists have discovered is that warfare was unknown back in the first Neolithic civilizations.  When they excavated ancient cities like Catal Höyük in Turkey and Caral in Peru, or the Neolithic civilizations of Malta, Crete, Eastern Europe, Japan, China and the Indus Valley civilization in Pakistan, they couldn’t find any weapons of war. Not only that, they couldn’t find any skeletons showing any signs of violence, nor could they find any carved images of war and violence and any fortification protecting the towns and cities.  Whereas the evidence of war and violence was overwhelming in later Bronze and Iron age excavations.  With thousands of weapons of war being discovered, skeletons in graves showing signs of damage by swords, axes, spears and clubs, with very strong fortifications around all towns and cities, and carvings on walls showing wars, acts of violence and torture.
So how was it that all over the world civilisations could live in peace and harmony for thousands of years, but then suddenly these peaceful civilizations were swept away and replaced by extremely violent empires?
The theory put forward by the archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, was that warlike patriarchal tribes from the North conquered these peaceful Matriarchal civilisations.  Now, this makes sense of how some of these Neolithic civilisations were destroyed but it doesn’t explain where these patriarchal tribes came from, and why they suddenly turn to war and violence?  I will discuss this later on in this book.
The same is true in the world of paleontology where even today the public are told that we evolved from brutal cavemen who it seems dominated their women through violence.  There is no real evidence of this and these ideas come from the speculation of 19th century scientists.  But these ideas persist today in the 21st century.
Yet we don’t have to go back to the ancient past to find evidence of Matriarchy, we can find proof in other ways.  Thinking about this recently I have realized that there is evidence for a Matriarchal past through the mysteries of human sexual behavior, which originated through the evolutionary behavior of our ancestors during the Stone Age.
In all Evolutionary theories the clitoris is a big problem, as its only function is to give women pleasure.  Not only that, many women claim that the penis is not very good at stimulating the clitoris to bring them to orgasm.  So how did this come about in our evolutionary past? When we answer these questions a very different picture of Stone Age sexuality emerges, to what we are commonly led to believe about our Stone Age ancestors.
We also have the problem of homosexuality, because according to evolutionary theory, sex with people of the same sex, shouldn’t exist, as homosexual couples are far less likely to pass on their genes to the next generation, than heterosexual couples.  So homosexuality should go extinct, unless there is an evolutionary advantage for homosexuality to exist within the community.  Again by finding out why homosexual behaviour gives a Stone Age tribe a better chance of survival, helps us understand the true nature of Stone Age people.

