The Body: Our Reality That We Have Wasted

Tamer Salah El-Din

What’s the difference between an acrobat and a government clerk? What are the dietary components of a farmer in Egypt compared to the “blends” found on the table of a wealthy man living in Cairo? How does this affect our perception of women and our interactions with them?!

Long ago, our ancestors on this earth were astonishingly rare; for instance, the first census recorded by anthropologists in Western Europe noted only about six thousand individuals living side by side with Neanderthals and early humans across vast expanses of land. Back then, our “food” was not as varied, and both our muscles and joints—indeed, all our senses—functioned differently. The sixth sense was likely sharper, enabling them to anticipate dangers much like modern birds and rodents. Humans, in all their forms, were prey to various predators, while also being hunters themselves. Like any living creature in those times, they needed keen senses to signal the recurring disasters that struck the world unexpectedly, relying solely on their experiences to hone their predictive capabilities. Thus, humans became resilient and strong, much like today’s gymnasts and acrobats, fully equipped to survive and thrive through generations.

With such a lifestyle, our ancestors did not experience obesity, much like athletes, farmers, and those following contemporary dietary regimes. Naturally, the “body”—regardless of gender—conformed to two basic models: the Latin “V” shape, characterized by broad shoulders and a waist “without hips,” resembling an almost perfect alignment of feet firmly planted on the ground. The other model is the “Banana,” in which the body maintains uniform width across shoulders, waist, and feet. However, this does not mean that other body shapes were absent; a finely crafted statue from the Stone Age depicts a “full-figured” woman resembling an “Apple,” suggesting that this form intrigued early artists, possibly to appeal to a leader or a long-lost chieftain.

The demands of that lifestyle required both muscles and intelligence, "creating" a human devoid of excess fat, with the right balance of water, minerals, and natural salts in their body. Was the “female” physically similar to the male? Or was she “crafted” with unique characteristics to perform specific roles? The answer is not straightforward. The essence of existence revolves around the preservation of the “species” for all creatures, not just humans. So, let’s first consider “reproduction.”

With a few remarkable exceptions, each sex provides two complementary entities—male and female—acting as both subject and object simultaneously. Here, we touch upon the nature of reproductive relationships, which are largely understandable and don’t require extensive elaboration. In both wild and marine plants and in creatures generally, there exists a “carrier and producer” with external assistance representing the “complementary” element. While experts can distinguish between genders within the same species—be it plant or animal—without examination, we humans, starting from puberty, can typically identify a boy or girl at first glance, barring the influences of clothing, toys, and societal norms. How is it then that we cannot grasp the nature of this difference in many mammals, birds, insects, and other creatures?

Long ago—perhaps before the scientific revolution—when humanity first developed means of expression, artists and scholars of ancient times illustrated the contrasts between our “kinds.” With a refined sensitivity often seen among specific primate and predator families, like gorillas, monkeys, and lions in forests and open parks, male humans were linked to females and their groups. Initially, they resembled predatory behaviors and herding of cattle, where strength prevailed, enabling the strongest offspring to inherit their father’s mates, influence, and territory. As intellect and emotions evolved, alongside the emergence of “social roles” and reciprocal relationships—often driven by mutual interests and benefits—coupled with the diversity of food sources and means of production, and later pastoral and agricultural specialization linked to the formation of the “family,” emotional closeness took on a “noble” character This natural evolution, coupled with the “diversity” of foods, led to a different pattern of “work” and responsibilities that broadly affected the “shape” of human bodies and the nature of their roles. However, it particularly resulted in significant changes in the “traits” of females, causing their bodies to evolve more than males into forms outside the “V” and “Banana” models.

Due to the “social roles” in rural Egypt and later in urban settings, along with the type of food and the laziness introduced by technological advancement, five distinct models of the female body can be clearly observed. The most famous of these is, of course, the “hourglass” shape, which is more urban than rural, primarily due to clothing styles. In this form, the woman is characterized by broad shoulders, a back that may carry some fat at the waist and middle referred to as “love handles,” complemented by a prominent bust, a narrow waist, and full hips elevated on somewhat apart legs, resembling a “glass hourglass.” This “formation” has been distinguished by many stars, both Arab and foreign, the most notable being the late ''Mimi Shekib''.

