Sex: The rules of marriage.

These comments are not likely to be accepted unless there is acceptance of the postulate (in an earlier essay) that human cognitive capacities are minimal when compared with the intuitive control of human behaviour. To reinforce the concept, consider the terms “love” and “sexual attraction”. Neither is open to any reasoning analyses. Neither is measurable by any scientific parameter. There is also no measure of degree or intensity. There is almost no capacity to predict sexual attraction. However it remains the most powerful driver of human endeavour, and the directive of individual human behaviour, Given that these drives are beyond the cognitive (and it’s measuring device, science), it must be accepted that this behaviour is driven by immeasurable inherent mechanisms, it is “intuitive”.[i]

The underlying assumption upon which marriage is based is that copulation results, almost inevitably, in pregnancy.

Society, intuitively or otherwise, has always recognised this immutable drive, and is agreeable to the activity and the probability of pregnancy as the expected outcome. But this agreement is subject to a number of conditions, imposed by society. Copulation will be permitted provided there is a preceding ceremonious agreement as to the relationship’s permanency, and an undertaking that the male will care for and support the woman and her progeny.

The woman, also, will allow copulation providing that man commits to support to her and her inevitable offspring. To that end he must be capable of providing shelter, nutrition and security.

Those qualities demand he must also have a reasonable life expectancy, physical strength, and (demonstrable) capacity to supply shelter and nutrition. Thus youth is a factor for both parties and a foundation of attractiveness. Selection by age is possible because humans have an exceedingly good (inherent) mechanisms to recognise and determine age.

At times these requirements of the male are firmly demanded, often by the woman’s father. At other times it is implied or assumed. Some is ritualized in religious dogma, with variable emphasis – which may or may not overlap the above. Societal and religious pressure, has in the past, been a powerful enforcement agency.

A solumn, sincere and widely announced decleration of the intention of the union is used to consolidate the bond. This is, of course, the wedding ceremony. Due notice is required – as in all legal contracts which affect broad society – the “banns”. A large swathe of the community is invited – to witness and so bind the contract. A large audience is important since it makes it that much more difficult to renege.

Traditionally the bride’s parents pay for the wedding celebration. Why? Because it is in the father’s interest that his daughter should be irrevocably bound into marriage before reproducing.

Therefore there are several stages to marriage. The first is “genetic selection”, the immediate attractiveness of that woman to that man. This is “selcting the girls. Most men can come to a rapid conclusion as to which, in a selection of women, they regard as “most desirable”. However this choice is modifiedon a best bet basis – Males get what they can get – so it is not a given that his choice of a female will succeed and female refusal is common.

Although a “selection mechanism” is proposed, a more powerful undercurrent exists. Being the right age, reasonably symmetrical and healthy is sufficient for a woman to be sexually attractive. This is demonstrated since the vast majority of women attract sexual (and marriage) partners

But after that initial attraction (based on selection) many factors will therafter operate to bind the union together in the long term. Social pressures have been considered. But most powerful, once marriage is consummated, is that male becomes captivated by the sexual pleasure associated with his wife, and this “honey-pot” attraction can persist for a lifetime, almost regardless of continued female attractiveness. There is probably no better example of behaviourism, whereby that male strongly associates sexual pleasure (often irrespective of age and other appearance changes) with the familiar presence of his wife.

Society subsidies marriage. In many cultures society subsidies marriage in a number of ways (often by gifts historically or tax concessions in the current era). This is no surprise and it has evolutionary benefits: Children are the harvest crop of humans, their most valuable acquisition. Included in these benefits now are tax advantages and the provision of healthcare benefits to both mother and child. Maternity leave is an expression of the affordability of this subsidy /contribution to those in the wealthiest nations.

Legal manipulation. Multiple perversions of the marital  contract (much of which is implied) have evolved. These are engineered by the legal system, which aids and abets the dissolution of marriage to the pettifoggers’ benefit. It is the promise of getting “something for nothing” (now common in Western society) which is capitalise upon by the lawyer to prompt divorce.

Gay marriage. Often argued by those demanding homosexual marriage is that they, also, have a right to “family benefits” and other advantages of “marriage” However these benefits were designed to assist childbearing and child rearing, Effectively society is subsidising breeding by offering married couples “benefits” (of conventional marriage). Claims by homosexual unions for “social equality” without the prospect of reproduction or upbringing children is therefore not justified. Those homosexuals demanding all the benefits of heterosexual marriage are simply gunning to cheat society.

