Gender Biology of Monogamism

Patriarchal sexuality is the result of social construction as can be observed in how diversely socially constructed gender and sexuality are in diverse anthropological traditional contexts. While monogamy is nearly always fundamentally satisfactory and unhappy to varying degrees need we also understand why this is so. We need also seek to profoundly understand what’s in the false psychological attraction to nearly always tragic monogamism.


Biological determinists will surely argue that the near universal sexual enslavement of females under patriarchal social regimes of sexuality is natural and they thus ignore the unnatural character of its fundamentally unhappy nature and certainly do not endeavor to understand it from the perspective of females thus subjected to patriarchal sexual tyranny.

Monogamism (e.g. heteroculture) is the result of environmental pressure for reproduction, certain forms of reproductive units were more successful than others and those that were more successful survived, prospered demographically and often spread geographically. Human sexual enslavement of females is conducive to group survival in the sense that human sexual enslavement of females tended to lead to many childbirths which in turn increased male sexual pressure on females to be sexual available consider that childbirth for varying reasons typically creates long periods of sexuall abstention. Since child mortality was high as prior to the emergence of modern medicine was sexual slavery highly conducive to group survival in the sense as producing a demographic surplus which meant that the tribe would survive despite periods of decimation due to disease, famine, natural disaster, major feline predators etc.

It needs be understood that the history of modern humans is exceptionally short and so the social pressures that produced marital sexual enslavement in cultures around the world did not affect genetics in the sense that these behaviors did not become genetically determinative for human sexual behavior.

Biological determinism is 20th century pseudoscience as having developed from the pseudo-science of 19th century physiognomy. Biological determinism ignore the fundamental insight that correlation is not causation. Biological determinism furthermore chooses to ignore extremely extensive gender science research which unfortunately for the biological determinists cannot so easily be rejected by recourse to thinly veiled misogynistic discourse.

It needs be emphasized that it is not an ad hominem argument to point out prejudice as everyone must be ready stand scrutiny as regards to physionomism and DOLP. To claim that it is ad hominem to accuse someone of anti-Jewish prejudice is to say that it is impolite for Jews to complain about anti-Jewish prejudice and that Jews must be docile and submissive to the anti-Jewish persons who announce that fallacy. In fact is this an aggressive form of anti-Jewish prejudice which proves that the person in fact holds hatred against Jews and not merely accidental prejudice. The same goes for the argument that women must not complain about the near universal yet socially highly varying practices of patriarchal male sexual enslavement of females in cultures around the world. The person claiming that it is an ad hominem argument for women to complain about the evils of patriarchy hence elegantly prove themselves to be misogynists indeed in performatively seeking to enforce the social tyranny of patriarchal misogyny.

Biological determinism is ahistorical not only in that they ignore the short timeframe of the existence of modern humans in terms of evolutionary history but also in the sense that they refuse to appropriately integrate scientific advancement from other fields of science, including from gender science. But then is not gender science also guilty of this malpractice? Yes to a certain degree yet this is due to constant academic intelligence harassment by biological determinists as systematically organized by patriarchal intelligence agencies seeking to prostitute gender scientists by means of coercive intelligence recruitment.

Gender scientists around the world are protectively recruited by the OPC on instructions from NOPD and this is performed as part of military intelligence cooperation between the United States and military intelligence agencies of many other countries. The OPC became the world’s first feminist intelligence agency and is a military intelligence agency whose task is solely to responsibly defend and promote emancipation, freedom and democracy everywhere, period. Gender scientists would otherwise not have been able to withstand the onslaught of misogynistic male charlatans in academia who systematically sexually, socially and academically harass gender scientists on behalf of misogynistic intelligence agencies such as the CIA (American Gestapo) which systematically sexually enslave, sexually exploit and sexually abuse female intelligence operatives of all ages. They regard gender science as an existential threat to their severely misogynistic practices and rightly so.

Other than social expectations such as produced by both social structure and mass commercial culture, why do most females dream about monogamism? Now this is a most essential question indeed which therefore needs be answered in some detail.

Traditional apotheosis training for royals was performed by teaching them how to help their two brains to interact. This is why a Majesty would typically say “We” rather than “I” as indicating that the two brains were acting in tandem in being fully in agreement about what to utter. Since such training was relatively rare was it during the 20th century almost forgotten.

There is nothing normal or perfect about the way humans have genetically developed in evolutionary terms. Humans are born far too early due to evolutionarily increasing cranial volume. Premature birth is highly traumatizing and so is all natural human birth traumatizing since all human births are premature as the child would not be able to be pass through the vagina if born substantially later.

Being born too early as is the human norm in the absence of appropriately long gestation in artificial uteri means that there is not time for development of appropriate conscious integration between the two human brains in the human cranium.

