Frontiersman, September 1994

Notice:
This issue of the Frontiersman contains contact information that is out-of-date. For current contact information, click here.

Frontiersman, September 1994

Sixth Sense
by Paul Hoffman,
Discover Magazine:

This essay was presented on the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour on Wednesday, June 8, 1994

It's not every day that scientists discover a new organ in our bodies, but that's what's happened. The organ is called the vomeronasal organ, or VNO for short, and it's a tiny pit, barely visible to the naked eye, about half an inch into each nostril. Despite its location in the nose, the VNO has nothing to do with smell, nor the other familiar senses of taste, touch, sight, and sound. In other animals, from reptiles to pigs, this inconspicuous organ is responsible for a sixth sense, the detection of odorless, airborne chemicals passed unconsciously between animals, chemicals that signal anger, fear, and sexual arousal. These chemical signals go by the name of pheromones. And until recently, human beings were thought not to emit or receive them. In other animals, pheromones control sexual behavior and other social interactions. A male hamster shows no interest in mating, for example, unless his VNO detects the come hither chemical emitted by a female. And a female pig gets instantly in the mood whenever she gets a whiff of the pheromones in a boar's breath. Technically speaking, the human VNO was not discovered but rediscovered, and therein lies a tale. There have been fleeting sightings of the organ in the past, but they were ignored. In 1703, a Dutch military surgeon observed the pit in a soldier with a facial wound. And in the mid 1930's, researchers found the organ in human embryos but decided it vanished after birth. In the late 1930's, the first pheromone in animals was discovered, a sexual attractant emitted by the female silkworm moth. Subsequently, scientists made whole careers studying the pheromones and probing the VNO's of minnows, ants, honey bees, Syrian golden hamsters, deer, snakes, and beaver. You'd think that one of these curious researchers would have peered up our own noses to find our VNO and make the case for human pheromones but initially no one did. No one wanted to undermine our sense of free will by finding that our interactions are influenced by subtle chemical exchanges that we cannot control let alone be aware of. In the 1960's, David Berliner, an anatomy professor at the University of Utah, was isolating the chemicals in the more than 400 million skin cells that each of us shed daily. Whenever he left open a particular flask of odorless skin cell extract, he noticed that the workers in his lab, who were ordinarily irritable and contentious, became blissfully cooperative. Busy with other research, he froze the curious extracts, planning to return to them another day. Thirty years later, he thawed out the extracts and noted that they still had the power to bring on bonhomie. Berliner wondered if he had stumbled on the first known human pheromone. As fortune had it, a few of Berliner's colleagues had just poked around in 200 human noses and spotted a VNO in every one of them, but they weren't sure that the VNO was a working organ and not a lifeless relic of the past like the appendix. Berliner offered up his mysterious flask. His colleagues exposed dozens of VNO's to Berliner's skin extracts and observed the VNO nerves fire like the Fourth of July. The case for human pheromones was closed. Berliner now markets his extracts in a perfume called "Realm." Scientists now need to find out how many human pheromones there are and what behaviors they actually influence. More than any other social animal, human beings are shaped by experience, so our responses to the pheromones of our fellow men and women surely aren't etched in stone. Nonetheless, pheromones may help to explain our first impressions of people, instant dislikes, love at first sight, bad vibes, or warm fuzzies. I'm Paul Hoffman.

What difference does it make if women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.

— Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth

Dear Buck

My husband doesn't take me out to dinner any more? Do you know why not?

— (unsigned)

Dear Mildred

I've told you before, don't bother me at the office. We'll talk about it at home sometime.

Postage to mail this newsletter is being provided by Jim May.

Patriarchy or Matriarchy?

This is an excerpt from a letter that appeared in Anarchy, #40, Spring/Summer 1994. I'll provide a copy of the complete letter upon request. Anarchy is published by B.A.L. Press, POB 2647, Stuyvesant Stn., New York, NY 10009, U.S.A

".... the only real patriarchy around Western civilizations is the one ruled by women. American law, in fact, affirms the supremacy of the mother, legally requiring that a father's primary obligation be toward his 'first family.' Subsequent to divorce, ex-husbands are required to make payments first to ex-wives before paying for the needs of children by second or third marriages.