Chapter One – The Clitoris Problem

A web site I looked at recently claimed that an estimated 20 million married couples in America were living in sexless marriages.
Now this is a very high figure because although USA has now a population of 300 million, there are 111.1 million households in America in 2005. Which suggests that a very large percentage of Americans have issues about sexual satisfaction between couples.
Also what they discovered is that it is mostly the women who are refusing to have sex with her husband.  So why is this?  Modern psychology and psychiatry doesn’t seem to have an answer to this.
Back in the 19th century and early 20th century it was commonly believed that women didn't enjoy sex, or at least only very unrespectable Scarlet Women did so.  Then with the rise of Women's Liberation Movement in the 1960s, women came out and claimed that they were capable for enjoying sex as much as men.  Since then women's sexuality has been openly discussed to the degree that men are becoming aware that women probably can enjoy sex as much or even more than what men can.  Though it seems that this is only the case, when they are in the position to unashamedly say or demand what they want.
In the 19th century, the belief that women do not enjoy sex, fitted in nicely with the belief that men had always been the dominant sex.  This is because in evolutionary terms, if this is true, then it was assumed that men initiated all sexual encounters.  Men being the dominant sex were at liberty to have sex with women or their wives whenever they felt like it.  This means, there was no need for women to enjoy sex, as she didn't have a say in the matter.  So even if women had no sexual desire, women will still have children because men enjoyed sex and want to eject inside women, whether she wanted it or not.  So this meant that it was ‘natural’ for women to be submissive and men to be dominant. (This attitude is also unfortunately used to justify rape).  The acceptance today that women do enjoy sex, shows that in the past women must of had a choice about whether they wanted to have sex or not.  Because having sexual desires means that women have a drive to initiate sex.  Certainly today with far fewer patriarchal restrictions on women, they are showing they are capable of being assertive and even dominant in sex.  These desires don't come out of nowhere and suggests that they come from behavior that was once commonplace, before women were controlled by patriarchal laws, customs and taboos.
This then presents a very different picture of our stone age past than what archaeologists and paleontologists have led us to believe.  What has been taught to us all is that man has always been the breadwinner. From the time of the Stone Age it was ‘natural’ for man to go out and hunt for food and bring it back to his adoring wife. And she will then cook it for him and wait on her lord and master hand and foot.
In the 1950’s paleontologists thought they had worked out the how humans became different from apes, in the “great white hunter” theory, or as it is now called, the Savannah theory. This theory states that humans became different from apes through hunting. In a time of global warming, the trees in Africa were decreasing, because of increasingly dry weather. Our ape ancestors were then forced to come out of the trees and live on the savannah. No longer able to feed themselves on fruit, leaves and nuts they found on trees, these apes became scavengers and progressed to learn hunting with crude clubs and spears. So it was the hunting skills that made humans so brainy, and man became the ‘killer ape’. Off course in this cozy story, women had very little input. After all wherever you go in the world it has always been men who hunt and women who gather. So you find in many of the books expounding this theory, women are hardly mentioned at all. After all, we live in a man’s world and women are only good for looking after children. So it is not surprising to find that the proponents of the Savannah theory are all men.
There is an alternative theory to the Savannah theory championed by Elaine Morgan. In her book, “The Decent of Women”, she made the point that a woman with a baby couldn’t possibly survive on the African plains, so she put forward another theory called the Aquatic Ape Theory.  This theory had been around for a long time but was unpopular among many male scientists, as it doesn’t give the starring role of our evolution to men.  So for this reason is it still rejected my mainstream science in spite of the fact that recent research has largely discredited the Savannah theory and supports the Aquatic Ape theory.  But that is another story, and I will discuss this further, later on in this book.
If we go back four million years, to the first humans, and compare it with the four to five thousand years of recorded history, it means that 99.9% of human existence is largely unknown.  (Officially the Stone Age started when humans started to use stone tools, but when this happened is unknown.  Apes have been observed to use tools and recently New World monkeys have been filmed using stones to break open nuts, so the Stone Age could even go back further than 4 million years).  We have no written record of what happened then, and we only have a few skeletons and flint tools to tell us what happened in those days. Yet what happened in the Stone Age is far more important in making us what we are, than recorded history.  So this big unknown void has been filled with speculation, which has been presented to the public as scientific fact. It always has been assumed that men have been the dominant sex, so all images in books we have of the Stone Age are of man being a brutal hunter while women have been the submissive and brutalized slaves.  A society of brutal men and brutalized women makes sense if women don't enjoy sex, because men in this form of society men would be at liberty to rape women.  So the fact that women have a clitoris and sexual desires and can have an orgasm suggests that in the Stone Age women were not as submissive as portrayed.   Because in evolutionary terms something that is not used, ends up disappearing.  So it means that women's sexual desires and pleasure, must of been an important aspect of the mating between women and men during the Stone Age.  Because the retaining or development of women's sexual desires means that in the past women were capable of initiating sex as much as what men were.  This then would suggest the relationships between women and men were equal during the Stone Age because both sexes had an equal say when they mated.  This is because they both had to have sexual desires for mating to happen.   Unfortunately it is not that simple, as women's sexuality is more complicated than this.  What has become very clear in recent years is that not all women enjoy sex through penetration.  This is because the clitoris is located near the outside of the vagina and for many women having sex with a male penis inside them, does not stimulate the clitoris, because the penis may not even touch it.  The penis can only stimulate the clitoris indirectly and for many women this indirect stimulus does not work for them.  So a man can pump away for hours and not bring the women to orgasm with his penis.
To make matters even more complex, it seems that the timing of sex seems to be different for most men and women as well.  Most men it seems can become aroused and ejaculate far quicker than most women.  This has caused real problems in the sexual relationships between women and men in recent times. 
Back in the 19th century sex was easy for men.  No wife was able to legally refuse sex from her husband.  So he could have sex whenever he wanted to.  Then as it was believe that women didn't enjoy sex he didn't have to worry about her feelings, as foreplay then was unknown, as was the female orgasm.  He was a liberty to put his penis in his wife and not worry if she was aroused and lubricated.  The attitude was that is was his wife's duty to lie back and endure any pain she might have from having his penis in her dry vagina, and anyway it usually didn't last too long, as most men can come within a few minutes. Then in the 20th century sex, become far more difficult for men, when women demanded that they give them foreplay so their arousal will lubricate their vagina.  So the man in an aroused state had to wait, until she was ready, then when he was inside her he then was told to delay his ejection until she reached orgasm before he was allowed to come.  This was because if he orgasm before she did, he wouldn’t be able to bring her to orgasm with a soft penis.  To make it even more complicated, some couples thought that they should orgasm together, which put pressure on both of them to try and get the timing right.
Unfortunately many men have been unable to manage all this and as we can see with the popularity of the drug Viagra impotency has become commonplace among men in modern times.  This is because with foreplay some men in waiting while their wives or girlfriends are aroused, can lose their erections.  If a man gets past this hurdle he then has to control when he ejects.  Not all men are able to do this, and if he ejects too early he is accused of being selfish and if he has to hang on for too long, he again can lose his erection.  Then he can be accused of not having any desire for the women he is with. Then for some men, they find they can keep on pumping away as long as they like, they will never bring their partner to orgasm because her clitoris is not stimulated by the movement of this penis.  All this has undermined the confidence of many men sexually, whom today are considered to be failures if they cannot give their wives a orgasm with their penises.  This has resulted in many women ‘faking it’ that is to say, to pretend to have an orgasm, so not to dent her partner’s ego, or just to get it over and done with.  But other women can’t be bothered to do this and the men’s ego is deflated and confidence in this sexual performance is undermined.  The irony of this is that back in the 19th century if a woman was enjoying sex and even orgasm, she would attempt to conceal this from her male partner, in case he thought she was a whore.  But in the 20th century if she wasn’t enjoying sex, she had to fake it.
What many women have discovered is that to enjoy sex it is far easier for them to masturbate their clitoris than to have a man's penis inside them.  This is also true if a man wants to give a woman sexual pleasure he is far more likely to do a better job with his finger than with his penis.   But better than a finger is his tongue, as a finger can be too hard while his tongue is soft and gentle.  This then means for many couples, if a man wants to give a woman sexual enjoyment it would be far better if he forgets about his penis and his own sexual pleasure and gives his partner oral sex, and bring her to orgasm this way.
With all these complications it is no wonder 20 million Americans end up in sexless marriages. Does this mean that God or nature has played a cruel trick on the human race?  Because women and men seem to be, sexually incompatible.  Human beings appear to be set up sexually so that if men wants to enjoy sex without any problems, then it requires women to completely sexually submissive to the degree she is not concerned about her own sexual enjoyment.  If on the other hand women want to enjoy sex, then men also have to be totally under their control where men have to fit in with what the women wants, so she can have the type of sex that brings her to orgasm.
Certainly sex between homosexual couples seems to be far easier than between heterosexual couples.  This is because two men or two women together have very much the same attitude and feelings about sex, as each other.  While women and men seem to live on different planets, not only are they physically incompatible, for reasons as I have mentioned, but are incompatible emotionally as well, with men thinking about sex in terms of power, pleasure and a quick ejaculation.  While at the same time, women thinking about sex in terms of love, romance and unhurried sensual pleasure.
All this seems to show that the feminist ideal of sexual equality during the sexual act is not only very difficult but for some couples completely impossible.  If this strange state of affairs is brought about through evolution, then what is this telling us about our ancestors in the Stone-Age? If in our Stone Age past men and women were equal in status with each other, then the sexual timing of women's and men's orgasm would be very similar.  They would take about the same time to get aroused, so that it would take the same amount of time for a man to get an erection as it does for a woman to be lubricated.  While the clitoris would be in a position to be stimulated by the penis when a man penetrates a woman.  The fact that these things don't often happen suggests that equality between the sexes, wasn't very common during the Stone Age.
For women's sexual organs to evolve through millions of years where many women today can only enjoy sex with men stimulating their clitoris with their finger or tongue, means that women had to be able to control men.  To the degree that men were willing to give up any idea of sexual enjoyment with women and only concentrate on her enjoyment, for thousands of generations.
 What we don't know about the people of the Stone Age is whether they linked the sexual-act with childbirth.  Some academics claim that human being have only discovered this in the last few thousand years in civilized times.  Yet recent research has discovered that human beings in the Stone Age were as far more intelligent than was previously thought.  In fact some skeletons of Stone Age people has shown they had larger brains that the average person today.  The more scientists find about Stone-Age people the more sophisticated and intelligent they become.  Which means there is the possibility that human beings worked out the connection between sex and childbirth million years ago.  It has to be remembered that in western countries a birth control pill was only discovered in the 1960s.  Yet the Aborigines of Australia who had a Stone Age culture before Europeans settled there, had knowledge of herbs that acted like birth control pills.  This means we know of one stone-age people who were far in advance of western knowledge about birth control until the 1960s.  So if in the Stone Age women knew about the connection between sex and childbirth, it would make sense of why women today have evolved to a state where they can separated sexual pleasure from conception.
Birth control is very important for hunter/gather communities because there is a limitation of food.  Uncontrollable breeding would create a situation where people could quickly over-exploit the environment they lived in.  So keeping controls over their population was very important for Stone-Age people.
If there were Matriarchal societies in the Stone Age and women also had worked out how to have sex with a man without having a child.   What women could do is to order their male sexual partner to stimulate their clitoris and not to penetrate them.  Or alternatively they would order the man to hold back their ejection and withdraw after she has an orgasm.  If this practice continued over many thousands of generations, it would increase the length of time it would take women to orgasm because having men under control, it wouldn't matter how long she took.  In historic times this has been practiced in the Chinese religion of Taoism and the Indian Hindu sect Tantra, where the men practice to never ejaculate while inside a woman.  They claim the reason for this, is that ejection weakens a man spiritually.  But this is probably only an excuse to hide the fact that this practice give women a big advantage, so that she knows the man will wait long enough for her to orgasm and she doesn’t need to use any form of birth control.  This would also be true if women regularly practiced having men stimulate their clitoris with either a finger or tongue.  They again wouldn't be in a hurry to orgasm and may even try to delay it, so they can enjoy the pleasure for a longer period of time.  And again they could never get pregnant through this form of sex.
So we can see that having Matriarchal sex with women in control over many thousands of generations can physically change women.  As many women will start to get all their sexual pleasure from clitoris stimulation rather than penetration, so they will evolve to a degree where it doesn't matter if their clitoris is not stimulated, if there is a penis inside them.  This is because, the only time they will want penetration, is when they want children.  If being fertilized was the aim of the sexual encounter, many women may not worry whether they orgasm or not with a penis inside them.  So in the minds of women, the act of fertilization became separate from sexual pleasure.
I am sure a patriarchal minded scientist will point out that if sexual pleasure has very little to do with the survival of the fittest. What would be the reason why these bossy women are more likely to survive and pass on her genes to the next generation?  Than a woman who doesn’t enjoy sex?  I will explain this in the next chapter.

