Gender Trouble: Gender Construction

Mick Jagger in Drag

Now Butler has established that both sex and gender are constructed one main question arises: how is gender constructed? If gender is constructed can it be constructed differently? Is its constructedness in utter control of the agent? Or is its constructedness still contingent or imply some form social determinism or laws whereby the possibility of agency and transformation are closed off?

In some ways the theory that gender is constructed, “suggests a certain determinism of gender meanings inscribed on anatomically differentiated bodies, where those bodies are understood as passive recipients in an inexorably cultural law” (p.8) In other words, gender will vary depending on the culture it’s body is exposed to. “When the relevant ‘culture’ that ‘construct’ gender is understood in terms of such law or set of laws, then it seems that gender is as determined and fixed as it was under the biology-is-destiny formulation”(p.8) As a result, culture becomes destiny, thus gender is variant and dependant on a given culture.

Butler next examines the work of Simone de Beauvoir. Beauvoir suggests in The Second Sex that “one is not born a woman, but, rather, becomes one” For Beauvoir gender is “constructed” but in her argument implies that there is an agent, a cogito, who takes on or appropriates that gender and could, in principle, take on some other gender (p.8). And so to a certain degree a person is in control of their gender and the construction of it. Beauvoir is clear that one “becomes” a woman but always under a cultural compulsion to become one. And this compulsion does not derive from “sex”. She also doesn’t make it clear that the “one” who becomes a woman is actually a female. And so, if “the body is a situation” as Beauvoir claims there is no option for a body “that has not always already been interpreted by cultural meanings; hence, sex could not quality as a prediscursive anatomical facticity” (p.8). Thus sex is shown as being gender all along.

The controversy over the meaning of construction seems to founder on free will and determinism debates. If sex is gender all along and culturally constructed, the question is whether it’s construction is completely out of a person’s free will or that of a given culture. The body can either appear as a “passive medium on which cultural meanings are inscribed or as the instrument through which an appropriative and interpretive will determines a cultural meaning itself” (p.8). In either case the body is seen as a mere instrument or medium for which a set of cultural meanings can be inscribed and constructed. Exploring whether sex or gender are fixed or free seeks to determine what limits or controls sex and gender construction.

If culture sets out certain laws and a free agent chooses to follow these rules, which is really in charge on the constructing?  Should one go against the laws in order to feel they are in charge of their destiny? Or are the cultural laws and frameworks quite natural to some? Or are the cultural laws and frameworks set out force us to believe that they are natural and that we are choosing them freely?  We understand sex through gender of language and through societal expectations of male and female. Therefore, sex exists in relation to gender not outside of it. Butler suggests that the term, “woman” itself is a term in process, a becoming; a constructing that cannot rightfully be said, “to originate or end” (p.9) The view proposes that gender should be used to refer to the social and cultural constructions of masculinities and femininities, not to the state of being either male or female in it’s entirety.

Butler next examines the work of Luce Irigaray. For Beauvoir women are designated as the other, the negative of men, the lack against which masculine identity differentiates itself. Meanwhile, Irigaray argues that women constitute a paradox within the dialogue of identity. This dialectic belongs to a “masculine signifying economy” (p.12) that excludes the representation of women because it employs phallocentric (masculinist) language, thus women constitute the unrepresentable. However, as Butler notes, both Beauvoir and Irigaray assume that there exists a female self-identical being in need of representation, and their arguments hide the impossibility of “being” a gender at all.

To summarize, Beauvoir’s theory suggests that individuals become a gender because it’s a cultural compulsion to do so and that gender is created and not just the result of sex. Although, gender is usually thought of as a social/cultural construct and sex as a biological process, Butler contends that both gender and sex are cultural constructions. She argues against the traditional understanding that gender, society’s understanding of masculinity and femininity is derived from sex. Butler, argues that because gender is a cultural construct and not ‘natural’ and since we understand biological sex in terms of gender and gendered language it too is a cultural construct and sex itself is a gendered category.

The laws and frameworks within cultures and societies influence gender and the way it is constructed for Butler. As these laws can vary, a person’s gender can also vary depending on the culture it’s body is exposed to. Gender is by no means tied to material bodily facts but is solely and completely a social construction, a fiction, and one that, therefore, is open to change and contestation. Here, Butler introduces her idea of gender being performative, as this first chapter has ensued: gender is fluid, gender is culturally constructed and gender is not restricted by sex thus gender is performative and changeable.  Taking into consideration Beauvoir’s claim that one is not born but rather becomes a woman combined with her belief that gender is socially/culturally constructed Butler goes onto state that, “Gender is the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a hugely rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being” (p.33).

In other words, Butler suggests that the coherence of the categories of sex, gender and sexuality are culturally constructed through the repetition of stylized acts in times such as a male with a masculine gender and heterosexual desire. Through the repetition of these stylized bodily acts establishes the appearance of an essential “core” gender. Butler is aware however, that gender construction is influenced by platonic ideals, ‘norms’ and rules formed by culture and society. But what are these rules? What is considered ‘normal’ and ‘natural’? And why should we conform to them?

Gender Trouble: Subjects of Sex, Gender and Desire

Lady Gaga becomes her male alter-ego Jo Calderone.

Key Idea: Gender and sex are social and cultural constructs (Butler)

Butler begins by attacking some of the central assumptions within feminist theory: the supposition that there exists an identity that requires representation in politics and language. Butler argues that feminism has made an error by trying to assert that “women” share a common identity. (p.3) The terms “women” and “woman” become troublesome categories, which are complicated by the many facets of identity and cannot be a fixed attribute to all females.

If one “is” a woman that is surely not all one is. For Butler the term “women” fails to be thorough because, “gender is not always constituted coherently or consistently in different historical contexts, and because gender intersects with racial, class, ethnic, sexual and regional modalities of discursively constituted identities”. (p.3) As a result, it’s impossible to separate out “gender” from these political and cultural intersections” in which gender is maintained and produced. In other words, the term “women” cannot be a fixed attribute cross-culturally and females vary due to other modes of identity such as ethnicity. All these things must be considered as this is what influences and maintains a person’s gender. And so there cannot be a shared identity or universal term such as “women”, which can fairly represent every female.

Butler begins her critique of gender by challenging the assumption about the sex/gender distinction: sex is biological and gender culturally constructed. Butler notes that feminists originally intended to dispute the idea that biology is destiny, but then developed an account of patriarchal culture, which made similar and restrictive links between sex and gender. This culture assumed that a masculine gender would inevitably be built by culture upon a ‘male’ body and a feminine gender upon a ‘female’ body, making the same destiny just as inescapable. For Butler this assumption suggests that “gender mirrors sex or is otherwise restricted by it” (p.6), which shouldn’t be the case.

Instead, gender should be seen as a fluid variable, which changes over time, through cultures and is not contingent on sex. Gender should not be restricted or limited to certain bodies or sexes. When gender is understood as independent of sex, “gender itself becomes a free-floating artifice, with consequence that man and masculine might just as easily signify a female body as a male one, and woman and feminine a male body as easily as a female one” (p.6) This would mean that gender is neither the result of sex nor as seemingly fixed as sex, gender can be free floating. After all why should a masculine identity only be possible and expressed on a male body? And so sex and gender become distinct from one another whereby gender can go in any which direction. So Butler agrees that gender is culturally constructed as the sex/gender distinction assumes, but what about sex.

If sex and gender are separate one must establish how sex and gender are given. What is sex? Is it natural, chromosomal or hormonal? How is gender determined? Butler suggests that perhaps this construct of “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender. That sex itself is a gendered category and so there is no distinction between sex and gender at all, “…gender is not to culture as sex is to nature; gender is also the discursive/cultural means by which ‘sexed nature’ or ‘a natural sex’ is produced and established as ‘prediscursive’, prior to culture, a politically neutral surface on which culture acts.” (p.7) In other words, sexed bodies cannot signify without gender and the apparent existence of sex prior to cultural imposition is merely an effect of the functioning gender. As a result, for Butler both sex and gender are constructed.

Nature v Nurture: David Reimer Case

David Reimer

‘Gender is a different sort of identity, and it’s relation to anatomy complex’ (Undoing Gender by Judith Butler p.63)

The main issues within my research is whether gender and identity or rather gender identity is defined by nature or nurture. For me, I believe for the most part nurture impacts a persons’ gender and identity more so than their genetics, hormones and genitalia alone. I believe conditioning; the environment and upbringing are crucial elements to the development of gender. In the case of David Reimer, however, I’m forced to re-think whether biology truly is destiny and that nurture really cannot change a person’s gender identity.

Identical twin boys, Bruce and Brian Reimer were born 22^nd August 1965 in Winnipeg, Canada to the proud doting parents Janet and Ron Reimer. They were healthy strong baby boys but were to lead tragic lives due to one scientists’ radical theory. When the twins were several months of age, they went to a local hospital for a routine and recommended circumcision. Unawares to the parents, the Doctor operating was using electrical equipment to perform the surgery, “I thought they were going to use a knife. I didn’t know there was electricity involved.” (Janet Reimer, Horizon, 2000)

Bruce was operated before Brian. During Bruce’s circumcision the equipment malfunctioned and the operation went disastrously wrong, causing to severely burn Bruce’s penis. As a result, the organ, a physical element which is key to gender identity was rendered unrecoverable. Brian, Bruce’s identical twin, was never operated on. Janet and Ron were hysterical: at a lost as to what to do for their little boy without a penis. At the time of the incident reconstructive genital surgery was still undeveloped and not advanced enough, leaving the Reimer’s and medical experts alike pessimistic for the little boy.

Dr. John Money

A few months later, highly renowned sexologist, Dr. John Money, was featured on a television programme, which instantly caught Janet and Ron’s attention. Money spoke confidently and intelligible about his theories regarding gender formation.  In the debate of sex change operations, Money brought on a female transsexual, who looked convincingly female and feminine. This successful example was enough to convince Janet that this could be an option for her son Bruce and saw Money’s theories as a lifeline, “The transsexual certainly made an impact.” (Janet Reimer, Horizon, 2000)

Janet wrote to Dr. Money immediately and he replied promptly. He invited them to visit him in Baltimore, Maryland and assured the Reimer’s that they could raise Bruce as a little girl. The fraught nature-versus-nurture debate, was once and fall, to be settled: to prove that gender was so fluid that by a mere change in childrearing and upbringing and some surgical interventions, a boy could be turned into a girl, whilst his twin brother developed as a male. The Reimer’s regarded Dr. Money as their salvation in reality the Reimer twins were merely the perfect guinea pigs for him to exploit his theories. They were the answer to each other’s prayers.

Dr. Money developed a fundamental new theory about nature v nurture and how these forces impact the way we recognize ourselves as either a girl or a boy.  Dr. Money suggested that all humans are neutral for the first two years of life, regardless of their genes and physical traits. This theory was based on his case studies of intersex individuals, who are physically both male and female. During this critical two-year period, a ‘gender gate’ as Dr. Money described is opened, if parents choose the sex of the child during this time, the way they bring up the child would determine the child’s gender, not it’s biological or physical characteristics. He offered the view that if a child underwent surgery and started socialization as a gender different from the one assigned at birth they could develop normally and adapt perfectly. Dr. Money believed it is a child’s nurture its upbringing that would determine whether they feel masculine or feminine, not necessarily nature.

However, up until this point he had never applied this controversial theory to a non-intersex child. Intersex children are not necessarily the same as regular children as they receive different amounts of hormones in the womb. As a result, some argued that Dr. Money’s hypothesis that gender was purely the outcome of nurture would not be applicable for all children. But with the unexpected arrival of the Reimer twins, Dr. Money was faced with most perfect opportunity to exercise and practice his theory. The fact he could track the development of both boys, one being still raised, as a male, the other female, would evidence that his theories on gender formation a renowned success. It would also bring hope to those who aren’t born intersex, but through whatever circumstances their sex becomes different, just like Bruce Reimer.

Bruce Reimer started to become Brenda on July 3, 1967. Bruce was surgically castrated at John Hopkins medical hospital. This meant he would no longer produce the male hormone testosterone while the remaining skin was used to form a rudimentary vulva. “I thought if it was a matter of nurture, I could nurture my child into being feminine” (Janet Reimer, Horizon, 2000) Dr. Money gave the Reimer parents very strict instruction that in order for the sex reassignment to be a success they must never tell Brenda that she was ever a boy. The Reimer’s obliged and raised Bruce as Brenda, a little girl and kept the truth hidden throughout his childhood.

