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

[Goldiegirl]

What do you mean by sex comes first? The actual act or the feeling of desire (the want to have sex)? Some people have the desire for sex with their partner, but abstain because of religious or moral convictions. So what is it that you are looking for?

 

[Mars Man]

What do you mean by sex comes first?

What I mean is what far too many people tend to overlook in the first place...I'm speaking in general here...namely, the state of being. That's it. Almost all beings of the animate form have a sex. A few have both, and a few go between female and male states, but most have a fairly determined state--in most cases.

That comes first chronologically--as far as can be determined.

 

[A ke bono kane kotto]

Mars man, I have questions (again) about agape, phlias, eros. Can we say we love someone only when we feel the three of them, or one is enough ?

My understanding that is agape is love of people in general, even strangers. It is being good for everybody and hoping the same in return. Is it correct ? If so, why is it "love" and not just "kindness" ?

 

[Mars Man]

A quicky here, A ke bono kane kotto san. In my opinion--a fairly thought out one, I'd wish to think, nevertheless--the main problem here is language. In that we are talking in and using English, I'd say that the answer to your question is 'YES.'

With only agape (alturism) we can say 'I love you' to another person. It may be hard to find philias without agape, but would tend to think that philias alone, would make an 'I love you/it' as well. And, as you surely well know, in English we can and often do say 'make love'...and everyone knows what we are talking about. On that line, we can even say 'I want to love you'...and again, most would know the intention.

Kindness would surely end up being an element of altruism, which (as far as I have seen) would require the state of agape in the brain of the actor. Kindness would be a symptom of agape, we could say. Gotta run now, I hope this will provide some more thinking material. MM

 

[Mars Man]

The reason 'why sex?' is a hard one...one that yet escapes us. For now, we could say that the reason some 99.9% of all multicellular species reproduce sexual is because 1) at a very early stage, the type of cell division that generally gave way to sperm and eggs evolved upwards (more complex process) and got stuck with us, and with that 2) it appears the best way to pass on genes.窶｡@

So then, for us humans, we get to the 23 chromosome and it turns out to be a Y or an X attachment, and that kind of makes it a blueprint at conception--the fetus will be a male or a female. But that in itself is not the whole story either, it seems. There are also DAX1, WNT4, and SRY. These are factors which studies have shown to also affect the eventual sexual state of the baby.

The Y chromosome has SRY (termed 'Master Switch) which has been seen to inhibit, or block, the female 'switches' DAX1 and WNT4 (antitestis genes). On that Y chromosome, just one pair base change in the sequence produces a female instead of a male. When SRY was integrated into a mouse that was otherwise chromosomally female, an XX fetus developed as a male.

The old idea of 'active male' and ' passive female' development will have to be adjusted, because DAX1, on the X chromosome, has been seen to start up female production by blocking SRY--unless, of course, SRY got to the blocking first. This is all leading to the gonode building, and has caused some problems in sexual identification.

Then we have the androgens coming in and helping out--along with a few other things. It has been pointed out that while it may not be that sex hormones drive neural development directly, SRY is expressed in the brain, suggesting that genes influence brain sexual differentation directly.窶｡A

So, next to the hormones and their roles.


extra info:In the U.S. genital ambiguity occurs in an estimated 1 in 4,500 births, and problems such as undescended testes happen in about 1 in 100. There are about 5 sex-assignment surgeries every day.



窶｡@ NewScientist, 4/Sept '4 p31; ﾂ 窶｡A Scientific American, Insights, June '07, pp 22, 23

 

[Kinsao]

Hmm, this looks like an interesting thread. But I admit I haven't had time to read all the posts in detail, so I am only posting about the title alone!

Love, marriage and sex… I don't really see any 'question' arising out of those things, and as for the order… there isn't one way things happen. The order can be different for different couples, and could still lead to a successful (or unsuccessful) relationship depending on the people. It doesn't make sense to say there is a 'right' or 'wrong' order. Okay, so I can believe there is a *morally* 'right' or 'wrong' order, but I'm not talking here about beliefs or morals – so I'm saying that relationships 'work' differently (I could disagree with somebody's moral code but they can still have a successful relationship; I am not of the school of thought that says 'everyone who doesn't do things my way is doomed to failure'!).

Examples:

Love -> marriage -> sex: a number of what you might call 'old-fashioned' relationships, most common among ages and cultures where sex before marriage is/was considered wrong; of course some marriages would fail, but also some would succeed (again depending on the couple); my parent's marriage is an example of this 'formula' which succeeded, and I also know a number of other couples who followed that route and their relationship is 'successful' (in the sense that they are still together and still love each other, or so they claim; of course only themselves can know whether that is true or not, but here's not the place for that discussion).

Sex -> marriage -> love: sexual activity is first, based on physical attraction, a very natural and instinctive way… then something happens to cause the couple to get married – maybe she gets pregnant and they feel financial or social pressure, or simply social pressure to be 'acceptable' or something… maybe at this stage they do not necessarily feel 'love' towards each other, and maybe even aren't really keen on the idea of getting married but are just conforming… but after the marriage, they begin to get to know each other better, and even if with some 'resignation' at the beginning, they resolve to make the relationship work, and over a longer time they become to love each other, and to see each other's good points beyond the physical.