Rape Legislation. The “mating imperative” is probably the most important driving force in human behaviour. That drive has ensured that humans still exist today. In woman it takes one form, which includes maternal desires and provocative drive, using sexual attraction directed at males. This has a number of forms, at times subtle. Males, searching for an indicator of female receptivity to copulation have a variable threshold by which they might be triggered into assertive demands. Alcohol dis-inhibition plays a significant part in some cultures, notably when venues where alcohol is available double as gender introduction arenas.

Most societies, most of the time, resists rape. There is, always, going to be compassion towards individuals who are victims, and consequently effots to redress the cause of distress. But the most important, when measured by societal benefit parameters, is the dishevelment of social order by rape. Historically rape incidence has been minimised by many measures to protect vulnerable woman with a variety of strategies, many culturally imbued, many intuitive, many learned. These evolved into “social rules”, to be followed if rape is to be avoided. Unfortunately branches of “feminism” (correctly anti-feminism) seek to challange and thwart those rules, denying the value of those rules. “We will do what we want to do” becomes the battle-cry.

When a man is accused of rape, it is his cognitive capacity which is accused. When convicted, it is the cognitive capacity which is convicted. The imperitive drives are ignored both by society and the law. Superficial perceptions such as “he should have known better”, or “each is responsible (in entirity) for their own actions” are common. This is, perhaps understandably, nieve. But to suggest otherwise is entry ot the deep water of  abolishing all responsibility. Thus we enter, yet again the countercurrents of human behaviour. Disincentives to abhorant behaviour do work. It is possible to school behaviour. But if schooling is to be used, then a clear understanding between inherent behavioural actions, and those others forms of behaviour which are cognitively controlled, must be incorporated into the reparitive frame. This is often recognised by societal behaviour, far less by legal action. This appreciation allows a seperation of stategies by society (and the law) into modes of prevention. Thus external circumstances, when considering rape from a legal perspective, are imperative. It is those external factors which influence inherent behaviour. It is those external factors (such as female provocation) which can -and often  do – over-ride the cognitive control by individuals of their own behaviour.  Many would say that to blame the cogitive capacity of an individual for the effect of external context on intuitive drives is unfair, and contrary to “natural law”.

Mandatory Sentencing in Rape. This has appeared in many jurisdictions, by political coercion. It is intended (once again) to demonstrate political muscle. It is intended to demonstrate that rape is so heinous that nothing less than maximal punitive (and vindictive) response is acceptable. However the mechanism of sexual union in humans are inordinately complex, with many vacillations, probes (tentative and otherwise) of the attitude of the potential partner, plays on coyness, uncertainty and the indulgence with provocative power and manipulation.

Rape is (conveniently) seen as an all-or-none event – which is far from the case. It is convenient for some manipulative groups to entrench this binary attitude. Examples are the catch phrase “No means No”. Yet reality is far from that. A complex interplay of thrust-and-parry, banter of coquettary with veiled innuendo, flirting and retraction, probe and counter probe, characterises human courtship. The symbolic encouragements played out often take the form of transiting well recognised social barriers. A woman who agrees to accompany a man to a hotel room has already made a strong statement of compliance. This deliberate transit across a social barrier is a forceful symbolic acquiescence. Being a physical action the intentional entering of a hotel room- or other bed-room –  is a powerful statement – more assertive than a vocal one.

The correlation between rape and aggression. An entrenched belief is that rape is inextricably associated with brutality, and many will unswervingly insist that this is the case. However if the legal definition of rape is invoked many men who might fall under that guillotine may instead have offered kindness, compassion and support in that display of affectionate intimacy which can be warped into a conviction of rape.

Strong arguments can be proffered as to the impossibility of marital rape. Of course assault and other forms of aggressive physical behaviour can occur between man and woman within marriage. These are well covered by criminal law, in which arena relief could be sought. But the divide between aggression and rape must be made if fair justice is to be applied.

The skirt. This is highly symbolic of womankind, feminimity and sexual availability,  hence “attractiveness”. Why? Because the skirt, symbolically, allows easier access to the genitalia, a low grade provocative invitation. If this is doubted consider when a skirt is replaced with trousers – not in a practical sense – but in an image sense, and by whom. If there is still doubt, think of the subtle symbolism related to skirt length in its role as an obscuring drape. The shorter the skirt the more “sexy” (read provocative).  The hem of the skirt is often adorned to attract interest. A skirt pulled above the knees sends a definite message to both genders. The message of a ultra-mini skirt is unequivocal.

