MOON VS. URANUS
You've heard the term Mars vs.Venus as a way of referring to the differences between men and women. Mars and Venus are both planets, which in celestial terms makes them more identical than for example, the Moon and Uranus."Therefore, whilst discussing the stark contrasts between women and men, I would rather use the term Moon vs. Uranus"
Sowing the wild oats in the fields of women
A man’s need to sow his wild oats is a need we fully expect a man to fulfil before settling down. It’s generally seen as one of the essential rights of passage. But in many cases once settled, a man continues to sow his oats in the fields of women through adulterous behaviour. If a man’s need to sow his seeds is a fundamental inbuilt urge, then it follows logically that he is unable to stop once settled. But how fundamental is the need? It has been suggested that the oat sowing results from the natural desire to procreate. Although this desire is present in both men and women, with both continuously looking for genes to help them produce strong offspring, women must carry each baby for nine months and men are not physically involved for longer than nine minutes, so a woman’s urge to procreate occurs less frequently. This seems quite a plausible idea and could be one of the principles upon which polygyny; the practice of a man marrying multiple wives is based upon. Although not common, it is certainly a legal and normal custom in many cultures, including but not limited to the Church of the Latter Day Saints in the US.
One alternative theory of mine which sticks to the theme of procreation is that regardless of whether a husband and wife plan to have three children, no children or adopt, a man still feels a subconscious responsibility for the universe and the continuation of the species. Hence, through adulterous behaviour he proves to himself that his manhood is intact should the time come when he finds himself to be the last man on earth and must procreate with all the remaining women on the planet for the sake of humankind. Essentially he’s just testing his equipment for the sake of the world we live in. No? Okay, perhaps using instinctive procreation as an excuse for promiscuity and infidelity is misguided and what we are in fact looking at is much simpler: Macho Insecurity. Maybe men just need more attention than women do. After all, women generally receive more attention on a day-to-day basis because of their physical appearance, so to offset this men try to attract more attention through sexual performance. It makes them feel good about themselves. Poor lambs.
Regardless of which theory is correct, there are enough cases of monogamy and a rather scientific explanation for it, to blow the whole “inherent requisite oat sowing” theories right out of the water. One interesting theory of monogamy makes it quite clear that upon the carnal act chemical interactions cause a man and a woman to bond. They can’t help it. It’s all about the chemicals! Maybe it’s a tiny bit condescending to compare humans to animals, but Darwin did it, so here comes the science bit: Attachment theory by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth is a study of prairie voles that could potentially be applied to a study of human behaviour in such circumstances. It seems that prairie voles form socially monogamous relationships following sexual behaviour as a result of oxytocin, vasopressin and dopamine. Providing humans also have neurons susceptible to the affects of these chemicals, humans are equally as likely to form socially monogamous relationships upon sexual interaction. Since this is evidently not the case in most circumstances, I have to posit the theory that some humans have the neurons and some simply don’t. Or perhaps the chemical explanation is a misunderstanding in the issue of cause and affect. Perhaps higher levels of certain chemicals are presenting monogamous individuals as a result of the love and are not the cause of it.
But then what about the other extreme? The matriarchal societies where women have multiple husbands? What’s the explanation for this type of custom? Can it be explained by science and procreation? Polyandry, the practice whereby a woman marries multiple men, was a common occurrence in pre-Islamic
Arabia
. In her book “The Hidden Face of Eve,” Nawal El Saadawi explains that the “Marriage of Sharing” (Zawag el Mosharaka) was a normal practice amongst Bedouin women, with each woman marrying up to ten husbands. The child’s paternity was never in question since the mother would simply allot the husband of her choice as guardian of the child. Once a woman was ready to divorce, she would simply change the direction of the door to her tent as a signal to her husband that his marital bliss had come to an abrupt end. A similar custom is common in modern-day
Tibet
, although the reasoning behind it is a lot more practicable: The population of women simply outnumbers the population of men. I can only imagine that such a custom has been present in various cultures as a result of social and demographic factors as opposed to the natural urge to procreate.
