For what it's worth: peace and love in Lysistrata Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Have you ever wondered why Marilyn Monroe was painted on the side of a fighter plane? It always seems like a vulgar juxtaposition that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima were, from a visual perspective, dropped between the legs of a pin-up girl. Incidentally, this tendency to make merchandise sexy is not indicative of twentieth-century America. Indeed, the trend appears to have continued from the days when the Face of Helen launched a thousand ships into the modern era. It seems indisputable that there is a connection between sex and war. The task now is to find the genesis of this unlikely relationship and then explain its longevity. History and literature contain countless examples of the sex-war dichotomy, but when looking for a model, Aristophanes' comedy Lysistrata proves particularly effective. In this play, a matriarch named Lysistrata and the other women of Athens organize a sexual embargo in an attempt to force their husbands to end a long war. Surprisingly enough, they actually succeed. Much of the literary criticism surrounding this work has focused on this success, elaborating on the role of women as peacekeepers. Critic Mary Jane Fox states that Aristophanes "unapologetically places woman as humanity's champion, and in no uncertain terms sets out to elevate her to a status and capacity far beyond the expectations of ancient Greece (and perhaps even the twenty-first century)." (Fox 12). Christopher A. Farone similarly focuses on the “rather positive images in this drama of women as bringers of salvation and civil order,” looking particularly at myths with similar thematic elements as sources of comparison (Farone 42). Additionally, journalist Katha Pollit highlighted the contemporary relevance of this text, especially as it relates to the “Lysistrata Project,” and the new millennium anti-war effort that attempted to use this ancient play to influence American foreign policy. None of these critics are incorrect in their analysis, but aside from Pollit's slight implication that women are innately better peacekeepers than men, these critics have neglected to explore possible reasons for women's success in Lysistrata and their sexual embargo. Fortunately, scholars are beginning to study the relationship between sex and war found in this text and in society at large. Hong Kong-based researchers led by Chinese University psychologist Lei Chang collected quantitative data on this phenomenon and elaborated their findings in the article "The Face That Launched a Thousand Ships: The Mating-Warring Association in Men." Furthermore, in their book Sex and War: How Biology Explains War and Terrorism, Malcom Potts and Thomas Hayden address this puzzle from a historical perspective. By combining the wisdom of these critics and contemporary research, I aim to demonstrate that Lysistrata, although an ancient text, highlights the merit of modern theories surrounding the relationship between sex and war, helping both to illuminate the problems inherent in this association and to hypothesize the potential for a solution. Initially, the use of language in this play highlights the close relationship between sex and war from the very first scene. For example, Lysistrata welcomes a Spartan girl named Lampito, complimenting her "delightful face" and her "elegant slenderness" (Aristophanes 44). However, Lysistrata does not simply appreciate these characteristics because they are attractive, but instead recognizes Lampito's aesthetic appealas a source of strength, equating the girl's “fresh” appearance with the ability to “strangle a bull” (46). This compliment may seem ridiculous because Lampito's “slenderness” would probably not allow her to “strangle a bull,” but the irony here is intentional, suggesting that Lysistrata understands the political capital of sexual appeal. Lampito's strength is intangible, but powerful. Furthermore, Lysistrata's organization of a sexual embargo highlights her understanding. This is demonstrated when women take up Lysistrata's commitment, recognizing that to "bow to Peace" they "must abstain from every depth of love (120). Although the women comically struggle with the terms of this pact, under Lysistrata's leadership they manage to succeed, ultimately bringing their husbands home from war and peace to Athens. Although this text originated in antiquity, its depiction of sex and war has universal relevance. . In her book Homeward Bound: America In the Cold War Era, Elaine Tyler May focuses on the role of female sexuality during World War II. May explains that although women experienced “increasing sexual and economic emancipation” during the war, like Lysistrata and her female group, their sexuality had a dangerous connotation (May 95). The historian cites a 1972 pamphlet in which radioactive rays were personified as sexy women and the use of the slang term “bomb” used to describe a “sexy woman outside” as examples of the parallels between danger and female sexuality. (May 97). This portrayal of women as unstable sexual entities is echoed in Lysistrata where the title character quotes men referring to women as “elusive rascals,” even though they “stay at home” and are, by their own admission, “naturally shy” (Aristophanes 467 ). Katha