I did an interview with Laurie Huston and Evita Ochel and Donna Aveni a month or so ago and talked about a process for shifting need-based relationships to love-based relationships. This topic (a future chapter in a future book) was triggered by a note on my web site that states that I am working on a future book called “Primal Male, Primal Female” …..it promises to look at gender from a perspective with no cultural belief overlays. More of a fundamental view of the basic facts of gender and how these facts then play out in our culture (thus the chapter on relationships). I thought there was a big need for some “ground truth” on the subject of gender. A few weeks ago, Blue Sky Symposium tossed me this interview question: “When stripped back of our fears and belief systems, what remains of men & women? Differences and commonalities?” So I decided, since the cat was already wiggling out of the bag, to talk more about the “future book” below is an edited version of my reply to Blue Sky. Now that the cat is almost completely out of the bag concerning what this new book is all about, I thought I needed to get more serious about actually writing it. Thus, I decided to post it on the forum to get some feedback, a sense of what you think about the concepts (below are many of the basic ideas which I intend to explore the logical consequences of more fully). Your replies may help me decide how valuable you think it is (how hard I should work on it) and what direction I should take it in (what questions/issues it should answer). It is pretty sketchy at the beginning since I took it from my written interview notes. My audience was interested in feminist viewpoints, so it leans a bit toward addressing those particular issues. I filled in the outline after the interview to make it more readable.

Probably not a good idea to pass it around too much since it is not yet even developed to a good rough draft stage. Just a begining.... and I thought the forum readers might like the inside scoop

Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------

New book, "Primal Man - Primal Woman"

Susan (Question from Blue Sky Symposium): When stripped back of our fears and belief systems, what remains of men & women? Differences and commonalities?

Tom's answer:

Criteria for physical evolution: Survival and procreation: Since one must survive to procreate, these two become entangled, and their combined criteria become:
Forwarding ones genes in the gene-pool

That is generally agreed to by scientists to be the evolutionary imperative for all lifeforms in PMR.

Males and female humans each have evolved their own strategies (instincts evolved genetically over millions of years) to accomplish that evolutionary imperative.

Understanding the context:

Our Evolution has taken place over millions of years and all but the last eye-blink in time were very harsh. Shelter and food were hard to come by, survival was problematic, life span was about 35 years, puberty occurred at about 17 to 18 Kids were more or less independent and carrying their own weight very early. Life was simple and straightforward. There was little social stratification -- everybody was more or less in the same boat. Close intra-tribal relationships and cooperation were essential to both survival and successful procreation. Women probably outnumbered men (as they do today). Now, that is the situation for which we are genetically programmed.

Asymmetry in physical body size and sexual function leads to asymmetry in strategy for Forwarding ones genes in the gene-pool:
The two sexually related asymmetries are: Women are physically smaller and weaker than men. Men impregnate the women and the women have the babies. Pregnant Women and women nursing and caring for children are less able to take care of themselves and their children than if they were not pregnant or had children – they need some help to get by. It is these two asymmetries that create different evolutionary strategies in males and female.

Forwarding ones genes in the gene-pool -- Male evolutionary strategy: in the form of evolving genetic programs. A genetic program is also called an instinct.

Hardwired – Men 2 strategies:

1) A numbers game: Have sex with as many physically attractive (low standard – [1 criteria: basically good physical and genetic health] women as are available to him.
2) Secure highest quality available woman to invest in: Pair bond with as many physically attractive (higher standard) females as possible (1-because of challenges) to ensure their survival and the survival and success of their offspring. (pair bond implies he, because of his investment, expects her to limit her sexual activity to him and he will take care of her and he children). He is looking for a woman who commits herself to him (thus strengthening the genetic value of pair bonding)

Logical consequences:

Males problem: He wants to find women who will have sex with him and then later find an attractive woman with good reproductive potential) who will accept him as her mate. He is hardwired to initially see women as sex objects but also, at the same time (more as he matures), is looking for quality worth committing to and investing in. Also, after the children are self sufficient and no more are on the way, the original point of the sexual programming ends while the programming continues forever (mid life crisis).

One might think that a male would theoretically do better genetically if he could support and protect several female mates who remained faithful to him (father more children to carry his genetic material forward) …. However…. the resources to provide for and the ability to protect were very difficult to deliver at that time and, even if that problem were solved, it is likely that such a man would end up investing some of his resources to boost the genetic success of his competitors (taking care of children who are not his). Alll in all, the practical difficulties and risks make the potential benefits extremely unlikely. Because there is no significant practical advantage to such arrangements, there is no genetic imperative for, or against, this alternative.

Men, are attracted to (are pushed by their genetic programming to) have sex with any attractive female who might make herself available to him; also, men feel responsible to protect and take care of their wives and children. They expect their pair bonded mate to limit her sexual activity to him to protect his investment. They are somewhat competitive with each other to attract who they consider the best choice for mate but since they choose firstly on the criteria of satisfactory physical attractiveness – they usually have many potential choices. Men have a need for their women to demonstrate to them that they are valued as a sexual partner and a good provider/protector. (to validate their success at accomplishing their genetically driven mission)

Note, that though it is easier and less complicated to have a single woman satisfy both strategies, there is no evolutionary hard-wired requirement to do so. Thus, having a wife does not conflict fundamentally or primally with having a lover.]

--------------------------------------------------------------

Forwarding ones genes in the gene-pool -- Female evolutionary strategy: in the form of evolving genetic programs

Hardwired -- Female 3 strategies
1) Bear most survivable children -- Secure highest available quality sperm: Be sexually attractive as possible (to men in general) and induce the one that is most attractive (has best quality sperm = most attractive [2 criteria: good physical and genetic health, Plus would produce offspring with highest survival/success quality] to have sex with her thus optimizing survival/success of offspring.
2) Form pair bond with and remain attractive to a highly survivable/successful and reliable man so that he will take care of and protect both her and her children for the long term. (pair bond implies to her that he commits to her and to her children, that he thinks she is “special” (he is committed to her) and will put her above and ahead of other women and other women’s children)
3) Her numbers game: Have as many healthy and well cared for children as practical conditions allow

Logical consequences:

Females problem: she must find an attractive man (one with good reproductive potential -- and a man with good provider and protector potential. She is hardwired to be attractive (at least superficially look like a sex object) and to use that “female power” to secure both superior quality sperm and protection and support for herself and her children. Also, after the children are gone and no more are on the way, the original point of the sexual programming ends while the programming continues forever (mid life crisis and empty nest syndrome). She is looking for a man who commits herself to her (thus strengthening the genetic value of pair bonding).

One might think that Females and their children would do better if they could have several males cooperatively taking care of and protecting them. However…males find it genetically counterproductive to invest in other males offspring… and… She must meet all of their needs and keep the peace – maintain their cooperation -- (Males tend to fight which could lead to a steeper down side than upside --- more actual risk than potential benefit). Because there is no significant practical advantage to such arrangements, there is no genetic imperative for or against this alternative.

Note, that though it is easier and less complicated (more convenient) to have a single man satisfy strategies 1 and 2, there is no evolutionary hard-wired requirement to do so. Thus, having a husband does not conflict fundamentally or primally with having a lover.

Interestingly: Their evolutionary strategy drives both sexes to directly want/require a commitment from their mates (thus that desire/expectation is part of their programming) but there is no direct evolutionary advantage for either sex to have or keep a commitment to their mates -- other than pleasing (keeping) their mates (that motivation is driven by circumstance rather than direct genetic programming). Thus, if secrets could be kept, there is no direct genetic evolutionary penalty for (no direct primal programming against) either sex having a lover.

Summary: Women are driven (pushed by their hardwired genetic programming) to be as sexually attractive as possible (want men in general to want to have sex with them) while reserving the right to be able to choose who and when. Women are very competitive in their sexual attractiveness to get and keep a man. However, physically attractiveness is only half (the lesser half) of the “attractiveness criteria” they apply to men. More importantly, they also rate men on their internal and external “personal power” (a man who will father more survivable offspring and be a better provider -- Initiative, taking charge, strength, brightness, intelligence, confidence, social status, pecking order among peers, ability to provide and protect, physically fit, athletic, independent, aggressive, gumption, resourcefulness, competency, a plan for the future, ambition, knowledge, potential to accrue necessary resources, as well as depth of character, empathy, and sensitivity). Women have a need for their men to demonstrate to them that he is committed to her and see her as special and valued --- particularly above other women – (Thus validating her success at accomplishing her genetically driven mission).

Today, a minority of women (particularly if immature: young or unable to develop due to family, social, or cultural disadvantages) often have trouble translating their hardwired sense of male attractiveness from cave dweller days to apartment dweller days. Attributes such as aggressive, domineering, independent, secure, physically big/strong, wealth, social status, political power (office, home, or community), potential or actual financial power, or simple popularity (singers or movie stars) – may singly or in combination ring genetically programmed bells that turn out to be dysfunctional in today’s culture and have no relationship to either personal power, or quality of consciousness.

It is sometimes difficult for young women not to confuse their genetically programmed sense of what constituted attractive male personal power in the stone-age with contemporary male arrogance, confidence, condescension, dominance, bluster, and casual indifference. Many young women filter out the “nice guys” with real personal power and are attracted only to jerks, jocks, and hot shots -- self centered, self-promoting manipulators who know how to manipulate female hardwired genetic sexual programming – generally losers and duds with high opinions of themselves.

“Nice girls” and “nice guys” who have a higher quality of consciousness, are not into manipulating others to this extent because they want valuable relationships, not simply the ability to use another person to satisfy their needs. Consequently, nice guys with real personal power in our contemporary culture are often seen by younger females (who are lost in their genetic programming) as potential friends but not potential lovers or mates. Likewise, nice girls, often find out that the not-so-nice girls have a large competitive advantage in attracting the males of their choice because young males (lost in their genetic programming) seem unable to tell the difference. (The way this is broadened out in scope is helpful)

A million years of evolution has spawned different attitudes, approaches and ways of interpreting and dealing with the world:

These differences express successful variation within the evolutionary process and lead to a broad range of sometimes overlapping characteristics for both males and females. Due to this evolutionary diversity, probably no statement or description of any meaningful sort will universally apply to all women or to all men. However there are some female characteristics that do apply to many or most women and some male characteristics that do apply to many or most men. We will now explore a few of these typical female and male attributes to facilitate a discussion of several widely experienced contemporary gender issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Men are hardwired to direct their energy towards the mastery of the outside world. This exterior focus optimizes their ability to protect their tribe, mates, and children through team work and cooperation with other men. Male interaction is thus primarily with the outside environment and requires focus and attention to big picture outside strategy and little picture outside details.

He guides, forms, and manipulates his reality to suit him by asserting his skill and power in the outside world in order to take care of his tribe, mate, children and himself. Most of his interaction in the world is focused on manipulating the outside environment to provide for himself and those who depend on him.

Males apply their intellect to the outside environment in order to dominate the outside world with skill, power and force. However, they tend to stumble or feel their way through the inside environment of personal relationship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Women are hardwired to direct their energy towards mastering the inside world of personal relationship -- building, maintaining, and networking with others – including her man and his family/social connections. These relationships optimize her ability to keep her man focused on her and her children – they represent the connectedness and responsibility that creates the nuclear family and the glue that holds it together. Additionally, such relationships and networks provide her with assistance as needed, generate a social system of encouragement, support, and solace, as well as bind the male to a shared responsibility within a meaningful set of family relationships.

She guides, forms, and manipulates her reality to suit her through the relationship she builds with her man, personal connections, and a network of friends. Most of her interaction and strategy in the world is focused on the inside environment of profitable connectedness (relationship).

A few characteristics, driven by her genetic programming, that fall under the fat part of the bell curve:

The need to spread her focus simultaneously over many tasks, necessitates the development of an ability to Parallel process.

She is nudged by her genetic programming to develop and maintain female support group, a clique of relationship “insiders” who encourage, console, and generally support each other.

Females tend to divide people into two groups: “Insiders” who are the special people in her life with whom she has developed a special bond. She protects and supports these insiders (her man, her friends, her children, all those who “belong” to her. Everyone else is classified together as “outsiders”. She is as sensitive and attentive to the needs and problems of her “insiders” as she is indifferent to the needs and problems of outsiders.

Relationship primarily depends on communication, thus females are prodigious communicators who typically speak nearly twice as many words each day than the average males does.

Females apply their intellect to the inside environment in order to create potential personal value/advantage for herself and her children though her relationship with those who could directly influence the lives of her and her children. She gets by in the outside environment with the assistance of those with whom she has established a relationship.
--------------------------------------------

Thus, Women are said to be from Venus while men are from mars.

Women dominate and speak the language of the inside environment of personal relationship (the implicit or indirect power of personal relationship that is necessary for a physically smaller woman (with several children to care for) to genetically succeed in the evolution game).

On the other hand, men dominate and speak the language of the outside environment of personal power -- the explicit or direct power to succeed in the outside world in order to control and accumulate sufficient security and resources to ensure the survival and continuance of both the tribe and one’s family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that the male, who, among other things, shoulders the task of defense (ensuring physical survival) has a first priority responsibility to the tribe because, during the time when these genetic programs were established, no nuclear family would likely survive for long without the cooperative efforts of the tribe. Today, this ancient genetic program nudges young men to leave their wives and families and go off to war.
-----------------------------------------------

Cultural consequences (all different for different women): fidelity, expectations and roles, limitations (men don’t cry and ladies don’t belch in public), fashion – also different value is given to men and women by our culture, and differing cultural values (taking charge, nurturing) drive gender behavioral expectations

Two facts: We have a male dominant culture. The great majority of males (and females) are very much fear and belief driven – insecure, immature, and lots of ego.

There is much cultural derived fear around both relationship and sexuality (and much of that is created by the dissonance between our genetic programming and our cultural values) – but because ours is a male dominant culture this fear takes a much larger toll on females than males. Women are confused (For example, the culture tells them to be Hot Hot Hot in some roles – and Not Not Not in other roles).

It would be interesting here also to explore what a non-male dominant culture would look like and how we might evolve to a Gender Equal Value System culture or something other.

Because of our cultures image of women (immature egoic male) -- Our culture sees women as sex objects who take care of children and do domestic work – women are culturally undervalued by this lopsided view. Women, of course, know, deep down (often beneath the intellect), that they have personal value, personal quality, beyond this limited vision. The result is that, in our culture, women form an underclass whose personal worth is not fully validated by male-made cultural feminine stereotypes. Cultural beliefs are absolute and accepted at the being level – which creates identity issues and self-worth issues and, for many, leaves a systemic low level tension between the sexes, because any underclass resents being an underclass even if they fully accept the situation as natural or as just “the way it is”. This tension, on one hand, creates a subtle subconscious chip on the shoulder attitude, a nonspecific uneasiness and less than total trust and appreciation of men and their cultural dominance – a fear of being used or taken advantage of – a wariness -- all usually simmering beneath the intellect. On the other hand it also creates identity confusion, self worth issues, feelings of inadequacy and insecurity.

Insecurity creates fear: of being too hot and too cold – a fear of being not exactly whatever it is a female should be – a model that is only shallowly provided by the culture. The value of Being female is defined in our culture primarily in terms a female’s expected services to others rather than in terms of her individual quality of being. Those “services to others” are mostly given to men and children)

Fear creates anxiety and ego-reactions (from: “don’t tread on me” to “I am only good for being tread on”) and confusion – all rolled up into an undefined stress and anxiety -- women feeling insecure and inadequate for reasons that they cannot quite put their finger on. Many eventually make an accommodation with their culture and their men -- but the solution never quite feels right or complete – something they learn to live with

A sizable minority begin to feel bad about themselves. One may counter feeling insecure and inadequate by trying to be perfect…. Which may lead to an ego needing to be perfect…. Being a perfectionist must lead to failure since no one can be perfect…. Which reinforces one’s feeling bad about one’s self and feeling inadequate…..— a vicious downwards spiral ending in great distress (personal dislike -- depression) and a prescription for Prozac. Why do so many more women than men take depression medication?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mechanics of gender dominance within a culture:

There are two facts, or set of circumstances, that determine whether or not a culture has a dominant gender (the dominance factor), and if so, which sex is the dominant one (the sexual factor).

The dominance factor is a function of the quality of consciousness of the individuals (males and females) within the culture. If the quality of consciousness is generally low (decisions primarily based upon fear, ego, belief, needs, wants, desires, and expectations) then that sets the condition allowing one gender to dominate the other. If, on the other hand, the quality of consciousness is generally high, decisions will be primarily based upon love, caring about other, compassion, and, long term system optimization (i.e., cultural growth, value, productivity, creativity, high standard of living, happiness, etc.). This condition of a population with overall high consciousness quality sets the condition for a culture that is optimized for all of its members -- dominance is automatically discarded as a suboptimal, dysfunctional, high cost, low productivity social arrangement.

Given a dysfunctional culture populated by mostly low-quality-of-consciousness individuals, then, if that culture’s (and the individual’s within the culture’s) most pressing current and historical needs are safety, security, and the procurement of sufficient resources (outside environmental problems), then that culture will be dominated by males since they have the genetic hardwiring to address these issues (sexual factor). The value of being female will be defined within that culture primarily in terms of a male viewpoint (given the initial conditions of this example – that would be a fear, ego, belief and expectation driven male viewpoint). Such a male viewpoint would be in terms of the expected services that men would want and expect from females (mostly services supporting the needs of the men and their children).

The history of the human race has been primarily one of a struggle for survival. Certainly, that was the case during the time that our genetic programs evolved. Security and the procurement of adequate resources (food, shelter, etc.) for both individuals and groups has been the most pressing and challenging problem of humanity until very recently. Thus one would expect that human social history is primarily a history of male dominance. Likewise, one would expect that male dominated social structures would constitute the vast majority of present-day social structures throughout the world and within many diverse cultures. Also, one would expect that both males and females are well adapted to this condition. Thus male-dominate social structures have deep roots in history, tradition, and genetic proclivities applied to basic survival needs.