Janet dressed Bruce, now Brenda, in the most feminine dresses and encouraged her to follow what are often considered feminine pursuits such as baking, playing with dolls, wearing make-up and cleaning. Janet would write to Dr. Money of Brenda’s progress and the whole family would go and visit him once a year. At first Brenda’s transition from little boy to little girl seemed to be moving in the right direction as some early interviews reveal.  Dr. Money would speak with both Brenda and twin brother Brian to track the progress of their gender development and understanding of being male and female. The following is taken from a BBC documentary, which is based on a transcript of interviews between the twins and scientist:

Dr. Money: “Tell me which one of you is the boss?”

Brenda: “Brian’s the boss because he’s a boy”

Dr. Money: “Brian are you the boss?”

Brian: “I don’t know.”

Dr. Money: “If boys start to fight do you fight back? Or do you run away?”

Brian: “I fight back.”

Dr. Money: “I guess Brenda fights back too sometimes. Do you Brenda?”

Brenda: “No because I’m a girl.”

Dr. Money: “You’re a girl?”

Brenda: “I’m not a boy.  Girls don’t fight back, do they?”

Brian: “Girls can’t hit very hard but boys can.”

This early example, convinced Dr. Money his theory was working and by 1972 he announced to the world how successful his theory was. Dr. Money began publishing the case, disguising the twins’ identities by referring to them as Joan and John in his books. The story and theory became a sensation. It also provided the precise proof many feminists were craving. It was evidence that there was no biological reason that boys were more superior to girls, prompting people to believe in equality for women in terms of pay and gender roles. It meant that women were no different to men.

The case proved that nurture not nature could determine whether we feel masculine or feminine. It showed that a little boy, due to a change in upbringing and nurture, could become and recognize himself as a girl seemingly. He claims how the twins acted distinctively different and were each interested in things, which fit their more adult gender roles. In spite of increasing evidence that hormones both in the womb and throughout life play a crucial part in an individual’s perception of himself or herself as masculine or feminine, the Reimer case became a landmark study for the nature v nurture debate. It seemed nurture truly was the definitive factor and more important than nature in relation to gender identity.

However, back in Canada, unaware of Dr. Money’s publications Brenda’s sex change being a ‘success’, the theory began to show signs of drastic failure for the Reimer family. Janet as well as others began to notice how masculine Brenda behaved, despite her lacking a penis. She hated wearing feminine dresses; “She was ripping at it, trying to tear it off. I remember thinking, ‘Oh, my God, she knows she’s a boy and she doesn’t want girls’ clothing.” Brenda enjoyed playing with her brother’s toys and preferred to follow more masculine pursuits such as running, sports and fighting. Brenda became very lonely, had no friends and didn’t understand why she felt the way she did. Even at this early stage it was clear that the transition was not as effective as Dr. Money had hoped and claimed.

John Money had concealed and misrepresented many facts, refusing to acknowledge the evidence that everything had gone wrong from the start. In 1970, even before Dr. Money publicized the case a success, in transcripts it’s clear even than that he was aware that there were problems. In an attempt to convince Brenda that she was a girl and not a boy, Dr. Money took drastic and arguably horrific measures to do so. To defend his theory as accurate and successful, that a boy can be raised and become female through nurture, he had to assure that Brenda recognized herself as a girl and not as a boy. Brenda had to understand clearly the differences between a woman and a man in order to adapt comfortably in life and her gender.

Dr. Money did this by making both Brenda and Brian strip naked and compare their genitalia as well as talking about male and female genitalia in explicit detail. He took photographs of both children naked to track and compare their bodies. It was to make it clear to Brenda that she was physically different to her brother who was a boy. He also showed Brenda explicit photographs of woman giving birth and tried to convince her to have a vagina constructed. Supporters of Dr. Money claim that he did these things in the best possible interests for his patient. However, these experiences were nothing but traumatic and disturbed both children irrevocably, not able or willing to talk publicly about these experiences until adulthood. Brenda began to despise Dr. Money and his theories and even threatened to commit suicide if she had to see him again. She felt traumatized at the prospect she would only be able to get along in life if she were a girl and underwent vaginal surgery:

“Doctor said: “it’s gonna be tough, you’re gonna be picked on, you’re gonna be very alone, you’re not gonna find anybody” And I thought to myself, you know I wasn’t very old at the time, but it dawned on me that these people gotta be pretty shallow if that’s the only thing they think I’ve got going for me; that the only reason why people get married and have children and have a productive life is because of what they have between their legs…If that’s all they think of me, that they justify my worth by what I have between my legs, then I gotta be a complete loser” (Undoing Gender, p.71) (p.301)

Brenda was subjected to hormonal medication with estrogen until puberty despite serious doubts the Reimer parents about the success of this treatment. By early adolescence, Brenda began to develop a male voice, broad shoulders and neck muscles and a marked male attractive look. She knew she felt male and everyone could see she was masculine despite developing small breasts, which she hated.  Throughout school Brenda was bullied and felt uneasy with the gender identity she was told and raised to be the correct one.

Finally by aged 13, Ron Reimer revealed the truth to both Brenda and Brian. Brenda felt relieved whilst Brian felt angry at the prospect of no longer being the only boy in the family. Meanwhile, Brenda was glad to realise that she was never, ‘insane’ but simply the wrong gender. Soon after the news, Brenda became David and began living as a boy whilst taking hormonal treatment.  David received compensation money for the circumcision and used this to pay for surgery to have a new penis constructed. At last David felt comfortable in his own skin and gender.

David on his wedding day

In his early twenties David got married and became a stepfather. He also publicized his story and reached some financial stability and peace with life. However, his relationship with his twin brother declined as well as Brian’s mental health, which deteriorated so badly it developed into schizophrenia. Brian eventually took a drug overdoes which was argued to have been a suicide attempt. With the loss of his twin brother and his marriage on the rocks as well as a loss of a job and a huge financial investment David became extremely depressed.  However, when his wife asked for a separation, David had taken more than he could bear. David Reimer committed suicide on May 4, 2004, at the age of 38 years.

David Reimer’s story forces me to question whether biology really is destiny.

You can watch the full documentary here:

‘What’s happening to me?’