"U.S. law defines the family unit in terms of the mother. But no matter how many children they have with a series of fathers, it is all one family. The ancient patriarchal focus was on the first son, but the contemporary matriarchal focus is upon the first mother. The denial of rights to unwed fathers is proof that we live in a social order more matriarchal than patriarchal. If a father does not first establish a legal relationship with the mother of his children, all legal rights to the children belong to the mother. In the West only mothers have direct legal parental relationships. The American matriarchal legal system defines 'father' as 'husband to the mother' rather than as parent to the child. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a law which decrees that a woman's husband, despite any lack of biological ties or parenting record is 'the father' simply because he was married to the mother when she gave birth.

"Another example of how matriarchy oppresses us more than the mythological 'patriarchy' is the fact that a woman Page 2 Box

can opt to abort a pregnancy, but a man who becomes an unwilling father has no right over his own body — he is required to pay (to use his personal time and money) for the support of any woman who chooses not to abort, and he is required by law to continue to pay for eighteen years.

"California law provides further evidence of the supremacy of the mother in the clan or family. A mother can choose to give up her child for adoption, even though the father offers to provide a home.

"A couple who produced an in vitro fertilization (test-tube baby) sued the hospital where the frozen embryo was destroyed by the laboratory administration. The couple won the suit, the mother received $50,000 for the ovum, and the (evil, oppressive, patriarchal) father received $3 for the sperm.

"The evidence of matriarchy is ubiquitous, but like fish in the ocean, we can't see the water that is all around us. Feminists pretending to be anarchists complain that 'men control women's bodies' while ignoring the law that requires only males to register for selective service in the military. (It is irrelevant but, unfortunately, necessary to point out that women more than men favor men-only registration and the majority of local draft board members are women.) They also choose to ignore the fact that 'community property' and alimony laws punish men far more than women, and in effect make men the indentured servants of women.

"Restraining orders issued on false allegations are a tool used by women to control men's bodies further. The female-oriented media have become a tax subsidized propaganda machine for embittered androphobes.

"Recently CBS aired a movie called 'Men Don't Tell,' about husbands who are physically attacked by their wives. Men who responded to a call-in number reported personal experiences in which police either do not respond to men who report such violence, or they arrest the man when they do respond.

"If social scientists have failed to categorize correctly our own matriarchal contemporary social order, despite a wealth of available evidence, there is no reason to believe that they have correctly analyzed the very incomplete remnants of societies which have long since disappeared. We may or may not be descended from a simple patriarchy, but we certainly never lived in one ourselves."

— J.M., Shingletown, CA

Selections from
Another Compendium of Wit and Wisdom

Beifeld's Principle

The chance of meeting a desirable and receptive young female becomes increasingly probable when you are already in the company of

1.		a date
2.		your wife
3.		a better-looking and richer male friend.

— Ronald H. Beifeld

Italian Proverb

She who is silent consents.

Peckham's Law

Beauty times brains equals a constant.

Playboy's Observation

Nothing is more wasted than a smile on the face of a girl with a forty-inch bust.

— More Playboy's Party Jokes, Playboy Magazine

Roger's Rule

If a woman is available, there's a reason.

— Roger Hopkins, San Jose, California

Welch's Hypothesis

The amount of trouble varies directly as the square of the number of "dollies" involved.

— Jim Welch
Idaho Falls, Idaho

Courting the Feminist Fatale
by Sam Aurelius Milam III

The feminist movement hasn't succeeded in making women rational. Well, you be the judge. Women think they can be attractive without attracting anything. You don't think so? Consider this: A woman will wear the most seductive perfume, the most alluring make-up, and the most flattering clothes that she can find. She'll agonize over her hair and nails, and wiggle across the room wafting a veritable cloud of sexual pheromones. Then she'll demand that I appreciate her for her mind, because she's liberated. If I "look" at her I'm violating her boundaries. Of course, neither her appearance (however provocative) nor her behavior (however flagrant) can violate my boundaries. Why not? Because I'm a man; I'm not permitted to have boundaries. Then she'll complain that men can't open up and express their true feelings. If a man ever does, you can bet she won't like it.

Neither has the feminist movement taught women anything about men and women. Consider this: A woman who wouldn't dare take her curling iron into the shower with her, who'd never dream of driving the wrong direction on the freeway, will deplore men's inherent sexual nature and then pretend it doesn't exist when dating. Page 3 Box

She'll reject every courtship ritual that might have tended to protect her and do everything she can to enchant her companion before inviting him into her apartment. For a drink. Just the two of them. Alone. How Romantic. It will never enter her pretty little head that she might have some responsibility for what happens next. Au contraire. She'll assert that men should just simply control themselves. She can't even stay on a diet, but a man is supposed to resist every temptation that she and cosmetic technology can devise. Then she'll whine about her ruined life, as if she's the only woman who ever got pregnant. Meanwhile, he goes through the date rape meat-grinder and maybe rots in jail.

What the feminist movement has accomplished is to convert women into a political special interest group of enormous power, and to enlist the law, the courts, and the police as allies. In the past, women attracted providers. Today they trap victims, and the idea of courting a woman has become a humorless but instructive pun. From dating to divorce and beyond (way, way beyond!), the feminazis have enormous clout.

What this means is that age no longer matters; every woman is jail-bait. Consequently, men have to stop treating them like women and start treating them like political enemies and litigious adversaries, which is exactly what they are. If a woman wants a date, get a release of liability from her first. If she wants to get married, have her submit a contract for your perusal. Later, expect her to trap you into violations of it, and be appropriately cautious. If she wants a baby, insist on a prenatal agreement (in writing, before witnesses) releasing you from liability in the event of a divorce. Always hide your assets from her. Don't share a post office box with her. Never let her borrow your keys. Don't sign your paycheck over to her. Don't tell her about your insurance. Get her name on all the loans.

After all, we're not the ones who turned romance into a litigation industry. It was their stupid idea. It's a damned shame, but that's the way it is. We have to protect ourselves. There probably isn't any way to make it pleasant, but if you can't handle abstinence, it's better to be safe and sorry than just sorry.

The Problem: How do you get your date in the MOOD? You know what I mean — THE mood. The Answer: Take your date to see Sirens.

Sirens is an erotic comedy, set in rural 1930 Australia. The sirens mentioned in the title are three startlingly endowed young women who are employed as nude models by a notoriously libertine artist. The artist is played by Sam Neill (who hasn't gotten so far out of Jurassic Park — his home in the film has a distinctly tropical ambiance).

Into this Aussie garden of Eden comes, not a serpent, but a naive young clergyman and his wife. The clergyman, played by Hugh Grant, is there to persuade the artist to withdraw from national exhibition a "blasphemous" picture showing the crucifixion of a naked Venus by scowling puritans.

Predictably, the clergyman fails in his earnest attempts to persuade the artist to uphold family values. Predictably, the clergyman is mightily tempted by the swoon-inducing sweeties. Less predictably, the person who succumbs to temptation is his reserved young wife (Tara Fitzgerald) who ends up having a fling with a hunky, half-blind handyman. How she contrives to save some of her reputation for fidelity without saving her fidelity forms the moderately surprising end of the film.

Sly innuendo and a floating, pulsing, birds do it/bees do it atmosphere are the film's strong points. As one might expect, the film's philosophy is Hefnerian — as in Hugh Hefner. However, it can't be condemned by prudes as 100% anti-prudish. The arguments for chastity presented by the clergyman are actually quite cogent. Perhaps the film's real moral is that sexual liberation and sexual repression both have drawbacks, and that neither lifestyle suits every temperament.

Frontiersman
If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and drop the newsletter back in the U.S. mail. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription.

Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.

Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in whole or in part, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. However no such reproduction may, under any circumstances, be sold or redistributed for profit.

I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.

This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and postage stamps. I don't accept checks, money orders, anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives, or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

Money (the series): Medium of Exchange
by Sam Aurelius Milam III

Most people know a little about money, or think they do. They've been told it makes the world go 'round. They aren't sure if it will buy friends, but they've heard that it can rent some interesting companions. Some people think it's the root of all evil. Maybe that's because of the companions. Beyond this, however, lies ignorance. Here's the first thing that you need to learn about money. Like sex or dynamite, insufficient knowledge of money can be dangerous. Most people can at least recognize sex, and maybe even dynamite, but would you know money if you saw it?

