We Are the Children of the Stars

by Otto O. Binder

  This is put forth succinctly by an authority who says:

  How does our sexual behavior compare with that of the other living primates? Straightaway we can see that there is much more intense sexual activity in our own species than in any other primates, including our closest relations. . . . The precopulatory patterns in apes are brief and usually consist of no more than a few facial expressions and simple vocalizations.

  Copulation itself is also very brief. In baboons, for instance, the time taken from mounting to ejaculation is no more than seven or eight seconds, with a total of no more than 15 pelvic thrusts, often fewer. The female does not appear to experience any kind of orgasm.1

  Pointing out that sex foreplay occupies a much longer time between human couples, that the actual joining takes minutes rather than seconds, and that both the female and male often enjoy mutual orgasm, the author concludes, “Clearly, the naked ape [Man] is the sexiest primate alive.”

  We hardly need proof, looking around at the 4 billion or more human beings living on Earth today, outnumbering all animals by species except perhaps a few prolific rodents. It is nothing less than superfecundity. (And that, incidentally, is also a hallmark of the breeding vigor of any hybrid – another clue to our basic theme's soundness.)

  Why is Man, far above and beyond any other animal, such a sexually active creature? The human female, first and foremost, has no counterpart in the animal kingdom, for she alone:

  Enjoys orgasm during sex intercourse.

  Is almost always “in heat.”

  Has a vaginal angle conducive to either front or back mating.

  Possesses voluptuous breasts and buttocks that are spurs to male desire.

  Possesses a hymen during virginity.

  Taking these traits in turn, the author above states, “If there is anything that could be called an orgasm [in female apes] it is a trivial response when compared with that of the female of our own species.”2

  The orgasms experienced by human females are hardly a “trivial response,” as most males on Earth well know. It is part and parcel of the sex act among us, usually expected and often taken for granted. The passion and body response of the female during coitus make her an equal partner to the always-eager male, a situation that is obtained with no other animal on Earth, apes included.

  They do not “enjoy” sex in the sense that humans do. It is more a “reproductive duty” instilled instinctively in them to ensure the survival of the species.

  Again it is pointed out that:

  If the human male continues to copulate for a longer period of time (than the briefest time required), the female also eventually reaches a consummatory moment, an explosive orgasmic experience, as violent and tension-releasing as the male's. . . . Some females may reach this point very quickly (and enjoy repetitions). . . . But on the average it is attained between ten and twenty minutes after the start of copulation.3

  And that also is a vast departure from copulating male animals, all of whom reach their ejaculatory climax in seconds. Human males take minutes and can often extend the sex act longer than a half-hour in order to give the female maximum orgasmic delight and also to increase the degree of his own climactic rapture when he reaches his orgasmic paroxysm.

  Only in Man, and Woman, is there “sex for sex's sake,” or embraces outside of the want or need for offspring, purely for the sensory ecstasies involved. In fact, what with birth-control methods and social acceptance of sex “fun” as normal, there is far more indulgence in sex for pure pleasure than for conceiving children.

  There is more than just a hedonistic pleasure-seeking syndrome in this. Man's essential drive for sex contacts and gratification thereof is definitely linked with his intelligence, incredible as this may seem. Also much of culture, ethics, indeed the fabric of civilization itself, is a more-or-less direct offshoot of Man's great preoccupation with sex gratification, for it all involves the very hormones and brain stimulants that suffuse the human body, and also sublimation of the sex-drive into creative channels.

  But let us return to the basic factors, which are established scientific fact, that make men and women the sexiest animals alive.

  Point number two – human females are always in heat. The previous oft-quoted authority says:

  “The period of sexual receptivity of the female monkey or ape is more restricted [than in humans]. It usually lasts for about a week, or a little more, of their monthly cycle. Even this is an advance on the lower mammals, where it is limited more severely to the actual time of ovulation, but in our own species the primate trend toward longer receptivity has been pushed to the very limit, so that the [human] female is receptive at virtually all times.”4

  That means day and night, and winter, spring, fall, and summer. There is no “closed” season.

  He points out another thing completely unknown among the primates or lower animals:

  Once a female monkey or ape becomes pregnant, or is nursing a baby, she ceases to be sexually active. Again, our [human] species has spread its sexual activities into those periods, so that there is only a brief time just before and just after parturition [birth] when mating is seriously limited.

  One might paraphrase an old saying: Time, death, taxes, and sex go on forever.

  It is also well known and accepted in modern society, as extolled in numerous “sex manuals,” that a person's sex life need not stop (and never really has stopped) when his or her procreative years are over. People are urged, one might say, to continue enjoying sexual delights far beyond the time of menopause in women or the onset of senior years in men. We constantly read in our news media of couples remarrying in their sixties and, in many cases, not just for platonic “companionship.”

  Man, the sexy animal, spreads mating delights throughout his life, almost to the hour of natural death.

  And we might note this strange difference between other animals and Man, even though it does not deal with what nature bestows. In other animals, the male is endowed by nature far more attractively than the female, whereas with humans the female adorns herself with cosmetics, jewelry, perfume, and employs many other skilled ways to attract the male.

