xxoo Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 The research I've read so far have been that vasopressin plays a role in brain reorganization toward paternal behaviors reinforcing protectiveness regarding mate and child, tempering aggression, tempering the sexual drive, and making him more reasonable and less extreme. Seems to me vasopressin isn't pair bonding rather promoting protectiveness of his property and reducing his drive to sow his oats not pair bonding. The scientists keep putting "pair bonding" in the titles: A role for central vasopressin in pair bonding in monogamous prairie voles From the abstract: We now demonstrate that central AVP is both necessary and sufficient for selective aggression and partner preference formation, two critical features of pair bonding in the monogamous prairie vole. What is the difference between "reducing his drive to sow his oats" and "partner preference formation"? Both of these suggest pair bonding to me.
BetheButterfly Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Does romantic love exist any more? Do guys ever meet a girl and fall in love not just lust? If you read the forums, you get the impression that all guys think of is sex and that anything else is secondary, yet guys do get involved with a particular girl and are devastated if the relationship breaks up. At what point does a guy find that sexual attraction turns into love? Is it after a few dates, weeks of seeing a girl, months? Does he usually know it's more than a sexual attraction from very early on? Questions, questions ... I think it's important to remember that the forum does not reflect all men. My husband has never had any interest in spending time writing on a forum, and I'm sure there are many other men who have no interest in doing so as well. Now, it's not a bad thing to write on a forum. I personally like to because I greatly enjoy reading and writing and learning from other people. However, many romantic men tend to be more action-oriented and instead of writing on forums, are actively romantically pursuing the women that inspire that romance. Now, one thing that has hurt or limited the number of men who practice and strengthen romantic actions are women who have allowed themselves to become "easy" and have not set up boundaries that allow romance to bloom. So, it is true that there are not as many men interested in strengthening their "romance muscles" because they don't need to... As for my husband, he developed friendship love for me when we were talking on the phone every night for about 3 months before meeting me in person. He fell in love with me when he saw me (not just pictures of me) and then his love for me grew as we got to know each other more. It was the same with me for him.
udolipixie Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 The scientists keep putting "pair bonding" in the titles: A role for central vasopressin in pair bonding in monogamous prairie voles From the abstract: We now demonstrate that central AVP is both necessary and sufficient for selective aggression and partner preference formation, two critical features of pair bonding in the monogamous prairie vole. What is the difference between "reducing his drive to sow his oats" and "partner preference formation"? Both of these suggest pair bonding to me. Some scientists keep putting pair bonding in the titles and some haven't as the titles I've read had sex and horomones in it. The difference to me is one is a connection to another while one is a reduction of sexual drive that has nothing to do with partner connection. Different views as a guy's sexual drive being lowered doesn't suggest pair bonding to me it's just his drive being lowered.
xxoo Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Some scientists keep putting pair bonding in the titles and some haven't as the titles I've read had sex and horomones in it. I'm going to go with the researchers, here. If they are studying pair bonding, and find enough support to put it in the title, there is a good chance that vasopressin affects pair bonding in men. The difference to me is one is a connection to another while one is a reduction of sexual drive that has nothing to do with partner connection. Different views as a guy's sexual drive being lowered doesn't suggest pair bonding to me it's just his drive being lowered. From personal experience, I'd say it is more complex than just lowering sex drive. That may be part of it, but it is also a focused sex drive: focused on the object of his love (not completely, but strongly). A man can have a relatively strong sex drive and relatively low drive to sow oats.
udolipixie Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 I'm going to go with the researchers, here. If they are studying pair bonding, and find enough support to put it in the title, there is a good chance that vasopressin affects pair bonding in men. From personal experience, I'd say it is more complex than just lowering sex drive. That may be part of it, but it is also a focused sex drive: focused on the object of his love (not completely, but strongly). A man can have a relatively strong sex drive and relatively low drive to sow oats. I'm going with the researchers here as again some find enough support to put it in the title and some don't. There's a good chance that vasopressin doesn't affect pair bonding in men as so far the research I've read that correlate it to pair bonding have done so based on vasopressin reducing sexual drive and promoting partner recognition (vasopression improves cognitive ability by enhancing memory). I'm going with the researchers that it tempers sex drive resulting in it being unlikely he'll be sowing his oats as I haven't seen any research on vasopressin that excludes or includes pair bonding in the title that has stated, suggested, or implied that it's a focused sex drive.
xxoo Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 MRI of Love: interesting article that shows the interaction of the Lust, Romance, and Attraction parts of the brains of a married man, shown photos of his wife and photos of Angelina Jolie. It does show a lower sex drive for a married man with kids (expected), but an active libido nonetheless. The interesting result to me is that his wife lit up the "lust" part of his brain as much as Angelina Jolie (a novel woman he is objectively attracted to). This man's brain registers his wife as attractive as Angelina Jolie. That's love! That, to me, is focused sex drive--making an average seem extremely sexually arousing. Whether that is the function of vasopressin or not, I don't know, but it is the MRI evidence of a man in love.
proseandpassion Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Scientists are finding that vasopressin plays a role in men's pair bonding: Vasopressin and Bonding An easy read about the research: Monogamy in Men and the Vasopressin Receptor Men also release oxytocin during sex.
2.50 a gallon Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) udolpixie Before we could develop the technology we needed to develop our brains. And in order to grow a far superior functioning brain it takes a lot longer for us to travel from birth to maturity. Which in turn means, that for an individual to survive to adulthood they needed two parents to support them through their early years. In short, the first step toward technology was the development of the two parent family unit. Look at the life styles of the hominids, Yes they might stay in family groups or clans. And yes the males are around to protect the clan, but none of them has a father who is dedicated to the survival and the raising of a single females off spring. It was the father who not only protected her and her off spring, but also shared in raising the child. The female no longer had to spend large amounts of time food gathering, as the male would share is larder with her and their youngster As for the female of the species, it was probably woman who were the ones who put us on the path to our modern technical world, as from what I have read, it was they who discovered how to raise crops and vegetables. Thus we were able to elevate our selves above the hunter gather state Edited August 1, 2012 by 2.50 a gallon
udolipixie Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 udolpixie Before we could develop the technology we needed to develop our brains. And in order to grow a far superior functioning brain it takes a lot longer for us to travel from birth to maturity. Which in turn means, that for an individual to survive to adulthood they needed two parents to support them through their early years. In short, the first step toward technology was the development of the two parent family unit. Look at the life styles of the hominids, Yes they might stay in family groups or clans. And yes the males are around to protect the clan, but none of them has a father who is dedicated to the survival and the raising of a single females off spring. It was the father who not only protected her and her off spring, but also shared in raising the child. The female no longer had to spend large amounts of time food gathering, as the male would share is larder with her and their youngster As for the female of the species, it was probably woman who were the ones who put us on the path to our modern technical world, as from what I have read, it was they who discovered how to raise crops and vegetables. Thus we were able to elevate our selves above the hunter gather state Different opinions I think either need to survive, curiousity, imagination, innovation, intelligence, and education were the first step toward technology. I already know the lifestyles of the hominids as I stated it's likely "the family unit was likely already developed as in the animal kingdom there's usually some form of family" when I disagreed with your statement that by looking in each other's eyes during sex we developed a family unit.
2.50 a gallon Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 udolpixie My gf read this thread and corrected me, the date was Oct 21. She also reminded me that at 10 that evening we got kicked out of the jacuzzi and went back to my place, where somewhere about 11 she began falling in love with me. That was half an hour after we began making love, and about the time when it began to shift from love making to raw sex, and for the next hour plus. "you f*cked my brains out" In short, had I not been interested in her hole that night, she would have found somebody else who was. It has been my experience that there are a lot of women who enjoy sex and see sex as a way of sharing.
udolipixie Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 udolpixie My gf read this thread and corrected me, the date was Oct 21. She also reminded me that at 10 that evening we got kicked out of the jacuzzi and went back to my place, where somewhere about 11 she began falling in love with me. That was half an hour after we began making love, and about the time when it began to shift from love making to raw sex, and for the next hour plus. "you f*cked my brains out" In short, had I not been interested in her hole that night, she would have found somebody else who was. It has been my experience that there are a lot of women who enjoy sex and see sex as a way of sharing. Unsure why you're continuing to tell me when you fell in "love". Really unsure why you felt the need to state your experience has been a lot of women enjoy sex and see it as a way of sharing as nowhere did I state, suggest, or imply otherwise or mention something related to it.
GG2W Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Hunh? Your post of 7/31 at 5:05 states that romantic love from men towards women is simply a ploy
udolipixie Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Hunh? Your post of 7/31 at 5:05 states that romantic love from men towards women is simply a ploy My post states my opinion is that romantic love from men towards women is a ploy. Keywords. There's also a post from me stating I highly doubt that opinion will change that is after 2.50 gallon tells me how he "fell" in love. So I'm unsure why he's continuing to tell me when he fell in "love".
GG2W Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Got that and Mr. Gallon is not a ploy, therefore your man bashing is in error. Women love to f*ck with the right partner
udolipixie Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Got that and Mr. Gallon is not a ploy, therefore your man bashing is in error. Women love to f*ck with the right partner It's not in error as one person doesn't disprove my opinion on a general population. Until there's irrefutable facts I'll stick with my opinion. Nowhere did I state, suggest, or imply that women don't like to have sex with the right partner. I didn't even mention women's enjoyment of sex so it's telling to me that "women love sex" keeps being repeatedly when I was talking about romantic love from men towards women.
Recommended Posts