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

[Mars Man]

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.

[Mars Man]

By love I would like to keep four areas in mind--agape, phlias, eros, and mating drive. 'Agape' is basically altruism with it's several shades or areas, and 'phlias' is the touching, affectionate love of family members, best friends, bosom buddies, and so on. 'Eros' I think should be held to be the love of and allurment to the sexual element--which would involve more than just sexual activity itself, including even characteristics of physical and mental traits that within a bell-curve-norm, come with the sexual identity. By 'mating drive', I hope to develop a referent which describes the love associated with the act of 'falling in love'--that 'love coctail' which brings (particularly) humans together for propagation.


By marriage, I would like to hold a definition which equates a civil union. This can involve any sex, so we need not limit our other defintions to the standard male and female union either. Part of the discussion may raise points about what is socially acceptable in one social group somewhere in the world, but not in another, so what is socially possible has to be left open--thus helping understand what marriage has been, and can be.


By sex I would like to hold the referent as simply being the sexual act--though that would be broad. (which would be ok, I think) Of course this would not be limited to the more common male-female activites alone.


This area being 'Love and Relationship (Advice)', I intend to argue that while the socially acceptable definition of 'marriage' in many countries could have room for a more pragmatic adjustment, marriage requires knowledge and application of love and sex. These are the keys to communication, inter-action, bonding, and relationship maintenance.

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

[leonmarino]

By sex I would like to hold the referent as simply being the sexual act--though that would be broad. (which would be ok, I think) Of course this would not be limited to the more common male-female activites alone.So what classifies a sexual act? This "whatever gets you off" definition is a bit too broad..

[Mars Man]

This "whatever gets you off" definition is a bit too broad..

I agree, therefore let's narrow it down to at least the activity in which two or more individuals are equally intent on fulfilling the drive to bond and physically interact through a generally normal usage of at least one of the members sex organs.

The effort here is to allow for non-hetrosexual activity as well. If any further notes on the definition are deemed needed, I would hope to discuss them. By setting good and solid definitions from the get up and go, the ensuing discussion should prove to be less prone to randomness.

I'll get back here after the weekend...sorry :relief: :wave:

[SushiShin]

Sex is a good in some sort of ways, but we aren't discussing it here:p

Love is good and so is marriage it binds us all.

i like romance and love. So this is a cool thread:cool:

[moffeltoff]

I tend to see marriage more romantic thats why I wouldnｴt want to have children if Iｴm not married but Sex is totally ok outside marriage =D
Anyway my future plans are to marry a beautifull woman and have 3 kids the two oldest should be boys and the youngest one a little girl.:cool:

[Damicci]

Are we attacking these one at a time or all at once? Also what are we looking for in this dicussion? Personals views, experience and such?

[Mars Man]

While I hope to cover the ground related to the comments and sentiments made by both Kayo and moffeltoff, I would like to first address your point, Damicci.

Are we attacking these one at a time or all at once? Also what are we looking for in this dicussion? Personals views, experience and such?

In the last paragraph of my second post, I laid out the abstract, as it were, of what I hope to accomplish in this thread. In the meantime, I would think that discussion and comments would kind of be all over the place, with an effort to make connections, cross-examine, and then strenghten some positions and points, refute some, and others simple prove completely incorrect.

Personal views are of course ok and I think it is good that we share, yet I do intend to examine them in light of 'what is known' in the fields under consideration, and perhaps point out where any particular view may be incorrect, or weak as opposed to another understanding that is fairly accepted through the process of peer-review and scientific method.

Kayo chan...one point if I may. In a way, to some extent, we would be discussing the sex act--for example, it is well enough shown through studies in sexology, that role playing (fantasy projection) for the sex act is a healthy thing, and is very good for couples who have experienced 'the thrill is gone' (to quote my good ole friend B.B.King).

Putting such knowledge out into the open is good. I'm quite sure 'father sex' ( the author of Everything You Have Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask) himself would agree with me on that one. Let's beak the chains that hold society in denial of this reality, and by doing so help streghten the marital relationship--and by extension, the family unit and society itself.

