[humanser] Sex and Violence: Is Sex at the Psychological Root of War?

[Susan Tabor]

Hello, Mary Ann:

I've enjoyed all of the articles you've posted; thank you! I'm involved in
peace and justice work and have found them all quite thought-provoking and
am sharing them! Thanks again!
Peace,
Susan Tabor

-----Original Message-----
From: humanser-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:humanser-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Mary Ann Robinson
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 6:41 PM
To: Human Services Mailing List
Subject: [humanser] Sex and Violence: Is Sex at the Psychological Root of
War?

      Tom Jacobs, Miller-McCune Magazine March 30, 2011
  Guys: What do you feel when you look at a photo of an attractive woman?
Excited? Intrigued? How about warlike?
  Such a response may seem strange or even offensive.  But newly published
research suggests it is far from uncommon -- and it may help explain the
deep psychological roots of warfare.
  With yet another war in full swing, we once again face the fundamental
question of why groups of humans settle their differences through organized
violence.  A wide range of motivations have been offered over the years: In
a 2002 book, Chris Hedges compellingly argued that war is both an addiction
and a way of engaging in the sort of heroic struggle that gives our lives
meaning.
  Evolutionary psychologists, on the other hand, see war as an extension of
mating-related male aggression.  They argue men compete for status and
resources in an attempt to attract women and produce offspring, thereby
passing on their genes to another generation.  This competition takes many
forms, including violent aggression against other males -- an impulse
frowned upon by modern society but one that can be channeled into
acceptability when one joins the military.
  It's an interesting and well-thought-out theory, but there's not a lot of
direct evidence to back it up.  That's what makes "The Face That Launched a
Thousand Ships," a paper just published in the journal Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, so intriguing.
  A team of Hong Kong-based researchers led by psychologist Lei Chang of
Chinese University conducted four experiments that suggest a link between
the motivation to mate and a man's interest in, or support for, war.
  The first featured 111 students (60 men) at a college in China.
Each was shown 20 full-body color photographs of members of the opposite
sex.  Half viewed images of people who had been rated attractive; the other
half saw pictures of people classified as unattractive.
  Afterward, "participants responded to 39 questions about having wars or
trade conflicts with three foreign countries that have had hostile
relationships with China in recent history," the researchers write.
Twenty-one of the questions "tapped the willingness to go to war with the
hostile country," they noted, while 18 addressed "peaceful solutions to
trade conflicts."
  The results duplicated those of a pilot study: Male participants answering
the war-related questions "showed more militant attitudes" if they had
viewed the photos of attractive women.  This effect was absent in answers to
the trade-related questions, nor was it found among women for either set of
questions.
  In another experiment, 23 young heterosexual males viewed one of two sets
of 16 photos.  One featured images of Chinese national flags; the other
focused on female legs.  They then performed a computer test to see how
quickly they could respond to common, two-character Chinese words.  Half of
the words related to war, while the others related to farms.
  If they were motivated by nationalism or patriotism, the young men would
have presumably responded to the war words more rapidly after having viewed
the flag.
  But in fact, the researchers write, they "responded faster to war words
when primed by female legs." In contrast, the rate at which participants
processed farm-related words did not vary depending upon which photos were
seen.  This result was repeated in a follow-up experiment using a slightly
different design.
  Why would men with mating on their minds be more receptive to the idea of
war? Chang and his colleagues suggest there is a "mating-warring
association" deep in the male brain, due to the fact successful warriors
have traditionally enjoyed greater access to women.
  This instinctual force propels men "to engage in organized lethal
aggression by co-opting other human adaptations, including our unique
cognitive and social mind," they write.  To put it more simply, our rational
brains lose the internal battle to our instinctual selves.
  If peacocks impress potential mates with colorful feathers, the
researchers write, perhaps warriors attract women with their ribbons, badges
and fancy dress uniforms.  And men's "swords and missiles" may be our answer
to a stag's horns: weapons that showcase one's virility.
  The researchers concede war is a collective enterprise that cannot be
explained entirely by individual motivates.  And it's worth noting this
theory doesn't explain why women join the military (admittedly in relatively
small numbers).
  Furthermore, while there's no reason to believe their results are
culturally driven, it would surely be interesting to try to duplicate them
in the U.S.  or Europe.
  Such caveats aside, their work provides further evidence that the impulse
to fight may go deeper than the desire to defend one's nation, religion or
tribe.
  If their thesis is correct, the 1960's slogan "Make love, not war" may
have to be revised.  Love -- at least the sexual variety
-- may have more in common with war than anyone imagined.
  Tom Jacobs is a veteran journalist with more than 20 years experience at
daily newspapers.  He has served as a staff writer for the Los Angeles Daily
News and the Santa Barbara News-Press.
His work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and
Ventura County Star.
  B plus Alterationet Mobile Edition