, , , , , , , , , , ,

It seems to me that nature, or god if you prefer, has made some significant fupahs in a few of the differences between men and women. I know, often times our differences are exactly what works well together and attracts us to each other. The anatomical differences for mating are logical enough, right? The left brain, right brain theories seem to apply, at least in part, pretty consistently throughout the general population.

Yes, I  agree  it would be pretty boring if we were all the same and that specific traits of maleness and of femininity are sexy in their own individual ways and principally because of their differences rather than their similarities.

Still, I’ve been pre-occupied by the subjects of monogamy, sexuality throughout evolution, and the genetics of being male and female. I understand various arguments for our male or female behavior.  I know about the caveman behavior that still courses through a man’s veins. I get the rationalization for the behaviors but… I see it as flaws in nature. Failure in evolution.  Behaviors that are no longer required for survival of the species.

Perhaps we need another millennium to pass before genetically we catch up with our reality or perhaps nature believes that it can never safely suppress the drive to deposit sperm far and wide least we find ourselves with a sudden need to procreate the earth again, perhaps following some natural or manmade disaster. Even as I type that last sentence, imaginary men in my mind begin to cheer…. “Yes! Yes! … we must always remain sex driven… Survival depends on it! Don’t mess with our ready-made justification for bad behavior.”  And the crowd turns wild…


Just as a tomato rises up from the frenzied mass and hits me on the side of the head, I’m pretty certain I hear someone yell “you crazy bitch, don’t mess with nature!!!.” Indeed, these imaginary men in my head are all united by their natural cause. By their genes. By the urge to screw. And they do NOT want that messed with. Unfortunately this imaginary scene is not so different from reality.

So, looking at the most simplistic version of it; men are driven to spread their seed to as many women as possible and the purpose of this is to ensure the survival of the species while women are driven to be monogamous because holding on to one man to provide for her and protect her offered the best chances for security for her and her child. It sounds so logical and matter of fact, right?

Personally ,it sounds like Gods warped version of entertainment to me. A stone age soap opera. Women desperate to keep one man to ensure their security (gasp) and men desperate to escape commitment and f*ck anything on 2 legs or in more desperate times maybe anything with 4 (we’ll be right back after commercial)

Oh my… all the drama and the heartache there would be, but also, the hunt, the chase, the conquer….. it’s still a prominent theme of movies and television today. But what kind of God is that? One with a very dark sense of humor? One that values men more than women? Because when you think about it this whole propagation for survival theory really offers nothing all that favorable to women. A life time of trying to snag a man and fearing the day he might leave you and your children alone in the wild to fend for yourself?

Some genetic acceptance of sharing your man with multiple women because a little piece of security is better than no security at all?

  WTF? It pretty much reduces us to animals. Just as the cow accepts the bull will screw everything in the pasture with teats, women too should accept this from men?

How then does sex drive fit into this whole biological theory? Why did nature make men instantly aroused like the flip of a switch, but make women simmer and brew? That seems a bit counterproductive to me. What earthly or heavenly purpose is there to creating man and woman at such odds with each other? Why can most men have sex with just about anyone? Even someone they don’t want to be with or someone they don’t find that attractive. After all they can close their eyes and can still be perfectly satisfied with the sex.

Yet women crave the connection and attraction. It is  difficult for a woman to engage in sexual activity when she feels disconnected or is not at least physically attracted to the other person. There are of course all types of exceptions.  She might have nymphomaniac tendencies or she might be drunk at the time, she may view sex as a form of validation that makes her feel wanted or she may choose or even have to disconnect from her body as a means of survival or financial gain such as choosing prostitution.   Still,  in most cases the average woman finds it difficult if not highly stressful, and in some cases traumatic, to be in a sexual situation she does not wish to be in at the time.   So are we to assume that cave men were all so extremely and irresistibly sexy that a woman wanted to fall on her back and fling her legs in the air for the chance to be with any one of them?  Perhaps the motherhood drive was so strong that it was the chance of being impregnated that made them willing?  Yet choosing a good mate who was strong, healthy and able to provide is also part of the survival of a species, so it seems more likely that  even in those hay days of cave sex, women were more selective than men.  It sounds like the enduring of a lot of forced sex to me.   So, if that were the case and men are driven to bang, bang, bang.. anytime, anywhere with anyone and women are not, WHY were we designed that way?

What possible good comes from this difference?

My new age spiritual side presents the following argument for consideration; What if women are created the way we are for the possibility that our species would indeed survive and evolve, so that one day we might teach men a different side of sensuality, sex and love? A different path to god.  A higher awareness.  What if the love of one person truly can complete a man? Elevate his evolution process for the better. What if we truly are a part of yin and yang? What if it is all a test? One that humanity has been slow to catch on to.

Yeh, I know… sounds like total crock of sh*t fantasy to me too.  Unfortunately it’s the kind of thing I would have believed in a couple of years ago. Part of my belief that being a woman was a blessing, sacred and exotic, that I might bring some extraordinary things to a man, to our spiritual and physical union. That we might transcend and grow together. Bond and evolve together.   I really was so simplistic. So naïve….

Shall we take some bets on whether the woman he is drawing is his wife or not?  Odds are she is not…  And so it starts…….and continues today…… I guess we just blame it on the cavemen.   Nature.    One big stinking, rotten, injustice of nature.   This posting is obviously over simplistic.   And a bit  of anger shows through.  But I can’t help but ask myself why men and women are so different in this regard when the potential of our union could have been so incredible.