  A woman hardly “dresses well” for other women, nor for herself. Let's face it, it is to create interest and incipient sex desire in males. Much of our modern advertising, too, features the physical charms of voluptuous women, which is both an appeal and stimulant to the male's sexual drives.

  All this lifts human sex relations entirely out of the realm of animal sex under evolutionary rules. Where did all these “oversexed” aspects of mankind come from?

  If we accept the assumption that mankind's true ancestors came from space, we can also assume that the starmen, the original humans, lived for virtual eons of time on their home-planet. And there the basic laws of survival operated for those eons of time, far longer than on Earth.

  If so, wouldn't the woman who enjoyed sex the most, adorned herself to be the most ravishing beauty, and thus attracted the most desirable men into her embrace, win out in that particular “battle of the fittest,” while her weaker and less appealing sisters would fall by the wayside? If, then, random mutations eventually produced a woman (among the starmen race) who could enjoy orgasm as fully as the male, she would obviously become the choicest sex partner.

  In short, she would be the sexiest and count the most males among her conquests.

  And there is reason to believe, because it is the rule in the animal kingdom, that it is the human female who “invites” the male rather than the male “pursuing” the female. Social custom may twist this around but it does not conceal the basic facts.

  Furthermore, this alters the popular concept that it is only the male who is promiscuous and wants to impregnate every possible female who is willing, as part of nature's “tricks” to make the race increase. Many students of human nature in relation to the sex-drive believe that it is women who have the urge to quite naturally, if secretly, seek a wide variety of sex partners for the ins
tinctive drive to have offspring.

  And it is the human male who, through his wishes for possession of any given female, has set up moral codes and monogamous marriages, not to restrict his own promiscuousness but to confine that of the female. A sorry example is the medieval chastity belt.

  This is not an attempt to call all women “wantons” by nature, but simply a review of the inescapable fundamentals of our sexual natures, in order to get the picture straight.

  It is far too long and intricate a subject to go into, but quite possibly Earthman himself did not institute strict morality and marriage to limit too much sexual freedom – but that these sexual “laws,” too, came from the starmen.

  Back to the human female on Earth. The breasts and buttocks of women are a universal stimulant to men's sex urges. Yet why do our anthropoid female cousins display no such natural enticements or “feminine charms”?

  Female apes have hardly noticeable breasts, mostly hidden by hair, and their buttocks protrude very slightly. The erotic effect of prominent and well-shaped breasts, and their tactile enjoyment by men (and by the women themselves) is definitely a spur to sexual union. Also the well-rounded buttocks lending a woman her seductive “curves” are a sex magnet to male eyes and gonads.

  Since we cannot see how Evolution excluded all other primates to give only human females such extra sex-gifts, we again must conclude that they come from the genes of the starmen – who must have been even sexier than Earthpeople!

  And we can immediately make another suggestion as to why the starpeople should have naturally (or deliberately) promoted sexual intercourse by these body developments – in order to populate the universe. To carry on a vast colonization program involving thousands of other worlds, they had to produce offspring by the millions, billions, indeed trillions.

  Only great sex activity could accomplish that goal. And that sex drive came down to us. At least this is a logical attempt to explain humanity's super sex-drives, whereas Evolution is dumb for an answer.

  The vaginal angle of the human female is another great departure from the primates. As the above author puts it:

  Finally, there is the basic anatomy of the female vaginal passage, the angle of which has swung forward to a marked degree, when compared with other species of the primates. It has moved forward more than would be expected simply as a passive result of the process of becoming a vertical species [walking upright].5

  Now comes a direct criticism of Evolution: “Undoubtedly, if it had been important for the female of our species to present her genitals to the male for rear mounting, natural selection would soon have favored that trend and the females would by now have a more posteriorly directed vaginal tract.”

  But natural selection did not follow the “favored trend” and instead “it seems plausible to consider that face-to-face copulation is basic to our species, and in America, investigators have estimated that in their culture 70 percent of the population employs this position.”

  But why? If it cannot be the expected result of natural selection, how did this anti-evolutionary trend ever come about?

  The zoologist author has no answer himself, but we have. Namely, another sex innovation fostered through starmen's long evolutionary climb to make mating more desirable, because in the face-to-face position the partners can kiss as well as copulate. Surely that is no small addition to the act of physical love, as no doubt most men and women reading this will agree, excluding prudes and the “sex-is-sin” contingent (if any today).

  What more intimate and endearing way to make love with the acme of sensual titillations can there be than for a man and woman to embrace frontally, with both lips and genitals joined? If this produces the greatest orgasms and most copious ejaculations in men, would that not be exactly what the starmen would promote in their prolific drive to put human-like progeny on multithousands of worlds in the galaxy?

  It all comes down to the ingenious utilization of the basic function of sex – to bring male sperm in contact with the female ovum in the surest and most decisive way by means of both oftrepeated sex acts and high-powered performances.

