Francepiro
As a retired magistrate, from time to time I am
consulted informally by spouses, on whether or not to judicially separate. They
are eager to know what will happen in the so feared “tomorrow”. Doubts about
how assets will be divided, limits of the eventual alimony (the most difficult
aspect), custody, visiting rights and a number of already well-known questions
associated with every legal separation.
Undoubtedly, despite the varied statistics from
country to country, a husbands' infidelity is what mostly leads wives to seek
separation. The signatory of this article - even without any specialized
training – has but just a snoopy curiosity about the most controversial aspect
of the Law-Biology relationship. Therefore I think it is never deemed enough to
provide betrayed wives some information – as well as just a couple of mere intuitions - which will
possibly help form a much better scenario of the problem plaguing them. The
decision on what to do will certainly be difficult. Strictly legal
considerations can bring more regret than happiness. However, by then it will
be late, since time consolidates both right and wrong legal unions. Some say
second marriages lasts longer than the first not because “the right person” was
found in the second one, but because man, exhausted from the problems arising
from the separation, has no longer patience - neither money - to face a new battle,
or guerrilla. He just keeps carrying on, when the second union no longer
arouses the enthusiasm of before. - "Will I have to pay one more
alimony"? This is what often troubles him.
To begin with, it is necessary to admit, albeit with some moral disgust
that man, just by being a man – and in accordance with Christianity, “made in
the image and likeness of God”, an utter insult to the Creator's creation
competence - complies nevertheless with Biology. It is suffice to see he has
nails, hair, beard, saliva, canines (suitable for tearing flesh) and countless
of other unnecessary attributes for a spiritual being. He knows how to kick
with the four members (martial arts), snores while sleeps, stinks strongly
(when he does not bathe). Is usually gluttonous, bossy, slobbers, sensual,
ambitious, cunning, envious and sometimes treacherous. When challenged and
positive regarding impunity, he dares the worst atrocities. Those who doubt
this do not need to inform themselves in books of Forensic Pathology, all there
is to do is to read a few chapters of the Universal History. As a simple
example, it mentions the Spanish colonizers of Patagonia angry at the fact that
the Indians did not respect their fences and ate their sheep - the natives had
no notion of private property and thought that sheep were a type of llamas,
their usual source of food supply - ruthlessly killed them. Moreover, they even
poisoned the flesh of stranded whales. Finding, before the natives that a whale
had run aground on the beach, they poisoned its flesh knowing the Indians would
feasted on such voluminous gift from the sea. Sure enough the natives died by
the hundreds. With such practices, they “cleaned up the area”. The local beauty
to me unexpected - I saw it personally – of the far south end of Patagonia -
hides a dark past, which is not even worth remembering.
Such animal-like "features" of the human
being, however, were useful for the preservation of the "Homo
Sapiens" species (another arguable compliment). If our ancestors living in
caves had been extremely docile, prone to fasting, disinterested in sex and not
cunning, the human race would have probably been extinct. Especially if the
so-called strong sex (questionable praise, again) had a low sensuality. As
children died by the hundreds, victims of disease, malnutrition, and predators,
the male cave dweller made up for such child slaughter - even without of
course, having the slightest awareness of why he was sexually gluttonous - by
fertilizing as many females as possible from his or the neighbouring group. He
followed the procedure of the other mammals, almost all polygamous.
Female harems have always been the rule. The male
counterpart, non-existent or an exception. When we speak of "matriarchy”,
we mean the domination of the group by women, not the fact that they have, as
far as I know, a large number of males to cohabit with simultaneously.
This natural polygamy of primitive man was a crude but
effective way of guaranteeing the propagation of the species not only in terms
of quantity of human beings but also of quality. This is due to the dominant
male - practically the only "owner of females" - being the best
carrier and transmitter of the then most valuable genetic qualities: brute
force, shrewdness and aggressiveness. Were monogamy the rule in the biological
evolution of mammals, the immense amount of sperm released in each carnal
intercourse would be totally wasted when the mate was pregnant, therefore
temporarily sterile. Seeds wasted, therefore. Hence, the incessant search for
new sexual partners that could produce offspring, making up not only for the
huge infant mortality but also for the early death of warriors or hunters,
killed in constant tribal fighting or predatory animals. Gluttony itself, eating
exaggeratedly - today a very unpleasant vice to witness, but not to practice -
was also a form of "virtue", since in those primitive times, before
the advent of precision agriculture, there was no certainty if it would be
possible to eat the next day. A moderate, elegant eater, praised today, was
much more likely to die from starvation than a "glutton" who stuffed
himself, forming reserves in the liver and fat tissue, thus resisting more to
fasting forced by lack of food. Today, gluttony is harmful since in the
civilized world we have meals available at least three times a day.
In
short, today's man - and the betrayed wives need to remember - this is the
outcome of the animal evolution of millennia, still carrying with it primitive
characteristics, which in remote ages had its usefulness. One of them namely
the instinctive propensity for infidelity.
