Reflections on silverbacking

... but first an acronym. AFAA: Aerobics and and Fitness Association of America, or
Automatic Fire Alarm Association.

But yet anyways...

what to make of Senator Ensign, Governor Sanford, and Father Cutie (the latter being a good-looking hunk of a priest from Miami, with a couple of publications to boot)?

And here is where I expect to go all stream-of-consciousness, and say things I could get in trouble for. If anybody was actually reading this, of course. But nobody is, so I can say anything I want. Which I've said before.


In case you haven't been paying attention, Ensign, SAnford, and Cutie broke their vows. Ensign and Sanford's were to their wives (but remember that Christ's bride was the church, and that's how you're supposed to treat your wife), and Cutie's vows, notably of celibacy, were actually to the church -- which would be the Holy Roman Catholic Church, of course. In response to the clear pictorial evidence of his transgressions, Cutie has gone Episcopalian.

And each of them broke 'em. Each of them committed adultery (well, I don't know what the technical term for a priest having a girlfriend/lover is, but I assume it's similar).

We haven't seen many pictures of the "other women" in the Ensign and Sanford sagas -- well, maybe in the Ensign saga. The thing is, Senator Ensign's wife is pretty attractive, the other woman -- not as much. Sanford -- we don't know yet. But the first thing I thought when I heard Argentina was "The Girl from Ipanema", and if you do a search for "Helo Pinheiro", prepare to be amazed. (Especially if you've got your preferences set in a particular way.) I may comment on the amazingness of Michelle Pfeiffer at her certain age, but the Helo is well, HELLO.

But Father Cutie's cutie is cute. Her name is Ruhama Buni. Check out the evidential linkages (these are safe, by the way:

In the pew

Becoming Episcopal (she's the woman in the middle)

So what are we to make of this? If you've been following one of the themes of fascination in my blog (which would be amazing because nobody is really reading it, but speaking theoretically), it is about silverbacks -- which in the human realm I'm defining generally as wealthy, accomplished, successful, men who are noted for their success or in roles defined by success -- such as being an elected politician, which requires the success of winning an election, and which by doing so makes one a designated leader of the human tribe. And silverbacks are defined by one particular noteworthy activity, which is, the dating, mating and bedding -- not necessarily in that order -- of much younger, commonly attractive, sometimes highly desirable, women. In many cases, the pairing of the much younger lovely with the elderly gent strikes us as peculiar, or off-putting, or just plain "sick"; we think of dirty old men, or lechers, or men not acting their age.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I commented briefly very early on when I started this on the evolutionary aspects of this, and they are still in the forefront. Silverbacks are leaders. They are the ablest, strongest, wiliest, most noble warriors for the tribe; they don't just lead and look out for the welfare of the tribe, they defend it. They establish their position testosteronically, through ascendancy and battle (and this is not just for gorillas from whence cometh the designation "silverback", but alpha males of many different species: wolves, mountain goats, lions, elephant seals, and birds of extraordinarily different types and plumages) -- chicks dig the brightest, biggest, toughest, LUCKIEST, handsomest, smartest male.

It's evolution at its best and worst: babes want the best genes, and they figure that the leader of the pack and the man with the mostest has got them. And the silverbacks and alpha males and top dog and ahem, biggest rooster take what is offered and expect to get it. It's really part of their duty for the good of the tribe, pack, pride, flock, herd, school -- whatever group they lead, to father progeny, for as long as they can and with as many as they can, until supplanted.

Now, they are some things different with humans, such as a prevalence of monogamous relationships in societies around the world (but not all of them), as well as the well-noted hidden estrus. When animal babes want to get fertilized (and are capable of it), there is no doubt about it, and the cognizant males are virtually hormonically helpless to resist. And they don't. They shouldn't. Again, it's their duty to take what's offered. Their have been theories about the linkage between hidden estrus and monogamy, most centered on uncertainty in parentage as well as the extended period of dependency of human offspring. The not-so-weird thing is, there have also been studies showing that the optimum time for relationships and marriages to go bust is about four years into them -- which is about the time it would take for a human offspring to become capable of foraging on its own, or at least capable of doing it with less adult supervision. Thus, at the time it is genetically and evolutionarily advisable to get a new mate, and mix up the gene pool.

So where I am going with this? When you get situations like this, be they Ensign, or Sanford, or Cutie, or Clinton, or Livingston or Gingrich or Gibson (Mel) or Laliberte or Dumbledore (the actor, really) or Tony Randall or Kevin Costner or Trump or Sarkozy or Thomas Jefferson or Harrison Ford or ... get the picture? And there are hosts of professional athletes and musicians of all genres and bankers and Hamptonites and top-notch cyclists (recently discussed here) that have all done the same thing. Which is ... done what comes naturally. Acted like leaders; acted like silverbacks.

So who's to blame? Well, here's where I get a little bit controversial (as if anyone cares, I remind myself). Is it the guy, or is it the girl? The boy or the babe? The male or the female? OK, I'm going to point the evolutionary finger of blame at the babes. Before any women would theoretically get all ticked-offnut on that, I get a chance to explain. It does take two to tango, we know that. But somebody has to get the dance started. And it is entirely and excusably natural for a woman (or women) to react to the presence of a silverback by, well, indicating interest. Demonstrating availability. Even though estrus is hidden, using their feminine wiles to make every sign that the mating light is "on". It could be wider pupils, redder makeup, better shaking and shimmying (remember that study which showed strippers make more money in tips when their at the peak of their reproductive cycle?), fuller lips, fuller breasts, and even a scent of a woman that they can't entirely control. And there is definite demonstration that woman do this consciously -- we've heard of groupies, the girls on the bus, the girls that wait outside the locker room exit for the team on the road trip. It happens, be it the mating response or the sexual response or both. Women are genetically programmed to want to get it on with the team captain, the top gun, the sheik, the king (and I've commented on the Tudors too, already, I note).


And the silverback does sniff around. It's his due, his role as the strong and charismatic leader. The king expects his courtesans and concubines, the sheik his harem girls, the quarterback his cheerleaders. And if there is availability, there is reaction and response. He picks up on the signals, determines that the status is capable and the field is ready to be plowed, and despite all the socio-political standards that he breaks, the rules, the regulations, the potential damage to family and career and many of the measures of his success (say goodbye to a LOT, Mel) -- he gets it up, gets it on, and also does what comes naturally.

And that's why it happens, so often that it's a pattern we recognize in all of its manifestations, be it the adulterer, the May-October age difference, the multiplicity of fatherhood with multiple baby mamas. To say all this does not excuse or condone the irresponsibility and recklessness of the behavior, the damage it does to families and kids and stability, and the laws it breaks, be they societal or religious laws -- saying all this just basically says we're humans, naked apes, still subject to the primitive instincts that roil just beneath our civilized veneers.

And that, truly, is probably why I like pretty girls too.


[And I'm sorry Michael Jackson died.]