In modern western society, we scorn men who cheat as the scum of the Earth, marriages to multiple partners are illegal and we generally frown upon promiscuous women as sluts and whores. All this judgement is based on what we think is “normal” in the world of sexual relations and marriage. However, throughout history and in different cultures today, the exact opposite of what we hold to be “normal” is viewed as equally normal. In an effort to work out which “normal” is the “right normal”, scientists try to find physiological and psychological explanations for human sexual behaviour. Perhaps our behaviour is a combination of natural urges, religious justification, individual psychological needs and varying levels of hormones. Although, a convenient explanation, it does mean that each and every relationship, whether as an outsider or a person in the relationship, needs us to offer a level of understanding and assessment based less on prejudice and judgement and more on the reasoning that humans are complicated and have been conditioned by many factors over thousands of years.
Complexity of a woman
I truly believe women are so complicated we make nuclear physics look as simple as changing a tyre. One example is our management of relationships. When it comes to relationships, we spend an excessive amount of time composing something as seemingly straightforward as a text message. We want it to give just the right level of attention without appearing too needy. We wonder if we should put a smiley face, or if we should put a kiss. We wonder if we should ask a question to ensure a reply. We spend ages working on a text message as if it could make or break the relationship. And what does the man do when he receives it? Skim reads it and replies if he has time. But our complexity isn’t just limited to controlling the signs we give out, it is very much present in our over analysis of every sign we receive from a man.
To give just one example related to text messages; if we receive a kiss-less text message, when thus far all text messages have had kisses at the end, we obsess over it. We question does this mean he doesn’t love me anymore? Maybe he’s bored of me? Maybe this is his way of breaking up with me? We call all our girlfriends to share our fear and worry that the kiss-less text message is an apocalyptic sign ushering in a new era of singledom.
We continue this complicated behaviour because we compel ourselves to remain under the mythical misconception that the man is on the same complicated wavelength as we are and can join the game at such a sophisticated level. Even when our men convince us their kiss-less text message was due to the fact they were busy and in a meeting, we can believe and accept what they say on the surface but deep down we cannot relent. We still believe there was a deeper reason, a reason that will never be known and the cycle of complexity continues. We persist in our game of signs and subliminal messages without realising the game-board only has one set of pieces, our set.
Crazy women
All too often a woman’s intuition treads a fine line bordering on the edge of paranoia. However in a lot of cases there is good reason to believe a woman’s intuition really does exist, especially when it comes to men. I have observed many situations where a woman feels as if her boyfriend or husband is cheating on her and then finds it to be true. Of course there is a long way between the initial intuitive feeling and absolute proof. The “in between period” tends to be a time fraught with possessive behaviour of the woman, coupled with the gathering and presentation of evidence to the man. And how does the man greet the slowly mounting evidence? With the “crazy card” of course. Men do love the “crazy card.”
In these situations, the man doesn’t even deny the accusation with a well-thought-out lie or eloquent indifference. Instead he opts for the “crazy card”. This entails telling the woman it’s all in her head in spite of evidence to the contrary or that she has entirely misread the situation because of her own insanity.
Case study one
Scenario
Jane’s best friend catches her husband having sex with another woman in his car. It’s his car, it’s his number plate, it appears to be his head bopping up and down.
Husband’s response to the accusation
1) It wasn’t me
2) Your best-friend obviously hates me and is trying to cause trouble
3) You’re only believing your best-friend because you’re crazy
What could the husband have responded with?
I leant my car out to a friend that night (now that’s what a woman would have said!)
Case study two
Scenario
Clara asks her fling-boy repeatedly if he is seeing anyone else. He says no. She hears he has a long-distance girlfriend, checks her open profile on facebook and sees he has written how much he misses her on her wall the same night as having phone sex with Clara.
