Regulatory factors still obscure

Malinowski, the famous ethnologist from the beginning of the past century, was surprised to see the Trobriandese (New Guinea) having only a very reasonable number of children, while they did not know the role of sperm in fertilization and therefore took no precautionary measures.

His astonishment only increased in the course of his investigations, to the point that he ended up rallying to the sayings of these primitive innocents: for them, conception or non-conception was due to magical causes. The rationalism of the ethnologist had to give in to the reality of the facts. Nothing in his knowledge could explain the regulation of births, knowing that coitus were not hindered by any restriction or guilt.

A century later, we are still unable to provide a relevant explanation of Malinowski’s findings, so that some come to throw anathema on his observations. It would be more rational to ask questions about limiting our knowledge of sexuality.

It’s too easy to forget that sex once had a sacred dimension. Tourists admire the columns of the Temple of Louksor, without knowing that they are phallic representations, or at least without understanding what phallic representations can do in a temple. The mysteries of Eleusis, orphic cults attributed a spiritual function to pederastia. The Vestals and other priests had to make a vow of chastity. Still today, religion is largely concerned with sexual morality. The Jardin des Délices by Jérôme Bosch, universally known, features sexual relations in connection with access to extrasensorial, which exegetes struggle to comment on.

These elements, which belong to the very foundations of our culture, could lead us to ask ourselves questions about our rationalistic conception of love and sexuality. It may well cover with a falsely modest veil values far more subtle than those of our modern sexology. Would the resistance of schoolchildren to sex education not be indicative of the ineptitude of the principles we are trying to inculcate in them?

The psychoanalysis itself could be missed: Freud was accused of pansexualism. The apparently exaggerated importance he attributed to the penis would not be in relation to our misunderstanding of a concept as disturbing as that of sacred phallus, yet present throughout ancient times? We would then be less surprised by the phallophories practiced once by the Greeks and still today by the Japanese…

This could also point us towards a better understanding of what no longer works in accordance with natural laws, of which the Ancients were certainly even closer. And these dysfunctions should put us on the track of behavioral deviations that could disrupt the natural regulation of birth rates.

A path to explore absolutely…