Dunno if it works this way.
Men are hard-wired to spread their seed, to take risks, to compete, to be more visually oriented than women who are - allegedly - more articulate and verbal than us blokes ... but ... what ... if ... it's ... all ... bullshit? ...
You don't have to go far to find a news story or scientific article about men enslaved to their brains and biology - blokes "hard-wired to ignore their wives", guys "hard-wired to be suspicious of their lovers" or men "hard-wired to cuddle babies".
Lord knows I've written enough blog posts in which I've also blithely suggested my brothers and I are "hard-wired" to experience whatever act or emotion I felt like banging on about that day.
But how much of it is actually scientifically verifiable?
And how much of this scientific verification is influenced by the temper of the time?
In his book, In Search of Human Nature, historian Carl Degler details how biological explanations for explaining human behaviour, such as Darwinism, have long faded in and out of fashion.
Degler's no slouch. According to Oxford University Press: "He won the Pulitzer Prize in history in 1972, and is a past president of both the Organisation of American Historians and the American Historical Association. Carl Degler is one of America's most eminent living historians."
About his book, the site says: "The idea of a biological root to human nature was almost universally accepted at the turn of the century, Degler points out, then all but vanished from social thought only to reappear in the last four decades.
"Degler traces the early history of this idea, from Darwin's argument that our moral and emotional life evolved from animals just as our human shape did ... We also see the many applications of biology, from racism, sexism, and social Darwinism to the rise of intelligence testing, the eugenics movement, and the practice of involuntary sterilisation of criminals."
Which means? Well, Degler's contention is that certain aspects of biological determinism wax and wane to fit the ideological or political inclinations of an era.
"This indicates that culturally these explanations serve to prop up what are largely ideological concepts of masculinity and femininity," writes Shira Tarrant of Degler's book in her work Men and Feminism.
"Science definitely has its place in helping us to understand our biological selves. But in our culture these days science puts the seal of approval on issues that often have political components as well as biological ones ... science does not equal fact. Science equals fact plus ideology plus politics.
"As science writer Keely Savoie put it in her blog, 'Science - you slap that label on something and in most circles it instantly attains a level of credibility that almost nothing else can equal. But what trickles into the popular media as science news is far from infallible, following a circuitous process riddled with bias, judgment, and ideology,'" Tarrant quotes.
It's an interesting argument that Tarrant illustrates pretty amusingly with the story of the sperm and the egg.
"The presumably innocent explanation of human conception is actually a profoundly gendered metaphor. The conventional sperm-and-egg rhetoric exposes how political ideas or cultural narratives can be foisted on to science," Tarrant writes.
Now think about this - how does the story usually go?
The egg sits there passively, and all these competing sperm swim furiously towards the egg, like salmon fording waterfalls until the victor pierces the egg and conception happens. All very heroic.
What's closer to the truth, says David H. Freedman writing in Discover magazine, is:
"A wastefully huge swarm of sperm weakly flops along, its members bumping into walls and flailing aimlessly through thick strands of mucus. Eventually, through sheer odds of pinball-like bouncing … a few sperm end up close to an egg. As they mill around, the egg selects one and reels it in, pinning it down in spite of its efforts to escape. It's no contest, really. The gigantic hardy egg yanks the tiny sperm inside, distils out the chromosomes, and sets out to become an embryo."
However, that's not how it reads in most science and biology books, where we get the egg as the damsel in distress, won over by the warrior sperm.
"From the early 1970s on, studies of the sperm and eggs of many species have revealed that molecules released by the egg are critical to guiding and activating the sperm," Freedman writes.
So, if we're to believe Freedman and Tarrant, those sperm aren't so tough and independent after all.
It's fascinating stuff and, if such a fundamental story of biology can go from cultural myth to scientific myth, it makes you wonder how many other questionable "facts" men and women are sold because they happen to fit the latest trends in cultural anthropology or sociology.
It also makes me wonder how many men indulge in behaviour simply because they've been told since high-school they are "hard-wired" to do it, when, in fact, they may just be acting out a cultural myth encouraged by scientists and media alike.
Jeez, don't I have some fans in Melbourne? Every single-speed bike-riding university lit student with a tumblr blog down there seems to think I'm an arsewipe, so it'll come as wonderful news to them all I'll be speaking at the iconic Sun bookshop in Yarraville on September 14. It's a free event, but bookings are essential so call 03 9689 0661 or email firstname.lastname@example.org.