Wednesday, January 24, 2007

it is the DNA

To be liberated is to be convinced of one’s choices based on free will and rational he/she pertains, of course not resulting in harm to anyone or anything.
But does the state of nature allow such liberation to happen? Do we have time, resources in abundance? Who owns time? Can we stand confidently independent from nature and its inevitable course?
We definitely do not have any absolute control over wrinkles, sagginess, and old age, how false is it, when I hear notions of the legendary, modern woman of how she liberated herself from the ticking clock, the biological clock?
Did this liberation, really liberated women from the number, that is age, yes I can not locate the word spinster in any modern dictionary of the minds, yes people yearn and long not to be associated merely to their age, it is prevalent nowadays to see the age gap between the genders closing, it even seems that teenagers want to be grownups nowadays, almost we are having a linear age in appearance and attitude.

But how much we strived rationally to not think about it, it is still futile…. I am still in a state where I feel that nature is to the advantage of males. Even though, both the male and the female genders have their biological clocks ticking since their conception until it stops, quite happily when death is the graduation (I do try to be optimistic, that was my 2007 resolution)
But how I feel currently is that women’s biological clock is faster. I made a quick research of the marriage age world wide, and the number one common denominator is that it is almost always that the female age of marriage is less than that of men, the only difference is that in collective, religiously steered communities people marry at a younger age than communities who are not, where tradition, role of religion and pressure to be married are much less to effect their psyches.
But why is it that men marry at a later age? Do they value their freedom more than women? Is it the inherit biological trait to spread their sperms/seeds everywhere possible, whilst a women is specific to find that one to make an offspring from? And why is that men with less testosterone make great family men, whilst those with high amount of testosterone have much less ability of becoming family men?
Do women get attached faster than men? Are men fond of experimentation more than women? Why is it men dream of having sex more, than women? And why is that women dream of having families and babies more than men?
Is it the nature of this universe, and is it illogical to ask why, and is it only logical to find rules within such nature?
Why such forces of each gender differs so tremendously, is it to ensure population increase, and why is that, do we need more babies, we have enough orphaned babies in stock, what is the use of this excessive lust, desire? I find it meaningless, and it is meaningless, I really do have problems of how things are run, and what is worse, women develop wrinkles and old age signs earlier than men….it is really horrible..
But this legendary, free, modern woman equaled the man, she trespassed him, she is as lustful, as freed as he is, she even cheated more than he did at times, she dominated, she allured, seduced, she experimented, experienced, she is unstoppable, she is the brave heartbreaker and she is also, unable to love at times, as he is too, and here it is, the “shopping complex”, the pernicious psychological ailment of all times. Just like we shop, and we shop for each season, so our sexuality, and love life changes. How sad!

But in a such a free environment, I still hear him, the dominant man, still loud and demanding as ever, Why is it I hear more men than women, announce their plan to marry at their thirties, are these all women that these men experience, are just short term play things?
Is the freedom that society attained is more in consolation of men’s desires than that of women?
Why is when I still live in free Canada, a free country, I feel that women’s sexual freedom is still a reactionary act to that of men’s freedom, and not so original of their wants.
Or why in the other case scenario, when women are not commitment lover, and do not yearn for marriage find themselves compelled to think about it, when their mothers or their biological clock remind them that they are growing older and not younger.

Everything is still in leverage to that of men.

How is that for my 2007 resolution? Quite optimistic …I guess not.


programmer craig said...

Hiya Gilgamish :)

Everything is still in leverage to that of men.

Well... that's true, in many ways, Gilgamish. I have to admit it.

I don't think you're being quite fair in your descriptions of sexuality, though. I don't want to get into too much of my personal history, but in my experience women hurt as much as they get hurt. It's not a "reaction" to what men do. I always see women talk about guys who never call, guys who took off in the morning and ignored them from then on, etc. I never see women talking about all the times they dumped their boyfriend because they met somebody better looking or more interesting, or the times he was out of town and she called up her ex-boyfriend, so on and so forth. It's a two way street.

I think you're dead on as far as the biology part, though. I just disagree with you about how we humans put that biology into play.

How is that for my 2007 resolution? Quite optimistic …I guess not.

You'll have to work on that a bit still, but it wasn't so pessimistic as that! You're thinking about the future :)

Virgin Man said...

"I am still in a state where I feel that nature is to the advantage of males"

With limit of my knowledge, I attempt to give a short response to your assertion above. It is truth that female has social disadvantage comparing to male. However, female didn't have inferior standing in nature. Suppose that the world no longer has male, can “womankind” survive? Definitely. Women can still impregnate and giving birth. On other hand, can the “mankind” survive? I think not. It would be extinct within one generation.

concerned heart said...

There is much evidence that men should complete their fathering of babies before the age of 35.

YES it is the DNA in the sperm that gets damaged from hundreds and hundreds of divisions.