In this environment, most of these predatory creatures formed “families,” where the father would not dominate the mother or take another wife, in contrast to many birds, including “doves,” among which a tendency toward polygamy or “infidelity” has been observed, especially among males.

The surprising prevalence of the “apple” shape among women in the rural areas of Egypt, especially in households with many male children, is attributed to the fact that the “big mother” enjoys a level of comfort unlike anyone else, while the wives of her sons handle the duties of service and care, taking on household responsibilities. The “head woman” often serves as a “teacher” in the best scenarios, overseeing household tasks, and perhaps even marital duties, evaluating, critiquing, and adjusting the household’s rhythm.

This role transformation shifts from a “physical” one, constantly active when the “mother was a caregiver,” to a “critical intellectual” one that is both maternal and collective, after she becomes the “head” of the family. This transition comes with “comfort” and changes in the “pattern” of food consumption—not just in the type of meals and their importance. Coupled with the relatively early “youthful maturity” due to the typically young marriage age in deep Egypt, fat accumulates quickly in the face—especially in the “temples”—then in the neck, which becomes cylindrical, and of course, in the shoulders, abdomen, hips, and legs, extending down to the soles of the feet. Thus, this “woman” becomes round like a fully ripe apple, nearing a state of decline swiftly, despite her relatively young age compared to the “grandmothers” in urban settings.

While the “hourglass” figure is more urban and representative of city life compared to the rural “apple,” there exists another clear distinction between rural and urban women and men, which resembles the varied forms of creatures in nature.

In the rural areas of Egypt—particularly in the northern regions, which I know intimately—without adhering to any specific sports regimen or diet, we can liken the bodies of women to descriptions of purebred animals and beautiful birds on a farm. For instance, a “young woman” with a “banana” shape also possesses some “roundness” and tends to walk slowly, much like most of them, easily leading one to describe her as a “goose.”

Those who have a pear-shaped body, with small, rounded shoulders and a well-defined waist above prominent and protruding hips, exhibit a fluidity akin to that of a “duck,” whose shape mimics that of a fishing boat in the Nile, which is actually larger than the Canadian kayak, despite the similarity in their streamlined design, much like the resemblance between the pear-shaped woman and the duck.

Some other women resemble sturdy horses, exhibiting both strength in their physique and grace in their movements, with the ability to perform hard work, along with the beauty of their faces and eyes. Regardless of the external model of their bodies, the nature of one’s composition might evoke—if combined with a touch of imagination and a collective memory—other creatures from nature and mythology, perhaps even mermaids.

Can we describe the men of the countryside, particularly in the northern regions and, more broadly, throughout Upper Egypt, as they distance themselves from the “river delta” and the southern valley of Nubia, where human body composition, muscle size, and height differ significantly from those of the “northerners”?

Yes, we can generally describe them with a single word: very athletic, without any specialization or expertise beyond engaging in spontaneous and vigorous rural sports, such as betting on carrying grain sacks over long distances or racing to complete tasks without specific rewards. Fishing from irrigation canals and ditches is, of course, part of the daily activities there.

In the city, a quick survey—admittedly not grounded in scientific research—reveals that young women prefer to present themselves in the shape of a “banana.” This preference is not just because this type of fruit is beloved and the best-selling globally among agricultural and food products, which young boys often use to describe beautiful girls, without realizing that the term is actually a metaphor for body shape. Rather, it is because they favor the flowing silhouette that allows them to wear various clothing without excessive details or prominent bulges. Of course, they won’t achieve that appearance through sports or dietary regimens if their natural build leads them to a different model. Yet, their ultimate goal remains “slenderness” with graceful legs.

In truth, no one can extricate humans from the “definitional” shape of the human body, even among people in Africa, East Asia, Indigenous Americans in South America, or Australia, except in rare instances.

Now, is the lesson confined to the "type" of the human body? Is our existence tied to it? Do facial features relate to gender? The answer is not straightforward; it passes through another question: What if males and females did not differ in shape while each retained their natural function?

The truth, as evident from the fossils and ancient specimens being uncovered continuously, is that the differences between the "creatures" of the same human species have existed since time immemorial, marked by signs of puberty as indicators of this differentiation. This distinction is intentional and is even emphasized in the very "craft" of being—this is a "male" and this is a "female." There are precise reasons for this, which anthropologists have pondered extensively, yet they often overlook a glaring evidence in this puzzling matter.

Scientists have noted in comparative studies presented on the "Animal Planet" television channel that the size of the "breasts" in primates does not correlate with their function of milk production in nursing mothers. In monkeys—whose genetic similarity to humans is nearly one hundred percent—they found that the smaller size of the female compared to the male has no bearing on reproductive functions, unlike elephants, cows, rhinoceroses, and hippopotamuses. They also discovered that the small size of the breasts in chimpanzees, bonobos, baboons, and gorillas compared to human females does not affect the milk production process.

Despite the similar sexual behavior between humans and monkeys, where some primate species enjoy opportunities for choice, infidelity, and emotional bonding and engage in sex for desire satisfaction, the appearance of females in that case does not differ much from the early stages of "puberty." This is only noticeable during breastfeeding when their breasts gradually and subtly protrude, perhaps imperceptibly. Scientists have revisited the question of the size of female human breasts and buttocks, finding varied answers that do not adequately serve the functional purpose, which I argue is different from their conclusions.

Regarding breasts, researchers attributed their seemingly "pointless" size to their role as a cushion for the baby's head. As for the excess fat in the buttocks, they suggested it is a natural necessity to withstand the pressure of carrying and the weight of the fetus. Here we ask: Doesn’t a baby gorilla rest on its mother’s breast and cling to her neck or chest without the need for "fat areas" to alleviate that pressure? One might argue that the bodies of monkeys are fundamentally flexible and designed to absorb the shocks of jumping between branches or falling from heights, which means there is no need for specific protective areas. Yet, this brings us to the nature of sexual behavior in animals generally, compared to that of humans.

Let us turn our attention to this fact: the contemporary urban man, especially boys and young males, often seeks to "build" his own body through physical exercise, joining a sports team, or pursuing a specific sport, knowing that he will achieve a well-defined physique, highlighting his chest and arm muscles, allowing him to count the "hard squares" on his slim stomach. On the other hand, girls, whether athletic or not, are keen to "sculpt" the fat in their "trouble spots," such as their temples, breasts, buttocks, abdomen, and ankles! He builds for "emphasis," while she diminishes for the purpose of "slimming." He develops the appearance of a strong knight and fighter, while she sketches the form of a slender, delicate female.

However, as eras progress and beauty standards change, the man remains a builder, always concerned—especially in his youth—with a sporty appearance, even if he does not live in the city or receive a sufficient education. Meanwhile, the "female" constantly alters her appearance according to the "mood" of her time. Fullness and the presence of "curves" or fat deposits on the back and hips were once considered signs of beauty and wealth in various regions and historical periods. Moreover, a plump woman is often seen as a suitable "bride" in certain cultures and countries, such as Mauritania, where girls are "confined" starting at the age of nine and fed special food to make them "plump," followed by rapid marriage.

Humans, despite their differing temperaments and cultures, vary in their responses to basic instincts in ways unique to themselves. For example, while prey exists in the forest at all times, the hunting of beasts is contingent on their feeling hungry or the prey mistakenly entering their territory. However, contemporary humans, especially, tend to store food to last them for an extended period. This applies equally to urban dwellers, nomads, and rural folks, whether they are from northern Europe or from far eastern India. The urban individual often finds themselves going to eat or trying food simply because of its aroma or presentation in shops and restaurants, even if they are not hungry.

While animals, including herbivores, eat when they are hungry, they engage in sexual activity for a specific purpose at certain times of the year, after the female has reached maturity and her hormones are in full swing, and her systems are at peak readiness. The older females finish weaning their young from the previous season. There is no significant difference in this matter: the lion behaves like a cat, and the deer behaves like a snake, demonstrating a clear biological parallel with a defined objective.

When discussing "form" or external appearance, and the stark differences between the mature male and the adult female in humans and some animals, we notice that the male gorilla and many mammals and primates are characterized by a large size adorned with striking aesthetic features, like the mane of a lion or the horns of a ram. In these species, mating is limited within the same family; for instance, a cheetah cannot mate with a leopard, nor a jaguar with a lynx. However, a tall, broad-shouldered, strong-armed woman from Scandinavian countries can marry a short, slender, dark-skinned man from the southwestern Arabian Peninsula. While females in nature seek males with stronger traits, the act serves the purpose of species or family continuity, and the male may abandon the female to her fate afterward, perhaps even fighting her offspring if they encounter them during a hunting mission.

In contrast, human males and females search for a stable relationship that provides them with stability and tranquility.

But what drives the "human creature" to engage in "sexual acts" repeatedly and without boredom, unrelated to a specific age or designated seasons? The answer seems simple: it is hormones and the satisfaction of a basic instinct.

So, what stimulates this instinct?

In herds of livestock, when females reach the stage of estrus, they announce this through a specific scent. The male tests this by smelling and then analyzing her urine. This is the secret behind why rams and male deer turn their mouths toward the wind, ensuring the female is ready so that they can mate and complete the act of "reproduction."

In nature, male animals are always prepared to perform their role in preserving the species. Among cows, horses, and donkeys, once the female reaches maturity and then estrus, she announces this through "agitation," hormone secretion, and "calling" for mating by vocalizing and releasing scent. The male searches for his mate and fulfills her desire without hesitation; this is a form of "compelled expression" of the need for reproduction.

The situation is different among humans; "encounters" continue before, during, and after pregnancy. It is a routine act tied to "desire," which may not always be mutual, but it is participatory, reciprocal, and variable, depending on factors such as food intake, work effort, mental fatigue, the psychological state of each party, age, and, most importantly, the receptiveness to the act at the right moment.

Now, let us pause at the human face and body. It is natural for believers in the Abrahamic religions, both in our region and elsewhere, to hold the awareness that woman was created from the rib of man—"Adam" as the beginning and his counterpart "Eve." Therefore, the faces may resemble each other without significant differentiation, and sometimes not at all. Do you know: "Salma Hayek, Haifa Wehbe, Nancy Ajram, and Jessica Biel?"

They are all famous stars, of course. Very well. Look at Salma's face, natural and unaltered by cosmetic surgery. Doesn't those features remind you of a "man" you've seen in Yemen, or in Upper Egypt, or in those "hot" regions of the Earth? Personally, I see her bearing a "boy's" face. But what about her body, which she nurtures with food and exercise? She can only be a woman, right? She is a "banana" par excellence.

So, what about "Bell"? Jessica appeared "naked and semi-naked" in several scenes of her films, and she—physically—presents a puzzling figure; her shoulders are broad, her waist is narrow, and her hips are somewhat slim, but she is undeniably "natural," a female of the "V" model. However, her face carries the features of a "Latin man," "colored or mixed" between South Americans and West Europeans.

Despite the striking femininity of the Arab stars Nancy and Haifa, can you notice the completely unnatural differences? Nancy could also fit into the Banana model, but with alterations that make her face "feminine" in a way that makes it hard to imagine her as a "male" body. Haifa, too, has done everything possible to "transform" into an unbeatable female in the hourglass model, with a face that is unmistakable. But which of them has truly maintained her body, and which has ruined it? The answer in another way: if circumstances allowed you the opportunity to embrace a natural, feminine, and genuine woman without "silicone," whom would you choose? And if luck smiled upon you for a chance to spend a whole night with one of them, which would make the blood run hot in your veins? Personally, I would lean toward Salma and Jessica because I am a man who loves the truth.

In truth, the same "female" who once waged ancient wars for her "honor" is still the same one igniting conflict, but this time it’s commercial—“manufactured” and corrupt, subject to whims and personal interests. In ancient times, the "Greeks" distinguished women based on their athletic bodies capable of performing hard labor, in addition to radiant beauty. After them, the "Romans" valued a beautiful face and the curves of the body. Meanwhile, Arabs have preferred since ancient times—and likely will forever—the woman with a large derrière and a full figure, regarding the "full-figured" woman as the desired one. The Greeks viewed her as a "worker," the Romans preferred her as "beautiful," and the Arabs always wanted her to be "plump," with each model connected to its role in society.