Within 40 seconds of “What’s happening to me?” the sex education video illustrates the very sexual development stages all human species encounter as outlined by Desmond Morris within his documentary “The Human Animal: Biology of Love”. The video was given to me by a friend, a science teacher and this video is used for sex education at the school at which he works.

We are born as babies, as either male or female, we are secure and protected. We grow to be children, where we separate ourselves into the sex categories almost unconsciously. Whilst we occasionally cross over to the other sex group, most of the time we are hostile, favoring our own sex as company. When we become teenagers these feelings of hostility toward the opposite sex are replaced by a mutual curiosity for them, as we reach and experience puberty. As a result, prime evil biological tendencies begin to kick in. We all seek a partner to fulfill the embedded desire to mate and pro-create, thus the species and our genetic material continue. Our bodies experiences vast changes, naturally developing a body, which accentuates your biological sex and functions as either a male or female.

The reason I’m referring to this video is to further my knowledge and focus merely on the biological and scientific traits of human males and females. Is heterosexuality really biological and considered ‘natural’? Is everything really based on hormones and genetics? And if true, where does this leave all those whose identities, genders and sexualities do not fit within these supposed ‘natural’ and ‘biological’ states. Why does the sex video only illustrate heterosexual desire when there exists so much more? We already know that sex as an activity is pleasurable and not just the means for pro-creation so why not highlight all those other sexualities out there? How about sex education for those who are transgender, whose sex, gender and sexuality blur? Would this reach out to those who feel as if they are experiencing the ‘wrong’ puberty?

First let’s back track. I will use this video as evidence to prove that such educational videos live up to and illustrate what both biology and culture consider ‘normal’. I mean think about it, did you ever have a sex education video on a bisexual male to female transsexual? Of course, young humans’ learning about heterosexuality and reproduction is necessary as being cisgender and straight are common and necessary for our species to continue. However, is it common because it’s biological: heterosexuality, gender and sex? Or is it because of such videos portraying relationships and sexuality in such ways? I think, maybe it’s both.

So, let’s begin. What is puberty? What is sex?  The video begins with a boy and a girl playing. Both are illustrated as having stereotypical male and female identities: the boy is dressed in blue clothing and has short hair whilst the girl is seen in pink clothing and has long hair. These simple visual techniques tap into our unconscious understanding of what it is to be a boy and what it is to be a girl. Do such colours and hairstyles come ‘naturally’ to both sexes? Or is it the result of conditioning and culture, perhaps even mimicking what we see? Either way, this simple illustration of male and female accentuates just how much as a culture and society we categorize and stereotype sex and gender.

We then see the boy and girl act out certain behaviours, gestures and activities, illustrating what are considered ‘normal’ masculine and feminine identities and roles. For example, the girl is seen dressing up and applying lipstick. Lipstick application is a cultural custom used by women to accentuate the lips, thus to make themselves more attractive and mimic the natural effects of sexual arousal aesthetically. Darkened fuller lips indicate sexual arousal, which attracts a mate. Of course, for a young girl playing with make-up is a form of mimicry of perhaps what she’s seen her mother perform. Nonetheless, whether consciously or unconsciously the young girl knows that this behaviour is ‘correct’ and acceptable for her sex. Desmond Morris, would argue that this a biological tendency being expressed whereas Judith Butler, for example, would argue that this is an act which is ‘unnatural’ but gives the illusion of being ‘natural’ as its stylized and repeated over time, thrust upon her by rearing, culture and society making her believe its come naturally to her.  Being cis-gender and feminine is expected, as she is biologically female. Meanwhile, we see the boy play with a suit tie and dress in an oversized suit, presumably his fathers, which denotes the stereotypical gender role for males: breadwinner, worker and protector.  In this short section, it becomes quite clear that biology and culture have very clear ideas of the roles and destiny’s of male and female identities and genders.

The body goes through some spectacular changes from childhood to adulthood, including mental and physical changes, which the entire human species experiences. These changes are apart of puberty. But why do these changes take place? The answer is simple: in order to reproduce, ensuring the human species continues. This is our biological function as humans, as expressed by Morris in ‘The Biology of Love’.  The desire and need to reproduce is shared across all living species. Of course, you must become an adult to have children in order to rear your offspring sufficiently, preferably within a loving pair bond. And so the process of growing up is spread over the years, the years of puberty. This may begin at the ages of 8 or 9 years up until your 12 or 13. The ages vary as we all grow at different speeds and therefore, at different times, which is not to be an issue for concern.

The process of puberty is illustrated through a pinball game, the characters the male and female act as the pinball moving around the stages of the game. Ladies first. Between the ages stated above, typically 11-12, the female will begin to develop breasts and nipples as well as pubic hair and widened hips. The body will keep growing and developing in this way throughout her young teenage years. By 15-16 years old a females’ emotional life is as busy as her body. She may become interested in boys. These feelings are natural and expected within society, as outlined in Judith Butler’s theory of the ‘heterosexual matrix’ where gender and sex are seen to cause sexuality, which is that of a heterosexual desire. Between 17-18 years of age, the female is no longer a child, instead a young adult. Whilst her emotional feelings and mind will change, her body is mostly developed and completed. Females usually develop sooner then boys during puberty but of course they soon get there in the end.

Now the males, at 11-12 years of age the human male’s body will begin to develop into a man.  Shoulders, chest and penis are all growing and their voice will deepen.  By 13-14 years of age pubic hair will develop and voice break as well as experiencing some erotic/sexual dreams. By 15-16 years of age, the male may develop spots or acne because the texture of the skin changes as the body grows.  By 17-18 years of age the male may begin the need to shave his face., perhaps once or twice a week. Physically he is now a developed man but of course the human body can still incur some further developmental stages such as increased in height.

We now witness the stage of boy meets girl as expressed in more detail in Morris’s ‘Biology of Love’ documentary here.  All of these changes are biological, caused by changes in hormones, which we make inside our bodies during puberty. Hormones like people come in two sexes: the female hormone is estrogen and the male hormone is testosterone.  Of course there are many more hormones inside the human body but these are the two key hormones to remember, as these are the ones, which cause the main physical changes.  The female will develop breasts. However, they are not just for sexual appeal, they have a biological function to feed offspring. Nature provides milk in the breast, however babies are not always breastfed. I know I wasn’t!  Breasts also cause sexual arousal in the male, which ensures reproduction. Meanwhile the males are dealing with the occurrence of the erection. Erections happen when the penis becomes stiff, typically when thinking sexually about a female. Of course, again the video is only considering heterosexual desire, as this is the necessary desire so humans reproduce.

