Sex, Time, and Power

by Leonard Shlain

  Mother Nature’s peculiar choice of fat to entice men is not so strange as it seems. Minus a clear signal from her that she was ovulating, the male of the human species must make an assessment as to the potential fertility of a female based on her appearance. The metabolic needs to gestate a human fetus are so great that Mother Nature will not allow menarche to begin until a prospective mother has enough of the yellow energy stuff in reserve. A girl cannot menstruate until a certain critical mass of fat has accumulated on her frame.* These fat reserves could have been stored deep inside the abdominal or chest cavities (where they reside in most other animals). Instead, fat is strategically arranged just under the skin to round out the human female form.†

  Natural Selection put the human species in a precarious bind when Gyna sapiens abandoned estrus signaling. The problem was somewhat ameliorated by the installation in the male psyche of an attraction to a female exhibiting soft curves in all the right places.* Feminine beauty and potential fertility are inextricably grounded in subcutaneous fat.

  To highlight the basic difference between human and nonhuman mating systems, revisiting the coupling habits of our closest relative, the chimpanzee, will be illustrative. Besides sharing the most genes with us, chimpanzees are representative of the mating pattern of primates in particular and mammals in general. Upon entering her period of estrus, a female chimpanzee begins to ascend toward the acme of popularity among the males. At her first visible and aromatic estral signs, males begin to jockey for position to mate with her.

  Despite the crowd of overeager males always surrounding an estral female at her peak, jealousy from nonovulating females is relatively nonexistent. When a female experiences her state of estrus, she has absolutely no inhibitions about soliciting sex from a male. This cycle, which in a female chimpanzee recurs for a little over a week every thirty-seven days, will continue throughout her reproductive life.

  Unlike human males, chimp males express little interest in juvenile estral females and favor those that have successfully mothered multiple offspring.† This pattern is common among other nonhuman primates. For example, primatologist Barbara Smuts observed that some savanna baboons formed friendships and sexual preferences for certain older females.10

  Now consider how the reproductive life history of a typical Gyna sapiens differs from Gyna all-the-others. Instead of a season of desirability that recurs approximately once every month, she has a season of maximal desirability that comes (and goes) but once in a lifetime, tracing out a parabolic curve whose apogee occurs in her late teens. And it flames out at a time in her life when she is not likely to understand its function fully. Instead of knowing she is fertile right up to the time she dies, she becomes acutely aware that her biological clock will stop ticking at not the stroke of midnight but more like six-thirty or seven o’clock in the evening. Just when the party is really getting interesting, and she has finally figured out how all the participants interact, the pumpkin coach arrives. This, then, is the cruel double bind for women.

  Adding to her dissatisfaction is the gross mismatch of her internal peak of sexual desire and her external peak of sexual desirability to males. During the early years of her postpubescence, a woman’s libido tends to be low (and if it isn’t, the heavy hand of cultural admonitions serves to restrain it). Yet this corresponds to the moment in her life when all men lust after her. When her libido rises to its maximum, in her late thirties and early forties, the majority of men are no longer wildly interested in her. As her sexual urges intensify, the pool of men she can attract shrinks. The inconsistencies in the human male-female sex drive are numerous and vexatious. Their emergence suggests that Mother Nature responded to an evolutionary sexual crisis with what, to many mere mortals of both sexes, seems to be a hastily thrown-together design that, in many men’s and women’s opinion, contains considerable room for improvement.

  Imagine polling women and asking them to choose between two lifestyles. The first represents the status quo, containing every one of the familiar idiosynchronicities that exist between contemporary men and women. In the alternative life-style, a woman, upon attaining menarche, would experience a distinct one-week period out of every month during which every man, young and old, rich and poor, handsome or homely, would think she is the most alluring creature in the world. Her state of health, age, or appearance would not matter in the least to prospective suitors.

  She would not compete with other women for any man’s attention, because other women would not begrudge her the shower of masculine interest. During her monthly reign as Queen of the May, she would exist in a sublime bubble, unconcerned about the consequences of her promiscuity. Best of all, she would never care how men view her, spending not a nickel on cosmetics, because they are completely superfluous.

  For the remainder of her month, she would go about her business assured that no man would take the slightest sexual interest in her—no harassment, no demands, no unwanted wolf whistles or disquieting looks from strangers. She would be free to speak to any man secure in the knowledge that he would not misinterpret her stance, dress, words, looks, or gestures as a sexual come-on. She could go where she pleased and do what she wanted. For those weeks, she would brook no interference from any man who deigned to tell her how to raise her children. Bolstering her independence would be her confidence that she could provision both herself and her children without any male assistance. Nothing would be required from men other than that they provide her and her children with protection, and they would willingly grant her unspoken request without asking for anything in return.

