WOMAN AND MAN UNDIVIDED

Brent Anderson

The relationship of woman and man as depicted by the writers in today’s periodicals and the media in general is shrouded in mystery and conflict. It is represented as so complex as to require none but the best academic minds to understand. Yet the success of the race over eons of time belies this point of view. The truth is that men and women understand each other very well on the most basic level, as is evidenced by the continuing flow of children into this world.

All can rest assured that if a group of children (male and female) were reared in isolation, completely separated from all human culture, with no sexual education of any sort, that children would be born to the group soon after sexual maturity was reached. Additionally, they would develop their own language and culture. All that is needed is contained within the genes of the average human. The cultural additions to this most basic of human functions can be compared to frosting on a cake. Even in our relatively advanced civilization, the basics of human behavior are only thinly overlaid by our sensibilities and cultural constructs yet we hear from every side that man does not understand woman etc.

One reason for this supposed conflict between the sexes is that it sells books and magazines. Such commerce is indeed aided by strident, outlandish claims of radicals whose statements the media loves to trumpet. A second reason is that woman and man were designed for separate roles by nature. A third, and just as important, is that today’s environment is radically changed from that which shaped mankind’s sexuality. This change has had a direct effect upon mankind’s natural sexual behaviors. The only way to understand this perceived state of conflict in the affairs of the sexes requires that we first understand the basics of Homo Sapiens sexuality. It may seem that this knowledge would be almost second nature to us, requiring little thought to bring perception, but this is obviously not the case. The truth is that the complexities of the programming within human DNA is beyond the mental ability of any of us and all of us. It is obvious that male and female are both required in the perpetuation of the species, and this is the norm for most life on this Earth. The fact is that male and female are genetically programmed to play different roles in the process of procreation. It seems evident that this concept of differing roles is very successful, and that the discord between the two sexes in the case of humans is somewhat overblown. When we observe other animals, it is rare to find males and females of any species that cooperate as fully as humans do in the procreation process.

First, let us consider the female of the species and the genetic imperatives under which she operates. Baby humans are one of the most helpless when compared to other baby animals, and the period of helplessness is longer than any other species. This one fact was/is the primary factor that shaped human sexuality and the bonding of man and woman. The female of most species is the primary nurturer of the young, and there are few exceptions to this rule. In the case of humans, however, this burden is so great as to require the efforts of both man and woman to raise a number of offspring over a period of 30 or 40 years. Because of this, woman’s natural, or genetic, need is to require a long-term commitment from a man before she grants her sexual favors. Without that commitment, any offspring (representing her genetic survival) were jeopardized, and in the not too distant past, relegated to almost certain death. The male’s reason for entering a contract is the assurance that the resulting children will be his. (It is not uncommon in the animal world to find that males will kill offspring of other males.) From this it becomes evident why chastity among women has always been highly valued by both woman and man. If a woman gives her chastity without a long-term contract, she, traditionally, was acting very foolishly. The error of such action was social suicide, but more importantly, a probable genetic dead end. If she is perceived by the males available to her as being promiscuous, chances are high they will view her as an unreliable partner in a male female contract. It has always been true that a used, or easy, woman had/has very little bargaining power when it came to selecting the best male to father and protect her children. (That does not mean that males would not gladly use her for sexual gratification.) To a certain extent this is even true in our modern libertine society in that a woman who selects her husband from the pool of educated men found at an institution of higher learning (university) certainly increases the chances of a more affluent life for self and children. On the other hand, it is usually true that a sexually active woman rarely makes it to college, due to the consequences of her life style, thus leading to a below average life style for self and children.

Another important factor in the female genetic imperative favors selection of a strong healthy man to father her children. The reason for this is obvious, and that is that the strongest most aggressive (Powerful, bold, obnoxious, mouthy, pushy, and macho etc.) males would tend to sire above average children in terms of those same traits, and those traits meant that her heritage would be perpetuated. The competition for males, which is waged with other females, is fought on the battlefield of attractiveness (showy display, teasing, subterfuge, feigned indifference, real indifference, and enticement) and the goal was/is to attract and finally contract with the strongest most powerful (wealthy) male possible. Underlying, however, is a need fired by hormones to have sex (and consequently bear children) that are intensely felt by the woman. The average human female derives great enjoyment from sex with her chosen partner. In fact, the enjoyment is probably the most intense that can be experienced in life. However, the point must be made that she does not, on any level, enjoy or seek sex that is forced by those not of her choosing. The game that is played by women is one of flirtation just short of driving the aggressive males to forced sex. Women are drawn to men in the same way moths are to a flame, and if a woman exceeds the safe limit of an individual man she could suffer serious consequences. (Men are drawn to women like bees to honey but there has never been as much risk involved for men.) Therefore, most women have excellent ability (genetically programmed) to judge just how far they can push flirtation.

