This is based on information that I’ve been reading and/or listening to over the past two to three years. Individuals and societies ignore our biology—especially evolutionary biology—at our own peril. None of this is my original thinking.
Inside of evolutionary theory the main driver of change is selection. Selection is a competition, that which is fittest survives. Selection does not care about morality, feelings, or fairness. It has no sense of what should be. Morality arose with consciousness, perhaps a few thousand years in the past. Biological selection processes are ancient—billions of years old.
Evolution as a word tends to invoke the idea of beneficial progress, but this is incorrect, evolution is not progress in a moral sense, it is simply change into something not previously existent that is more likely to survive given its current environment. It is also not complete reengineering, it builds new layers on old layers, and repurposes or enhances previous existing adaptations for new roles.
Humans are therefore the current iteration of a really, really, really old basic architecture. And that architecture is not ideal, it’s not what one would build if it was possible to define all the desired characteristics and construct such a being from scratch. Humans are messy. So messy that attempts to fully describe them to this day fall way short of the actual complexity.
Most systems in humans run automatically and autonomously, some do not, and some run with differing semi-autonomous degrees. The heart cannot be told to stop by conscious mandate, but the lungs can be told not to breath. However, in an unconscious or other inattentive state, something else will take over breathing. Some systems (both physical and psychological) are predominantly dormant, they are built to react to a set of specific inputs. Upon reception of the correct inputs, some of these mechanisms autonomously (without conscious thought) react. Some reactions can be overridden by consciousness, some cannot. The degree of difficulty to override varies greatly, including some ability to be enhanced by conscious control with training and practice.
The systems that are the most autonomous are those that deal with survival of the genetic library. In talking about survival, it’s convenient to talk about genes having conscious desires, even if that is not the actual case. Each specific genetic code or library wants to survive and wants to propagate. It then needs to ensure that its offspring live to propagate also. Fight or flight survival routines are deeply embedded in human psyche and biology. They are so integrated into humans, that they emerge into societal and cultural norms. Weapons and walls are manifestations of the instinct to fight for survival.
Evolution has prepared humans to survive against the original (and still powerful) enemy: nature. Then it further adapted them to survive in competition with other humans. Human versus human competition is built on systems originally adapted for protection against nature—because nature is that which should be feared. Walls protect against nature, they provide protection from the elements, from predators, and from disease. Humans can be viewed as proxies for all of these—fear of the unknown, fear of the other, and fear of the disgusting. The natural reaction to an unknown human is distrust and fear. Humans can also look on other humans with disgust. Handle disgust with special caution, it's the adaptation to resist disease, when applied to humans the results are often disastrous.
The ramifications of selection for survival can be further elaborated into adaptations for increasingly large populations, family, tribal, societal, and global. Where family and tribal groups have been around for nearly the full span of human history, societal and global adaptations are recent and in their infancy. Humans intrinsically know how to compete as families and tribes, but as societies and global populations, not so much, it’s a work in progress. The tendency still exists for larger societies to devolve into tyrannies. The psychological evolutionary instilled competitive pressures must find a societal outlet that is healthy or at least not pathological. Societies must evolve to provide proper constraints and boundaries.
Survival is the first obstacle of evolution, the second is reproduction. To survive over time, entities must adapt to an ever-increasing diversity of obstacles. Perhaps the reverse is clearer, by adapting to overcome an ever-increasing set of obstacles, a species is more likely to survive. The change is primarily an increase of complexity, new is built on the substructure of the old. Adaption requires change, and change requires processes by which such change is facilitated. There are multiple processes that have developed in nature, but the primary mode appears to be the combination of genetic material from multiple members of the same species into something different than the originals. Direct clones of an organism would only be suited to a predefined set of obstacles, to overcome new or different ones requires something unique.
Evolutionary processes have almost universally converged on a single mechanism for the combination of genetic material. Flowers and humans diverged from a common ancestor over a billion years ago, from a single cell organism. Yet both have developed a similar pattern for reproduction. One part of the organism creates an enormous amount of genetic material and distributes it somewhat indiscriminately. The other part produces a relatively small amount of genetic material and is very discriminate about access. The flower has both types of organs within the same organism. Animals generally (almost universally) do not.
This male/female model for reproduction has out competed nearly every other mode that evolution has attempted. Proof of its utility over time can be observed by its emergence in almost all organisms which have expanded their competitive advantage (the ability to overcome diverse obstacles). So definitive is its success that religious phrasing is almost compelled. Male and female created He them.
This pattern emerges almost universally and is embedded in nearly all species. It’s nearly a primordial development. The instinct to reproduce is second only to the instinct of self-preservation. It developed long before consciousness. The complications of this pattern are numerous, as each future adaptation is layered on and co-opts use of older, sometimes ancient, instincts.
The animal kingdom is replete with various mating strategies that culminate in impregnation of the female of the species. By human moral standards, some would be considered acceptable, and some not. For instance, in lions, if a male successfully takes over a pride, he immediately attempts to kill all the existing cubs. This brings the females into estrous so that he may impregnate them will his own seed. These types of reproductive strategies are built on much of the same foundation on which human strategies are built.
Humans are the most complicated animal species on the planet. There isn’t a close second. In the game to adapt to new and multiple environments, evolution has produced a current champion. Other species adapt to new environments over generations, humans have the capability of adapting multiple times in the span of a single life. They consciously contemplate their own mortality, and that of their children, and grandchildren. Again, this is so remarkable that religious language is fitting…in the image of God created He him.
Even though humans are unique, much of the original architecture is shared with all other forms of life. The closer the species genetically, the more similar the architecture. It is therefore of interest to note the common attributes of mating strategies between species. Of significantly more interest however, is to note those attributes that are found only very rarely in other species.
The most obvious is permanently enlarged breasts in the females. Other mammals only have enlarged breasts when lactating and are not linked to sexual pleasure during foreplay and copulation as in humans. Another is female orgasm; the majority of animal species do not share this trait. Also unusual is hidden estrous, neither the human male nor the female is aware of the exact timing of ovulation. In much of the animal kingdom, female receptivity is constrained to the period of ovulation and successful fertilization only takes at most a few occurrences of intercourse.
Evolution is inherently efficient, these three adaptations are unnecessary for reproduction, so why do humans have them? What competitive advantage do they provide? The answer is found in the third evolutionary obstacle, successful rearing of offspring such that they also successfully reproduce. For genes to be ultimately successful, they must propagate across generations, not just a single successful event. There is a cost to producing an adaptable organism that can successfully commute between very distinct hostile environments.
The cost is, that built on top of the very ancient architecture, is a central nervous system governed by the brain that is highly programmable. It learns some of its behaviors after birth. It’s not a blank slate by any stretch of the imagination, as discussed previously there are biological and psychological programs that run independently that respond to specific triggers. The human psyche is extraordinarily complex. The result is an elongated period of software installation. Significant brain maturation and change continues well into the third decade of life. The human brain is substantially larger (mostly because of later stage evolution) than other animal species, it takes more energy to program and power it.
This has caused adaptations in humans which provide the greatest opportunity for the software to be installed via an elongated period of parental care relative to all other species (and again there is not a close competitor). This requirement has pushed an evolutionary addition to human sexual strategies. It is vital to understand that it is not a replacement for more rudimentary strategies, it's an addition. Two primary strategies dominate human reproduction (there are others, and there are multiple variations of the primary two).
The first rudimentary strategy that evolved is like those in other organisms, the male impregnates a female and then moves on looking for the opportunity to impregnate others. This is very advantageous strategy for the male, as it becomes possible to use volume to increase the likelihood that his genes propagate into the future. The same way the male part of a flower casts its seed to the wind hoping that at least some lands where the female part will permit fertilization.
The human female is left to care for the offspring alone. The evolutionary cost to the female of this strategy is very high. Low survival rates of the offspring especially in times of scarcity cause the female to be very wary of encouraging males to pursue this strategy. The offspring are also disadvantaged in other ways in future competition against their peers. Yet males are so hypersensitive to this opportunity, as the evolutionary reward when successful is extremely high, they need little encouragement (and sometimes none) to at least give it a try. The societal problems generated by males attempting this strategy are too numerous to elaborate.
The second strategy is to create a pair bond and to this end have the three adaptations discussed above come into existence (among others). The sexual nature of humans adapted from a primarily reproductive role, to also include a pleasure and recreation role. Female breasts, though originally evolved to provide nutrition to an ever increasingly demanding infant brain (as in all mammals), were adapted to also provide a source of pleasure for both parties during sexual encounters. The female orgasm fulfills the same role, it enhances the experience for both parties, though not in the same manner. Hidden estrous serves to encourage copulation opportunities when the natural impulses to reproduce are present. They all serve to create and enhance a lasting bond between the male and female. Throughout history males and females that successfully created such a bond had offspring with significant fitness advantages over their peers.
It’s important to recognize that the majority of human history is a perpetual struggle against nature for survival. Only in the very, very recent past (evolutionarily speaking) have humans managed to mostly subdue nature such that exposure, predation, and disease are factors that can successfully be mostly resisted. Humans carry their genetic traits forward regardless if the current environment requires them or not. They cannot be simply engineered away socially.
This struggle has forced a separation of duties, which also started long before current civilization. The cost to the female (even within a successfully established pair bond) to bear and raise offspring is very high. Unfairly or not, the female has been pushed by evolutionary forces to sacrifice for the sake of their offspring. Females who developed this trait of compassion had more successful offspring. Evolution has no regard for fairness, only success. Once again, the forces of evolution invoke religious language. I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.
Males also suffer consequences, those who did not sacrifice for their offspring also were less successful in propagating their genes forward. Males were pushed by evolutionary forces to gather resources for pair bonded mates and offspring. They were pushed to protect and defend against nature and other humans during times of scarcity. Even to the point of sacrificing their lives. The religious language is appropriate. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.
Since human offspring are so needy for so long, only through a division of labor and specialization could a male/female pair bond compete against nature. Biological and psychological factors made the obvious division for the female to take on the primary role of caretaker and the male to take on the primary roles of accumulating resources and protection. Over time, this adaptation manifests itself even more strongly both physically and psychologically as pair bonded couples compete with nature and with other couples.
Since human offspring are so needy for so long, only through a division of labor and specialization could a male/female pair bond compete against nature. Biological and psychological factors made the obvious division for the female to take on the primary role of caretaker and the male to take on the primary roles of accumulating resources and protection. Over time, this adaptation manifests itself even more strongly both physically and psychologically as pair bonded couples compete with nature and with other couples.
This leaves the recurring situation, that as evolution has pushed adaptation to overcome very difficult circumstances, that once overcome, the organisms may no longer need the original adaptations. As traditional physical and psychological traits mature and successfully conquer nature, their utility decreases, and possibly become obsolete. Given time, evolution will repurpose such traits to take on additional or new responsibilities, but evolution moves slowly relative to human time.
Somewhere in this process, consciousness emerged, and human history truly began. Humans began to contemplate mortality and morality. They started searching for something that will help contend with the overarching blatant discovery of the future and knowledge of individual finitude. Humans seek for purpose or meaning in order to endure the constraints that nature and deeply embedded personality traits have placed on them. Humans can now contemplate what evolution has built and struggle with it consciously. The struggle between "what is" and "what ought to be" begins. What "ought to be" cannot be brought about unless "what is" is fully understood.
At this point, it’s possible to start addressing the really big questions.
What does evolution want? Evolution wants to create the single most adaptable organism possible, an organism that can instantly change state to be optimally configured to confront instantaneous change throughout all environments. If you look back through history, that’s easy to abstract from the progress made so far. What will the resulting entity be called if the task is eventually completed? It might be called a god. That’s an interesting line of questioning which will not be pursued here.
How does one contend with the overwhelming complexity of existence given the evolutionary journey thus far traversed? By looking back. History holds some answers, if looked at truthfully. Evolution has always pushed for greater and greater adaptability. It’s possible to observe history and attempt to consolidate a list of behaviors, attitudes, or ways of being that have been more successful than others. Long before written language, such observations would need to be embedded into culture, so they would not be forgotten. Relying on individual, mistake ridden rediscovery is too costly, time consuming, tragic, and possibly lethal. Embedding truthful observation into culture is done through narrative, tradition, and ceremony. It has to be codified. The best advice is extracted from observation of humans facing the world and themselves. It’s acted out first, then its codified into story, then later, maybe much later, the truths of the story can be articulated and reexamined in light of modern progress in understanding of biology, evolution, neuroscience, social science, and psychology. And then these updated truths are codified anew, and the cycle repeats.
This process has a formal description, commonly it's called a religious process. The stories consist of how to face the external forces of nature and other humans, and also face the internal forces of evolutionary adaptation. The stories are the voices of past sages echoing into the future pleading to tell the truths of purposeful existence. It's a religious process, but the process and rituals are embedded in an organization and all organizations are susceptible to corruption, but the religious process eventually can transcend the corruption, and a new cycle is born which restores the original, yet updated truths.
A church's primary responsibility is to preserve the religion. A religion's primary responsibility is to preserve the truths of how to live in the world. The corruption is an unfortunate byproduct of this innately human process. The stories are not perfect, and therefore open to misinterpretation, both intentional and unintentional. The alternative is to not know how to live properly in the world. When religious stories (in their many forms) are suppressed, the gates of hell (figuratively speaking) are allowed to open. And there is potentially blood, lots and lots of blood. The religious stories continually warn of this also. And the study of history testifies of their truth.
The stories don't always reemerge within the confines of a religious community. The truth of story is manifest through art. Art is what allows the partaker to interact with the transcendent, with the divine. Religious texts, mythology, fiction, film, poetry, literature, all are avenues by which truth is revealed and restored. All of which is another line of inquiry of great interest that will be left unfinished.
A church's primary responsibility is to preserve the religion. A religion's primary responsibility is to preserve the truths of how to live in the world. The corruption is an unfortunate byproduct of this innately human process. The stories are not perfect, and therefore open to misinterpretation, both intentional and unintentional. The alternative is to not know how to live properly in the world. When religious stories (in their many forms) are suppressed, the gates of hell (figuratively speaking) are allowed to open. And there is potentially blood, lots and lots of blood. The religious stories continually warn of this also. And the study of history testifies of their truth.
The stories don't always reemerge within the confines of a religious community. The truth of story is manifest through art. Art is what allows the partaker to interact with the transcendent, with the divine. Religious texts, mythology, fiction, film, poetry, literature, all are avenues by which truth is revealed and restored. All of which is another line of inquiry of great interest that will be left unfinished.
What do the stories tell us about the relationship between man and woman? The stories mythologize the results of humankind struggling with the evolutionary adaptations to which they are subjected. Only through specialization could male and female struggle together against nature through the ages. The struggle has been so difficult and over such a long period of time that the specializations are rooted deeply in our psyche, in emotion, even in biology itself. Fortunately, when modern moral eyes are allowed to peer into the past, it need not be only unacceptable behavior that dwells there (though it does indeed dwell there), but also good. Evolution created a default lower path of reproduction which calls for survival at all costs, but in its need to create the perfectly adaptable being (that requires long periods of nurture and support) it created an additional higher path.
In every man and woman are the seeds of both paths, the higher path requires the use of higher consciousness, the lower path simply requires to let the baser instincts run uncontrolled. Along the higher path man and woman journey side by side, complementing one another. It is the responsibility of man to call forth the higher nature of the woman, and the responsibility of the woman to call forth the higher nature of the man. When this is done properly, the pair bond forms and if it is maintained, over time the bond thrives and deepens. That's how it works.
There are lower and higher order reproductive algorithms and programs running in both sexes which can be triggered or called forth externally. Some of the religious stories describe how to trigger the higher response, and some stories describe how to trigger the lower response. Some describe both in opposition.
What are the stories? Adam and Eve, that's a story of the proper relationship, once understood correctly. Peering back into evolutionary history, at one point mankind was not yet conscious, just another primate among others. At some point, evolution broke the unconscious, psychologically androgynous, pre-human into two, a male version (called Adam) and a female version (called Eve). At some point, nature (the serpent) forced Eve to develop consciousness (likely to protect offspring from snakes, predators, and nature). She then in turn forced Adam to wake up (to become conscious).
The garden represents the relative safety of living in unconsciousness and pursuing lower order reproductive strategies unaware of mortality or morality. In the garden Adam is king and possibly tyrant, but the garden is an illusion destroyed by consciousness, so he is in reality the king of nothing. As a conscious being, Eve invites Adam to leave the lower order illusion behind; she wants nothing to do with it and its potential tyrannical nature. Adam, realizing the truth, agrees.
All good mythological stories have multiple truthful stories mixed together, so not only does the story represent the emergence of consciousness, it also provides a structure for a current reader. Eve, representing the historical woman, understands the future, she understands that childbirth will be fraught with danger, hardship, possibly death. The best way through is to create a pair bond with a man and trust him. Trust that when she cannot provide for herself or offspring because of the requirements placed on her by evolution's relentless progress towards the perfect being, he will provide. Trust that when danger approaches and if she is found in a vulnerable state, he will protect. She is therefore careful in selecting a mate, by her words and actions she signals to the higher order processes in Adam, representing the historical male.
She searches for the best of all the Adams , and then calls out the best in Adam. She understands she is making a sacrifice to produce offspring, a sacrifice of some of her freedom, and by making that sacrifice can ask Adam to sacrifice his too. He must wake up. Give up his independence, give up his false dreams. Adam dreams that all the Eves are future opportunities for him. This is the lie told him by the serpent, that he will not surely die and the world is his garden which he controls. He fails to realize that while in this state of being almost none of the Eves will have anything to do with him. Eve calls to him, "give up your fantasies and get to work. I will sacrifice for you, you will sacrifice for me, we will both sacrifice for our offspring and in our shared sacrifice we will thrive." Eve invokes the noble king to come forward instead of the tyrant, and the noble king awakens and adopts the burden of responsibility that he was born to carry.
All of this plays out in the courting dance, most of it completely non-verbal. It's also the same story of nearly all romantic art forms, books, movies, plays, and other manifestations. It's always the same story. A woman notices a man of great potential, but somewhat flawed (the deeper the flaw, the greater the redemption, the greater the story). She wakes him up. He becomes conscious of his flaws and shortcomings, her faith in him allows him to transcend his weaknesses and rise to nobility. He in turn elevates the woman to stand by his side and grants her the credit and praise she deserves.
Beauty and the Beast is a current version of the familiar story. Gaston is a brute of a man who hasn't woken up, he represents the tyrant that seeks the praise of his loyal subjects at the local tavern (which is the same as the garden of Eden) most of whom are imaginary. His only real power is through fear embodied by bullying those perceived to be weaker and less deserving. He's content in his imaginary world and is unwilling to leave its comforts. He however does recognize the unique and mesmerizing Belle, he's driven to conquer her to add her to his shelf of trophies. There is something about her that calls to him, but he does not comprehend that it is a call to nobility.
Belle is the local girl who refuses the advances of such a man as she instinctively knows him for what he is. She respects the tradition of the past (her father), she also respects creativity (her father is an inventor) and is open to new ideas and learning from the past (reads lots of books). She is fully conscious and balanced.
When Belle discovers that her father is lost (representing both tradition and creativity), she risks her own safety to seek to recover him. In her journey to recover her father, she discovers he's been imprisoned by another tyrant, yet this tyrant is not yet fully comfortable in his tyranny, there are cracks of potential shining through the spell he is under. He's been blinded by his pride and no longer sees the world clearly. His servants have become pseudo-objects, subjects to do his bidding, but not quite fully or permanently. His time is running out, if the nobility doesn't shine forth in time, it will be lost forever. Belle sees the nobility behind the tyrant and calls the noble king forward, and he begins to emerge. It takes time and patience, but eventually the noble king breaks free. The key to the breaking of the spell is Belle confirming her devotion to what she sees he could be.
She is also changed in her interaction with the beast. She learns through experience that the beast is capable of using his great strength and power for good. To rescue, to protect, even at the risk of injury and death. A tyrant is not capable of self-sacrifice, therefore the beast must be more than tyrant. The beast triumphs against nature (the wolves), and at the end of the story he faces the ultimate challenge. The emerging noble king versus the full tyrant. It's in this moment that the Belle calls one final time and the beast responds and the transformation is complete. The true nobility of Adam steps forward. In a situation where justice is warranted, mercy is extended. This is the true nature of nobility, to have cultivated and be justified in using strength and power, but extending mercy. Even when such extension risks the future. It's the hero's story, it's everywhere. It's the story of Christ. It's a religious story. Its preservation is essential for human prosperity. Gaston refuses to accept mercy which is the final call to redemption and is truly lost.
What is often missed in the story is that the change in the castle has two parts. The now noble king sees his subjects as the truly are, the half blindness of his former pride is removed because he sees himself as Christ sees himself. As the servant. He who is willing to take on the sins of the world as if they were his fault. But also protector. The beast is not gone, simply Belle no longer sees the beast, this is her final change, not his. She exercised faith, and fruit resulted. Not just in the beast, but inside herself. He is still capable of being the beast, but the beast is integrated, disciplined, his shadow has been mastered, not destroyed. It awaits the time when it need be called forth again. (And who really knows when this may be? The floods always return.) His faithful action allows her to see beyond the beast, for it is also an illusion. They change each other and together become something greater.
It is the same with religion. If only the tyranny of the religion is seen, it cannot become noble. To only see (or even mostly see) the tyrant is blindness. As in the case with Belle, an expectation of perfection can obscure the truth. That while religion preserves some tyrant and corruption (because its true purpose is preservation), it also preserves and houses essential truth and greatness. There are beams found in nearly all eyes that seek to honestly view the world. Only when the beams are removed does the true nature of the mote manifest itself. Often, when observation of the world only sees problems and tyranny, it is not the world (but it could be) where the greater problem lies. Humans are blind, sometimes willfully.
She is also changed in her interaction with the beast. She learns through experience that the beast is capable of using his great strength and power for good. To rescue, to protect, even at the risk of injury and death. A tyrant is not capable of self-sacrifice, therefore the beast must be more than tyrant. The beast triumphs against nature (the wolves), and at the end of the story he faces the ultimate challenge. The emerging noble king versus the full tyrant. It's in this moment that the Belle calls one final time and the beast responds and the transformation is complete. The true nobility of Adam steps forward. In a situation where justice is warranted, mercy is extended. This is the true nature of nobility, to have cultivated and be justified in using strength and power, but extending mercy. Even when such extension risks the future. It's the hero's story, it's everywhere. It's the story of Christ. It's a religious story. Its preservation is essential for human prosperity. Gaston refuses to accept mercy which is the final call to redemption and is truly lost.
What is often missed in the story is that the change in the castle has two parts. The now noble king sees his subjects as the truly are, the half blindness of his former pride is removed because he sees himself as Christ sees himself. As the servant. He who is willing to take on the sins of the world as if they were his fault. But also protector. The beast is not gone, simply Belle no longer sees the beast, this is her final change, not his. She exercised faith, and fruit resulted. Not just in the beast, but inside herself. He is still capable of being the beast, but the beast is integrated, disciplined, his shadow has been mastered, not destroyed. It awaits the time when it need be called forth again. (And who really knows when this may be? The floods always return.) His faithful action allows her to see beyond the beast, for it is also an illusion. They change each other and together become something greater.
It is the same with religion. If only the tyranny of the religion is seen, it cannot become noble. To only see (or even mostly see) the tyrant is blindness. As in the case with Belle, an expectation of perfection can obscure the truth. That while religion preserves some tyrant and corruption (because its true purpose is preservation), it also preserves and houses essential truth and greatness. There are beams found in nearly all eyes that seek to honestly view the world. Only when the beams are removed does the true nature of the mote manifest itself. Often, when observation of the world only sees problems and tyranny, it is not the world (but it could be) where the greater problem lies. Humans are blind, sometimes willfully.
How does Belle invite the noble king to emerge? She refuses to engage in even low risk courting behavior (dinner) until he shows willingness to seek a better path. She bravely explores his castle (again, the same as the garden) and points out its problems and flaws while seeking its secrets. She proceeds cautiously, always observant lest the tyrant gain control. She speaks through actions more than words, a constant reminder that everything she is, beauty, intelligence, wit, wisdom, grace, she is willing to give to him if he will commit to the long term bond and become the noble king. She is unwilling to jeopardize their possible future by agreeing to live by the standards of the current castle, for she knows if she does, the tyrant will never fully subside and be mastered. She also will be reduced to a state of half life. Part human to love and respect, part object to be commanded, bullied, and maybe ultimately discarded. Only when both are committed to the higher path can the castle and it's subjects be transformed back to reality and the spell broken.
This is one of the stories of human love. It's repeated over and over and over again. Why do we read it, watch it, consume it repeatedly in its many forms? Because Adam wants to be more than he is, and Eve wants him to be more than he is. And because miraculously after many years, the bond becomes more than either thought it could ever be. Eve discovers that not only did she invite something forth from Adam, but he in turn invited something forth from her. This isn't always the order in which the story plays out. The reverse does also happen, Adam invites Eve to bring her noble self forward (see My Fair Lady), but this is the most common story. It's a religious story.
Only very few males have developed the ability to resist the descent to the lower path when a female is actively displaying "hot". Modesty is an evolutionary derived societal value that invites higher path pair bonding. In societies where tyranny does not reign supreme, the primary beneficiaries of modest behaviors are the females. As with all values, when corrupted by lower path behaviors, the virtue is manipulated by tyrants seeking power and domination. As modesty is pushed to the outskirts and denigrated, societies will be ever more governed by rules and regulations as the commitment and trust of the higher path is walked by ever fewer.
What kind of relationship do humans want, the noble queen side by side with the noble king who will sacrifice themselves? Or the tyrants who can only be managed through threat of force?
What are we calling forth from one another?