Fling-boy’s response to the accusation
Someone with the same name and face and profile picture wrote on her wall. You’re a crazy nutter for not realising that
What could the fling-boy have responded with?
She is an ex-girlfriend and a dear friend and I do still miss her but it’s purely platonic
Case study three
Scenario
Melinda finds raunchy text messages on her boyfriend’s phone from another woman.
Boyfriends’ response to the accusation
1) How dare you go through my phone, you’re crazy thinking I have anything to hide
2) This used to be somebody else’s sim card and the messages still come through, I’ve tried to tell them I’m not the same guy
What could the boyfriend have responded with?
This friend of a friend really fancies me, but I just ignore the messages, she knows I have a girlfriend and she’ll stop eventually. (In a side note, a woman should never check a man’s phone even when she is suspicious. I truly do believe that oversteps the boundary and is the slippery slope to nowhere land).
So my message to the all the gentlemen out there is, quit using the “crazy card!” Tell the truth or lie well but don’t turn it around to a question of a woman’s sanity! It’s not nice, it’s certainly not believable and it only makes the woman find more proof. If you tell the truth, we’re actually quite reasonable and if you lie well we’re actually quite gullible. What more could you want?
Self-help relationship books
Browsing through the self-help section of a bookshop, I can see dozens of books on relationships and men. Apparently I can learn how to understand the male species well enough to have a fantastic relationship devoid of arguments and controversy. Eminent psychologists are screaming wonderful advice free from the political and cultural restraints of the past. They’ve stripped the male and female psyches down to the fundamental truths: Men and women are completely equal except for some small differences which need to be ironed out for a relationship to work. These differences can be summarized quite succinctly: Men are simple, women are overwhelmingly complicated. Men don’t like commitment. Women do like commitment.
But if all the fundamental relationship advice we require is screaming at us from a book-shelf, why are the as-old-as-time problems still present between men and women. My answer is simple, I don’t need a man-manual, I need a f***ing man-encyclopaedia. Simple they might be, but transparent they are not.
Take for example women’s intuition. If it really does exist, then it probably developed as a tool in understanding a man’s thoughts and actions. A man might be simple, but given their unemotional surface appearance (new-age man excluded), it can be quite difficult to work-out exactly which “simple” feeling or thought they are having. The problem with a woman’s intuition is it stands the other side of a fine line to a woman’s paranoia and ability to over-analyse a situation to the point of collapse. Men and women are simply different and maybe acceptance rather than psychological analysis and game-playing is the key.
Despite the self-help books being free of cultural and political restraints, there are enough women in the world who would appreciate a book with a less-feminist, less-modernistic bend. For example, there are some women in the world who expect their husband to take more than one wife or to take on mistresses. A self-help book will encourage equality and discourage a woman from accepting other wives and mistresses, and yet the peers of these women will encourage them to accept their situation without emotion. There isn’t a middle ground or any advice appropriate for their way of life. In some cases the feminist angle excludes a woman from taking care of her husband domestically. Here we are told a man and a woman are equal and as such, should share all household tasks. I find a problem with this advice since any man will freely admit, they cannot multi-task. A woman can clean, cook, shower, talk with clients and watch television nigh on simultaneously, whereas a man just cannot. An interesting experiment is to watch a man make dinner. He opens all the cupboard doors, takes out all that he needs and doesn’t close them again. Even the task of cooking dinner and doing nothing else, is approached with minimal co-ordinating thought-processes.
Acceptance really does seem to be the key. My rather idealistic nature tells me that love conquers all. Regardless of culture, background, up-bringing, maleness, femaleness, financial status, or imperfections, two people who really love each other should be able to cope with each other’s differences and love unconditionally (within reason). So maybe we should forget about self-help books and publish a leaflet instead, which simply says: Men are different to women, women are different to men. Stop analysing and just f****ing deal with it.