Marriage -> sex -> love: this can happen in cultures where arranged marriages are common (note: totally different from forced marriages!!!) – the couple agree to marry, without knowing each other at all well (maybe not at all), feeling little sexual/physical attraction but simply a marriage for convenience or the social aspects… following the marriage of course there is sex, since that is also expected, but the couple still do not know each other well enough to discover whether they love each other… of course, again like the first 'model', some of these marriages will not be happy, but in some cases, rather like the second 'model' in fact, the couple become to love each other as they get to know each other better over months/years, and end up with a happy relationship.

Sex -> love -> marriage: quite a common 'model'; the relationship begins with physical attraction and sex, then people discover other attractions about each other, developing into 'love' (however that is defined… but could be a whole other topic!), and finishing with marriage (for whatever motivation).

Love -> sex -> marriage: again a common model, only the 'love' element comes before the 'sex'… such as in cases where people are attracted as friends first, and then begin to appreciate physical attraction.

Marriage -> love -> sex: I would imagine this model is very uncommon; the only situation where marriage comes first out of the three are situations of convenience (such as arranged marriage or other reason of convenience, perhaps more common in situations from the past such as marrying for money or to save oneself from a dire social or financial fate (!) ), and in those circumstances it would be most usual for sex to follow next and love to arrive last (if at all). However, in unusual situations, perhaps where sex is not immediately possible due maybe to physical conditions or circumstances, it could be possible that love arises after a 'convenience' marriage yet before actual sex has a chance to take place.

After all that analysis (phew!) does that lead to any opinions on my part?! Well, my view is that all states are perfectly 'natural' in the grand scheme of things, although some people by nature will be less inclined to all states… which is part of our diverse gene pool, and diversification is beneficial to the species.

Physical attraction and sex are primary drivers, it's basic to all animals, for the obvious reason, if it doesn't take place, we will die out! So that instinct is strong, in animals and humans alike.

As for marriage, it's basically linked to human ideals of commitment. There are two beneficial states; one is spreading DNA around a wide range, for diversification (thereby creating a stronger gene pool), and the other is monogamy because it provides stability for raising young and more protection for them, and their better development (not much point producing loads of offspring if they are going to die early or grow up dysfunctional in some way). So these two instincts are kind of co-existing and at the same time conflicting in human beings. (Some people would have it that males are more naturally tending to the first, and females to the second, since they are actually physically harbouring the offspring during the earliest stages of development, so out of practical necessity it develops that way. And/or it could be that males tend more towards that way at an older age than females – when they have 'sowed their wild oats', so to speak. In some older English cultures it was quite common for older men to marry with younger women, with age differences that would be looked askance on today.)

The actual ritual of 'marriage' is something uniquely human; there are animals which are monogamous or largely so, but that just happens without ceremony! Personally I think it is something in human nature which drives many of us to want to profess our commitment; marriage ceremonies have taken place since the ancient times, developed in different ways and under different religions or none at all, but it still seems to be a strong human drive to make this relationship commitment somehow public.

And love… the hardest thing to discuss about at all, because it's impossible to define, really! A feeling of 'love' can arise out of friendship and before sexual attraction, or afterwards… it is the essential ingredient in a successful relationship but also the 'mystery ingredient'. It's not necessary to have love in order for a couple to stay together, and essentially only the couple themselves in an outwardly 'successful' relationship can know whether or not they have love.

 

[Mars Man]

Thank you Kinsao, for your comments, and your input. I intend to keep up a slow and steady effort to keep the thread interesting, informative, and open for good discussion.

The time you spent in laying out the combinations was worth it, I'd say...no one else had done that yet. I thought I might also mention, just in case you did happen to miss it, there was one note at the bottom of post #2, namely,

ps-the order (Love, Marriage, Sex) is purely alphabetical.

I hope to hear more from you as the thread plays out.

 

[Mars Man]

Regarding the state of sex, I'd like to recap a few things here firstly. One is that the fetus takes generic template firstly, as brought out above, and the default is the female--meaning, basically, we all start out as female and if the chromosomes for an XY fetus otherwise fail, we end up female. Secondly, there are a fair enough number of possible errors with the developing template, so that both sex organs may, in varying degrees, be present. 窶｡@ Then, the estrogens and androgens come into play.

The 'bath,' so to speak, of the hormones will primarily affect the brain structure of the fetus. With the typical XY fetus, a heavy dosage of testosterone (out doing estrogens) will produce the very male-brained male. If the hormonal bath for the XY fetus--among a few other possible faults (such as lacking the gene for Testis-Determining Factor [TDF])--is very low in testosterone, a baby with most likely a genetically male template will be female-brained.

Likewise, if the fetus is XX but recieves large doses of male hormone, the result can be anything from a tomboy-like girl, to a transexual. (which can occur in either fashion--an actual male in a female body, or an actual female in a male body) There are also cases like the XO fetus which is Turner's Syndrome, and those which produce the asexual brain structure.

What all the research in this area has come to show us, is that sex is not only a state of body, and bodily functions, but is also a state of brain and brain functions--of course which is bodily, but they are just usually separated for convenience...I guess?

