The magic goes away. It's an old story, but still a sad one.
I suspect that the root cause of the problem is that we humans remain far more prisoners of our biology than we generally like to think. For a male, simply getting his dick into as many women as possible is, from a biological standpoint, a perfectly valid reproductive strategy. It's a diversification / shotgun approach. And in all honesty, I think we guys need to admit that a whole lot of traditional male behavioral traits, including the drive to achieve success, wealth, fame, power, etc., are actually aimed at becoming an "alpha male" with greater access to females. (Just ask Bill Clinton, or any male rock star. :wink
But for a woman, the shotgun approach does nada. She can only get pregnant once at a time, regardless of how many sex partners she has. While life in 21st century developed societies is quite "safe" -- in an immediate survival sense -- for a pregnant woman without a man, our sexual behaviors evolved in a very different, much more primitive world. One in which a woman who found herself pregnant without a mate on hand to help protect and support her and her offspring, could very possibly lose her baby, her life, or both. This in turn explains the natural reluctance of women to have sex with a man until they have confirmed, through various testing behaviors, that he really loves her and is committed to her.
Biology has programmed men, but not women, for casual sex. We can talk about religion, culture, sociology, customs, mores, values, and the like until we are blue in the face, but the basic underpinning seems to me dictated more by biological instincts than by conscious choice. Today's 21st century humans can and often do choose to go against their instinctual programming. But the existence of Sex and the City does not automatically erase milennia of deeply implanted sexual tendencies and behaviors.
Today it is customary to revile and mock Victorians, Puritans, and their ilk as famous and laughable prudes. But consider: as late as 100 years ago, life expectancy was about 50, and only half that long for women. Why? Because women had a significant chance of dying from childbirth or its complications, and the more times they rolled the dice with their next pregnancy, the greater the overall chance of death. So chaperones and chastity belts shouldn't surprise us, really. The stakes truly were a matter of life and death.
It is better for the gene pool if people reproduce with different partners. The natural length of relationship attraction has been determined by anthropologists to lie somewhere between 4 and 7 years. About the length of time it takes to raise a child to where it is weaned, can speak, and to some extent fend for itself. After that time, other potential partners start to look attractive -- the curse of the famous "seven year itch."
IMO the simple fact is that human beings are not meant to mate for life, and the only reason why this "till death do us part" stuff got to be such a social ideal, is because lives were so short when it developed. You got married at 15 and had kids right away, in the hope that if you were lucky you'd live to see your children get married when they were 15, before you died. Death was sure as hell gonna part you, and soon.
In 2006, for the first time it became true that more American women were living without a husband than with one. Social conservatives cite this as evidence, as they always do, that the world's morality is going to hell in a handbasket. Surely such wickedness must mean that the End Days are upon us.
Bull. The true cause of the "problem" is that in the past century life expectancies have gone from the low 50's to the low 80's. Which gives everyone like 30 more years to spend with their spouse. Egad, no wonder the divorce rate is so high. :tongue:
Sadly, many of the rest who do not divorce are doubtless, just like Meatloaf, "praying for the end of time."
And hold onto your hats: in about another 20-25 years, engineered negligible senescence will be upon us. Which means aging will become purely a lifestyle choice. The resulting social chaos will surely be immense. Marriage is almost as likely to be a casualty as retirement.
But people will, of course, continue to desire relationships. It is the expectation of life-long permanence in those relationships that is the anachronism. The sooner people jettison that anachronism the less pain and suffering they will need to endure. I can remember when poor old Elizabeth Taylor was excoriated for her practice of "serial monogamy." It strikes me as ironic that she may someday be regarded as a pioneer. :biggrin1:
