[acb-hsp] Sex and Violence

[peter altschul]

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