Article on the clitoris. -

Chapter Two Male Masochism

Goddess Dianna Vesta

Male masochism is a big problem for many academics, because we are told than man has always been the dominant sex.  Also because men are bigger, stronger and more aggressive than women, why would any man want to submit to women? This is why we get complex theories about male masochism to try and explain away this anomaly.  Mostly they claim that these men have low self-esteem but others claim the opposite and say they are men who are too bossy at work and want to have a rest from this, by allowing a woman to boss him about at home or in his leisure time.  Female teachers at school also get the blame, as most teachers for young children are women, and the young boys get used to female authority when they are young and this stays with them for the rest of their lives.
All these explanations are just speculation and what is very problematic for male academics is that male masochism points to an uncomfortable fact that men might not have always been the dominant sex.  We don’t have to look to complex theories for why we have male masochism; we can see it clearly in the behavior of other animals.
When male scientists write about the evolution of sex they never mention the clitoris and perhaps there is a very good reason for this.  The most famous clitoris in the animal kingdom is that of the hyena.  This is because the clitoris of a female hyena is nearly as large as a male hyena’s penis.  So much so, that even experienced Zoologists have trouble in distinguishing between which hyenas are male or female.  If that is not bad enough, the hyena’s social structure is also very suspect, as the females tend to be the dominant sex.  This has made the hyena very unpopular among male scientists.  As pointed out by Steve Kemper, writing in the Smithsonian magazine, May 2008. –
Spotted hyenas sometimes scavenge, but, contrary to popular belief, they kill 95 percent of their food. As hunters, alone or in groups, they equal leopards, cheetahs and lions. Yet the lion is considered noble, the cheetah graceful and the leopard courageous, while the hyena is seen as sneaky and vicious—a cringing scavenger, a graveyard lurker. Few creatures inspire such a queasy mixture of fear, disgust and disdain. Most zoos snub them—no public demand. Conservation groups do not use hyena photos to raise money. Across epochs and continents, from the Bible to African folk tales, from Theodore Roosevelt ("foul and evil cowardly as it is savage") and Ernest Hemingway ("devourer of the dead...sad yowler, camp-follower, stinking, foul") to Disney's The Lion King ("slobbery, mangy, stupid vultures"), our reaction to hyenas is the same: yech.
This reaction is probably caused by the way female hyenas treat the males. To quote the same article. –
Female spotted hyenas are bigger and more aggressive than males. Every clan is a matriarchy ruled by an alpha female. In the clan's strict power structure, adult males rank last. They must swallow abuse even from the most obnoxious juveniles or risk violent punishment from female coalitions. At a communal carcass, adult males eat last—if there's anything left. When a male kills dinner on his own, he must gorge quickly before female clan members shove him aside.
Nor do things improve much when it comes to mating. "With most animals, males duke it out and the winner gets the girls," says Holekamp. "But with hyenas, females have 100 percent say." They decide when and under what conditions they will tolerate deferential sperm donors. At age 2 or 3 a male leaves his natal clan and wanders off to beg acceptance into another clan. After vicious rejections, he eventually succeeds and reaps his reward: brutal harassment as the clan's nadir, one of the last in line for food and sex. This probation, which biologists call "endurance rivalry," is a test, Holekamp explains: "The guy who can stick it out the longest wins." The trial lasts about two years, after which some females may grant him access. "You do not want to be a male hyena," Holekamp says.

Hyena pack.

The assumption made about female hyenas is that their very large clitoris are just a by-product of their bodies producing large amounts of testosterone.  This also makes then slightly larger and far more aggressive than the male hyena, so what evolutionary advantage does producing more testosterone give the female hyena?  The answer seems to be that the hyena cubs are better protected and looked after than any other large predator.  For instance, the Lion has been known to kill and eat cubs and being bigger and stronger than the lionesses there is nothing they can do about it.  The male lion also tends to use its larger size and strength to push aside and eat first, any animals that the females have brought down and killed.  This is not a problem when food is plentiful but a real problem in time of scarcity, the cubs in lion prides tend to die first, as the lionesses cannot protect the cubs from the lion’s aggression, as it takes the ‘lions share’ of what food is available.
As previously mentioned, the reason why hyena females have such large clitorises, is because the hyena female’s bodies produce large amount of testosterone.  The same thing happens with female body builders or sportswomen that use steroids, they not only become physically stronger, but the size of their clitoris also grows larger.  (As well as their breast disappearing and their voices becoming deeper).  This suggests that the behavior of female hyenas has very little to do with human females, because women do not naturally have very large clitorises and their bodies do not produce large amounts of testosterone.  Yet there are other animals where the females are also the dominant sex and their bodies do not need large amount of testosterone to do this.  This is true of many species of primates, which is what human beings are.
Male masochism and submission to females has been observed in bonobo apes, vervet monkeys, macaques, olive baboons, patas, rhesus monkeys, grey langus, capuchins, prosimians and Madagascar lemurs.  So why would males of these species want to submit to female?  The reason is because in evolutionary terms, it is a powerful tool for survival.
All evolutionary theories concentrate on males, (mostly because male academic invented them,) and in some these theories the role of the female is not even mentioned.  Which is extreme male bias, because in evolutionary terms, the role of the female is far more important than the role of the male. This is because it is the female that give birth to the young and has the main role in caring for the young until they are fully grown. Therefore, the survival of any species is far more dependent on the female than the male, because it is the female that brings the next generation into being and nurtures them to adulthood.
This is why in evolutionary terms the males of any species are expendable. Simply because one male can fertilize hundreds of females, so even if most males were wiped out, it doesn’t matter, because only a few males are needed to keep the species going. Whereas if most of the females were wiped out, then the whole species would be in grave danger, because female are limited in how many young they can produce.  It is true in small rodents a female can produce up to 20 young or more in a year, but in larger mammals like human beings, one baby a year is the average woman’s limit. This means that in evolutionary terms the survival of females, is far, far more important than the survival of males.
This is also why, in the island of Madagascar all the lemur species live in female dominated societies.  Madagascar has a very long dry season of 8 months, where lemurs in the dry period find it very hard to find nourishing food.  Now, in this situation, if lemurs lived in male dominated societies they would quickly become extinct.  This is because during the dry season, the alpha males would grab all the available food for themselves and allow the females and their young to starve.  Which means the females wouldn’t have enough food to grow young in their bodies or have enough nourishment to suckle their young with milk or be strong enough to care and protect their young. So in these conditions, a male dominated Lemur species would quickly become extinct.

Lemur mother and young
Whereas what happens with Madagascar lemurs, is that even though females are smaller than males, the male always give way to the females in all disputes. This means that in the dry season alpha females get to feed first with any food the lemur communities find.  This ensures the females stay healthy and are more able to breed, once the dry season is over and if many of the males die of starvation through the dry season, it doesn’t cause any problems to the survival of the whole species.
Now, the human beings have also evolved through very difficult conditions. Scientists claim that we are 4 million years old. Which means that more than 99.9% of human existence happened in the Stone Age.  So we are still basically Stone Age people and what happened over the last four or five thousand years of recorded history has made very little difference to our true nature.  In our ancient past we have experienced ice ages and times of rapid climate change, causing the extinction of many animals like mammoths, saber-tooth tigers and even other species of humans like the Neanderthals.  This means in these times of rapid climate change, species of animals that are female dominated will have a decided advantage over species that are male dominated. More so for the human being, because unlike any other animal, the human baby is completely defenseless for the first few years of its life, and it takes up to 20 years before it is fully-grown.  So the human mother has to put in far more time and effort into caring for her young than any other animal.  This means that in times of rapid climate change it means that only female dominated tribes humans would survive.  Where the males would sacrifice themselves, allowing the women and young to eat first and not use their superior size and strength to take food away from women.  Which is what would happen in a male dominated tribe.
In is noticeable that patriarchy happened only after the invention of agriculture, which produced an abundance of food.  This allowed alpha males to dominate human society through violence without threatening the survival of the human species.  Yet we are all still Stone-Age people, so the desire within men to submit to women is still within us.  This is why patriarchy needs to degrade women in the eyes of men.
If men have within them a powerful desire to submit and even worship women.  Then for patriarchy to survive, it needs to counter this natural desire.  This is why in many strongly patriarchal societies women are degraded and subjected to male violence because it helps teach men to overcome their desire to submit to them.  This is because if a boy witnesses his father beating up his mother and forcing her to submit, then he will believe his natural desire to submit to women must be ‘wrong’. Whereas in western countries over the last hundred years where women are no longer degraded in the same way, men are getting in touch with their natural desires to want to submit to women, once again.
This means that male masochism is not a perversion or mental illness as many academic male physiologists will want you to believe.  It is a natural instinct that comes from our Stone Age past.  Men have only been taught to suppress this instinct by the alpha males who conquered the peaceful Matriarchal civilizations of the Neolithic age.  When men are no longer taught to degrade women and dominate them through violence, then women will once again take their true role of the dominant sex of the human race.
This means that there is an evolutionary advantage of women being able to demand sexual pleasure from men in the way she wants.  A matriarchal tribe where women can demand men put her sexual pleasure before his own, can also demand that women and children feed first before the males, in times of starvation.