  All this may seem “lascivious” in tone, but many psychologists can state the reasons why the sexual aspects of our lives are highly important by having improved our intellectual capacities and promoted the advent of invention, science, and all civilization.

  Another sex “stimulant” displayed by both males and females is that our lower earlobes hang loose and fleshy – again an anatomical feature denied to any other primate. Pulling at the partner's earlobes, or even nibbling them, is a well-known practice in sex foreplay among Homo sapiens.

  We can readily surmise that through ages of time, pulling at the earlobes gradually elongated them for the starpeople, to blossom out eventually as a physical aphrodisiac. The starmen certainly did not miss a bet in perfecting the fine art of sexual lovemaking. And nature (Evolution) wholeheartedly cooperated, since she did have an axe to grind – namely, preservation of the race.

  Starman extended it to the preservation of pleasure as well as race.

  He aimed for maximum proliferation in order to spread his kind throughout space in all directions and to every habitable world. It was a “mission,” we can safely surmise, that was fulfilled with enthusiasm.

  Last, among the sexual and reproductive aspects of the human female, we come to one more special factor shared by no other primate or animal. The female hymen.

  “Another related feature,” says the zoologist we've quoted extensively, “and one that appears to be unique to our species, is the retention of the hymen or maidenhead in the female. . . . Its persistence means that the first copulation will meet with some difficulty.”6

  Why the hymen should exist cannot be explained by that author, and even our explanation in this case must be rather tentative.

  We can only assume that it is a protective device for the young female, to prevent dust or grime or harmful substances from inadvertently entering the vagina. (It certainly doesn't and isn't meant to deter a determined penis, however.)

  Taking the racial point of view, the human female's vagina is very precious. It is the life-giving receptacle that must be available to the male semen. Thus, it must be given extra protection, which no other animal receives in the same manner. Life is cheap under nature's tooth-and-claw setup, but was far from cheap to the colonizing starmen, who could not afford to lose lives unnecessarily.

  Once the young girl is ready and her first copulation breaks the hymen, it can be assumed that from then on there is no further need for vaginal protection during maturity.

  This nature-grown sheath for the immature human female's vagina can again be attributed to natural selection in the starpeople's Evolution. Young females without the hymen would tend to develop diseases or injuries that killed them off or rendered them infertile. Natural selection would favor those who gradually developed that vaginal guard to the sex aperture, until, in time, the entire feminine portion of the race was so equipped.

  Now we come to the human male and whatever special qualities he displays that relate to his sexual equipment. In his case there is only one focal point – his penis.

  The peculiarity that follows is quite astounding in any and all terms – biological, anatomical, physiological, and sexual.

  It seems that Man is the only primate without a penis bone.7

  Not only that, in a broader degree he may be the only landroving mammal without a penis bone. How can this be? How can our supposedly infallible laws of natural selection endow and maintain penis bones in the large primates and in the largest mammal families and then, in one fell swoop, give Man and only Man the largest primate brain as well as no penis bone?

  Both factors are completely out of phase with Evolution. Do we have here, in this incredible inconsistency, another beautiful example of how Man must be a Hybrid? And how his extraordinary characteristics, if correctly interpreted, lead invariably to the conclusion that Man's ancestry, in large part, came fro
m outer space?

  To see how this fits into our Hybrid Theory, let us consider other animals. Deer, cows, dogs, cats, horses, and other animals are known to have penis bones,8 and, amazingly so do whales.9 The incomplete but already significant evidence indicates that Man is the sole land-roving mammal without such a bone.

  The penis bone is recessed ordinarily but when the animal is sexually excited, the bone thrusts upward into the flesh of the penis to give it rigidity as it extends out from beneath the belly.

  This situation of leaving out human males is virtually without parallel, for where nature endows one animal preferentially, she usually shows at least partial endowment of this same characteristic to related species. Astoundingly, this has not happened to Man. The other large primates all have penis bones. And why, may we ask?

  There are several good reasons why animals require the penis bone, which makes their sex organ very rigid. Wild animals often have to mate rapidly out in the open and are helpless at the time and open prey for predators. So the less time taken for the sex act, the better. Also the male, in many cases, must force his attentions on the female (or at least consummate their union rapidly so she does not dash off at some sudden fright or out of impatience).

  Perhaps most pertinent is the fact that the male, in almost all species, has to battle rival males to win the female in heat at the moment. By the time the fierce struggle is over, the male may be so weary and exhausted, even wounded, that if he did not have a penis bone to achieve a firm erection, the sex act might never be consummated and the species would die out.

  But Man needs no penis bone. Why?

  With little effort, we can trace this anomaly back to the starmen. In their case, the lack of the above mating hazards for long eons plus the human female's ready willingness and cooperation during the sex act, would inevitably through evolutionary laws eliminate the need for a stiffening penis bone. Instead, more blood is allowed to flow into the penis at pressures sufficient to erect it to almost bonelike rigidity. This, in turn, increases the pleasure response of the penis with no space taken up by a bone that has no sensitivity and does not contribute to orgasm.