Love & Sex: Anthropological and Mathematical Perspective
(A very intense discussion with my wife on the alleged capacity (or the lack of it) of males to love resurrected my own analysis on love as a behavioral response following a mathematical formulation. I had ruminated on this topic extensively in my own heydays when I used to consider myself as a thinker and roam around bearded in University. If anybody questioned my intellect, I used to point towards my beard and spectacles as a conclusive proof of intelligence. I request the indulgence of the fellow bloggers to read this piece and offer their sincere critique.)
Anthropologically and from evolutionary perspective, mating is the most basic and important activity since time immemorial. And hence you find ‘the male of the species being more beautiful/attractive than the females’- be it the flowing mane of a majestic lion or a riot of colours of a dancing peacock’s with his feathers all aglow! A cock dances around a hen or a mast elephant fights his competitor and establishes his supremacy to win ‘his ladies’. Anthropologically, it has always been the job of the strong male who would fight and win. Only then his chances for mating were good. Or else he might as well kiss his chances good bye. The preferential treatment of a successful male has geneticised to such an extent that males are wired to think of ‘sex/mating’ and we have now come to an evolutionary perspective which seems allergic or anathema to some women. In my opinion mating is an issue which is still being reflected in the instincts of males as a reminder of their anthropological and evolutionary bequeath. Period.
However, sociologically, we are getting better and better. (I hope!) This in turn has made certain instinctive activities and impulses questionable. Afterall, a gorilla never gives any diamond rings to a female gorilla before making his instinctive behavior clear. Nor does a lion take a prospective mate to a Taj for seven course dinner before making that amorous move. This animalistic uncouthness and lack of subtlety of animal kingdom, even though bequeathed to us, would not go down well with the society these days where even an ‘Aati Kya Khandala’ can land people in jail! Afterall, it is all about marching ahead and hiding your basic instincts. Bloggers would be aware that when Lady Diana was killed in that car accident in Paris, neither Prince Charles nor her two kids were seen crying by media. Because it is all about hiding and masking your feelings in the changing social mores where betrayal of one’s own emotion is seen as a sign of weakness and crying at other’s misfortune as a sign of compassion and humaneness (remember the then President of USA, Bill Clinton when he famously cried hugging one of the relatives of the deceased in Okhalama bombing.). With socialization and humanization, an unwritten socially acceptable code of behavior (and written legal behavior) has emerged which seems to regulate our behavior to a great extent by replacing ‘might is right’ to ‘rule of law’. Hence socialization has taught us to be subtle, circumspect and use graded rather than abrupt behavior. But the basic (or baser, if one may!) instincts though pushed to the hinterlands of ones’ minds, have not been fully extirpated. They still exist.
Love, the most difficult thing (?) to define takes its entry here. Even though Plato defined Love 'as an enemy of reason', I would like to define it in my own mathematical way. As per my definition, love is not an emotion but it is a behavioral response equivalent to the output of a multi-variable function of many emotions. Love is the determinant of relationship between/among individuals. It is not that love did not exist among the animals. It is just that there were fewer shades of emotions in animalistic love- to count a few: sex, hunger, thirst, fear, pain, anger, joy, togetherness. The preponderance of these basic emotions largely defined how they related to each other. But with evolution, many more shades of emotions have come in between. One more important surmise is that love is also a function of time and the context. Love doesnot operate in vacuum but it is the response to various stimuli at that particular time.
Hence I will say that
l= f(t, x 1 ,x 2 ,x 3 ,x 4 ,x 5 ,…………..,x n, )
where l= Love, f is a function of variables t = Time, x1=sex, x2= anger, x3= jealousy, x4= hate, x5= possessiveness, x6= care, x7= responsibility, x8=comfort level, x9= interests, x10= adoration,x11= fatherly, x12= motherly, x13= siblingual, x14= hunger, x15= thirst, x16= fear, x17= pain etc upto the variable x n .
Let us take the case about a guy thinking about sex on the very first meeting and see how this formula explains it here. As guys are evolutionarily wired towards mating and sex, the initial value pertaining to x1= sex might be maximum amount whereas the value of the other variables from x2 to xn in function would be less at time t=t1. But at time t= 9 days after marriage (as per Kamalji) the overall impact of x1=sex might not be as much in l=Love due to which the sexual component of love would be less. (Also remember the Laws of Diminishing Marginal Returns which might explain the 9-day phenomenon!)
Now reverse the situation. First time when the girl meets the guy, at time t=t1, x1 =0 for the girl (this is what many girls would like us to believe) and maybe x9= interests is maximum. So the girl might not feel anything sexually, though she might be attracted due to commonality of interests. Hence, the same formulae would explain the love as felt, perceived and understood by them at the same time but in different range of emotions and intensity.
The above formulae will explain every kind of love. Where ever the value of x1=0, in common parlance it is supposed to be platonic, parental or siblingual love having no sexual component. Even a deviant’s love having sexual component can be explained. So there is no exception to this formula.
Love doesnot mean always being on the best behavior. Because, it is a response to stimuli, hence the response would also depend upon the stimuli. One might be very much in love with one’s girl, but when at time= t, one is not able to meet office deadlines, the factor x i = frustration will change the tone and tenor of his love and he might answer abruptly to an otherwise innocent question of his girl. After a few days of business outing and abstemious behaviour, maybe variable x1= sex would again be raising its head (no pun!) and the love would have a higher component of it.
So, love is not unidimensional. And it changes in context of time as per the raging emotion of the time. Sex is just one of the variables of the function defined as love. It is equally applicable to men and women as per the time. And there would be a time when the component of sex in the love of both males and females would be the same. And this will dispel certain peoples’ implicit suggestion (preposterous to me!) that only men like sex, women endure it. I think, the graph of sexual craving is largely a decreasing graph for males and an increasing graph for females upto a certain age. And where they intersect, the equilibrium has been reached. Hence sexual compatibility would be attained when the difference between these two graph should not be too much as that will leave one of the partners unsatisfied leading to strain in relationship which would be reflected in some other ways of negative emotion.
Various bloggers have talked about recent social movements and their effect on sexual liberation of women. That feature is also explained by above formula, if one considers time as one of the variables. This ‘time’ component explains the changing social mores. And what I am trying to say is that a time will come when the social dynamics will completely reverse and what seems only relevant to male behavior today will also be reflected by female behavior. Hence, may be in next 100 years, a girl who looks at a guy for the first time, she will think of sex whereas the guy will think if she would be emotionally compatible and intellectually capable or not. She might even ask him “ Have you got a pistol in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?”
One of the comments of my wife doubted this supposition of mine about girl thinking about sex on the very first meeting under the pretext that she was ‘evolved’ and matured. However, if the past few decades are any indications, the assertive female behavior and liberated sexual winds blowing through the femaledom are indicators that the best (or the worst, depending upon which side of sexual revolution you are on!) is yet to come. And in those times to come, I can almost visualize men hiding under the beds from the prying eyes of their female counterparts. Time, the greatest master of human drama, would then move again like a pendulum from one extreme to another extreme.
Both men and women love with the same intensity. The component of love changes in both of them as per time and context. So we should never try to look for the same feelings and reciprocation as individuals are made differently. Different strokes for different folks, isnt it? Love exists, but it need not exist in the manner which Mills & Boon would like us to believe. It can exist in the irritation of a housewife, an exasperation of a husband, the disgust of a father at his wayward children, adoration of a daughter for her father, neglect of a husband towards his wife for some innocuous domestic issue as well as animalistic passion of a husband and wife or delightful idleness of a couple in the serene and pristine mountainous terrain.
Let us not look at love from some preconceived notion. But liberate it from our own mental boundaries so that it can take the infinite shape it is capable of taking and light our lives the way it has been doing till now.
Anthropologically and from evolutionary perspective, mating is the most basic and important activity since time immemorial. And hence you find ‘the male of the species being more beautiful/attractive than the females’- be it the flowing mane of a majestic lion or a riot of colours of a dancing peacock’s with his feathers all aglow! A cock dances around a hen or a mast elephant fights his competitor and establishes his supremacy to win ‘his ladies’. Anthropologically, it has always been the job of the strong male who would fight and win. Only then his chances for mating were good. Or else he might as well kiss his chances good bye. The preferential treatment of a successful male has geneticised to such an extent that males are wired to think of ‘sex/mating’ and we have now come to an evolutionary perspective which seems allergic or anathema to some women. In my opinion mating is an issue which is still being reflected in the instincts of males as a reminder of their anthropological and evolutionary bequeath. Period.
However, sociologically, we are getting better and better. (I hope!) This in turn has made certain instinctive activities and impulses questionable. Afterall, a gorilla never gives any diamond rings to a female gorilla before making his instinctive behavior clear. Nor does a lion take a prospective mate to a Taj for seven course dinner before making that amorous move. This animalistic uncouthness and lack of subtlety of animal kingdom, even though bequeathed to us, would not go down well with the society these days where even an ‘Aati Kya Khandala’ can land people in jail! Afterall, it is all about marching ahead and hiding your basic instincts. Bloggers would be aware that when Lady Diana was killed in that car accident in Paris, neither Prince Charles nor her two kids were seen crying by media. Because it is all about hiding and masking your feelings in the changing social mores where betrayal of one’s own emotion is seen as a sign of weakness and crying at other’s misfortune as a sign of compassion and humaneness (remember the then President of USA, Bill Clinton when he famously cried hugging one of the relatives of the deceased in Okhalama bombing.). With socialization and humanization, an unwritten socially acceptable code of behavior (and written legal behavior) has emerged which seems to regulate our behavior to a great extent by replacing ‘might is right’ to ‘rule of law’. Hence socialization has taught us to be subtle, circumspect and use graded rather than abrupt behavior. But the basic (or baser, if one may!) instincts though pushed to the hinterlands of ones’ minds, have not been fully extirpated. They still exist.
Love, the most difficult thing (?) to define takes its entry here. Even though Plato defined Love 'as an enemy of reason', I would like to define it in my own mathematical way. As per my definition, love is not an emotion but it is a behavioral response equivalent to the output of a multi-variable function of many emotions. Love is the determinant of relationship between/among individuals. It is not that love did not exist among the animals. It is just that there were fewer shades of emotions in animalistic love- to count a few: sex, hunger, thirst, fear, pain, anger, joy, togetherness. The preponderance of these basic emotions largely defined how they related to each other. But with evolution, many more shades of emotions have come in between. One more important surmise is that love is also a function of time and the context. Love doesnot operate in vacuum but it is the response to various stimuli at that particular time.
Hence I will say that
l= f(t, x 1 ,x 2 ,x 3 ,x 4 ,x 5 ,…………..,x n, )
where l= Love, f is a function of variables t = Time, x1=sex, x2= anger, x3= jealousy, x4= hate, x5= possessiveness, x6= care, x7= responsibility, x8=comfort level, x9= interests, x10= adoration,x11= fatherly, x12= motherly, x13= siblingual, x14= hunger, x15= thirst, x16= fear, x17= pain etc upto the variable x n .
Let us take the case about a guy thinking about sex on the very first meeting and see how this formula explains it here. As guys are evolutionarily wired towards mating and sex, the initial value pertaining to x1= sex might be maximum amount whereas the value of the other variables from x2 to xn in function would be less at time t=t1. But at time t= 9 days after marriage (as per Kamalji) the overall impact of x1=sex might not be as much in l=Love due to which the sexual component of love would be less. (Also remember the Laws of Diminishing Marginal Returns which might explain the 9-day phenomenon!)
Now reverse the situation. First time when the girl meets the guy, at time t=t1, x1 =0 for the girl (this is what many girls would like us to believe) and maybe x9= interests is maximum. So the girl might not feel anything sexually, though she might be attracted due to commonality of interests. Hence, the same formulae would explain the love as felt, perceived and understood by them at the same time but in different range of emotions and intensity.
The above formulae will explain every kind of love. Where ever the value of x1=0, in common parlance it is supposed to be platonic, parental or siblingual love having no sexual component. Even a deviant’s love having sexual component can be explained. So there is no exception to this formula.
Love doesnot mean always being on the best behavior. Because, it is a response to stimuli, hence the response would also depend upon the stimuli. One might be very much in love with one’s girl, but when at time= t, one is not able to meet office deadlines, the factor x i = frustration will change the tone and tenor of his love and he might answer abruptly to an otherwise innocent question of his girl. After a few days of business outing and abstemious behaviour, maybe variable x1= sex would again be raising its head (no pun!) and the love would have a higher component of it.
So, love is not unidimensional. And it changes in context of time as per the raging emotion of the time. Sex is just one of the variables of the function defined as love. It is equally applicable to men and women as per the time. And there would be a time when the component of sex in the love of both males and females would be the same. And this will dispel certain peoples’ implicit suggestion (preposterous to me!) that only men like sex, women endure it. I think, the graph of sexual craving is largely a decreasing graph for males and an increasing graph for females upto a certain age. And where they intersect, the equilibrium has been reached. Hence sexual compatibility would be attained when the difference between these two graph should not be too much as that will leave one of the partners unsatisfied leading to strain in relationship which would be reflected in some other ways of negative emotion.
Various bloggers have talked about recent social movements and their effect on sexual liberation of women. That feature is also explained by above formula, if one considers time as one of the variables. This ‘time’ component explains the changing social mores. And what I am trying to say is that a time will come when the social dynamics will completely reverse and what seems only relevant to male behavior today will also be reflected by female behavior. Hence, may be in next 100 years, a girl who looks at a guy for the first time, she will think of sex whereas the guy will think if she would be emotionally compatible and intellectually capable or not. She might even ask him “ Have you got a pistol in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?”
One of the comments of my wife doubted this supposition of mine about girl thinking about sex on the very first meeting under the pretext that she was ‘evolved’ and matured. However, if the past few decades are any indications, the assertive female behavior and liberated sexual winds blowing through the femaledom are indicators that the best (or the worst, depending upon which side of sexual revolution you are on!) is yet to come. And in those times to come, I can almost visualize men hiding under the beds from the prying eyes of their female counterparts. Time, the greatest master of human drama, would then move again like a pendulum from one extreme to another extreme.
Both men and women love with the same intensity. The component of love changes in both of them as per time and context. So we should never try to look for the same feelings and reciprocation as individuals are made differently. Different strokes for different folks, isnt it? Love exists, but it need not exist in the manner which Mills & Boon would like us to believe. It can exist in the irritation of a housewife, an exasperation of a husband, the disgust of a father at his wayward children, adoration of a daughter for her father, neglect of a husband towards his wife for some innocuous domestic issue as well as animalistic passion of a husband and wife or delightful idleness of a couple in the serene and pristine mountainous terrain.
Let us not look at love from some preconceived notion. But liberate it from our own mental boundaries so that it can take the infinite shape it is capable of taking and light our lives the way it has been doing till now.
PrideOfMatchingham
posted by PrideOfMatchingham @ 10:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home