The Origin of our Timing Disparity
Although the origin of such an integral part of what makes us tick could be explained by the exceptions--mutation, genetic drift--I would like to pursue a line of reasoning involving the rule: namely, natural selection. In other words, I would hope that the development of this very important part of how we relate to each other could be explained naturally, rather than with ugly mutation or the haphazard drifting of genes. This to follow, but first an introduction.
The theory of natural selection can be thought of as a formula. Today's giraffes have noticeably long necks (Point B). Many of yesterday's giraffes had comparably shorter necks (Point A). Darwin's formula answers the question: how and why did giraffes go from Point A to Point B? He proposed that the ancestors of today's giraffes had for treetop grazing competition other giraffes with somewhat shorter necks. It's not that yesterday's giraffes with the best neck-stretching abilities out-competed those less pliant, but that the ones born with ever so slightly longer necks reached those higher leaves, and then they lived to reproduce. And, if you concur with Darwin, we have their long-necked offspring with us today as one example of how small, gradual changes can mount up and eventually appear quite pronounced.
Now the nice thing about a working formula is if it's also quite interchangeable. Which is to say, Darwin's theory is worth more to Science if it can explain many and diverse natural phenomena, and not just giraffes.
So, with the interchangeability of Darwin's theory in question, the remainder of this discussion posits that either Darwin's theory fails to adequately explain a fundamental link in human development, or human natural selection is currently being out-competed by overriding influences.
According to archeological studies of past societies and anthropological studies of modern yet unadvanced societies, primitive homo sapiens found it necessary to align themselves in kinship-based, roaming bands or hoards of between twenty and one hundred individuals. Sheer survival was THE reason why these people chose to hang together instead of going it alone. They needed each other. They grew to depend on each other, fiercely. This dependency led to an intense bonding. Probably the same kind of bonding that occurs among those fighting a common enemy on board a sinkable warship. Each individual giving his or her "all" for the sheer survival of the group. Yes, yesterday's primal hoardsperson was bound to everyone else in the hoard in a way that can almost be described as love.
And yet each individual back then as now also had his or her own desires to attempt to quench.
And here's where a seemingly logical application of Darwin's theory reveals a rather disturbing contradiction:
1) Assuming behavioral changes precede structural changes (as most biologists do), those primitive women who became satisfied before their man didn't substantially reproduce... and for obvious reasons.
2) Likewise, those primitive women who approximated simultaneous satisfaction with their man didn't substantially reproduce either... due to rampant predation, unregistered male sterility, extremely high pre-pubescent mortality rates, and the fact that there's only two or three fertile days in a woman's month.
3) So, the reason our species proliferated throughout this period in our development--a time when we didn't understand the connection between bedroom activities and survival, and we were driven solely by our desires and bondings--was that only those primitive women who physically "needed" (or demanded) more than what one man could give her substantially reproduced. All the others went extinct.
Another way to envision this is that during our promiscuous hoard days, our population growth rates increased from a state of fluctuating around zero growth to a state of steady arithmetic growth due to the timing disparity between male and female orgasmic thresholds. And then with that, due to certain primitive women voraciously compensating for this timing disparity. ("He," a typical primitive man, was happy after two minutes, she wasn't, she found another. That one was done after a couple minutes, she still wasn't, so she found a third. When "she," our typical primitive woman, was finally satisfied, then she took a breather. Those primitive women who happened to be or were forced to be monogamously chained to only one man eventually went extinct.)
That was yesterday. Today, though, it seems the survival of the species is no longer dependent upon our enjoying each other. And they invent diseases to keep us apart. Oh well.
"Ooh la la, she's checking me out."
Some final questions: is natural selection a nice way to explain giraffes, but not the most diplomatic way to explain why it takes longer for a woman to come than for a man to come? Or does it explain both, and yet our otherwise normal, anatomically-determined behaviors are being squelched or railroaded by unnatural forces?
Basically, what I've done is taken a looksee at some body parts, checked out their function, rhythms, etc., and then made some deductions. One could examine our teeth after a similar fashion. We have both the teeth of a cow and the teeth of a lion. Therefore, at a certain time in our past, those humans who only ate meat or only ate veggies went extinct, leaving us omnivores to carry on.