How do I get away with this?


More than once a novice or correspondent has asked the question; "How many subs do you have?" The implication of this question is deeper than her actual words. Her real question is, "Why do You have or need more than one servant or mate?" Or specifically, "Why am i not enough for you?" I believe this question reflects the reaction of emotions trained to accept culturally imposed values and has little to do with the real nature of human socialization or sexual bonding.

We frequently hear our so-called moral leaders speak of the "Traditional" family, but what does that phrase mean? A Father, a Mother, Siblings, Grandparents, Uncles, Aunts, and Cousins . . . do many of us actually have such FAMILIES? The answer to that question must be a resounding NO! In fact, the "Ozzie and Harriet" ideal of an exclusive, monogamous bond between one man and one woman is a relatively recent concept. In fact the so called, "Traditional Family" has only existed for the past few hundred years, even as an IDEA and it's certainly not a cultural practice that is embraced throughout the world, even in modern times.

Dr. Helen Fisher, a renowned anthropologist with the American Museum of Natural History wrote, "Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray" (Fawcett, 1995). Dr. Fisher's book is thoroughly researched and gives a clear view of how humans evolved in both body and brain with regards to sex and love. She includes an explanation of the evolution of the primitive brain and the effects of brain chemistry.

The notion of a "biological imperative" for long term pair bonding is simply a myth. The relatively new science of genetic testing proves more than 98% of all animal species do not maintain exclusivity and this behavior includes all our close cousins in the primate family, Bonobos, Chimpanzees and Gorillas. The instinct of both male and female to diversify when mating is the best strategy for assuring the survival of most species and the benefit of multiple mates is obvious from the genetic standpoint. Many anthropological studies have revealed that 86% of recognized human cultures sanction or include some form of marriage to more than one partner or social acceptance of intimate relationships between unmarried adults.

Our Moral authorities tell each of us from an early age that Love is the best reason to form a relationship and that the finest kind of love is mutually exclusive, romantic love. But then we watch TV and observe the actual behavior of family and friends and we quickly learn that there are other reasons people form alliances or take mates. Even small children can see that adults bargain or compete for each others affection and attention. The impression that it is morally and ethically OK to evaluate and rank love and compassion for another person based upon color, or ethnicity or body type and other cultural factors is repeated over and over and children learn that we also respect power and wealth as reasons to bond in this culture.

Sadly, this hypocrisy has profound and wide-ranging negative effects within western culture. The past few decades have seen America's social mores shift from strict monogamy to a serial form of monogamy which has resulted in worse consequences to the families of countless Americans. The social imperative to maintain one partner over a lifetime, is unrealistic and untenable for many people. Our cultural mores encourage mates to separate when they are attracted to another person. The acceptable thing is to move on to a new mate then repeat the same emotional suffering few years later. In the process, families are torn apart, children loose contact with their parents and are subject to emotional stress that can cause behavioral disorders.

When you peek in the windows of your neighbors homes, you will see the American FAMILY is in fact a loosely connected and poorly integrated group. Often, there are divorces, illegitimate or non-related children, adopted relatives, miscellaneous friends, and a variety of transient people living there.

If one goes back even a few generations it's clear that families were much different. The FAMILY in nature is an extended peer group with a common set of values and a commitment to a common future. Frequently, there are several generations of several families present in the group, and new bloodlines are regularly introduced through some cultural device such as, warfare, raiding or trade. Males tend to wander and bond with females sporadically when it suits them and generally one dominant Male in the group acts as surrogate "Father" to all the TRIBE.

For a female, the instinct to find and mate with an Alpha Male has deep roots. Obviously a female who bonds with an alpha secures exceptional advantages for her offspring. His protection and favor will convey status to her within her peer group as well. Females of nearly every animal species are far more successful at producing offspring than successfully nurturing them. Nature clearly favors this system of "culling" the weaker offspring in favor of the stronger. Even today, in many tribal cultures women have many children and often mate with many males. The children that survive are rapidly integrated into tribe and they share work and responsibilities with the group. There are rituals and ceremonies connecting them to the current group and to the previous generations, but often, the child's specific bloodline isn't considered especially important. In fact it's clear that the modern concept of CHILDHOOD is a recent cultural "experiment

In simple and general terms, Female humans tend to bond together to assure the common good for themselves and their offspring One can see that particularly in females, there is no so called "Tradition" for a long term commitment to a certain bloodline, as this is of NO genetic value to her. She KNOWS her offspring and nurtures them in the most successful way and even today, in our own culture, you can see the tendency to raise children communally."

In a natural setting, a subordinate male tends to mate rather indiscriminately. His efforts to secure a mate can sometimes even include force and he will often try to isolate her from other males during mating. This behavior assures that his genes are successfully transferred and the resultant offspring is truly HIS. He may remain with her and help her to nurture their offspring but usually the pair will not form a permanent bond and He will seek other mates as soon as children are self sufficient. This strategy is the most successful way to satisfy the reproductive urge and assure genetic diversity within the tribe or social group.

HOWEVER, the tendencies of a genetic Dominant Male are quite different. An Alpha is committed to the overall welfare of the entire group. He is equipped with specific adaptations to allow him to be exceptionally active sexually and usually can and does mate with many females, thus having less need to guard or isolate any specific female. His bonds are emotional and are based upon compatibility and common interests rather than purely sexual needs. It is easy to see how the Dominant Alpha Male began to decide which females mated with which males as culture evolved within the instinctive tribal structure. Access to females is often used to secure alliances and cement bonds with subordinate males. One can still see this behavior in many cultures where permission to wed is an important part of mating. Even in "Western" society, the most liberated women still desires her father's permission and the acceptance of her family for her mate.

Anyone can see that what we actually believe and the way we live bears very little resemblance to the ideals that we supposedly cultivate in western culture. Still, some people rage on as if there were convincing evidence to support the idea that this type of simple FAMILY is indeed the traditional way our ancestors lived or that we are creatures who evolved into this state of being naturally.

I suggest that our actual BEHAVIOR reflects our nature far more accurately than our words. In fact, humans establish relationships based upon only three factors;
Adoration, I.E. love, compassion, respect, honor and desire to please each other.
Benefit, I.E. a bargain with value to both, a shared or mutual gain.
Coercion, I.E. force, threat, fear, to avoid punishment or discomfort.
I call these the ABC's of Bonding and Erotic Power Exchange.

NOW, After saying this, I reiterate that this is INSTINCTIVE, SUBLIMINAL, behavior, not culture driven or in any way representative of modern values or even real need. I know very well that a submissive woman has no actual need for My protection in today's world. I also know that she feels the ancient pleasure that is hard wired into her limbic brain when she bonds with a genuine Alpha. A Modern woman who understands that allowing herself to experience this physical and emotional pleasure isn't an immoral act and that she can fulfill her need to bond with Me and be sure that I find the responsibility of being Alpha or Master to her equally fulfilling and joyous.

I am a genetic Alpha Male, it is My nature to love, guide, protect and cherish My "tribe" or "family." Thus, the intellectual concept of "How many?" has no meaning to Me. I take those who please Me and seem to fit My needs and share My values. I feel respect and responsibility as well as love and desire for her. I don't feel jealousy or need to secure a female from the attentions of subordinate males and in fact I often make efforts to help her find a suitable mate. The submissive female who serves Me usually feels no sense of rivalry or competition for My attentions or affection. In practice she often feels affection and kinship to others who serve Me and a significant part of her pleasure and fulfillment may originate from the instinctive comfort of belonging to Me and being a member of My "Family."

KINGLIZARD Copyright 2000