The Evolution of Sex


By Darryl James

Ev·o·lu·tion:  any process of formation or growth; development

Whenever humans want to do something divergent from what is “traditional,” the first route of making things easier to digest is to call it “evolution.”

Sometimes, it is evolution. For example, eliminating slavery was growth toward man’s humanity to man. Abuse and evil are things to be evolved away from.

Garnering parity within the national community for all citizens is evolution for America, even though we’re not there yet.

But sometimes, people label something evolution or revolution, and its frankly, the opposite, or just stagnation.

Take the so-called “sexual revolution” for example. Without any real “evolution,” it was just something people did. Since that era, there has been more sex, but no real growth in ideas about sex and/or sexuality–just chaos and confusion. Particularly, since the results are arguably negative and backward, which is a sign of de-evolution.

Have we arrived at a place where we can exchange sex freely without connecting it to anything?

The answer can only be determined by examining what once was and what currently is.

In the 60’s people talked about a sexual revolution with the lie of “free love,” but all that happened was the de-evolution of love and relationships as people began to sex more and marry less, because hooking up for sex has become more important than connecting for love. That’s not evolution, that’s de-evolution.

And let’s be honest, men can be whores, because they don’t seek the same needs from a sexual encounter as women—the need to be valued, honored, respected, loved and cherished. Human females have always expected those things when allowing a man to take advantage of their sexuality. Most still want it today—even after participating in free love, hence the pursuit of redefining “whore.”

So what happens when the sex is given and no connection is given in exchange?

Frankly, women and children cannot afford the wages of sexual freedom.

More children raised by single parents is not evolution. More women growing old and alone without companionship and/or protection is not evolution. The world can change and be cold and cruel, but evolution is supposed to be about making us into something better. Sexing more with wider spread of disease and less comfort is not evolution.

Things are worse, not better.

And, while some women want men to make peace with female whorishness, they themselves have difficulty with it. Women rarely revere whores and many go to great lengths to disguise their whorish past, speaking hypothetically about whores they know who should be given freedom.

Participating in discussions with women who want random and prolific sexual proclivities to be recognized as evolution and not just plain whorishness gives another example of the misuse of evolution. Particularly when some of those same women express regret over pursuing lust instead of love, and exchanging sex for gifts or for nothing at all, only to end up with no human emotional attachment after the “freedom” has been expressed.

Things have changed, but that doesn’t make it evolution. There is more sex, but that isn’t growth. After all, isn’t random, unattached sex what humans were doing before we formed societies—before we were civilized?

Here’s what HAS changed: Women who would have been called whores in previous times for exhibiting whorish behavior, today no longer want the label, even though they embrace the actions. The push back is claiming that men are unable to handle the behavior, but if men can’t handle it (which really means men don’t want it), doesn’t that signal that there has been no evolution, particularly since all women aren’t on the same program, leaving men with CHOICES?

There was a time when women kept their sexual partner numbers down because it just made good sense for a lady to do. Now, some just get mad at men for not redefining “lady” and “whore.” Instead of keeping the Poison Principle (from BBD’s song: “Me and the crew used to do her…”), whores now just throw it back on men for being “sensitive.”

Men now hear comments such as:  “You are too ‘sensitive’ for not wanting to wife a woman half the town has sexed,” and “If you were a ‘real man,’ you’d be able to handle the fact that your brother and cousin had your fiance first.”

The bottom line is that neither the whole of men nor the whole of women have really evolved with sex and sexuality–we’ve just begun to talk about it more, and some of us have begun to sex more.

If there were a true evolution, the oxytocin that gets released when a woman is held by a man she has been sexed by wouldn’t be as strong. If we were truly evolved, it would no longer be easy to define a whore and a lady–and, let’s be honest, the definitions have not changed.

Comedian Steve Harvey may not have had evolution on his mind when he penned “Act Like A Lady, Think Like A Man,” but his message certainly added to the confusion. After all, thinking like something typically leads to acting like that same something.

Frankly, it’s not a good idea for men to be whores either, but the consequences are cheaper to pay for.

Whether you agree or not, the great equalizer has been the widespread transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, attaching a very high cost to “free” love.

That ain’t evolution.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “The Evolution of Sex”

  1. Wonderfully written, and DEFINITELY on POINT!

  2. One of the other problems of this so-called evolution has been the destruction of the marriage. With holding sex in a marriage is seen as a woman’s right. The response by men has been get sex outside of marriage to a man’s detriment. I find it really sad when I hear married men complain they had more sex before marriage or single men and women having more sex than married couples. With “Free Love” came the right to withhold it as a weapon. Even the bible forbids couples to withhold affection from each other because of the consequences. Despite exceptions to the rule single parentage is destroying the family and the community. Those that thrive are not the greater percentage sadly enough. I’m not sure the 60’s hippy movement was a good thing (I don’t think civil right came from that movement).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: