Appeared in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November 1975, pp. 10-20

Abridged, annotated and introduced by J. Hide, January 2001

Annotated and provided with a postscript by Tani Jantsang, January 2001

Introduction by J. Hide

The message of the below abridged version of a 1975 scientific article by US researcher James Prescott is even more topical now than it was at the time, because the US and similarly anti-affectionate cultures have taken harsh steps to repress the message and have since become increasingly hostile towards the essential modes of upbringing and treatment that are proposed in this article. AIDS and the typing of most cases of affectionate interaction with minors (-18) as 'child sexual abuse' are two factors that have turned the tide of sexual reform, while there never was such a concept as 'affection reform'.

Many people will suppose that Western society has experienced a sexual revolution and we are now liberated. Commercial porn (the sorry substitute for the real thing) is distributed more freely, yes; dildos come in more colors, yes; and the decline of literal Christianity has affected the popularity of the term 'sin', yes (sin is now known as shame); but these shifts have nothing to do with what WE mean by sexual and affectionate FREEDOM. Freedom is demonstrably not unbounded promiscuity, as fundies like to boo us with, but is instead freedom from the machinations that enslave us to our morbid love-hate fascination with sexuality and intimacy. Freedom means: respect for the natural, intuitive handling of sexuality and affection, which implies openness about relations (ever seen a monkey hide behind a tree when expressing affection?), physical intimacy for prepubescent children, sexual activity for adolescents (as opposed to absurd ages of consent stifling pubescent development), sexual pluralism, and the eradication of shame and obsession. Freedom means peace. Freedom has nothing to do with there being more abortions, more divorces, the cultivation of monstrosities, and more legal lanes for having quick, secretive sex. The average Westerner is still obsessed with sex and still wallows in the troubled implications of the anti-affectionate norm.

(A word about literal Christianity: it is marginal in Dutch society. The Dutch are secular Christians. It is unimaginable that a Dutch politician could become more popular, let alone be elected prime minister, by proclaiming that Jesus saved him. America is a different culture. Today's paper reports that a high school in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma expelled a girl of fifteen because the board believed she was a witch and had made a teacher sick. She had drawn a pentagram on her hand and had read books on wicca in the school library, while a PE teacher fell ill.)

Still wondering how we should counter uncalled-for violence? By building more jails? A real solution is quite simple but unwanted, and sabotaged by Western governments at the cost of all that is good and beautiful. Why is this impairment continued; why have the anti-human norms not been eliminated but, instead, secularized? There is evidence for a hard-wired cultural addiction to our repression of (sexual and non-sexual) affection and our glorification of uncalled-for aggression. For some food for thought, see

Akathartic and Ophionic States of Being - Alexithymia and Anosognosia ( by Tani Jantsang and The Tree of Destruction: A Synthetic Analysis of Human Societal Problems Since the Agrarian ( Age by the same author.

In 1980, James Prescott was sacked from his federal position as Health Scientist Administrator. He has become sharply critical of the US government, which has failed to listen to his findings despite loud claims to be concerned with countering the abuse of minors and rampant violence. Prescott is an adversary of traditionally religious morals, and that is why he is ignored. Professor of medical psychology John Money noted in a Playboy interview (July 1990) that "the only way a researcher can get Government funding is to be against sex." Prescott's pioneer work was dumped in favor of the mock 'protection of children (-18)' and the fallacious 'combat of sexual abuse', which by now equals the combat of (youth) sexuality worldwide. Among the adverse consequences of this contempt for the truth, Prescott lists (in a letter to the director of the National Institutes of Health, 3 September 1999):

"Continued acceleration of violence against children and their mothers of this nation.

"Retardation of scientific research over the past quarter of a century on the brain-behavioral consequences of failed bonding in the mother-infant/child relationship.

"Destruction of my professional and scientific career with terminal inability to find gainful employment in academic and scientific research institutions or elsewhere."

Thus, this is not dated research that has been refuted, but research that has been ignored (except for initial praise) and failed to be expanded. In Cosmos (1980), Carl Sagan discussed Prescott's research, evidently giving it credit. He wrote: "More work on this provocative thesis is clearly needed." The abridged article is a selection of paragraphs, mostly shortened. Tables, graphs and illustrations have been left out. J. Hide's notes are placed in [square brackets]. Tani's notes are placed in {doubly curved braces}.

A neuropsychologist contends that the greatest threat to world peace comes from those nations which have the most depriving environments for their children and which are most repressive of sexual affection and female sexuality.

{It's not specifically sexual. What's absent is the cuddling by the mother (perhaps a lack of oxytocin, but if so, why?), the affection and hugging and kissing, even breastfeeding. Generations of youth were raised without breastfeeding, without cuddling or hugging.}

[Dr. Prescott happens to hammer on breastfeeding for at least 2.5 years. In his anthropological statistical analyses, he found that 65 percent of cultures that breastfed their infants 2.5 years or longer were peaceful. In a review of Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection by professor Blaffer Hrdy, Prescott notes that "the bonobo chimpanzee is the most peaceful and non-violent primate on the planet while homo-sapiens is the most violent primate on the planet. The bonobo is also the most nurturing of primates, breastfeeding to about 4 years of age and body carrying of the male offspring by the mother on her back to adolescence--but not that long for the daughter. This may well explain the non-violence of bonobo males against offspring, females and toward each other." See Prescott's report Breastfeeding Prevents Depression and Suicide (]

{Neurological articles and even pop mags now emphasize this as a necessity for babies and children. It's not sexual though; it's affectionate. I may have been horny when I was 9, but there were no adults that would have sex with me (trust me, I tried!) - I looked like a child: that's why. When I was 13, however, I looked like I do now, see picture in bathing suit on SReds. I was definitely a grown woman at that age. I even passed for 21. I was also mentally grown, not babyish or like a kid at all. All my friends at that age, other ethnics outside my own culture, were adults. This comes from having responsibilities when even younger, like chores, pitching in, cooking, building things, helping out. E.g., I could hammer nails very well when I was 4. I know grown people who miss and hammer their thumbs. In my culture, any adult that was clumsy, showed a lack of basic motor skills, was considered retarded. It didn't matter how smart the person was regarding book knowledge at all. A 'klutz' was considered a retard. I still feel that way - like the klutz is innately stupid - what, "put the spoon in the cup" and he has to halt, think about it, and ask, "Like this?" Gees, stupid!! No one from my culture was stupid like that, but I see Americans, fully grown, too stupid to open a car door or hammer a nail into wood.}

[And they are so fond of commemorating every detail of the crucifixion!]

People are constantly in search of new forms of pleasure, yet most of our 'pleasure' activities appear to be substitutes for the natural sensory pleasures of touching.

{They also regard even the touching of the arm in boisterous conversation as either fearful, or they think it's a come-on sexually.}

[One such substitute 'pleasure' activity is a fascination with violence; another is the consumption of numbing drugs. It seems that antidepressants have become very popular. Were humans meant to thrive on medication? Drugs are aliens introduced into the body; agents who are told: "You solve the problem FOR me (for my body), I can't do it on my own."]

{The drugs numb the akatharsis and rage. Terrible if you ask me. Even if treated 'well' in a suburban household, the children feel unloved - it is a very deep-rooted feeling, too. It never goes away in them. They often escape by thinking of fantasy, or abstract ideas if they don't get numb from drugs. I can tell who these kids are easily: they are always the ones to overly crave attention. E.g., a 6-year-old kid diving off a board in a pool has to yell, "Mommy, look at me, look at me," as if the kid has no life of his own. By that age he should not be wanting his mom to look at him - and he should realize she has her own adult friends. The kid doesn't experience the glory of the dive - he is focused on 'look at me.' The pleasure of the dive itself off the board into the pool doesn't exist without 'mommy' looking at him. That is a klippoth. Young too. A total klippoth.}

As a developmental neuropsychologist I have devoted a great deal of study to the peculiar relationship between violence and pleasure. I am now convinced that the deprivation of physical sensory pleasure is the principal root cause of violence. Laboratory experiments with animals show that pleasure and violence have a reciprocal relationship, that is,the presence of one inhibits the other. [.] A raging, violent animal will abruptly calm down when electrodes stimulate the pleasure centers of its brain. [.] Among human beings, a pleasure-prone personality rarely displays violence or aggressive behaviors, and a violent personality has little ability to tolerate, experience, or enjoy sensuously pleasing activities.

{A neurotoxicologist I know would know exactly what chemicals are produced. E.g., laughter produces an immune response chemically. But yet through common sense, people know that laughing, happy adults get sick less often and heal quicker. Common observation has taught some of us this. It is dogmas such as Christianity that have wiped out all common sense. Again, you don't need a brain surgeon to tell you this. My parents would have been able to say it. It's folk knowledge and it's correct.}

The hypothesis that deprivation of physical pleasure results in physical violence requires a formal systematic evaluation. [.] Cultural anthropologists have gathered exactly the data required to examine this hypothesis for human societies -- and their findings are conveniently arranged in R. B. Textor's A Cross-Cultural Summary (New Haven, Conn.: Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) Press, 1967). Textor's book is basically a research tool for cross-cultural statistical inquiry. The survey provides some 20,000 statistically significant correlations from 400 culture samples of primitive societies. [.] The results clearly indicated that those societies which give their infants the greatest amount of physical affection were characterized by low theft, low infant physical pain, low religious activity, and negligible or absent killing, mutilating, or torturing of the enemy.

{This is also in The Male Disease ( Don't be fooled by the title. It's about two types of society, one with a war ethic and one without.}

The results [.] indicate that societies which inflict pain and discomfort upon their infants tend to neglect them as well.

{They are unwanted children. Of course, a child born to a woman who has had no pleasure, in our folklore and in the doctrines, is a born klippoth. There is no proof, but it was obviously an observation easily made. It may not have been correct.}

Adult physical violence was accurately predicted in 36 of 49 cultures (73 percent) from the infant physical affection variable. The probability that a 73 percent rate of accuracy could occur by chance is only four times out of a thousand.

Of the 49 societies studied, 13 cultures seemed to be exceptions to the theory that a lack of somatosensory pleasure makes people physically violent. [.] Consequently, it is meaningful to examine the sexual behaviors of the 13 cultures whose adult violence was not predictable from physical pleasure during infancy.

When the six societies characterized by both high infant affection and high violence are compared in terms of their premarital sexual behavior, it is surprising to find that five of them exhibit premarital sexual repression, where virginity is a high value of these cultures. It appears that the beneficial effects of infant physical affection can be negated by the repression of physical pleasure (premarital sex) later in life.

[When is 'later in life'? At any rate, this is the pubescent stage: when nature indicates that bodies are fertile and ready for mating. This has great implications for states and nations that worship a high age of consent, ranking any and all sexual activity below that arbitrary age, regardless of the context, as 'statutory rape' and punishing it as real rape would be punished.]

{Those nations are malicious. Filled with klippothic malice-filled people. The females in puberty learn to distrust males who are 'out to take from them like thieves' and the males learn to disrespect women and develop a dualistic mindset: whore or virgin. The conflict arises when the male realizes that mother had babies. This is 'macho' culture garbage. The males are hostile toward their own penises then, they desire women but after having sex regard the woman as ruined. That's sick. How did the woman get ruined? He stuck his penis in her? That's a sick idea. But it is brainwashed into the teens of these 'macho' cultures. Such men harbor hate/fear of the actual desire itself, the desire that a woman's presence causes. It is as if women have a kind of power. They fear letting go and submitting to that desire and learn to hate the desire to 'possess the woman - who might reject them' (fear again). It is logical for such males to band together and make laws that prevent women from rejecting them! Another way is to ensure that women have nothing to compare them to: cult of virginity is born. If the only shoes you ever wore were shit, and you never tried on any other shoes, you learn to live with shitty shoes. That's how it works.}

The seven societies characterized by both low infant physical affection and low adult physical violence were all found to be characterized by permissive premarital sexual behaviors. Thus, the detrimental effects of infant physical affectional deprivation seem to be compensated for later in life by sexual body pleasure experiences during adolescence.

[Obviously, 'as well as' is better than 'either, or'; see further down for statistical corroboration.]

{I find it almost amusing that studies have to be done on this when it's all so damned obvious to me. I could have predicted it for them! No studies at all. It's common sense! Another exception to the rule is American blacks. High affection and early sexual experiences. But they are an internal colony of people living here, encircled by white people whom they hate! Their gang culture is beyond anything anyone can imagine. The first 7 or 8 years are crucial for the development of logic - somatic markers must guide the logic, and the instinct has to have guided the somatic markers early on. This is developmental neurology.}

In short, violence may stem from deprivation of somatosensory pleasure either in infancy or in adolescence. The only true exception in this culture sample is the headhunting Jivaro tribe of South America. [.] The Jivaro belief system may play an important role, for as anthropologist Michael Harner notes in Jivaro Souls, these Indians have a "deep-seated belief that killing leads to the acquisition of souls which provide a supernatural power conferring immunity from death."

{Question this:  why would human beings come to believe something as absurd as this?  The belief itself is crazy.}

The percent likelihood of a society being physically violent if it is physically affectionate toward its infants and tolerant of premarital sexual behavior is 2 percent (48/49). The probability of this relationship occurring by chance is 125,000 to one.

[A]dditional clusters of relationships link the punishment and repression of premarital sex to large community size, high social complexity and class stratification, small extended families, purchase of wives, practice of slavery, and a high god present in human morality.

{Agrarian societies.}

[The three highest correlative percentages are: social complexity is high (87%), sex disability is high (83%) and high god in human morality (81%). Also interesting: community size is larger (73%). This supports my theory that large societies are breeding grounds for corruption and repression, due to impersonal politics and the development of elaborate bureaucracy. Federal elections in the US, for instance, have nothing to do with democracy. They are bought and won by corporations, not people.]

The relationship between small extended families and punitive premarital sex attitudes deserves emphasis, for it suggests that the nuclear Western cultures [where parents-child(ren)-type families are regarded as discrete groups] may be a contributing factor to our repressive attitudes toward sexual expression. The same can be suggested for community size, social complexity, and class stratification.

Not surprisingly, when high self-needs are combined with the deprivation of physical affection, the result is self-interest and high rates of narcissism. Likewise, exhibitionistic dancing and pornography may be interpreted as a substitute for normal sexual expression. Some nations which are most repressive of female sexuality have rich pornographic art forms.

[Consider also that a lot of art is melancholy in nature: a creative sublimation of substantial depression.]

Societies which value monogamy emphasize military glory and worship aggressive gods.

{You can always know what a society is like by looking at the gods they invent.}

According to FBI statistics, both murder and aggravated assault increased 53 percent between 1967 and 1972, while forcible rape rose 70 percent.

[The following are my calculations. FBI statistics indicate an approximate 90 percent increase of forcible rape (not including non-forcible statutory rape) between 1972 and 1999. Murder and nonnegligent (willful) manslaughter decreased by approximately 17 percent between these years, and aggravated assault (nonlethal attacks that could have resulted in murder) increased by approximately 133 percent between the same years.]

{These stats do not take into consideration that 12 percent of the American society (blacks) commit 90 percent (more or less) of this kind of very violent crime!  Keep in mind that out of all blacks, it is still a small minority of them that behave this way.  And these blacks have high touchy-feely affection with mothers and early sexual relations. Their culture is almost matriarchal with mothers and grandmothers at home, and roving criminal bands of males (in inner cities). Again, they are an internal colony, strictly speaking. But it's their behavior plus the other factors that throw these studies off. They possibly are ill-equipped, as tropically evolved people, to deal with the complexities of modern society. Meanwhile - this data is thrown off by blacks in England, Germany, France and pure Africans in Scandinavians countries now. They are nothing like the American blacks. So what is the one thing that is different about American blacks? They are mixed with Irish. Irish are people with highest rates of inherited schizophrenia, gene for alcoholism (which also makes them crave the alcohol) and they are 'full of fight' with eeny weeny peenies (the Irish curse, some call it). Irish women have no idea what an orgasm is. That's not just common street knowledge; it was also shown by a sexologist who compared Irish to Polynesians. Blacks in the USA are part Irish - and every single one of the violent types is part Irish. Blacks in the USA throw the stats off when it comes to early close nurturing and early sex plus their insane violence and 'acting out' with well-known intolerable behaviors. No one considers the Irish admixture. I think they should.}

In addition to our rape statistics, there is other evidence that points to preference for sexual violence over sexual pleasure in the United States. This is reflected in our acceptance of sexually explicit films that involve violence and rape, and our rejection of sexually explicit films for pleasure only (pornography). [.] Apparently, sex with pleasure is immoral and unacceptable, but sex with violence and pain is moral and acceptable.

{Stats leave out this too: lots of sex here, hardly any orgasms - among a lot of the whites, that is. The women come to regard it as a chore. The worst thing is, they never tell the men. They lie. So 'all women lie to men' becomes a true statement. It is true: for them. Not for blacks. Black women let men know if they are garbage and kick them out of the bedroom.}

A questionnaire I developed to explore this question was administered to 96 college students whose average age was 19 years. The results of the questionnaire support the connection between rejection of physical pleasure (and particularly of premarital and extramarital sex) with expression of physical violence.

[As governor of Texas, anti-abortionist and former alcoholic George W. Bush twice signed laws that designate funding for abstinence-until-marriage education (Texas House Bill 1, 97 & 99).]

Respondents who reject abortion, responsible premarital sex, and nudity within the family were likely to approve of harsh physical punishment for children and to believe that pain helps build strong moral character. These respondents were likely to find alcohol and drugs more satisfying than sex. The data obtained from the questionnaire provide strong statistical support for the basic inverse relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure.

Another way of looking at the reciprocal relationship between violence and pleasure is to examine a society's choice of drugs. A society will support behaviors that are consistent with its values and social mores. U.S. society is a competitive, aggressive, and violent society. Consequently, it supports drugs that facilitate competitive, aggressive, and violent behaviors and opposes drugs that counteract such behaviors. Alcohol is well known to facilitate the expression of violent behaviors, and, although addicting and very harmful to chronic users, is acceptable to U.S. society. Marijuana, on the other hand, is an active pleasure-inducing drug which enhances the pleasure of touch and actively inhibits violent-aggressive behaviors. [.] For similar reasons heroin is rejected and methadone (an addicting drug minus the pleasure) is accepted.

{I have to disagree. I (and all those I associate with and know well) can get drunk: I get very silly but I'm still the same person. I tried pot one time, when it first came around in the 1960s and was not even illegal as far as I knew; people were smoking it out in the open on the street. One puff. It put me to sleep - it was a waste of time since it made me not-alert. It did not do anything positive for me at all and I'd never bother with it again, never did even when it wasn't illegal. It sucked! However, I'll drink when I go out to clubs. That never made me violent. As I said, I tend to get silly very easily. I mean laughing. This data is invalid since these drugs act differently on different people. Irish are known to get very mean and violent when they drink. Italians don't, they tend to get in the mood to dance and touch more, they get all lovey-dovey. In my opinion, Irish are genetically prone to this unacceptable behavior. E.g., due to their tenacious, repeated provocation of the Romans, the Romans became warlike and ended up a military might. If not for the Celtics, this never would have happened. The Irish are well known for this kind of "full of fight for the sheer sake of fighting" behavior.}

Animals deprived of touching early in life develop impaired pain perception and an aversion to being touched by others. They are thus blocked from experiencing the body-pleasure therapy that they need for rehabilitation. In this condition, they have few alternatives but physical violence, where pain-oriented touching and body contact is facilitated by their impaired ability to experience pain. Thus, physical violence and physical pain become therapies of choice for those deprived of physical pleasure.

If we accept the theory that the lack of sufficient somatosensory pleasure is a principal cause of violence, we can work toward promoting pleasure and encouraging affectionate interpersonal relationships as a means of combatting aggression.

[Accept this theory? Somato-Sensory Deprivation was abbreviated SAD. Along came Seasonal Affective Disorder in 1988, and the abbreviation for Prescott's neglected theory had to be changed; it is now (not) known as S-SAD.]

{His theory is not neglected. I see it all the time in popular books which are more important since they get information out to the public directly. Parental love and affection are encouraged.}

[The theory is certainly under attack. For one, while non-sexual parental intimacy is thought of as important, youth sexual intimacy is abhorred (remember age of consent laws). Also, even in Holland, there has been a trend for years that parents, teachers, relatives and anyone dealing with kids are afraid to touch them, lest they be accused of 'child sexual abuse'. There are reports in the papers of primary school teachers who declare that they refuse to take children in their laps to comfort them because of society's sex abuse and smut scandal obsession. The eighties and nineties were marked by many absurd lawsuits, accusations of mass sexual abuse, and long prison sentences when there was not a strand of proof and the only explanation was anti-sexual, anti-affection mass hysteria and gleeful malice. Children were anally probed in foul, abusive attempts to determine non-existent abuse. Theories such as 'recovered memory syndrome' and 'being in denial' sprang up, as well as such unreliable anti-sexual methods as the 'anatomically correct doll'. It was tied in with Satanism, because smut can never be smutty enough: hence non-existent 'Satanic ritual abuse'. Such cases of mass hysteria occurred, and still occur (in modified but essentially similar forms), in the Netherlands and other Western countries. A child will certainly still be taught (especially these days) that the genital area is forbidden terrain, for themselves and others to touch. This stays with them as teenagers, as adults. It causes immeasurable psychological damage, which is brain damage. Children who play sexual games with one another are sometimes punished as sex criminals, and indeed, it seems that in some cases the sexual acts are performed in a coercive way by older children on younger children. Yes, minors will find their way to sex - to the ENTIRE body of themselves and others - one way or the other: any way a society will have it. Society blames it on the evil they hold sexuality to be, whereas the true problematic factors are violent and coercive behavior, whether or not sexual conduct is involved. But because people blame it on sex and physical intimacy, all attention is directed to repressing and punishing sex and intimacy (which sabotage the persecutors get off on), which in turn (according to S-SAD) leads to violence-prone dispositions and fucked-up aggressive sexuality. It is a vicious circle of destruction.]

We should give high priority to body pleasure in the context of meaningful human relationships. Such body pleasure is very different from promiscuity, which reflects a basic inability to experience pleasure. If a sexual relationship is not pleasurable, the individual looks for another partner. A continuing failure to find sexual satisfaction leads to a continuing search for new partners, that is, to promiscuous behavior. Affectionately shared physical pleasure, on the other hand, tends to stabilize a relationship and eliminate the search. However, a variety of sexual experiences seems to be normal in cultures which permit its expression, and this may be important for optimizing pleasure and affection in sexual relationships.

{This flies in the face of the gay bathhouse culture: they have 300 partners a week, and they definitely do have orgasms. Perhaps it's a parasite that causes this behavior?.}

[Many people restrict and oppose sexuality and affection, and research related to it, by proposing the threat of unbridled lasciviousness (as though rape isn't lascivious). While (excessive) pornography is in itself a substitute for the real thing, the US President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography concluded in 1970 that there was little empirical evidence to declare that exposure to sexually explicit materials is associated with the causation of delinquent or criminal behavior among youth and adults (Scott and Cuvelier, 1993). Regardless, the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations campaigned and acted severely against pornography.]

Available data clearly indicate that the rigid values of monogamy, chastity, and virginity help produce physical violence. The denial of female sexuality must give way to an acceptance and respect for it, and men must share with women the responsibility for giving affection and care to infants and children.

About 25 percent of marriages in the United States now end in divorce, and an even higher percentage of couples have experienced extramarital affairs.

{1 in 4 marriages end in divorce within 4 years, yes. But what about in 10 years? 20 years?}

[In 1997, the likelihood of new US marriages ending in divorce was 43 percent; source:]

This suggests that something is basically wrong with the traditional concept of universal monogamy. When viewed in connection with the cross-cultural evidence of the physical deprivations, violence, and warfare associated with monogamy, the need to create a more pluralistic system of marriage becomes clear.

{Here is an independent idea: men and women that used to get along in many ways, marriages lasted, healthy happy kids, all that, the husband and wife often had their own separate rooms to sleep in - and I mean sleep. Sleeping, dreaming, undisturbed by being woken up by snoring, or movement of the other person in the bed. Deprive a person of meaningful deep sleep and, especially, keep waking a person up during dreaming stage, and you will be guaranteed to get fighting couples and divorce! No one ever figured that out yet. I predicted that some people I know would start to fight when they shared the bed for sleep. Was I right? Hell, yes. Prior to that, they were the perfect couple. They had their own private contained rooms for quality, undisturbed sleep time. Hell, one way to disorient a person is to wake them up when they start to dream. That's a very light state of sleeping - and one is easily awakened from it by a partner turning or snoring.}

Contemporary experiments with communal living and group marriage are attempting to meet basic needs that remain unfulfilled in the isolation of a nuclear marriage. We must seriously consider new options, such as extended families comprised of two or three couples who share values and lifestyles. By sharing the benefits and responsibilities of child rearing, such families could provide an affectionate and varied environment for children as well as adults, and thereby reduce the incidence of child abuse and runaways.

The family bath should be large enough to accommodate parents and children, and be equipped with a whirlpool to maximize relaxation and pleasure.

We should recognize that sexuality in teenagers is not only natural, but desirable, and accept premarital sexuality as a positive moral good.

[This urgent recommendation is diametrically opposed to the craven moronic cop-out slogan of 'consenting ADULTS' (+18), especially despicable when uttered by gays or Satanists. In 1945, psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich wrote: "If so many adolescents are not consciously ready for sexual intercourse, this is not, as is erroneously assumed, an expression of biological immaturity but a consequence of an education which suppresses all thoughts of such activity. It is important to establish this fact if one wants to see things as they are, and not as authoritarian society and the Church of Satan would like us to see them." Well, he wrote "the Church", but you get my drift. (The Sexual Revolution, translation of Therese Pol.) Note also that 'patriarchy' is not the dominance of males. It is the dominance of ADULT males.]

Parents should help teenagers realize their own sexual selfhood by allowing them to use the family home for sexual fulfillment. Such honesty would encourage a more mature attitude toward sexual relationships and provide a private supportive environment that is far better for their development than the back seat of a car or other undesirable locations outside the home. Early sexual experiences are too often an attempt to prove one's adulthood and maleness or femaleness rather than a joyful sharing of affection and pleasure.

The use of sex to provide mere release from physiological tension (apparent pleasure) should not be confused with a state of sensual pleasure which is incompatible with dominance, power, aggression, violence, and pain.

It needs to be emphasized here that I advocate somatosensory pleasure stimulation as a therapeutic procedure to correct the abnormalities due to somatosensory pleasure deprivation. [.] The success of somatosensory therapy in isolation reared monkeys reported by Harry F. Harlow and Stephen Suomi ("Social Rehabilitation of Isolate-Reared Monkeys," Developmental Psychology, 6 (1972), 487-496) when other forms of therapy have failed in these animals, provide further encouragement and support for the utilization of touch and body movement therapies in the treatment of emotional disorders.

On the contrary, our prisons have been designed to maximize those conditions that are responsible for the violence and imprisonment of the social offender.