It happens that, over the course of a few centuries,
man - in the manner of snakes, who get rid of its old skin - found out that
such "qualities" stemming from his ancestors deemed no longer
necessary. On the contrary, they turned out to be flaws. There were no more
natural predators. Not so many new-borns died anymore. The brute strength of
the dominant male became an excrescence since the physically weaker male,
living in society could organize themselves and defeat those biologically
stronger. The state was created, a powerful abstract entity but also of very
concrete strength, which could hang or imprison the most muscular and
aggressive component of the group. Monogamy - at least the official one -
became the rule. If Muslim countries still admit polygamy, this occurs - according
to those who know the subject - as the Arab tribes lived in constant warfare
among them, with large numbers of dead warriors. It would therefore be
necessary to have a more effective system to "supply lives" other
than monogamy. Hence the origin for the Muslims to have more than one wife,
provided he could afford to support them.
Moreover, Christianity emerged, a religion inspired by
the noblest desires of man, seen here only from the viewpoint of human race.
Attempting to find peace among men, one of the greatest characteristic of this
peace would be a monogamous marriage, idealistically perfect, as the number of
men and women born is roughly the same. Each to his wife, until death do them
part. No fights nor disputes for the neighbour's wife. Well, theoretically, for
the spouses and not just theoretically for the children, who always suffer in
some way or the other with the separation of their parents.
However,
if this is good in theory, the study of real behaviour practice shows that the
elegant cover of Christianity is a model made by a tailor much more idealistic
than attentive to the real shape of the quasi-animal he dressed up.
Statistics show a high percentage of worldwide male
infidelity. This is a fact, albeit unpleasant to know not recently increased
due to the fear of AIDS. Since the
quasi-beast is but a few million years old (if we bear in mind the period when
he was a fish), it is natural that this immense and tenebrous past makes him
squirm and scratch when they put on a very elegant, noble moral clothing, but
somewhat at odds with his more primitive nature. It is the same as catching a
coalman - I mention this occupation because I imagine it no longer exists -
bathe and dress him up in a very elegant tuxedo to attend a sophisticated
reception at Itamaraty, and make him pretend to be a diplomat. After a few
hours of misery, with a stiff and tight collar and shoes, which are too tight, holding
a glass of champagne emptied out continuously, he will end up making a number
of gaffes.
This
gaffe, in the modern husband, is called infidelity. It is the old bottled up
instinct, which half asleep, is what for dogs would correspond to the
"call of the jungle", from the writer Jack London, and which Robert
Louis Stevenson immortalized in his "The doctor and the monster".
Here I am neither defending the "wolves",
nor stimulating the hesitant "near-wolves", who still dither over
joining the pack. I am just trying to understand and explain what happens in
real life. In any person's circle of relationships, it is common to know that
an "x" couple is splitting due to betrayal. Most of the time
committed by a mature man, who preferred a woman younger than his wife. In
addition, it seems that there is also a biological explanation for this age
difference without a conscious awareness from the somewhat retarded and
grey-haired stallion.
Man,
in this case, does not even know he is used by “wisdom" embedded in the
genes, a biological "board" which, in my opinion, works on the sly.
The genes know that younger women have a long period of fertility ahead of
them, much longer than mature women, who may even be sterile due to menopause.
The thin waist of young women - in contrast to the wide hips - which attracts
men so much, can only be a biological warning that "the oven is
empty" - sending a signal to "fill it" with pregnancy. Moreover,
the broad hips seem to favour easier births. All the characteristics of female
attraction coincide with greater health, good for pregnancy. The only item for
which I have not yet found a biological explanation is the exceptional
importance of the beauty of the female face, an attraction that does not always
coincide with the good health of the woman and her aptitude to generate
vigorous offspring. A tuberculous, or anaemic cancerous, face can arouse
passions. Is the appreciation of the physiognomic women beauty a biological
sign that man has evolved extraordinarily? Animals are attracted by smell, not
by beauty.
All right! All right! - will say
the angry female reader faced with such a "simplistic" and biological
approach to her problem. — I admit there is still a lot of animal instinct in
man, but he needs to know he is no longer an animal! He is endowed with
rationality! If we were to forgive this primitive aspect, it would be senseless
for criminal law to exist. Man, in extreme situations kills, rapes, steals and
even tortures. Do these acts, I ask, deserve "understanding" for the
simple reason of being spontaneous remnants of its inlaid animality?”
The
reader is right in stressing her idealism. However, my intention here is not to
"give the animal carte blanche". It is to show all aspects of the
"infidelity" phenomenon, avoiding the rush to seek a lawyer and file
for separation. It is the wife's first reaction, particularly when the slip has
become notorious. Especially when her friends also heard about the affair. -
"If only they didn't know..." - And such frenemies sometimes contribute
towards the separation decision. They seem to ask, subtly, if only with their
eyes: - "Aren't you going to do something..." - There the betrayed
one "does act", reluctantly pressed by the duty to "react".