Humans therefore seek to return to the prematurely lost symbios of the womb in hence seeking fellowship with what in Jewish philosophy is known as “the Other”. Humans think that they seek another person and feminists describe this as seeking an ersatz parent. Yet what they instead seek is unification with oneself, meaning establishment of conscious contact and proper coordination between the two brains within the human brain rather than as of now typically fierce competition between the two brains of the human cranium.

Monogamism is thus a poor replacement for the human need for universal royal apotheosis training which is about properly laterally integrating the functioning of the two brains. This means learning how the two individual brains function differently, how the two brains are individually functionally specialized and it also means learning how to appropriately synchronize the workings of the two brains.

We need thus let go of the moral prejudice that one must seek oneself in someone else. This means that we must let go of monogamism considering its not only structurally misogynistic character but also its fundamentally dystopian nature.

Royal apotheosis training needs in modified feminist form be made available to human beings generally. It needs be emphasized that other animal species do not have similar problems due to certainly not generally being born prematurely.

Human beings generally require feminist intelligence training as certainly not limited to royal apotheosis training and with the purpose of learning to advance in psychological functioning and not only interpersonally so but importantly as between the brains.

We need rediscover ancient Greek virtue and virtues of Baroque noble courts. Simply because a society is technologically relatively advanced as in comparison with the past certainly does not mean that the present will seem advanced in the retrospect. Relatively advanced technology furthermore does not imply ethical superiority.

Democratic multiculturalism means that we must cease naturalizing culture, naturalizing social structure and naturalizing technology for neither is natural at all. We need to learn to become able to integrate insights, structures, social institutions, ethical axioms and social practices in deconstructed forms from many different cultures and subcultures and even from non-human cultures and subcultures of so called Animals as if humans themselves were not Animals. This means that we need become able to learn not only from present cultures/subcultures but also from historical ones such as historical noble courts in many different societies around the world. It also means that we need to learn from the future as well in the form of the “prophetic” literature known as science-fiction which is extremely influential in guiding the course of development of technology as inventors of advanced technology are typically informed by science fiction.

Biological determinism seeks to naturalize structural oppression by claiming that structural oppression is “natural” without even explaining what they mean by “natural”. Let us therefore bring up the classical question of nature versus nurture.

There are some things which are absolutely genetically determined unless life of an individual changes course due to premature demise or scientific innovation. Social construction is part of human zoology in that even the development of genes is socially constructed. Social construction therefore needs be studied by branches of natural science such as genetics, biology and zoology. The dichotomy of nature and nurture is unfounded considering that social construction largely take place through interaction between organisms. Neither nature nor nurture exist in a genetic sense as this is a false Cartesian dichotomy of Para-Christian metaphysical nonsense.

We know from adoption studies and twin studies that psychopathy is 75% heritable and that autism is 90% heritable, yet these are mere average numbers since autism and psychopathy are caused by very different alleles and so these are merely general estimates, albeit highly important ones.

Importantly need we stop seeking to “cure” autism and instead empower autistic persons in helping them develop their socially accidental strengths and furthermore ignite interest in further matters which may lead to development of many more strengths. Importantly need we cure psychopathy by means of gene therapy and hormone therapy in therefore lessening excessive levels of production of primarily testosterone.

The insight that autism and psychopathy unlike Huntington’s disease is not 100% genetically determined is certainly an important one and we need similarly begin to understand very precisely what is genetic and what is social construction in gender expression, in e.g. a clitoris glans constituting gender expression.

This brings us to the question of psychological gender. What is psychological gender and is it genetic? The answer is that psychological gender is genetically determined to a very high degree and can be measured as to where individuals fall on the human spectrum of psychometrically measurable psychological gender differentiation among the legal (i.e. socially constructed) categories of men and women. Psychologists have long found that there are vast psychometric differences between legal men and legal women and also between legal girls and legal boys as well as of course between different chronological age groups.

The well-established conclusion is that there is highly statistically significant psychometric divergence between the legal categories of men and women. How do we know then that this is largely genetically determined? We know this because the statistic degrees of heredity of those traits are scientifically extremely well known and well documented.

Then there is large group, a third of all adults who fall in an intermediate space psychometrically on the spectrum of male-female psychometric differentiation. While psychological gender as all gender expression is highly individual and idiosyncratic is there thus overwhelming, even indisputable scientific basis for recognizing the existence of three highly genetically inherited clusters of psychological genders, namely female, male and non-binary.

What is hence needed is applied gender biology whereby we learn to very exactly determine what is genetically determined and what is not and to what degree. The scientific tools for doing so are already fully available and there is no need to fight Cartesian wars when in fact it is possible to very exactly with very strict scientific means measure these things. Applied gender biology needs however not merely concern itself with matters of measurement but furthermore studying in psychological laboratory and otherwise how we can successfully perform social construction of social engineering without producing or reproducing physionomism and DOLP.

The Intelligence Entrapment Methods documentation project.