The Great Mate Debate by Chemistry.com: Blog

"Body loops"

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:08:39 GMT

Topic: Is there an age at which it’s too young to get married?

I’m not in the “should” business. I think people need to do what they need to do. But here are some facts: The older you are when you wed, the more likely you are to remain married. I have looked at data collected by the United Nations between 1947 and 1992 on 58 societies and the pattern is the same everywhere: Marriages among the very young are fragile. But what’s wrong with marrying at sixteen? Some people, particularly the very poor, are likely to have a difficult road ahead. At sixteen, they are still in good enough health to bear and raise a child, and they still live with kin who can help them with their young. There are many economic, physiological and psychological reasons that the young marry, reasons that are grounded in good Darwinian logic. Besides, try telling a sixteen year old girl who is madly in love with a sixteen year old boy that he has no job and three heads, and you will get a totally black stare. The heart is not well connected to the brain. These “body loops,” as the neural pathways between one’s thoughts, emotions, motivations and bodily feelings are called, are swamped by romantic love. You simply don’t think clearly while Cupid is dancing in your head. As Pascal said, “The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing of.”

“You can only be intimate with your equal.”

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:17:16 GMT

Topic: We’re seeing more and more “older women/younger men” couples in the public eye. Why do you think these couples capture our attention—and can be so successful?

“You can only be intimate with your equal.” I have always loved this anonymous quote. And, for this reason, I admire men who go out with older women. I reason that they must be smart--because older women have more experience, and hence they are more likely to be interesting and sexy. I know some utterly boring older women, of course, as well as some intriguing younger ones. But, all things considered, age does give some perks. And the younger man who can sustain the interest of an older woman is likely to be equally evolved. But I think there is a Darwinian reason that people gawk at this combination: it’s not a logical reproductive match. Older women are less likely to bear viable young. So the young man who goes out with an older woman may not send his DNA into tomorrow, genetic suicide. In our bones, we feel this combo is unnatural. But today a lot of men and women don’t wish to have children. So why not follow your heart? In fact, I think these couples are part of a much larger 21st century trend: of dating, loving, and marrying whom we please. So to me, these pairs are much more than just another success story for Cupid; they express a vast departure from the rigidly traditional marriage culture of the past 10,000 years, the morning of a new age.

"What mad pursuit" : Both sexes are more romantic!

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:06:00 GMT

Topic: Which sex is more romantic – men or women?

The psychological data report that men are more romantic than women are. They fall in love faster, because they are so visual. Men are more dependent on their girlfriends or wives because they have fewer close friends and fewer ties to family. More men remarry. And more men kill themselves when a relationship ends. Men even alter their daily schedule more regularly, waiting for a woman to call or write. And new data indicate that men are also more eager to marry and happier in their marriages. Scientists believe that women are somewhat more cautious about entering a relationship, and sustaining it, for a good Darwinian (unconscious) reason: it is the woman who will bear the fetus for nine months, and do the vast majority of daily childcare during the child’s infancy. Feminine caution is adaptive.

But women seem to express romantic feelings more regularly than men. Women, on average, are more emotionally expressive. They buy and send more greeting cards. They arrange the social schedule, including birthday parties and anniversary events. Women are better at remembering the history of the relationship, so they are good at reminiscing. And our data on the brain chemistry of romantic love suggest that women feel ever so slightly more of the intense exhilaration when they fall in love.

So which sex is more romantic? Both. The sexes just express it differently. But we are built to continually chase one another--as Keats brilliantly summed it up in his Ode on a Grecian Urn, saying, “What mad pursuit.”

Summer Muscle Madness

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:13:34 GMT

I was once told by a man that one of men’s deepest held secrets is that they don’t always want to have sex. Women keep secrets too. And one of our secrets is that we don’t really like very muscled men. Dr. Martie Haselton, a fine evolutionary psychologist at UCLA and graduate student in psychology David Frederick have proven this scientifically. In a series of experiments, they have established that women are attracted to muscle building men for short liaisons and affairs. But for a long term relationship, they seek more average looking guys.

Most interesting is women’s reasoning. Women report that very muscled men tend to be domineering, volatile and philandering. And for a long term relationship, they prefer men who are more faithful and romantic.

Why is this so interesting? Because these women are accurately (yet unconsciously) reading biology. Muscle builders trigger the production of testosterone to develop their muscles. And elevated testosterone is associated with being domineering, volatile, and unfaithful. In short, as women look at these muscles they are intuitively linking them with specific biological mechanisms that produce specific psychological traits.

My point is this: looks count. They say subtle things about your biology--and your personality. And people naturally pick up on these cues. So this summer, when everyone is out parading, don’t think you are shallow as you ogle potential mates. Listen to your heart. You are often much smarter than you think you are.

What is "pathological" about being in love?

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:50:23 GMT

The Psychiatric University Clinics in Basel, Switzerland did a study in which scientists asked 113 teenagers (around the age of 17) to keep a diary of their sleep patterns; they were studying mood and behavior. Apparently 65 of these teens were “in love.” And the love struck men and women displayed signs of “hypomania,” a less intense form of mania. These men and women slept an hour less each night; they impulsively spend too much money; and they were twice as likely to report that they were filled with energy and creative ideas. Last, they took more risk, particularly while driving. The scientists concluded that being in love is a “psychopathologically prominent stage.”

What is “pathological” about being in love? Journalists and apparently scientists seem to want to make this natural human euphoria, associated with true bliss, intense energy and heightened creativity, into a disease. Romantic love is an extremely powerful brain system, indeed when it hits, it is an obsession. And we all know that love can be dangerous, psychologically and physically. But a disease? Well, if romantic love is a disease, just about all the world wants to contract this fever and live with it forever.

Forward to the past

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:16:14 GMT

Topic: Study about women in relationships

A new study reports that wives have more power than their husbands in the home. They make more of the decisions and they dominate discussions.

What’s new here? Women have always had a lot of informal power in the home. Unquestionably, women historically did lack the economic power to weigh in on important financial decisions. But today, in at least 1 of 4 households where both spouses work, the wife brings home more money than her husband. And everywhere in the world where women are economically powerful they are socially powerful as well. No wonder women have increasing power in the home.

The study also shows that wives are more demanding; they more regularly ask for changes in the relationship. This isn’t new either. Many studies show that men are, on average, happier in their marriages. Because men have fewer close friends, they are also more dependent on their spouses. So no wonder men make fewer demands.

Last, the study reports that wives are more likely to “get their way,” regardless of the issue. Once again, I’m not surprised. Men tend to avoid arguments because men become more “flooded” by their feelings--along with an unhealthy rise in blood pressure. So it is thought that men avoid disagreeable conversations (stonewalling) to unconsciously preserve their health.

This new report is actually just another sign that we are returning to life as it was a million years ago--when women commuted to work to do their gathering, the double income family was the rule and women were just as economically, socially and sexually powerful as men. We are moving forward to the past, toward equality between the sexes.

Are people who never marry somehow "missing out"?

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:28:13 GMT

As usual, this depends. I think people are missing out if they never experience an enduring, long-term, live-in relationship based on trust, romance, friendship, adventure, compatible sexual needs and enduring intellectual interests. But who am I to say that people always get these things in a marriage, or that those who have a long-term live-in commitment to one another fail to achieve this companionship and joy? I do think that marriage has several perks, however. Foremost, the obvious. It takes time and money to get out of a marriage, so I think marriage requires you to grow up and work to overcome your differences instead of fleeing. Marriage can deepen a relationship, as well as widen family and community ties and bring security and peace.

But some believe that marriage will destroy that spark of romance that a less formal connection might preserve. Others regard marriage as a piece of paper, not quite worthy of the deep enduring love they express to one another regularly. So I’ll go with the “if by whiskey” story, told by former southern politicians: Apparently a reporter once asked one of these savvy gentleman how he stood on the issue of “whiskey.” The politician paused for a moment, then said: “If by ‘whiskey’ you mean that magnificent potion that lubricates social intercourse and warms the heart, then I’m for it …. But if by ‘whiskey’ you mean that satanic concoction that wrecks families and sends people down to hell, then I’m against it.” So “if by marriage you mean…," I am for it.

In fact, I’ll go with Margaret Mead who, when asked why all three of her marriages failed, retorted, “I beg your pardon, I have had three marriages and none of them was a failure.” We each define marriage and enjoyed it in our own private ways. I’m just glad we live in an era where we can build our marriages as we wish. Big Brother isn’t watching. Which reminds me of one of Mead’s ideas. She suggested that we consider a new marital option: a renewable marriage contract much like a driver’s license with an expiration date and option to renew. I don’t think this is a viable option for those who plan to have children (Mead didn’t either). But those who marry later in life or know they don’t wish to reproduce may find a renewable marriage contract attractive. And it’s not such a bad idea. Under these circumstances, some might be inclined to be on their best behavior more regularly, particularly around “renewal” time. Others might be more polite as they wait for their opportunity to depart. Perhaps some day “til death do us part” will be joined by some variation of the slogan “six years or bust.” I don’t find this very romantic, personally. But perhaps it would give some people the right mix of autonomy and commitment they need to enjoy life's greatest adventure: love.

Great chemistry except in bed – should you give up?

Thu, 22 May 2008 16:04:09 GMT

Great chemistry; bad sex: Should you give up? I don’t know. Each situation is different. But I do know this: If you are intensely in love with some one, you will certainly notice their clumsiness in the sack--but you might not care. When people are madly in love they can list what they don’t like about their sweetheart, but then they sweep these concerns aside and focus on what they adore. As Chaucer said, “Love is blynd.” But what if you believe this person really could be a soul mate--but sex is nowhere near what it could be or should be? Should you give up? I am an anthropologist, not a therapist, but as a concerned layman, I would say: If you think the situation is hopeless, and you know you need a vastly different kind of sex life to make a long-term, happy relationship, you should cut your losses (and your partner’s losses) and politely depart. But people learn. And change. And grow. I honestly know several men and women who have slowly, tactfully and patiently shown their partners new bedroom skills and built a fabulous sex life together—out of almost nothing. So if you think you have found “The One,” don’t give up. If he or she really loves you, they will want to please. And if you stick with it, you both can win.

What’s with all these celebrity couples having kids out of wedlock?

Thu, 15 May 2008 13:31:17 GMT

Why are so many celebrity couples having kids out of wedlock? Because they are rich and famous. And although this sounds glib, bearing babies out of wedlock can be an adaptive Darwinian strategy—particularly if you are rich and famous.

“Marriage,” Voltaire wrote, “is the only true adventure open to the cowardly.” It is an adventure. And swearing lifelong fidelity to (and responsibility for) another human being during a wedding ceremony has psychic pressures that “living together” simply cannot match. Moreover, it is much easier and cheaper to wiggle out of a bad love affair than a bad marriage, even when children are involved.

So if you can afford to raise your babies without taking on the psychological accountability and financial risks of marriage (and you can weather the social criticism), you would be advised by Mother Nature to buck tradition and bear your babies out of wedlock. Celebrities are not the only ones to adopt this strategy, however. In 1960 one in 20 children were born out of wedlock; today it is one in three. Moreover, today 40% of these births are planned, and many of these children are born to women over age 25.

Darwinian logic isn’t solely for the rich and famous. (By the way, many of these women will eventually marry.) But regarding celebrities: More interesting to me is why they say they have not wed. One Hollywood couple recently announced that they would wed “the day that all Americans had the right to wed.” This is to be respected, to be sure.

But from the Darwinian perspective, this couple is also collecting social capital, in the form of admiration, as they reap their reproductive gains. I don’t mean to be cynical about our human conduct. Poor people, middle-class people; we all engage in unconscious reproductive tactics to survive and reproduce. It’s natural to “think of the children.” The rich and famous are simply playing out a well-designed (albeit unconscious) strategy to win the mating game.

What roles do religion and spirituality play in relationships today?

Thu, 08 May 2008 13:49:44 GMT

I think more and more people are actually putting energies into making their marriages work. Moreover, this is a fairly modern trend. Greek, Roman, Chinese and early Christian philosophers and theologians regarded one’s love of kin, God and civil duty as far more important than love for a spouse. In fact, historians maintain that strong marital commitments were not regarded as the foundation stone of society until the 20th century. We’re doing something right!

This new emphasis on happiness and companionship in marriage probably stems from many current trends. But one of them, I suspect, is our lack of local community. We all still maintain rich networks of colleagues, friends and family. But these people don’t live next door; nor do they share all of our personal values and goals, as they did for millions of years on the grasslands of ancient Africa. I have often thought humanity would reinvent new ways to produce local community-- and perhaps the church life that some people are creating is a response to exactly this need for local community.

I also realize that we all have biases. Sometimes I lie in bed at night and wonder what beliefs I am clinging to that I will think are ridiculous in five years. I only know of one at the moment: I firmly believe that women are just as sexual and just as adulterous as men. But this is a topic for a different blog.

To be able to say “spiritual commitment is absolutely essential” to a relationship, I guess we would have to define “spiritual.” But to add some science here: Psychologists believe a successful relationship needs three components: passion; intimacy and commitment. But…does a successful partnership need a “spiritual” commitment, particularly to a Christian god?

Well, as an anthropologist I can only say that a huge number of human beings worldwide--for many millennia--made highly successful marriages without a Christian god. Moreover, even a cursory look at global history indicates that the concept of ‘god’ has caused tremendous damage—perhaps not in the family but certainly in the world.

Do long-distance relationships ever work?

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:56:29 GMT

There are a lot of different kinds of long distance relationships and a lot of ways to make these work. I know a truck driver who actually hooked up a TV camera in his wife’s bedroom so that he could watch her sleep--not to spy on her but to remain close to her. I also know a couple in the Navy who regularly rent the same video and watch it together on the phone, in “real time,” while he is on duty in Asia and she is in their home in New Jersey. Cell phones, email, Internet photos and home videos can enable the traveler to stay in daily, even hourly, contact with a beloved. Couples also tend to develop a few good rules. For example, I recently spoke with an Army wife who told her husband that he must never whistle while he packs for a 6-month tour of duty. All these touches can make a long distance partnership bearable, perhaps even fun—as long as both partners participate in holding things together.

I would add that in hunting and gathering societies, men and women often leave camp for days or weeks, to visit relatives or meet other social or business obligations. And often both partners like their “free time.” Even today, some couples truly enjoy these interruptions. They say they get more of their work done during these intervals and have more time to enjoy the partnership when they reunite. But it all depends, of course, on who you are, what you want, and what makes your partnership thrive.

Is complete honesty necessary in a successful relationship?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:59:12 GMT

Courtship is not about honesty; it's about winning, winning life's greatest prize, a long-term mating and social partner. So humanity has a tendency to size up the perquisites and deficits of honesty and stretch the facts when we think we might profit from deception. We are not alone. All sorts of creatures try to deceive. Gorillas stand up on their hind legs to look tall, then cup their hands and pound their chests, making a pock-pock noise that sounds authoritative and probably virile. Many animals raise their hair to look big, strut to appear confident and imposing, or dance to show their strength and energy. People apparently lie most about their age, weight, height and financial status. For good Darwinian reasons. These basic signals say a lot about a person's health and ability to conceive and raise a child. And although many people do not want to bear an infant, we still respond, almost viscerally, to a potential partner's visual and financial signals. But we are also built to contain our lies--because if we are "discovered," we are likely to lose precious mating opportunities. Moreover, some people almost never lie. But like the peacock that puffs out its tail to woo a peahen, people lie to impress.

Should we tell the truth in a long-term relationship? That depends. There are many things I choose not to tell a partner, the same things I don't tell my girlfriends, like "you really are getting too fat."I don't believe these little cruelties strengthen a partnership. But I am a standard American in my belief that honesty on important issues is essential. Psychiatrist Frank Pittman once said of adultery, "It's not who you lie with; it's who you lie to." I agree. I don't feel you can achieve intimacy with someone when big lies lurk between you. And, to me, intimacy is essential to love.

Can you give me pointers on what to put in my Chemistry.com profile?

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:17:41 GMT

Q: I am new to online dating and I just began creating my Chemistry.com profile this weekend. I am concerned that my profile may not reflect me. Can you give me pointers as to what I should put in it?

Hi. Welcome to Chemistry.com. You have probably already thought of the obvious things: Be upbeat and positive--people are drawn to those with energy and enthusiasm.

Don't be shy, put some of your best qualities up front, people are attracted to those who are confident. Be honest--you want people to trust you. Be careful with your grammar and spelling--you don't want to look illiterate or lazy. And be reasonable--don't say you want the moon, because no one can give it to you.

So, on to the details.

Foremost, I would try to be original. Skip the clichés like “I like to sip wine by the fire.” And the broad statements like “I am an athletic, caring blond.” Instead say something colorful and descriptive like: “I have blond hair to my waist; I like to do somersaults in the surf; I teach Mongolian immigrants to speak English; and I play a mean game of backgammon.” Vivid; vivid; vivid. Show your sweet side. Be brief. Be funny if you can, but this can be hard to pull off in writing. And if you can use a quote from a song, or movie, or book, or poem that is clever, touching or revealing -- go for it. Use active verbs and skip the adjectives. And then show your profile to a friend and ask him or her if you have described yourself accurately. Even better, ask your friend to write a profile for you, then compare the two versions--and add what you have missed about yourself.

Very good luck to you,
Helen

I am an Explorer/Director and my fiancé to be is an Explorer/Negotiator. Can you tell me, do we have hope or bumps ahead?

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:08:29 GMT

I think this is a wonderful combination. From my work with Chemistry.com, it is clear that Explorers are very drawn to other Explorers. You have both found someone who is just as curious, creative, spontaneous and daring as you are. You probably both have a lot of energy too, and are mentally flexible and optimistic. So you should share great adventures and exciting, creative conversations. Moreover, your secondary types complement one another perfectly as well. You partner has the Negotiator qualities of compassion, verbal skills and imagination that you like and need. And you will help your partner with your decisiveness, tough mindedness and ambition. Every partnership has bumps, of course. You may find your partner indecisive at times while she or he will find you aloof or abrupt.

Watch out for addictions too; Explorers are prone to them. But your mutual flexibility, energy and curiosity should keep your partnership alive for years. Best of luck to you, Helen Fisher

Do you think it is possible for two people who are best friends to start and maintain a romantic relationship. Or is it doomed to fail?

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:19:31 GMT

A few years ago, I might have said that best friends would probably never fall in love. But it has happened to me. I had known a man for about four years, and one day I fell madly in love with him! Something simply triggered my brain system for romantic passion. So I know it is possible to ignite feelings of intense romantic love with "just a friend." But I don't know anything about your particular friendship. And if one of you secretly knows that he or she will NEVER be interested in a romantic relationship with the other, it is highly unlikely to ever happen. Because we are all looking for some specific things in a partnership, and when we believe we will never get those things from a particular friend, we are not likely to change our criteria for loving.

Are more people afraid of commitment today than in the past?

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:16:50 GMT

Dr. Fisher,
Why are so many people more commitment phobic now than in generations past?

Hi Reader,
Most important, some 90% of American men and women marry by age 45; we are just marrying later. But there are many reasons why men and women are not eager to commit. Foremost, these days it takes a long time to get through school and start a career. And a lot of people want to build this foundation before they settle down. Today many live in large urban areas, too; they feel they have a large selection of partners to choose from; so they are picky. Still others hear about the high divorce rate and become overly cautious. And many plan to live some 90 years, so they want to "try out" a partnership before they wed long term. In past generations, men and women married young for economic, social and political reasons, as well as to get sex and love. Today we can get sex and love without wedding; and we don't have to marry to build these ties with neighbors. So we have turned inward, searching for a soul mate--a deep, personal, trusting and exciting connection with "the one." This can take time to find.

Nevertheless, most of us will marry when we feel the time is right. Love wins; love just about always wins.

Should the man or woman make the first move?

Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:18:47 GMT

Hi Dr. Fisher.
I was hoping you could answer a question I've been thinking about lately. Should women make the first romantic gesture? Or, is there still tradition involved with letting the man make the first move?

Hi Reader,
This question is harder than it looks. The short answer is: it depends. Many men would like some help in the dating process. If they are interested in you, they would like to know if you are interested in them.

So if you make a first move, they will be relieved. But you have to make your move both clear and subtle. This shouldn¹t be too hard, however, because men are quicker to interpret a woman¹s smile, gestures, posture, clothes and conversation as a come-on than women are. Nevertheless, some men are still very traditional. So you have to be careful not to overwhelm this type and embarrass yourself. Just be smart. All this ambiguity aside, love is a very powerful brain system. And if he is falling for you, he will eventually make a move‹as long as you make yourself available for his love.

Tune in to the Tyra Banks Show Tomorrow, February 28

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:13:35 GMT

I'll be discussing how biology and personality impact our search for love.

Reproduction Is Our Ticket To Eternity

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:56:48 GMT

Topic: Gay Marriage: Will it exist across America in the next decade?

Gay marriage: Will it exist across America in the next decade? No, it will not. The United States is way behind other Western societies in our acceptance of the gay lifestyle—for historical, evolutionary and illogical reasons.

I study the human brain. And I have come to believe (and prove) that humanity has evolved three distinctly different brain systems for mating and reproduction: the sex drive; intense romantic love; and deep feelings of attachment to a long term partner. And when I gave a questionnaire on romantic love to 437 Americans and 402 Japanese of all ages, I found that my homosexual participants expressed just as much romantic passion as did my heterosexuals. Gays and lesbians, I am convinced, have inherited exactly the same brain networks for the sex drive, romantic love and deep attachment to a partner as the rest of us. So I am not surprised that some want to marry.

Why are Americans so deeply opposed to gay marriage? For several reasons. Foremost, centuries ago the Christian church declared marriage a sacrament. The institution of marriage evolved millennia before Christianity; but early Christian fathers hijacked this ancient human custom. And today many Christians regard marriage as their property--to be distributed only among believers of their god. These Christians are not likely to dispense with this belief in the next ten years. But Christians get very hot under the collar on this issue. There must be something even deeper to their convictions. I think there is: fear.

So, to take Darwinian perspective: Marriage evolved as the primary mechanism by which men and women spread their seed into tomorrow. And it appear to me that many of these Christians feel threatened that their institution for reproduction will be diminished even threatened if they permit non-reproducing individuals to marry too.

Reproduction is our ticket to eternity. And those who unconscious feel that Christian marriage is central to their biological self preservation are likely to fight until the last flicker of their illogic wanes. It’s a pity that, on this issue, many Christians can’t behave more like Christians and love their neighbors as they do themselves.

One woman's view

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:38:57 GMT

Topic: Is there still a double-standard for women? Will a man not respect a woman who has sex very early on in a relationship?

The men and women I know, and have known, don’t share their sexual habits and strategies. So although it is tempting to wax eloquent about “respect” and how men generally feel about women, I don’t actually know a lot about the general population; moreover, I have seen no hard data on this topic. So I can only respond from my personal experience. Foremost, I’m a baby boomer. And I have always conjectured that this stigma vanished some time in the mid 1960s, with the burning of bras, the rise of the women’s movement and the introduction of party drugs into the middle class. Traditions and beliefs die slowly, however, and it is easy to assume that some men have a lingering disrespect for some women who bed them soon after meeting. But I suspect the reverse is also true. Sex is not difficult to get. A romantic connection, with intellectual conversation, humor, excitement, intimacy and commitment is far more precious. So among my pals, most aren’t eager to embrace the complications and responsibilities of a sexual relationship before they know they can, ahem, tolerate, even love this potential mate. They don’t have the time, interest or energy to “sleep around.” It’s passé. But thinking on this personally for a moment. I am single. And I must admit that when a man comes on too fast, too strong, I actually do feel less respect for him.

One Human Tribe

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:37:09 GMT

Topic: Interracial dating – has it gotten any easier in recent years?

Interracial dating (and marrying) has increased dramatically in the past few decades. But is it easier? Like most Americans, I have very limited experience in the day-to-day issues of dating someone of a different race. I have almost exclusively dated men of my background -simply because these are the men I have met and these are the men who have been attracted to me.

But many years ago, I did have a few months of dating someone of a different race. And I came away from the experience with only one insight: Within a couple weeks I entirely forgot that we were of different racial stock. I had become thoroughly absorbed in his ideas, his sense of humor, his mannerisms, his mind. Only when we walked in the street--and people stared at us--did I suddenly realize that we came from different ethnic groups.

I am a biological anthropologist. I study human evolution specifically how and why we humans are all alike. And I still recall those stares with astonishment. Why is it that people focus on the slightest physical differences between human beings when we are so overwhelmingly all alike?

go with the flow

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:56:43 GMT

Topic: Inter-faith dating – when does it work? When doesn’t it?

Flexibility is, I think, the ticket to inter-faith dating. If you can’t drum up any compassion for your partner's point of view, you just have to go with flexibility. As religious beliefs are not rational, but based on faith, it will be hopeless to reason with him or her. People just believe what they believe... and that's that. So I think the real key is the great art of keeping your mouth shut—about their views, and about your views. And when it comes time to honor their traditions, such as during Ramadan or at Christmas, just go with the flow. Every religion has its virtues and you should be able to find something about their beliefs that you can respect and embrace. I have found a great deal to admire in just about all religions. It’s too bad more people don’t practice what they preach.

mercurial magic

Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:49:29 GMT

Topic: Office love: Does its sometimes forbidden nature make it more enticing?

Any love that is forbidden makes it more enticing—for many people. The brain’s Reward System becomes triggered when you WANT something. And if the reward is delayed in coming, the Reward System just keeps firing impulses--driving you to work harder to get what you can’t yet attain. As Terence, the Roman poet summed it up, “The less my hope, the hotter my love.” Moreover, the office is a particularly efficient petri dish for romantic passion. It’s neutral territory. You and your office colleagues share similar schedules, similar clothing codes, similar business goals, similar stresses, similar puzzles and problems, similar jokes, and time, time, time to get to know one another intimately—far from family and friends. Add our natural human tendency to flirt. Add brain circuits ready to trigger romance or sexual passion. And you have a crucible for joy or trouble. For millions of years men and women worked, but they did not work together. Men set off alone or in small groups to do their hunting, while women congregated with other women to gather. But today we work in tiny offices for days, months, even years, with people we hardly know. A few rules prohibiting office romance may even help Mother Nature spin her mercurial magic: romantic love.

A Healthy Dose Of Self Delusion

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:29:06 GMT

Topic: What roles do religion and spirituality play in relationships today?

As an anthropologist who studies the brain, human nature and evolutionary patterns of sex, romance and marriage, my perspective is largely that of a scientist, as well as a concerned citizen.

So, to begin: That depends. Some people are far more religious and/or spiritual than others—a human variation that is most likely due, in part, to specific genes in the serotonin system in the brain. But even among those who do believe in a specific god, many don’t need to impose their beliefs on their partner. So although America may be the most religious of all “first world” societies, it is difficult to say how many couples regard their religious views as central to the happiness or stability of their partnership. I do know this, however. Psychologists know very little about what makes a happy marriage. When they give extensive questionnaires to long-married couples, they find no patterns. The combination of personality traits that makes one marriage successful regularly plays no role in the stability of the next. In fact, the only trait that happily married partners have in common is self-delusion. If you believe your partner fits within your concept of an ideal mate, what scientists call you IMPC (Ideal Mate Personality Concept), you are far happier than if you do not—regardless of reality.

Indeed, self-delusion probably evolved, in part, to enable us to make happy partnerships. But scientists do know that religion plays a role in the formation of a pair bond: We tend to fall in love with individuals who share our ethnic and socio-economic background, our level of education and intelligence, our degree of good looks—and our religious values. In these ways, “likes marry likes”—what anthropologists call “fitness matching.” However, after you have established this similarity with a mate, which is often very early in the relationship, you then proceed to build your love relationship on myriad similarities and complementarities of personality instead—along with a healthy dose of self-delusion.

Single doesn't mean "alone."

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:33:03 GMT

Topic: Speaking from personal experience, what are the three best things about being single?

What an original question--the three best things about being single. Just a bit of background, first. Foremost, I have been single most of my life, by choice. Writing books has got to be the most time-consuming job on earth, at least the kind of books I write. And as I didn’t seem to ever have the urge to have children, and felt that the world was full of children and it didn’t need my children, I thought my time would be better spent pursuing an understanding of human nature. So I have chosen to read and write for a living and live with my partners, rather than marry. In short, these days single doesn’t necessarily mean “alone.” But I certainly have had periods of being without a live-in partner. And the three best things about these interludes have been very simple: First, getting up and going straight out into Central Park to take my morning jog, often in the dark. The park is a wonderland in the early morning, with the mist, the robins in the spring, sometimes I even see a raccoon. Second, making my evening plans without consulting someone. Third, enjoying my evening without worrying about getting home “on time.” But I also like working late without feeling guilty, eating dinner exactly when I wish, and taking off to do exactly what I want, with whom I want, when I want. In hunting and gathering societies, a husband and wife do not see one another all the time. One or the other often visits relatives or friends for days or even weeks. Our modern focus on being a couple and doing “couple things” is new. I like this focus, but there is something thrilling about varying the pace of life. And when I am truly single, I step to quite a different tune.

My wish list

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:52:20 GMT

Topic: What three things do you think are vital to an amazing relationship?

Wow, it certainly depends. Some people want a help-mate, someone who will build a family and share their moral code. Others want a soul-mate, someone with whom they can share their deepest needs and feelings. Others seek a mind-mate, someone with whom they can exchange ideas and fulfill their ambitions. And some want a play-mate, someone who will go adventuring with them, either intellectually or physically. And this is just the beginning. In early childhood we each begin to build a “love map,” a largely unconscious list of what we are looking for in a partner. And this template of one’s ‘ideal type’ varies dramatically from one person to the next.

But what three things do I feel are vital for myself? Well, foremost, someone who is wildly curious about many things and shares his information and ideas with me; someone who wants to ‘make love’ and share emotional intimacy with me regularly; and someone who is well adjusted and makes me laugh around the clock. …..but that’s just the beginning. I’m not very good with stubborn people, so I would like to add flexibility. Angry people, self important people, and dour people leave me cold. And I would like a man who knows how to dance. Well, I could go on and on. But that starts my wish list. I wonder what yours is? Which makes me think we should ask the members of Chemistry.com this question.

But I do know this: today most men and women are looking for a companion; “peer” marriages are in style. We are returning to a pattern of equality between the sexes that evolved on the grasslands millions of years ago, one that is natural and healthy for both women and men.

That chemical zing

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:31:56 GMT

Topic: Do you think you can really and truly "feel" chemistry via email?

Yes, I think you can really and truly feel “chemistry” through email. The brain system for romantic love can be triggered by looking at a photograph, by hearing a voice, or by reading a letter, too--easily. We can fall in love with people we have never met. Take the teenager, for example, who falls in love with a rock star. In fact, I think email is a fine way to generate that magic. The trouble comes when you meet the person you have been writing. Looks count. As we grow up we build an unconscious list of things we are looking for in a mate, what I call your “love map” and what some other academics call your Ideal Mate Personality Concept. And if you meet someone who doesn’t fit within that template, you have a very difficult time adjusting to their looks and manner. Moreover, when you meet someone in person, you suddenly receive an awful lot of other new information that email can’t convey, like their smell, the sound of their words, their energy level, their social style, their degree of spontaneity or caution, and hundreds of other stimuli. So I think it is a good idea to move beyond email as fast as possible so that you can see if you are expending your precious metabolic energy on the love of your life or a Darwinian dead end.

Mate poaching

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:12:24 GMT

Topic: Recently some schools banned hugging and “extreme displays of public affection” – what impact do you think this will have on kids and teens, as they become adults?

I don’t think a ban on “extreme displays of public affection” are going to have any negative impact on kids and teens as they grow up. But it may have an immediate effect. Social barriers intensify feelings of romantic love, what I call “frustration attraction.” When we can’t get what we want, we want it harder. There is brain physiology to this response. When the brain’s “reward system,” (associated with focused attention, motivation, wanting and craving), does NOT get what it wants, it just sustains its activity. It’s nature’s way of driving us to seek our goals. So strictures on public hugging will simply motivate partners to seek more.

But it’s interesting that these young men and women WANT to express extreme affection in public. One of the hallmarks of humankind is that we have sex in private. Our closest relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas, copulate in public. Chimps sometimes go “on safari,” departing from the group to have sex in the forest by themselves. But sex is largely a public act. Anthropologists have long speculated on why humans deviate from this general mammalian pattern. Among the hypotheses, public displays of affection do more than just assuage one’s craving; they signal to all who watch that you are sexual and in love. The problem with this signaling is that others may want a bit of the action for themselves. Sex and love are nature’s finest gifts. So “mate poaching” is extremely common. Like those who wave their money around in public, those who display their sexuality must be willing to defend it. Not such a good tactic on a playground.

Animals don't have time to "date."

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:32:07 GMT

Topic: Do you believe in love at first sight? Have you experienced it – and was it “the real thing” or lust?

Love at first sight comes out of nature. Sex is time-consuming, dangerous and metabolically expensive. So there isn’t a mammal on this planet that becomes “attracted” to anyone who comes along. If a suitor is too old, too young, too scruffy or otherwise unacceptable, they ignore the offer or dash away. Animals don’t have time to “date.” So when the breeding season or their period of fertility begins, they either reject a suitor almost immediately or they express genuine attraction, the forerunner of love at first sight, and begin breeding fast.

I think we inherited this brain response for attraction at first sight. Poetry from many cultures mentions it. And in one study, some 10% of the population had experienced this sudden and compelling rush of attraction. But I suspect men have this experience more regularly than women, because men are more visual, and because men have less to lose if they fall in love instantly: they won’t bear the child. But both sexes are built to fall in love rapidly—and begin the mating process.

Is it lust or love? That depends. These are different feelings and different brain systems, but the sex drive and romantic love can overlap and trigger one another. However, romantic love is far more powerful than the sex drive. If you have truly fallen madly in love at first sight, you want much more than sex from this mysterious “other.” You want ALL of him or her.

Self-deception wins.

Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:20:02 GMT

Topic: The more alike you are, the happier you are: Discuss.

People tend to marry individuals who come from the same ethnic and socioeconomic background, those who are of a similar level of education and intelligence, those with the same religious values and those with the same degree of good looks. In these ways, similarity nurtures happiness.

But we also gravitate to partners who can give us what we need, in exchange for giving them what they need. In this respect, the “correct exchange” induces happiness.

Our childhood also plays a role in happiness. As we grow up we build an unconscious list of what we are looking for in a mate; then when the timing is right, and we meet someone who fits within this “love map,” we tend to fall in love with him or her. And it makes us happy when we find this “fit.”

Last but not least, I have now looked at the dating choices of some 28,000 men and women on Chemisry.com and found some biological patterns to whom we chose. For example, the highly imaginative, intuitive, compassionate and verbal type of person, whom I call the Negotiator, tends to be drawn to the more direct, decisive, analytical and competitive type, the Director. In this case, individuals with one set of biologically-based traits are not attracted to someone like themselves. Complementarity generates happiness.

So we are happier with partners who share some traits, and are different in many others—data that will be the core of my next book. But one thing we know “for sure.” Both men and women are happier with a partner who fits within their unique concept of an “ideal mate.” Even if your partner has become old, pudgy and irritable; even if he or she never fit within your concept of the ideal mate, if you sustain your conviction that he’s a prince or she’s a goddess, you are happy.

In fact, I have often thought that self deception evolved, at least in part, to enable us to preserve our partnerships long enough to rear our young. Self deception not only gives us hapiness but helps us keep the beat in the eternal dance of reproduction.

The porous "self"

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:51:24 GMT

Topic: So many people are using technology to capture their lives – from camera phones to YouTube to Spaces – that the idea of living a “private life” is changing. What impact do you think this will have on relationships in the future?

When you are in love with someone you generally wants to merge entirely with him or her. Milton expressed this perfectly in Paradise Lost when Adam says to Eve, “We are one,/ One flesh; to lose thee were to lose myself." Secrets are distancing. But when you reveal too much in a very public place, such as Youtube or My Space, you risk showing sides of yourself that may backfire in the future, jeopardizing a friendship, a love affair, a marriage, or even a career. So we walk a fine line between what we reveal and what we keep to ourselves.

That said, the concept of living a “private life” is new in human history. For millions of years our forebears traveled in little hunting and gathering bands and everyone knew just about everything about everybody else. So this current impulse to share our lives is far more natural than the inclination for privacy.

Which reminds me of the moment I came to realize how uncommon the “private life” really is. I had been invited to be a speaker on a “Discovery Cruise” through Indonesia, hosted by the American Museum of Natural History in New York. For three weeks I was obliged to live in a tiny room on the ship, with someone I had never met, and travel continually in a group of some 150 people. As I live alone and work alone, I was bracing myself. But I quickly merged into the group. And when I returned to my apartment, I suddenly realized that I had been on a remarkable vacation—from Helen, from “self.” As part of the group, I had not had time to engage in my continual internal dialogue.

So although I enjoy living my “private life,” I don’t think that this is necessarily natural. And I don’t think that sharing one’s “self ” will have any monumental impact on most relationships of tomorrow.

Romantic love: A Two-Person Universe

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:20:30 GMT

Topic: Is it possible to be in love with two people at once? If so, what does that mean for monogamy?

Kabir, a poet of India, had it right when he wrote, “The lane of love is narrow. There is room only for one.” It is not possible to be “in love” with two people at once. One of the primary traits of romantic love is that it is focused on just one person at a time. And there is biology to this focus. As you may know, my colleagues and I have put 32 people who were madly in love into a brain scanner (fMRI) and looked for the brain circuitry of romantic love. We found some of it. In fact, a main area that becomes active is exactly the same brain region that becomes active when you feel the rush of cocaine. And this brain region produces dopamine, a natural stimulant that gives you intense focus, as well as energy, euphoria, mood swings, craving and motivation. If you are just beginning to court two (or more) people, you may swing from a mild infatuation for one to feelings of mild romance with another. But things happen and gradually you focus more and more of your attention on one person. At the height of intense romantic love you even seem to feel merged with your partner. Nothing but the two of you exist. So if you feel “in love” with two people at the same time, I would suspect that you are probably not intensely “in love” with either.

It is easy to feel the sex drive—the craving for sexual gratification--for more than one person, however. This brain circuit can be triggered while you are reading a book or driving alone in your car—with no person in mind. But romantic love for two people at once? Never. The brain pathways for romantic love evolved for a specific purpose: to focus your courtship attention on just one individual—thereby conserving precious courtship time and metabolic energy. ” Pierre de Chardin, the French naturalist, perfectly understood this biological trait when he called romantic love "a two-person universe.”

"emotional containment"

Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:06:54 GMT

Topic: Why do men hate it when women ask, “What are you thinking…?”?

I am not entirely sure why men hate it when women ask “what are you thinking.” I used to do that quite a bit, actually, and I never really got anyone to answer. But my twin sister and I have asked one another this question since we were small children. We used to have a game called “now.” And when I said “now,” she would have to answer; and vice versa. We liked the game because we often found that when we were asked, we discovered that we were really thinking of about 5 things at once! It was fun.

But I think men feel invaded. Men are, by and large, more “emotionally contained” than women are. As testosterone floods the brain in teenage, they begin to use “joke-speak,” masking their real emotions with humor. I have long thought that men’s emotional containment (which is found in many cultures) evolved millions of years ago on the grasslands of Africa, where men were obliged to do a lot of aggressive tasks. It’s not really adaptive to feel empathy while slitting the throat of a baby gazelle, for example, or while raiding an enemy camp for food or territory. So men evolved the ability to contain their feelings, sometimes even from themselves!

So they are not as comfortable sharing their intimate world because they feel their words might backfire on them. Men also suffer more from “emotional flooding.” When they get angry or sad they are more likely to lose control and go beyond what they regard as appropriate. So I don’t think men (on average) are as comfortable delving into their emotions, or women’s emotions; and when asked what they are thinking, they feel they are on unsteady turf, where they may lose our respect or love. I suspect they have no idea how much we love them and that this question is often just due to our curiosity about who they are.

Forward to the past: living together

Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:19:38 GMT

Topic: Does long-term commitment trump marriage in current plans for single adults?

So…long term commitment trumps marriage in the current plans of single adults? Very interesting. As you may know, I have believed for some time that we are currently in the middle of a huge worldwide social change: Women are entering the job market almost everywhere and acquiring economic power. And along with their rising income, they are obtaining social and sexual power too. This trend isn’t new, of course. For millions of years women commuted to work to gather their fruits and vegetables and provided much of the evening meal; the double-income family was the rule; and women expressed a great deal of economic, sexual and social power. And they didn’t marry “til death do us part.” Marriage was far more informal.

It appears that we are moving forward toward this ancient times—toward less formal partnership arrangements. We are not alone. In a 2001 study, young women of several cultures were asked whether people “needed to marry”; 88% of young Japanese women said “no.” Many of these Americans and Japanese are likely to change their minds, however. Because almost 90% of Americans (and people in 97 other societies) eventually wed. Marriage is not dead. It’s like a palm tree that bends in the wind; then pops up again. We have a deep drive to make an attactment to a partner. Today men and women are just doing it later…and later. In fact, I suspect that many of these people who live together without marrying feel that “tying the knot” will actually undermine their genuinely loving relationship. Which reminded me of a Buddhist saying. As you hold out your open palm, you repeat the words “Hold him (or her) with an open hand.” In short, some people are more likely to stay in a relationship if they know they have the freedom to go. Given our human heritage, this rings true.

Like two feet...

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:21:46 GMT

Topic: Why do you think so many couples split up once they are “empty nesters” – once the kids are independent?

I think men and women do very well together when they have a mutual project, be it remodeling the house, traveling together or raising children. In these situations, like two feet, partners need each other to get ahead. In fact, couples who can’t work together to raise their young are probably more likely to have split up long before the last of the kids has left the nest--just the way a rock band or soccer team quickly disbands if they can’t play together. Gotta make music or split. So raising children not only ties a couple to one another, but keeps those bonds intact. But once the last of the teens has flown the coup, parents no longer have this daily team project. And some parents suddenly find themselves alone at the breakfast table, wondering: what’s next. Now they must cultivate intimacies that may have been overlooked for years. Some will head for the bedroom or the beach to celebrate, of course. But those who have focused entirely on their young for years will feel the stress.

I will add some anthropology here. I have looked at divorce patterns in 58 societies through the demographic yearbooks of the United Nations and found what as become known as the “four year itch.” If you are going to divorce, you are most likely to break up during and around the fourth year after wedding—in societies around the world. This pattern, I think, comes from our primordial past. Traditionally women bore their babies about four years apart. So the natural period of human birth-spacing and infancy is around four years. Moreover, in those few mammals and many birds that form a pairbond to rear their children, parents generally remain together only long enough to rear their young through infancy. So I believe our forebears tended to pair up at least long enough to read a single child. Then, when the child was weaned, (and could be reared by many members of the hunting band), an unhappy couple could break up, fall in love with someone new—and create more genetic variety in their forthcoming young.

Breaking up after the last of the young has left home may simply represent another weak point in a marriage--a time when daily parental duties are lessened and both man and woman are biologically able to depart. “All you need is love,” the Beatles sang. Well, Mother Nature is a wicked old witch, as anthropologist Sarah Hrdy once said. We have evolved weak points in our partnerships. And like staying thin and keeping your job marriage can take work. But those who rise to the challenge often win.

...a great adventure

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:35:26 GMT

Topic: Are two people really and truly meant to stay together forever…or should we embrace more of a serial long-term relationship model for happiness?

In hunting and gathering societies many men and women have two or three spouses during the course of their lives, while others make one enduring partnership instead. Humans are flexible in this aspect of mating and reproduction. Both strategies are rare among mammalian species, however. Only 3% form any kind of pairbond at all. Most would adhere to the old English proverb: “wedlock; padlock.” Yet monogamy is a hallmark of men and women in cultures around the world. Even in societies where polygyny (many wives or harem building) is touted, most men have only one wife: monogamy.

But which style is more natural, serial or life long monogamy? I would say that some people have a great deal of difficulty maintaining a life long marriage while others do it quite easily--for both genetic and environmental reasons. And from the Darwinian perspective, both strategies can be biologically sensible. If you marry for life and have three children, that’s productive in the Darwinian sense. If you marry three times and have one child by each partner instead, this also has evolutionary payoffs. But either way, almost 90% of Americans eventually marry. Marriage is a great adventure and we carry deep within our brains the circuits to fall in love and wed.

"Love is like a fever"

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:51:20 GMT

Topic: Is there anything wrong with a person in a committed relationship having a crush on someone else…as long as it isn’t acted upon? Can it even benefit a relationship?

Well, the problem with a crush is that it can be like a campfire that gets out of control and destroys a thousand acres of old redwoods. Romantic love triggers the activities of dopamine in one of the most powerful neural systems in the brain. This feeling is much stronger than the sex drive. For example, when you ask someone to have sex with you and they refuse, you don’t kill yourself. Yet people around the world who are in love, or rejected, can create mayhem for themselves and others. And romantic love can start as a crush.

Stendhal once wrote, “love is like a fever; it comes and goes quite independently of the will. A crush is neither “right” or “wrong.” It is natural. But it is also dangerous. When that dopamine system starts pumping, a crush can destroy a beautiful relationship with someone whom you have deeply loved for years.

....words for money

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:08:45 GMT

Topic: Financial Relationships

There are so many different kinds of relationships in which the woman makes more $$ than the man. Take my friend, Julie, a young woman who just got married and is 7 months pregnant. She has a modest, boring, go-no where job; but she is also the family breadwinner because her husband has not yet “found himself”….or a job. She had dreams of a big white house, puppies and a picket fence. She never wanted a career, or to be the spouse with the “big bucks.” I don’t think they fight about money. But every month that she pays their rent, she thinks about the larger meaning of her check. I also know a woman on Wall Street who has bought the family home and sent four children through college on her salary. But her husband is a fine psychiatrist who works in mental institutions with the very poor. He doesn’t have money, but he has status, reputation. These are very different situations. So money plays very different roles in different partnerships.

Nevertheless, I’ll say the obvious: Money is power—particularly in Western societies. This became wildly evident to me one Saturday night. My friends and I had been discussing the old story that the Eskimos, or Inuit, have some 35 words for different kinds of snow. So we began to ponder what Americans have a lot of words for: yes, money and monetary transactions. Not just “cash” and “moolah,” but words like “reimbursement” and “tuition.” We counted 134 of words for money. And we didn’t even have a money manager in the game so we didn’t add words like “put” and “call.” When we then listed words for various sexual parts, we came up with a paltry 24. In America, money counts. So no matter how hard couples try to overlook it, in our world the spouse with “dough” generally has some leverage. As Joe Louis said, "I don't like money actually, but it quiets my nerves."

"She'd make me smart too"

Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:37:20 GMT

Topic: Do you think couples in which the woman is more successful than the man are more likely to break up than other couples (all else being equal)?

I am assuming that you mean “financially successful.” If so, you have tapped into one of the core trends of this century: the rise of women in the paid labor force. Apparently in more than one-fourth of marriages in America in which both the husband and the wife work, the woman makes more money than her spouse. I don’t know if these couples are more likely to divorce. But historical trends may shed some light on this. In past centuries women were largely dependent on their spouses for financial support; they could not leave the marriage. So why wouldn’t the reverse be true? If a man is used to living a plush lifestyle on his wife’s money, why would he walk out unless the relationship became intolerable for other reasons? Pride? Perhaps. But I suspect that by the time a couple has wed they have come to grips with this financial situation.

Nevertheless the world is in transition. The roles of men and women are changing so fast that no new codes of etiquette, no mores, no specific ways of handling the changing roles of women (and men) have yet evolved. But perhaps we will take the attitude of one man living the hunting/gathering lifestyle on the Kalahari Desert of Southern Africa. In this society women commute to work to gather their fruits and vegetables, often providing over 50% of the evening meal. Influential working women are the norm, not the exception. And when an anthropologist recently asked him if he would marry a woman who was smarter than himself, he replied. “Of course I would; she would make me smart too.”

I predict that, with time, financially successful women will be the norm, that these women will enable their partners to pursue a wider array of occupations and pastime too, and that these marriages will be just as successful as any others.

a madhouse

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:30:24 GMT

Topic: How many people can a person/should a person date at one time?

Well, as I am not in the “should” business, I’ll go with the question: “How many people can a person date at one time?” I suppose the answer is: as many as you can manage and still keep your sanity, your wallet, your job, your self respect, and your believability…..and still feed the cat. More seriously, I find it exceedingly difficult to have more than one relationship cooking at once. But there are times when I have not been sure which of several relationships would develop, so I had to keep all going simultaneously. It was exhausting, though. I remember too vividly one birthday I had many years ago when I received flowers from four men, all lovely souls. I had to hide all four bouquets in different closets, and switch them around as each arrived. It was a madhouse when I dressed. No, give me the simple life: one boy with whom I can share all. It's practical too. Indeed, my feelings on this subject were nicely summed up by an aphorism I saw one morning as I walked to the 68th street Lexington Avenue subway in New York. On the pavement, in chalk, someone had scrawled, “The man who can’t decide between two women loses both of them.”

One woman's view

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:30:24 GMT

Topic: Is there still a double-standard for women? Will a man not respect a woman who has sex very early on in a relationship?

Lady Love takes her toll

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:24:37 GMT

Topic: What’s the allure of bad boys, bad girls, and bad relationships?

What's the allure of bad boys and bad girls? The thrill. Novelty, excitement, unpredictability: thrills and anticipation juice the dopamine circuits in the brain and you feel good, very good. Dopamine is the chemical that soars when you take cocaine, anticipate winning money, or reach for a chocolate bar, and bad boys and bad girls can give you the dopamine "rush" of your dreams. Then they disappoint you and these "reward" circuits crank into "overtime" as you focus harder on your goal, working, working, working to win him or her. And when you win, just a little, you only want more. Given the opportunity, laboratory rats will push a lever hundreds of times to get a tiny amount of cocaine. Eventually many drop dead of emaciation and exhaustion. Instead, eventually most humans walk--never forgetting the one that got away. The good news is that even bad boys and bad girls will get their turn. Someone will come along who knocks their "reward system" into overdrive; they will fall madly in love; they, too, will be ignored or dumped and feel the same despair of continual frustration and eventual abandonment. In one study of romantic rejection, college students were asked: 1) have you ever dumped someone who really loved you? And 2) have you ever been dumped by someone you really loved? 95% of men and women said "yes" to both. I have met only three people who were never dumped, two men and one woman. All were exceedingly good looking, very rich, very influential, and (I thought) very shallow. But I suspect that by now each has been rejected by some bad actor. If you play the game at all, at some point Lady Love takes her toll. Almost no one gets out of love alive.