Chapter Three - Bonobo Sex

 Bonobo mother breastfeeding
In is of interest that the human being is one of the few animals who can have sex at any time of the year.  Most animals have sex in only one period of the year mostly spring.  It is only Dolphins, Whales and the bonobo apes, which like humans can have sex at any time.  It is of interest that bonobo's seem to live in Matriarchal societies and like humans seem to be a very sexual in their behavior compared with other apes.
Since Darwin, it has been generally accepted that humans have evolved from apes. The general public knows about four different species of ape, orang-utan, gorilla, chimpanzee and gibbon. You will see all these apes featured on wild life programs on TV. Yet there is one other ape that doesn’t get the same coverage, and that is the bonobo. On my spell checker as I am writing this, all the other apes are spelt correctly but the spell checker doesn’t even recognize the word bonobo, even though along with the chimpanzee this ape is the closest species to us. So we can learn a lot about our ancestors by examining the behavior of both apes. Interestingly, people are comfortable with the behavior of chimpanzees because the males are very violent and brutal. (Just ordinary, good o’ macho males) Yet they are not so comfortable about the behavior of bonobos and this is because they are the, “the make love not war”, ape.
The bonobo was first discovered by Europeans in 1929 and was considered to be only a subspecies of the chimpanzee. It was first called the pigmy chimpanzee. More recent research has shown it to be very different from the chimps. Being more lightly built and having longer legs, it has the body structure more similar to a human than any other ape. In fact the skeleton of the bonobo ape is very similar to the early hominid Australopithecus, discovered to be 3 million years old and the Australopithecus Ramidus, which dates back 4,4 million years. For this reason the bonobo has been called a living fossil, so similar is it to our earliest human ancestors. The most well known of these ancient humans was called “Lucy” She was discovered near the Red Sea, an area which at that time was flooded by an ancient sea called the Sea of Afar. It seems pre-human apes were living in flooded forests, salt marshes; mangrove swamps, lagoons and offshore islands. This is not a lot different to the habitat of present day bonobos living near the Congo River, where the forest is frequently flooded. Lucy’s bones were also discovered lying among the remains of crabs, crocodile and turtle eggs. So it seems that Lucy had a very similar life to present day bonobos except that the area she lived in was more aquatic. So it means we can get a great understanding of early human behavior by examining the nature of the bonobo.
Back in the 1960s, professor Leakey, trying to understand how early humans behaved decided that an insight into this could be gained by observing different species of apes in the wild. He decided that women were better observers than men, so he used women like Jane Goodall observing chimpanzees and Diane Fossey studying gorillas. The result of this brought about a revolution in the study of apes, and many new things were discovered. It was found that chimpanzees were able to make tools. Up until then scientists believed that only humans could do this. Also it was discovered that gorillas were gentle and peaceful creatures, though it was formerly believed that gorillas were dangerous and aggressive animals. All the other apes were observed in the same way, with the bonobo being only intensely observed in very recent times.
One of the first surprises about this ape is that it is very sexual in its behavior. Like the human female, the bonobo female can still have sex even when her body is not ready for fertilization. It also indulges in sexual play and homosexual sexual behavior with both sexes doing this and can copulate face to face. (Though the orangutan has also been observed to do this as well).
In many other animals and apes, aggression between males and against females is quite common. Most animals overcome this aggression by having a strict hierarchical system where everyone knows his place, with the animals with lesser social status give way to those with higher status. The animal's place in the system is controlled by its strength and aggression. So fights only break out when an animal of lesser status wants to achieve higher status in the pecking order.
The bonobo does have a similar system but aggressive behavior between them is far less than other animals because of the way they use sex. In an article by Frans B. M. de Waal, in Scientific America he compares the different behavior of chimpanzees and bonobos when two females and a male come across some food. In the case of the chimpanzees the food was bananas. Their behavior was very straightforward. The male chimpanzee fed first until he had enough and he then took away as many bananas as he could carry. Then the dominant female fed herself, and the subordinate female it seems got nothing. In the case of the bonobos it was sugar cane, and their behavior was more complex. The two females started by indulging in sex by rubbing their genitals together. The male bonobo displayed his erect penis to them, but they ignored him. Then the two females fed together equally and only when they had finished, was the male allowed to feed.
This it seems is normal bonobo behavior. When there is a possibility of a dispute, the first thing they do is to have sex together which seems to defuse the situation. In this situation the natural aggression of male animals seems to work against the male bonobo in contrast to the way it helps male chimpanzees.  Because the female bonobos are less aggressive, it is easier for them to bond with each other, which they reinforce through sexual play. It then makes it easier for them to gang up on males, who although they do bond together through sex, are still more aggressive towards each other, than females. This makes them less able to co-operate and work together in the way the females can. So the bonobo could also be called, “The Sisterhood Is Powerful” ape.
In Milwaukee County Zoo the keepers attempted to train bonobos in the same way they train chimpanzees and other animals. The bonobos reacted by becoming extremely non co-operative. They would scream loudly at the zookeepers and urinate on them if they came into the pen. Then a female keeper took over and she adopted a system of kindness and positive reward. The behavior of the bonobos changed and they became very co-operative and easy to work with. So it seems that bonobo females will not accept force and intimidation. Yet they will subject this on male bonobos.
In zoos it was found that females would gang up on a single male, and frequently assaulted him. One had fingers and toes bitten off and in one case a female bit off a male’s penis! It seems that this is normal behavior in the wild, but the difference is that the male can run away, but in a cage, he has no form of escape. So males tend to be assaulted more in Zoos than in their natural habitat.  It seems to be normal behavior for female bonobos to gang up and assault lone males to show them who’s the boss. (They also assault male zookeepers who come into their pen).
As the bonobo males are bigger than the females, they stand a better chance in a one to one situation but even here they can lose out. In a conflict, say over food, the female will immediately have sex with the male. The sexual bonding defuses the natural aggression of the male and they will share the food equally.
So this, it seems is how the slogan "make love not war" can work in practice, by having disputes settled by sexual intimacy. Comparing the bonobo’s behavior with that of the chimpanzees we can assess how effective this is. Both animals share 99% of the genetic makeup of a human and we were all the same animal as little as 5-6 million years ago. As pointed out earlier, the body structure of the bonobo looks very similar to that of an Australopithecus, an early pre-human with similar length arms and legs. From this it is speculated that the bonobo is more similar to our common ancestor than either the chimpanzee or the human. The human later grew longer legs and adopted a more upright stance while the chimpanzee grew longer and stronger arms to climb trees. As our body is shaped by our behavior over evolutionary time, it is reasonable to suggest that how the bonobo behaves today is more like how our common ancestor behaved in the past.
The behavior of the chimpanzees is of the traditional patriarchal society. Chimpanzees only have sex to fertilize the females when they are on heat. This is the ideal of the patriarchal Christian Church who has tried to enforce this type of behavior for hundreds of years. As it claims that sex only for the sake of pleasure is "sinful" and it should only be used for conception.
Chimpanzees tend to bond through fear and mutual protection, with groups of males holding on to a territory against other groups of males. There often seems to be war between these different groups over territory, resulting in males getting badly injured or even killed. As the males have to stick together to fight off the territorial ambitions of other groups of male, they bond closer together than the females. Males not only show aggression to other groups of males but to each other, as they will charge each other or show off their strength to try and intimidate each other to gain more status in the pecking order. Aggression is also shown towards females, who being smaller than males, have to give way to them in all disputes. Jane Goodall, who has observed this behavior, claims that alpha males train the females they want to mate with, through intimidation and fear. They will beat up the female they wish to mate with so they will be too frightened to refuse the alpha male when she is on heat.
The Japanese primatologist Mariko Hiraiwa-Hasegawa wrote a graphic account of this. She was observing two chimp communities she called M and K group. One day she discovered the alpha male of M group, called Ntologi, with four of his sidekicks, attacking a lone female from K group and her three-year-old child. With the help of a companion Hiraiwa-Hasegawa attempted to frighten the male chimps off by beating them with canes, but the powerful males ignored them. Then her companion threw a rock at the males and this had the effect of making them back off. (Had the male chimps instead attacked the two humans they wouldn’t have stood a chance against the powerful chimpanzees). The life of the female was saved although she and her child were covered in blood and badly injured. A year later the same female had another child and was again attacked by Ntologi and his henchmen. This time they ate her baby alive. After this the female defected to M group and mated with her baby’s murderer, probably because she couldn’t any longer find safety in F group for herself and her children. A postscript to this was that Ntologi himself was later murdered by his second in command, so he could take over the position of the alpha male. Hiraiwa Hasegawa later gave up observing chimpanzees because she was so appalled by their behavior, that she learnt to hate them.