Women have a number of natural urges with respect to the mating game, and they must balance them carefully. A problem occurs in a minority of cases when a woman, even after entering into a contract with a (faithful) man, can not turn off one of her natural urges and is still drawn to other men. She may perceive these others as stronger or more exciting than the man she has (these men are usually very poor marriage risks since they are already unfaithfully under contract or are resistant to contracting). This is a very dangerous game for a woman, for she risks the security of her existing relationship, and hence her children’s security. Since this course is so dangerous, only a minority of women will be unfaithful to the marriage contract. Those that do, however, have an innate advantage over a man in the same circumstance, because the female is by nature very clever in judging and manipulating men. With this knowledge she has a better chance of successfully navigating the waters of adultery than most men.

In today’s society it may seem that the primordial behaviors have been negated, in that our modern society will not allow children, no matter how poorly born, to be abused or killed, and so some may make the argument that a woman need not worry about being chaste and true. This is obviously untrue, for even now it is obvious to all that for parents’, part of assuring success for their offspring is providing them with a stable environment that allows them to rise to their full potential. So it may be said, without reservation, that for the female the genetic imperative still stands and yields the best long term result (preservation of her genes).

But some things have truly changed for a woman, in that many of the male attributes that were advantages to a female in the past have changed in the modern world. Today it is more advantages for a woman to marry a man with high intelligence and a less aggressive nature who will have greater ability to support her and her children. The old standard male who was strong, quick to fight physically, and who had little interest in scholastic learning (preferring the hunt and physical endeavors) has become a dead end ticket to a graceless life of deprivation. Survival of the fittest today has turned one hundred and eighty degrees, so that the killer tribal leader of yesteryear is now imprisoned, but many women are still drawn (without necessarily understanding why) to dangerous, strong, unruly young men.

Men, on the other hand, have a very different biological imperative that surprisingly leads to the same conclusion as women’s. Men have no function in the process of starting new life other than the act of sex, which begins the pregnancy of a woman. Because of this fact, one might assume that the best strategy to assure the continuation of their genes would be to have sex with as many women as possible. Biologically, a mans body is very well equipped for this strategy since, he could have sex every day with a new woman, and thus leave his genetic seed with as many women as possible. For that game plan to work, however, he must convince many women that it is in their best interest to do the same. Which of course leads us back to the fact that the human baby requires a lot of nurturing to reach adulthood. Even if the male could convince many females that this was a good plan, it would fail if he could not provide those females with the security and sustenance to allow the children to mature, and thus carry his genes. Even if a male was able to impregnate many females, if he failed in the support area and the children all died he had achieved nothing. Biologically and physically, then, it is possible that a man could accumulate a harem and still be successful in his procreation efforts, but still it becomes a contract between the man and each individual woman at its basic level that requires support for each wife and resultant children.

Practicality has driven man to the conclusion that the best situation is a contract between one man and one woman. Since it is difficult, unless the man has wealth (slaves), to care for more than one wife and children. There is one factor that is even more important in mans’ turning from the harem approach of mating (with no contract for support), and that is that if men in general were able to convince women to have promiscuous sex, the individual man would still be unable to know when any of the females in his harem were fertile. Women, unlike most female animals, are always receptive to sex and they exhibit no outward sign of the time of fertility in their monthly cycle. This means that the male must always guard against other males, and this becomes impossible if a man wishes to eat, drink, sleep, or procure sustenance. Obviously, if the man could acquire a harem by overcoming all other challengers he would never be sure that other males had not surreptitiously had sexual intercourse with any of the harem during a time of his preoccupation. Thus, he could not know which of the resulting children were his. Fidelity thus becomes very important to the male if he wants to be assured (and he does) that the children he is supporting and nurturing are his own.

We should not presume that any of this reasoning occurred with our ancient ancestors, or that they considered these points before committing to monogamous relationships. The fact is that this all occurred naturally and was shaped by evolutionary pressures. The truth is that monogamy is the most successful method of procreation in man, and has led to more successful progeny and hence the DNA of those who practiced it was preserved.