Trying to change this outcome at a fundamental level is unlikely to be more than superficially successful unless those “most pressing current and historical needs” change. By force of intellect and education we can make behavioural changes -- we act better, more gracious and civilized – but there is a big difference between being and acting. Acting for a long time might eventually “bleed through” to the being level superficially, but such “leakage” is unlikely solid for the long run and can be rolled back quickly. That is why it is said that polite civilized society represents a thin veneer covering a rougher, more violent and self-centered humanity lurking just beneath the surface. Cultural programming can run counter to genetic programming, but mostly only at a superficial (polite) level.

On the other hand, given a dysfunctional culture populated by mostly low-quality-of-consciousness individuals, then, if that culture’s (and the individual’s within the culture’s) most pressing current and historical needs are relationship and networking based issues (inside environmental problems), then that culture will be dominated by females. The value of being male will be defined within that culture primarily in terms of a female viewpoint (given the initial conditions of this example – that would be a fear, ego, belief and expectation driven female viewpoint). Such a female viewpoint would be in terms of the expected services that women would want and expect from the men (mostly services supporting the needs of the women and their children).

Consciousness quality has no gender association so it would be exceptionally unlikely that a culture would be populated by one gender with a predominately low quality of consciousness and the other gender with a predominately high quality of consciousness, especially since a low quality in one sex would tend to aggravate and thus develop a low quality in the other (such an unbalanced asymmetric state would not be stable (would not last long). There would be a very high probability that the males and females in any given culture would be of similar quality of consciousness. However, there are some inquisitive readers with good imaginations, or perhaps strong biases, who would like to explore the possibilities anyway.

In a hypothetical culture where only the females maintained a high quality of consciousness, the men would be treated with as much unconditional love and caring support as conditions would allow, much as the women might treat their young sons who run about the house in superman costumes pretending to save the world. High quality consciousness could not act in any other way. The men in such a loving and supportive environment would have an optimal situation in which to grow up and most would probably grow up very quickly to a high quality of consciousness similar to that of the women.

The opposite condition would work just the same way. The high quality of consciousness males would treat the low quality of consciousness women with as much unconditional love and caring support as conditions would allow, much as the men might treat their young daughters who often play house by serving and teaching a deserving family of rag dolls. The women in such a loving and supportive environment would have an optimal secure situation in which to grow up and most would probably grow up very quickly to a high quality of consciousness similar to that of the men.

Do you see why I suggest to those couples who wish to evolve their relationships from need based to love based that the men initiate this evolution by giving themselves up entirely to love (or whatever his female thinks love is), thus, giving their women a sincere, rock steady environment of unconditional love in which to flourish, to grow themselves? Because females in our male dominate culture are likely to be a tad insecure, uneasy and not entirely trusting of the beneficence of male intentions, it is not reasonable to ask females to be the initiator in this process of giving herself up entirely to love (or to whatever a male from a male-dominate culture thinks love is). Expecting her to initiate this process would, for most women, be asking too much. It is clearly the men who need to lead this process within our culture. More reasons follow:

Could a female lead this process? Of course! But it will be less likely that the male, in a male dominant culture will respond as quickly, or as productively as the female is likely to respond if the male is the initiator.

You see, in our culture, if the male initiates this process to move to a love based relationship, he is inviting the female to enter a relationship situation (her speciality) that she has dreamed of and hoped for her entire life (total commitment from him) and that resonates grandly with her genetic programming. Her immediate response, once she believes his invitation to be genuine and sincere, is to make sure that she will always be worth it to him, that he never changes his mind or sees her any other way. And to accomplish that, she will gladly grow and change to meet his needs – because that is smart relationship building.

If the female initiates the move to a love based relationship within this male-dominate culture, she is inviting the male to enter a new relationship situation (he has no solid sense what that means) that he has always assumed was his due, his birthright as a male. If his woman initiates, he thinks that things are now the way they should have been all along. Why should he change anything at this point? Life is now great on the home front – the rule is: don’t change what isn’t broken. His genetic program and cultural program are satisfied and no big internal push to grow is triggered at the being level or the intellectual level because all this relationship stuff just is however it is – there is really nothing anybody can do about it. Let the good times roll!
---------------------------------------------------

Now, as we move from the industrial age into the information age, our Western culture (mostly “first world” countries) has arrived at, or is approaching, the point where a majority of the population is no longer in a desperate struggle for survival. The struggle has moved to the quality and dignity of that survival rather than survival itself. The most pressing problems of our culture are in the process of changing from scarcity and security to getting along with each other productively (relationship building) -- or at least a mixture of the two. Thus, the initial conditions required for making fundamental progress toward a culture with no gender dominance have been steadily growing stronger over the last 200 years or so.

However, the inertia of a few million years of scarcity has institutionalized itself within our culture. Old habits and attitudes resist change. It is changing these habits and attitudes (beliefs) of scarcity and insecurity (both fearful attitudes) that hold the key to elimination of cultural male-dominance. Trying to force change in the symptoms of male-dominance rather than eliminate the cause may encourage a little more of that “thin veneer of polite civility”, but it will not fix the problem and is likely to aggravate it making things worse. It is a trick of the ego to believe that one can use hostility to end hostility. The only way to end hostility is with love (a higher quality of consciousness).

Focus on moving the culture from the mindset of scarcity and physical security, to the mindset or relationship building, and the male-dominance within our culture will slowly melt away on its own – and not cosmetically, but fundamentally. The genetic programming of both sexes will eventually ensure that result.

So what sort of gender neutral culture can we create given the general low quality of consciousness that we live in? And how do we go about creating it? First and foremost: We need to raise the level of consciousness in the general population. Secondly, we need to reduce the level of fear in our culture by reducing the level of fear in ourselves. As quality raises and fear diminishes, our agendas will automatically shift from fear of scarcity and lack of security to the now more important business of relationship building. In the short run (the immediate future), it would be good to ratchet down the contentious rhetoric on both sides and begin an effective educational program that starts with a basic understanding of our genetic programming and cultural-social programming. One must always begin with an understanding of the truth of the present situation.

Although manipulation of the outside world can potentially provide needed resources as well as safety and security, which is absolutely essential to everything else, we must understand that a continual culture of scarcity and of fear will generate and maintain a culture with a lopsided male-dominate viewpoint.

We must learn that our connectedness and interaction with others (relationship) is central to our evolution and growth. That it is relationship, not the manipulation of the material world, which provides the primary learning ground of consciousness evolution.
We, as individuals need to learn what it means and what it is like to be male and female in this culture -- to appreciate the view from both sides and begin to dismantle (gently over a long term view) the cultural (manmade) structures that stand in the way of optimizing our system/culture for all people.

We can improve our personal relationships by realizing that need-based relationships are but a scant shadow of the real thing (love-based relationship). As we put unconditional love back in our personal lives more and more, we will begin to accelerate our process of consciousness evolution, thus adding both fuel and fire to burn away the heavy stultifying dross of fear and belief that so limits us, our culture, and our species.

As was said above, first and foremost we must raise the level of consciousness in the general population – and we accomplish that best by raising our own consciousness quality.

Thank you, Tom, for sharing your draft.

I’ve listened to your interviews several times and read this draft. This is my thoughts.

1 Expanding and explaining in depth need based vs Love based relationship, emphasizing on description and explanation of need based relationship. It is not easy to acknowledge and accept, that your relationship is need based.

2 Mental and psychological differences/similarities in men and women beyond survival and procreation.

3 Paternal and maternal instincts, differences and similarities in more details.

4 “the original point of the sexual programming ends while the programming continues forever (mid life crisis).” Is it a lack of purpose in one’s life? Explaining what is this programming, i.e. what kind of psychological and mental problems it can create. What should or could be done to understand these problems? How these problems should or could be approached and solved, if at all?

5 Male vs female attachment to a family.

6 Middle Eastern and African culture of polygyny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

Tom,
I saw the interview you did with Evita Ochel and was impressed with the new paradigm you introduced, suggesting that whenever there is an argument or disagreement, that the woman is always right. That reminded me of the joke that goes: “If a man says something in the woods, and there aren’t any women there, is he still wrong?” :-)

But seriously, this new suggestion will perhaps be one of the most daunting tasks that the typical male will ever have to undertake. Men can obviously be very obstinate, stubborn, and unwilling to swallow their pride. I remember you saying in another interview on this same topic that several couples you know have actually applied this rule, and that it has worked.

Perhaps in your book you could elaborate in more detail on this subject (to help out all us bone-headed males) and give some specific examples from a few of the couples that have tried it and how it helped their relationship.

Without a doubt, we men need all the help we can get!

Thanks for the sneak preview,

Michael

Tom: I am just doing my usual responsive thing here and saying what comes to my head, with minimal editing. I am not sure how to adjust my tone for the boss showing up to this meeting. I was never very good at that. My hope is that a couple of things might be helpful brainstorming.
Something is definitely broken in the whole male female paradigm in the West. It sort of reminds me of the Black Plague which took out a third of Europe's population. I am tickled pink that the mind of Tom is investing in this important human problem.

Its a tricky area with many minefields. The guiding principle and intent as males investigating and talking about this...I think has to be...how can we use science to be better: husbands; fathers to daughters; uncles to nieces; and servants of the female "species".
Its sort of like a CSI investigation and the need to just "follow the data", wherever it leads. Sometimes you don't want to know how the sausage is made, and the truth is sometimes not for the faint of heart. Part of culture is dressing up awkward truths to be more comfortable, weaving a fabric of love-based white lies. Removing the fabric of white lies can be a painful and sometimes humiliating process.
Apart from the initial process of taming our own minds, job #2 is turning our heads to the right/left to consider the strange and apparently annoying being at the other end of the sofa. Nothing else is possible until we figure that out. Actually, maybe this is step #1? Its difficult to work on your own mind when that other FWAU under your roof is glaring at you and starting to think your mother in law was right about you all along. ; - )
The Paleo lens.
You may also wish to consider brain differences. For example, I read a media report a while back on MRI research into male and female hemispheric dominance. Women and gay males had relatively balanced right/left activity, whereas straight males tended to be left dominant and right deficient.

Diminished right hemispheric capacity may explain why straight men simply do not see "the mess", an important contributor to marital stress. Another study reported that the part of the brain attributed to sex drive is three times larger in men than women! Combine this with the programmed female response to fame, power or wealth, and we start to understand why there is so much infidelity among powerful public figures.
I wonder if part of the metric is the need to establish paternity. Maternity is always certain, except for hospital switches, but paternity is somewhat more problematic, short of the chastity belt or DNA testing. Thus, sexual promiscuity of the female, at least during the child bearing years, undermines the father child bond and perception of genetic progenesis.
It seems there is indeed directionality with sexuality. The male desires the female, and the female experiences being desired, as the primary drivers. To a lessor extent, the male experiences being desired, and the female is the desirer, but this is usually attenuated and can actually be erotically incompetent if misplaced.

Second order pragmatic considerations come into play when the left hemisphere starts connecting the dots and the frontal cortex says "wait a minute", I don't like where this is heading. Like me on a twenty something date and the date starts dancing at the dance club with stripper moves. ; - )
I wonder if the issue here is that DNA has figured out that the best strategy is for the men who can afford it to be serial monogamists. In olden days, this meant polygamy. Successful men experience heightened sex drive as their DNA senses that the platform is efficient (or lucky or has resources), and unsuccessful men are depressed and have diminished sex drive. So in olden times and in some Muslim countries to this day, successful men have many wives and those that can't afford it, never marry.

Modern successful men with resources, facing the internal primordial biological pressure of the second and third wife, but faced with the Judeo-Christian polygamy taboo and illegality, resort to divorce and serial marriage to resolve the problem. The question has to be asked, as a thought experiment, what is kinder and more anthropologically correct for women...divorce or polygamy? More broadly, when the science is all done, what is the MBT ethical way to deal with all this primordial stuff?

Do we hunker down and recommit to classical marriage? Do we try to figure something else out that better resolves the tradeoffs? Given our entropic natures, can we construct a new contract that men will actually be able to keep?
It seems that while we are naturally polygamous, the contract of marriage has emerged out of the pragmatic ruleset as being the most efficient arrangement, historically, with chaste females and sometimes philandering males. The ethics of polygamy however might measure up better than stepping outside classical marriage with a lover or a professional.