In contrast, in the bonobo society, nearly all aggression is defused through sexual bonding. It has been observed in zoos that if say a cardboard box is thrown into the enclosure and more than one bonobo shows interest in it, they will then briefly mount each other before playing with the box together. Or if one jealous male chases away another male near a female, the two males will then reconcile with each other by engaging in scrotal rubbing together. The same will be true if two adult females have a dispute over the behavior of one of their children. They will reconcile by rubbing their genitals together. Male bonobos rarely fight each other over status. A male bonobo stays attached to his mother all his life and his status in society depends on the status of his mother, whom he will look to for protection from any aggression by other bonobos, even though she may be smaller than him in size.
In human behavioral studies it has been noted that people who live in very stressful situations like extreme poverty, war, prison, an aggressive family or neighborhood, tend to become very desensitized and so they are far less affected by fear and pain. In Hellabrun, Germany, in World War Two there was a zoo, which housed both chimpanzees and bonobos. One night the city was bombed and the bonobos died of fright from the noise, while the chimpanzees were completely unaffected. This demonstrates how desensitized chimpanzees have become living in their brutal patriarchal society, and how sensitive bonobos are, living in a more peaceful matriarchal world.
Apart from the fact that chimpanzees do not get married or "pair-bond”, its society is very much like a normal human patriarchal society. Until bonobo behavior was studied properly, chimpanzee behavior justified the patriarchal society as being "natural" for humans. So it is of interest that when primatologists first started to study bonobos in zoos during the 1950s the first findings were completely ignored by the scientific establishment until the 1970s. Even today most people are unaware of the behavior of the bonobo or even that such a creature exists. The reason for this silence is because the bonobo's behavior undermines all our patriarchal beliefs about human and pre-human behavior.
Many scientists would like to believe that our ape ancestors behaved more like a chimpanzee than the bonobo. But there is a good reason for believing that early humans behaved more like bonobos. Even though the chimp is slightly smaller than the average human it is about 3 times stronger. Now it seems that in evolutionary terms size and strength mostly comes about through sexual selection. This is why bulls and rams and many other male species of animal, fight each other, so that only the bigger and stronger males get to mate with the female. The same is true with the chimpanzee and gorilla, where the big powerful alpha males are more likely to mate, than weaker males lower down in the pecking order.
This is not true of the bonobo; the size and strength of a male bonobo is not a factor in whether he gets to mate with females, because no male bonobo is refused sexual access to females by other stronger males. So the bonobo is more like a human, as it has a slight body build, so it is weaker than a chimpanzee. This is why the gorilla has developed into a ground dwelling ape. Gorilla males compete with each other for females and the biggest and strongest is able to have a harem of females whom he can mate with. Unfortunately this has resulted in male gorillas becoming so large and heavy, that the adults find it difficult to climb trees. The orang-utan in South-East Asia is having the same problem, as it is getting too heavy to continue to live in trees. The bonobo doesn’t have the same sexual selection evolution to be bigger and stronger, so with its lighter build, is more able to climb up tall trees and live in the forest canopy.
When humans broke away from the common ancestor of chimpazees, bonobos and humans 5-6 million years ago, it would have had to have a similar social system to the bonobo, because humans have a similar body build. This is because the evolutionary pressure that ensures that bonobos have a slight body means that the same evolutionary factors must also have brought about the weaker body that humans have, compared with all other apes. It means both the bonobo and human are the same because the males not competing with each other through brute strength for sexual access to females.
If the bonobo is a very sexual ape then it has to be said that so is the human. The chimpanzees only partake in basic reproductive sex, but bonobos like humans, can share all kinds of sexual pleasures, including cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation, massage, bisexuality, sex in different positions and group sex. Also like humans in love, copulating bonobos often look deeply into each other’s eyes.
Although patriarchal societies have attempted to restrict sexual relations to the confines of marriage, many humans have always had urges to want more than this. In all patriarchal societies none have been able to prevent prostitution. While in secret and sometimes quite openly both men and women have had relationships outside of marriage. In very recent times with the decline of the patriarchal society, marriage is breaking down in all Western countries. This has resulted in many people frequently changing sexual partners, having "one night stands", joining sex-clubs, going to sex-parties, advertising for sex on the Internet or having “open” relationships. So why do many people have the urge to have sex with many different partners? Patriarchal society with all its laws, religious and social censure has failed to stamp this behavior out. The only reason could be, is that before the patriarchal society took control, with all its laws restricting people's behavior, sexual behavior must have been very similar to that of the bonobo.
Bonobos, like humans, also tend to eat food in the company of other bonobos in big dinner parties. It seems that when fruit is in abundance bonobos will collect the fruit for a large community feast. They will then eat it together, in a big banquet, after the high status females have eaten first. This is very unlike the chimpanzees that will generally hide food from others and eat alone. Another interesting point is that human couples have romantic evenings together. This involves sharing a meal together, either at a restaurant or sometimes at home, then having sex together. This is also what bonobos couples do, though they tend to have sex before the meal and not afterwards.
It is well known that many couples that have a "flaming row” will afterwards "make up" by having sex together. Some couples claim that they enjoy a turbulent relationship because they enjoy the making up afterwards. This is similar to the bonobo behavior of using sex to defuse conflict.
So like the bonobos, humans associate conflict and food with sex. In times of war it used to be that when a conquering army took a town or city, all the women and even sometimes the men were raped. This behavior is generally seen as an expression of power over conquered people. This is probably true, but looking at bonobo behavior there could be another reason. Perhaps it is a form of unconscious reconciliation by rape. Soldiers in warfare can become very aggressive in battle; so that even disciplined troops have been known to slaughter defenseless civilian populations after a battle,  because of this fear- induced aggression. So rape may defuse this situation, making it possible for the soldiers to calm down and prevent a killing spree.
In ancient Goddess religions, patriarchal priests condemned the priestesses as temple prostitutes. (In the past when people used to worship Goddesses this was an indication of a matriarchal religion, in much the same way as the worship of a god is an indication of a patriarchal male- dominated religion.)  As it seems that in ancient Goddess religions the sex acts were made part of their religious ceremonies.  This was because these ancient religions regarded the whole act of sex, pregnancy, childbirth and even menstruation as being very sacred and holy. 
When the Romans first conquered Britain, many of the Celtic tribes were still ruled by Queens. Their behavior was seen as being very scandalous by later Christian writers, as some of these Queens would openly have sex with large numbers of different men. So it does suggest that the old matriarchal societies were far more sexual than the later patriarchal societies. It could also suggest that a matriarchal society was as sexual as a bonobo society. People bonded together through sexual behavior, allowing them to be more intimate with each other. This in turn will create a more intimate, caring and loving community.
War has been "normal" throughout recorded history. There has never been a time when there hasn't been a war going on in some part of the world. Many people have written about the senseless suffering of war, and have looked unsuccessfully for ways to prevent future wars. The study of both the chimpanzee and bonobo societies shows there is an alternative to war. In the non-sexual chimpanzee society, conflict and war is normal. In the very sexual bonobo society, conflict is rare. So because of the study of these different ape societies, we find that the slogan "make love not war" is not a joke but does in fact work very well with bonobos.
It is of interest that Frans de Waal who has written books and articles about the bonobo, was criticized by Richard Dawkins, the author of the book “The Selfish Gene”, for “bad science”. This is understandable, because observations of the bonobo undermine completely Dawkins belief that all life is basically selfish. Perhaps it would be “good science” to ignore the bonobo completely and only concentrate on the violent and selfish behavior of male chimpanzees. Dawkins also criticizes the anthropologist Margaret Mead. Her crime was that she observed human nature in a positive light. The fact that she was both a famous scientist and a feminist at the same time, may have also upset many of her male colleagues.
We humans have a choice. As pointed out previously both the chimpanzee and bonobo are the closest species to us, and we can clearly see similarities in their behavior to ours. The behavior of the chimpanzee is very similar to a patriarchal society, because it is very violent and relatively non-sexual. In contrast the bonobo live in a very sexual world where both males and females bond together through many different forms of sexual play. If we copied them we would all have sex with multiple partners and experiment with heterosexual and homosexual sex play. The bonus is that by bonding through sex, we won’t have to fight wars any more. Is it that easy? Well probably not, as human society is far more complex than that of the bonobo.

