Our body is a miraculous thing. Every action, every thought, every emotion created by the synergy and efficiency of cells. It is like gigantic jigsaw puzzle of a million, trillion pieces assembled together to reveal a brilliant masterpiece.If there is any miracle required for proof of God, our very own body, capable of great acts and thoughts, is, to me, proof enough.
Our body and, in extension, our nature is built to survive despite the surroundings. Nature has given our bodies the ability to adapt to our surroundings. Yet, as our society changes in a blinding pace, our natural instincts, created or evolved to help us survive, has become a hindrance instead. Our nature has failed to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.
Case in point: Why is it there is a huge number of obese people in developed countries? The evidence is staggering, the more developed a nation is, the greater the number of overweight people. Why is that so? The obvious answer would be the impact of a life in luxury, the increase in rich food available due to wealth and the lack of exercise due to exceedingly busy schedules. Yet, here is the strange thing. These educated people continue to eat themselves to death, even in full knowledge that it is harmful to their health. Why? We cannot claim that eating is an obsession (although in some cases it really is) since eating is considered a necessity for survival.
The powerful urge to eat stems from our instinctual desire to store nutrients. Back in men's early days, food was scarce, and dependent on game and gathering. This scarcity has cause our bodies to adapt, storing excess nutrients as fat in case of times of need. Fast forward to the present, this characteristic hasn't changed much. And as we gulp down our food to prepare for the starvation that never comes, our body gets larger horizontally.
Why is is that men are more likely commit adultery? A theory put forth by Teng Soong is that men are naturally polygamous while women are monogamous. The reason for the difference also seem to lie in our roots. In the past, when men were the hunters and women were the nurturers, the survival rate of hunting and gathering while exposed to prehistoric animals of gargantuan size and harsh climate is significantly low. Lets say at 25%. This meant that the number of men to women is at the ratio of 1 is to 4. Men had to be polygamous in order for the species to survive and reproduce, while women stayed largely monogamous. Again, the impact of this in current society can be seen in the large number of divorces, adultery, or slow-growing or declining population in developed countries like Germany or Japan.
Here is another interesting example. Question: Why is it that that we have a higher propensity to consume when we have a higher income? Why is it that people will manage to spend away millions of dollars after just winning the lottery in just a few days? These are not isolated incidents, but consistent throughout since the study of economics. To put the question closer to home: Why is it we spend more money on the days we receive our paychecks, or within the week in anticipation of receiving our pay?
According to Teng, one theory is that in the days of rampant food scarcity, the sole form of resource to men was food. And since technology to preserve food was not developed yet, the best thing we can do is to engorge ourselves, relying on our own body fat as a form of storage as explained by the first example. In current society, the form of resource has changed but not that primal instinct to indulge ourselves when the resource is present.
As we ponder on these examples, it is important to note that the separation from these instincts are what separates us from animals. We have to consider for ourselves the consequences, be it in our own ethics, health and other factors.
Lets discuss. Should we abandon our instincts completely? Or is there perhaps some room for compromise? Can we adjust society to suit these instincts, or should we just hold firm? Do you have any other examples of Nature vs Society that you care to share? What are your thoughts to the matter?
Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey "people" .People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war.... Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of the rest....
Instinct is intelligence incapable of self-consciousness.
The instinct of nearly all societies is to lock up anybody who is truly free. First, society begins by trying to beat you up. If this fails, they try to poison you. If this fails too, the finish by loading honors on your head.
13 comments:
Hm, I find it difficult to believe that women are less likely to commit adultery than men. It just seems that way because the general view on society is that men love to run around chasing ass and having threesomes more than women, which just isn't true. Women are less open about their sexual desires due to previous societal repression and are just now starting to realize that they do not have to hide their sexual urges or pretend that these urges do not exist. Men, on the other hand, have been largely encouraged and praised for sleeping around and having sex, making them more open to express their urges to have multiple partners.
When a man cheats, he is scum. When a woman cheats, he either deserved it or she does a very good job of keeping it a secret. That is the way many people look at it, even if subconsciously.
In the end, women are built for nurture. Women subconsciously look for a man who is strong, dominant, can protect then and provide for them and their children . Unfortunately there are not many men that communicate or even have these traits and values. It is largely subconscious and many men just don't suit what women are essentially looking for (even if they don't know about it) anymore. This is largely due to feminism and men thinking that women want them to be 'sensitive' and crawl around on their knees after them with flowers and chocolates. If a man appears strong, dominant, and able to protect and provide to a woman initially and slips from that position over the course of the relationship (starts to seem more weak, unsure, and submissive), the woman will follow her programming and find someone else.
Hi liza! Didn't expect you to comment on this blog. And a long, insightful one at that.
Well, first, it is true men and women go through the same sexual desires. But the openess of these desires would be due to the fact that women are more monogamous, while men are more polygamous.
As for women cheating on the men, it seems to me that this HAS become a recent trend. The numbers of men cheating on women used to be much higher than the reverse, however, the numbers of cheating wives have caught up. this is, to me, the effect of society against the nature. Like you said, feminism could actually be against these instincts of a woman to be a nurturer, and thus lead to higher numbers of adultery by women.
The cause could be because of the declining of the protypical alpha male that a woman's instinct is drawn towards. But is this the case for the majority. I know of some women who do prefer their men a little softer, while some do gun for the alpha male. Could this preferance be the impact of society, i.e. a woman who is impacted by society more would go for the erm... more romantic men.
Interesting point, Liza. As a woman, what do you think?
Yeah, I really enjoyed reading the post as I've studied the seduction community and male-female communication for over two years now and find the topic very interesting.
I have to disagree with your reason to express these desires. If we agree that men and women do go through the same sexual desires then both men and women like experiencing sex with different partners. And we have to admit that society does not look as kindly on promiscuous women as it does men. Heck, I recently bought a little book of marriage tips for women written years and years ago (I can't even remember the year). It talked about how it is indecent for the woman to ever allow her husband to see her naked and that if she enjoys sex she is a slut! Is this not oppression? I believe it is, and this is what women's embarrassment and closed natures when it comes to sex comes from, in my experience.
I must also admit that I disagree with the reason for women cheating being the effect of society. Of course society has an effect on everything we do, but whereas before, as I just mentioned regarding what was said in that little book I wrote, women were not 'meant' to enjoy sex by society. They were to only give sex to the man out of necessity, when he absolutely demanded it and even told to fake illness and headaches. In reality, sex feels good to women. Our instinct tells us to have sex, to enjoy sex, and to screen potential partners for certain traits. And you're right about nature playing a part - nature has taught women from back in the dark ages that unless they mate with a stronger man who has the strength, the food, the social value in the 'clan' they and their offspring are more likely to die than survive in the harsh environment and social structure of those days. Those instincts survived and women have always and even now look for strong men who will help them and their children survive. Except now we are doing it in a way which is more open because that societal pressure from years and years ago is finally being lifted.
As for what I think regarding some women wanting alpha males and others wanting the more sensitive man (although there is nothing to say that alpha means that the man can't be sensitive, I'll go into this in a second :)), I think that what women say they want tends to be very far from what we actually respond to. We may say that we want a man who gives us gifts, pays for us, listens whenever we want to talk and declares his undying love for us. And we may settle down with such a man. But after a few months it will be all too easy for another man who perhaps seems to have the opposite of these qualities to come in and take that woman away from the 'sensitive' guy. Why? Because the more aggressive, dominant newcomer projects high social value, social value that is subcommunicated to the woman and that the woman is subconsciously drawn to because he is stronger than her current partner in the woman's eyes.
Women are more emotional than logical, this is our nature (although that isn't to say that women have no logic at all. We were just programmed to respond to more emotional signals). Men are more logical than emotional (although again, it isn't to say that they don't have emotions). From what I've read and seen, women need a man who can take charge with logic and common sense to lead them. We may not admit it, but in the end if you look around you you will see that women often end up dating men or 'bad boys' that we never said we'd date. If a 'sensitive' man comes along and starts acting on emotions more so than his female partner, the female partner will feel forced to assume the natural role of the man - the logical role of leading the relationship, which according to all of her programming and instincts is not her job. Women test men subconsciously to see how they respond. If a man seems like he is too easy to get pushed around by her or anyone, she will find one who isn't - one who can bring stability and strength to the relationship. Male and feminine energies balance each other out in this way.
Now on to the topic of 'sensitive' men. Dominant men can still be 'sensitive' and show emotions. Men who are able to show emotions without slipping into the role of 'chump' in the relationship and without feeling the need to prove how 'manly' they are - those are the ones that are the alpha males. A confident, dominant alpha male and an unemotionless jerk are not the same thing. Women value men who can and do show emotions, but not be trapped or consumed by them.
Phew, sorry about the length of the post! I just really enjoy this topic :D. And of course I understand that all women and men are different and that there are exceptions. This is just what I've concluded about the majority of both genders from my studies and experience, but I am in no way saying that everyone is like this.
Liza, have you read 'The Game' by Neil Strauss? If not, you should as it explains a little more in depth of social dynamics and seduction.
To tell you the truth, Im in awe of your lengthy comment. I am even afraid to reply you for fear of selling you short, but I shall make an attempt.
Ok first, thank you for the clarification of 'sensitive' men and dominant men. I totally agree with you that they are not one and the same.
By your reasoning, if men and women both have the same tendency to have multiple partners, and through societal pressures that adulterous women are not viewed as unkindly as cheating men are... that would mean that number of women cheating should actually be higher than the number of cheating men, since neither nature nor society is preventing her to do so. However, if the numbers are not wrong that is, this has only become the trend in recent years, where the number of women cheating has actually caught up on par with the number of men cheating.
However, you did state that women ARE oppressed by society to stay away from sex. Do the 2 effects from society cancel each other out? Has this societal pressure been the main force from keeping women from cheating until the other impact of society, that of being more 'free' from guilt for cheating, caught up? Maybe nature has nothing to do with men and women being monogamous or polygamous at all and is reliant of societal pressures.
I understand what you mean about women's nature. But what i said was not that women's natural instinct is to have a single sex partner. Is that women are monogamous by nature. By their nature of a nurturer, they will search for a dominant male, even if it takes multiple partners to do so. However, should that partner be found, they will stick to that partner till death. This of course ignores all the values of marriage, society as we are only talking about natural instincts. This instincts is actually pretty common among mammals in the animal kingdom. (one good example from the animal kingdom could be the alpha male in a lion pride is often surrounded by many female lions. Although ironically, it is the lionesses that hunt.)
But men, according to my post, by nature might be polygamous. Meaning they will never find a partner to settle down with, and are pressured by society to do so. Perhaps, by going against these polygamous instincts has led to the decline of that 'dominance' that man used to possess. Call it the taming of a lion if you will.
I understand that we are talking about male and female in a very general sense, and by no means indicating any specific example. But this is what makes it cool.
I sincerely hope that my reply is satisfactory. Im kinda embarrassed on how short it is.
Yup, I've read The Game and other literature in the field :). I also actively participate in forums on the topic, enjoy chatting with some of the instructors from various seduction schools, and go to talks when they're in the area and don't cost an arm and a leg :D. It's not so much something I'm obsessed with, but it's been a hobby of mine for a while and what I've learned has pretty much saved my relationship a couple of times.
I agree with the idea that women may be cheating more now than they were before, because it has become more acceptable. My opinion is that plenty of women were cheating before as well and doing a very good job at hiding it. Some were too scared to do it for fear of losing their credibility, shelter, and family. So yes, it being more acceptable in today's society influences the situation and allows women to more openly do what they want in terms of promiscuity and adultery than it did years ago. Nature encourages them to want to cheat and encourages a lot to cheat. In earlier years because of society, however, the numbers of women who were known to commit adultery were lower because they were forced to hide it better than they are now and some may just have been too scared to do it at all despite being unsatisfied with their partners.
I agree with your paragraph about women going through multiple partners until they find a dominant male whom they decide they want to settle down with. I agreed with this in my first reply when I said that I think that women are built for nurture and that women will be drawn to the strongest man. The problem is that 'settling down' or marriage does not seem to matter quite as much as we think it should these days. A woman can settle down with a dominant partner who comes off as strong and a leader. She will continue to test him while they are together and while the man is able to pass these 'tests' and appear solid in their relationship she will stay. But should he start slipping and giving ground to the woman's tests (and these are simple things men hear every day, it isn't like we plan these things out!), he will leave the door open for another man to come in - a man who won't slip up. This makes it important in an LTR (long term relationship) for the man to not get 'lazy'. He has to continue to lead and be conscious of the woman's emotional needs for stability and leadership. Just because she's 'settled down' with him does not mean that it will stay this way if he no longer projects the high social value and strength that he did before.
One thing that we haven't actually touched on yet is the idea of multiple relationships. You'd be surprised how many women actually don't mind that their partner is not exclusive and both men and women take advantage of being able to sleep with different partners. People either refrain from verbalizing that there is no exclusivity because it is an understood fact or they even go out and hunt for threesomes together. And women can enjoy this just as much as men. :)
No problem with the shorter reply, I tried to cut mine down because I feel bad about writing such long ones!
Oh no! Please continue with the long comments! They are honestly insightful and a joy to read.
To tell you the truth, if what you have said is true, perhaps monogamy is no longer relevant in society. Marriage maybe should be cut down to certain periods, like a 5-year marriage kind of thing, blasphemous to some as it may be. If it is against the basic nature of either sexes, then why have it? Of course, that is not to say I don't see the value fo having a monogamous relationship (better development of offspring, for example)
Your reply gave an important insight into how women think in terms of sex and relationships, and I have to say I agree to a certain extent.
The idea of women actually accepting multiple partners, to be honest, is kinda foreign to me. I mean, this is against how women are viewed by men at its most basic level. Perhaps women have that much underneath the cover that they portray. What I understand is they are so complex, they don't seem to understand themselves. If what you said is true, Liza, then you have proven this point.
Oh I haven't really proven anything :) There is still no real proof in terms of studies or anything like that regarding how these things work. One study is supposedly conclusive and then another contradicts it. What I write is simply from my experience and understanding, I'd rather not think of it as the absolute truth because until we see some scientific proof one way or the other there is no way of knowing with 100% certainty.
I don't know if I'd want marriage to disappear, I do hope to be married one day when I find the right person :). And while I've never been in a position where I felt a real urge to cheat (I've had passing thoughts), I believe that this is because my partner has always maintained that position of leadership and high social value. I've always thought of myself as really lucky to start studying these things as a hobby because now I can actually recognize when I am acting or feeling in the typical female fashion. I recognize my own 'tests' when I administer them and it's helped me to 'discover' myself more, I guess.
But yes, marriage itself, the piece of paper and even the ceremony - in my opinion don't mean much in the long run in terms of tying people down. If one person is unsatisfied they are likely to find someone else anyway, despite anything they signed. So the 'work' doesn't really stop after the honeymoon I guess :).
So I'm tired of talking about myself- what made you interested in these topics? Have you looked into the seduction community as well?
Well, alot of topics interest me, although not many seem to be able to sustain my interest. As for looking into the seduction community, 'peeked' is a better word. Fascinating as it may be, I also have partner, and it would do me good if I stay away from that arena.
Still, Ill bet most, if not every, guy has fantasies of getting any women they want, attached or married notwithstanding. But, from what Ive read, the influence of seduction on the users is akin to drugs, once you find out what works, you just can't stop.
As for marriage, I think that it will stop some people from breaking up or leaving their partners, at least here in singapore, where the people are more or less quite conservative. This is starting to change, but many still feel that marriage is a lock forever.
Questions for you: If your partner has lost his social value, what would you do? Are all women susceptible to seduction? After reading Neil Strauss' book, I must admit that I was afraid that my own girlfriend might be picked up beyond her control to refuse.
I know what you mean. I'm with a partner as well and I now clearly notice a specific timeframe where at first I was not wanting to tell him I was studying this stuff and now I practically drag him to related talks by instructors!
I would like to think that I know myself enough and recognize my own emotion-based action enough to be able to stop myself from cheating. I've never cheated or had sex with someone I'm not in a relationship with (though I'm not saying that having sex while you're out of a relationship is bad).
There have been times when I have to admit I lost some attraction to my boyfriend, and minutes or hours or days later it returned when he started to project high social value and ability to lead once more. Nobody's perfect, so slipups have happened on both of our sides. If my partner turned into one of those chumps who crawl after me and do everything I say, I think that our relationship would crumble simply because right now he has established the role of leading for himself. It's what I expect him to do. I expect him to take control and even know what's best for me at times (although I'm definitely not helpless or stupid, there have been instances where I was blinded by my own emotions and he brought in the voice of logic and reason). If I could no longer rely on him to lead I think that the relationship would definitely fail. I wouldn't cheat, we'd just end up breaking up in one way or another.
And again, this isn't to say that I expect him to not show emotion or always be right or not rely on me to take charge of some plans we make, places we go, etc. Emotion is good and a man who is not afraid to show it is very attractive. It's when he gets consumed by emotion to the point of it hindering his logic, reason, and value that he becomes less attractive, in my opinion.
I just feel that I am the emotional one - he is the logical one. It's how we balance each other out. If either of us suddenly overstepped into the other's 'role' the balance would be lost.
Do you notice any distinct patterns in your own relationship that may agree or disagree with this?
You are the emotional one? Judging from your arguments and your writing, that quite funny. For myself, Im the logical one, though Im not sure I project a high social value. Im not even sure if I want to know.
In my own relationship, my partner has tendencies to be highly emotional, like giddily happy one moment, to downright depressed. I wont say that I am coldly logical, but yes, there is a certain balance in terms of logic vs emotion. Ive written about it to a certain extent at http://twisterthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/11/twister-insights-10-tips-to-maintain.html
What do you mean by "though I'm not saying that having sex while you're out of a relationship is bad"? You mean if you are no longer attached, having sex is acceptable? Not being judgmental. In fact, I kinda agree with you.
But what if, lets say your partner has lost his social value, would you try to encourage him to get it back? or perhaps let sleeping dogs lie as the relationship is doomed to fail? and is there such a thing as too much social value? Maybe to a point where a partner can feel jealous or possessive?
I have become more logical on the topic since I started studying it, but in my relationship my logic tends to sometimes go out the window because I get consumed by my emotions even though I know I'm acting in a certain way that I just read about earlier.
And I'm the same :). I go happy and giddy one moment and sometimes get bummed out by the smallest things, though I've been doing better with that.
Yes, I think that it's totally acceptable to sleep with multiple partners and be promiscuous if you're single, for both men and women.
I would try to encourage him to 'get it back', although I'm not sure if I'd be able to. For example, I sometimes encourage his leadership by acting in a more submissive way - that usually gives him a hint (though he very very rarely needs it in the first place. I'd want to encourage him to be more sensitive most of the time!). If I recognized this problem I don't think I would just wait for the relationship to fail, I would probably try to do something about it. Although truthfully such a drastic situation has not come up before (knocking on wood :) )
But isn't that kind of funny? You know you are going to make a mistake and you still do it? Even if there is nothing to gain from it? Strange things, impulses are.
As for sleeping around when single, it is deeply frowned upon by society. Personally, I agree with you. But why doesnt society see it this way?
I wish you luck with you and your boyfriend. It seems that you care for him really deeply, highly social value or not.
Sometimes it's mistakes, but not always. It's just how women work - most of us are emotional creatures and acting on our emotions isn't so much a 'mistake', really.(But yes, sometimes well..often...it can be!)
More and more people are actually becoming more accepting of promiscuity. But I don't think that what 'society' thinks should really matter to us much to be honest :).
Thanks and good luck with your girlfriend:)