Many questions regarding the science of taking a lover: what damage does it do to the other person if there is asymmetry; what is the role of deception? Different cultures resolve these pressures in different ways. How will MBT culture resolve it in a way that follows the science, is love based, but is realistic?
If women could feel the pressure of this for 5 minutes, I think they would have a deeper understanding and greater compassion for what a burden this is and how difficult it is to manage. I think the above statement might be more accurate if you were to remove the word "attractive". ; - )

Part of the solution is to be open and have a sense of humor about this issue, and take it on as a shared challenge rather than a dark boogey man.
Second order pragmatic rulesets as well as third order higher rulesets self-reinforcing.
again, pragmatic Darwinian paternity driver taken into the DNA and tied to hard-wired jealously.
The initial impulse might be the physical interacting with attitude and what the clothing communicates, and different types of guys are hunting in different types of herds. The initial sexual pulse. Then the left brain kicks in and you probe education and whether she smokes or not, things like that, something you do once you go through the feedback of not doing that once. Are you a pragmatic fit? If you are very astute, you pay very close attention to the tone of voice she uses when on the phone with her mom (when she thinks no-one is listening) or taking to waiters which is an indicator of MBT quality.
One of the biggest mistakes a girl can make is to get on a script of what a loser their boyfriend or husband is. She is thinking, maybe I can browbeat him into being a better person. What is actually happening is that he is linking her to pain and humiliation, and feeling worse. At some point he figures out that he feels better when she is not in the room.

When I encounter couples where the man is going through some sort of challenge, I warn the wife that it is imperative that she support and guard his dignity and ego. Put the best face on things and keep him pumped up. Keeping the marriage together is far more important for the family prosperity, i.e. her prosperity, than thinking he can be browbeated into better behavior.

In the end, most men simply want and deeply need to feel respected by their wives. If the wife does not respect their man, it is in her interest to make the best act of respect, if she wishes to remain married to a person going through challenges, rather than becoming divorced from a person going through challenges.

All things considered, the wife is rarely better off separating from a spouse going through challenges. In fact, the internal act of forgiving the spouse for failing to meet their expectations, and rather showing love and appreciation for the shared life, may be just the thing he needs to start moving forward.
yeah, the female drive for children is strong, and I know some where this is stronger than the drive to partner. I determined at a young age that men should not interfere with the woman's impulse regarding children, one way or the other. I ended up with one that very distinctly did not want children, and I accept this as AUM's intention for me and I appreciate the decision space that this affords.

I think another area to consider is the "Theatre Of Relationships" and the "Theatre of Tribe." For example, one can fail at sex, but heaven help you if you fail the Theatre of Valentines day or mess up Thanksgiving. This appears to be much more important to the female than sex. Its almost as if you know, now this is from observing others, what happens in Vegas can stay in Vegas, but heaven help you if you miss Thanksgiving or say something that keeps the relatives from coming over at Christmas. I think it traces back to right hemisphere considerations.

According to my estimates, the divorce rate for men who occasionally bring home "roses for no particular reason", have a .001% divorce rate.
so, yeah, these pragmatic second order considerations that maybe creeped into the DNA over time, which remain, even now that she might be financially independent. So my wife can look at a Dick Cheney and say, "he is so sexy". ; -) Cracks me up.

Few women are syntropically resourceful enough to do this, but a very low entropy woman will be looking for some aspect of higher ruleset rescuing positive feedback...like taking on an older single father with a kid at home. ; - )

I'll take a break here.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Did the "roses for no reason" (RFNR) maneouver yesterday afternoon, worked like a charm!

picking up where I left off
yeah, on House Hunters last night the girl kept saying she had "baby fever". There is DNA's agenda for you, then there is the filter of the woman's aquired mental model and life experience. So, much of life ends up being this dance we do with DNA impulse, analysing, saying yes to this and no to that, sometimes being too quick to say yes, sometimes being too quick to say no.

Her mother might transmit fear related to the childbirth experience or the challenges of raising kids. If there is a disabled child in family background, she might acquire a fear of having a disabled child. There may be fear of poverty (or for some, fear of being middle class) associated with having any or many children. Then there is the interaction of welfare rulesets with child headcounts and those incentive structures.
The possible key here is to parse out the primordial PMR ruleset and strategies that got assimiliated into the DNA hardwiring, then start to look at how civilization has drifted from these original profitable strategies. While she may be an MD with a trust fund with no actual need for a provider and protector, her paleo self sure feels that she needs this. The guy as his paleo self feels like he needs to be provider and protector, so this girl with her own money, maybe making more money than him, is a bit of a sexual turn off in a way neither fully understands.

The solution to this is to understand the theatre of sexuality, the stupidity of DNA, which can be easily fooled, and pretending paleo roles. The smart professional girl still takes care of business, but she manages her man's paleo ego with conscious intention, partly from agape love, but mostly for self (marital) preservation.
Men (unless otherwise indicated, "straight") are generally non-visual, however, 99% of the male brain that is devoted to visual perception is hardwired to looking for and studying the female form. The competent female accepts this paleo reality and invests in this area of profitable manipulation with a win win intent.

We have this one acquaintance who is into cosmetic surgery, married to an attractive wealthy dude. Given the paleo reality, I see this as good warriorship and effectiveness given the challenges of being a female in the world, as it is, as men generally are. An MBT marriage of course would be a different paradigm.
I guess my mind leaps ahead to therapies. By my experience there are two types of empty nest or childless women. Happy women with dogs, and unhappy women without dogs. Most cats are a waste of time or actually worsen insecurities, given their uppityness. ; - )

