Hormones: the science of love

[stormbind]

Men & their short term desires

To spread their seed far and wide. This takes effect daily, and applies to any suitably reproductive female (esp. young).

Men & their long term desires

To support and protect the most intelligent and cooperative female, intended to be mother of their children.

Women & their short term desires

To make use of genes from the most desirable man. This takes effect most days and applies to suitably healthy specimens (esp. tall men).

Women & their long term desires

To secure the resources and support of a consistently providing man (esp. wealthy). This can take the form of bearing his children, or pretending to.

New couples

Experience both desires, resulting in passionate months or perhaps a few years.

Established couples

Experience decline or loss of short term desires, leaving the emotional attachment based on resources, but re-establishing desire for short-term encounters.

Effects of religion on the above

When observing the most religious of established couples, I witness that they are consistently happier, remain together longer, and appear not to want for extra-marital encounters. In those people, it appears that something has taken precedence over hormones!

Is there a another - rarer - aspect to love & desires that is not explained by science and hormones?

 

[Shadylookin]

Men & their short term desires

To spread their seed far and wide. This takes effect daily, and applies to any suitably reproductive female (esp. young).

Men & their long term desires

To support and protect the most intelligent and cooperative female, intended to be mother of their children.

Women & their short term desires

To make use of genes from the most desirable man. This takes effect most days and applies to suitably healthy specimens (esp. tall men).

Women & their long term desires

To secure the resources and support of a consistently providing man (esp. wealthy). This can take the form of bearing his children, or pretending to.

New couples

Experience both desires, resulting in passionate months or perhaps a few years.

Established couples

Experience decline or loss of short term desires, leaving the emotional attachment based on resources, but re-establishing desire for short-term encounters.

Effects of religion on the above

When observing the most religious of established couples, I witness that they are consistently happier, remain together longer, and appear not to want for extra-marital encounters. In those people, it appears that something has taken precedence over hormones!

Is there a another - rarer - aspect to love & desires that is not explained by science and hormones?

not likely. many religions add a sense of community in church/wherever. while the non-religious don't have such a thing. and there are so many religions and sects out there if they all experience benifit one can hardly claim it was their one and only god helping them. Of course you didn't even provide a source for your info and since last I checked religious people had a higher divorce rate so I think the conclusion is false

 

[Birdjaguar]

Women & their short term desires

To make use of genes from the most desirable man. This takes effect most days and applies to suitably healthy specimens (esp. tall men).

Females are drawn to alpha males, but the immediate culture determines what an alpha male actually is.

 

[stormbind]

not likely. many religions add a sense of community in church/wherever. while the non-religious don't have such a thing. and there are so many religions and sects out there if they all experience benifit one can hardly claim it was their one and only god helping them. Of course you didn't even provide a source for your info and since last I checked religious people had a higher divorce rate so I think the conclusion is false

The source is my observation. The established religious couples concerned happened to be European Catholics (of which I am not a member - thus a fairly neutral observer).

 

[GenMarshall]

not likely. many religions add a sense of community in church/wherever. while the non-religious don't have such a thing. and there are so many religions and sects out there if they all experience benifit one can hardly claim it was their one and only god helping them. Of course you didn't even provide a source for your info and since last I checked religious people had a higher divorce rate so I think the conclusion is false

I have to disagree. Couples who share the same faith and attend the same churches have a lower divorce rate. So in a sense the conclusion is true,

 

[Narz]

Females are drawn to alpha males, but the immediate culture determines what an alpha male actually is.

That's mostly false. The characteristics of a true alpha male do not change with the fashion of the times.

Magazines may portray men of certain kinds, TV, movies and magazines may prejudice some wish-washy women but the true attributes of the alpha male remain constant.

And while the insecure male tries to emulate Calvin Klein, say all the right things, smell, look, act and smile just right, the alpha is busy getting all the ladies.

On topic, Dida, sure love is biochemestry, so is everything else. What else is new?

You have certainly oversimplified and sterotyped your reasons for why people desire love.

 

[Sims2789]

Is there any evidence for this besides baseless Freudesque ramblings?

 

[Birdjaguar]

That's mostly false. The characteristics of a true alpha male do not change with the fashion of the times.

Magazines may portray men of certain kinds, TV, movies and magazines may prejudice some wish-washy women but the true attributes of the alpha male remain constant.

And what would those characteristics be then?

 

[Quentin]

Normally the characteristics of an alpha male would be intelligence, unmatched strength, and good looks.

A definition from Google says: "An alpha male or alpha female is the individual in the community to whom the others follow and defer." This would mean that Bush, or a leader of some other major country is the alpha male. Doesn't seem to me any of them is particularly intelligent, strong, or good looking

 

[Narz]

And what would those characteristics be then?

If you were an alpha male you wouldn't have to ask.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If you were an alpha male you wouldn't have to ask.

Clearly, you haven't a clue. I guess my point about cultural variability was correct.

 

[Hygro]

Stormbind I highly reccommend you read Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice, a book that explains the biology behind sexual behavior. She provides an excellent and thorough and logical argument on how males really wish to spread and then protect their seed, and not spread far and wide, whereas females wish to put themselves in a position where only the strongest male can succeed spreading seed.

That's mostly false. The characteristics of a true alpha male do not change with the fashion of the times.

You're wrong. Gender roles, while can be genetically influenced, are almost entirely culturally based.

 

[Sickman]

Stormbind I highly reccommend you read Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice, a book that explains the biology behind sexual behavior. She provides an excellent and thorough and logical argument on how males really wish to spread and then protect their seed, and not spread far and wide, whereas females wish to put themselves in a position where only the strongest male can succeed spreading seed.

That is just one perspective.

Basically the human behaviour differs so much from one invidual to another that their means to procreate are extremely hard to predict. It very much depends about their society and their position in them.