[Goldiegirl]

As a woman growing up in the USA in a Catholic family, we were taught that love comes first, then marriage and then sex. Well, for none of us siblings was that the way life happened. I can say that it was just too old fashioned and the guilt or shame that all of us were made to feel either directly or indirectly kept us from making the right choices in our lives at times. I thought it was ok to have sex outside of marriage. I wanted to know that there was more there than just sex; love or at least caring for the other person. Yet no matter how much I cared for the other person, there always was this nagging doubt that I was doing something wrong and against God. I am not a practicing Catholic, and have finally been able to get rid of some of the shame that was forced on me and can now make decisions based on what I think makes a person good. Life, love, sex aren't always about being married or getting married.

[Anohito]

As a woman growing up in the USA in a Catholic family, we were taught that love comes first, then marriage and then sex. Well, for none of us siblings was that the way life happened. [snip]

Oh my! I can't resist describing an experience I had with a correspondent (the two of us never actually met each other). He had not been out very long (he was in his early forties), and in one of his letters he told me of an experience he recently had that shocked him. He had contacted someone in his own state that he found on a sort of name & address contact list. After a brief exchange of letters, he had agreed to travel to the other guy's home and spend the night with him. Well, my correspondent was shocked, yes, shocked when this other guy proposed having sex. My correspondent had not set any ground rules beforehand. After relating this incident, my correspondent firmly stated that he did not intend to have sex until after he was in a relationship. Even though I had not been out much longer, I was quite surprised by his attitudes. Perhaps my years in the military had made me more "worldly" about such things. Anyway, as gently as I could, I pointed out that he had not discussed the matter of sex in advance with his host, and that sexual compatibility issues were a major consideration among gay men, making the "no sex before a relationship" plan highly impractical. I did not hear from him for some time, and although he did respond to my letter, I am convinced that he did not like what I told him. I think I only got one more letter (at most) from him. Oh well, I did the best I could.

[maushan3]

I tend to see marriage more romantic thats why I wouldnｴt want to have children if Iｴm not married but Sex is totally ok outside marriage =D
Anyway my future plans are to marry a beautifull woman and have 3 kids the two oldest should be boys and the youngest one a little girl.:cool:

Tell it straight like it is!

Yeah, I don't know what the deal is about sex outside marriage, I was taught that God was gonna punish me if that happens, but I have my doubts, the main purpose for the Church telling people that sex is only for marriage, is, from what I understand, that there might be a mishap and one might have an unwanted child since children is supposed to be only for marriage. But, that's what condoms and other things are used for: not having any children.

Mauricio

[Mars Man]

As a woman growing up in the USA in a Catholic family, we were taught that love comes first, then marriage and then sex. (bold, italics, and underline mine.)

This is an interesting thing to highlight at this moment, I'd reason. I would argue (based on what I have learned) that without doubt, sex comes first ! Now some may be reacting, "Say what !!???" But please let me explain.

Firstly, it's important to keep in mind that if it were not for the placental mammal's internal fetilization method, we wouldn't be talking about the same concept of copulation that we are talking about, anyway. Then, we can see that the most very important act in living organisms is that of self-preservation, which includes, of course (since life is to be seen as a overall state of being) procreation/propogation. What follows then, with a little bit of a jump over some details, is that the act of doing just that--procreating--is the driving force behind eros. It is the major effect of this eros that we pin the expression 'fall in love' on. In this very natural and wide-view way of looking at it, sex comes before love. More on that later.

I thought it was ok to have sex outside of marriage.

In that case, it is ok to have sex outside of marriage--but it would be best, for a degree of social adherence, to have sex with one who thinks likewise. That's the position that seems to win out in the arguments I've come across.


Life, love, sex aren't always about being married or getting married.

I think that is a fair, and well enough supported observation. I hope to detail more of just why that is so, as the thread goes on.

[Mars Man]

Why sex? Well, I very seriously doubt humankind will ever figure that one out. Darwin's Sexual Selection Theory really seems to have been weakened enough that some say it is simply wrong. Nevertheless, sex is here to stay--unless some of the more absurd elements of science even do away with that. (which I really, really doubt would ever happen)

I'm willing to bet all my future Social Security on the truth of the statement that not a single poster on this forum is not a child. And what would that land me? Only my future Social Security, because not a single poster would want to challenge the truth of that statement !! That is the importance of sex. The species survive !!

