It is often difficult for people to describe what they want, and therefore difficult to understand how to behave selflessly towards other people. By using evolutionary psychology, it is possible to determine what most people want so that they can have it through mutual selflessness. This is my own analysis from basic evolutionary principles and observation. I have found that it is a very good model on which to base gender-specific needs.

Evolution

The process of evolution is based upon individuals who are the product of information encoded by genes. Small changes in genes can arise by random chance. A changed gene that increases the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce is able to spread copies of itself through the descendants of that individual. Evolutionary psychology makes the assumption that our psychology has evolved in the same way as all other aspects of humanity, to increase the chance of survival and reproduction of an individual. Some genes are only expressed in one gender, allowing for differences between the genders to be propagated. Both men and women are adapted to pass on their own genes successfully. This analysis discusses physiological and psychological adaptations that are present in men and women to increase the chances that their genes are passed on successfully.

Women

• Unlike men, women are very limited in the number of offspring that they can produce. Female reproduction is therefore concentrated on the quality rather than the quantity of their offspring. Sometimes, adaptations are paradoxical. For example, women are menopausal (they lose the ability to reproduce). This may be an adaptation that arose in ancient cultures where people lived in extended families; older women could look after their grandchildren while the younger women scavenged for food.

• Human children are very resource-intensive, and there are adaptations in women to help direct male resources into families. In our evolutionary history, genetic adaptations that increased the security of a woman would increase the likelihood that her children would survive into adulthood due to the increased support from a male. This is the origin of the female drive for security, which is discussed below. It is worth noting that both female reproduction and survival are facilitated by gaining security. This differs from men, where survival and reproduction are obtained through separate means. Hence it can be expected that women should have one primary drive for security and an array of mechanisms to obtain it, whereas men can be expected to have a variety of drives directed towards different objectives.

• Women are often playful and very socially intelligent. Presumably, this mentality facilitates communication with children, an evolutionary adaptation to help children develop. These more child-like female qualities also act as an adaptation to play The Game (the process by which male/female relationships are often formed), which requires a very high level of social intelligence. It is a long process, which requires a man to give a commitment of time, which helps to increase female security (men are less likely to abandon a woman if they think that they will have to spend the same amount of time forming another relationship). The Game can involve flirtatious behaviour and body language to communicate attraction, disinterest when man shows interest, rejection when man makes an advance, using other men to promote jealousy and insecurity, further body language to show attraction, appearing to be helpless like a child to promote male protectiveness, and eventual acceptance of the man. The Game can be played by a social group of women in which the other women in the group act to promote male insecurity and may also probe them for information about their views and feelings; this is an adaptation that is advantageous to all women. As in most species, women are rarely in direct competition for men. Social aspects of The Game are not passed on genetically. They are learned by trial and error and discussions about men between women.

  Upon successful completion of The Game, security is usually consolidated by sex; i.e. the sexual act not only serves to enable reproduction but also to cause male dependency on their partners as a source of pleasure (a form of addiction). For this to work, the overall availability of sex to most men must be low, hence the stigma surrounding prostitution and immorality. In a long term relationship, denial of sex to a male can be used to maintain security by exerting a strong influence over a male.

• Men can be more desirable to some women if they are more dominant, difficult to subdue, sexually confident, physically attractive or in possession of other characteristics that make them more likely to sleep with other women. Paradoxically this is genetically desirable to women because her male children are likely to pass on her genes more effectively (like their father). However, some women may deliberately choose men who lack these characteristics to decrease the chances that they will have an affair, increasing their own security. Thus, female taste in men varies considerably. In general, male adultery is a threat to female security, and most women react accordingly if they find out that their male partners are having an affair.

• Most women do not ask men to go out with them or to marry them. Instead, The Game is used to entice a man to ask a woman to out with him and to ask a woman to marry him. The psychological effect is to encourage men to think that they want marriage as much or even more than a woman, increasing female security.

• Women have better peripheral vision than men, so that they can see when men are showing interest in them without having to look directly at them. This allows a woman to assess how easily she will be able to attract a male before starting The Game. Men have poorer peripheral vision, and the direction of their gaze (e.g. towards the breasts) also acts as an indicator to women of sexual interest.