  She could forgo her daily mirror inspection of how her face and figure were faring with the encroachment of age. Her self-esteem would not depend on how a man responded to her “appearance.” She could dress as comfortably as she pleased and could spend her days in the company of other women, who were generally supportive. Or, if she was so inclined, she could hang out with the guys, who would treat her as one of the boys. There would be no fear of rape by a strange male, murder by an angry one, or stalking by an obsessive-possessive. During this time when she was not sexually available, no male would dominate her.

  Were pollsters to conduct such a canvass, I suspect that the majority of women would eagerly ask where they could sign up for such a feminine utopia. Yet such is the state in which virtually all other female mammals find themselves—with the sole exception of Gyna sapiens.

  Now let us give the same choice to a man. His alternative world: He could join a society where only one-fourth of the women would be possible candidates to engage in sex with him in any given month. Lest he be crestfallen at his reduced odds of achieving his sex drive’s delight, this quarter of the female population would make up in hedonistic enthusiasm for any shortfall in numbers. Further, a constant rotation of eager fresh faces would assure him new opportunities every week. Women would approach him urgently demanding that he have intercourse with them. They would ask nothing in return, have no expectations that he bring them something of value. There would be no pounding of one fist on the other palm, declaring it was time for him to decide whether or not he was going to commit. No entreaties that he restrict his sexual life. And no responsibility to work to provide for a wife and family. He would be free to come and go as he pleased. I would venture that the line for the men in this sexual paradise would be as long as it was for the women.

  Oh, there is one other thing a woman should know before signing on and packing her bags. Should she enter this parallel sexual universe, she must surrender any notions of love. She could continue to love her children and bask in the love that they return, but the heart-fluttering, dreamy, pink-cotton-candy, hazy love that can enmesh a man and a woman would not be a part of this world—lust, yes; love, no. This caveat would tend to stay the writing hand of most women.

  The fine print in the contract for the men would contain similar clauses, warning them that they would never know the joy of walking through the door and being greeted by several small ones, faces al
l lit up, exclaiming “Daaaaddy!” while running toward him with arms outstretched. Nor would a man experience the oceanic feeling of losing the boundaries of his body while lying in the dark, arms and legs entwined with a woman he loves. And when a man grows old, the companionate love that builds between him and his mate, with whom he has shared a lifetime of successes and defeats, would also be absent.

  Many might take issue with my presentation of the pornography-and-cosmetics complementarity, or my notions about the causes of misogyny and patriarchy, arguing instead that both are more dependant on the processes of acculturation. I am aware that culture plays a part in shaping behaviors, but I believe that these conditions have firm roots in evolutionary adaptations. They appeared first inside the twists and turns of chromosomes handed down from distant relatives who lived and died in a remote area of Africa’s Great Rift Valley.

  Recorded history, remember, only began approximately five thousand years ago. In this narrow 3 percent slice of the life of our species, patriarchy and misogyny have been the dominant norm in most major civilizations and throughout nearly every historical period. Despite the tantalizing suggestion that there might have been a time before recorded history in which relations between the sexes were more pacific, the historical record speaks for itself.

  Perusing the daily news confirms that patriarchy and misogyny persist in every major contemporary society. From the Taliban in Afghanistan to Japanese men’s repression of women, from male pro-life fanatics in the United States to the practice of bride burning in India, evidence for these invidious twins abounds. Wide swaths of Africa and the Islamic world still practice female genital mutilation. Forced prostitution is rife among the former Soviet republics, and sex slavery is an ugly fact of life from Saudi Arabia to Thailand.

  Humanity staggers on like a person who has suffered a stroke that left half of the body paralyzed. The masculine half of the body politic resists acknowledging the obvious: Disdaining, ignoring, and dismissing its distaff half is extremely counterproductive. Until individuals, couples, and cultures can facilitate and appreciate the contributions of both halves of the human psyche, the human species will continue to be hobbled by this serious handicap.

  What can we do to redirect culture’s gender relationships and set them flowing in a more congenial direction? The many framers of this question most often posit their solutions in the context of education: If only we could somehow change the content and context of what we teach children, then we could begin to eradicate this poison that prevents harmony between the sexes.

  Certainly education has a role to play, but in this work I have tried to move the conversation away from an emphasis on culture and more toward the realm of genetics and evolution. Some might protest, claiming that this approach is but a warmed-over version of Freud’s determinist “anatomy is destiny” argument, which men have used to legitimize their dominance over women throughout the ages. That is not my intention. I do not seek to justify why things are the way they are but, rather, to understand why they came to be.

  To many, gaining an understanding of a human behavior that is unalterable may seem akin to winning a pathetic consolation prize. “It is but sorrow,” Tiresias told Oedipus, sighing, “to be wise when wisdom profits not.” And yet this must be the first step in the process to initiate meaningful change in our cultural institutions. Chiseled into the lintel above the entrance to the Oracle of Delphi in ancient Greece was Apollo’s first commandment to all mortals—Gnosti Seautum—Know Thyself.* This Socratic imperative remains very relevant today. Sigmund Freud gave it new meaning when he hypothesized that an individual who failed to appreciate his or her primal shaping influences was doomed to repeat destructive patterns of behavior throughout his or her life.