This occurs in the 6th-8th week period of gestation and gives us the broad range of mental dispositions as being, hetrosexual (the far greater majority), bi-sexual, homosexual (about 5% in humans--which has been said to be about as common a rate as red hair and freckles) and asexual.

It has become clear through various case studies and even some experiments on humans, that the brain-sex is fixed, and cannot be affected to any material degree at all by nurture. Even in the famous cases where a child had physically appeared to be female, and had been raised as one from birth (only to exhibit testies on puberty) upon puberty, when testies descended, the person became very male as the testosterone production took over.

While there are some other points such as hypothalamus size, and corpus callosum thickness that relate to sex-state differences, that do relate, I will sum up by saying that sex state--which chronologically comes first, before love and marriage--is very securely fixed at birth, and is not readily changable through nurture--meaning enviornment, up-bringing, and/or education.




窶｡@ This is also the case with chimeras at times. A chimera is a person who is, genetically and biologically, a combination of two people. The embryos of non-identical twins with different haplotypes fuse into a single embryo, so where you would have two individuals, you end up with one--which yet carries portions of the other;

 

[SushiShin]

Thanks for the information Mars Man! I've learned alot more and i really had to read the whole text twice before i clearly understood what you wrote.

keep up the research, Dr.Mars'Love'Man


シン

 

[Mars Man]

With the 'brain-sex' fairly well set, the individual experiences and learns through the various stages and developments within the environment that they grow up in. I would like to point out, that there is a degree of alteration that 'setting,' although it is, on average, measurably small.

Even before puberty, it is not so uncommon a thing for children to engage in pre-puberty sex-related play. Although it has been documented across cultures, I'm sure most of us are aware of the 'let's play doctor' event. Yes, I very clearly remember those games myself. . . I had three sisters and four female cousins living in the near vicinity. Even in primiative social groups, it of course happens, right along with sex role schemas that come with 'playing house' or 'mom and dad' with other siblinigs or friends being children. Ah but for the days of 'innocence?'

At puberty the real mating game gets ready to come blasting on the scene with certain hormones suddenly being kicked in to full production and signs appearing. The average male will react to the higher levels of testosterone and become more attentative to and driving by the sex drive--that naturally built in drive to copulate in order to spread ones genes. With a larger hypothalamus and all that hormone boiling the brain. . .the male is the 'sex machine' machine image that James Brown put to music.

While all that is just an average, and each individual will be different, of course, it is also true that possibly due to certain social overbearings among any number of other things, that the general female sex drive, while evidently lower than that of the male, has often been down played somewhat. Girls are just as much a part of nature as the boys.

It is no great, unknown secret, as we all know, that men are, on average, more interested in sex, and there is a reason for it, and that reason is based in nature.

 

[Annubis]

Lip smaking good

Gee... I had to stop myself in astonishment! I began reading the thread about internet infidelity... haha... then came here as requested by Mars Man... I noticed just before responding that I was definitely finely touching the soft and sensitive spots in my mouth, licking my lips and becoming eager to join the conversation.

I really think that dolphins know how to live. They don't have the social norms we have and so sexual activities and flirting are very regular and very healthy.

I believe that sex is healthy. But I really have to point out that in the society we live in... we have contracts to write and live with. I mean... there is so much opposition out there. There is so much competition. "Who's the best?"

I am not competitive by nature, I don't aspire to do well in society, so I don't get jealous easily. I just want to be me. When I love a man, it is not selfish and I can even love many people at once. People like myself are rare, because society teaches us to compete and gives us rules to follow. Society also says that we can only be with one person at a time.

My preference now, is to be with one person at a time, but I make sure my partner knows this. Unfortunately... the word I use to communicate this is "commitment". I think men are afraid of this word... or maybe I'm missing something. When I use the word, I mean that I want a family with that person. It means that I want to share my life with that person and only that person. (by sharing my life, I mean living together if and when it is possible and having fun with each other) Forever... maybe or maybe not. Is that too much? Am I being to base? The key to a successful relationship is to never use that bad word, unless you want to begin writing contracts.

Furthermore, I do admit that I hurt inside by the fact that I can never be with a man I love. I also have to admit that my feelings for this person definitely grew stronger after having sex. This man is Japanese. Something happened... perhaps he is with someone else now... I don't know why it ended... but he has closed the door on me all together. I think the pain comes from the confusion more than anything. The communication was not very good.

My best friend to date is a man. I love him dearly. For 4 years we had an open relationship where we would see other people as desired... but we always ended up together in the end. Then, we decided to have a committed relationship... which lasted about a year. It was his first committed relationship. And it was my second. We learned a lot about how confining and life shaping a committed relationship can be. He now has a girlfriend who is about 14 years younger than him and it seems to be working well. But she really really gets mad when he speaks to me. I don't understand. She is however from a conservative family and she strives to do well in society. But she has shaped our perspective on relationships. I am beginning to understand a little, why people choose to be with only one person. I think that my best friend is with her because he wants to understand this relationship stuff a bit better and I was too open.

The competitive force is extremely important in the matter of compatibility. If your mate is competitive, then there will be conflict when it comes to infidelity of any sort.