• Women show physiological adaptations to appear to be more child-like, such as a high pitched voice, higher quality skin tone, lack of facial hair, smaller average height and lower average physical strength. This increases the overall security provided by men due to the association with children and the desire to protect them.

• Although there is no clear scientific evidence for gender specific emotion, everyday experience of relationships and evolutionary principles strongly suggest that there are significant differences. For example, men do not love women in the same way that women love men. Male love is an emotional dependency that women select for in men to increase their security. It could be described as a constant longing to be with someone, and a woman may choose to make it very difficult for a male to gain access to her during the initial stages of The Game. This means that he will start to associate her absence with a feeling of unhappiness, which makes it more likely that he will remain with her and provide security. By contrast to male love, female love is a child-like desire for security and protection. Thus, both genders use the word 'love' to describe two completely different things that are both directed towards female security. This is genetically desirable because children are more likely to survive and pass on the genes of both parents if a male is willing to provide security. Therefore, adaptations to increase female security are present in both genders. Both male and female love are equally good, but the traditional meaning of the word refers to the male emotion.

  From evolutionary principles, female love should not take the form of an emotional dependence, because this would interfere with The Game, and would serve to decrease female security. The idea that women do not love men in this way is a very unpopular assertion to make and is disliked by both genders. Men want to believe that their partners love them in the same way that they love their partners. Women dislike the assertion because it threatens the security afforded by men. There are, however, very pronounced differences in the way that men and women treat each other that suggest major psychological differences in the nature of the bond formed by each gender in close personal relationships. For example, unlike men, few woman would ever buy a man flowers, chocolates or diamond rings.

• Male emotions have specific purposes such as anger to drive them to fight (e.g. in wars to protect their families) and love to increase female security. One can apply evolutionary principles to suggest that female emotional responses are optimised to increase security. For example, women become angry if their male partners are behaving in a way that suits themselves rather than providing security (such as spending their money in a pub). Many women are more likely to cry than men, especially if their security is threatened. Men associate crying with being very unhappy, and they usually respond by deferring to a female and increasing her security. This is probably the reason why we cry (an arbitrary response linked to a male emotion that is paralleled in women whenever their security is threatened, eliciting a desirable response from a male due to an emotional association, leading to increased female security and more effective propagation of the genes of both men and women). Thus male and female emotional responses result from completely different stimuli, although both are directed towards increasing female security. It is possible that the same emotions are experienced in both genders, but are triggered by different things. Alternatively, it is possible that some or all of the emotions are a uniquely male experience, and automatic responses have evolved in women to give the impression of having appropriate emotions to increase their security.

  It is also possible that there is a range of female psychologies between these two extremes, which may account for the varied opinions about male/female differences in existing literature. For example, feminist sociology usually defines male and female psychology to be identical, with differences mainly due to sociological effects (e.g. Masculine, Feminine or Human? by Janet Saltzman Chafetz). Alternatively, such literature could be intended to increase the general security of women, i.e. that women should be able to gain security both through marriage and through their careers, and that men should accept both without complaining or becoming abusive. I support arguments for equality between the genders, but I am more skeptical about the arguments for their similarity.

  One problem with discussions about female psychology in existing literature is that only women are qualified to describe it, but most famous psychologists are male. In addition, it is not in the interests of women to give any information to men other than that which serves to increase their security. Feminists often provide their own security, and may therefore be more willing to give an honest account of female psychology. The Manipulated Man (Esther Vilar) is written by a feminist, and gives a very polarised view of men and women. In this book, men are described to be intelligent, and women unintelligent, cold and manipulative. I disagree with her assertion that female intelligence is relatively low, and the consequent implication that women are instinctual and not responsible for their behaviour. Esther Vilar has received death threats for publishing her book. In particular, her book was unpopular with women. This may suggest that if women talk openly on this subject, they risk decreasing their own security not only from men but from other women who perceive that their security is threatened as a result. For this reason, feminist books may be inaccurate and may fail to tell the whole story. Another factor that may inhibit a good description of female psychology is that many women are brought up to believe that they experience life in the same way as men, when this may not be the case. Hence, women's ability to judge their own psychology objectively may be impaired by sociological conditioning.