The 'instinct' of survival is not only an animate creature matter, but is also an inanimate creature matter. We humans have it too--although (and I think it's unfortunate) we don't usually admit to what such an 'instinct' seemingly leads to. We don't even usually want to admit that it's an instinct--for non-homo sapien animals, yeah, of course (survival instinct), but humans?. . . we're not animals. That misguided concept has now long been, or at should have been buried with the 'dumb animal' cliche-like terminology.

We can start with the research and works of the entomologist Alfred Kinsey. His work's findings stirred up, most ironically, the WASPs -1- in the United States when his Sexual Behavior in the Human Female showed that (American---as the opponents saw it) women were also having sex before and during marriage, along with a few other points.

To quote Dr. Kinsey: Some structural characters in my insects vary as much as twelve hundred percent. In some of the morphologic and physiologic characters which are basic to the human behavior which I am studying, the variation is a good twelve thousand percent.

We must keep in mind that his first volume Sexual Behavior in the Human Male had come out in 1948. That era had not been ready to admit to the truth and diversity of human sexuality, so he really was like that artist, whose works become so great and valuable only after the artist has died.

What his work laid the foundation for, and gave a spark of life to, was the area of sexology that studied human sexuality as it would animal sexuality. Here is where we find the animal that homo sapien is also. From this point we can learn more on the importance of sex--from an up-coming post. (for easier reading and discussion)


1. WASP=White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Dr. Kinsey had originally done much research and observation on gall wasps.

[Goldiegirl]

A survey/test was done and it was a great looking girl on a college campus and she was to ask random guys she had never met if they wanted to go back to her room and have sex. All of the guys said yes. Then they asked a hot guy to ask girls the same question in the same situation and not one girl said yes. I think it was a Discovery Channel show on the human sex drive. Basically it came down to the fact that men wanted to pass along as much genetic material they could; women on the other hand want a man who is investing more than just genes because otherwise she'll be raising children on her own. She needs a commitment, he just needs a moment. It was an interesting thought.......

[Mars Man]

And here, on this rainy, cool and cloudy Sunday afternoon, I return--at long last--to this thread; in hopes of carrying on the discussion that had begun, not only here, but also there. (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34361)

I pick up at this point in this thread from there--following Goldigirl's # 26 on page two. I wish to make clear here, that I am not playing the devil's advocate for the sake of argument--which is tautology, though, but just to make clear--yet as with the spirit of this thread, intend to present, test, and further the learning process for us all. Again, I am willing to bet all my future Social Security income that there are more members here on JREF who have not looked so deeply into these matters, as there are those who have.

At post #25, by Tokis-Phoenix chan, I'd firstly like to take up the following question: (and I quote) "...for a start, where are you getting this fact that human love only lasts for a set amount of time from?"

The likes of the following, in short--
The Human Brain, by Susan Greenfield
The Blank Slate--the modern denial of human nature, by Steven Pinker
The Science of Good and Evil, by Michael Shermer
Eve's Seed--biology, the sexes, and the course of history, by Roberts McElvaine
Anatomy of Love, by Helen Fisher
Why We Love, by Helen Fisher
Why Men Don't Listen & Women Can't Read Maps, by the Pease's
Why Men Lie and Women Cry, by the Pease's
...among a few other books on the psychological elements of human pair bonding by Dr. Grey, various reports from the Kensey Foundation, and from papers and reports in Science, Scientific American, NewScientist, and various sites and newspaper articles.

Then, here, I'd like to quickly respond the Goldiegirl, before going on in a following post (I have to go out after this, and won't be back until late)

We are more than our hormones, we are more than basic instincts. That is why we don't eat our offspring, or mate with our siblings or parents (generally the excepted norm). I do believe that we can control our emotions. Perhaps not perfectly and probably with great difficulty but that is what sets us apart from animals. We have CHOICE. Animals can't override their natural, basic instincts, we can. I wouldn't want to be just like an animal...

Thanks for that reminder, it is good to keep in mind the emotional/rational balance that gives us 'big-brained' beings a push above a certain mark on the intelligence level.

Now if I have read you wrong, Goldiegirl, please do correct me. Academically speaking, it has been clearly enough shown that the argument that the human today (or at any time, for that matter) is something than the aggregate of molecular structures that make up the cells that make up the bone, meat, and flesh of the human, along with the hormones and chemical components, is extremely lacking in evidence. To say that we are more than our brains and the things that make the brain work, and our body work, must be supported with evidence to clearly state just what that '[i]more would be--and that has not been done yet.

