What if humans had hindered the development of fire the way we've impeded the evolution of our beliefs about sex? We'd be living in huts, spearing fish, wearing thatch and possess limited knowledge of world. No computers. No microwaves. No cell phones. Not a Target in site.

As modern-day humans, we smile at the thought that thousands of years ago, our species used feet as their sole means of transportation. We beam in amazement at the inventiveness of cavemen who used stones to create fire to warm themselves and cook their food. We even, with a touch of arrogance, pity Third World countries whose citizens don't drive cars or have indoor plumbing. And who doesn't know the tongue-tingling pleasure of a well-made Creme Brulee.

In hindsight, we can see the process of fire as a tool. It was discovered, (accidentally or on purpose, we'll never really know) at a time when leaves and twigs were considered haute couture. Without Caveman Bob rubbing rocks together, our existence would be quite different. The domino theory would be in full effect. For starters, we would not be driving. There would be no tires because there would be no rubber because there would be no vulcanization because there was no fire.

So why, as a society, do we still consider sex between men and women to be the pinnacle of validating our genderhood? The concept of sex has been around much longer than the wheel or coal-burning engines. What type of evolution has it experienced? Our concept of what sex's role should be in our culture has been stagnated by societal beliefs. In Western culture, being abstinent or choosing an alternative lifestyle is still considered to be outside the boundaries of normal societal behavior.

Orthodox religions pontificate about how sex should occur only between a man and a woman for the purpose of continuing the species. Could it be that the belief that sex is necessary for procreation is as primitive as starting a fire with a flint? Is it possible, after the fateful day when Eve bit the apple, that sex startled and confused humans? And having taken a nip from the tree of knowledge, instead of a hearty gulp, they came up with the "sex only for procreation" theory?

The Encyclopedia Britannica reveals that for years Peking Man (who lived about 500,000 BC), was believed to be the earliest user of fire. Evidence uncovered in Africa in the 1980s, however, suggests that our ancestors were using fire 1.4 million years ago. But it wasn't until around 7000 BC that they developed reliable fire-making techniques. The process of harnessing fire went through fits of stops and starts.

It took man almost a million years to go from inventing fire to being able to really control it. Even when primitive man figured out how to manage fire, it was still easier to keep a fire going than to put it out and re-ignite it later. Is it possible that the "scientific breakthroughs," which now allow humans to conceive without actual intercourse, are nothing but a step in the process of sexual evolution?

Sex, like fire, has had its share of bumps along path of development. For the most part, it has been viewed with uncompromising undertones. There have been those who were brave enough to have stepped outside society's box. Medieval Wicca, for example, used Tantric-type sex in their rituals to celebrate Beltane.

The one consistent thread is that anyone who had sex without procreating or claiming to enjoy it has been ostracized. Puritanical beliefs, from Jesus' time to the Salem Witch trials to Dr. Laura, have thwarted the evolution of our concept of sex. This leads to an important question: "Who says that sex should only be used for procreation?" Or that it is a necessary part of life at all?

Many will cite the Bible. But we need to remember that the Bible was written two thousand years ago by men who believed that women and cows were both chattel. Who used camels for transportation and urinated in the desert. The Bible says nothing about Jesus preaching that sex was strictly about producing children.

There is mention in the bible of Jesus being chaste. But because of questionable accuracy, we'll never know whether or not Jesus actually had sex. He certainly had ample opportunity. But is it possible that he knew that spiritual growth was more fulfilling than satisfying a strictly human need?

In Gary Zukav's book, "Seat of the Soul," he claims that the ultimate satisfaction is obtained through successful spiritual partnerships, as opposed to traditional marriages. In discussing this concept, he outlines the purpose of such a relationship: to set aside your personality needs in order to accommodate the needs of your partner's spiritual growth. By doing so, you grow yourself, co-creating your soul's evolution.

There's no doubt that sex can be a pleasurable, even bone-rattling, experience. But is it something that is required for self-actualization? Movies, sitcoms, music, magazines and a myriad of other sources tell us it that is. Each of us needs to listen to our own spirit to determine what works in our lives. Society cannot make that decision for us.

It's also important to understand that straddling the fence creates real suffering. Denying what you know will allow you to be joy-filled because of the artillery of messages you receive to the contrary is only going to cause pain. And it will be a much more substantial pain than the surface cuts caused by societal ridicule.

Imagine that each one of us makes a conscious decision to allow our perception of sex to evolve. Imagine that we enter into spiritual partnerships as opposed to traditional marriages. What will the results be? No jealous lover's quarrels. No pain over unfulfilled expectations. No unrequited "love." No questioning our value as a person because someone doesn't want to have sex with us. That's a world I'd like to live in.

Editor's Note: Staci is our new Sex and Spirituality editor. Please her website at: www.fifthgoddess.com and join her free ezine at: www.egroups.com/group/fifthgoddess