• Some sociologists argue that different behaviour traits observed in the two genders in different cultures is evidence for their psychological similarity, with differences coming primarily from their social environment rather than their genes. Sociological effects do have a significant impact on people, but the differences observed in different cultures may simply mean that there are many different ways for men and women to fulfill their respective desires for sex and security. For example, the nuances and subtlety of The Game seems to be most well understood by women brought up in the Western culture. By contrast to the West, women in Russia seem to lack this cultural knowledge, and classes have become popular to teach women aspects of The Game. Within the Western culture, there is a range of knowledge and talent among women relating to The Game. In addition, many aspects of The Game become less important in a Church context, because Christian men expect marriage. It is probable that the Church views on morality are a major motivation for both men and women to go to Church despite the interference with normal sexual relations; both men and women may feel more secure with a partner who believes that they will burn in hell if they have an affair.

  In "Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies" (1935), Margaret Mead compared the sex roles of three New Guinea Societies, and claimed that all three were arranged very differently from our own. Her research is often used to promote the idea that gender stereotypes are determined by society. However, I propose alternative conclusions for each of the three societies based on evolutionary psychology. In the Arapesh culture both men and women seemed to be feminine. In this culture, men were allocated female partners from an early age; women gained security from men without having to do anything, and men gained sex without having to go through the flirting/dating/marriage game and did not have to prove their worth, dominance, power or influence or fight other men. Thus, the needs of both genders were fulfilled without the need for social posturing, meaning that male aggression was unnecessary and this society was peaceful.

  By contrast, in the Mundugamor culture, both men and women seemed to be masculine, aggressive and cannibalistic. In this society, women would not have been able to achieve a high level of security, even when married, due to the aggressive culture. Under these circumstances, the best way to ensure security could be preparedness to fight for it. The Mundugamor grew up tough and independent because the women in this culture did not nurture their children. There were taboos surrounding pregnancy and newborn children, and women resented the restrictions to their freedom that child-rearing demanded.

  In the third culture, Mead found that the Tchambuli had distinctive gender roles, but the reverse of those in the West; men seemed to be more emotional, whereas women held the social and economic power. In most societies, men have tended to hold the social and economic power, and male emotion (such as love) serves to provide women security. In the Tchambuli society, it seems that women had direct control over the social and economic power (providing security), and men had more freedom to express their emotions.

• Women are often willing to die to protect their young children, which demonstrates the strength of the bond between mother and child. This bond contrasts with the one that exists between a woman and her male partner (women are not usually prepared to die for their male partners). As mentioned above, the Mundugamor women were unusual because they did not appear to experience a significant maternal bond. This might be because their security was not increased through having children due to the taboos in their culture. It is therefore possible that the maternal bond may be partially due to the increased security that pregnancy and childrearing provides in most cultures. If so, a threat to a child may be perceived to be a threat to a woman's security, which is a threat to her own survival. This may go some way towards explaining why women are prepared to die for their children.

• There is a tendency among people to view those different from ourselves as being less human. "We are the only true humans," is a sentiment found in many cultures, especially further back in history. The same appears to be true for the way that both genders view each other. The genetic advantage of this viewpoint is to make exploitation and other forms of selfishness seem less distasteful. Most women view most men as being emotionally insecure, possessing inferior social intelligence and being easy to manipulate to gain the security that they desire. Most men view most women as being inexplicable, helpless, vulnerable, argumentative, bossy and highly emotional. Both genders have a tendency to view the opposite gender as a sub-human that exists solely to provide for the other gender's needs.

• Studies have shown that women tend to have a higher level of interconnection between the left and right hemispheres of the brain than men. Presumably this enables a higher rate of data transfer between the two halves of the brain, and has been linked by some studies to an increased linguistic/social ability. Men have larger brains and more grey matter, which may enable an improved ability learn about and manipulate the environment (i.e. to be a breadwinner).

• Unlike women, male reproductive potential is virtually unlimited, with some historical monarchs fathering hundreds of children. However, as discussed above, sex is not readily available to men from women. Most men attempt to increase their reproductive potential by competing with other men. This is often expressed as a desire to be the dominant male in order to secure greater mating rights, and to be seen to be more attractive to women. This incorporates a desire to have importance, influence and power over others, usually defining self-worth to be that which is of value to women. Men usually have a desire to protect and support their family.

• Many married men often desire affairs with other women, to have a 'bit on the side' without having to provide security or protection. From a genetic perspective, it is best for a man to put a lot of resources into children where he is more certain of their parentage, while simultaneously spreading his genes elsewhere.

• Single men can be made to feel insecure by members of both genders and the values held by society. In addition, men who are in a relationship with a woman are often insecure about the possibility of her having an affair. This insecurity surrounds a desire to own a woman, because paternal parentage is less certain than maternal parentage. It is genetically advantageous for men to restrict the relationships that a woman has with other men.

• Men are generally more attracted to younger women because they are more likely to be fertile.

• Many men have a desire to attack other men who are perceived to be dominant. In civilised society, physical attacks are discouraged, so psychological attacks have evolved instead. The desire for men to attack other men may come from a feeling of jealousy, inferiority, envy, sadism or aggression and anger. A high level of social intelligence is required to enable psychological attacks on other men. Women are able to select men with a high level of social intelligence by choosing the ones that make them laugh.

  An aggressor may pretend to be a submissive male, and may emphasize how brilliant the victim is, while maintaining how unintelligent or weak they are themselves. This differs from a normal dominance hierarchy in that it usually occurs in situations where there is no apparent need for one man to be submissive to the other. A newcomer to a male group may be attacked in this way by the existing dominant male if they fail to act submissively; the dominant male may also draw on the support of the group. This leads the victim into a false sense of security, allowing the aggressor to probe them for information and weaknesses that can be used in a later attack. The false submissiveness becomes patronising when it becomes apparent that the aggressor was concealing his intelligence. An attack should be subtle enough for the victim to find it difficult to express in words. An aggressor may make frequent inane comments or sing random songs that become much more focused when, for example, another man is actively pursuing a woman. Propagation of misinformation is common in the workplace to make the victim look unprofessional. Inexplicable behaviour from the aggressor can serve to confuse the victim. The process works best if the aggressor is physically stronger than the victim due to general intimidation.

  Some cultural differences may be due to different overall levels of availability of sex to men. A lower availability may promote male aggression, whereas a higher availability may promote peacefulness and even cooperativity. For example, on several occasions, I have observed African men encourage others to form relationships if they do not see an immediate opportunity to form a relationship with a woman themselves. By contrast, Western men usually adopt the attitude that less sex for other men means more sex for themselves.

• A man is more likely to pass on his genes if he has the social intelligence to deceive women by pretending to be protective, submissive, easily manipulated or in love. Men are also more reproductively successful if they have an ability to identify vulnerable women.

• Men usually express a desire to learn about and manipulate objects and the environment, which enables them to become better breadwinners.

Both genders have evolved in such a way as to provide women with security. One can therefore pose the question, "Is it in a woman's best interests to love her neighbour as herself when she can already obtain what she wants?"

Selfless behaviour is frequently observed in women. Religious women may believe that they will gain greater security from God if they behave with a degree of selflessness, and a large proportion of voluntary work is carried out by women. They may also increase their security from men if they show selfless behaviour towards others; men tend to assume that it must be their own fault if the only person who a woman is unkind to is himself. Female selflessness is made more possible because of a larger amount of free time that a woman can have if her male partner acts as the sole breadwinner in a relationship.

However, close personal relationships with men are not selfless because their purpose from a female perspective is the selfish acquisition of security. Men are also selfish in the relationship formation process, focusing on their desire for sex. Women are able to obtain security by using male sexuality and emotion to elicit Pavlovian responses. For example, if a man does something that decreases a woman's security, he will be made to feel unhappy; if he does something to increase her security, he will be made to feel happy. Men usually dislike this process, and attempting to force a man to provide security is unlikely to encourage cooperation. A significant proportion of relationships are thought to entail domestic abuse (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2752567.stm). Men often rebel against female demands, may descend into depression or alcoholism and may eventually leave their female partners. The friction in relationships caused by conflicting desires leads to both men and women feeling stressed. Consequently, women have much lower levels of security than would be possible in an environment in which people loved their neighbours as themselves. For this reason, it is in the interests of both genders to love their neighbours as themselves in an environment in which others are doing the same.