Chapter Four - Does Size Matter?

 It is also of interest that scientists have found that in Neolithic times and even back in the times of the old Stone-Age people were then obsessed with creating calendars, the most famous being Stonehenge as well as many stone circles found in Britain, Ireland, and France.  Yet scientists have discovered markings on bone that clearly show Stone Age people keeping track of the phases of the moon 30 thousand years ago.  So why was Stone Age people so obsessed with time and the phases of the moon?  A obvious reason would be that stone-age women probably worked out that their menstruation period roughly fitted in with the phases of the moon. 
They also may have worked out from this when they were fertile and when they weren't and have worked out the best time when they would allow men to ejaculate inside them, to have children.  This would mean that men who having been trained to withhold ejection, when given the chance to ejaculate inside a woman would probably orgasm very quickly.  This is because the women would be more interested in conceiving than sexual pleasure, when she wanted to conceive.  So the man would want to ejaculate quickly in case she might change her mind.  This certainly would be a consideration in a society where there is no marriage, and if he took too long she might get bored and frustrated and terminate the sex-act.  She would then be at liberty to use another sex partner who wouldn’t take too long.
In many patriarchal cultures, even today, the clitorises of young women are removed.  Perhaps the original reason for this is the knowledge that sexually active women are dominant woman.  So men attempted to make women more submissive by removing their clitorises.  This suggests knowledge when this practice was first started off in the ancient past of very sexually active women being also dominant women.
Matriarchal rule it seems not only has changed women physically but has also changed men.  Humans have evolved from ape-like creatures and today apes are our closest relations.  One of the things that make us different from the apes is that men have far larger penises than any other male ape.  In fact a male gorilla, which are larger than us, has a penis about the size of our small finger.  Now in evolutionary terms a large penis doesn't make sense, because it doesn't require a large penis for a man to fertilize a woman.  Today sexologists tell us that, "size doesn't matter", and that is true physically, because a man is just as able to bring a woman to orgasm with a small penis than with a far larger one.  This is because it is mostly the clitoris that gives women sexual pleasure, and not the inside of the vagina.  So why did men evolve far larger penises than apes?
A clue to this can be seen in birds like peacocks and birds of paradise.  The male bird in these two species has developed extraordinary, very large and very colourful feathers.  It seems that the evolutionary pressure for male birds to develop these feathers come from the female bird, who pick which male she wants to mate with.  It seems that the female bird picks her mate on the basis of who has the most colourful feathers and so over evolutionary time the most successful male birds in mating, has been those who are the most colourful. Even in spite of the fact that these large colourful feathers can be a hindrance in flying and make it easier for a predator to see them.
In the human species although it is true physically that, "size doesn't matter" in sex and reproduction.  It does seem to matter a lot with women visually.  In recent years with women admitting to like viewing naked men, what seems to be the biggest turn-on is men with very large penises.  If this was true in our Matriarchal past it means that men with large penises would be the ones to be picked by women for their sex partners, and would therefore father far more children than men with smaller penises.  Creating a evolutionary pressure where men with large penises will be the most likely to breed
This suggests that perhaps male nudity was commonplace in matriarchal societies.  It also may be the reason why most patriarchal societies make laws about people wearing clothes even in hot countries.  These laws may of come originally from knowledge of our Matriarchal past where men were chosen on the basis of their penis size.  It seems that this used to be true up to recent times in some New Guinea tribes where men didn’t wear loincloths and it seems that men’s status in the tribe did depend on the size of his penis. To the degree some men tied weights to their penis to stretch them to make them longer.  Or they would put a bamboo over their penis to make them look bigger.
This is reflected in our modern world where men can buy vacuum pumps that fit over the penis to try and increase their size.  On the Internet now there are web sites that sell herbs and penis exercises that also suppose to make men’s penises larger.

 Dildo found in Stone Age excavation in Sweden

So if men’s status in a Matriarchal society depended on the size of his penis, a cover-up was called for in a patriarchal world, so people will forget this custom and the Matriarchal world that created it.  In theory in a patriarchal society penis size shouldn't matter to men, because if men are the dominant sex, then whether women find them sexually attractive or not shouldn't matter.  Yet even after about four or five thousand years of patriarchal rule men with small penises still envy men with larger ones.  This suggests that the ancient instinct in men to want to be chosen by women for their sexual pleasure, is still very strong within them.
Desmond Morris in his book "The Naked Ape", suggested that the reason why women have breasts is because men have chosen women with large breasts to mate with.  The theory being that when we moved about on all four limbs, it was women's behinds that men fixed on as being sexually attractive, because then men only had sex from the rear with women.  Then when human beings stood upright, people began to have sex face to face.  As men still was focused on women's buttocks as a sexual stimulant, women with a fleshy breasts similar to a woman's bottom would be more sexually attractive to men, than women with a more flat chest.  This then, would suggest that not only women had the power of choice in the stone-age but men also.  So does this mean that the large breasts of women and the large penises of men mean that the sexes were equal during the Stone Age?  This would be unlikely because, as I have previously pointed out, the difficulty of women and men find today in having equal sex.
But Desmond Morris breast theory is not the only theory why women have large breast the Aquatic ape theory also has an explanation for this.

Update. Research on women does show they prefer men with larger penises.