It all depends on how assertive you are perhaps. You really have to get to know your partner. It takes about a month to know the first key elements of a person's temperament, such as habits and surface desires. To really know someone well, it take two years. Getting to the second year is always tricky.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

These are my opinions on the subject of love, marriage and sex;


Love;

We can all go into the animalistic raw emotions and the technicalities of love etc, but at the end of the day although many animals can feel love, human love is more complex.

Love is a fanstastic feeling to feel towards someone, when you love someone and they love you back and you are happy together, love fills your life with happiness. Without love, we wouldn't be able to build meaningful relationships with each other, love is crucial to our welbeing and happiness and is also crucial to our society and social lives and structures etc.
I believe that if it weren't for love, a lot of what we have acheived as a human race wouldn't have been posible. Love is so complex and deep, its often all to easy to underestimate it and to attempt to crudely catagorise it into definitions and technicalities etc.


Sex;

Sex is a vital part of our society and vital to the existance of all mammels and many types of other animals.
Good sex is great, it fills you with pleasure and passion during the act, it can boost your self-confidence and ego and relieve stress and tension, it can help you bond with your lover and move the relationship onto a more serious level etc- it is addictive and while on the one hand it can be a very fullfilling act to pursue, it can also be damaging to those around you and even yourself if you attach the wrong values to it or go about pursueing it in the wrong way etc.

In my opinion, a healthy active sex life is very important to a happy relationship, and it is important to make efforts to ensure regular enjoyable and willing sex between you and your partner- without sex, what makes your reltionship with someone any different than a friendship? You could say there is love, and thats true, but in my opinion a health active sex life is just as important in a relationship as a loving, compassionate and receiving bonds with your partner etc.

One thing that does bug though is the taboo's and issues with still have with sex even in our modern, democratic and westernised society.
For example, if a girl sleeps with lots of guys, everyone calls her a **** behind her back, but if a guy goes around sleeping with loads of girls, all of his mates give him a pat on the back. All the guys want a girl who hasn't slept with lots of other men, but at the same time all the guys want to sleep with as many girls as posible, so somewhere there's going to be some girl somewhere that ends up losing out.

In my opinion, male ***** are just as bad as female ***** and in my opinion they certainly do exist.

A long time ago, i had a friend who had slept with a lot of guys over the years, she had had some one-night stands, but the majority of the guys she had been with she had slept with while in a proper relationship with them.
There came a point though when she was single for quite a while and decided to start looking for a potential new lover again.
One day i overheard a guy i knew was interested in her chatting with his mates about her, one of his mates asked him if he would sleep with her, and his reply basically went along the lines of she had slept with to many other guys during her sex life for him to want to go out with her- what i thought was particularly ironic about this though was that this guy had slept with many girls himself and had a bit of a reputation for pulling girls just to have sex with them and then disapear the next day etc.
I just thought it was very self-centered and arrogant of him to judge my friend for having slept with too many guys over the years for his liking when he had actually slept with far more women than she had with men etc.


When it comes to people sleeping around loads...Well...I guess as long as it is done safely and is between two consenting adults and the persons involved have choosen their lover via a form of high standards, then i don't think its that bad, although i don't think sleeping around lots is encourageable behavior in general. I think sleeping around loads is not good for peoples mental health or spiritual inner peace in the long term, just using people for sex all the time will inevitably have consequences on your social life and will most likely leave you feeling de-moralised and empty in the long term. When you're just sleeping with people for sex, others are actually building meaningful relationships and friendships with each other etc. Just using people for sex is a waste of your own potential and will give no real meaning to your life on the whole because sex is such a fleeting act in itself in essence when you look at the bigger picture of life and your existance.
At the end of the day, i think sex is good for people's happiness when gone about the right way, but it is a serious matter and should be thought about thoroughly and not just acted upon without thinking especially if you are not in a long term loving and happy relationship etc.


(continued in a mo)

 

[Mars Man]

Well it was kind of coincidental timing. I had been slow getting back here, and was just on the point of doing so. (party for scorpion da black, since I'm not sure that he had checked out all this thread as I had earlier suggested)

Annubis san and Tokis-Phoenix san, I appreciate your input there. Both of you touched on some of the points which I have been working on here in this thread 窶｡@[size] Especially some of what you have posted, Tokis-Phoenix san, I'd like to get a closer look at, and 'fine tune.' I will get back to some of those after a certain point of development of my outline girls, if you don't mind. I simply reason that some data has to put put out on the table from which and upon which argument and development of though is made.

For those who are just joining in, or have not been here in a while, I would strongly suggest a careful reading of especially posts numbers 30, 33, and 35, simply for the outline that I will present before touching on some things others have brought into the discussion too.