An extraordinary shift in the opinion of the Courts has also occurred. In part this is because of the clamour resulting from popular “opinions”, amplified by the mass and social media, which have influenced judgments made in Court, and a more widespread veer towards “political correctness” by the judiciary.

One result has been the shift of responsibility entirely to the male. This demonstrates a lamentable failure of the Courts to comprehend the behavioural biology of humans. This biology is an exceedingly complex and subtle reciprocal interrelationship between males and females. Like all biology (to which the courts appear blind – or blinded) this is a multi-dimensional interplay, dynamically altered by many variables of context and culture. Thus there cannot be an assumption of responsibility attributable to a single gender, or for that matter a single, absolute, context.

If near random procreation is the driver for male behaviour, what drives the woman’s behaviour? It is the biological, evolutionary, inherent method of selection of a “best gene pool” mate. Physical (and now-a-days monetary) support is an additional and strong factor in the female mechanisms (perhaps machinations) of mate selection.

Why is rape considered an outrage? Rape removes the woman’s decision to select a “gene pool mate” which selection capacity is  taken away, overridden by force or other methods. Woman’s overriding biological mission is to make that selection personally – mostly on the basis of “attractiveness”. Such attraction is beyond the woman’s cognitive power to control. Her choice is  guided by her biological hard wiring. Until she has made the decision to submit, her imperitive is to guard the access to her genitalia, often to guard it with her life.

Prostitute rape. Prostitutes have replaced their inherent selective discrimination demanded by “father/gene selection” intuition by another form of partner selection: that is a selection of copulative partner for (immediate) financial reward. The word “prostitution” means betrayal of principle. This principle in the case of the “sex worker” should have been the careful selection of a genetically appropriate father to her ova. Thus prostitutes have disposed of the inherent restriction of their sexuality in partner/gene selection. It is this forced abandonment of “principle” which rape victims (rightly) feel deprived and often feel (unreasonably) guilty. Therefore the foundation insult and aggreviation of rape cannot exist in the prostitute. Assult will, of course remain a crime, as should all other affronts to the person.

However the Courts have demonstrated their failure to appreciate these complex variables and revert to binary assumptions.

The hazards of female provocative behaviour have been recognised throughout history, as potentially inflammatory. Schooling in appropriately non provocative behaviour has traditionally been centered on the parents. Both father and mother can contribute productively to this schooling, with each viewing the entity from different aspects.

However, in the last fifty years female provocative behaviour and their self-exposure to sexual hazard has increased. In part this might be associated with contraception. There is some evidence that females with assured contraception are less selective in their choice of copulation partners (How many rape victims are asked by the courts whether they are on long term contraception?). It is also likely to relate to demographic changes, such as anonymity, increased competition for a mate and perspectives of behaviour distorted by journalism.

Women can play the provocative sexual allure (or lure) for many reasons, such as enhancing their ego, or a game of manipulative power. However this is a dangerous game, since the male –realizing that he is being manipulated or thwarted as an amusement by the woman, can – and do – react with violent aggression. That is the simplest of biology, but it overlaps with and encompasses other behavioural aspect such as betrayal of his trust, his good-will, and the quality of sincerity as expected in those intimate contexts.

Of course these ”dishonest” traits invoke ire in both genders – females sue for failure to honour promises or deceptions perpetrated by men. This is notably so when coitus is involved, for the reasons given above. This is well recognised by society and entrenched in law.

Suing for “breach of promise” is a particularly female act. It is all about lost opportunity, and the law sees it as such and supports the appropriate litigation.

However one of the most despicable and pernicious betrayals of trust is that perpetrated only by females. Once reliable contraception became available, and the accumulation of wealth more common, the “unintended pregnancy” began to be used to entrap men – usually responsible, compassionate and socially orientated men – into a marriage which would provide life-long material benefits to the woman. There is no legal recognition or relief for this tort, and the law insteads supports the female’s claims to  (often substantial) material benefit.

Is virginity important? One reason is that the first mating has a powerful, unforgettable “lock-in” effect binding the parties emotionally. Other reasons include the assurance to the male that any child conceived at that stage will be his own. Virginity is likely to eliminate or reduce sexually transmitted disease.

“Feminism” or the Anti Femininity League. An explanatory excerpt:

Many have heard Emma Watson’s painful whine of oft repeated, and oh so dreary banal rhetoric of feminist clichés, applauded ad nauseum

(Please, someone, explain why actors, who by definition are trained to create worlds of fantasy, are regarded as profound sources of real world wisdom),

Fortunately that speech coincided almost exactly with the first uterine transplant.