What comes to alpha-male model I think it's quite outdated.
I would say that women prefer "alpha-male lookalikes" in western societies.
It doesn't necessarily mean the strongest or the wealthiest but combination of traits that are similar to these.

Sexual behaviour is much more complicated depending about the existing circumstances.
We adapt to different cultures and such with our basics of our biological presets. It's very hard to determine which behaviour is biological based and which is cultural.

Women often also seek "cooperative" men to raise their child nowadays and men are very much needed to be a father to the child rather than just provider.

Or how many women are in present time want to have children with someone who is wealthy, good looking, strong, hardworking, romantic and never home?
It seems people usually overlook certain qualities when looking for partner but once chosen they start to have different demands for the partner.

The main problem is that choices based into hormones&sex&desires&power don't necessarily equal happiness.

In modern times this has been understood and we try to overwrite certain biological presets in order to achieve happiness with partner that has at the same time as much value as possible.
Sometimes those meet, sometimes don't.
Result: lot of divorces.

 

[Narz]

You're wrong. Gender roles, while can be genetically influenced, are almost entirely culturally based.

Not really. Manly traits are generally agreed upon (probably 90% I'd wager) around the world as are female ones.

Gentlesness, nuturance, protectiveness of her kin are universally honored female characteristics while strength, stoicness, bravery and perseverence are universally accepted as male traits.

You can't dress a man up a certain way, give me a list of things to say and expect him to be respected as an alpha. It's personality and character. You could dress Wesley Snipes up like a fruitcake and he'd still find a way to be the man. Just as you could dress Richard Simmons up like a fashion model and give him a list of sharp things to say and he'd still be... well Richard Simmons (perhaps lovable and even successful, but definitely not an "alpha male").

People here seem to give "culture" way more power then it actually has. Probably cause you guys are mostly still in high school (where "culture" and social codes hold a major sway).

 

[Mise]

Is there any evidence for this besides baseless Freudesque ramblings?

No, but here's some evidence that it's a load of rubbish:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Of course, his "real" point is that religious marriages appear to be healthier and last longer.

Some researchers have suggested that religion may have little or no effect on divorce rates. The apparently higher rate among born-again Christians, and lower rate among Atheists and Agnostics may be due to the influence of financial and/or educational factors.

"These findings confirm what I have been saying these last five years. Since Atheist ethics are of a higher calibre than religious morals, it stands to reason that our families would be dedicated more to each other than to some invisible monitor in the sky. With Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage. There is no room in Atheist ethics for the type of 'submissive' nonsense preached by Baptists and other Christian and/or Jewish groups. Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage."

http://www.jesusjournal.com/jj_issues/divorce.html
There are unsubstantiated claims that the divorce rate for Christians who attended church regularly, pray together or who meet other conditions is only 1 or 2 percent.

Hughes thinks that this unsubstantiated statistic insults divorced Christians. It implies that divorced Christians were just not spiritual enough to sustain a relationship, and is further evidence of bias against divorced Christians.

Same site on inteer-faith marriages:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ifm_divo.htm

Scientific beliefs are generally based on observation and experimentation. Opinions can be debated and resolved. The idea with the best supporting evidence wins. However, religious beliefs tend to be based on faith. This can produce serious problems when two spouses come from different religious traditions

Incidentally, stormbind is from the UK, so things might be different here than in America.

 

[stormbind]

I wish to clarify some assumptions made about my post.

The concept of "alpha male" brought up by Birdjaguar is more broad-based than my very specific observation about height (regardless of strength or physique) being perceived by women as the most important property when full-filling only their short term desires. This observation is made in the EU and US.

Of course, his "real" point is that religious marriages appear to be healthier and last longer.

This observation was of God-adoring Catholic couples in the EU who attend church. I never witnessed God-adoring Catholic couples in the US.

Thank you Mise for those very interesting quotes

 

[classical_hero]

Of course, his "real" point is that religious marriages appear to be healthier and last longer.

I know that to be true because the vast majority of married couples at my church are living in happy, long lasting and fulfilling marriages.

 

[Mise]

I know that to be true because the vast majority of married couples at my church are living in happy, long lasting and fulfilling marriages.

This observation was of God-adoring Catholic couples in the EU who attend church. I never witnessed God-adoring Catholic couples in the US.

I agree with these two quotes -- IME marriages within religion are very strong. But I still disagree with the conclusion, because I can say the exact same thing about agnostic/atheist marriages. It's far more likely (as the link says) that the cause of the surprisingly high divorce rates for religious marriages are due to socio-economic issues rather than any intrinsic difference between the values instilled by religion and those ethical codes followed by those without religion.

 

[stormbind]

That creates the question: Why are American Christians more likely to encounter socio-economic issues?

 

[Hygro]

Not really. Manly traits are generally agreed upon (probably 90% I'd wager) around the world as are female ones.

Gentlesness, nuturance, protectiveness of her kin are universally honored female characteristics while strength, stoicness, bravery and perseverence are universally accepted as male traits.

You can't dress a man up a certain way, give me a list of things to say and expect him to be respected as an alpha. It's personality and character. You could dress Wesley Snipes up like a fruitcake and he'd still find a way to be the man. Just as you could dress Richard Simmons up like a fashion model and give him a list of sharp things to say and he'd still be... well Richard Simmons (perhaps lovable and even successful, but definitely not an "alpha male").

People here seem to give "culture" way more power then it actually has. Probably cause you guys are mostly still in high school (where "culture" and social codes hold a major sway).

Don't try to write my perceptions and education off as something high school related or another. If I had my psychology textbook I could quote the chapter on gender roles and show how in fact they were culturally based. That its more often gender roles have men as dominating aggressors, thats not inherintly true.