In that the terms have been set for this thread, 窶｡AI would like to focus on the 'mating drive' now. I have touched on the state of being a sex (mostly the genetical portion) and the obvious reason for sex in the first place, therefore it can be seen how 'eros' can be understood as the 'love' that comes with that state and purpose. (for the far greater part)

What it may be that attracts an individual to another in the 'eros' sense, is has been studied somewhat, but is still very much underway. Studies done by John Money 窶｡B in this area fairly well seem to hold up (although evidence for a weakness in some of his positions is there) and suggest that the brainmaps we develop are pretty much fixed in most cases, on average by puberty. There is, of course the more biological matter of hormonal affects due to sensed matters such as odor, ring-to-index finger length, fat distribution, roundness of eyes and so on. 窶｡C

So, when an individual enters the stage where what I have termed 'the mating drive' for the purpose of this thread 窶｡D a number of neruopetides kick in in various ways and to various degrees. I will go into those next. (and try to make it much sooner than later...)






窶｡@ see posts #s 2, 8, 25; 窶｡A I did make one error there in my post number 2 on page one. Under sex I should have also included the matter of 'state of being of a sex--both genetically and biologically' ; ﾂ 窶｡B Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transportation in Childhood, 1986--and Man and Woman, Boy and Girl: The Differentation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity, 1972 (with A.A. Ehrhardt); 窶｡C Here it is important to keep in mind that such sensing is not usually so conscious, if at all, and depends upon the observer primarily--thus there is an average, but not all fit that average, of course. ﾂ 窶｡D This is jumping the courting stages, which usually (though not always) happen...there are those cases of what, for lack of better expression, we call 'love at first sight,' but they are not the norm.

 

[Mars Man]

Francis Crick kind of took many by surprize when, after the Human Genome Project, he made a statement to the tune of 'You, your joys, sorrows, memories, ambitions, your sense of identity, free will and love are no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells.' This is one factor that comes into play when we so movingly, inspired by 'greater and higher planes of consciousness,' fall in love.

I kind of like the way Helen Fisher, anthropologist at Rutger's University, put it in her work Anatomy of Love--A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray:

Almost everybody knows what infatuation feels like. That euphoria. That torment. Those sleepless nights and restless days. Awash in ecstasy or apprehension, you daydream during class or business, forget your coat, drive past your turn, sit by the phone, or plan what will say--obsessed, longing for the next encounter with "him" or "her." Then, when you meet again, his slightest gestue stops your pulse. her laugh dizzies you. You take foolish risks, say stupid things, laugh too hard, reveal dark secrets, talk all night, walk at dawn, and often hug and kiss--oblivious to all the world as you tumble through a fever, breathless, etherized by bliss. ​

①

The strongest factor in that euphora is the molecule phenylethylamine--or PEA, for short. It is known as an excitant amine (amphetamine) and clearly causes the percieved reaction of elation, exhilaration, and euphoria. Other neuropeptides that play are role are dopamine--which generally gives a feeling of well-being, and is intregal to the pleasure pathway; opiods--which are also active in the pleasure circuitry along with dopimine (dopimne could be more focused on 'desire' and working hand in hand with endorphin and encephalins which may focus more on the pleasure event itself); serotonin--which is basic, and is associated with a soothing, stable effect and is responsible for/or active in mood, memory, appetitie, sex, and sleep; and others such as noradrenalin, oxytocin, and cortisol.

Studies by Donatella Maraziti of the University of Pisa, in Italy, have shown evidence even for 'gender bending' when in this 'love cocktail' state. What is happening there is that some key hormones are shifting to what would otherwise be an 'opposite sex' state. ③

What all the studies and research far more conclude than not, is that our falling head over heels in love with another (or even not to such a strong degree) is no spiritual, non-physical event, but rather just the chemicals that make the brain react in certain ways, as that particular brain is wired for such, has receptors for such, and functions in the range of what is called the norm; for neurological systems.

There are other aspects of this state, such as the exclusive rights that the object of our love has (thus the 'only you' efffect); the 'mirrow activity' (which is a tendency to 'mirrow' mannerisms and body language (a kind of syncronizing of bodies) of the object of our love; and, alas, the weakening, decline of, and eventual lapse of such state. Yes, the 'mating drive' state does not last forever in most cases.

I would next like to bring up the connections between 'mating drive' and 'eros' and then tie those in with some points made by the girls above...and others...before I go on to show why having sex should not carry any image in the public's eyes as being 'dirty', 'wrong', 'immoral', and 'outlawed' (in most ways, that is).



① page 37;
② Why Men Don't Listen & Women Can't Read Maps, Peases, pp 176, 177, 262, 263; NewScientist 11, Oct 2003, p58; Anatomy of Love, H. Fisher, pp50-58; Scientific American, Feb. 2003, p36; Scientific American-MIND, Dec. 2007, p69; The Human Brain, S. Greenfield, pp113-115;
③ NewScientist 8 May, 2004, p14

 

[Mavrek]

Love and sex is quite natural and marriage is a way to perform sex, but I don;t believe in marrying to an other person just for sex.I have many girl friends and I had sex with them and I am doing so.I never felt the need to marry to have sex.

 

[Mars Man]

Before I go on, I must say, that your are very correct...sex does not equal marriage. This is true in that sex is a natural occurance, whereas marriage is a homo sapien--social construct.

Social bonding as seen from the 'eyes' of 'in-group' analogy, however, we could say, dictates marriage in the pair-bonding arrangement of our spieces. Thus there is the dictum, 'marriage builds the family unit, the family unit builds the social group...'

This does not, I will argue, demand that the institution of marriage is any ultimate arrangement, and does not, at the same time, prove that our present social norms are universal in any way.

 

[Goldiegirl]

Love (the feeling) feels good, loving someone (as in a pair bond or marriage) feels good, and sex feels good. Maybe we have all these good feelings because we are supposed to be together. There aren't many animals that have sex just because it feels good. I know there are some who say bonobo chimps and some dolphins have sex, but we are basically the only creature that has sex even if the woman isn't fertile. In chimps the females backside turns red to signal her fertility and readiness for mating, other animal go into a "heat" and the males can smell the females readiness. Why then do humans have "hidden" fertility? Why do human woman have large breasts even when they aren't breast feeding? Makes me think that all these sexual clues are hidden so that a pair bond or marriage is likely.

 

[Doc]

Before I go on, I must say, that your are very correct...sex does not equal marriage. This is true in that sex is a natural occurrence, whereas marriage is a homo sapien--social construct.
Social bonding as seen from the 'eyes' of 'in-group' analogy, however, we could say, dictates marriage in the pair-bonding arrangement of our spieces. Thus there is the dictum, 'marriage builds the family unit, the family unit builds the social group...'
This does not, I will argue, demand that the institution of marriage is any ultimate arrangement, and does not, at the same time, prove that our present social norms are universal in any way.

Yes, but you cannot deny that there is something more to the institution of marriage other than as a social and economical construct. Perhaps that is the way humans wired for the most part. Perhaps we are designed from the get go to have partners to help progress the evolution of humanity. That doesn't mean that those who do not prefer marriage are bad for the human race. Scientifically speaking, the minority who just have sex to have sex could be nothing more than just an error on nature's part, and acts as a counter balance for the human race to a certain extent.

-Doc

 

[Mars Man]

Maybe we have all these good feelings because we are supposed to be together.

I would urge caution here, though. I would think that stepping back from the present that we know (say the last 1000 to 2000 years) we would far more likely discover a pattern that more than anything else, says something along the lines of 'the life-force pressure (genetic material?) ① pushes animated creatures into survival mode for that life-force entity, therefore evolutionary pressure more likely went the road of the greater path for off-spring survival.

In otherwords, it would be perhaps hasty to see a direct causation between the emotional 'click' of agape, philias, eros, and the mating drive and the present institution of marriage--if that is what you had been making appeal towards. (if I didn't read you wrongly there, Goldiegirl)

Otherwise, what you are saying is not new. Yes, to the degree that survival of especially the anthropoids and some ocean mammals, group bonding equates survival leverage. In that sense, yes, what has devoloped through nature to assure survival, is there to maintain survival, and so it is supposed to be there.

As far as I have learned (which of course is still in process) you are correct in your point of there being few animals which have hidden ovulation. And although I suspect you erred a bit in expressing what you really had wanted to say...I don't think anyone hypothesizes that bonobos do not have sex, nor that some dolphins do not either...obviously all animate life forms have sexual function in 95% plus cases.

Why then do humans have "hidden" fertility? Why do human woman have large breasts even when they aren't breast feeding? Makes me think that all these sexual clues are hidden so that a pair bond or marriage is likely.

The two most espoused theories are (in order of likelihood) the Daddy-at-Home theory and the Many-Fathers theory. The basic understanding of both of these (the base premise, if you will) is the female's assurance of gene passing relibility in face of infanticide circumstances or philandering circumstances of very early humanoid settings. (we're not talking about even 10,ooo years ago here, but in the possibly hundreds of thousands...please do keep that in mind.)

Doc san, I will get into your point in my next post...I have to go now. I will, however, leave you with two connected thoughts before coming back. When was the very first concept, idea of 'marriage,' as we now usually define it in the Western World, present? And, among what species of animal was that created by?


① See The Selfish Gene, by R. Dawkins.

 

[Annubis]

When you said what species, I though of ducks... haha. I also thought of the story of the ugly duckling... What if some people aren't even totally human? What if they cannot experience love because they have a special gene from another species?

 

[Annubis]

Ideas...

Oh!! Teehee... on the topic of love marriage and sex... just to put a spin on things... perhaps I was touched by Scorpion Da Black... I recomend you look at chapter 7 in 1st Corinthians if you have a bible. The Passage is very interesting and touches upon monogamy and losing ones virginity... teehee. Talk about contracts... I rather fancy the lord's contracts now a days, however it is good to discuss the above, since the human species is so fascinating and I'd like to know where we got all these ideas from so long ago.

It is easy to say that when the earth was not so populated with people, that a life-long mate was essential for survival. As the population grew, the land between people became smaller and so there were competitions over resources. I see potential mates as a resource. If a group of people have one man and many women, than (I am thinking of cattle and the price of camels - money and milk - YUM!!) there will be many people to support the community... many babies. If there is one woman and many men, than the woman becomes a prize.

In the case of the Spartans, Amazons, Valkyries and other such communities of women, it became essential to find a good strong man to mate with in order to keep a strong clan.

This attraction stuff is all fluff and I think that it mainly came from rank and garments. I'm thinking of the chief of a tribe and the clothing that his woman would wear. Honor and pride as well as success and prosperity are all aspects of wealth and wellbeing. Wealth is desirable of course. So, like in the 20s, a nice plump woman with a fur coat was attractive and a man in a nice suit with a nice watch was attractive... in America and Europe. But I'm sure that plump women and well dressed men are universal symbols of wealth in the mind of human desireability. Maybe not the plump women so much today... as the rich girls are all dying of hunger.

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for joining in again Annubis san. I as far as I know, your though in post #45 will easily be shown to be wrong--unless you may be speaking of our late more nearer family members the Neanderthals. A few points in your #46:

Paul's letter to the Corinthians, as it fairly stands, reflects as much a general Roman standard as it does the typical Jewish standard. We would far more likely at this point (mid first century) be looking at an audience of mostly lower class people--thus few men would have more than one wife at a time. That too, even, is rather recent, however, as regards marriage standards set up by a social group.

Actually, what the scholars in the field theorize--with as due evidence as is possible to collect--is that in those several 10 of thousands of years ago when the earth was indeed not so populated by homo sapiens, the small bands would likely have followed a multiply mating system much like the great apes or some other spieces (as well as some primative societies studied ) do① along with serial monogamy--the pair bonding pressure coming into play. The reason for this, is that female productivity is quite limited--a woman (especially in that era) could have had, and raised to maturity, hardly more than 15 children before menopause.​

There were a few other points that could stand to be investigated more, yet I will leave that for now. What gave, however (again, as far as can be considered to stand after some testing and insight) is the pressure to spread ones genes, and to do so with survival in mind--but of course, not consciously aware.

In the sexual selection process, costs are taken into consideration (again, not always so conscious a matter, but to a degree it is--as we can see in the real world today, both human and non-human) and benefits too. These pressures push in mate selection too, which in turn, can direct evolutionary outcome.

As we take a short look at some styles of mating, it will be important to keep in mind that animate life forms form a continuum...there is really no big gap between the Sea Snail and the human...and we just happen to have noticeably larger brains as our difference above the bonobos or chimpanzies.




① These have patterns of polygamy and or what we would usually see as infidelity; The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller '00; Anatomy of Love-A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray by Helen Fisher '92; Why Is Sex Fun? by Jared Diamond '97

 

[Mars Man]

It may sound strange, but it is nevertheless factual--without separate poles of sexual state, we would not have any institution of marriage as we know it--especially in the European based societies. This in itself is one main point in the argument that the institution of marriage is a social constructed concept, but there are other things that highlight this conclusion as well. The types of bonding seen in nature at large.

Everyone just loves those cute little bonobos...and they pretty much all just love themselves too--almost all the time ! This probably closest relative of ours (even more than the non-bonobo chimpanzee) is like us too in sex for recreation, economic cooperation, and female receptivity throughout much of the estrus cycle--however they lack 'lasting' pair-bonding between couples.

The studies by Sillen-Tullberg and Moller① show that 32 out of 68 species studied by them, resemble humans in lacking visible signs of ovulation, another 18 (including the gorilla) exhibit slight signs, and the remaining 18 (including chimps) exhibit/advertise conspicuously. In comparisons, it is seen that some 11 species turn out to be monogamous② 23 have harem systems, and the remaining 34 have the promiscuous system--in which females routinely associate and copulate with multiple males.③

Down through the march of time, therefore, what that has left us is the following:

monogyny and monoandry--where a male or female has one mate at one time. It is important to keep in mind that sometimes there can overlapping states, such as when among the Afikpo Ibo of Eastern Nigeria, who are usually said to be polygynous, we will find that females marry only one man at a time, so there is monoandry as well.

polygyny and polyandry--where a male or a female have more than one mate at a time. Only 16% of 853 cultures of those on record④(we could say social groups here) prescribe to monogyny, nevertheless, of the social groups which in our day allow polygyny, due to economic costs, only some 5-10% of the men in those cultures do have more than one wife.

We know that the Tlingit Indians of southern Alaska practiced polyandry, and that in the Himalayas do too, but in the animal world it is very uncommon--as I have mentioned before, the reason is biological.

Also, we will find one more quite unique form of 'poly-,' that of polygynandry--or group marriage. Of the countable only on one hand number of social groups which practice this, one example is the Pahari tribe of northern India--although it is not a 100% thing, and depends on a few variables, it is a normal practice that two bothers may have one wife, then 'buy' another, and sex is among all combinations.

There have also been the several 'sex communes' which had set up such a system. The most famous one is that of John Humphrey Noyes, a sexually energetic, religious zealot who had wanted to set up a Christian, communist utopia in the 1830s. In its heyday, there is said to have been over 500 people living and sharing all things except an individual room. It of course eventually failed...because one rule was that 'you can't fall in love, and thus create a natural pair-bond...all had to be shared...and as we all know, you just can't stop mother nature, and cannot fool her for long (in most cases).​

There are some other points which will come up to show the validity and truth behind the understanding that marriage is a simply a social construct matter, and thus should be given and allowed the understanding that that carries with it. I will go into that next.





