Love, Marriage, and Sex--what is the truth?!

[Annubis]

Thank you for mentioning the matriarchal societies. I hope that the readers catch that!

Ploygamy is not too hard. I have a friend from pakistan who was a master chef in the restaurant in which I worked in Montreal. He has two or three wives. One has children in Pakistan and she lives with his other wife. One of them works and the other takes ccare of the house and children. He works, and owns a house in Pakistan, a condo in Japan and a house in Montreal. I think he has a wife in Montreal aswell who works... I remember him getting phone calls from his wives screeming at him for some reason or other. He was normally a jolly warm guy. But he was a sweat and bone worker. Not that he was bony. He is a really big man who loves food.

 

[Mars Man]

You are welcome, Annubis chan. Of course, it would be good to keep in mind that arguments, for example such as those by Fluehr-Lobban, Davis, and Gimbutas, which are for a greater degree of matriarchial societies in days long gone, have been pretty much sat aside by more recent and rounded out interpretation of data and evidence. In other words, while we can see egaliatiran social groups (such as the finds in Turkey {I'll check the names again later, and add here}) we will hardly find any great number of possibly matriarchial ones.

To recap the understanding which stands at the moment, among the greater number in the field:

The human pattern of reproduction was more likely a monogamy/harem arrangement (not meaning an organized one in the earliest state, however) in a promiscuity atmosphere. Pair-bonding carried the day, and thus the mental activity held sway, did its job, but did not last past a certain point in child rearing--especially for the male. The group, harem, or clan (and possibly especially elderly kin) raised offspring. And, it all started changing in the early Holocene period (defined as 10,000 BC up to now).​

It is interesting how Dr. Samuel Johnson (in a writing on 31, March 1772) even keenly had been aware of the natural state of the reproduction when he penned:

Sir, it is so far from being natural for a man and a woman to live in a state of marriage, that we find all the motives that they have for remaining in that connection, and the restraints which civilised society imposes to prevent separation, are hardly sufficient to keep them together.​

Even a little earlier than that, we find one John Selden (1584-1654) acknowledging that: Marriage is nothing but a civil contract. ①

As the agricultural social groups became stronger, the 'ard' (a primative plow) came into usage over the 'diging stick,' (or hoe), and the ability to cultivate more, and the need for strength and group workers staying permantly at one plot of land, also planted the seeds for the permanent monogamy situation. It is somewhat later, however, with the influence of Christian thought, that it really sticks so much in the area which became the Holy Roman Empire, especially. (and then on into a 'Western' practice, basically) I'll post a bit more of this line of thought next...)



① The New Penguin Dictionary of Quotations by J.M. & M.J. Cohen, 1960;

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Sex chemistry 'lasts two years'

"Couples should not worry when the first flush of passion dims - scientists have identified the hormone changes which cause the switch from lust to cuddles.

A team from the University of Pisa in Italy found the bodily chemistry which makes people sexually attractive to new partners lasts, at most, two years.

When couples move into a "stable relationship" phase, other hormones take over, Chemistry World reports.

But one psychologist warned the hormone shift is wrongly seen as negative.

Dr Petra Boynton, of the British Psychological Society, said there was a danger people might feel they should take hormone supplements to make them feel the initial rush of lust once more";


Full story;

BBC NEWS | Health | Sex chemistry 'lasts two years'







It makes sense, but i wonder what the purposes of these hormones are in our evolution- obviously the initial sexual lust hormones of the initial stages of the relationship are probably there so the couple has lots of sex and so have babies together, but why exactly these lust hormones run out is still not that well understood. Perhaps they are there to move aside for the hormones which create stronger and more lasting bonds between the couple for the raising of the children?

Either way though, it does for once and for all stop all these debates about people/couples only being evolved to stay together for a few years etc- if that were really the case, then why are these secondary hormones kicking in after the lust ones, which make the couple stay together for longer?

I have to admit, that i no longer feel the same type of passion over my guy as i did years ago, however its more like the feelings have been replaced by other feelings which are still just as good- i love him deeply and he loves me back, we trust each other and enjoy each others company and have great sex together etc. We have a very meaningful, enjoyable and passionate relationship together .

I've noticed that with a lot of my friends though, their relationships with other people have rarely lasted more than 2years- when i go to comfort my recently dumped unhappy friends and ask them what happened, its usually either disagreements between the ex-couple and unreasonable behavior that broke them up, or also quite commonly its "the passion between us just seemed to dwindle over time and we no longer felt the same passion about each other etc" scenario that caused the couple to break up.

I think the "passion between us just seemed to dwindle over time" may in part be these changes of hormones taking place, and i think that if the couple didn't have that much in common other than having good sex together, or didn't understand each other well or weren't that loyal etc, then once the constant 24/7 lust for sex is not as strong as it used to be, then there isn't that much to keep the couple together etc. I think such times are a trial for the relationship, make or break time, and a lot of relationships are not strong enough to continue after these change of hormones.


But i wonder why this has to be...

Many people cheat on their partners because the lust has gone in their current relationship, and new powerful lust has been sparker towards a new person of desire. The person cheating may hope to re-live that passion that they once had with their old partner, but in the hope things will work out better with their new lover.
But if we're all programed the more or less same with these hormones, this cycle would only continuously repeat itself, no matter who we went with, so we would be forever stuck in a cycle of never having a perfect long-lasting and happy relationship with anyone etc. How cruel is that? Why is this to be so?
The only reason why i can think that we have this hormone programming for is so that it makes us move from partner to partner, spreading our genetic material around more or something like that. But in a civilized sense, surely that would be for our society? Our societies success is so strongly built on stable relationships, and i'm not just talking about sexual ones, our civilization is only possible because we stick together and are not solitary animals, we benefit from sticking together in the long term.
So my main conclusion from this right now is that we are still very much in the process of evolution, and we are still very much evolving to stay passionately sexually attracted to our partners for longer periods of time- it would make more sense for us to be evolving this ability more rather than de-evolving it. One thing i have noticed, is that the more solitary an animal is, the more fleeting its relationship is with its lover (take Deer for example, sex for them last for a few seconds and then thats it, relationship over, and the deer part and go their separate ways- our relationships must seem to last a life time in the eye's of a deer)- in the animal kingdom, we actually have very long relationships and long sex in comparison to a lot of other animals.


Anyhoo, i'll stop musing this over for now. What are your opinions/feelings on all of this ?

 

[Revenant]

I've read the same bit on what you call the lust hormones and what I call the attachment hormones. I'm not sure that everyone can produce attachment hormones, two of those being absent in children that didn't get anything beyond food and shelter (minimal human contact and a barren environment during their early years).

Even within the probably larger percent of people that can produce the attachment hormones, the levels may vary quite a lot (as testosterone does in males). Some things, such as sex, holding hands, and other stuff has been shown to increase the attachment hormones according to one study.

I'm wondering whether those Romanian orphans that despite finding good homes and not producing any attachment hormones even while their adoptive parent of two years tickled and cuddled them, could eventually be given an intervention that would help them produce those hormones.

 

[Mavrek]

Sex is the ultimate fact and no one can deny it . Whether you are in love or a married person ,sex is standing on your way .

 

[Mars Man]

Starting off here on a bit of a humorous note (for those who have not read the thread, I'd stongly suggest printing it out and reading it carefully before posting); I will never forget what one good male acquaintance, almost on a friend level at the time (a Japanese national) who frequented the shop my friend ran said one night, drinking at the counter. He had just recently proposed to and had been accepted by a lovely female, and marriage plans were then well developed.

Sitting there at the counter, he was talking about that with the woman (who we both knew well--he was a regular from way back and actually lives in the village here) working the counter and I was listening from the kitchen window just behind the counter. He smiled at one point and said something along the lines of, 'and now I can have all the free sex I want...' I quickly went out of the kitchen to correct that ill-begotten misconception.

Bertrand Russell, the British logician and philosopher, has been quoted as having pointed out, in his day (1872-1970):

Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by woman is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution.​

Well, that was somewhat of a possible exaggeration, I would imagine, but the point was well taken, because the male is more prone to sex drive than the female, on average, over time.

This fact is what made human pair bonding in the past (and, of course even today) a kind of anti-thesis to the common idea of marriage in today's world--although that is changing in the post-industrial nations (the social subconscious outlook on what marriage is, that is).

We can see, from looking at the social interactings of the primates, a general and vague image of what more likely would have been the case for the early homo sapien. Some of that next.

 

[Oren]

We have these problems in our societies, as far as I am concerned, and it's this seemingly perpetual denial of the nature of the animal construct which comes to play in the three areas which I would like to discuss again--but in a more focused nature. Yeah, this area is old, we've been down that road before here on JREF, I know, but it seems to me--as far as my ability to comprehend goes--to have been somewhat scattered and unfocused. In this thread, I'd hope to focus and define carefully.
A couple of points seem to have been raised which I think need to be shared with the world, and some points are in constant adjustment, or fine-tuning, if you will, as studies progress and the areas like neurology, evolutionary psychology, biolology, and sexology produce clearer and clearer results.
And, I will admit. I wanted something to replace the less scientifically proned threads which have been of late in this sub-fora as well, AND to continue under the tone of academical discussion and argument, some factors which have come to light in a recent thread on this very matter--love, marriage, and sex.
I'll kick it off (oh but be my guest in the meantime) tonight by firstly going into definitions--LET'S PLEASE FIX THOSE FIRST.

Sexology? Serious? There's so much I don't know. I, aside from my bewilderment, though that love is what makes a person do the correct thing when the bad thing looks easier to do. Marriage is when that person runs across another person who thinks a little bit like him/her. Sex is the favor they've found in each other and understand that it should be kept betwixt them. . . nobody else's business. That's friendship. . . I think.
So. . . Love, marriage, and Sex, in that order exactly. Good question.

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for the note there. I'll respond more as I present further things here, however, I would suggest you read the entire thread, or at least most of the pertinent posts.

The order is merely alphabetical, not by any means natural or suggestive. In post number 25 here you'll find it pointed out that in nature, sex comes first. The matter of love is divisible into different areas, and marriage is too.

One important thing to keep in mind, is that it ALL is a continuum. Far too many people in the world have not gotten to see that fact yet. Animal life forms and states and social practices based on degrees of social construct are all continuum--that means not such clearly defined and totally separate boxes or slots that each single entity/item fits neatly into, and that alone, but a graduation of differences and similarities over a spectrum of possibilities.

 

[Mars Man]

As has been pointed out, the harem system (polygyny) is also practiced by H. sapien sexual system arrangment. However, because that system is largely one of opportunity, in human social groups it has not been so widespread--even in those which practice it.

The four basic patterns are, 'Resource-Defense Polygyny', 'Female-Defense-Polygyny', 'Male-Dominance Polygyny', and ' Search Polygyny.' General forms of all four can be found among the many human social groups, over time.

In the 'Resource-Defense' pattern, a male has achieved sole dominance over an area which has a good good supply (or may be a good hiding place, nesting spot, or mating ground) that females gather at. The alpha male drives off competing males.

In the 'Female-Defense' pattern, a male will collect several females by various means, in various degrees, and then will succeed in fighting off other males that try to court them.

The 'Male-Dominance' pattern is where, especially seen in avian models, the male acquires a 'mating station,' as it were, where they can be seen or found by females. Since there will usually be a number of males in competition, the female will choose based on things like attractiveness, vigor, and so on. The male that can't dance or sing so well, or that does not seem so full of life-force, will not get the larger number of females.

The 'Search' pattern is pretty much that. Males mate, then move on to find another mate within that season. This pattern is seen in orangutans, moose, and bumble bees, but a certain form of it can be seen in cases of sailors, traveling salesmen, and truck drivers.



Science Vol 318, 30 Nov. '07, pp 1443-45;
Anatomy of Love-A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray (1992) by H. Fisher, pp 66-68, 319,320;
The Mating Mind-How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature (2000) by G. Miller pp 75, 76, 184, 185;
Why Sex is Fun?-The Evolution of Human Sexuality (1997) by J. Diamond, pp 103, 104;

 

[Mars Man]

For any just picking up with this thread, PLEASE do read it all carefully before joining in. . . Thanks !

There was all this ado amoung conservative groups in the USA when the film The March of the Pinguins' came out back in 2005 over how it showed the way monogymy was supposed to be, how fidelity was meant to be. It was all a sweet and emotinal tale, for sure, and maybe some lessons could be gathered from it in some way, however, it was nevertheless about as accurate a portrayal of the reality of nature as 'Dr.Doolittle's scenes of animals working together for a common cause--in other words. . . not very accurate at all.

15% of Adult Emperor Penguins (Aptenodytes fosteri) change partners every year and even more over greater time spans. Also we find a degree (I don't have that percentage figure) of homosexuality as well. (as in most all animal groups/species) 窶｡@ 53% of 'adopted chicks,' according to one study, were found to have actually been victims of kidnapping.

Animal Behaviour (Vol 69, p529) reveals in one study how the may female Fenale Adelia Penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) are known to offer sex for nest material. This, of course happens among other species as well, even the Homo sapien--although not for nest material.

This is just another example, along with what I have shown here in this thread, among the many examples and studies and records which most clearly show that we, the Homo sapien, only really distinct from our nearest relatives due to our larger brains, have not come down to this day as being an animal which primarily pair-bonds with a single mate for a lifespan.

Therefore to finish off this point, before going back and recapping a few loose ends, while sexual selection eventually went the route of pair-bonding biology, it was in no way permenant pair-bonding. And yet the increment in social and economic pressure that came with the dawn of agriculture, and the rise in patriarchal system's dominance along with that, caused long-term pair-bonding to become economically advantageous. That was the birth of the institutional marriage as it is more often thought of today. Real marriage, that of the natural arrangement is as described in previous posts here.





窶｡@ﾂ The two homosexual Chinstrap Penguins (pygoscelis antarctia) who once lived in New York's Central Park Zoo successfully reared a chick from a donated egg--although one of them 'silo' then left 'roy' for a young female. (maybe he was bisexual, actually)

 

[Mavrek]

We Love someone because its need of our body and soul. We marriage with someone because its a need of society we sex because its a need of our body !

 

[Mars Man]

There have to be further clarifications of that, however, to really make any sense of it. We eros because of our gene derived pressures (in almost all cases, essentially) and we marry--in the sense of the institution of marriage at large--because of the form that society at large developed and forced upon us.

We humans bond longer than by far most other animals because of our offsping are altrical-like in nature. (meaning they cannot take care of themselves for a long time)① Some societal groups (especially the main world-history players) developed sexual taboo through the pronouncement of religious belief-systems, and as a result of protection of family lines, thus marriage taboo. These are unnatural in the stricter sense.

Revenant had mentioned in post number 49 on page two about pair-bonding and also about how the feelings of jealousy fit into the picture of Homo sapien evoluton. This is an area that I have not come across much at all, but what I have seen is that the emotion of jealousy is not strictly a Homo sapien thing.

There she was, struting her stuff, trying her best to get a rise out that male. Well, he just kind of ignored her, but did go over and start to copulate with her daughter. Then she comes up and whops him across the back, or it might have been the head. A fleeting moment of the many that can be found in studies of our related chimps that reveal that they too experience jealousy in sexual matters...although not that alone! ②

That last comment may be the thing. Jealousy is an emotion that does not restrict itself to the area of sexual interests or bonding interests, even. The whole thing may be well beyond the scope of this particular thread, but it seems to be a matter of survival element that pushes competition to stay ahead, or keep up with. It is, in that sense, much more of a possessive thing, and thus is something that, when it comes to human pair-bonding, should be given great efforts to rationalize out of the picture.