Therefore it is suggested that one half of females selected by ballot – nothing fairer and, within a decimal point, the same chance as having been born male – donate their uteri to those men who wish to have the benefit of breeding children, and being supported by a Worker for life, as the natural balance to the prevailing inequality.

Recreational Sex: Once coitus and pregnancy became a non-continuum the entire biological behavioural balance changes. The bargaining chips change value.

A relatively new strategy for the woman who is assured that she will not conceive is to offer a “test drive” a lure to the male, in the hope of the permanency of marriage. This  uses both the honey trap of sexual pleasure, and develops the “familiarity lock-in” (also known as the “convenience association”). The male might be persuaded by this strategy that the difficulties in finding a copulatory partner are reduced with a live-in lover in the form of a wife.


[i][i][i] It should be possible to assess “physical attraction” (or perhaps better expressed as “sex appeal”) in a way that borders on the scientific by measuring client preference for a prostitute. Clearly the first encouragement, initiated by the woman  by the prostitute of willingness to participate (subject to some conditions such as price, privacy, safety and cleanliness) and implies an invitation by the woman for the man to approach. This is an  outbound signal from the woman. This illustrates, yet again, the complex reciprocal signalling of human behaviour

These indicators of sexual willingness are also highly complex. It is at this level that woman require care in not inadvertently indicate a willingness to a degree which is not intended. As commented earlier women have been known to exploit this field for a variety of reasons, including their perceived “right” to behaviour of their choice. Participating in a “slut walk” is an example. This type of socially disruptive behavior is exceedingly dangerous to all parties, and should be fully recognised in legal judgments.

The secondary and counter-current of behaviour is the choice of the male to indicate his willingness in return. This is, presumably, also based on “sexual attraction”, all other factors being equal. It would seem that this should be measurable to a degree. But even if these criteria are documented they will continue to exist in the realm of the inherent and intuitive, and beyond the cognitive.

What should Western women expect from life?

Emma Watson, and many others, is likely to have a double agenda, with the expectation to win both. I use Emma as an exemplar, perhaps unfair to her {but she did expose herself to criticism).

She wants to win in the competitive “outside world” of “commerce”, the free-for-all, the range over which the riders seek a place for themselves in high competition with others. These competitors are usually men because their expectation is to support a family. There are no guarantees out there, and many fail. Note that, Strong Feminist, should you feel unjustly placed lower in a hierarchy of aspirants for the top job.

However, when challenged (and I assume Emma’s response (because it has been repeated so often it represents a norm) will be “well, of course I want children and a family. That’s natural isnit?”. So her plans will be to “do well while the going is good” but then eventuall marry someone who she will expect to provide for her. Would she want that provider to be stifled and prevented from getting a top salary (because there should be sexual equality) because some other brash young woman wants to be the top earner?

The other bleat is that “I am a person in my own right. I have a degree. I am attractive and I dress well. I deserve to succeed”. Really? What Feminist should realise is that – from a male view – the most consistent and predictable feature of women is their genitalia, and that will have the greatest and most persisting allure. Forget margins of “attractiveness”, forget enhancement by titivation and elocution, and forget that trivial B.A piece of paper – that was just having fun. Those all pale into nothingness against sexual lure. This is why the genitalia are habitually obscured and often preserved to become the final offering of the negotiations.

There are outliers, of course. There are those who do not expect to have a family. But they are peripheral to the Gaussian curve that expresses all of life’s variables. Since Life is a percentage game, it is better to be with the most, and it is hardly productive to claim out loud that you are “different” and that society must bend to accommodate those veering away and then demanding more than the mid-field runners (of the curve) are permitted.

There is good reason for this. The reproduction system is one of extraordinary sophistication and unbelievable complexity. It is likely that no single individual has been able to intellectually encompass its sophistication. No, not even a female gynecologist who on average probably understands only a fraction of a percent of that sophisticated design. That does not imply that today’s gynecologist does not have great learning – learning sufficient for the pragmatic application of the craft. But it does say that beyond the boundaries of that knowledge there is much more. Not only the design of the gross anatomy and immediate physiology, but a sophistication that extends via entwined neurological routes of brain mediated hormonal control and pre-determined behaviour to the nano- biology of the intra nuclear organelles and nucleic acid biochemistry.

So that prissy young woman who says “I know my body, I can control my behaviour, I know what I can do, I know what I should be doing and I know what I want” is wrong. Despicably wrong.


About jp

Orthopaedic Surgeon
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s