The males’ testicles are busy producing sperm and the male hormone testosterone.  Put simply in the video: when the sperm and the egg of a female meet, they create a baby. This is fertilization.  When two sperm meet two eggs that create twins, when three sperm meet three eggs, triplets and so on. This fertilization is achieved through sex. The female has a womb, which is where the baby will grow. However, if the eggs are left unused, they move away from the lining and come out from the vagina in the form of blood. During a menstrual period, a woman bleeds from her uterus (womb) via the vagina. This lasts anything from three to seven days. The period can occur from 10-11 years of age onwards. It can cause mood swings and pains. The length of the menstrual cycle varies from woman to woman, but the average is to have periods every 28 days. Women use tampons and sanitary towels to absorb the blood, making life endurable.  Meanwhile, the male’s voice will becomes deeper as his vocal chords grow bigger. His voice may take some time to settle but once it does it’s here to stay. Unfair right? However, both sexes may develop spots and acne, which are caused by oil, which prevents your skin from drying up. During puberty humans produce excessive oil, which need to escape through the pores of the skin. The video then gives some tips as how to prevent spots.

Throughout puberty the desire to have sex will increase, a natural development. Both sexes as a result will masturbate until they have an orgasm, which will release all the sexual pressure. This may feel ‘bad’ but is perfectly normal, the video assures.  An orgasm can also happen unconsciously. A nocturnal emission or ‘wet dream’ is a type of spontaneous orgasm involving either ejaculation during sleep for a male or lubrication of the vagina for a female.

However naïve and slightly humorous the video is gentle in explaining the changes humans encounter during puberty and why these changes necessary. All of which link to the ideas expressed by Desmond Morris, that our biology causes desire which allows for reproduction, our ultimate function in life.

The Human Animal: The Biology of Love

Jolie and Pitt getting up close and personal.

What is love?

When humans have found an appropriate mate its clear that we somehow revert to childish behavior, which is referred to as ‘love’ in common culture. But is it love? What is love? Has it been merely manufactured by humans? Is it just a more romantic way of saying you are sexually attracted to someone? Morris says no and claims that it is so much more than that.  For Morris, ‘Love is a biological mechanism and it has a very specific function’.

The first time we encounter love is as a baby. This is the stage of total security, protection and trust. However, even at this early stage, humans have an urge to be independent and express themselves. The process of growing up is a process of this new urge gradually asserting itself, as the need for maternal protection grows weaker. When the infant becomes a teenager the urge for independence gets the upper hand and we experience our first true separation from our parents. On the horizon is the prospect of gaining new bounds and finding new partners.

It’s common for new couples to go on dates, to eat and drink at various bars and restaurants. These activities are often taken for granted but for Morris it evidences our natural biological tendencies in full view. Like many bird species humans indulge in courtship feeding. We now see a couple on a date in a restaurant, being recorded by a hidden camera. At first both individuals are quite formal in posture. As the night progresses however conversation and drinking ensue, relaxing both involved.

Their intimacy grows as we watch. Sexual signals as mentioned in earlier posts including blushing, smiling, strong eye contact and hair touching can be observed. We witness the first touch their hands meet which leads to a hand kiss. Then come the eating. Both mimic the behavior of infant and child as they each spoon feed one another. This behavior denotes our human need for security and protection. Then they share an intimate kiss. Finally like courting birds a gift is offered as the male buys flowers for the female. The date comes to an end. The date evidences not only pseudo parental feeding but also the reenactment of a prime evil exchange deeply embedded in our species after a million years of hunter-gatherers. Food sharing which in prime evil times was the very bases of human society. It could be argued that ever since humans developed from hunter-gatherers we have becomes ‘unnatural’ as humans. This idea I’ll explore again later.

As the sexual attachment of the couple increases we see them displaying publicly acts known as tie signs. These are forms of bodily contact, which tell other people that an exclusive couple is forming.  So whilst they reinforce the closeness of the couple they also exclude us from that relationship. Such signals include the arm around the shoulder or hand holding, whilst not particularly sexual or intimate it connect the two independent individuals and reinforce to others they are a pair.  Others are more intimate in nature, which evidence a growing trust and intimacy such as kissing and stroking near the face and lower regions.  The head is a highly protective area and so being able to touch such an area is exclusive to only their most trusted partner, the same applies to touching the knees, which is approaching our more intimate area. What separates us from our hairier relatives is our near naked skin, which allows us to explore more areas of our human bodies.

Another attribute, which separates humans from our animal relatives, is the male human penis.  Male mammals and male apes have a bone inside the penis.  The function of this bone is to produce an instant erection the moment a male approaches a female sexually.  The loss of this bone in the human male means that his female partner must sexually arouse him strongly before he can penetrate her. This means that human pre-sexual behavior becomes a lot more sensuous and longer. As a result sex in humans have evolved to be a lot more then pro-creative. Because it’s become more pleasurable and loving less automatic it’s become more complex. And in it’s final stages courtship becomes lengthened and more erotic. This is not a modern sophistication evolution has programmed us for this extended bodily intimacy using it as a mechanism to strengthen the courtship, the ‘pair-bond’ of the male and female for one another and the roles they are about to play: parents.

As with other monkeys and apes our offspring as we all know are nurtured inside the female body. However, unlike other animals human babies are utterly helpless at birth. The human baby has 10-15 years of being completely dependent on its parents, so preferably there must be two parents in order to raise the child sufficiently. A single parent may lack all the resources. So there has to be two and there has to be a biological mechanism to keep the couple together in the interests for the child. This mechanism is a strong pair bond, which in many cultures and societies is encouraged to be reinforced through the commitment of marriage. Whether traditional or modern, depending on the culture, it always carries the same public message: we are an official exclusive couple to the entire world.

The final stage in the biology of love is sexual intercourse. For those who have enjoyed the ‘natural’ process of falling in love it’s the end of the line. The mating act is sensuous and long in our species as the act itself is not just for the means of pro-creation its come with mutual sexual rewards.

