Let's consider that both men and women have a nature, which makes them act in certain ways. Their nature is an effect of their distinct reproductive functions.
In the civilized world, however, men's nature is increasingly under attack, and women's nature is increasingly under protection.
A man acting according to his instincts is considered a brute.
A woman acting according to her instincts is considered virtuous.
A man wanting a no-strings-attached physical relationship is considered a cad.
A woman wanting a commitment for life is considered the paragon of virtue.
A man wanting to be promiscuous is considered anti-social.
A woman wanting serial monogamy is considered a victim of circumstances.
A man's desire for "just that" is considered animal-like and worthy of condemnation.
A woman's desire for "not just that" is considered family-oriented and worthy of admiration.
If we consider the stability of the family unit as a worthy goal, worthier than the happiness of its constituents, then it is obvious that a long-term commitment (that is, Marriage) which go against male nature is the primary yoke that society is enforcing.
The institution of marriage, and the legal safeguards it offers women, is more commonly a burden and restriction for men than for women. This observation will be rather unacceptable to many modern women, but consider the obvious fact that male mammals want to run away (after impregnating, they lose interest), whereas female mammals want to hold them down to provide for them (their interest continues, and becomes more significant after getting impregnated).
The woman seeking long-term commitments is as much a fact of life as a man seeking to spread his seed far and wide. I don't think this fact is going to change anytime soon as it is in our DNA.
It is easy to see that the female's instincts lead to the secure upbringing of the offspring. On the other hand a question might be asked whether an alpha male contributes to the propagation of the species by his philandering.
Of course he does. He increases the overall fitness of the population by making sure his (better) seed gets wider reception. If the rule of "one man one woman" is strictly enforced, then over time the genetic fitness of the population will wither. It is a rather obvious conclusion of Darwinian selection.
An acceptance of and a mutual respect for each other's distinct sexual nature is getting rarer these days. I wonder sometimes if that is such a good thing.
(to be continued)
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
One cannot cohabit with more than one woman with a desire for "just that" and then pretend they do so for wanting to propagate their high quality seed. These are two contradictory statements.
An alpha male in the animal kingdom almost never(except for a few apes) engages in it for "just that". They always do it to reproduce.
You must decide - do you want to be an animal or a human.Even If you want to be an animal then that means never engage in it for "just that".So beware!!!!
If you want to be human, behave as other human's do act with responsibilty and exercise control on the desire to do "just that". If possible Stick to one woman all the way till old age. That is the only way to propagate a human species and live responsibly in a human society. Also makes perfect genetic sense.
What you are talking about is neither human or animal behavior it is called pervert behavior. Man or woman nobody likes to be a pervert.Leave alone talk of nonsensical genetics.
@anonymous: "Just that" = "just physical relations".
Last time I checked, Anonymous, humans are animals. Despite that unfortunate biological error, your post was quaint enough to give me a lovely feeling of nostalgia for a Golden Age that, alas, never existed.
Dear Babbit,
If they are animals they better do it only once in a while like animals do.The rest of the time they can spend hunting for their own food or grazing in the grassfields, swatting the flies off their back, maybe roaring or mooing once in a while to make their presence felt. Would be a peaceful enlightened living.
Dear Harmanjit
What you are talking about is totally outdated. If you would rather open your eyes and look clearly in the modern context, it may help you contextualize.
For instance, your obvious fact "that male mammals want to run away (after impregnating, they lose interest)" is not so obvious in today's context, thanks to birth control, male objective is not to impregnate and neither is this a woman's objective to view sex as only a reproductive mechanism. It is a more or less bonding activity between steady partners and a pleasure activity between casual partners.
Also "It is easy to see that the female's instincts lead to the secure upbringing of the offspring" Though I don't disagree with this, I think you are biased against men here. It is equally a male instinct to provide and ensure a secure upbringing of the offspring, ofcourse if the child is born to a couple committed to each other. And commitment itself is also not only a female trait, men equally want to have a steady partner and a family of their own, at some stage of their life. Please make a conscious effort to talk to a few young fathers around and you will know. I have seen men getting transformed and taking up that provider role (willfully, not forced by their women). Do you disagree?
Lastly, the male female relationships would have vanished if there weren't positive factors about those and love, affection, intimacy and emotional security come into play there, irrespective of the conflicting priorities and roles of both the sexes.
@newreader:
For instance, your obvious fact "that male mammals want to run away (after impregnating, they lose interest)" is not so obvious in today's context, thanks to birth control"
Well, substitute impregnation by intercourse. Haven't you noticed males lose interest after "scoring"?
I have seen men getting transformed and taking up that provider role (willfully, not forced by their women). Do you disagree?
I wouldn't call them "transformed", but more like "reconciled". Scratch the surface, and you will usually find a lot of resentment and suffocation and a suppressed desire for novelty for which they are too timid, it being risky. A man who is happily content with his wife after marriage probably hasn't had premarital relationships either. In other words, he is a beta and is blessing his luck that he finally could get married even.
Lastly, the male female relationships would have vanished if there weren't positive factors about those and love, affection, intimacy and emotional security come into play there, irrespective of the conflicting priorities and roles of both the sexes.
I don't deny that these factors exist, and are important for a family unit to survive. I wish women realized that unless a male is provided these counter-balancing comforts and pleasures in life at home, there is little that will prevent him for seeking greener pastures, so to speak.
Dear Harmanjit,
The desire for love,emotional security etc is common to all human beings man or woman. So both men and women have to realize relationships form as a result of this desire rather than an urge to do "just that".
You sound terribly confused and illogical, contradicting your own statements in this post. If ever you have been hurt by a woman it is time to forgive and not hold just women responsible for a breakdown of relationships or of the family unit.
Both men and women must pull the yoke together. Even if sometimes one has to put in more effort than the other in keeping the yoke straight. The yoke simply cannot be pulled by one alone. That is all there is to realize in a relationship.
Well, substitute impregnation by intercourse. Haven't you noticed males lose interest after "scoring"?
Ok, Substituted impregnation with intercourse. But the men who call that scoring, 'need help'.
About losing interest, I agree and that happens/may happen with women too, they(women) probably just do not express it so openly and try to balance out keeping other factors in mind like family stability, loyalty etc. Otherwise who doesn't want novelty?
I wouldn't call them "transformed", but more like "reconciled".
I used transformed in context of fatherhood and i have witnessed that. If being a new parent transforms a new mother, it also does that to a new father (ofcourse if they actually wanted the child)
We can use the term 'reconcile' for marriage in general for both the sexes. If men (some) give up/cut down flirting and clubbing, women give up/slow down their careers, other hobbies due to family needs.
Scratch the surface, and you will usually find a lot of resentment and suffocation and a suppressed desire for novelty for which they are too timid, it being risky.
Ok, resentment and suffocation is true for both men and women unless compensated by love and satisfaction they both achieve out of it. Maybe men suffer due to dearth of novelty and women due to increased workloads involving household duties/ raising children.
But then its all about complementing each other.
A man who is happily content with his wife after marriage probably hasn't had premarital relationships either. In other words, he is a beta and is blessing his luck that he finally could get married even.
No don't agree, a man in love with his woman can 'choose' to be loyal even if he is capable of making hearts beat.
I don't deny that these factors exist, and are important for a family unit to survive.
Good.
I wish women realized that unless a male is provided these counter-balancing comforts and pleasures in life at home, there is little that will prevent him for seeking greener pastures, so to speak.
Ofcourse women need to realize the counter balance comforts and all as much as the men need to understand the need of appreciation in a woman for all the hard work to make the family unit survive.
However if among your counter balance comforts you are counting novelty in terms of sex outside marriage, then the other partner (woman) will also stray eventually. Let's look at how the so called open relationships go :-). We are the luckier generation to witness the traditional marriage systems as well as its downfall.
"The institution of marriage, and the legal safeguards it offers women, is more commonly a burden and restriction for men than for women."
Missed out this in my earlier comments. Please spend time with an elderly couple (it could be your parents if they are old enough, or maybe grandparents if alive). Please observe the dependence they have on each other (even if they are verbally abusing each other at times). What would the life be for these old people if they weren't together?
If this is not a logic enough, maybe you need to read more about male sex desire and when it actually starts diminishing. (You seem to be fond of biology) Coz then will the losing interest part still hold true?
And does the the marriage still appear to be a legal safeguard for women at that age? (Man is not earning. Woman is not ovulating).
And honey, you and I won't always be young (I take the liberty of guessing your age owing to the fact that you have a blog and a fairly modern thinking). God forbid, there is all that about strokes and paralysis and what not, a spouse may come in handy any day :-) Flings?? i am not sure :-)
Maybe you can suggest a new theory to the social scientists where men and women get married after their sixties, till then, 'just that'. A beautiful world full of illegitimate children getting value education about 'just that'.
In fact, you can even suggest a theory to the environmentalists where the mammals make themselves extinct to save the environment coz it can be 'just that' with total birth control. Pretty amusing huh?
Jokes apart, you need to seriously consider the positives of institution of marriage for both sexes (with all its flaws) before naming it a 'legal safeguard' for women.
I agree with your views.
A stable law-abiding society gets weaker over time because the alpha males don't get to father enough children. Nowadays, modern medicine has made it possible for even the weakest to survive and then they go on to father weak children who find life as difficult.
Humans can cheat with nature for a while but can't beat it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13739876
"Some said women experience double standards in which they are under pressure to look sexy, but are also expected to live chaste lives."
Women giving in to social pressure to look sexy is okay but men giving in to primal instinctual pressure is not okay? Which pressure is more difficult to control - social or instinctual?
@newreader
LOL, you remind me of my own parents and relatives castigating my every modern thought that would criticize monogamous relationships.
harman is right. i've noticed the underlying resentment in these "reconciled" husbands more than the wives. have you ever noticed why it is always the husband who keeps a grim face among the rest of the family?
@newreader: Too much to respond to. :)
But as regards to old people taking care of each other, I understand that is a reason many get married, and it is a worthwhile reason in my opinion.
Here's a couple of epigrams for you, penned by yours truly:
A wise person analyzes all marriages except one's own.
Marriage is a rational institution which needs an initial bout of irrationality to survive.
Marriage is book of arithmetic with a poetic, colorful binding.
Post a Comment