Sex, Time, and Power

by Leonard Shlain

  Repeated use of the hands and fingertips, however, subjects their nerve endings to the possibility of chronic trauma, as happens if the fingertip’s owner engages in constant heavy labor. Friction and pressure from contact with rough or smooth surfaces will wear down the nerve endings and the upper layer of skin, resulting in a painful blister. To defend against this undesirable outcome, the skin covering the fingertips toughens with use by building a thickened shield of specialized skin known as a “callus.” Microscopically, the sensitive nerve organelles appear buried beneath stories upon stories of cornified skin.

  The delicate sensation of touch diminishes dramatically because it is filtered through a dense layer of overlying callus that muffles the signal the brain receives from its digital outposts. The ability of a laborer’s finger pads to make fine discriminations cannot compare to that of someone whose hands are not subjected to the repeated daily trauma of gripping, squeezing, rubbing, and chafing against rough surfaces.

  Carrying this analogy over to the penis, the removal of the foreskin would expose the glans to daily small traumas. Since nearly every man in nearly every culture covers his penis with some kind of protective clothing, an uncircumcised glans will constantly rub against the inner lining of clothes that are far rougher than the moist, snugly fitting scabbard of a lubricated foreskin. The sensitivity of a circumcised glans’s delicate nerve organelles lessens with age.

  The glans’s skin is dryer, more leathery in appearance, and more callused than that of a man who has not been circumcised. One can assume that the sensitivity of the former is less than the latter. Dampening the excitability of slightly buried or traumatized penile nerve endings would mean that a circumcised male requires more friction to reach his climax. He would be less quick to achieve an orgasm than would a man whose foreskin was intact. Although debatable, it is unlikely that any diminution in a man’s pleasure occurs, but a circumcised man will take longer to arrive at the same destination than a noncircumcised man, all other factors being equal.

  Throughout history, commentators have acknowledged the effect of circumcision on a man’s sexuality. Maimonides, in the twelfth century, wrote:

  As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate…. This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man’s moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment….11

  Maimonides and many others believed circumcision cooled a man’s sexual ardor and lessened his masturbatory impulses, and hailed these changes as laudable within a religious context. Male writers sermonizing on the subject failed to comment on who would have been the true beneficiary of a circumcised male’s decreased penile sensitivity.

  A woman paired with a circumcised lover would find his climacteric delay extremely salubrious, since premature male ejaculation is the primary source of female dissatisfaction with a male’s amatory performance. This is especially true during the early years of a man’s and woman’s sex life. Her orgasm occurs considerably later than his, and anything that prolongs his erection would serve to increase her satisfaction. Nothing succeeds like success. Her satisfaction would ultimately make him believe that he is a great lover, and incrementally raise his testosterone level, while increasing his pleasure in sex. Reciprocity would heighten a couple’s desire to repeat the act, and the ultimate result would be more babies deposited in the world. Mother Nature would smile at these clever creatures for figuring out a way to circumvent what would appear to these mere mortals as one of her tiny design flaws.

  Another benefit of circumcision: A slightly longer time before male ejaculation requires that a man thrust for a longer period. The increased friction on a woman’s vaginal lining stimulates a more copious amount of lubrication. From an alkaline-loving sperm’s perspective, the resting acidic pH of the woman’s vagina is very hostile. Every passing minute of lovemaking raises her vaginal pH, increasing it to ever-more-hospitable levels. The sperm of circumcised males jump off into a friendlier environment than those of uncircumcised males. The sperm of the former would receive a small boost in viability, making them more likely to survive before entering the safety of the cervix.

  Who, we might ask, among a tribe of children, adolescents, grown-ups, and elders, would be the group most likely to have ferreted out the above, most interesting fact of life? Which sex, male or female, would be more likely to connect the dots between absent foreskin at birth, delayed ejaculation in youth, more babies in maturity, and more grandchildren to dote over? After a lifetime of lovemaking, mature women would have spent hours discussing the sexual idiosyncrasies of their diverse male partners and comparing their experiences. An older woman is the candidate most likely to have discovered that the true beneficiaries of circumcision would be the lovers of the men who had been converted from hooded cobras to bald eagles.

  Women desiring maximal sexual pleasure seek to delay their lover’s orgasm. Contemporary sex therapists recommend thick condoms impregnated with Novocain to desensitize a premature ejaculator’s penis and impede his climax. Removing an infant’s prepuce at birth, and letting his glans desiccate and roughen from constant friction against outer clothing, serves the same purpose. Having discovered a secret that would increase their sexual satisfaction, women required only the means to convince men that they should undergo a little genital tailoring. Every man has caught his member in his pant’s zipper at least once in his life. A Pleistocene equivalent to this painful experience would most likely also have existed. The benefits of circumcision are imperceptible to men, and there is not a man alive who does not wince at imagining placing his best friend and most prized possession on the chopping block.