Cannibalism would not be relative enough to the primary topic at hand, so we should probably set that aside--although it cannot be denied that there have been, and thus can be, social groups within which there is nothing wrong with eating people.

Time is short, so I must be concise. The rest presented can be summed up as boiling down to brain size. I hope to look more into that too, especially as it relates to human sexuality. Please forgive my having to run now. :p:wave:

[Goldiegirl]

I forgot about this thread MarsMan! Thanks for waking it up.

As for being "more than our hormones" I guess it's like this...

When I raised Maine Coon cats, when the female went into heat she had to have sex, she couldn't "not" do it. All aspects of her being at that moment went into reproduction. My male stud cats were ready at any second to get to the female and copulate. They couldn't say to themselves, well jeez I don't have enough money to support my offspring, hey that's my sister (brother) I shouldn't have sex with her/him. They were ruled by nature alone. Sorry, this is written a bit sloppy, my coffee hasn't kicked in yet! :)

[Mars Man]

Yes, I fully understand the point you are making, Goldiegirl. Also I fully understand the value that your experience as a vet can add to this discussion, and really appreciate your joining in !! I hope the coffee kicks in fast--speaking of which, that too, is a drug. That too, kind of falls right in line with the evidence. All of what we are, and can be, is in the brain.

There are some interesting studies among our nearest relatives, the great apes, and you may well know of some of them already. You probably already know that between us and the bonobos there is really less than 10% difference in DNA. You also probably know that the neural distribution is not that different in some animals--even the whales have spindle cells in the pre-frontal cortex area, and those are the very cells that quite likely produce much of our moral reasoning. In your experience with animals, I'm sure you can add a lot to this discussion, and I really look forward to that !!! Really.

We should strive to look at each point from as many sides as we can !! Thanks for joining in !! I'm sure TP chan will join in too !!

[Goldiegirl]

As for our close relationship with chimps, there's an interesting book called "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond. It goes on to say that we are basically 98% the same as chimpanzees, so what in that 2% difference of DNA makes us so human. Why aren't we closer to them and vice versa.

[Mars Man]

Yes !! I am very familiar with the author. I greatly appreciate his works and studies.

Yes, the similarity in DNA is often misunderstood. What that means is that our molecular build is very relative to each other, that our development along the lines of evolutionarily built creatures is very close. We are very far from, say, frog.

What is often over looked by the masses, is that it is the brain that make us different, for the most part, not any minute difference in the DNA.

Yes, Jared Diamond has done a lot of work on showing us just what we are, just how we fit in the animal kingdom.

[Mars Man]

If I may, for the moment, go back to the argument you had presented before about we homo sapeins being more than just our brain structure:

This argument is the one presented especially by the average religionist. The effort is to support understandings that the whole of consciousness is more than just the neural system and all that that involves. These understandings, however, are ancient and are based on understandings that are very lacking in knowledge and experience.

Animals have choice just as we do (although descending in proportion from the great apes and whales/dolphins downward) and can control themselves just as we do. They have individual personalities as we do. Really, when most all of the research, study, and data analyzing is finished, it is true--the difference is brain quality and build.

[Mandy]

just to throw a cat among the pidgeons, I am a massive supporter of the 'marriage first' idea.
Now before you all come running at me with pitchforks, hear me out.

I work with children, and come from a protestant church background. I obviously grew up with the 'no sex before marriage' thing drummed into my head. As a teen, it didn't bother me as I was a late bloomer, and the guys weren't interested.
As a 18yo, it started to matter. My mates were having sex, and loving it, and I copped heaps for not giving it a go. My boyfriend at the time was also keen, but I wasn't ready.
As I watched, my mates went from partner to partner, becoming more and more disillusioned with the idea of love. Not to mention, half of them are now single mums with very little, if any support from the child's father.
Studies (not very popular studies) have shown that people who are sexually active before marriage have a 50% higher chance of divorce.
Tying in my work with kids, kids with broken families, in my experience, have more difficulty concentrating in school and have more emotional baggage at a younger age.

Take what you will of these thoughts.