Chapter Five - The Aquatic Ape Theory

[Photo by Fosco Maraini from the book, Hekara, The Diving Girl’s Island of two Japanese ama divers foraging for shellfish and editable seaweed.]
The human is different from any other ape because it is naked, and it is only the Aquatic Ape theory that has a sensible explanation for this.  For instance; the Savannah Theory claimed we are naked so men will be cooler when running after game.  The problem with this explanation is that apes and men are very slow runner in the animal world and wouldn’t be able to run down any animal living on the Savannah.  The fastest animal on the planet, the cheetah, didn’t need to lose its fur to run fast.
The vast majority of animals that live on the African plains have fur. The exceptions are animals like elephants and hippos and the reason why these animals do not have fur is that they are semi-aquatic. (The elephant is a remarkably good swimmer, and its closest relation in the animal world, is the sea cow, also the elephant is the largest land animal and its large size keeps it warm.). Fur is not a very good insulator in the water unless the animal develops very dense fur with very large oil glands that can keep the water out, like you see with otters and mink. For most marine animals the best insulation is fat, which covers the bodies of dolphins, whales, seals and penguins. This is what humans also have.
Humans have ten times as many fat cells under the skin as would be expected in a non-aquatic animal of the same size. It is true some mammals, which hibernate can also retain fat, but this fat is seasonal; aquatic mammals and humans retain fat throughout the year. Also humans don’t hibernate, not even the Eskimos, who for thousands of years endured dark arctic winters living in Igloos. Human infants are especially fat compared to apes and most other fully terrestrial mammals. The human fatty layer is also attached to the skin of the central body parts, as is the case with most medium- or larger-sized semi-aquatic mammals, rather than to the muscle as in almost all land mammals. Humans also lack the layer of cutaneous muscle possessed by land mammals including non-human primates, which allows many land animals to twitch their skin, and which is not present in aquatic mammals.
Being naked is not a good idea in the hot African sun. (Even black people can get sun burnt, or can get skin cancer from too much sun). Fur protects the skin from the deadly effects of the sun and is also a far better insulator than fat for land animals. This is because a land animal can shed fur in the summer and grow it again in the winter. It can also fluff up fur in the heat, to allow the air to get to its skin, to cool down. Or it can bring the hairs closer to the body, trapping the air in the fur to allow better insulation in the cold. Fur also makes it far easier for animals to adapt to very cold conditions. In the 19th century when the first zoos were created in Europe they attempted to house tropical animals in heated rooms, but the animals quickly died. So they tried leaving the tropical animals outside and they quickly adapted to the cold by growing thicker fur. It was found that even Russian zoos have no problems in caging tropical animals out in the open, as their fur grows thick enough to adapt to the Russian weather.
Another problem with fat as an insulator is that it is heavier than fur. In the African Savannah, most animals survive by being fast runners, either to escape predators or being a predator itself, to catch prey. So an animal doesn’t want to be weighed down by excess weight like fat. Fur gives far better insulation qualities, with far less weight than fat. It seems the only advantage of the fat we have around our bodies is that fat is a better insulator in water and it gives us buoyancy when floating.
There is also the problem about how humans became so brainy. It is of interest that the biggest brains on the planet belong to aquatic or semi-aquatic animals. For instance, dolphins have bigger brains than humans, while a killer whale has a brain five times the size of humans and the sperm whale has a brain six times bigger than us. On land, the only animal that has a brain larger than humans is the elephant, which has a brain twice our size. So why is it that marine animals have on average, larger brains than those on land?
It seems this has to do with fat and trace elements. Sixty percent of the brain is fat, and the food needed to create large brains is omega-3 fatty acids and iodine. Without this vital brain food it is impossible for the body to grow a large brain. The marine environment has an abundance of these vital nutrients but they are in short supply on land. Iodine is a trace element that is vital for brain development, but there are many parts of the world where it is not present in the soil, like North America, Russian, Australia and parts of Africa. Iodine not being present in a mother’s body when she is pregnant, is a major cause of mental deficiency in babies. Both WHO and UNICEF see this as a major worldwide health problem and both organizations have encouraged countries to produce iodized salt that is sold to the public. Iodine is abundant in seawater and therefore the food richest in iodine is found in seafood.
So let’s compare a dolphin with a zebra, which has the same body weight. A zebra has 360 grams of brain while the dolphin has 1.8 kilograms. In other words, a dolphin has a brain about five times the size of that of a zebra. This is also true with apes. Human beings have a body size comparable with chimpanzees and gorillas, the chimpanzee being slightly smaller and the gorilla slightly larger. Yet humans on average have brains over three times bigger than both ape species.
The savannah theory claims that men could obtain the vital DHA fat from bone marrow. Yet hyenas, which have powerful jaws to crunch up bone and eat the bone marrow of the animals they kill and scavenge, do not have large brains like us. Also the savannah is not rich in the vital trace element iodine, which is vital for brain development. This then makes sense of a puzzle about early humans. We would expect that as humans evolve more, our brains would get bigger and bigger, but this hasn’t happened. Neanderthal humans had brains larger than the average human today; this is also true of the Cro Magnon humans who had a brain 15 percent larger than modern day people.
So why did this happen? An obvious explanation would be that many humans rejected the sea and moved back inland. This would mean they wouldn’t find the same abundance of brain food as they found on the coast, resulting in their brains becoming increasingly smaller. It is of interest that the size of human brains can vary enormously, some humans having brains as low as 800 cc or as high as 2,000 cc. This big variation could be to do with the different diets humans have and how much brain food they consume. It has to be said, however, that brain size is not a very good indication of individual intelligence.
There is a real mystery why human beings are the only animals to walk upright. As, running upright makes human beings slow runners. A four-legged animal has a far longer stride, using both the back and front legs which makes then far better runners than humans.. Also we pay a price for our upright stature through knee and back problems as well as varicose veins, hemorrhoids and hernias.
Yet the big advantage is that being bipedal leaves human beings hands free to carry objects and use tools. It is doubtful we evolved bipedalism for this reason; chimpanzees also use tools but chimps are still happy to walk around on four legs, and only use tools squatting on the ground.
In the past, there was another ape, which was bipedal like us. This was the long-extinct Oreopithecus, known as the swamp ape. Scientists have found it had a pelvis like ours, making it also suitable for bipedalism. In modern times the two primates that are able to walk upright are the proboscis monkey and the bonobo ape. The proboscis lives in the mangrove swamps of Borneo and is a real swimming primate as some have been found swimming in the sea by fishermen. The bonobo lives in forests that are seasonally flooded every year. Both species wade through the water in a similar way to human beings, so this suggests that bipedalism in primates comes from living in flooded or swampy areas.
The aquatic ape theory suggests like the great hunter theory, that our ape ancestors were forced to come out of the trees because of changing climatic conditions, but instead of living on the savannah, these apes found they could survive by gathering shellfish and seaweed on the seashore. The result would be that they became a wading ape, as the ape could walk in deeper water by walking upright. The advantage of living in trees is that it is a good protection against predators, most of whom can’t climb trees. The same protection can be given to an upright wading ape simply because it can wade out to deeper water than a four legged predator. It is true that the predator might swim, but it loses all its advantages of speed, size and power swimming in the water. To this ape, the water will become a safe haven in much the same way  trees are, so instead of climbing a tree to escape from a predator it can run into the ocean instead. In fact, a beach is a difficult hunting ground for predators as there is not much cover a large cat can hide behind to stalk its prey. This then would make shell hunting more popular among females if they are pregnant or breast-feeding a child, as the water protects them. This could explain another scientific mystery.
Most animals reach full maturity within a few years; this is because the young of most species are very vulnerable to attacks from predators. So the quicker they grow to full size the better chance they have of survival. But the human child can take up to 20 years to reach full maturity, and it is totally helpless in the first two years of its life. Now having a long time to mature is an advantage for human brain development, but for early humans to evolve to this means mothers had to be able to keep their children in a safe environment away from predators. Living on the savannah alongside lions and hyenas would be a very unsafe environment for the young of early humans. Monkeys and most apes are able to keep reasonably safe by living in trees, though there is also the danger of infant primates falling, out of trees.  So it means that the ocean would be a safer environment for early humans than even trees. It is true that there are sharks in the sea but sharks would be far less of a threat than big cats or hyenas on land. All over the world, sharks kill only a handful of people every year, in spite of the large numbers of people who swim in the ocean. Statistically, a person has a better chance of being hit by lightning, than being attacked by a shark.
So there are a lot of advantages to female apes becoming marine food gatherers. It’s not so true for male apes, who would be bigger and stronger anyway and don’t have the burden of trying to save a helpless baby from a predator as well. So it would cause a division of labour, men gathering on land while women gathered in the sea.
This is why the Aquatic Ape theory seems to have a great appeal to women, and why many male scientists don’t like it. Instead of having a hunter, coming home from a hard day of hunting to be greeted by his adoring wife, we now have women who are more than able to feed themselves and their children without any help from men.
Other human characteristics that support the Aquatic Ape theory are that we sweat salt and water from our skin glands. For a land animal this is a waste, more so in a hot country like Africa, as water is very scarce at certain times of the years. So sweating water is a very inefficient method of keeping cool for a tropical animal. This is exacerbated in a human because it is naked, so when a human sweats it quickly evaporated by the sun. A fur covering means that moisture is shaded and evaporates more slowly. Salt is also scarce for land animals, who will travel a long way to find salt licks. Yet sweating salt makes a lot of sense to aquatic animals that need a way to get rid of an excess of salt in their bodies because they are living in a salty environment.
There are many other reasons why we evolved from an ape that foraged in the water for food, but to get back to why women have breasts.  As previously mentioned, only fat animals in the wild are marine animals. There is simply no advantage for a land animal in carrying excess fat, which women have on their chests, bottoms and thighs. It is true that a fit man carries less fat than a woman but we cannot leave women out of any evolutionary theory, in the way man the Savannah theorists have done. It is also claimed that large female breasts and bottom are not very streamlined in the water. This would be a consideration if humans were fully aquatic. In sport men can outperform women because of their great strength, but in long distance swimming women can match or even outperform men. This is because fat floats in water and the subcutaneous fat around women makes them more buoyant; they float better than men, so when swimming, more of the woman’s body is out of the water. Women need marginally less effort to propel themselves along in the water than men, so the fat around women’s chest, bottom and thighs does benefit them when swimming.
So according to the Aquatic ape theory large breasts in women are only about keeping women warm and buoyant in the water.  Certainly having large breasts is a help to women when swimming in rough water, because the extra buoyancy of extra fat on their chests will help keep their head out of the water.  Which might suggest that men’s attractiveness to women with large breast may not have anything to do with sexual attraction.  Yet we have to admit that some women do have very large breasts, perhaps too large to be a help when swimming in the water.  So even though sexual attraction may not be the original reason why women have breasts, sexual attraction may be the reason why some women have extra large breasts.  I will discuss this in the next chapter.

