Ideas sometimes come in a violent flash of light and glee. I was considering human social evolution last night with my beautiful partner. Barbs were traded about the nature of the sexes. The deeper I got into making my case that women generally suck the soul out of their mates, the more I realized it made sense. Women only technically need our sperm. But they took so much more, and gave us two things in return.
Sure, men are driven to want a$$ really bad, all the time, by their hormones. And girls gave us that. Women are mosquitoes, men are the hosts. On the individual level, they needed more from us, over a longer term, than we did from them. When women tamed men, they did it by injecting empathy/morality into us. Arguably the maternal nature is itself the origin of morality, and it spread to us by social dynamics.
Men are fairly well-regarded as the more selfish, impulsive, aggressive, horny gender of our species. Women are clearly smarter in a lot of ways, using their sex-power to manipulate us in many ways. How is it that the physically-dominant male came to serve and please the smaller, less powerful female? She tamed us. The beast within was placated by pu#$y initially, but this set up a feedback loop. Why didn’t we just take what we wanted? How did rape become something that males didn’t regularly engage in?
The simple answer is as obvious as it is enlightening. Cavemen days were different: big, strong, mean males certainly could and did come in and screw women they ran into quite often, even if the women in question were in no way interested in being screwed. But what was likely to come of the offspring of such assault? If the male didn’t stay around and help the female, the odds of survival for infants was quite low (not that these odds were vastly improved by the support of the male). So the more support the female got from the male, the more likely his progeny carried on. Thus we have a sexual dynamic factor that favored social cooperation.
To get the sort of support necessary to ensure survival in primitive times required groups. I imagine that males who were very gentle with women and babies were quite attractive to females. Perhaps so much so that early human groups were often comprised of a higher female : male ratio than feminists are comfortable admitting. Perhaps that’s Nature’s “Golden Ratio” for humans…not exactly a postmodern fantasy. If true, then The End of Men was set from the beginning. How so? Because one (highly successful) male is capable of fertilizing hundreds of eggs in his life, the population pressure would’ve skewed towards more females from early on. With modern technology, one man could fertilize the world. And he does.
The Last Adam.
Adam (and Eve, don’t forget her) serves as a symbol of species creation. Not just a fuc*ing machine, but a genius inventor. He makes not only a baby with Eve, but a new kind of human being: homo sapiens sapiens. And we were so good to each other that we were (and still are) cruel as hell to The Other. We knew that the only way to protect our own genes was to reduce competition and threats.