Many things have been used as money. Some of these things have worked well, and some haven't. The success or failure of these various things has revealed a certain set of rules about money. In this series of articles, I'm going to talk about these rules (and maybe a couple of other things). To do this, I'll suggest as money some things that won't work very well. I hope you'll recognize the same deficiencies when you see them later, in more subtle forms. From these deficiencies come the Rules of Money.

Before examining what money is, however, let's make sure we know what it's for. Money is for exchange. It's a thing that is exchangeable for other things. As a medium of exchange, money makes barter much easier and, in fact, there's no obvious difference between money and other commodities. Real money is called commodity money, and using it is only a convenient form of standardized barter, nothing more. However, there is a fundamental, intangible difference. Money isn't useful as money if you save it, but only if you spend it. The only reason for saving money is to spend it later. $

Next Month: Durability and Portability

Respond to:
Frontiersman
435 South White Road
San Jose, California 95127

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue

This article was included as an insert in the September 1994 issue of the Frontiersman.

PDF Version of this Insert

It Can't Happen Here -- A Warning from Canada
The following was written by Susan Riggs, a Canadian citizen living in Ontario. She wrote this for the Detroit Free Press.

An open letter to my American neighbors:

Like you, I woke up today, got dressed and settled down to a steaming brew and the morning newspaper before heading out to work. Unlike you, I read that dozens of my fellow citizens were arrested for carrying copies of the Buffalo News. The newspaper contained information about a trial here that the powers-that-be did not want us to read. It is that simple.

It is now 11:15 p.m. Minutes ago, I turned on the Buffalo television station, hoping to see on my TV what could not reach us through the newspapers. I am now looking at a blank screen. We received about 10 seconds of the trial controversy, and suddenly my screen went blank. A message appeared on the screen explaining that because of the contravention of a ban, the station was prohibiting broadcast of the news. Along with the sign was a high-pitched whistle that sounded like the air-raid sirens the Britons used during World War II.

As I sit here alone, I realize that my blood is ruining cold at the sound of that whistle.

This could never happen here. Not in Canada.

You must wonder about a country that would deny its own citizens the freedom to read.

As a Canadian, I have done a lot of hard thinking about it. I guess the powers have their reasons for the ban. Censorship always has its reasons, but, believe me, when you are on the receiving end of government censorship, no reason amounts to a hill of beans - and that is why I am writing to you.

It is my hope that you will read the Canadian story and, as your famous columnist Ann Landers says, "wake up and smell the coffee" - while you still have a newspaper to read along with it.

I have always loved the United States of America, and I know that you are now making critical decisions about the role of government in your lives. Many years ago, we in Canada were at a crossroads in our decision-making that is similar to the one you are at now. I wish our decisions back then had been very different. Then maybe I wouldn't be sitting here looking at a blank screen.

Some two decades ago, Canadians were concerned with how government could best help its citizens. We looked around at countries with a comprehensive social welfare system and envied them their cushions of comfort for everything from universal medical care to national day care.

We were a country that held individual freedom in high esteem. Surely, we thought, it was possible to take the best aspects of socialism and weave them into the fabric of a free society. After all, this was democratic Canada and not the Soviet Union.

Over the next 20 years, we developed an extensive social support network at both the federal and provincial levels of government. The government spent money on every conceivable program. We spent and spent. Still, no one was ever really satisfied. The spending even now continues unabated, and our national deficit today stands at more than $45 billion.

When you adopt an extensive government agenda, you soon discover that all the entrenched programs and layers of bureaucracy become impossible to budge. Much of the population works for the government; about one of every four Canadians now draws a government paycheck. People learn to depend on government, and all governments, even those whose leaders warn against this dependency, learn to love the power that flows from it.

As for the threat to individual liberty, newspaper censorship is, frankly, the tip of the iceberg. Government intervenes in our lives constantly, and individual liberties are abrogated in new and ever more imaginative ways each day.