①The Relationship Between Concealed Ovulation and Mating Systems in Anthropid Primates: A Phylogenetic Analysis in American Naturalist Vol 141, '93, pp 1-25; ② This term, as used scientifically, does not mean permanent pair-bonding, but just one mate at one time...thus serial in nature. It has been pointed out by all writers in the field who touch on that subject, that common usage in English is incorrect. Humans can fit it this group too. ③Humans can fit into all these catagories. For the latter, promiscuous, however, only by the precluding adjective 'routinely, can we say that there is a different classification for those studied species...the human female on average (and somewhat above it) lacks the routinely element; ④We are talking about social groups of several sizes, and those which no longer exist too;

 

[Revenant]

I've always wondered about our sexuality, I mean whether we were truly monogomous or whether monogomy was more driven into us as the way things should be. Of the societies that eventually flourished, I'm wondering if monogamy, and the basic family unit might've contributed to the flourishing. I mean up to the time of this thread, while I had read of some polygomous couplings, most of those seemed to be in places not so advanced technologically or economically.

I have also wondered what would bring about a festival in which the females of the Trobriand islands were given permission to rape any guy they liked for a limited time. I doubt it was just for the sake of fun that that was set into the culture, but perhaps that it was felt that the population needed a boost.

In the end, I feel that ideally sex shouldn't be part of the relationship till a good friendship has been established, and the couple know that the other is indeed compatible. All learned a bit the hard way in my case, and my son stands to lose the most as a result of our break-up.

Nurturing for emotional well-being is at this time more beneficial to kids and society, although it may have been that nurturing for a hard world wherein feelings of security, curiousity, and altruism would've been from a survival perspective less ideal, and a jumpy, neurotic person would've more likely survived with enough time to procreate before being killed off by saber-tooth tigers or the nearest band of humans intent on killing them off to decrease competition for scarce resources.... errr... dunno....

The other thing that I hope is discussed in this thread is the 'pair-bonding' and how feelings of jealousy in regards to competition fit into the evolution of humanity.

 

[Mars Man]

I will go into some more on the aspects of that as relates not only on marriage systems, but on the general effects of being polar in sex state.

The strong desire to be able to know about our 'roots' can be seen in the hopelessly impossible notion humorously penned by Geoffrey Miller in his work The Mating Mind, when he mentioned 'Until NASA approves that mission [of sending a powerful telescope out to a point of some one million light years away so that we could see our ancestors some one million years ago on earth, and see how they had formed sexual relationships].

From what I have learned, a number of ways are used to support the theories that stand, and one of them is looking at the primative societies that we have now, and at historical records relating to them. Now, as pointed out above, some 16% of the some 853 social groups on record prescribed to monogyny, which would usually mean they (those of the remaining 84%) primarily made use of the harem method of marriage at large.

Again, it has been pointed out (and data and evidence back it) that even in social groups that prescribe that system, many, if not most, did (and do) not practice that, because of the economic factor. It takes position, and wealth to be able to have a number of mates--be that polygyny or polyandry. (NOTE: I edited my post #48 today because I had accidently typed in 'momoandry twice--the second time was supposed to have been 'polyandry' and is fixed now...apologies.)

The conclusion which seems to have the most in its favor, is that in some sort of correlation with increment in brain size, and with the loss of visual ovulation, along with the very basic root emotion of attachment which practically all, if not all, animals have, a lean towards pair-bonding was favored. Along with that, the fact that the human baby is altricial-like (to stretch the usual application of that word, a bit), it makes better sense in the evolutionary psychological way of understanding that for the male to know his off-spring, and offer protection for it, has greater benefits for his genes. (again, this is not a matter of conscious thought)

The mating drive, however, has been seen in some other primates, so we know that it is not only a homo sapien thing. (although, as you well know, Revenant, being big brained makes it stand out more) Eros, of course is seen in especially the primates, but in a great number of other animals too. Chimpanzees, especially those cute little bonobo, will copulate out of estrus from time to time. So these two factors are a part of nature that are pre-social bonding matters.

There is evidence that as agriculture started going 'big time,' along with larger and larger clans, land to work and protect, politics, and so on, patriarchy worked its way out into the forefront. Since it's said to be more supportable that primative social groups were egalitarian--and women had more power① (while debate goes on about the degree of matriarchial social groups; 'there were some, yeah, but nowhere near the norm,' seems to be winning out)--what then happened is that women slid into support roles more and more. This factor may have, more than anything else, brought on long-term, or permanent pair-bonding.

I will go on from here next time, as time is tight, but up to this point even, the consensus is that we were, and still are, basically, monogamous. In the past as in the present, even in social groups where polygyny is accepted and practiced by those who can, monogyny is far more common. However, we must keep in mind that that does not mean permanent pair-bonding, a single mate for life, but rather that it means only one mate at a time--and thus the mating drive does not last much more than some 18 months or so until the next stage sets in which keeps a male and a female together just long enough to have a child which the group can help raise.




① Some social groups in which women were/are powerful are: Pygymy of the Congo, Navajo of the American Southwest, Iroquois of the New York area of the US, Tlingit of southern Alaska, Algonkian of the American Northeast, Balinese, Semang of the tropical forests of the Malay Peninsula, Polynesia, Trobriand Islanders, some groups of the Andes, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Caribbean;