Also, as the marriage simulation plays out, there is the dynamic of power and alternatives. The female has the widest decision space when she is 18. She is considering suitors from close to her age to as old as a decade older than her, and beyond. The young male is caught hunting close to his age and younger, with the barrier of statutory rape further squeezing his field. This is a huge relative asymmetry. As they age, his decision space widens, and hers narrows. This is a factor for spouse selection, but it is also a factor for the role of alternatives when the dynamic of separation and divorce comes into play, under the heterosexual paradigm.
So, classical marriage resolves this power asymmetry, where the female surrenders her wide decision space of youth to the male, and the male surrenders his wide decision space of middle age to the female, in a life long contract. The male who does not understand the true purpose of the contract, starts to sense this wider decision space as he ages, especially if he is successful, and he starts to get ideas. If the mental concept of marriage is romantic, he does not understand that he made a deal, a contract, to surrender decision space. So if the marriage becomes sexually or emotionally or otherwise inconvenient, and no longer meets his needs, he moves on, thinking that this is moral or ok intent. The girl is left then on her own, stuck with this narrow decision space, all the worse if she does not have her own money and was a classic stay at home mom. And she rightly feels cheated.
Where this model sort of applies is with prostitution, where the female exchanges sex for money with many male partners. Where this is normally a bad a idea for the female is that it pays her rent, but does not take care of what she really needs, which is to be part of a family and clan and to create a safe haven for aging. With the last vestiges of puritanism disappearing, we are started to see Japan style pragmatic sugar daddy syndrome emerging in the US, where guys with money pay middle class college students for sex in a pragmatic arrangement. The key question here is how does this affect the girl over the longer term and can she transition from this to normal family life and ultimately get what she needs and wants. Can her future husband accept this activity should he become aware of it?
The continental French seem to have the most egalitarian attitude to female promiscuity within marriage. It would be interesting to hear a direct report from someone with direct data on this. The sense I get is that female promiscuity of a wife, from the point of view of the husband, is an emotional nuisance to be managed, rather than automatically leading to divorce, which is the more American protestant attitude to this.

"She who must be obeyed" wants to go look at bathroom lighting fixtures now. So off I (cheerfully) go.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Hi Tom,

There are instances, one for sure, where you are assuming something is "hardwired" such as her looking for an attractive man to mate with when there has been studies that show when a women is fertile her preference for men changes to a more rough looking (think Neanderthal) man to actually get impregnated by. The for sure case is your assumption she is "hardwired to be attractive" to use that "power" and that just isn't the case. That is a learned behavior Tom. Do you see?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Bette,

I am aware that these kinds of things fit in general with your present doctoral studies so I anticipate that you are basing this on some actual research you have read about. Does this following not fit into what you are stating regarding 'Neanderthals' when the female is in her fertile period: It may not include 'hairy manliness' and stress Neanderthal like, but it does include initiative, taking charge and strength in the shopping list. Should Tom not get credit for this? He was not addressing the situation you mention specifically but female selection in general.

The "hardwired to be attractive" versus being learned behavior, I leave with you as probable to be a known from research for you.

Ted

Credit for being incorrect? Women marry for resources, but when fertile often look outside marriage to get pregnant by a rougher less good looking type. It isn't hardwired though. Since marriage along with religion is a man made not genetic type behavior the actual genetic behaviors are normal, marriage is not normal. Just google "fertile women cheating" and see what comes up.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

No, I mean that Tom would not come out and say in so many words that when in estrus, a woman is more inclined to prefer a little rough handling. I presume that it, as releasing a little extra adrenalin, promotes ovulation, orgasm and sperm transport, thus pregnancy. That is not Tom's style. I'm just giving him credit for the "initiative, taking charge and strength" which doesn't strike me as too far off of 'Neanderthal' and if displayed in those circumstances, seem to quite well 'fit the bill'. It's just words.

I gave you the rest without argument.

Ted

You're so cute Ted, no disrespect at all intended to you or Tom too. I don't mean rough handling, I mean less handsome. It is also a theory based on westernizing everything. Here look at this, Tom too please. It shows how our ideas of psychology of people is all westernized and not universal, so cultural, not genetic. http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/ ... inal02.pdf
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Bette,

As a one time goat herder, I was building on that experience. The rougher and smellier the buck, the better the does liked it when they were 'in the mood' and at the 'right time'. My former wife could also tell when she ovulated. Ever heard of mittelschmerz? I speak from experience.

By the way, a very interesting paper. I saved it and will send a copy to Tom. He is traveling and won't get to it for a while.

Ted

Tom

Quoting from "a glimse into a future book" above:
"It would be interesting here also to explore what a non-male dominant culture would look like and how we might evolve to a Gender Equal Value System culture or something other".
I would like to add some reflections which came to me concerning a non-male dominant culture.

Going back in history what first came into my mind was the Bonobo Monkeys. Very sweet and interesting creatures as it seems to me and maybe we also have something to learn from them, provided we can do it before they get exterminated of course.
http://www.bonobo.org/bonobos/what-is-a-bonobo/


Then we have the Tuareg people with a matrilinial culture (but this we find even in the jewish culture) where the women keep a high status compared with their Arab counterparts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuareg_people

Today we can also peep in in Sweden, where women have a very strong position. Recently the leader of the Sweden`s Centre Party, Annie Lööf, suggested to put polygamy on the program of the Party. Since she said that she wouldn`t care for how many men the woman next door is married to, I anderstand that the suggestion was intended to be gender equal. This gave immediately rise to a dust cloud even in her own Party so she must withdraw the suggestion:
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.as ... el=5446931
(I hope the link still works.)
Yet the thought has been openly formlated, even if it fell into unprepared soil. Someone else might try it again later on, who knows?

And when you read this, thank you for all your work Tom, and for this Forum.

Anna

continuing...[it was a challenging fixture install yesterday!]
I see you are defining the Paleo platform and operating environment. Another factor is what happens to the DNA fragments that travel through the lover channel and their position and power in the socio-economic context, the role of value systems and socio economic results. Also, having a lover pre-birth control had a completely different meaning post birth control. Not only the availability of relatively risk free sex, but as well the intent regarding discipline to use that new decision space versus being sloppy. For example, if fornication is stripped to its here proposed core meaning, which is unintentional pregnancy (or, pregnancy that would be unfavorable for the child), then fornication in the modern era is not sex itself, it is unprotected sex.