As we all know, the male of the species is the most aggressive in almost all respects. The average young male upon looking at an attractive young woman immediately thinks of sex and begins to devise strategies that might lead to having sex with the object of his desire. Competition for females is one of the major pursuits of life for males. The prize in this competition is the most fertile female (young, healthy, attractive, full breasts, slim waist, full hips, etc.). The method is one consisting mostly of mental aggression mixed with a small amount of actual physical fighting. The establishment of a pecking order amongst males begins even before puberty, but it really heats up afterward. In today’s society, those who are early to mature sexually are at a disadvantage which was not the case in antiquity. Preparation for the best lifestyle today requires schooling that lasts well into the twenties. This fact is somewhat at odds with the physical maturation of the male. Indeed, for the male the peak of testosterone production occurs at about the age of eighteen. From that time on, testosterone begins a long slow decline and along with it the level of aggressiveness. It is obvious that the natural time for male female pairing is about this same age. After pairing it is in the best interest of the contracted pair (and all of society) that the male begins to settle down in his sexual frenzy so that he can provide for his mate and progeny more effectively. This decline was and is an important factor in the evolution of the species.

The natural order is monogamy, which was selected by evolutionary pressure as the most efficient method for humans. Additionally, as we have seen, chastity is an important attribute in a woman with whom he would pair. The same can be said of a woman who is looking for a reliable male to pair with. Historically, the male has been greatly tempted to have sex outside of his contract. There are a number of reasons for this, and perhaps the most important is that if he can do so he has a chance to surreptitiously spread his genes and then have other men provide the sustenance to raise his children. Of course, the straying man does not necessarily think of it in this light. His perspective is strictly selfish, in that all he wants is the thrill of illicit sex. In this game of cheating, it is safe to say that many more men will stray than women will. This is abetted by the fact that man, in his role of provider, was/is much more mobile than woman, who was traditionally at home nurturing the children. The male would have many more opportunities to find receptive females in the course of his travels. The problem for such a male was that very few females, percentage wise, are interested in cheating on their husbands. So it is easily understood how the oldest profession (prostitution) was born, because it provides a greater number of men with the opportunity to have illicit sex despite the dearth of females willing to participate. The fact that this sort of behavior is not in reality successful in spreading genes does not occur to the straying male. It is obvious that infidelity is just as dangerous for a man as it is for a woman. If his wife catches a man in infidelity it will de-stabilize his family and could lead to endangering his genetic investment (the children) by depriving them of a stable nurturing home. Or worse exposing them to the danger of another man who would not consider them as important as his own offspring. In the meantime he is spreading his wild oats amongst women who are a poor risk for a faithful marital contract and bearing him children.

Despite the modern media’s glamorous sales job in which they portray promiscuity as natural for humans, it is evident that this indeed is not the norm for our species. Of course, if you were to ask 18-year-old males if promiscuity was normal the majority would probably agree (wishfully) it was and this is to be expected. If you were to ask 50 year old men the same questions you would get different answers, and that also is to be expected. In fact the modern libertine penchant for fornication and adultery are in truth perversions of the true norm for mankind. Modern media has thus created a generation that is confused and unfulfilled in living the life style of the so called heroes and heroines of television, the movies, the music industry, and the sports industry.

In our consideration of the two sexes, it seems rather obvious that men and women still perform the roles for which they were designed. The only real problem between the sexes is one of communication. Each is programmed to function in very different ways, and that applies very much to communication as well as to what each thinks is important in life. Woman, in her role of nurturer of children, is very adept at communication and dealing with problems of relationships because these are more important in her role. Man is more attuned to the ancient hunt in which verbal communication was not as important as physical activity. Man today has converted the hunt to competition within the work place, stress for ancient man was simple, if he didn’t bring home food he and his family might well perish. Bringing home the food was a very physical endeavor, which helped reduce the stress through action. Modern man with the same stress in his job finds himself in a position of having no physical exertion to help relieve the stress. Woman, on the other hand, finds herself thrust into the work place of necessity, and many are frustrated because they would rather be home with their children. The net result is that both are under extreme and unusual pressure. They each see the other sex in rather unfavorable and historically unusual circumstances, and for this reason we have the discord of the present. But the new environment, given sufficient time, would bring about changes in mankind by selection of those who are adaptable to new environment.