I chose to wait until I married to have sex, and I'm proud that I waited. My husband is also pretty stoked that he's my first and only.
It's a very unusual situation, I know, but what a wedding present..... *grin*

[Mars Man]

Thanks for joining in, Mandy ! I appreciate your presentation, and would like to take a closer look at some portions of it...as time goes on. I do think that some of what may come up in the future pages of this thread can have some bearing there--such as ways of handling divorce or separation, and attitudes towards human sexuality, among others.

It may be a bit of a process, but I hope you'll join in the discussion as it slowly plays out. One question I'd like to ask here, do you happen to have the authors of that study? I'd be interested in seeing if I can check it out.

[Goldiegirl]

There's a difference between bouncing from one sex partner to another and being in a committed relationship. Promiscuity is bad for everyone involved. I can understand where the disillusionment of what love is could be a problem when you base love solely on sex. Sex doesn't equate love necessarily.

[Mars Man]

There's a difference between bouncing from one sex partner to another and being in a committed relationship. Promiscuity is bad for everyone involved. I can understand where the disillusionment of what love is could be a problem when you base love solely on sex. Sex doesn't equate love necessarily.

Again, I would argue that there would be some finer print that should be laid out with the arguments; alas...the forum format doesn't so easily allow for that tendency. It could be argued, to whatever degree of success, that there would be some discrpency between how bouncing around would primarily affect the male as opposed to how it would primarily affect the female.

I would think that enough of the basic studies have shown convincingly enough just how this could be said to be so--there is, in the first place, for example, a major difference in the result of sexual activity for the two sexes, which has much bearing also.

However at this point, I'd mostly like to suggest, that by piecing together the various things I have talked about regarding 'love,' it should be clear that I would probably go just a little further, and say that the sexual act alone, in no way equates 'love' alone. I'd be ready to argue for this any ole day--the simplicity of the word usage is at fault. I'm glad your still joining in, and always look forward to your thoughts, Goldiegirl chan !!

ps, Mandy, I have been married twice, and never had premarital sex①: which is one reason why I'd like to check out that study, and see if I can find any fault with methodology. Thanks ! :cool:


①By this I mean before the first marriage only, of course.

[Mars Man]

On this thread--as is clear through the title--we have the room to discuss three basic elements which underpin social structure. If a person were to think about it so very carefully, it really should be clear:

if there were no genetic material to invest in gene propogation, there would be no sex. If there were no sex, there would be no need for bonding between two beings for that purpose. (even having given consideration for certain species which switch between sexes in that single body--which of course requires no bonding for species continuation) If there were no bonding between sexes of different beings (male and female in two beings) there would be no family unit. If there were no family unit, there would be no 'strong' society.

This is the way of nature, and this is the way that, far more clearly than any previously imagined format by the human mind, has brought us human beings to where we are today. For this very reason, it is so important to have a firm understanding above and beyond social conditioning spurred on by the socio-religious belief-systems of days gone by--those which worked in social/cultural presuppositions not based on what we know today.

On another thread, the matter of marriage has come up. A common weakness has appeared in the presentation which seems to have not taken into to consideration the fact that in the general social/cultural 'over norm' (as I call it) 'marriage' as it stands today, in much of the minds of social groups, is a fairly new concept. To that degree, therefore, it is more of a contract than not. This is not to say that there is any overt, conscience awareness that a contract is being entered into, but effectually, by the bounds, laws, and customs--not to mention predominate religious belief-systems--the institution of marriage is a contract...nothing more, nothing less.

I say that is a sad thing. Too much has been overlooked. As this thread unfolds, and plays itself out, I intend to do my best to alleviate as much of the misconception and lack of knowledge as I can. At present, I am dealing with sex, since it comes first chronologically.

[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?:clueless:

[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.�@

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.�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.



�@ NewScientist, 4/Sept '4 p31; 　�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. �@ 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.




�@ 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:p

:wave:
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]

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.:relief:

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 slut 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 sluts are just as bad as female sluts 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 �@[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, [size=1]�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 �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. �C

So, when an individual enters the stage where what I have termed 'the mating drive' for the purpose of this thread �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...)






�@ see posts #s 2, 8, 25; �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' ; 　�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); �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. 　�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; [i]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 :wave:

[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]

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.:cool:

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.:okashii:

[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;

[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]

"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;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4669104.stm?lsm







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 :cool: .

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 :relief: ?

[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 (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30865) 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 ! :bow:

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) �@ 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.





�@　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...)