The skin becomes super sensitive, one of many of the physical changes that take place during sexual arousal. The female’s lips becomes fuller, darker and sensitive, eyes glisten as a watery sheen films over them, pupils dilate and respiration increases dramatically as the body needs more oxygen for the vigorous activity which is about to take place. Nostrils flare, the heart pumps faster to increase blood supply and the internal arteries release natural body chemicals to create feelings of euphoria. Sweat glands open, creating copious amounts of perspiration, acting as a cooling agent and personal scent, which unconsciously stimulates the partner.  The whole body becomes a lot hotter to the touch specifically around the ear lobes and lips then eventually the entire head. The vagina progressively heats up also during sexual arousal. Females breast enlarge by up to 25% during sexual intercourse whilst the nipples become highly sensitive and increase in height by up to 1cm. The penis becomes swollen, heated and stiffly erect, normally doubling in size. The erection is caused by a rush of blood in up to nearly 60 times the normal level and a simultaneous rush off blood flow out which helps to maintain it.  At high intensities of arousal a sex flush appears on the female body and the mutual enjoyment of the partner is reinforced by orgasm. The male’s orgasm fulfills his biological function, to deliver a pool of ejaculate inside the vagina as close as possible to the cervical aperture.

Human sexual intercourse is intense, far more intense then that of any other species. However, this does not mean that every ‘pair-bond’ is concrete. Partnerships end and individuals find new ones. So what goes wrong? Wandering eyes? Travelling over seas? Temptation? Throughout history there has been adultery. For male humans, the advantages seem logical enough. He may be a good father and husband but he will also gain by scattering his genetic material over a wider range. Through his additional offspring guarantees his genes will live on.  However, the risk is if he gets caught out he will damage his ‘pair-bond’ and disrupt the rearing of his children. Adultery is frowned upon in our society. Of course, it’s not only the males that can commit adultery females can too and in some cultures it’s acceptable. Among the Wada be Nomads in Niger it is accepted if a married female is dissatisfied with her husband she can seek pleasure from somebody else’s. This behaviour is strongly frowned upon in most cultures and society’s, however, for Morris, it’s existence means there must be a biological advantage for an adulteress female as well as an adulteress male.

To understand the advantages of being an adulteress female, Morris returns to the human orgasm. When the male ejaculates a sperm pool is delivered in the cervix, the entrance of the womb. Females generally take longer to reach orgasm, however, they are just as intense. A females muscles contract through the genital region and as they do so, the contractions make the mouth of the uterus dip into the pool of ejaculate. This increases the chances of fertilization. It is thought that if a human female varies the times of her orgasms, she can increase or decrease her chances of getting pregnant by the sperm of her choosing.

For example, if the female were to be unfaithful and her body favored one sperm over the other, such as that of a young healthy lover, the sperm of the older husband will attack them and kill them. Some sperm are egg seekers whilst the others are there to protect the egg from being fertilized by any foreign sperm that may arrive. There are two types of this protective sperm: active, who seek out alien sperm and destroy them and blockers, who create barriers against invaders, allowing only sperm from the same male to pass towards the egg. These other functions to sperm could not have evolved and developed if there hadn’t existed promiscuity in the first place.  However, promiscuity is risky for the human animal and it is far better to be within a ‘pair-bond’. 99% of humans live in a partnership it’s a fundamental condition of the human species.

The Human Animal: The Biology of Love

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are Western cultures most famed and doted celebrity couple.

So how do we meet and gain a lover? What acts do we perform?

Morris now returns to the stages humans undergo in achieving sex and love. The first stage was parading, the eyeing up stage. The next stage is the pick up.  Meeting people by accident is often cultivated in Western culture, such as performing everyday activities, like walking the dog. The individuals involved aren’t actively or consciously seeking a mate, that would be too obvious, instead they are engaged in a common pursuit, which just happens to bring them together. Again unconsciously we are seeking a mate day to day. For example, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt met through co-starring in the Hollywood film, ‘Mr and Mrs Smith’ together. If either had had a different career or dissimilar tastes they would not have become the duo they are famed for being today.

Masia tribesmen participate in jumping competitions to impress the females within the tribe. The higher the jump, the higher his credibility and masculinity.

The Messai communities of East Africa have more formal meetings, which allows them to parade, eye up, display and pick up all at the same time.  The young Messai men jump up and down to demonstrate their strength and vigor in some sort of vertical dance. The much younger girls of the village who are already deeply involved in the process of seeking a mate watch the males with discern.  Males show their interest in a particular female by flicking their hair in their direction.

All around the world people are making connection with others, thus we reach the next stage: the chat up. This is the information exchange stage where we can learn about the persons’ interests and background, thus informing our decision of whether they would be suitable as a long term breeding partner. How individuals perform this information exchange varies across cultures. Morris gives a few examples. In some modern parts of China, the young men and women have a traditional technique for overcoming the greatest problem of the chat up: shyness.  Instead of chatting, they keep apart and sing their conversation from one group to another.  They sing of their bravery or interests, which can be amusing. Again this may seem strange to foreign cultures, but to those involved it’s a perfectly logical way of getting to know a mate.

In Western cultures, dating and meeting people is far more casual, happening in bars and restaurants mainly.

In Western cultures, across bars and pubs the chat up technique such as the clothing is a lot more informal and casual. Talking becomes the key activity. We witness a male approach and begin conversation with two females in a bar in Los Angeles. Other then going by the persons looks, talking and conversation allows those involved to find out key information and discover what the individuals have to offer if it were to go any further. After having received sufficient warmth the male is invited to sit with the females and is ‘rewarded’ with the first bodily contact, as the one of the females gentle strokes his arm in a friendly manner. However, the male’s problem now is that he must eliminate one of the females so he can end up in a twosome. Unfortunately, he fails as both females leave.

This piece evidences how communication is key in meeting a mate and how certain signals can give the impression of it going further. Sometimes the feelings are not reciprocated. In fact meeting a mate is difficult and many have false starts. However, once the person has found a partner we see a new stage developing and the human animal reverts back to the childish behavior performed during infancy. Couples tease, cuddle, play games, giggle, call each other silly names and even talk in high-pitched voices.  This human behavior between couples is usually referred to as ‘falling in love’.  But what is love?