My Aquatic Ape Theory Video on Youtube

The Aquatic Ape Theory was mentioned in the fake Animal Planet Mermaid TV documentary

Chapter Six - The Evolution Of Large Breasts

[The famous Venus of Willendorf dated between 20,000 to 30,000 years ago.  It is the most well known female carving from the Stone Age.  She is an obese woman, and a carving like this found in a Stone Age excavations is a problem for Scientists.  The reason is that Stone Age people were suppose to be nomadic hunter/gathers and so would always be on the move.  So how did a large obese woman like this, walk along with the rest of the tribe?  Was she so important that men carry her in some form of sedan chair?  Another theory I have on this is that if we take the Aquatic Ape Theory into account, she could be a diver and her extra fat would keep warm in the water.  As I explain in my book, Mermaids, Witches and Amazons.]

Desmond Morris claimed in his book, The Naked Ape that women developed breasts because it made them sexually attractive to men. So the larger the breasts the more likely she would breed. The problem with this theory is that it assumes that men were the dominant sex during the Stone Age and so it was men who chose their sexual partners. But this may not be true; we cannot assume that early man was a brute who dominated women through violence and rape.  Yet at the same time it has to be admitted that in our present patriarchal age women with large breasts are more attracted to men.  But whether this means women with large breasts are more likely to breed that women with smaller breasts is a debatable point in our modern world.  Though this could be true in the hundreds of years ago, when rich and powerful men could choose wives, concubines mistress with large breasts and because they were under the protection of powerful and wealthy men their daughters were more likely to survive, than normal girl children.  Which might suggest that extra large breasts on women, only came an evolutionary advantage, in our present patriarchal age.
So could this also point to their also being patriarchal ages in the Stone-Age when women also developed large breast during those times?  When again alpha males chose big breasted women and protected them and their children?  This might be true but male and female sexual behaviour does point to patriarchy not being very commonplace during the Stone Age, as previously discussed in previous chapters.
It is of interest that women are far more sensual than men in sex play.  For thousands of years men have dominated women and used them as sex-slaves.  Yet if a man goes to a very submissive prostitute and even though he can use her however he likes, for his own pleasure, in the end most men seem to be more concerned in ejaculating within a short period of time.  Than any sensual pleasure she can give him.  Many prostitutes take pride in being able to make a man orgasm within a few minutes or less.
Yet it has been shown in recent times when the roles are reverse and a woman can buy sex from men, they have a very different attitude.  A woman can enjoy hours of sensual and sexual play and massage.  While although men can enjoy sex play and being massaged they soon get tied of this.  This has been discovered in massage parlors where men soon get aroused when being massaged by a young woman he quickly wants to ejaculate.  This might be because women have in the past, enjoyed men giving them sexual and sensual pleasure far longer than women doing the same for men.  So men are not used to receiving sensual and sexual pleasure from women and only want a quick orgasm.  While women in the past through many thousands of years of matriarchal rule, are used to men giving them unhurried sexual and sensual pleasure.
This then suggests that any patriarchal rule by men in evolutionary terms were fairly brief.  We know that in times of rapid climate change species of humans went extinct, like the Neanderthals, so that we are the only human species left.  And it seems that genetics have found bottlenecks in our evolution where it seems the human race was reduced to only one tribe.  As previous mentioned a Matriarchal tribe is far more likely to survive during times of extreme hardship.  Which suggests that men taking over in times during the Stone Age were detrimental to the survivability of humans. So that in times of rapid climate change, any patriarchal tribes that existed quickly become extinct and only Matriarchal tribes survived.
Another problem with the idea that large breast point to patriarchy, is that patriarchy does seem to be hostile to women’s breasts.  Men are able to walk down the street bare chest but if a woman were to do the same, she would be arrested.  It is still not acceptable for women to breast feed in public even though it is recognized today that, “breast is best” for children.
Back in the 20th century male doctors became so hostile to breast feeding that they made the incredible claim that cow’s milk was better for children than human milk!  In the 1950s and 60s in the West many women were strongly discouraged from breast feeding their babies.  Fortunately in the 1960s the Women’s Liberation Movement got started and feminist scientists and doctors managed to use proper science to demonstrate the obvious fact that human milk was far better for children than cow milk.

A picture of a large breast woman, Rasa Von Werder. 

 The problem might be that breast are not only about sexual attraction but symbolizes motherhood.  After all, in the Stone Age a baby will be breast-fed for the first few years of its life.  So men’s fixation on women’s breasts may be more about him wanting a mother figure than a sexual attraction.  Many women have noted that many men never seem to grow up and treat their wives as if they were their mothers. 
So large breast also has a very strong motherly image and as it is mothers who care for children the first few years of their lives, so they could also symbolize the power and influence of the mother.  As the old saying goes, “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”.  This is clearly not true, as we can see all around the world, men hold nearly all positions of power.  Yet instinctively we feel that this saying should be true, as it is the mother who has greater influence over a child as it grows up than the father does.
The reason why mothers do not rule the world as suggested by this saying, is that patriarchal rulers have overcome the powerful influence of the mother by brainwashing mothers so they will teach their children patriarchal propaganda.  The irony is that some of the strongest supporters of patriarchy over the last few thousand years, have been women.  But this is only because patriarchy, knowing the strong influence mothers have over their children have focus their attention on brainwashing mothers, to believe in patriarchal doctrine.
So if large breasts are a powerful mother symbol to men.  Then it might symbolize a strong desire to experience a powerful mother who once had real power to, “rule the world”.  Men living in a patriarchal world may be instinctively missing this powerful mother who has the power to nurture and care for them, in the way a true mother can.
So perhaps the evolution of large breasts in women, in patriarchal times may not be about men getting women’s bottoms mixed up with their breasts, but could be their desire to be cared for by a powerful mother once again.