Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Bill and Monica Revisted

I suppose the short answer is: Evolution. That is, the short answer to the question, "Why is understanding human sexuality so important to understanding human nature?"

From the theory of evolution, we know that reproductive success determines which species will hang around. Then when you combine that with the simple fact we reproduce sexually, you get the short answer. It's not sexual desire that makes understanding our sexuality so important to understanding human nature. It's evolution.

That understanding human sexuality is crucial to understanding human nature is so obvious even some of our politicians know it. That's why they seldom speak of the future in abstract terms -- instead, they speak of "the world we will leave to our children". The distant future is just a fantasy to most people -- until you link it to their reproductive success. Then, of a sudden, it becomes something to be taken seriously.

Sex, of course, is not everything. Human nature is not synonymous with human sexuality, and all efforts to reduce human nature to human sexuality have failed. Yet, our sexuality so pervades us that it is impossible in many ways to understand people without understanding their sexuality. The affair Bill Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky told us at least as much about Bill Clinton the man as his decision to bomb Serbia.

I have always wondered why Clinton chose Lewinsky. A president can pick from a host of women. Why didn't he pick an extraordinarily gifted, talented, sophisticated, and intelligent woman? Put differently, why didn't he pick someone who challenged him, inspired him, made him want to be the best he could be?

6 comments:

Jonathan Blake said...

Why Monica?

Because men have no evolutionary incentive to be picky about whom they choose for casual sex and Monica was available and willing.

amuirin said...

i think jonathon nailed it.

(bad choice of words?)

Paul said...

Jonathan and Amuirin, I think you are both right in so far as you take it. Yet, wasn't something more going on with Clinton? He was in a position to choose from so many women, yet he chose one who, as he once stated, he knew wouldn't keep their affair a secret. I don't quite know what to make of someone who has an affair with a woman he knows will betray him.

ybonesy said...

As my first comment on your blog, am I allowed to say: "His weenie picked her for him"?

Paul said...

Hi Ybonesy! Welcome to the blog! I can't think of a better way of putting it, myself.

Nita said...

I guess everyone has already said what I wanted to say...
but I remember reading an article analysing this and in that clinton has apparently said that the minute he set his eyes on her he was er...hooked. it's greed as I see it. sexual greed. it's rare to feel physically attracted to just one person in one's life but the thing is...that it's physical and temporary and good sense prevails, control prevails. that is what makes us human I think.
there was also something else i read about clinton, why he chose hillary. i believe he was not attracted to her! but he chose her as he thought she would be an 'asset' to him in his career. I am sure he loved her too but not in the sense of passion...
a lot of people make 'sensible' decisions like that and you know what I think?
I think bill would have had a more fulfilling (!) relationship with monica, although his career might have ended and he might have got divorced as monica would not be as 'sensible' as hillary when it came to tolerating infidelity. this is assuming that she herself would be faithful ofcourse... :)