It's funny, how human beings project their own cultural agendas onto things, in the name of legitimisation. We all do it, truth be told; the difference is in whether the projection is recognised for being nothing more than the carrier of the personal. Science, in particular - one of the true cultural, modern deceptions, as an entity that, conceptually, managed to pass itself as an objective "truth" (whatever that is) - has long been a favourite vehicle for this. Put it in the hands of the world's media, and Bob's your uncle. Today, we have the marriage of scientific study and media, putting forward that Bob may also be legitimised, when he drives to Williams Street at four in the morning, and pays hookers to blow him. Why? Because, as Fox (and everyone else, mind you) announced unto the world; "Male Monkeys 'Pay' Females For Sex, Study Finds." Oh, well, then, it must be okay.

 

Of course, this is the wonderful world of Science™, so it's not just something as simple as "okay", but "evolutionary". And if it's evolutionary, then perhaps it's okay. "Selling sex... might have deep evolutionary roots", said the breaking news from Raw Story (beneath an e-banner ad for the Disney channel). Science - and, in particular, modern psychology - has long been quietly championing an arguably nihilistic view of human nature and behaviour, and even as far back as the notorious Milgram experiments (hands up, first year psych students) it has longed to suggest that deep within human nature is a darker force that has been sublimated by a false self-perception modern society has foolishly bought into. I actually agree; anyone who reads enough of my work, here, will know my distaste for covert discriminations and the selective ignorance that lends our society to wipe its bloody hands clean. I'm all for any serious study that sets about in exposing this. But the irony of science is that science, itself, is guilty of a similar falsity, in its ludicrous assertions that it is somehow an objective study (not to mention, that it then uses these findings to often inevitably excuse these darker elements of human life, as objective forces of "nature"). Rubbish. Ideology drives all experimenters and researchers; they're no more or less biased than any other human being, and dig deep enough into the men and women behind the white coats (mostly men, of course), and you'll find what drives their quest to "prove". It's just that - a striving to prove a hypothesis. And they'd agree with that much, at least, but would like to ignore that beneath the hypothesis is always something partly philosophical and deeply personal. It is also culturally dependent; and it wise to acknowledge that our silly idea that science is some singular entity that evolves "forward", is just that - silly - for, instead, it is an ever changing paradigm battle, that can nearly always be linked to the cultural themes and ideas of the day.

Of course, the media is also a co-conspirator in such popular studies that make their way into the press and our living rooms (remember, however, that scientific study is ultimately a commercial realm - inescapable, in the broader reality of funding - and even this "news" has been sent out as part of strategic public relations plans). However, although there are exceptions to the rule (Mediawatch recently covered the twisting of a recent lecture tour by a leading expert who reportedly claimed ADD not to exist), generally speaking, the implications, though inevitably dumbed down and exaggerated, are there in the studies. Furthermore, they work on mechanics that can be worked with - in most cases, our modern desire to eradicate responsibility, and to exploit science as an excuse to legitimise various dysfunction. I discussed this, recently, in light of Andrew Johns' absurd redemption (a redemption that brought out - what a surprise - a psychiatrist, as its star supporter and legitimiser), and we find something similar, in the implications of how this current use of science has hit the news.

The implications, here, excuse prostitution, on the basis of one of the greatest conceptual symbols of human evolution, the monkey. And I'm here to say that this is dangerous, and hardly cute, primetime, "human interest" fodder. But, more importantly, I'd like the people who engage these stories of science, to look at these reports and studies, as objectively as possible, by taking away the analysis. This is how we understand the bias of science, and how a (perhaps objective) occurrence can be construed to become a vehicle of social ideology, and then further sensationalised by media. To remove a piece from the actual news reporting, let's have a look at what actually occurred in these observed mating monkeys. As reported by Fox;

"Left to her own desires, a female macaque mates about 1.5 times an hour, but that rate jumps to 3.5 times an hour when the male partner first provided grooming services, the study found."

Okay, so let's stop right there. Let's rewind all that we know of what was then put on top of this - by humans - and just have a simple look at what monkeys "do". If the male monkeys, during mating season, groomed the female monkey's hair, first, that female monkey was more likely to agree to the sex. That's all we can really say of those monkeys. We are not monkeys (let us remember this, too), and we have no way of understanding this process by any other means than a method of projection. We can only impose our own understandings upon this relatively simple event. But that, of course, is where it all goes so terribly wrong, and left to be fashioned by a mixture of the scientific paradigm at the heart of the experimentation team, the media who then repackages it, and the various cultural and social elements that then intertwine with these (as this "information" is then integrated into the everyday people who approach this material, bringing with them their own cultural biases, etc). Yes, it's complex, I know (stay with me, on this!). But in simple terms, let's at least be able to see how subjectivity works, by applying it, ourselves.