Today, the media works to destroy the body in the pursuit of materialism, commodifying "femininity," whose specifications quickly change. The slim woman must "gain weight," while the fuller woman should go on a diet. Even the details of the face have been surgically intervened upon—nose, mouth, eyes, and lips—before that, the breasts and buttocks. Who knows what will happen next? Of course, men have not been far from "commodification" either, and to a great extent: their clothing—this is classic attire, that is sporty, work suits, and "outfits" for outings, watches, glasses, cars, villas, and neighborhoods—all natural rights, mostly luxury and some essential. But the most significant point is that sensitive parts of their bodies have also become commercialized. All of this distances us from our "strong" nature and serves the interests of market capitalism. So to what extent have we been affected by this evolution? Now, let's strike while the iron is hot. The desires of both men and women are defined by hormonal parameters, and engaging in the "act" itself has its cautions. Imagine yourself—as a rational human being, capable of controlling your impulses—living with "one partner" for many years. What is the "incentive" that encourages you to fulfill your "instinctual duty"?

We are, of course, not jungle animals driven instinctively to perform their primary functions. However, imagine that your "partner," like all the "females of your kind," is devoid of contours, merely flesh and blood secreting hormones, possessing eyes of a single color with no distinction or differentiation—just a "being" like yourself that allows you to create a family to preserve your species. What "stimulus" could possibly motivate you to respond? I tell you: it is the natural "abundance" that surrounds us, which, alongside visual diversity, has produced customs, traditions, and laws that penalize those who transgress and warn those who contemplate exceeding limits. Yet, this nature has granted us much to drive our desires toward the partner we have chosen or the one imposed upon us by circumstances. These include the "stimulants" stored in our memories from days "gone by" and our emotions ignited in various places, whether it be a passionate kiss in a "stairwell," the color and scent of a flower, or the atmosphere of a wedding celebration.

But there are clear and very "feminine" determinants that stir our desire for "life." These are the intimate and buoyant "fats" that nature has endowed females with, such as prominent breasts and relatively large buttocks, serving as a "necessary aid" for the convergence of the X and Y chromosomes—the "arrow and bow," the "container and lid." Therefore, a woman devoid of these details is a woman on hold, and a man overflowing with fat, gasping after just a couple of steps, is a "corrupted" male, even if he is a "moving reservoir." As for the sense of sight, it is a "necessity" for natural activation, without shame, subterfuge, or evasion. Vision serves as a mental stimulus for the desire for life and fulfillment between "partners" who have contracted to live together for a long time, free from deception or betrayal. Here, "legitimate gazing"—within its ethical framework, causing no harm—is a sacred duty for the continuation of "connection."

Thus, those civilizations that "cover" humanity "by force" and seek to compel humanity to adhere to them "harshly" with "sword and dagger" corrupt "creation and character" and do not recognize cultural diversity and human variety. Why do you see the "Himba" women in Tanzania living naked as their mothers bore them, without fear of rape, betrayal, or "lustful eyes"? Because the culture and beliefs of their society have not "deviated" to limit themselves to "taboos" concerning the body; instead, they have opened up—despite their "primitiveness"—to the rules of social necessity in marriage, procreation, and governance.

Of course, there are many examples of "natural life" in Africa, Latin America, and among the "primitive" tribes in Australia. Meanwhile, the "moderate" life in our Arab countries is constantly threatened by moral corruption, as the "female body"—in particular—has become a constant target of accusation, requiring concealment and the "imprisonment" of its owner behind four walls, out of fear of "sexual deviance." Yet, the pretenders have not noticed that this is against the "truth" of human composition, which must intermingle with "Mother Nature" to draw from her the essential needs required to maintain vitality and awareness. Therefore, under our current circumstances, we need "objective liberation" and a return to the supremacy of reason, justice, and law, where freedom is governed by social mechanisms that prevent infringement on personal privacy, halt "intrusions into minds," and encourage a "natural" human structure without stifling constraints.

The soul is imprisoned, and the body is damaged. Simply and clearly, we must engage with ourselves—men and women—with greater awareness of our differences and our complementarity. The female is an "independent" being, just like the male, possessing the same duties and responsibilities. She is subject to the same natural or societal laws that govern men. In my opinion, life has endowed women with attributes that men do not possess, highlighting the distinction between them. Therefore, a society that burdens the "spirits" of its members with demands that stray from the principles of science, the value of labor, and the importance of collaboration is a society sinking into ignorance.

Thus, build your intellect independently, remaining open to all cultures. Choose what suits you, and make yourself a soaring bird in the sky that lands wherever it desires. We have previously damaged our "structure"—flesh, blood, and mind—and now is the time to restore our health fully, in body, spirit, and morals