  The archaic date of the Saqqara circumcision mural adumbrated by a millennium the Hebrews’ Declaration of Independence, and it invites the following speculative scenario. Women wielded more power in early societies than they at present do in a world dominated by patriarchy. Helen Fisher, in The First Sex, estimates that approximately 15 percent of contemporary cultures throughout the world remain matrilineal—that is, they trace their descent through the female line—an example being the Navajo.12 Those who control resources exercise political power and can exert considerable influence over a culture’s customs. Perhaps circumcision became a widespread practice not because of health concerns, not because a patriarchal god demanded it, not because it was a superstitious ritual, not to test the mettle of boys in a warrior culture, but because grandmothers recognized that it made men better lovers, women more sexually satisfied, and mothers more fertile.*

  Women experience three dramatic markers that trisect their lives. Menarche divides childhood from the period when a woman becomes a maiden. Childbirth begins her role as a mother. Menopause dramatically initiates the phase of her life ancients called the crone.† In classical-Greek mythology, these three phases were represented by the triple goddess: Hebe, the vestal virgin; Hestia, the keeper of the hearth; and Hecate, the crone feared and respected for her sorcery and power. According to lore and custom, each distinct phase carried with it certain pleasures, duties, and onerous consequences.

  Before the Trinity became “three-in-one men,” the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it was composed of “three-in-one women.” The three Graces, Fates, Furies, and many other triple combinations suggest that trinities once marked the three phases of a woman’s life rather than the three spiritual male entities of Christianity.‡

  Throughout history and continuing in many contemporary Third World cultures, the last phase of a woman’s life was and is recognized by both men and women as the one in which the crone attai
ns freedom, power, and wisdom. Typically, a crone is a respected member of the community of elders. In some societies, she is the undisputed leader. Younger members, both men and women, seek her counsel. Others value the crone’s forthrightness and valor, and nearly all fear her potency.

  The accumulation of wisdom resulting from living a long life is a large part of the reason for the reverential attitude toward the crone. Another major component contributing to her forcefulness, however, relates to the dramatic realignment of the serum concentrations of her estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone caused by her menopause. A woman’s change-of-life symptoms result primarily from a steep drop in the ovarian production of estrogen and progesterone. Nearly unaffected by this over-the-cliff drop in her feminine hormones is a menopausal woman’s production of testosterone. The jarring recalibration of the percentages of these three crucial arbiters of personality leads to a sudden rise in a woman’s testosterone concentrations relative to her rapidly declining circulating estrogen and progesterone levels.14

  Secondary masculine sexual characteristics marking a boy’s onset of puberty begin to make their appearance in menopausal women. A woman’s voice drops in vocal range, giving it an unmistakably huskier and breathier quality. Scalp hair grows coarser. The peach fuzz marking a boy’s first attempt to grow a mustache often appears on a postmenopausal woman’s upper lip. Facial hair becomes more visible in other locations.

  The relative rise in her testosterone levels also brings about dramatic changes in a woman’s psyche. Sleep disturbances and strange sexual dreams often intrude. The indecision, pliability, and relative vagueness of purpose that often marks a woman’s youth are replaced by clearheaded assertiveness. Researchers have demonstrated in many different studies that the more testosterone an animal has, the farther away he or she is willing to roam and the more likely he or she will be to challenge and/or dominate a rival.15 In general, the menopausal jolt of testosterone focuses women on life goals and fills them with a resolve that was often lacking earlier in their lives. (While there are surely many cultural factors influencing these trends, I wish to focus attention on the recalibration of a menopausal woman’s hormones as one that is rarely discussed.)

  Freed from primary child-rearing duties and brimming with testosterone (relatively speaking), mature women re-enter a man’s world and begin to exert a wider influence on the welfare of the society. Some older women, as if irrepressible, ascend to the pinnacle of power even in patriarchal societies. Men, in general, recognize that dealing with an older woman is very unlike interacting with a young woman, and not all the differences can be attributed to the acquisition of experience. The Blackfeet of the American West called grandmothers “manly hearted.” The force of character and sagacity that have throughout history been attributed to older women are due in no small part to the sudden relative rise in their hormone of aggression and dominance. Postmenopausal women become more virile. Germaine Greer described this stance as “peaceful potency.”16

  A husband, noting that his wife will no longer tolerate behaviors that she may have been willing to overlook in the past, does not always welcome these shifts in attitude. Not uncommonly, some are threatened by their mate’s new independence and they leave to seek out the company of younger, more adoring women. Or, conversely, a postmenopausal woman may get up the gumption to end an unhappy marriage, confident that she can manage just fine by herself or seek a new life with someone else. Women who were willing to submit to many onerous restrictions when they were younger suddenly discover that they can no longer endure conventions that restrain them. Relative increases in testosterone boost a woman’s spatial awareness and augment her sense of direction. A wanderlust that she never had earlier in her life often seizes her, and she embarks on pilgrimages to distant places or travels to exotic locales, intent on seeing the world and having adventures. Her children often marvel at the change that has taken over her.