Is civilization going backwards with regard to the sexes?
In times gone by there were certain rules and behavioural expectations pertaining to relationships that barely exist in the Western world today. In the days of Jane Austen a gentleman would arrive at the house of a young lady on horseback and politely request her company for a walk in the garden. These days an sms saying “Hey, u fancy a drink Friday?” is a much more common expectation. Up until about 50 years ago it was routine for a young man to ask for his future bride’s hand in marriage via her father. These days, girls don’t listen to their fathers advice as much as before, so a father normally contests with little success or agrees to the marriage already decided by the young couple.
It seems that in our quest for freedom and the complete and total right of the individual we have given up certain formalities and advisory systems that could in fact be helpful. The quest for our personal rights has created an arrogance that as individuals we are in fact secure enough in ourselves and experienced enough in the ways of the world to form opinions which are much better for us than that which could be suggested by someone older and wiser.
I’m not suggesting a retreat to the 1800s where freedom was particularly lacking for a young lady wishing to get into the dating game. However what I am suggesting is that if women made themselves less available men would have to ride that damn horse to win their heart. This would weed out the idiots for a start. After that, losing the arrogance and considering advice from fathers, uncles, wiser men etc…, would weed out the crazy guys and dating would be a lot less hit and miss.
Self-deluded ugly men
Here is a picture for you: Unattractive, old, huge, sweating, dull man chats up and expects date from young, pretty girl. This is a recurrent theme I have seen many a time. Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with older men chatting up younger women or unattractive men chatting up pretty women. We all have our qualities that cannot be predetermined at face-value. However there are extreme situations and what makes them more extreme is the audacity with which the man desperately and unrelentingly propositions the lady.
These are key situations I have observed where the above occurs:
You’re in a restaurant dining alone and reading a book, a man approaches and asks how you are. You say you are fine and continue with your book. He then asks if he can join you. You say no as you want to spend some time alone and relax. He then sits down anyway and asks questions constantly whilst you try to concentrate on eating and reading.
You have a dull, male acquaintance who sends you ‘happy’ emails everyday, offers incessant flattery, always agrees with you and insists on taking you for dinner all the time.
You are stood in a bar and someone stands uncomfortably close, tries to make conversation but has no social skills (hence why they are standing uncomfortably close), starts sending you ring tones by Bluetooth and due to lack of social skills sends about fifteen and thinks that it’s normal!
Someone approaches you in a queue at a shop and makes conversation. You make conversation back. They then say you can stay with them any time and ask for your phone number. The alarm bells ring since asking for a number isn’t strange but mentioning you can stay with them after a 20 second conversation is. They then start to ask a lot of questions about your male relatives. The bells are ringing and ringing loud! You then mention that you have no phone, no email and are a travelling nomad with no fixed address, all your brothers are older, are waiting outside the shop and you think it’s just so funny how you’re so short but your brothers are so large!
So what is the verdict? Do these men look in the mirror... ever or listen to themselves speak? Are they simply delusional? Or maybe they have managed to convince a few highly insecure females to go out with them through constant flattery and desperate behaviour and this has in turn caused them to have higher expectations?
Is love just an addiction?
There are a whole variety of addictions, which can be brought on due to psychological or physiological reasons. Could it be possible that when we think we’re ‘in love,’ we are in fact addicted to someone? For example, maybe we form an addiction through psychological insecurities. Or perhaps we form an addiction based on the physical attributes of the relationship. If this is the case then maybe it is perfectly curable over a period of time. We just need to admit we have a problem (the first step to recovery) and then begin to fall out of love through careful, planned withdrawal.
Inherent insecurities and life-long partners: The link
Perhaps, no matter how confident in ourselves and our beliefs and opinions we think we are, there is always an underlying layer of insecurity nibbling away at us. This may cause us to constantly seek reassurance through searching for and staying with that one person who shares the same beliefs and opinions and identifies with us.