The Human Animal: The Biology of Love

David and Victoria Beckham are the epitome of what are considered beautiful, masculine and feminine in Western cultures. 

Is what is considered ‘attractive’ and ‘sexy’ the same for all humans and cultures? Does gender vary culture to culture? 

Again it’s clear that biological tendencies in finding a mate and an unconscious desire to continue the human species have a deep role in what humans find attractive. Natural and artificially enhanced physical properties all mimic other body parts applicable to that gender. For example, the female lips redden during sexual arousal, mimic the shape of her vagina and can be visually enhanced through the use of lipstick, a cultural custom. It made me realise how almost every visual custom can be proved to have a deep-seated biological core! When it comes to the bases of sexual attraction, we maybe animals but we can be very sophisticated animals it seems. We have a conscious perception of what is beautiful as well as a biological one and use all visual aids and gestures possible to make us attractive. However, one cultures idea of beauty can differ greatly from another.

Morris now evidences how ‘attractive’ and ‘normal’ masculine and feminine identities can vary across cultures and appear odd to foreign eyes. In Western culture a slender figure for a female is most attractive and a moderately muscular frame is preferable for males. With this notion in my mind I sought out all those celebrities and public bodies who are considered ‘attractive’ in our modern culture. And this point appears true. All the females are slender, youthful and healthy looking, the males more muscular and rugged. It seems the whole notion of bigger means better and men as the protector and women as the protected come into play. Thus, influencing our ideas of what is attractive. Males should be big and protective, females slender and vulnerable.

Whereas in Western culture a big, masculine body is considered attractive, among the Mesaa in East Africa an incredibly slim figure is seen as the epitome of masculine beauty. These ‘beautiful’ effeminate bodies appear more graceful and female.

This contrasts strikingly to the much heavier bodies, which spell out beauty in many of the islands in the south pacific where it applies to both males and females. Both males and females if large and bulky are considerably attractive and ‘beautiful’. Again this breaks western ideas of females having to be more slender to be ‘beautiful’. Overall, it’s become quite clear that what is considered beautiful, male and female attractive properties varies across cultures significantly and thus impacts certain beauty standards.

As we look across the globe and into different cultures beauty standards and what it means to be an attractive male or female differ. They visual properties and differences are often too subtle to be appreciated by outsiders but can be of enormous importance within the societies concerned. For instance, among the Toda of southern India female hairiness is especially appealing to men, even to the extent of having heavy female eyebrows.  Although, beauty standards do vary around the world there are a few universals that apply to the whole human species.

Morris begins to destruct the human body of males and females to show that biological properties are shared across the species, regardless of culture. The outline of the male human body for instance is a triangular shape, broad shoulders and a narrow waist to give the impression of strength and power, which is attractive to females. A strong compact buttock is also desired in a male, perhaps because it signifies it’s thrusting power for mating. In fact male muscularity in general is appealing. It denotes health, vigor and strength. For females this shows that the males will protect her and her potential offspring as well as being sexually active. However, there is a very fine line between having muscles and being muscle bound. An over cultivated physic can denote vanity which isn’t attractive for females. By contrast a chubby body lacks the key signals, such as health and vigor.

Youthfulness is another signal, which has universal sex appeal. Sex drive and fertility are at their highest levels among young adults. The male sex drive peaks at 18 years old and for female fertility its 22 years old. When a survey for sexual appeal was made in 190 different societies across the world, it was discovered that the most important feature common to all cultures was a healthy and clear unblemished skin.

The Human Animal: The Biology of Love

In Western cultures, females use make-up to accentuate their features. This cultural custom dates back to Egyptian times.

How do humans make themselves ‘sexy’ and attractive?

We now know that both males and females find health and vigor sexually attractive in a mate. From a biological stance, sexual arousal impacts certain physical properties of the human animal, more specifically in females such as dilated pupils, reddened lips and glowing skin. But how do we give such impressions in everyday life? Morris now goes onto describe human sexual signals, which allow humans to give the impression that they are ‘sexy’.

When we people meet there are many ways they can transmit sexual signals such as a smile or for longhaired individuals playing with their hair. These acts are flirtatious and give the impression of, “Look, I’m making myself more attractive for you”.  Then there’s a more natural signal, made possible by our naked skin: the blush. This blushing of the visible skin, as a social signal is superficially similar to the flushing that occurs during sexual intercourse. The blush usually starts in the centre of the cheek then spreads to the neck and upper torso. This change of skin colour to the male onlooker is attractive. The pinkness eludes the impression of youth and health, a sexual glow, as well as having a virginal and innocent quality, which appeals to him.

But how do humans maintain such physical properties if the triggers are upcoming from biological factors? Quite simple…make up. The use of blusher in modern make up is supposedly used to highlight cheekbones yet mimics the start of a natural blush, which is inevitably apart of it’s appeal. Mascara and eye shadows can make the human eye pop, which makes eye contact all the more irresistible. Again I feel it important to mention Morris is coming from a biological and heterosexual perspective. And so these sexual signals are exclusively female, in order to attract a male. Of course, in reality males can adopt such acts of mimicry too to make him feel more attractive. But for now let’s just consider the biological and heterosexual desire of the human species.

Another sexual signal exclusive to females are the rounded female breasts, which are unique to our species. Apes are completely flat chested when their not giving milk to their young. However, the human female retains her swollen breasts throughout her adult life. Whilst breasts have a function, their shape is purely sexual. The roundedness of breasts seems to have evolved as a mimic to the roundedness of the buttocks. Most female primates sexual signals occur in the lower regions. However, as humans became upright it was necessary to have a frontal display as well. Morris then compares a close up of a females’ breasts to a females’ buttocks and the resemblance is uncanny. In fact such sexual signals are evident in most of the female body, such as the roundedness of the shoulders and of the knees. This roundedness and softness of these body parts provide visual echoes of the prime evil buttock display.

Female lips provide visual echoes too, another form of self-mimicry; in both shape and colour lips resemble that of the external genitals. When the labia reddens during sexual arousal the lips also become swollen and redder.  This change can be artificially heightened through the application of lipstick, a cultural exaggeration, which has been employed by women since the days of ancient Egypt. This idea of attractiveness and sexual arousal being directly contingent with swollen reddened lips got me thinking. It made me realise how so many females who are considered ‘beautiful’ and ‘sexual’ in modern culture possess such qualities: big red lips. It appears that our perspectives of what is beautiful and what is not are merely shaped by our biological tendencies for sexual intercourse and reproduction. Bigger means better, right?

