Skip to main content

About Sex

The Mistress, contined See part one here Nancy Etcoff lays out some facts about human reproduction in her book Survival of the Prettiest:
Good looks are a woman's most fungible asset, exchangeable for social position, money, even love. But dependent on a body that ages, it is an asset that a women uses or loses. It is as perishable as trigger reflexes, exquisite balance, and quick reaction times. ... human females do not [stay fertile], and signs of aging are therefore important clues to reproductive capacity. A woman's peak fertility is between the ages of twenty and twenty four and remains near peak throughout her twenties. By the end of her thirties a woman's fertility has declined by thirty-one percent, and after that fertility declines much more steeply. Things are different for males, who can still father a baby naturally at ninety four... Unlike with women, fertility is not written on the male body. This difference is the sole basis for the erotic visual preference for women in their teens and twenties.
These facts make some people very uncomfortable. Why? Facts like these explode the myth that men and woman are equal in an earthly sense. This can only be so if a woman chooses not to have children. Most women, however, do want to have a family, and so they and their husbands must come to grips with these differences. For most of human history this wasn't a problem. It became a problem only recently, and only in western countries - in places where ideology began to conflict with these facts and attempted to sweep them under the carpet. I am certainly not arguing here that everything about women's liberation is bad. Rights to vote, and to have property and credit are all good and worthwhile. But somehow in this mix the idea began to circulate that female sexuality as it has been known is oppressive and culturally created. The notion that our ideas of female sexuality are merely cultural artifacts does not hold up to the evidence of the social sciences, as noted by Etcoff, and it does not address the problems faced by women who are discovering too late that fertility is no sure thing. You will still find people who deny the very real impact of the female fertility curve, but it is rapidly becoming clear that they are a minority blinded by zealotry. Women who delay pregnancy too long are at a great risk of not being able to have any children at all. The zealot's last, best hope is that somehow medical science will allow all women to cheaply have children past fourty. That - to put it mildly - seems very far fetched. It may be possible, someday, but I doubt if it will ever be cheap enough to compete with the old fashioned methods. The more vexing question is whether or not female sexuality, based on the biological facts Etcoff outlined above, is oppressive. It may be, if male sexuality is taken as the basis for comparison, but there is no compelling reason to do this. That is precisely what some of the loudest and most influential schools of women writers do, however. Rather than embrace women's unique nature and insist that society embrace it and adapt itself to them, they argue instead that women need to be more like men. Men don't get burdened with unexpected pregnancies that knock months and years off of a career, so women should not have to either, even if it means the death of the unborn child. Men abandon wives for flimsy reasons, and since that is so, women should have that right too. If that means women are often left in the unenviable position of fending for the kids as well as themselves, then the state should pay the difference. To compete with men in the most lucrative fields, women need years of schooling, just as men do. If that means they are then often past peak fertility, then the state must research ways to extend fertility, and provide it at reduced costs. And so it goes. At every turn, the strange idea that women are 'broken' and must be fixed regardless of the cost is used to continually increase the role of the state. This results in poor, weak and small families. They are poor because of the terrible costs of divorce and because of the oppressive taxes that are needed to maintain this regime. There is a hidden cost as well. The pill, seen by so many as a liberator of women because it allows women to use their sexual allure as a means to power (as men use earnings), has a dark side. It mucks up women's chemistry, and while many can stop taking it and conceive, this is not true for all. There are many women for whom the pill and its alternatives are a nightmare. Check out an infertility board on the web if you are in doubt. Fertility is not a disease we need medicine to cure. Fertility is not like the water in your tap, that you can turn on and off on a whim. The pill also degrades sexual relationships between men and women. Freed of concern for pregnancy, there is nothing to restrain the demands that men make on women, and those demands can be terrible indeed. The pill can be seen as an attempt by men to colonize women to suit their purposes. A woman can attempt to use sex for her own gain, but she can only do so as long as she is young. If she cannot land a lasting commitment or big money before her attractiveness wanes, she will have very little leverage or protection from against men at all. Finally, multiple partners lead to a terrible coarsening of the heart. The scar tissue makes it more and more difficult to feel for the other in the bed, for men and for women, but it is perhaps especially hard on women, who are more often more drawn to intimacy than the act itself. Does it need to be this way? Can we build a modern society that embraces the facts of a women's sexual arc through life? A few suggestions. Young women need to be taught the facts about how their fertility rises and falls in a short and spectacular fashion, so that they can plan their lives accordingly. They need to decide much earlier than men what kind of path they want to take through life. They need to choose, children or career, probably by their mid twenties. A woman on the family track can have children early and then resume a career and education when they are old enough to be semi independent. It is this path that needs to be more respected than it is today, and this poses no threat to the working women. The hardest part is the revolution in sexual mores that will be necessary to respecting women as they are. Women on the family track need solid, dependable men. And to achieve that, we really need to re-think our clothing, our advertising, and our music. Men will want assurance that they are indeed the father of the kids they support, and women will not want men to be around women who might tempt them to stray. It seems that traditional sexuality can fit the facts of our nature. The tougher question is, can we? If we think we are only animals who cannot control their wants, then no. If we are truly human, if we really are in control of ourselves in the way that we like to think we are, then there is hope.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi