Is science starting to figure why polyamory or.....

LovingRadiance

Active member
http://www.reuniting.info/science/oxytocin_revisited

Interesting read, I've been on a role with reading articles about the way our brains release chemicals in terms of love/sex/relationships this week. I've found it very intriguing (there's a crap load of links in my NRE post on my blog).
But this one seemed like it was worth asking opinions on here.

Here's a short quote from the middle of it:

"Some years back, oxytocin was found to be behind the monogamy of prairie voles, but it now appears that Mother Nature's mating program only promotes monogamy if it's “social monogamy.” Just because mates hang out together for life doesn't mean they are sexually monogamous. DNA tests show that both genders in monogamous animals frequently seek out additional mates, while their primary relationship remains in tact. Could this same program to enhance the gene pool create restlessness in human marriages, too?"
 
I really enjoyed reading some in the original thread actually, so I'll get on this one. I certainly do think science has been getting deeper into polyamory for years now though. It is a socially abnormal topic and so science wants to find way to explain it as normal. The thing I really love about science is that is cannot bias itself. Only the scientists can. Which generally creates equal bias on each side. I love that phrase "social monogamy". I feel it is so true. We're brought up in a world that wants monogamy, but the things in our head still want more. In general anyway. There are always anomalies.
 
i find it all very interesting too. It's intriguing how much of what I'm reading mirrors the basic concepts of what my dad told me (all those years ago) about relationships. He must have a very scientific mind. :p
 
This article uses that line as well.

http://www.reuniting.info/staying_in_love_monkey_style

"In short, we're part of a small club of primate species that are wired for the ability to fall in love and settle in with one significant other, whether or not we choose to avail ourselves of this option. This doesn't mean we're programmed to be "sexually monogamous." No species is. But we are "socially monogamous," that is, able to pair up. The fact that we sometimes experience lust in the absence of attachment doesn't make us bonobos, or mean we'd be happier with a more casual approach to mating."
 
My head is not spinning. =] I'm finding this so interesting. A lot of it I've known the basic concepts of, but these articles are giving me good insight into how it relates to me. =] I thank you LR. ^_^

Also, I love the title of this one. Monkey Style. Haha! XD
 
I'm glad that you are enjoying it!
I've been really enjoying the details. I knew the "ideas" but not the details.
It's nice to have the details to back up what my thoughts were. :)
 
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/200907/what-if-she-were-always-in-the-mood

Now isn't that interesting?

"How can sexual satiation drive mates apart? When scientists looked into the brains of mating rats, they discovered that a neurochemical called dopamine (the "I gotta have it!" substance) was behind the phenomenon of mate fatigue. As a rat copulates repeatedly with the same partner, less and less dopamine is released in the reward circuitry of its brain.

Yet when a novel potential mate shows up, dopamine surges again. It's the same mechanism that causes you to say "yes" to a sugary, fat-laden dessert even when you're full of turkey and mashed potatoes. Dopamine surging in your reward circuitry can override your feelings of satiety, regardless of what your rational brain may think about overeating or infidelity. Surging dopamine is a "yes!" while low dopamine is a "not so much." As we'll see in a future post, dopamine also naturally drops after orgasm, which plays right into this phenomenon. Our genes can be heartless puppeteers."
 
Back
Top