However, often she regrets it. And it is quite possible that the
"friend" is keeping an eye on the betrayed woman's husband. This
hastiness may also be a reaction foreseen by the interested party, "the
other", who is after a husband and not a married lover. I know of cases in
which the wife regrets the decision. Not to mention eventual situations of
changed positions: the husband, already living with "the other",
visits his ex-wife to talk about children and there it happens, sexually, what
moral and brio do not recommend. The ex-wife becomes "the other", the
mistress, with all the burden of self-reproach for having given in to
temptation.
Loneliness
is not always better than life for two. The "affair" that caused the
separation or divorce may have had shallow roots or even no root at all. We
must remember that just as "the rascal" got sick of his wife, he can
also get sick of the "other one", quite fast. I know of such an
affair. The house cleaner, to please the mistress, told her about the overheard
compromising phone conversation, between the master of the house and a woman.
The wife reacted in the act. She sought counsel and the separation took place.
The husband had no option but to leave. However, not to "live" with
the one who eventually caused the problem. Actually, he never visited her. He
did not return to his house because he had been the object of so many insults
during the separation process, he ended up remembering his wife as a hateful
snake. He imagined that if he returned, he would lead a life of a convict in
conditional release, constantly watched, ears bursting with constant allusions
to his mistake. He preferred to live alone and after a while, with a son. The
ex-wife, already mature went on living alone, for all I know. Two unhappy
lonely people. All because a house cleaner wanted to be nice to her mistress.
As
this narrative is already too long and the Internet is a rather inappropriate
forum for dissertations, I bestow here additional short data on the role of the
biological mechanism that commands the animal kingdom, with repercussions on
human beings, who are not yet angels. Panda bears are in danger of extinction.
When in captivity it is common for the couple not to reproduce. I have learned
that in some zoos scientists have done everything they can to make the bear
couple produce puppies, but in vain. They tried - this is not my imagination,
check out its own literature - to "break the ice" even with the
exhibition of "pornographic films" (for me a nonsense) - in this
case, panda couples in the middle of the act. And they have come to the point -
sit down so as not to fall down - of administering "Viagra" to the
male panda, with no result. Now - it is only my intuition - I can almost bet
that if another female, or male, or other males and females were introduced
into the cage, jealousy would trigger the biological mechanism that would lead
to the fertilization perhaps of all females. This is because the dispute, the
competition, the jealousy, are mechanisms to select the best. Add to this, reader
another impressive fact - the egg is normally fertilised by only one sperm, but
if it reaches the egg alone it does not receive it, it does not open, and
fertilisation does not occur. Because "miss" egg makes a point of
selecting, choosing the best one. She seems to think like this - "Excuse
me, my dear, I make a point of choosing. How do I know you are the best?"
Considering
all of this, the biological load that we still carry, I renew my advice to
betrayed women: do not act hastily. Judicial separation should only be required
when infidelity is a sign that all the rest of coexistence is already
shattered. The husband who cheated - if he is a good husband in everything else
and a good father - feels intimately bad when his conscience accuses him. And
it accuses him with a special virulence when he realizes his wife to be a
worthy companion, polite, capable of shutting her eyes and suffering in silence
for a short period. A chance for the good, moral spouse's side to prevail over
the more selfish and animal side that man carries involuntarily.
Finally,
I will say something "kind of strange" about male betrayal that may
not be believable by most readers from both genres, accustomed to listening and
reading only platitudes. According to the current version, the married man
cheats only driven by sexual dissatisfaction in his relationship with his wife.
Not always, believe me. Sometimes it is not libido that causes betrayal but the
power of unusual beauty. In other words, the subject thinks - "good and
even much better sex, I already have at home, but how to resist such beauty"?
Certainly, this citizen, who married rather early, usually suffers from the
frustration of not having had in his arms a woman of such beauty. He just does
not want to die feeling such frustration. That is why he cheats, without ever
thinking of changing his wife. If he had more sense, he would not cheat. But
who said rationality drives man?
To
lighten the heavy environment of all the above considerations it is perhaps
licit to tell an anecdote related to the subject here. A groom, worried about his tendencies to,
say, multiplicity of loves, sought out the priest the day before the wedding. He
asked him a favour - to pretend forgetting to mention the "promise never
to betray his wife, until death do us part", etc. He explained he did not
intend to be unfaithful, however he would prefer to do this "from his
inner self", without being forced into a formal promise at the time of the
ceremony. In exchange, he gave the priest a check for five thousand dollars to
help in the church reform. The priest took the check and left, without a word.
The next day, at the ceremony, the priest looking straight into the groom’s
eyes demanded loud and clearly - "John Doe, do you promise to be faithful
until death do you part'' take coffee to your wife in bed? To pay, without
complaining, all the expenses with a credit card, even if you consider them way
too excessive? Keep at least two maids and a driver at her disposal and never
make a sour face"? Swallowing dry, the groom agreed to everything, but
soon after the ceremony, he sought out the priest censuring him: - "I
thought we had a deal...” to which the priest handed him the check for five
thousand and replied: "The bride doubled the bid."
As for female betrayal, I do not dare address it. Let alone ask
confidences.
(Francisco Cesar Pinheiro Rodrigues (Francepiro) is a Brazilian author.Translation from
Portuguese by Victoria Fernandes (victoriafernandes@hotmail.com)