We men can feel threatened by moral ‘assumptions’ such as those above.  This is likely to invoke a reaction by some men, where the steel doors close on their feelings, leaving only logic.  They can suddenly seem to display either no emotions at all (as if they are totally indifferent to divorce or not) or even worse, they may suddenly begin to seem very fake, as if acting out ugly emotions (perhaps sarcastic humor, or mimicking) rather than expressing feelings authentically.  In a way, the male reaction to stereotypical moral ‘assumptions’ as in this debate are likely to recapitulate their reaction when moral ‘assumptions’ are embedded in real relationship arguments.  This of course, will only serve to further mask the depths of emotions some men feel, and the treacherously false emotional displays some women are capable of.

From the man’s perspective, retreating into logic is a self-protective security mechanism.  Using this technique, we are less likely to get hurt emotionally, but still able to be reasonable and fair during the discussion or debate. The male instinct during his first response (particularly for men who are ‘intellectual’), is likely to consider an analysis which relies heavily upon natural laws – the biological pros and cons, basic drives, evolutionary forces, etc. Like the male response to the commitment debate, this security mechanism is intended to insulate us (like hiding).

During the debate about commitment, a male attorney friend of mine (whom one might expect to be particularly stoic) pointed out that we often learn such “assumptions” about men and women through the mechanism of parenting.  This argument is powerful, both from the perspective of commonly lived experience by the average person and from a scientific one.  Brains are hard-wired to seek only data that confirms assumptions, and minimize observations that disconfirm.  Once programmed, there are few opportunities to rewrite.  What we learn to be true by watching our parents, so we often are compelled to believe is true for everyone.

Repeated emotional amputation, as opposed to life-long monogamy is unhealthy because re-bonding is unlikely to be as deep, trusting, and strong as the first one. After some number of separations, the “bond” can easily become a superficial and routine parade of lies and trivial politeness, pregnant with viciousness over the past (even over former relationships with others).  This of course carries forward to any children raised in such an environment.  Thus, the cycle of sex-typing (associating with same-sex role model) is programmed by simple ‘modeling’, and we are snugly fit into stereotypes.  Unless we can find a way to break or violate otherwise accurate moral assumptions about “most men”, we shall also be castigated as superficial.

This need not violate evolutionary and natural laws.  There are parallels in this view of reproductive commitment to other conflicts we experience as morally cognizant animals.  For instance, some might say that there is a sort of denial of one’s own nature when the instinct to violence becomes less emotionally governing than the instinct to bond with others.  This counter-balance applies in relationships within the workplace, our personal friendships, and other nonromantic contexts.  But again, this need not be conceptualized as a denial of our natures.  An instinct (I think) is like a very small inclination, which if rarely fed, remains insignificant.

Desires and behavioral patterns on the other hand, if carefully and intentionally practiced often, can become in many respects our new higher nature, or frankly, our personality.  As the popular phrase goes, thoughts become actions, which become habits, which become our personality, which is what and who we are.  Competing thoughts are inevitable, but those we choose to dwell upon, to focus on, meditate on, frequently reconsider, wish for, and eventually enjoy most, are those which become what we are.