Recently, while on vacation, I rented a car in Seattle and tried to drive into British Columbia. My car was confiscated at the border. When I asked for an explanation, I was told that I had not paid taxes on it -- for Christ's sake, it was a rental car! Had I been an American, there would have been no problem, but as a Canadian, I had to pay $200 more for a Canadian rental car in order to continue my

This article came from Libertarian Lifeline, August 1994, Volume 16, No. 8.
The editor of Libertarian Lifeline is Terry Floyd, 240 Sybil Avenue, San Leandro, CA 94577. (510) 351-0973

trip. Canadians who dare to get a haircut or a car tune-up across the border are being photographed and prosecuted upon their return to Canada. Why? Because they have secured these services without having to incur the 7 percent goods and services tax slapped onto our ever-burgeoning provincial taxes. Even insurance plans are now taxed.

A black market has sprung up, mainly in liquor and cigarettes, which carry the heaviest taxes. Don't think that the taxes will end there, though.

Once it takes hold, monopolization by government soon spreads to nearly every aspect of your life; in the Toronto area alone, we have six separate municipal governments and one super-municipal government (the "mother" of all local governments) called Metro, which exists to oversee the others.

You will find that after a time, your state and federal governments - even those of a different political stripe - will join forces to make their task of tax collection easier.

Our entire education system, up to university level, is governed by a centralized bureaucracy called the Ministry of Education, which dictates what can and cannot be taught in the schools and how it is to be taught. Universities are mainly government-funded. I realize that the issue of government-run programs is particularly important to you now because of the state of your health-care system. I sympathize with you completely. I cannot imagine a world where one could be left bankrupt because of illness. I also think that you are on the right track with your solutions. If anyone can devise a workable system for medical care, it is you.

I suggest that you look upon it as you do your police protection: a guard in place for the physical and mental well-being of your citizens. The real danger in socialized medicine is the attitude of entitlement it engenders.

The stories you have heard about us are largely true. It is not uncommon to pick up a newspaper and read about "The frightening wait for cancer therapy" here in Ontario, and the situation is no better in the other provinces. There is a shortage of the most advanced diagnostic technology. Thousands of the health cards that ensure access to medical care have been issued erroneously. We do wait two hours for an appointment booked weeks in advance. Despite our world-class doctors, many patients can't get treatment in time because of overcrowding. When you are faced with a life or death medical situation, you don't mind paying whatever it costs. Under the government-dominated medical system, however, you can't even buy your way in - unless, of course, you go to the United States.

The sound of the air-raid siren on my TV has stopped, at least for now. As the politicians love to say, this is my "defining moment." As I sit here tonight, it is simply beyond my comprehension that such a well-intentioned and beloved country as my own could go so far astray so quickly. And it is all the more remarkable that it has taken place without grand conspiracies or intricate plots.

Indeed, most Canadians are as offended by the images of totalitarian government as you are. We shared your joy at the fall of the Berlin Wall and the crumbling of the Soviet bloc; we value freedom. And yet we have fallen into a trap where we are not free. As with that other well-known road, we traveled this one with the best of intentions.

To those who would dismiss me as an alarmist, I issue this invitation: Read our newspapers, watch our news broadcasts (what is left of them) and see for yourselves. Prove me wrong. I wish you could.

When you make critical decisions about the role of government in your life, please think about me, about this letter, and about Canada. Really think about what it could mean when you hear about a government initiative that sounds too good to be true. Thank God for a free press, even when you find yourself criticizing the media for broadcasting stories that you would rather not hear about. The recent publication ban is not the first one. There are others, and their number is growing.

Listen and learn, America. Cup your ear to the wind and hear the blood-chilling wail of the siren whistle as it drifts down across your border.

If just one of you reads this letter and pauses, even for a moment, to think about what unchecked government can do, then it has been worth the writing,

I have faith in you, America. Your road is tough and not perfect. Nothing is. Your road will keep leading you to freedom - the freedom to read and think and be exactly who and what you are - if you only let it. Treasure that freedom, love it and resolve never, ever to let it go.

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue