That the man has a greater urge is something I have had to experience in a very unfortunate way in my younger years. It was presented to me as an aggressive argument when I did not feel like having sex.
I guess the average woman suffers more from this type of 'aggression' than men, but let me say that men are not exempt from this! I had a girlfriend once who, on this specific day, wanted to do it. I was sick! I couldn't. However, when she started doing her thing, I got aroused (I got an erection). She cited this as evidence that I was able, but unwilling!! I tried to explain to her why this is not so, and I really disliked the way she was pushing me. She just got angry as a result. Really angry. Her and me have had other disputations of this sort, where our horninesses did not coincide (though most of the time they did). I must say I probably must've had a reaction similar to that in your example, though not as extreme. I don't really remember, but I feel that, in my younger years, I must've reacted like that at some point. That's all in the process of learning, I guess. I guess I thought that when you want someone, you want him physically too, and women are always able to do it cos nothing needs to get erect! Anyway, honest communication should always suffice.
In fact, there is historical and social evidence to say that patrilineal succession has been treated in terms of property rights and that jealousy is to a high degree, in my opinion, a social invention that mainly follows a sense of ownership.
I don't think that's the case. Jealousy is just too powerful and too universal. And we also see it play out almost identically in other animals. The behaviors are just too similar. Maybe property etc. have aggravated the issue, or are an extension of it, but I don't think they are the true cause.
The biologically active chemicals that exist (which I don't question) have long since ceased to be an argument today. In modern societies it is expected of each other that everyone has their jealousy under control. It is a not particularly highly regarded characteristic of humans, which is generally regarded as "weak" and bears witness to low self-esteem. After all, civilized people are expected to have other urges under control as well, and not simply to knock someone down out of anger and then say, "Sorry, that was my potential for aggression, my testosterone."
I understand this, but are we maybe dehumanizing humans? Making them bottle up all their feelings inside, and then wonder why so many of them take psych pills? In the arts (movies, literature, etc.), grant displays of emotion are honored. But in real life they are silenced. Which is the truer us? I would think it's the arts.
And people who are insensitive become even more insensitive in this kind of silencing culture, because with the absence of evidence that other people have feelings, the 'insensitives' verify their internal ideas that everyone lacks feelings, just like them. When you can't prove your feelings with a costly behavior, it just becomes mere words (see signalling theory). So the insensitive person tends to think that other people are not much different from him, and they're just using words to try and manipulate him. If the other people actually show their feelings with extreme and costly actions (costly to both self and others), then the insensitive (sociopathic?) individual takes them seriously, and starts modifying his behavior, and starts analyzing himself a little, and maybe begins to understand that actually yes, he has less feelings than other people, and so perhaps when he goes into relationships, he should seek his own kind, someone more compatible, so as not to accidentally hurt others. You know, these days there are a lot of people who change partners like they change pairs of socks, and these people live in their own bubbles and don't take seriously the feelings of others, and don't take any time to establish how other people feel about sex and relationships. They are allowed to do that, because they suffer no penalties, and they have seen no evidence of passion in their lives, and plays like Shakespeare's are probably just that to them: plays, make-believe, pretending, not real life. ... Just as a note, punching someone because you got momentarily angry is not glorified in the arts. I hope my general point is understood, though I'm probably not expressing it well. I'm just very against this kind of cold culture that we seem to be cultivating. Also, different cultures tend to have different feelings toward this. In countries like Brazil or Greece or Spain, jealous behaviors are more or less expected!
Women are forced to have sex much more than men.
Yes, I mentioned this in one of my other posts. Men (who are not oppressive) tend to compromise downwards, and women compromise upwards. So men have sex less than they want, and women more.
Do masturbation.
I was going to say that!
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment! I enjoy them cos you make them long and meaningful, and because you rarely read my stuff, although I understand I often write quite long and complicated posts!
Thank you, Alex. You triggered a very important topic, which you called "cold culture". I wrote a really long comment on that. I hope you like to follow my thoughts. Sorry that I did not comment your other thoughts and statements but that one of yours struck me the most.
If we were honest with each other, we would say: Look, it flatters me when another woman/other man finds me attractive and interesting. Apart from that, other people are a source of inspiration and our diversity draws us to many people. In the pool of people with whom we surround ourselves, we find personalities that we consider worthy of friendship and close relationship. To sacrifice such things, to force oneself to deny a certain sexual energy, to consciously avoid the opposite sex because it could give rise to jealousy, is counterproductive from my point of view.
Probably the most important reason to analyze jealousy and not to let it into a relationship as a dominant force is: it destroys trust. Moreover, we live such distanced relationships with others that isolate two people. Where an entire village once met the needs of man and woman, where a superior spiritual attitude satisfied the spiritual, ethical and philosophical needs of people, where people secured their material and existential desires through self-sufficiency, gave themselves meaning in a social group, this is now to be ensured by man and woman alone in reciprocity.
The partner must be everything: a good lover, an affectionate interlocutor, an encourager and affirmative, someone who gives security and comfort, someone who is a confessor, counsellor and both financially and emotionally available and who knows what else. All these roles, which could be occupied by many other people, should be united in one individual. Jealousy is thus a disruptive factor that prevents the burden from being taken off the shoulders of the man and woman, because the multiplicity of needs is better spread over several shoulders than in the isolation of a relationship of two.
If the Church Fathers had not disturbed this village life by installing the institution of marriage, jealousy would not have become such a big problem, I assume. But the monogamous marriage and the securing of patrilineal succession inevitably resulted in the husband's wife becoming property. In my opinion, this construct led to the fact that women and children were from then on regarded as property and the women could not freely stay with other villagers without being accused of an offence. On the other hand, the men were allowed to move more freely and could not only practise their own infidelity but even legitimise it. Unfair.
I do not know of a single positive case of jealousy. All those who have to deal with it find it difficult either for themselves or for their partner and reduce the quality of the relationship. It is, if you like, a very damaging quality that prevents us from establishing close relationships with the opposite sex and also same sex.
If we were honest, we would all want to learn to accept that the sexual energy that is felt between the sexes remains an issue as long as you have a sexual need, regardless of whether or not you live in a settled relationship. Regardless of which sex.
In a time that I personally call a sexual high time, I had a strong need to have experiences of a sexual nature, not to bind myself. Even later in my settled relationship, this need and curiosity did not diminish. If it hadn't been immoral, I would have slept with a man I would have liked whenever I felt like it. For most people, this sex drive lasts for many years, if it ever stops at all. Jealousy is the bondage and the destructive power that demonize these human impulses and then try to dress in morality.
From a biological point of view, both men and women have such drives. Jealousy is certainly also instinctive, I would like to stress that. But I ask the question: if jealousy is justified as an instinctive defensive reaction, it is less justified if a couple is not in isolation. The protection of the group, the integration into a social community and the possibility to maintain social as well as sexual relations within this community distributes this "claim to possession" or fear of social abandonment among several people. Therefore, the monogamous relationship of two is even predestined for jealous acts and feelings, because if we threaten to lose this one partner, at the same time we are threatened with the complete end of intimacy, protection, opportunities for conversation, a lively home, contact with parents-in-law and the siblings of the partner, etc., etc. We may lose our children because they live with the other parent from now on, etc.
All this should make you think: The result of this instinctive feeling, however, cannot be that jealousy is simply accepted or not accepted. The result of recognizing jealousy must be that everyone, man and woman, strives to create enough social binding outside the relationship who are felt to be useful and helpful for the eventualities of life. So it is always necessary to have contact and dependence with others. I recently told a woman whose husband separated from her that she should not decide that her husband should no longer have a relationship with her parents and siblings. Since the two have children, this is also necessary. Nothing is worse for people than social isolation.
Modern relationships tend to be socially isolated. Especially when there are no offspring involved. The need to maintain regular meetings with the families of origin is not necessarily seen as desirable. Friendships come and go. Many things remain non-binding. These relationships, which you talk about and where people change their partners like underpants, reflect exactly this.
There are solutions, you see. But to even concentrate more on the partner, certainly is not one. Which is what many people think.