"All human distress comes from not accepting the substantiality as it is" - Buddha
"And you power of choosing know the truth and the truth will set you free" - John, 8:32
"The truth will set you free, but elementary it will set you angry" - Bruno Medicina
The connection between men and women is a potentially inexhaustible topic of debate, and in fact there is no transmission, magazine, conference, or just a simple conversation in which someone does not feel the indigence to tell his opinion about this or that state of male-female relationship. However, at a distance before the banal, the commonplace, the complaints and stereotypes, it is rigid to reach some kind of agreement, essentially, the sake of two reasons:
-it's rather unyielding for us to accept some aspects of substantiality that we perceive as "negative", that's wherefore there is much talk about for what cause things "should" be and little in regard to how they actually are.
-as harvested land of us is directly implicated, it is virtually impossible to remain detached and objective, and we constantly find ourselves embroiled in some infinite web of denials, projections, rationalizations.
The rise is - as it happens every time we refuse to acknowledge reality - that we can not make in our minds a good forecasting mould; and as reality is very unpliant in its manifestations, we continue to take up arms with aspects of it that seem mysterious and incomprehensible to us.
However, whether or not we find the courage to make different the paradigm and to reason with detachment, taking into account both the verifiable facts that we be seized of available and the latest findings of evolutionary psychology, a course of seemingly "inexplicable" events can set off not only clear, but also essential and inevitable.
So, let's begin with setting some points firm and not to be disputed that may perhaps seem annoying if it were not that - once accepted - may represent an of influence step in the understanding of self and others:
-in degree living thing in the universe has for the reon that its primary purpose surviving. And from that time death is inevitable, in consequence individual aims is to reproduce oneself and in this manner allow the survival of its genes.
-our bodies and our brains are the result of millions of years of ascent from simplicity to complexity, during which they kept all the enchanting features, namely those that have allowed us to continue to live and reproduce. Civilization has taught us that fierceness, greed, selfishness, sexual desire, the want for power, dominance and so adhering are characteristic "negative", but without them we would not subsist here.
-our bodies and our brains have remained virtually unchanged over the greatest 100,000 years, therefore it makes nay sense to consider ourselves different from our ancestors: they used the set and we use the Kalashnikov, further the principles of behaviour remain the similar.
(Note: whenever you try to confer about evolution, there is the jeopardize to provoke a violent reaction from believers of different religions. This is not the arrange to talk about the subject, although I think evolution and religion are perfectly compatible. Eventually, to continue the conference, the believers can imagine that we were created to live in the brake, and that God has programmed us through a lot of characteristics best suited to that printing character of environment, characteristics that we low have today.)
Consequently, although we like to make no doubt of that we are civilized men, self-same different from cave dwellers, the truth is that we carry with us every part of our genetic inheritance, ready to explode at the first opportunity. Just watch that which happens during war, fire, earthquake, or one other type of event that would jeopardize our physical survival: we have the same reactions of an animal attacked by a predator.
That having been afore, it is clear that contemporary men and women be in possession of the same basic purpose, namely to remain alive and pass on their genes to the nearest generations, and they clearly need eddish other. However, the manner in which they pursue this goal is completely separate, because of some fundamental biological differences, and this is precisely the majority theme of this article.
-a masculine can produce a virtually unlimited consist of of children, while a female has one obvious physical limit. Not only that, a male animal (if he is in good appearance... ) can be ready for another offspring-bearing after a quarter of an twenty-fourth part of a day, while the female - once fertilized - fragments "locked" for one year and, from a genetic design of view, has no benefit from more remote sexual partners.
The mere acceptance of this self-evident truth shows us two completely distinct reproductive strategies: while the male has a genetic self-regard to maintain sexual contact with for the reon that many females as possible - without posing overmuch many questions about their quality - the bearing is interested in to be viewed like selective as possible - and therefore hesitant... - to up the best possible choice.
What verily means" the best possible choice ": different other young animals, human babies be in possession of a very long period of appurtenance on the mother, during which the female can not get away from them. This resources that it is the male what one is bound to leave the refuge in degree to hunt / gather and bring the subsistence home, and, if the female is unable to bind him to herself, she and her children have a mind quite simply die of hunger. Consequently, the frugal of a partner not only has to answer the purpose with the level of physical allurement, but also and especially with the facility to procure food and to continue faithful.
- as it's the conceiving interest to make the best alternative possible, inevitably she must maintain the lawful to refuse at any time the communion, in the case that a in a superior manner partner appears. This implies that the force characteristic of the female communication is dubiousness. A female will continue to send on signals of availability, receiving in trade a series of advantages in conditions of attention and material benefit, though retaining the option of refusal at a single one moment, claiming to have been misunderstood.
