The search for running man: Sexual ethics and my ambivalence about my biological father

You need a man to procreate, but women bear a disproportionate — and inescapable — share of the responsibility when it comes to decisions about birthing children. (iStock photo by nicoletaionescu)

Among the ironies of the search for my biological mother is that the better it went, the less control I seemed to feel. I expected this process to take months, possibly years. But my adoption records from the State of Ohio arrived in a flash and could unveil her identity in the time it takes to unseal an envelope.

This was exciting, of course, but the postman delivered heightened anxiety, too, in early February 2022.

I knew, for instance, that these records might identify my biological father, as well. I was ambivalent about learning his identity. I harbored no antipathy toward the man, whoever he might be, but I felt no burning need to find or thank him, either. There was a simple reason for that: Men can run, and they often do.

Biologists tell us that living things tend toward one of two modes of behavior that align with their species’ growth and reproductive strategies. “R-strategists” — bacteria, fish and insects among them — typically have short lives and inhabit unstable, unpredictable environments. Wham, bam, thank you, ma’am makes sense for such creatures. They usually engage many mates, reproduce rapidly and spawn many offspring. Since few of their progeny will live to sexual maturity themselves, they spend little time or energy raising young. Quantity supersedes quality for R-strategists.

In comparison, “K-strategists” tend to occupy stable environments, grow larger and live longer. They have lengthier gestation periods and reach sexual maturity at older ages. They have fewer progeny and thus invest more time and energy in raising them. The well-being of K-strategists — and indeed, their very survival — depends upon these sacrificial and providential tendencies. Mammals tend to be K-strategists, and humans are widely considered the most “K” of all.

That’s not to say that all species adhere strictly to one set of strategies or the other, that no species toggle between the two strategies as conditions dictate, or that reproductive strategies are rigidly uniform across entire species.

Indeed, within humans, we see distinctions between females and males that are explained at least in part by their differing physiologies. For instance, the female sexual urge resides primarily in the cerebral cortex, where high-level thinking occurs. Even among young girls, sexual desire rides shotgun with a longing for companionship and acceptance; it is not typically borne of desire for conquest or the mere slaking of physical thirst.

That’s a very “K” inclination. Selectivity and deliberativeness in picking a mate is sensible if you will carry a child for nine months and spend several years raising one.

But human males are sometimes on a different page.

Their sex drive is a more impersonal, guttural urge for the act itself, rooted in the same neurological structure that drives aggression — the egg-shaped thalamus deep in the brain that serves as the switching station for motor and sensory impulses. That urge is particularly guttural among 16-year-old boys, who have not yet matured emotionally or neurologically. This would likely describe my biological father if what adoption agents told my parents about his age is correct.

There also exists a subset of hyper-promiscuous men who are motivated not by a love of sex but by an egomaniacal lust for power. Such men are often adept at bedding women but lack empathy and seldom engage in long-term, romantic relationships. We have a word for such men. We call them psychopaths.

Not all physiological and psychological traits are purely binary. Neither are physiology and psychology the only determinants of sexual and relational proclivities. Other genetic traits, culture and personal experiences play a role, too, creating an overlapping range of R and K characteristics among individual males and females.

The upshot: Some human men are as nurturing and as motivated to find emotional attachment as any human woman, and some women are as oversexed as any man.

But whatever the motivation for intercourse, biology draws a hard line between men and women at the point of pregnancy — no matter either parent’s attitude about child-rearing, the woman will bear a disproportionate burden. As the vessel for new life, the mother’s body flexes, expands and contorts to accommodate the baby growing inside her. True, the female body is designed for this, but the mother alone endures the morning sickness, the hormonal shifts, the weight gain, and the other attendant discomforts of bearing and nourishing a child.

The psychological and spiritual burden upon her can be even heavier. When the baby is unexpected — and especially if it is unwanted — the female can be pulled in many directions by those seeking to advise (or coerce) her. But the converse is arguably worse — the mother could face her situation utterly alone, or feel so ashamed or helpless that she believes she must.

Whatever the case, ultimately, it falls to the mother to terminate or to give birth, to keep or relinquish the child for someone else to raise. Even women who welcome pregnancy and motherhood confront doubts and fears about the challenges these responsibilities bring —you might remember that my mother wrote about her sudden apprehension after starting the process that ended with my adoption.

This is not to say that the mother is the only person for whom pregnancy decisions are consequential — quite plainly, no one has a higher stake than the child in the womb. But my point here is that women can avoid neither decision-making nor the ramifications of those decisions, which can include long-term financial and lifestyle obligations, as well as doubt, guilt and regret that can linger for a lifetime.

On the other hand, men are not only spared the physical demands of childbearing and childbirth; society has carved for them handy escape hatches from the few but essential responsibilities that fall to them in such matters. Ironically, many of those hatches were installed ostensibly to liberate women from purported patriarchal evils. Yet, the modern welfare state, no-fault divorce, widely available hormonal birth control and, particularly, abortion on demand have abetted — if not incentivized — males inclined to shirk financial, matrimonial or parental responsibilities.

These social policies are woodwoses that devour children. And they empower psychopaths at the expense of men committed to K strategies.

This late 15th-century tapestry from Basel depicts a woodwose being tamed by a virtuous lady. These hairy, untamed beasts of the forest were sometimes said to have superhuman strength, be deaf to the word of God and snatch and eat unsuspecting children. (Unknown artist, Basel, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.)

Modernity also entices women to adopt the worst of men’s sexual tendencies. Hook-up culture, birth control provided to unwed teens without their parents’ consent and the normalization of pornography might “liberate” young people from the prudish mores of their grandmothers.

However, they come at a steep cost — our increasingly “R” attitudes and policies regarding sexuality and marriage have coincided with an increase, not a decline, in illegitimacy.

Meanwhile, female sexuality is increasingly commodified as left-swiping young men adopt ever-more aggressive and sexist attitudes. Indeed, research indicates a correlation between a male’s consumption of pornography (which is abundant and at the ready for anyone with a smartphone) and a heightened propensity for violence toward women.

This “sexually liberated” culture poses a threat to children, as well, as has been evident since at least my biological mother’s generation. Between 1950 and 1973, the rate of unmarried teenage girls who were sexually active rose from 39% to 68%. Similarly, in the 1950s, about 40% of first births to girls between the ages of 15 and 19 were conceived out of wedlock; by 1974, the figure had skyrocketed to 60%. Many of these children were raised — and continue to be raised — in single-parent households, making them more susceptible to psychiatric illness, suicide attempts and substance-use disorders.

Perhaps our prudish grandmothers, free from this feedback loop of licentiousness, were wiser and more liberated than we realize.

I know this message will not be well-received in many quarters. I expect pushback in the comments section. Perhaps worse. What I’ve just stated is judgmental. Convicting. Perhaps even hypocritical.

Believe me, I have no grounds for sanctimony on this matter.

Wait until I tell you what I did to Jessica.

Previous

Next

Want to be the first to know when new content is posted to Looking for Lynette? Go to the home page and sign up for email notifications.