What we have is essentially two dots. One is the fact that the female monkeys were more amicable towards the sexual intentions of the male monkeys, if groomed. The other dot is the assertion that prostitution has, therefore, been around for so long, as a kind of "natural" phenomenon, that it traces back to our evolutionary ancestors. What turns one dot into another? Analysis - more to the point, a scientific analysis. And you're led to believe that scientific analysis is somehow altruistic. But what goes into that parallel (a kind of analogy) between what those monkeys did, and prostitution? Subjectivity - an agenda, a bias. It's not fact - it's just transient, personalised perception.

Can you think of any other subjective analogy we could place on these monkeys? Have any women, out there, ever put forward that (quite logically, surely) you are attracted to men who treat you right? And as a man, have I ever tried to express my affection towards someone I have desired, by... well.... doing something for them? Sure, I have. Have you ever bought anyone a box of chocolates, a nice dress, some flowers?

Were you, in that exchange, engaging in an act of prostitution? Would someone who doesn't respond to acts of goodwill - sexually, or otherwise - be terribly healthy? If you've ever responded favourably to any such act - whether it is a box of chocolates at the start of a great romance, or simply the symbolism found in the man who opened your car door, who you would later choose to go home with, were you being a healthy - even decent - person, or just engaging in the phenomenon of... gasp... symbolic communication? Why are you a whore, if you accept those chocolates, and if you respond favourably to someone who expresseses their affection for you or, at very least, singifies something worthwhile by some act of giving?

Because, through language, this was exactly how the report was expressed, and what science ultimately "found", in (what is arguably quite invalid, as it is) the parallel of monkeys to humans. The grooming became "currency", and the following intercourse, therefore, "paid" for ("When the opportunity arises, male macaque monkeys groom females to ‘pay’ for sex," declared the actual researcher, himself, in the English paper, The Sun - giving the term to headlines, the world over). Hence, upon this act - by the very scientists responsible - there was a human bias projected. And one that, quite frankly, demeans women (and, by all accounts, many men!).

But no, no, the evidence was clear. Out they came, such as Professor Ronald Noe (who, no doubt, jumped at the chance to get his name in the word's papers), who noted such stirringly insightful analogies as; "There is a very well-known mix of economic and mating markets in the human species itself." But Noe's piece-de-resistance contemporary analogy? "There are many examples of rich old men getting young attractive ladies.” Cringe.

I would suggest that such phenomenon is dependent on a mixture of patriarchal dominance and the affects of this on the reality of women, in a capitalist structure. Where money is power, and essential for survival, women, in a world where they are denied this power (remembering that, statistically speaking, women are still paid much less than men, and get nowhere near equality in the workplace hierarchy - funny, which statistics we choose to ponder, and which ones we choose not to) are left to adapt to their survival, by playing the cards they are allowed (it's why I am annoyed by the sole blaming of women as "sluts", when they are simply the victims of what is a male problem). Therefore, when women are cast as sexual objects by their society (their value reduced to the purpose of male sexual satisfaction), and men hold the money we are all raised to "need" and strive for, yes, many women act within this value structure, by obtaining the financial security, indirectly, by their ability to appease the male psyche of rich men. It's a co-exploitation, some would say  - but it's a co-exploitation that happens in a system where one gender is clearly dominated by another (that's "how" it happens). To remove the cultural setting of prostitution (in all its forms; from the street corner, to the pin up girls of FHM), and cast it all off as some kind of objective evolutionary force of nature, is deeply sexist. And besides, what it has to do with a few poor monkeys who responded favourably to having their hair stroked by potential suitors, is anyone's guess.

At the end of the day, it's just a collective projection - like so much of science's "discoveries". It's a subjectivity - not an objectivity - and it is no more or less valid than my projection and analysis of those monkeys being quite predictable, on the basis of my own mindset. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying be careful of the authority you give science, when it pops its head up in your newspapers, to tell you how prostitution is now a natural phenomenon. I think the bias in the ultimate analysis of these studies inevitably says more about "us", than the actual occurrence the researchers observed. Analyse that, however you wish.