  If one accepts that the changing relationship between estrogen and progesterone on the one hand, and testosterone on the other, plays a significant role in postmenopausal mental attitudes, then a disturbing question arises: What is the true nature of the bargain a woman makes with Mother Nature when she intervenes to prevent nature from running its course? A woman can choose to roll back the clock by taking exogenous estrogen and progesterone in the form of pills, patches, or injections. This popular but radical subversion of the normal menopausal process, known as hormone replacement therapy, or HRT, can forestall or ameliorate many of the unwanted consequences of a woman’s change of life.

  The key question, rarely asked: Is HRT a Mephistophelian bargain that trades assertiveness and power for youth and beauty? By artificially maintaining high levels of estrogen and/or progesterone, HRT nearly completely negates the benefits that relatively higher testosterone levels might bestow upon a woman. Not that postmenopausal women on HRT do not become more clearheaded and forceful, but the question is: Would women be even more clearheaded and forceful, if the full effect of their relative increase in testosterone was not mitigated by the introduction of HRT?

  Current debate aswirl around HRT centers on whether or not it increases the risks of breast cancer or decreases the chances of cardiovascular disease. Long articles in women’s magazines discuss the pros and cons of HRT in relation to bone density, libido, wrinkles, and sex appeal.* Often missing from these discussions is the not insubstantial price women pay to acquire what many women consider a near miraculous medical advance. Oscar Wilde’s novella The Picture of Dorian Gray and the myth surrounding the tragic end of Ponce de León, the Spanish explorer who sought the Fountain of Youth, are cautionary tales reminding us that there are no free lunches in the universe. Rare is the great gift that does not come with a dark price.

  I am not suggesting that women should decide not to avail themselves of the advantages of HRT but, rather, I would like to interject into the debate a factor that experts often leave out of the equation. Patriarchy and misogyny overshadow the current structure of human societies and prevent many women from achieving their full potential as leaders. It cannot be known whether or not women would play an even greater role on the world’s stage if they were willing to forgo the visible and metabolic benefits they derive from HRT. What would be the result if, instead, they embraced the power Mother Nature intended to give them, which unfortunately comes with what many women believe are certain undesirable side effects. Many men and women recognize the wry humor but deep underlying truth in the T-shirt worn currently as a joke by postmenopausal women that has emblazoned on its front, “I am out of estrogen and I have a gun.”

  The last several chapters have focused on the dramatic changes that occurred in Gyna sapiens’ reproductive life cycle. Homo sapiens also underwent a makeover, albeit a more subtle one, but in terms of its far-reaching implications on all the other animals and plants, it, too, was radical.

  Iron, Sex, and Men

  Part II

  Human hunting parties were comprised primarily of males. A nine-months’-pregnant woman, a nursing mother, or a woman charged with the safety of small children would not likely be part of a violent struggle such as this one.

  For the vast majority of the human species’ history, a male’s primary occupation was hunting.

  Chapter 9

  Prey/Predator

  A man is the hunter his wife makes him.

  —Inuit proverb1

  “It is a fine day, let us go out and kill something!” cries the typical male instinctively.

  “There is a living thing, it will die if it is not cared for,” says the average woman almost equally instinctively.

  —Olive Schreiner2

  Women’s social standing is roughly equal to men’s only when society itself is not formalized around roles for distributing meat.

  —Richard Leakey and

  Roger Lewin3

  Homo sapiens possesses features that are located so far out at the extremes of the bell-shaped primate curve that they invite the
curious to explore them. One of these is the capacity for aggression among humans, particularly the male of the species, and the pleasure most men so obviously derive from hunting and killing other animals.

  With the exception of a few small primates that subsist on insects and tiny reptiles, all (save one) are primarily vegetarians. Chimpanzees, baboons, capuchins, and cebus monkeys occasionally hunt, but these quests are sporadic and opportunistic. Less than 2 percent of these few hunting primates’ diets consist of meat.4 From their observable behavior, there does not appear to be a primate species other than Homo sapiens that enthusiastically and voluntarily awakens at 3:00 A.M. filled with the happy resolve to spend the day in predatory pursuit.

  Accumulating archeological evidence suggests that the verve and skill required to organize highly successful big-game kills consistently did not fully mature in the hominid line until Homo sapiens.* And not until about forty thousand years ago did Homo sapiens routinely tackle the more extreme big-game adventures, for example, hunting woolly mammoths. Earlier hominids did not pose a significant threat to the survival of other species. Paleontologists have not identified any whose members were driven to extinction because of the predations of earlier hominids.† No doubt exists, however, that, following the arrival of Homo sapiens, many unfortunate species have been hunted to the last member.