London - Oh how rare it is - in this post-politically correct age of ours - to encounter a public figure who dares say what they think. No wonder, then, that British actor Edward Fox’s assertion that men are hopeless at being faithful has shocked so many.
“In relationships, men wander naturally, and we cheat because we’re totally different creatures,” Fox told the Daily Mail. “Men need to play the field and spread their seed, whereas women don’t have that same biological urge — it’s not natural.”
Seemingly oblivious to the eggshells he was trampling on, he continued: ‘Because of that essential difference, women should be more understanding if their partner cheats - but it is very difficult for all women to be tolerant and patient and understanding.’
Very difficult indeed, judging by the furious response of the self-appointed sexism police, but Fox doesn’t give a fig.
“Men are more animalistic than these metropolitan, so-called ‘civilised’, ‘[good’ people,” he added, before concluding that he was relieved “not to be a young man today”.
Given Fox’s age,78, many might dismiss his views as those of an old-fashioned roué who has no concept of how the modern world works. In reality they are the wise reflections of a man who’s seen it all and doesn’t care what you think.
And anyway, he’s right. You can dress up the male of the species any way you like, from powdered pomander wigs to touchy-feely hipster beards, but the basic product remains the same. That is to say: randy to randier, with occasional bouts of extreme randiness.
The same, as Fox points out, is not necessarily true of the female. It’s not a criticism, it’s a fact. And most sensible women understand this.
There is a simple biological reason for this inequality. Strip away the social, intellectual and political niceties and the primary function of sex, human and otherwise, remains reproduction.
In males, nature has chosen a scatter-gun approach: sow the seed far and wide and hope to score as many hits as possible. In females, the strategy is usually more considered: find someone who might be prepared to stick around - at least until the baby’s born or through the infant years.
Needless to say, it’s not a narrative that plays well with certain feminists. They’re not interested in the biology, it’s ideology that concerns them.
If feminism has done women any disservice over the years, it has been to mess with that simple biological formula by asserting that women, because they have the same levels of intelligence and ability as men, must also have the same kind of sex drive and that men must try to identify more with their feminine side in order to atone for centuries of patriarchal oppression.
The net result is a terrible confusion all round, with women having lots of sex they don’t particularly want but feel they ought to do because, well, that’s what emancipation is all about and, besides, the women’s mags told them to; and men having to do an awful lot of sympathetic listening and general empathising when all they really want is a quick fumble followed by a nice snooze.
Now, as well as misdirected feminism, we also have a new piece of idiot-think to deal with: the concept of so-called “gender fluidity”.
In a world where young people are being co-opted into believing that gender is less a biological imperative than a socio-political choice, Fox’s assertion of reality is as refreshing as a cool shower.
The fact is, most women aren’t as interested in sex as men. They may be to begin with, of course, and desire is by no means a male preserve.
But once the responsibilities of career, children and goodness knows what else begin to weigh on them, sex seems always to be at the bottom of a never-ending to-do list.
This is because, as well as bearing many burdens, women have a much more complex relationship with their bodies than men. And it’s easy to see why: men don’t get ripped apart by childbirth, or subjected to monthly hormonal cycles, or sucked dry by the menopause.
Men’s bodies aren’t an emotional battleground in the same way that women’s are. They are fertile well into old age, and with reason: as far as nature’s concerned, the more genetic material they manage to propagate, the better it is for the survival of the species.
In the context of marriage, this naturally presents a problem. But then marriage was invented a long time ago, when life was brutish and short.
It was conceived as much to protect females from feckless impregnators - as a way of ensuring commitment to mother and child - as it was to bind women to domesticity.
It also tended not to last very long. Until the mid-half of the 20th century, incidences of maternal mortality were frighteningly high, as was the likelihood of famine, war or plague. The world was full of merry widows and widowers.
It’s only now, when we live well into our 80s in relatively good health, that couples face spending decades together. Marry now, and the expectation is that you will be together for the rest of your lives. And that could be a very long time indeed.
Modern marriage, then, has to be about much more than sex. It’s a longer game, two lives growing together, supporting one another through the vicissitudes of life.
There is only one type of infidelity no marriage can survive: that of the heart. Everything else can be fixed. That is why destroying an otherwise happy marriage because one partner has strayed is like tearing down a house because you can’t agree on the choice of wallpaper.
However hurtful it may seem at the time, Fox is right: it is worth considering the bigger picture.
Because, when all is said and done and you’re both sipping gin and tonics against the advice of your doctor in your garden at the age of 90, will either of you care about some fleeting peccadillo?
Or will you bask in the satisfaction of a life lived to the full - together?
Daily Mail