Yanking this thread back to where it started, I have a theory.

Males and females have similarities and differences when you consider the ways that we love and the ways we have affairs and betray our morals or betray morals we should have as opposed to the ones we don't have. Not everyone is a moral person.

Ok, males act to protect females. Hunter/gatherer evolution or natural selection, during those countless generations when we were at that state of being, tended to place the survival of the next set of humans on the protection of females. If you didn't, the next generation of humans based on your DNA didn't tend to survive. Good enough as far as it goes.

Without question, females are more complex than males. Dr. Laura found the JPG that has been floating around the web almost since the first day email was available to the masses. She has been using the example in her teaching (and ranting). That JPG depicts a control panel that has an off and on switch and calls it 'Male." The other control panel has all sorts of switches, buttons, gauges and the like all over the panel, and is called "Female." That JPG is a simplified version of reality.

The differences between the way males and females are hard wired to think is a major component of the male/female relationship union that works to raise the next generation of humans, otherwise known as "Family life."

So from that, how do you get to Females needing protection? After mulling over all of the responses to this thread and all of the wisdom I have gleaned from life and reading the thoughts of others, I have concluded:

Some Females need the feeling of protection through a system of morals and ethics that Males need to feel they enforce. It is in the best interest of everyone that the sexes feel that way. It makes for a more stable environment to raise the next generation.

The bottom line as it relates to affairs, is that some females tend to become infatuated with romance to their discredit, wrongly interpreting infatuations as real love, and males less so. **edit**

He doesn't say there are male/female differences, that is something I came up with and so fuss at me, not him and not Harley, who is unisex in his explanations. While we hold females and males equally responsible for their actions, we should hold females somewhat more responsible for failing to protect their kids and males somewhat more responsible for not protecting females.

I believe there are primary and secondary roles when it comes to the working of most families and that is a discussion for another day. Or maybe today if someone yells at me enough.

Larry

Larry are you really trying to get a thumping LOL ?

I would still have to disagree with your theory. IMHO i still think it has nothing what so ever to do with gender. Why should women be the ones who should be "more" responsible for protecting their children, after all they are the males children as well. And as far as the male being "more" resposible for protecting the female, it should be the spouse protecting the spouse regardless of gender.

Thump all you want.

See, I see a difference between "Should be," words you used, and instinctive, hard wired male and female reactions. I started this thread asking why females needed protection. Various females said they like it that way. So in the interests of not satisfied with "It just is," I tried to figure out why.

"Should be," is an expectation of our culture. Hard wired and instinctive doesn't always match current culture IMHO.

I guess I should have added that female traits are present in males and vice versa, but for the most part, tendancies are tendancies and they are gender specific. At least that is my opinion based on the evidence I have found, subject to changing my mind if someone can educate me.

Larry

The "should be" came from what you said.

ROFLMAO Okay, you got me, sorta. Think about it.

Larry