In defense of the dirty old man.

Before I turned 40 I was likely already a dirty man but as I become a dirty older man, I find the desire to explain what this means.

As I imagine, human sexual desire historically, with whatever attributes are associated with primates in general, was more analogous to that of the rest of the earth's creatures. The modern dilemmas of economics, leisure time, per-capita concentration and the like, have changed the practical and appropriate application of sex drive, but not the base man. Such is the expansion of the gap between evolutionary time scale and the rapid transformation of human life and experience. This leaves us with at least partially, the wrong tools for the job. Where it once was reasonable to engage in the act whenever it struck two's fancy, or at least one's fancy, now there are consequences like unwanted children. It is a bit too easy for me to romanticize a period when all children attainable were needed and thereby all sex desire achievable was to be employed, and further that sexual satisfaction for males was more likely a constant. One can hope that in this perhaps natural setting (if one can call it that for a moment) women could also have fulfilled their desires as well, should their partners have been aware and/or had the intention of 'helping out'. This is not to suggest that such good ole days every existed and that the patriarchy wasn't primarily concerned with the male whim. But in what one might call a functional situation whereby at least people managed to arrange marginally monogamous periods where they went forward with their work, their sex lives and their children, there may have existed a period of relative sexual positivism.

Firstly, I want to describe the parameters of the male desire in an effort to dispel the notions that it (normally) contains dementia. By this discussion it is worth mentioning that I by no means intend to dismiss or minimize the predicaments facing women, sexual or otherwise.

Males (hardly uniquely) look around from birth. We develop some varying opinions about what is sexy and beautiful. Much has been said about the distortions introduced first by lewd images or lurid descriptive tales, and now by the industries of advertising and pornography. Prior to media, including oil painting and even charcoal scribbling, people no doubt influenced young men as to the expression of their sexual desire. I don't feel a need to defend the primary goal of male sexual desire, that being, the wide spreading of genes as expressed in offspring. In defense of monogamy, there may be interesting positive benefits like less risk of dying of STD, or perhaps the enhanced fertility of the act with the comfort of a known partner, but I find an average diet of occasionally changing partners to be contusive to this evolutionary requirement to spread thy seeds into a landscape. This desire is of course theoretical, for it is diminished by the inherent competition of the marketplace, as with most species, the dominant males are the ones to succeed, while the bulk of horny onlookers loiter, scheming to participate by luck or opportunism.

The need for a defense for this natural phenomenon has arisen seemingly because of a modern notion that these sexual tools of evolution are predatory, outmoded and crude, yet there can be no true modification of the core of male libido. As a rational creature, I have strong feelings that guide my behavior, like, consent. Apparently, raping women can be a turn-on for some, but most, I submit, would agree that this is a complete dysfunction. Without complete consent, I personally would be either merely performing an operation or totally uninterested. It is interesting that it is difficult for humans as we observe many species in the act, to see the females as willing participants. It takes careful observation to understand the subtle movements, proximity adjustments, or odors beyond our senses to find these clues in many creatures.

Now we come to a need to differentiate between the male observation and construct of the sexy and the sexual predator. We are talking about the difference between celebration akin to the (normal, un-abusive) wonder and love of a parent for a child, and the mutant and dangerous anomaly of the essentially murderous.

One needs to consider the behavior of the on-lookers which is unwelcome to women, because it is important to differentiate between demonstrating affection and imposing predatory behavior. Gifts, be them attention or object, are best when they are wanted, and women have claimed the sensitivity to proper gift giving as their territory. Some like my mother have made an art of this, prioritizing the desire of others above her own for decades, in line with her conditioning. It is thought that being a success in the business of providership, the accumulation of wealth, is not compatible with developing emotional intelligence and sensitivity. Although this status quo myth is just that, our modern dog eat dog reaction to per-capita concentration of people certainly does not lend itself easily to creating Mr. nice guys (or girls for that matter.) It is not a trivial procedure to negotiate the obstacle course of the attention women loathe or require. Without seeking sympathy (which no doubt would be un-manly of me) the existence of expressions like win her over, or a man come a callin', words like suitor, or situations in which men are expected to demonstrate love and devotion by facing public humiliation or by pedestalizing a prospect, do go some distance to balance the inherent vulnerability of the original cave-women burdened with child. Of course, this ancient female position has encountered some modern upgrade in recent decades; let's hope it can be sustained and enlarged in the current climate of back stepping.

It is interesting to consider defending the thought I love women, should I even be able to define what this means. The typical response would be that men with this inclination are interested only in the superficial and not the heart or depth of the fair sex. This is a multi-faceted consideration in that women (and men) have many attributes, some inherent and some social constructs. There is also no obligation to embrace all attributes of any perspective, but as a son of a feminist, I have absorbed natural taste for the positions of women (no pun intended). The challenge is to demonstrate the motivation of the man as a celebration of women, their whole, complex beings; a celebration rather than a primitive corner-drooling. I'm not suggesting that the poor man, burdened by swarming nubiles, cannot concentrate on his work, must run to bathroom to relieve his tension, or cannot live without resentment at his lack of access to the beauty about, but merely that there is something there with which to contend. The situation does not justify rape, or even unsolicited chocolate, but it is a dynamic, a parameter in the sexual life of a man, and along with fear of STD, pregnancy, the distaste for modern inventions from condoms or poisonous spermicide. This situation contributes to a general sexual malaise, which like unused sperm possibly can be absorbed without grave repercussion, but can hardly be considered ideal.