It also pertains to memes and value systems and their efficiency. Cultures generally do not make things up simply for the purpose of tormenting their followers. There is almost always a pragmatic initial purpose. Technology changes. Consciousness of the individual or group changes, and some rules become obsolete. When enough rules become obsolete, the followers of a culture throw out the baby with the bathwater and regress to hedonism. Hedonism is doing what feels right in the moment, regardless of the (second or third order ruleset) consequences.
yes, sexuality has directionality. There is the DNA impulse of the toddler to play with makeup rather than trucks, which is then reinforced by connecting the dots and seeing their path to power and mimicking what mommy does. The girl that correctly connects the dots not only prepares for med school or whatever, but she as well plays the paleo game and understands that making the most of her attractiveness (which is a whole subject in of itself) will increase her alternatives, and power is based on having alternatives.
Plain looking men seem to have a little more decision space in this regard, for this narrow part of the life game, though, "making the most of her attractiveness" is a large subject and there is more decision space here than meets the eye. Perhaps some of my observations are out of date, but a superficially plain or even unattractive female can develop erotic power through attitude, posture, slimness, attire, courting gaming.

American Blue Blood females will actually go to France to study the olympian eroticism of the Continental French female, which is almost matched by the refined erotic power of Japanese female culture. This also reverses and there is data to suggest that Japanese and French women highly value the erotic interpretation of the classic macho American male, with a rough surface, but a gentle soul. I list these as extremes for study.
One of the things I have told young couples taking on the marriage contract is that they have to more be in love with marriage and the idea of the shared life, than be in love with their partner. Your emotional experience of your partner will ebb and flow, and the daily ego grind will inevitably lead to periods of negative repulsing emotions, with the exception of two perfectly low entropy people, but we don't need to worry about them. When you are rather in love with the idea of the shared life, you double down on resolving issues and white knuckling through tough patches, and in the end you have something that is deeper and worth more than romance.

One tool in the marriage toolkit is to openly state this commitment to marriage, over and above the specific relationship, so that the female's understandable and rational anxiety regarding the stability of the marriage is mitigated. This way you can have cold and hot ego wars and she can be comfortable that you will not be walking out the door...that the thought of you walking out the door becomes inconceivable. You can only control yourself, you can't control her. So marriage becomes a lot of very frank conversations and stripping things down to reality, in gentle tones without gratuitous harmfulness, and not getting up from the table.
Also, the male may be one dimensional and not be able to calibrate these capacities for context. He may have these capacities for corporate or street warfare, but not know how to switch modes to be nurturer and protector in the home. Same goes for corporate ball breaker women. The best of these are scary entities you would not want to mess with across a boardroom table, but when they go home, the corporate uniform comes off, they have a small drink or change ritual, and they transform into mommy and whatever feigned role their husband needs to feel good about himself, as him feeling good about himself in her presence, is the basis of her power over him. And vice versa.
In my environment it was these femme (Canadian) french girls getting picked up by a local variety of arrogant fearless Arab guys, and then things not working out well for the girls as this played out. I did learn fearlessless from observing the Arab guys and the need to some extent to "get in touch with your inner asshole", at least the theatre and superfice of this.

The more complex female of course, while experiencing a primordial impulse from such behavior, is putting you through her pragmatic and poetic filters, and seeing if there is anything behind the bluster, or if you are a "big hat, no cattle" sort of guy, and testing if you can also play the role of nurturer. Do you own or rent? What role to do play when she has the flu? Many a life bond has been created in time of crisis or illness.
I think part of the issue is to break out of the one dimensionality of nice guys and bad guys and become aware of the array of tools and decision space and be willing to use the decision space for best corporate intent.

Manipulation in the higher game is tool. My dad was manipulating me all my life, playing mental games to try to keep me from killing myself or permenantly narrowing my career or financial decision space in some way.

I have drifted too close into the marital waters of another man (without realising it), and been physically threatened, and once I twigged to what was going on, I saw this as good warriorship on the part of the guy, who was a bona fide arms dealer who might have done me great damage, and I was grateful for the bark before the bite. I have physically threatened another man who started making a play for my wife when we were at a delicate juncture, and I did so in front of my wife. This was profitable on many levels, and I still feel good about it. Like nuclear MAD, the theatre of the threat is a very different thing than actually harming someone, which I would not be capable of.

If another woman is making a play for your man, I believe it is syntropic and good warriorship for the wife to take out all tools from the toolkit and fight for the syntropy of her marriage contract and family unit. Do not allow chaos to interfere with or rule your life due to your passiveness and fear.
oh yeah...the dreaded friend zone. My wife's advice to young women wanting to settle down is to marry your best friend, if you have one handy (with the body parts that you prefer according to sexual preference). My advice to young men is to be fearless and get out of the friend zone, have nothing to do with the friend zone. Take appropriate incremental action, in correct dating context, so that things are resolved one way or the other. Its your cowardice partly that makes her perceive you as only friend material. If things don't go well, take a break and circle back at another time. Everything is still in play as long as there is no ring on her finger. Call her up once in a while. An authentic connection at the soul level combined with romantic persistence is a difficult force to resist.

Yeah, people get together for all the wrong reasons and then the fireworks begin. Skinny bitches are valued, partly for the challenge, but also, resistance and treating you badly suggests they are somehow higher than you, and the male experiences scarcity of attention and the ego need to conquer. Nice girls need to pay a little attention to this. There is asymmetrical power to the female during courtship, but then there is asymmetrical power to the male following marriage. This is a classic setup for a torturous marriage and inevitable divorce if the couple cannot adapt and change strategies.

The only escape from a lot of this is a rapid growing up, fatigue with the paradigm, and a sense of taking refuge in each other against the world, regardless of what brought them together in the first place. Its almost as if you need a second ceremony to start over.

[back to the honeydoo list]

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Is it possible to touch on a human origin, and the most important events in a history of humanity, which had have served as the catalyst for the paradigm changes? I think, that Male/Female relationship has been affected by each paradigm change, and as a result a new relationship awareness has to start its development.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

The book I wrote and am now editing has a time frame in it, there are several time frames, restarting human evolution of how to be. The book it called "A Fairly Tale" with equality as well as totally different ways of being in the prehistoric time frame part of it being told as a fairy tale in the book, and anticipation of what life might be like in 20-30 years with fracking, gm food, government greed etc, from the point of view of my family. It didn't have to turn out like this. There is nothing hardwired about what we ended up with here for now culturally speaking with this male dominated "civilization." A major change in my book is lack of interest in myth building using knowledge instead of belief, but I am still at the not even having developed language in that time frame in book one.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.