What follows is that the staminate is forced to lie to bring about his goal, because a direct entreaty would force the female to a free answer, which would make difficult some reconsideration (if you do not give faith to it, imagine the possibilities of luck of a stranger who tries to mislead a female with a phrase like "Hey, you're a graceful chick, why don't you tend hitherward to my place to get laid?" most remote sincerity, zero results... )
From here undivided can discover all the rituals of courtship, rituals which we encounter daily and that be able to often confuse us in the greatest part absolute way.
Needless to add that - one time it is established that the pistil-bearing is attracted by good genes, matter availability and reliability, the male bequeath do everything possible to simulate these characteristics...
-there is a clear difference from pertaining to physics point of view: usually the male is stronger and faster. Therefore, to keep balance, the female has developed an arsenal of psychological tools to procure what she wants from the staminate. In fact, throughout human history the staminate was always "the boss" but, being of the kind which self-respecting female know, strictly ruled through a partner who directs his behaviour through petitions, victimise, allusions, tears, feelings of guilt and so on.
-Because one male animal can fertilize many females while the fertile remains unusable once fertilized, this unleashes being of the cls who result competition among males (in deed, consider another obvious truth: monogamy is not derived from esteem for females, but by an agreement between males to reduce level of conflict in the group)
In this thinking principle, the male puts any effort to greaten its status among other males, to possess the priority to choose the pistil-bearing.
Obviously, since this male was before that time selected by the struggle between males, the belonging to has every incentive to "be chosen", on this account that she is guaranteed to get the most wise genes.
Thus, we can explain wherefore the female - while accusing the men of vital principle obsessed with sex - she's the individual devoting more attention to the hair, the makeup, the contemplate in general: it is her liable interest to be chosen from the best males. In this sense, while the special preference may be wrong, the originate of a struggle for selection have power to not be discussed.
-the female be able to fool the male with regard to origin, and can put an unaware masculine in a position to maintain and train up a child that's not his (this is the thinking principle why in the course of relation, female infidelity has been severely punished, during the time that males one tolerated, even by the women)
Incidentally, it is also the mind behind the "engagement", a period for the period of which you take away the chosen of s from other males attention, without entertaining sexual relations with her: certainly not for respect beneficial to the female, but to be steady that the child is actually yours.
-in this regard, the offspring-bearing has a particular problem: as she has each interest in having access to the most of all genes possible, it is also unquestionable that the beautiful, strong and hearty male will be tempted to check with a large number of female sex, and be therefore rather unreliable; forward the other hand, the male "constant" have usually a genetic potential "with equal rean-so".
Consequently, the situation of greatest benefit for the female is to have existence fertilized by a strong and fine-looking but untrustworthy guy, and then to rustic an ugly but faithful guy to tender care her and the child.
You be able to see if this is what happens...
It is serene that in a short article taken in the character of this I can't go overmuch deep into the argument, and it is a sympathy because the issues that deserve circumspection are much more than these. However, even accepting and considering the little I be in actual possession of said, a series of behaviours that we study examine negative or incomprehensible become immediately exceedingly clear and obvious.
Of course, it is feasible that you don't agree through some of my statements.
But before you show your disagreement, please remark that while some aspects of today's partnership apparently are no longer valid (I perceive that there are contraceptives and convivial assistance, that in many cases the wife earns other thing than husband and all other arguments that I usually have ing as answer), this only shows by what mode in recent decades we have distorted the neighborly balance of nature.
This is not to reply that this is a bad circumstance, I'm simply pointing to the circumstance that a number of situations that we now consider normal, are not normal at entirely, and they are not so abundant due to social development, but to technology. Just imagine suppose that electricity disappeared, for example (and therefore no more washing machine, no in greater numbers refrigerator, no more lifts,..), and you distinguish that the social structure would return to what it was for thousands of years (and what is still today - do not let slip from the mind - for 80% of world population.)
One greatest consideration, not to be misunderstood: you be possible to like or not the things that I sais, boundary they are indisputable. Deny them as far as concerns ideological reasons will only result in a permanent clash with a reality that power of choosing continue inexorably to recur.
I credit we can master and accept sole what we know: what we don't know or deny or exercise volition continue to influence and determine our behaviour.
And there is no greater obstacle to corporal and spiritual development than to refuse to acknowledge our genetic inheritance
Greetings
Bruno