{The gulag system did not do this. Totally different. There, people worked (and got paid too). Remember, the work you do also defines you and your attitudes.}

The reciprocal relationship between pleasure and violence is such that one inhibits the other; when physical pleasure is high, physical violence is low. When violence is high, pleasure is low. This basic premise of the somatosensory pleasure deprivation theory provides us with the tools necessary to fashion a world of peaceful, affectionate, cooperative individuals.

{Take into consideration also: violent rage can arise when someone else who is rage-prone keeps bothering a person who is not rage-prone. Eventually, you want to exterminate that person. I know exactly what that feels like. I explode - and then it's gone and inner peace returns. You then have to factor in violence when it is 'justified'. That is, when a violence-prone person keeps provoking a peace-prone person. Most often, the peace-prone person uses a bomb to kill an ant, metaphorically. When a peaceful and well-adjusted, very smart college kid was tormented by jocks in a college, typically malice driven people, people who loved conflict, the peaceful person eventually put a bomb in the locker room and murdered them all. I say that his action was justified. The courts disagreed. People who love their peace are capable of definitive and final acts of retaliation they use to eliminate the pest - for good. I am 100 percent in favor of that.}

[James W. Prescott, Ph.D. is a developmental neuropsychologist and cross-cultural psychologist. He was Health Scientist Administrator, Developmental Behavioral Biology Program, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Director, Institute of Humanistic Science and of BioBehavioral Systems. For an up-to-date curriculum vitae and for the story of today's repression of essential research for the sake of the parasitic continuation of government-sponsored inhumanity, see (]

Postscript by Tani Jantsang

My two cents from common culture: babies, when born, are all sensual, but they have no sense of 'self - notself' yet. They see expressions and live in a tactile world. Exposing them to lots of visual stimuli and being near them a lot is normal for us. They do not, at first, know there is a difference when they touch Self, versus when they touch Mom, or the sheet, or a stuffed toy. Soon after, they get explorative, but they stick to the mother. The father is there too, but he's not where the food comes from (breast). This continues until the age of 2 or 3 in us, definitely more so at age 3. At 3, the child squirms out of mom's arms, the child wants to be left alone to run and play. He is loosening the bonds at this time. The child learns to interact with other children. The normal child does not feel the need to 'show the parents' every little kid thing he/she does either. They color in coloring books, and are in a world of their own, no need to show anyone; they might share it with their other kid friends. Older, 5, 6, 7, 8, more physical activities, they play like wild animals, running, or 'ball type' games or 'tag,' they develop tendon strength and an ability to play in teams with strategies. They get very motor-coordinated at this time. They invent games. 9 and 10, more contemplative, now more curious about adult things, cooking, building, things like that - they like to play still, but less so. There seems to be NO real 'concern' over the gender yet, kid friends are boys and girls. It doesn't matter. Girls and boys are equally strong too, at these younger ages. They are both agile, both able to play as rough as each other. Puberty, 11, 12, 13, that age (when puberty comes): they desire sex and they are quite adult in outlook. They are able to baby-sit for other babies now. This was the norm. Boys become markedly stronger at this time. They both (male/female) mature quickly, mentally they have logic and are capable of making valid decisions. They have no problem checking with adults if they are not sure, to learn from those with experience.

I had a bank account when I was 9. I had money in it, about 500 dollars saved up from chores, baby-sitting, things like that, mostly from helping someone build something, like a screened porch, furniture, etc; helping them paint, etc. That was a lot of money in 1959. I know Americans who don't have an account and they are 21. They are retarded. But they are also the norm. Western culture not only does what the Prescott essay says, but it RETARDS the people in that culture. As far as their being able to think strategically - they are BEYOND retarded. I can explain a child's strategy to them, and they are mystified. And I was explaining it to a person that is considered 'reasonably intelligent.'  Standards.

The stupidest thing people do is 'adjust their standards' depending on whether or not the person is a friend. They'll invent excuses for blatantly stupid and provocatory behavior; but find ways to judge a person for RETALIATING. That shows a lack of objectivity. Their inability to look at themselves is astonishing. Their lack of ability, completely, to assess themselves, when it is even blatantly obvious to a person with a degree in psychology, is pathetic. The trick is this also: do these rage-filled people, having buried that rage, REALIZE they feel this, even when objective circumstances would point to the FACT that they MUST feel it? No, they are incapable of 'knowing' this. That is anosognosic. They don't know what they feel. Or they might get a glimmer of it, but then they'll forget it immediately (bury it deeper). The next thing that happens is that they drift off into what I call incoherence: though it might SOUND coherent. They squirm off the topic or hurl insults. Any kind of insults. Accusing a person of having apoE4/4 now becomes an insult. Accusing them of having Borna, becomes an insult? Why? because the person can't deal with the FACTS? He doesn't want to.