The Human Animal: The Biology of Love

These fashion models reinforce what is a ‘normal’ and ‘attractive’ masculine and feminine identity. The male is strong, large and rugged whilst the female is soft and sexually aroused.

What is sexy?

Morris offers scientific explanations and theories behind the typical elements males and females find attractive in a mate, referring only to heterosexual desire towards the opposite sex of course. Coming from a biological and scientific perspective of course male and female are meant to be together in order to reproduce and create offspring, thus the species continues. Throughout the animal kingdom males are attracted to females who transmit signals of health and fertility, which are directly linked to child bearing and child rearing. The same applies to human males. Whilst at first glance, having a child is probably the last thing on the male’s mind it still influences his feelings towards a female. The same applies to human females. In females their ancient impulses encourage them to seek out signs of masculine power and strength, indications of protectiveness. Whilst health and vigor are important displays for both sexes many human sexual signals are specific to one gender or the other.

Here Morris demonstrates the stereotypical elements of feminine and masculine identities and bodies. However, coming from a biological background and perspective, can I even say they are stereotypical or are these really just simple scientific facts taken from observation and biological factors? To look at males and females there are clearly physical differences in shape, posture, and behaviour and of course genitalia. Females have rounded petite figures, curves and narrow waists. Their smooth skin and high pitch voices denote juvenile qualities making males feel protective of them.  Males have broad shoulders, thick necks, facial and bodily hair, deep voices and muscular bodies, which offers a strong visual contrast that says, “I’m the protector”.

Females dressed in suits can give the impression of power and strength, which has become a culturally accepted ‘norm’ in Western cultures.

Such gender signals are accentuated through clothing such as shoulder pads or padding in suit jackets, rugby costumes and army wear, all of which, exaggerate that male image of protector, as well as heighten their masculine identity which will inevitably attract the opposing and more softer sex. However, females may also want to express more overtly these masculine attributes of power and strength. For example, a businesswoman may choose to wear a suit jacket with padded soldiers or mimic that broad torso look normally considered as a more masculine feature so she too can denote an image of strength and power.

This example evidences quite clearly that masculine attributes and properties are seen to have positive connotations and effects in Western society. When a female dresses in trousers or has evident padded shoulders she’s viewed and expects to be viewed as powerful. However, if a male were to dress in a glamorous evening gown, the connotations would be far from positive. This is due to our unconscious automatically viewing females as softer and weaker and men as strong and powerful. And so a man dressed as a woman, would suggest he’s a bit of a sissy or feminine. I wonder could a male in a dress ever become as ‘normal’ as a female in trousers?

In the next part we see two males editing an image of a female model in order to make her more attractive. Manipulating and accentuating what it is that makes a female sexy and attractive. The changes they make to the image all link to the effects sexual arousal has on the physical properties of a female. They edit the eyes first, dilating the pupils, changing the colour of the iris’s to green and whitening the whites of the eyes. This is so the pupil dilation and eyes overall appear more striking. Dilated pupils are a natural outcome of sexual arousal, thus making the female model look all the more appealing. Next they remove any wrinkles or creases from the mouth and skin. Again this is to evoke an image of youth and health, both of which are connected to fertility and sexuality. They than artificially enhance the colour of the lips and skin. For the lips they choose a reddish colour. This imitates the change of colour that occurs during sexual arousal. For the skin, the tone becomes richer more tanned again linking to ideas of health and sexual glow.

In the next image they edit a female model’s legs, lengthening them by 20%. Exaggerated leg length is an important sexual signal especially in females. This is because the legs grow longer in relation to the rest of the body as puberty approaches. So super long legs means super adultness and super sexuality. However, we don’t live in the land of photo editing so how do humans make themselves attractive for the opposite sex?

The Human Animal: The Biology of Love

You best be going through heat!

Why do humans mate so differently to our closest relatives the chimpanzee?

In the 1970’s Morris began investigating intimate human behaviour, the notion of ‘love’ to find an answer to this question. For many analyzing love from a scientific and critical perspective would ruin the magic of it. However, for Morris he feels the more we understand love the more fascinating the subject becomes.  But where does love begin? How does boy meet girl? Morris takes us through the sexual development of humans. When children begin school and are no longer toddlers a major split occurs between the sexes. Children are categorized and classify themselves to fit within the two sexed categories of being either male or female.  Commonly child females group together and child males group together, creating a clear distinction and understanding of there being two sexes. Whilst each group may pass over and move between they are often hostile to one another.

This hostility and teasing is important for sexual development. In this pre-sexual phase it is important for males and females to become strangers to one another. I feel this hostility and distance are important because can children develop a clearer understanding of there being two sexes and an ability to align themselves and others to one side or the other side of the gender binary. This understanding thus influences/causes heterosexual desire as assumed and expected by culture and society so the species continues. And so children must feel separate from one another so that by the time puberty arrives they can forge an entirely new kind of relationship, one of desire for the opposite sex. There is still a sense of unfamiliarity, which has not dulled the excitement of discovery. The male and female groups lose that sense of hostility and replace it with curiosity, thus a sense of sexuality is formed.  Of course, not all children’s gender will align with their sex and not all teenagers will be heterosexual but coming from a scientific view, this would be outside the ‘norms’.

Morris now goes onto describe the stages in which relationships and eventual sex are achieved. Parading is the first stage. All over the world young adults can be observed gathering together in large informal groups in bars, parks, festivals and so on, all in order to make themselves seen by the opposite sex. Parading leads to a more direct display of interest such as eye contact. During this phase prime evil sexual influences are at work below the bodies surface. Research in certain nightclubs has suggested that the closer a female is to ovulating the sexier and more revealing her costume will be. The display of naked flesh, unknowing to them, is dictated by their physiology. For males, this visual stage of sourcing a mate is enjoyable and relished. Morris evidences this by showing young males riding scooters in Rome, chasing after the females they find attractive. In a glimpse of an eye the males have gathered all the visual information before them to decide if the female is attractive or not. But what is sexy to the human animal?