There are two more classes of man and woman that must be considered, for it appears that they are part of natural population of mankind. First let us consider homosexual man. This perversion of the norm is obviously a genetic dead end, and one is hard pressed to understand the function of these individuals in society. In ancient times, these individuals would have fit into tribe or village as pseudo women, and as such the normal population tolerated them. Since this condition is such a genetic end of the line, it is hard to believe that it is genetic in origin. If it were, the defective genes would have been eliminated long ago. This leads us to suspect that the cause is a maternal, or infection induced hormone imbalance that occurs during gestation. The fact that this condition is observed in about one percent of the male population tells us that whatever occurs is not a rare phenomenon. There are many gradations within this small community of males, so that you would expect to see some who are almost totally feminized to those who are what might be termed bisexual at the other end of that small spectrum. If you were to consider the entire spectrum of males on the basis of sexual preference, you would find that one percent of the males would fall at the other end of that spectrum for which the mere thought of homosexual preference would be beyond any understanding. In the middle of the spectrum you would find the vast majority of males for whom homosexual behavior is repugnant but who can at least understand and tolerate those who are thus afflicted. The word affliction is used because, while most homosexuals would claim they like their life style, they would still agree that life would be far easier for them if they were normal.

The second group is composed of females who are homosexual, and as usual, they cannot be understood as easily as their male counterparts. Many such women have children because they are easily bisexual. They enjoy an advantage over their male counterparts in that they can bear children by simply having sex with an unknowing or knowing male. They do not have to even become aroused to do so. The result is that a genetic trait for this condition could exist. However, there is good reason to think that hormonal imbalances during gestation may be involved here as well. The range of deviance is just as great with this group as in males. At the extreme you find females who appear to be male in almost all-outward characteristics, even in that they compete in an aggressive manner with true males. At the other end of the homosexual group are those women who enjoy sex with both males and females. If you consider all females you would find that there are those at the other extreme for whom there could never be any understanding for homosexual feelings with the majority again finding the concept repugnant but able to tolerate such in their sisters. The number of proclaimed female homosexuals is a lesser percentage than for males, but this could be because women are better at hiding things than males.

The problem for both categories of homosexuals is the human genetic imperative. Their life style is obviously totally out of sync with the most basic of human sexual functions. Either group in practicing their preferred method of sex with fidelity to just one person, is choosing to end their genetic code. In each case, if the individual wishes to preserve their genes they have to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, or practice artificial insemination. As we have seen, the concept of fidelity is integral to the human race on the most basic level. The two homosexual groups differ markedly in their subconscious approach to this fact. The majority of gay males have adopted a life style that most would characterize as promiscuous. This is even evident with those who are bisexual who often have a wife and children. However, among female homosexuals we find that the partners in a pseudo marriage are more likely to be true to their partners. The only exception is that they may have sex with a male or seek artificial insemination to have a child, and this they generally do with their partner’s consent. This is a reflection of the overall tendency of the human female to be less prone to cheating on their sexual contract. This trend does not carry for those females who are highly masculinized. We observe in those cases an almost pathological attempt to out do and exceed what they perceive as normal male behavior. Both groups are at a disadvantage in normal society because they don’t fit in with the vast majority socially. This is the primary reason that most have found it better to not flaunt their life style to the majority.

We have now considered most of the sexual permutations observed amongst Homo Sapiens and the genetic imperatives that drive the majority. It is obvious that pairing of male with female is the norm (anything else is a perversion of the genetic imperative), and that it is critical to the continuation of the species barring artificial means. The pairing of humans is cemented by a state of mind called love. This feeling is almost certainly genetic in origin, for it is universal within the race. Love is not unique to humans but it is expressed most strongly in man and woman. While the origin of love was simply as cement to help the pairing of woman and man it also is important in the nurturing of children. Its effect permeates every aspect of human life as witnessed by the love of pets. In the past it certainly helped to cement families, tribes, towns, and countries. The capacity for love in mankind is boundless.

Unfortunately, the flip side of love is hate. This emotion while not unique to mankind is less obvious within the rest of the animal kingdom. Hate is often born of love betrayed, and if love is cement then hate is an acid that corrodes all bonds as well as the individuals who allow it to grow. The capacity of mankind to hate is unfortunately also boundless.

Love is the defining attribute of mankind, and as such it permeates every aspect of human society. It cements almost all long-term sexual pairings as well as the resultant families. It is also the very definition of God (the Father and Mother of all life) who created this world by the processes of evolution. It is the culmination and the reason of creation.

Woman and man are integral parts of a whole, for neither is complete without the other. It is unfortunate that man has alienated woman with his aggressive drive to be the boss, while this can be understood in light of the hormonal differences, it never the less cannot be justified. Throughout recorded history women, have almost universally been relegated to, at best, subservience, and, at worst, considered mere possessions. Even in today’s Moslem world women are no more than chattels. That this is wrong must be obvious, for the creation was not of hermaphrodite men, but of man and woman. Neither should be subservient to the other, since they are co-creators of human life. Neither should be unfaithful to their marriage contract (vows). In the eyes of God, they are as one, and anything less is short of His and Her expectation for their Children.