is sexual attraction all in your mind?

There once was a king who got very bored with the women in his life very quickly. He would marry a new virgin, “shtup” her, then send her pretty self away pretty much immediately…to be beheaded. Talk about a bad breakup, huh? And talk about a King Harming, huh? Anyway, this king killed thousands of women by the time he finally met the enchantingly different Scheherazade. What made Scheherazade enchantingly different?  Scheherazade loved to read books and had lots of fascinating ideas and interests to share.  Wisely educated in morality and kindness, she had a passion for poetry, philosophy, sciences and arts. She kept the king on the edge of his bed–not with mere alluring sexual positions–but with alluring stories to be told, each more exciting than the next. And so the king kept Scheherazade alive–eagerly anticipating each new tale–until, lo and behold, 1,001 adventurous nights passed–along with three sons–and the king not only learned to love Scheherazade, but he made her his queen. Talk about living happily ever after, huh?

The phrase first used by Geoffrey Miller, a cognitive psychologist, refers to tactics our female ancestors employed in order to keep a male around for more than just one season. In One-thousand and One Nights (known popularly as The Arabian Nights) the character of Scheherazade keeps the sultan enthralled through her gift for storytelling, even though she was supposed to be beheaded after the first night spent in his harem. I can venture a guess that the instinct or desire to continue to produce fit babies would kick-in after the first batch and early homonoid women must have set the standard for commitment when they had to talk or “trick” the men into sticking around. That in itself is upsetting, though further reading gave me even more gems. Modern women also have the unfortunate label of “choosy,” propagated by popular culture and television shows like Sex and the City though I believe that said choosiness is a hangover from a time when picking prospective mates was a real gamble. Think about it: if our ancestors were going to be spending most of their adult lives pregnant, the males with whom they were about to procreate would need to pass several tests. Women naturally have the greater investment in the mating game since it is their bodies bearing the ultimate burden. New research has found that desire may indeed be an “afterthought, the cognitive overlay that the brain gives to the sensation of already having been aroused by some sort of physical or subliminal stimulus”. In a sense, this all leads back to the I-function.  The act of sex is simply an outlet for us to make sense of all the different sensory inputs our brain is getting. Rather than acting on desire, we are reacting to physical stimuli and labeling it desire when really, we are never conscious of the firing of thousands of neurons begging us to jump into the sack and procreate. By covering our actions with the blanket term of natural human desire, we can disguise the gritty truth that our brains are simply programmed to respond in a set way to a set group of inputs. A study conducted in the Netherlands used graphic sexual photographs and electrical signals to monitor “spinal tendious reflexes”. The findings posit that human beings are physically ready for the act of sex as a response to those cues/inputs before the mind can register attraction.

In addressing reciprocity Miller makes an accurate observation: that it is considered selfish to constantly speak, and noble to constantly listen.  He says that if sharing information through language gives altruistic information to the listener than we would all engage in intense listening and be reticent to talk.  Yet the opposite is true, in most instances the person who talks for too long and doesn’t share the floor with his/her colleagues is considered selfish.  He says, “people compete to say things.  They strive to be heard”.  The point here is that humans want to show off their language fitness indicator, and their only means to do so is through speaking. Miller proposes that “language puts minds on public display, where sexual selection could see them clearly for the first time”, therefore sexual selection became more intense with the introduction of language.  Miller discusses a phenomenon that is specific to human beings referred to as verbal courtship where language is displayed “at every stage of courtship, and language is subject to mate choice”.  The process of getting to know someone is “the heart of human sexual selection” for hours of conversation usually proceed any physical contact, if there is any at all.  Evolutionarily men seem to have learned how to speak just like peacocks developed pretty tails.  It is not a coincidence that boys are not fluent in their speech until they hit puberty.  At this point it becomes necessary for dating.  Verbal fluency is obviously related to sexual selection, for men begin to use their verbal skills, as they become aware of their sexuality. The problem with the theory that language was sexually selected is that most sexually selected features are of larger ornamentation in males than in females. Human females have better verbal abilities, which is a contradiction to the sexual selection theory.  His proposed explanation for this inconsistency is that males tend to be “display producers” and females tend to be “display discriminators”. Meaning that men use their large vocabularies on a daily basis to impress women, and women are able to recognize and comprehend their exotic words.  He points out that “most tests of human verbal ability are tests of comprehension, not tests of language production” .  His -male display, female-choice theory predicts that women would do better on these types of tests. Coinciding with this explanation is the fact that men tend to write more books, ask more questions, dominate mixed sex discussions, etc.  The one contradiction to the male display theory is that men cannot articulate the “simplest thought or feeling”  to their sexual partner.  Miller’s proposal that once a male has effectively utilized verbal courtship and gotten a female partner he feels that this energy does not need to be expended anymore.  It is a cost that has no return payment.  Basically once a sexual relationship has been established the man is only willing to expend a certain amount of energy to maintain it, “ animals evolve to allocate their energies efficiently”.  If sexual relations are suspended the male has temporary motivation for verbal courtship, yet when reproductive success is not on the line, the effort stops. Females tend to use verbal courtship even after a relationship has been established for they are securing the resources that they receive from males.  Females prove their fidelity to men through the continuous verbal courtship proving intelligence, creativity and fitness.  The females have to prove that they are the best option for the males to reproduce with.  The goal is to make monogamy seem like the best option through proving that the children reared are with absolute certainty the males.  By ridding the paternity insecurity through words females assure a constant source of resources for themselves and their children. Miller eloquently and concisely explains why maintaining verbal courtship is important: “By evolving an appreciation of the cognitive novelties offered by good conversation with an established partner, men may have muted their obsession with the physical novelties of other women”.