Pollit believes that the “positive aspect” of this vision is that it “offers ordinary women a platform – as mothers and housewives – from which to demand attention as significant social actors” (Pollit 1). His optimism is justified, especially from the point of view of ancient Greece. The women in this play are not diplomats or even royalty, but they are weavers. Aristophanes is progressive by ancient Greek standards when he implies that conventional, domestic women can use their sexuality to end a war. However, why does sexuality have this kind of power? Both Aristophanes and modern scientists suggest that, for men, sex and aggression are biologically linked. Lysistrata herself states that “war is man's only business,” and Hong Kong scientist Lei Cheng seems to agree (Aristophanes 486). The scientist conducted a study on 111 students (60 men) who saw twenty photos of members of the opposite sex. Half of the men and women surveyed looked at images of people considered attractive while the other half looked at images of people considered unattractive (Cheng 670). Next, “participants answered 39 questions about wars (Cheng 673). The survey found that male participants “showed more militant attitudes” if they had seen photos of attractive women. This same effect was not found in female participants. Chang and his colleagues explained these findings by suggesting that there is a “mating warfare association” that drives men to “engage in organized lethal aggression” (Cheng 674). The role played by biology in male aggression can also be observed in Lysistrata, in which the sexual stimulation of female bodies without the prospect of liberation makes men more aggressive. In fact, at the beginning of the sex strike the attitudes of themen are positively militant. These attitudes are best highlighted through the catalog of military diction employed by Aristophanes in this speech given by the male chorus: Let each one wag his tail as young as he can, and if he has the cause at heart let him rise at least a head. We must take a stand and stick to it, because if we give in even a little to their importunity. Then nowhere from their raids will immunity be left to us (Aristophanes 520). The use of the phrase "take a stand" and the term "give in" imply that the men intend to approach the sexual embargo as they would a military offensive. Furthermore, Farone cites these “furious torch-carrying” men and their use of fire as a threat as a common trope of ancient literature that adds to the interpretation of the men as “unwise, angry” characters” (Farone 41). In contrast, the women in this play are typically portrayed in an opposite light, as evidenced by Lysistrata's tendency towards diplomatic negotiation. Critic Mary Jane Fox believes that Lysistrata demonstrates the “more positive attributes with which women have been stereotyped” such as a tendency to argue, an avoidance of more aggressive alternatives, and an overriding compassion for the injustices of war” (Fox 13). This disparity between the sexes is stated in the discussion of Potts and Hayden who searched history for cases of female “team aggression” but found such cases “conspicuously absent” (Potts 136). From an examination of the evidence it appears that male aggression is a biological imperative that is accentuated in the presence of sexual stimulus, which essentially connotes that men are responsible for the existence of war. Naturally the explanation must not and cannot be reduced to this syllogistic form. In other words, men don't take all the blame in this scenario. The biological imperative that men have towards aggression is a socialized adaptation that has been perpetuated by women. Potts and Hayden explain that, throughout much of history, “men who were ready to attack their neighbors…and who could seduce or coerce women into sex ended up having more children” (Potts 2). Women, meanwhile, were more likely to “enhance their reproductive success…by aligning themselves with successful violent men rather than joining raids and risking death themselves” (2). Therefore, it is not necessarily true that women are inherently less aggressive. Lysistrata recognizes aggressive tendencies in women when she tells the magistrate that he “did not guess the thirst for glory burning in our blood” (Aristophanes 443). However, women have learned to satisfy their “thirst passively” because the type of behavior that enables war is not considered an asset to the female sex. This explains why Lysistrata's offensive tactics are examples of resistance rather than aggression, so much so that she labels “contempt” as her weapon of choice (103). The opposite is true for men, who are historically rewarded by women for displays of aggression, particularly sexual attention. Men need sex with women to reproduce, and evolution has conditioned them to believe that aggressive behavior will help them satisfy this need. Meanwhile women are biologically conditioned to find aggression attractive, in order to enable successful procreation. This logic makes it appear that the aggression that creates war is a necessary evil responsible for the perpetuation of the human race, yet Potts and Hayden suggest that while evolution has “linked sex and violence for millions of years, civilization has given us the possibility of tools to separate the two things again". AND.