So, Prescott is presenting his essay to the very people he's writing about IN his essay! This is a problem. He presented this to the atomic scientists? Sheesh. It all boils down to this: peaceful people have to become murderers in order to prevent murderers from destroying their peace. ! :) Since agriculture and the need to fend off outside predators in the wild by building a stationary army qualified to do this, turning the defenses to other humans that are not agricultural, turning to attack 'other humans and animals' for more space, you have this violence-prone, aggressive-repressive male-dominated society. You have what you see today.  Same show - more complex - but the same show.

There are two types of things: there are (1) malice-filled people who go out of their way to provoke (2) others who are doing their own things; there's no reason they are doing it either, they are NOT trying, for instance, to steal something. They keep provoking as the Celts did to the Romans, for NO REASON other than the desire to provoke. Ultimately, it is ALL psycho-sexual. You have that aggressive-repressive 'type' versus the easy-going 'type' that has had provocation up to his neck. So he in turn goes after the provoker and ALL WHO SUPPORT HIM and drives him out - just as the Romans finally drove the Celts off the entire European continent.

[And concentrated them in Britain. Whence they spread to America.]

Prescott's data doesn't analyze the mid to eastern cultures and nations. Lots of maternal love, early sexuality too - but filled with strongly patriarchal persecution and Moslem religion or Hindu (some cults notably in the South); insanely persecutory against females. Again, they are agrarian; even if they later became nomadic as Semite Arabs did, they WERE agrarian before that. Prescott doesn't take into account that tropically evolved people (and by evolved, I mean maybe only 1000 years of living, breeding and eating in tropical environments) are not adapted to temperate climates and industrial cultures. Most of the time, tropical people seem "stupid" to those from more northern climes.  He doesn't factor in metabolism - DIET. A neurotox 'expert' I know would reduce it to apoE4/4 but aha. I'm a curious person and used to work in epidemiology. Samples were taken due to clusters of kidney problems of all things! So I found them. I located some people testing for this - some are smart, some are normal. By normal, I mean typically DUH American. And then there is someone who suffered kidney failure in her 20s. She was tested - and was apoE 2/2. She was rather dumb, all things considered. Bye-bye, reductionism.

There are also all kinds of intelligence. As I said, in my culture, 'motor-retarded people' or 'clumsy klutzes' are considered retarded. The Masons I went to school with seem to have the same idea on that. There is strategic thinking - that is cunning and is not measured on IQ tests. And so forth.

What started all of it? Agriculture. What will end it? The end of agriculture. New modes of producing food - AND energy. That will end it. What will we end up with? I don't know. Will we as a species even 'end up?' I don't know. Quite frankly: can I walk to the store and get what I want? Are my favorite TV shows on? Can I go to the beach? If my VCR breaks, can I easily go out and buy another one? These are the things REALLY important to me - in terms of real-life, activity, deeds. The rest is intellectual fun for me. Nothing more! I may have written all those articles, but in real life - I don't care about it at all. It doesn't affect me AT ALL. We got ultra Christians in power now in the USA. So what. They might make gays illegal and outlaw abortion. So what, I'm not gay and I never wanted an abortion - I wanted my kids and had them on purpose. They want to ban porno. So what - I never was interested it in - it's boring. I'm sad that Voyager Star Trek is in its last season. I get mad when sports shows preempt my favorite show. I don't like how they keep changing the time and day slots for favorite shows. Do you see what I mean here? I have a lot of time to look into the fish tank and analyze the fish. Ultimately, I don't associate with the fish - never did. It doesn't affect me.

There was also a study I heard about that was commissioned by the government. I know a very little bit about it and that, from second hand. It had to do with pheromones and ribosomes. That's the word the lab guy said: ribosomes. Apparently, a tilt in population to 'overpopulation' causes all this craziness we see now, including the violence. Now get this, ELIMINATION of 90 percent of the population did NOT alter the effects! This is bad. I heard this in the 1970s! It had specifically to do with PHEROMONES and how they do 'something' to genes? or directly affect behavior. That's all I know. I heard it second-hand from the guy helping the scientist. I asked at the med school where I worked about the connection - at the time, NOBODY knew what this could be - but Dr. N---- knew quite a bit about pheromones. What behaviors they would MAKE you do - are obligatory. Suppression of the urges based on this, causes stress. I do not mean sexual attraction. I mean pheromones can make you HATE, make you want to wipe out an entire group of people. Pheromones can cause amity or enmity. The feelings are OBLIGATORY. No matter how much you suppress them in the name of 'civilized behavior', the feelings are THERE. I have never seen anything else regarding this subject.