Sure, Lindy. Sex is any organism's closest tie to evolution, because evolution fundamentally works by choosing who gets to pass on their fitter genes, and whose inferior genes don't pass on. Evolution means that each sex is highly adapted to its particular role, and that means pursuing different behavioral strategies: rutting versus nesting. That is, a male "does right by his genes" by sowing DNA seeds far and wide; it's a strategy based on quantity. Whereas for a female that's just not a viable option, because she has to give birth and raise the young. Females must either be able to go it completely alone (hardly optimum), or evolve a rich bag of tricks to bind males to stick around to help.

Two such different, almost opposed, strategies wouldn't be viable unless males and females work out a compromise. The fact that we're here is certain evidence of the existence of that compromise. Like all compromises, neither party's completely satisfied. Women grumble about men, men grumble about women...and yet we end up loving each other.

It's also fascinating that a widely-accepted theory has it that humans owe their big brains to women. According to this theory, a couple of million years ago among the ancestors of humans, the females began to select males according to criteria that reflected intelligence. Perhaps it was an ability to make pleasing sounds that evolved into language. Perhaps a facility for making things as courtship gifts, starting with pleasing arrangements of pretty stones and twigs, evolving eventually into computers and spaceships and the knack for building a shelf in the den. Certainly the pragmatic ability to kill things and bring home the bacon was important, and humans learned to hunt better by using their brains.

We owe it all to our womenfolk.

Ain't evolution grand?