A Woman looks back at her Life.
I always wanted to have babies, ever since I can remember. As a toddler I wanted a doll to simulate a baby, and subsequently I asked for (and was given, as a birthday present) a stroller into which I could place my “baby” and care for it (as I would my child, when that would happen.
There are those who militate against purported “gender warping” by categorising the types of toys which are given to male and female children. These are the peculiar outliers at the far extremes of the bell curve. Peculiar might not be a strong enough word. They are pathological, and represent a hazard to the structure of societies. Indeed, by adopting those extreme and curious views, these people designate themselves as aberrant humans, who have no place to dictate their perverse views.
As a young girl I early recognised the need to attract males, or perhaps better, to ensure males were attracted by me. In my early teens, about the time of menarche, I became a “mall rat”. These were little shoals of girls of similar age (and similar aims) who collected in shopping malls (which were crowded on Friday nights) to give ourselves best exposure to youthful males.
We knew early, perhaps intuitively, perhaps by meme, that these youths would become fertile males. In the words made famous in “The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie”, “The want to stick their thingies into you”. “Why?” some girls asked, but I knew. Was that instinctive?
I later learned that males are designed as inseminating machines. Whatever the outward cloak, their purpose was to inseminate fecund females. That was, and is, the way it is. Accept it.
I masturbated every night before sleeping from an early age. My first “real” sexual encounter was a “cold turkey” affair, with the resident in the next apartment, after my first degree. We had spoken several times about sex (and I think it was his first time also), so he bought a condom and it was all very clinical. No romance, but pleasurable.
During my second degree I worked as a prostitute for a time, out of a “brothel”. Officially I was an escort, since no sex was allowed on the premises. That meant that I would go on a “date” with the man, and to a restaurant. That I enjoyed much as it was glamorous, and a novelty for someone (like me) with a small-town background. But then we would go to the man’s apartment or a hotel for the sex. I did not like that, as I felt vulnerable. At times I enjoyed the sex – at other times I just let him finish to his satisfaction. The money helped me through the second degree at university. This was not uncommon, even for women in established relationships, including marriage. It was regarded by them as harmless, inconsequential “moonlighting”.
Some women, now in the age of reliable contraception, allow “test drive” sex on both an occasional and a long term basis in the hope that the man would become addicted to the pleasure.
The “marriage / partnership contract then became that the man would have sexual availability in return for providing a home for the woman, and his children, plus the comensurables and all else which was necessary. In the “Capitalist / materialistic” (western) society he would conventionally work each day,for the entire day (from about 8.00am until 05.00 pm, plus commuting time.)
Of course, as is always the case with biology, there are a myriad of tempering counter-currents. A male is unlikely to move to (and seduce) other women without restraint. If he is attracted to, and likes and cares for, a particular woman, and if she gives him sexual pleasure regularly and predictably, he will stay with her. If she bears his children then physiological changes will occur in him, and that will further constrain him (These changes have been demonstrated). This type of male (and not all are this type) will endeavour to provide for this family, and commit himself, lifelong, to this endeavour. Should he invest heavily in infrastructure (mostly the case) he will have a vested interest in maintaining his place with the family.
So I selected a husband. Make no mistake; it is the women who select the male (whatever the rituals deny). At times women have bought their way in with a dowry.
I wanted a husband to do this, provide for his family, whilst I also provided for him. I would allow him to have sex with me, more or less on demand, and I would run the household, feed and clothe him and the children. He would go out and work. Even if I did not feel like sex, he could use me as a repository for semen (perhaps needing lubrication). That was part of the deal. But I liked it when he showed that he wanted to have sex with me. It made me feel that I was still attractive: It reassured me that he was still attracted to me: In some ways it showed that he was still being faithful to me
The man is expected to make the first ”move” to indicate his desire for physical (and sexual) contact. It is therefore the male who shoulders the risk of rejection and the associated humiliation. The woman might play a reciprocating game of allure-rejection-encouragement-rejection (the “stop it I like it” game) [Harvey Weinstein, you are not unusual or abnormal! Those women disliked your power, and wanted to claw some of it out of you, and humiliate you. They all had an exit strategy open to them, which they chose not to use, because that believed that they had sufficient manipulating skills. They brought their humiliation upon themselves. They should be scorned]
It is not all that it seems, though. An accepted ritual is for the male to invite the female on a “date”, conventionally to eat with him (or his family). This can be interpreted as proving that the male can provide food for a mate. Naturally it gives both the chance to appraise “table manners”. Does he grab it all? Does she order the most expensive item? How does he treat the waiter?
My husband was ordinary. OK, he was kind and gentle (what more could I ask?), but never outstanding. I knew most women would settle for the “ordinary / average”. It has to be that way. Yes, I grieved when he died, but that always happens. Grief is a universal emotion. In the same way, almost all women and men succeed in finding a mate. That is based primarily on their age, with perhaps a minor aspect of attraction, being symmetrical and the absence of observable disease. To that end, humans inherently have a highly developed capacity to judge age.
What restrains marital relationships, and keeps them in place? In time past it was society. Any breach of the “proper” was condemned and social disapproval was a sufficient disincentive against any union breaking up. Weddings played an important role, since the entire community (usually) was invited to witness the vows of the marital couple, and carry the memory of that, and the concurrent duty to abide by those vows, forward throughout the life of the couple.
However, that was disrupted with the breakdown of societal strength. In part this was the anonymity of urbanization. At that point the lawyers began to capitalise, and ultimately all control marital unity was encompassed and held by the law, and their monopolist protected lawyers. In making it a profitable industry for themselves, lawyers devised means of making divorce profitable for the wife (or ex-wife). Constructs such as “the ex-wife must live in the fashion to which she was accustomed” became entrenched. Thus yet another (potential) restrain on marital dissolution was not only removed, but reversed. There is no logic associated with that, only emotion. It is certainly not conducive to later family harmony. In parallel, the division between male custody and female custody was widened, sinc this gave the female further monetary leverage (and of course legal fees were ramped up, both because the “reward” of divorce was increased, but because ongoing, stuttering legal actions were given grounds in law. In any event the economics of marital union survival do not allow that. In time past the economic stress on the marital union was recognised by society, and a number of “allowances” were generated and offered by society. These took the form of rebates on taxation, and similar. However when socialistic politics arrived, and “industrialised compassion” pervaded, that opened the door for many to “suck the system”. Gays clamored for the same “marital” (economic) rights – originally designed to help support the young, breeding, couple.
I often have heard women say “I want to do something important. I do not want to be just a baby making machine.” Really? What could be more important, more miraculous than creating a new human? What could be more important than perpetuating your race and culture? What greater achievement than extending the human species for another generation?
What they are saying is that they want money, and that money is more important than everything else. Some, of course, have a challenging goal which they pursue. But this is a minority