① There are a couple or so theories for how and why this turned out this way, and perhaps the more feasible matter relates to big-brain development. The term altrical is being used out of normal sense, but the idea is conveyed.

② There are those moments of 'loving care and understanding'-like emotions too, as when a lone female that is come upon by a troupe may likely not be killed (as is an often enough event--especially for males) especially if she is receptive to the alpha male's approach.

 

[Revenant]

I'm just getting into The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. A fascinating read, and it gets a lot into possible reasons why humans developed as they did. From an evolutionary perspective, most of it makes a great amount of sense.

 

[Revenant]

Supposedly the more promiscious male, who for most of history called most of the shots, decided in a lot of societies that monogny rather than polgyny was to be the rule. Supposedly, monogny was more fair to the male population, rather than the rich and high status having a lot of women, while the low status and poor had none.

While polgyny would give more opportunity to the resource-seeking female. A female might be much more satisfied being the second wife of a successful lawyer than being the only wife of a ne'er do well man. So females would be upwardly mobile were polygny allowed, whereas the number of men toward the bottom of the social ladder without wives would dramatically increase.

It has been theorized that men become more violent (murder, rape, etc), and take on more self destructive behaviors (drugs, alcohol) when they are single rather than married, all that was based on data of men between the ages of 24 and 35. The genetic drive to find a mate might cause them a lot of frustration if they can't find a mate.

I'm not attempting to say that females are materialistic, but that as part of their criteria for a good mate, they look for resources (their future children need resources of course). High status, money, ambition, or industriousness would all look very good to most females.

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for that input there, Revenant san. Yes, it does turn out to be more sound, as far as the aggregate of what evidences can be known, that the female has leaned towards and acted in favor of the resource disposition of the male. Especially does this seem to have more likely been the case in the pre-to early Holocene.

As for any purposeful decision by the male group at large of any particular social group, to ordain monogyny over polygyny, I am not so sure there is direct evidence for that--at least in what I have read and studied--until we come somewhat up to later BCE dates, or so. What might you have come across on that?

In our basically major modern social groups, it well seems to be just as you have pointed out about aggresive male behavior being lessened somewhat, overall and on average, by having a pair-bonded relationship; whether that be marriage as defined by the legal system of any social group, or by the more natural-like 'marriage' situation. In the same vein of thought, men (especially, if not only) tend to live longer, on average, when in pair-bond relationships.

It is too bad that some try to over expand the more likely theories, in attempts to criticize what conclusions come to the surface regarding female activity in the mating drive. They often seem to be heavy handed feminists, and seem to focus on the Homo sapien to the point of forgetting that evidence from other animals has to taken along with it--because, after all, it is very clear that we are all a continuum.

A number of works I have read, have sited The Moral Animal by R. Wright. I've yet to read the book myself, but surely will one of these fine days. I look forward to that read.

 

[Revenant]

Further reading of the same book... marriage breakdown takes a toll on the mother and child these days, but especially the child, as fathers leave their kids (fathers teach their kids more than either kids or father realizes) and step parents generally have less affection for kids not their own. The mothers must make do with less money these days, work harder, and also take care of the kids, while the father usually is more financially free and able to move onto a new relationship.

The book suggests that the biggest obstacle to sustained monogamy is the male mind, as natual selection would've favored men who moved onto new partners after their current wife became infertile. That makes some sense. Of course the male rarely consciously thinks these things, but rather that the current wife is starting to look old (besides which she is nagging or some other), and there's a new and younger girl that's showing interest in him.

That a lot of societies now have a no-fault divorce makes divorce look appealing for a lot men. Meanwhile the women have less reason to divorce, as having kids will require resources and that less men are willing to marry a women with kids.

He does say that giving men a booklet on how to stay married is much like giving Vikings a booklet on how not to pillage. The advice would be contrary to the male mind.

He also suggests that it's the women who have the most power when it comes to sexual morality. If women are more promiscious, then there's less reason for men to get married and stay married, but if women are more reticent, then men because of the Madonna-***** dichitomy (meaning men disrespect easy women but a more coy women gets his respect and devotion) then more men are more likely to see a women as worthy of his devotion.

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for that up-date. It sounds right on the money in most of the area that it touches on, although possibly not giving the whole range of applicable data in some other areas that it touches on. At the same time, again, I have not read the book so cannot draw any conclusions beyond what I see above.

However, therein lies a big thing that I'd like to toss around a bit, and theorize on, and that is the concept of marriage as it relates to sub-social integral units in the social group's fabric. I'm not sure if the development of this thread is yet ready to do that though, since we would have to be thinking 'outside the box' here, for sure.

Some matters that we'd have to work on would the likes of:

To what degree (quantity and quality) do the children lose out (in present 'divorce' scenarios), and in what ways is that to be measured?

To what degree, and in what ways does the exertion of pressure go--marriage ideology to social build .vs. social ideology to marital constructs?

How can knowledge of the most likely essentials of evolutionary psychology/biology, natural science, and philosophy be implemented so as to better a given social group at large? (as regards the subject of this thread) etc.​

There may be a few things that had been applied without thinking much further about them, such as 'sexual morality.' That last paragraph could stand some further looking at, in this regards. (I'm not sure how he expounds on that matter) Sexual standard would probably be a better way of describing the natural phenomenon, rather than sexual morality.

That the Homo sapien female is less promiscious than the equal male is a given that is well documented. What is documented almost as well, nevertheless, is the higher degree of female promisciousness than had been wished by the more patriarchically thinking male structured social groups of before. It is for this reason that Kinsey's studies didn't fare well even in the early 50s.

By adopting a different, more developed and natural ideology of 'marriage,' sub-social integral build, and applying the empirical knowledge gained through time up to now, I tend to think that we can overcome the negativeness the breakdown of the present ideology causes. I will deal with that as the thread goes on.

 

[Gackt21]

Love is that feeling that is both mature and shown through actions. Sex is what you have when you are married to your lover. Marriage is the holiest union between man and woman.

 

[Emoni]

Sex, is a reproductive act that feels good. Along with it comes all sorts of other emotions and social expectations, but in the end it is the definition of a physical act.

Marriage is a social construct and is defined in numerous ways, both as a civil and financial union to even a divine super-national connection reinforced by an imaginary being.

Love, is a word that means all sorts of different things to different people who will try to find out the meaning for the rest of their life and hold it dear every minute.

Truth? Truth is a word that when you hear, you had better start questioning every single thing surrounding it.

Everything else, is your actions in the relationship, the responsibility you take, honesty with yourself and your partner, and what you hold as important. Your actions will define the meaning of the act of sex and the social construct of marriage. "You" and your partner(s) define the "meaning" of everything yourself... while others walk around you and ultimately judge you with their own defined purpose and belief of the meaning sex and marriage have for them.

 

[Dreamweaver]

Sex, is a reproductive act that feels good. Along with it comes all sorts of other emotions and social expectations, but in the end it is the definition of a physical act.

(warning: I haven't read all of the posts in here yet... I'm just giving a brief response to this quote)

I feel that defining sex as a reproductive act only tells one of the many facets of a story. Nowadays, there are such things as birth control and whatnot, not to mention homosexual and oral sex. It would be unfair to say that only those who can produce children through the act of 'sex' can call what they do 'sex'. To be more specific, I would define the reproductive act (sex solely for the purpose of reproduction) as procreation. Even procreation nowadays doesn't need a sexual act to be completed (that topic however, is a whole other can of worms). Sex itself, in my opinion, has a much broader meaning with the overall goal of two (or more) partners pleasing each other and themselves sexually (although this doesn't always result... but A for effort...)