  Discoveries in the biological sciences have superseded many of Freud’s original ideas, but his guiding principle holds true, especially as applied to evolutionary theory. To understand and change the present condition of our species, we must gain insight into the past. If we do not, we cannot exert a lasting influence on the future. Grasping the evolutionary reasons behind the many quirks in the human mating system will lead, I believe, to an improvement in the relations between men and women. This overriding of the “anatomy is destiny” conundrum is possible because we have arrived at a critical juncture in the life of our species.

  Homo sapiens sapiens—the Doubly Wise Human, as we used to be called—is at present undergoing a metamorphosis. We humans are in the process of changing into something else. A new species is being born right before our eyes, but because we are so close to the cataclysmic event, we cannot appreciate its full import.

  An apt example of the process of metamorphosis is the life cycle of a caterpillar, a notoriously rapacious and greedy insect. Resembling an invading army living off the land, caterpillars ravage any greenery in their path, leaving a wake of destruction. Yet the caterpillar’s insatiable hunger is driven by an evolutionary imperative—it must convert the available nutrients in its surroundings into the surplus essential to fuel its metamorphosis. Once it spins its cocoon and sequesters itself inside, its gargantuan appetite ceases. The changeling-in-process lives off the stored food it so hungrily consumed earlier so that it has an energy source sufficient to allow it to morph into an entirely new organism.

  Upon its maiden flight from its chrysalis, a butterfly is utterly transformed from its former state. Not only is it inexplicably far more beautiful than it had been, but also it performs a function for nature that is the opposite of that of its caterpillar incarnation. Instead of munching its way mindlessly through vegetation, the butterfly flits from flower to flower, partaking of very little, destroying nothing, and inadvertently serves as a pollinator, enabling more flowers to bloom. Humans seem to have an instinctual aversion for insects—except butterflies. Somehow, humans have developed a strange affinity with these colorful creatures and are soothed and delighted by their presence.

  In Buddhist parables, an ordinary man may behave in a selfish and self-serving manner until he becomes “awakened.” To achieve this state, a man must withdraw temporarily from the world and turn inward. The transformation that is occurring within his soul is not visible to anyone observing him from the outside. Upon achieving enlightenment, the person is utterly changed and is said to have attained the state of satori. One so enlightened is then entitled to nirvana, a Sanskrit word meaning “extinguished.” He is freed from the obligation to return reincarnated to the world on another turn of the karmic wheel of fate.

  In Buddhist tradition, many enlightened souls elect to return to this world and serve as bodhisattvas. They teach and give aid to alleviate the suffering of the unawakened. The Buddhists frequently use the metaphor of the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly to describe poetically this transformation of the individual. Could it be that the entire human species began its existence as a collective caterpillar? As we enter our most environmentally rapacious stage, are we on the verge of transforming into the metaphorical equivalent of a butterfly? Perhaps, as a result of our transformation, individuals within our species will increasingly behave like bodhisattvas and act to heal our relationship with nature and with each other. I realize that my optimistic stance will be considered by many as hopelessly naïve. But I submit the following historical evidence to buttress the above appraisal concerning the current status of the human condition.

  Two and a half million years ago, the evolving hominid line differentiated away from its apelike predecessor by fashioning the first stone tool. Imagine the moment. A slow-witted, little-more-than-one-pint-brained Homo habilis held a cobble in his hand and, through a concerted effort of sustained mental concentration, conceived a tool residing inside the rock. The imprisoned tool could not be released from the stone unless the first Handy Man (or Woman) sat still and laboriously chipped away at one side of the rock. Employing patience and persistence, the first toolmaker was rewarded at last with a working stone tool that sported a crude cutting edge. Homo habilis con
tinued to make this identical simple tool with very few modifications for almost the next one million years!

  Then the next hominid version, bigger-brained Homo erectus, figured out that a stone’s cutting edge could be sharpened considerably if he or she simply turned the rock over and began knapping each side alternately. The bifacial hand ax fashioned in this manner sliced through hides and cut bone from joint much more cleanly than those previously fashioned by Homo habilis.

  Here is the astonishing part. Though Acheulian bifacial hand axes, the signature tool of two-pint-brained Homo erectus, have been discovered nearly everywhere our predecessor settled in Africa, Europe, and Asia, these artifacts remained mysteriously unchanged across enormous distances and over incredibly long stretches of time. Despite a rapidly enlarging brain, Homo erectus could not imagine a way to improve on his technique for the next eight hundred thousand years. Glynn Isaac expressed disappointment at this “shuffling of the same essential ingredients” for an extraordinarily lengthy period of time “in a minor directionless change.”11