If your deduction is taken, Dr. Fisher's statement would read, "'mad passionate love' (aka lust-attraction) is a stronger craving than sex".
Since lust ordinarily means 'strong sexual desire', i.e., desire for sexual enjoyment (as I understand it), will it not become a somewhat curious statement? Namely, the desire for sexual enjoyment is a stronger craving than having craving for sexual enjoyment; something like hunger is a stronger craving than craving for food? It seems difficult for me to understand the nuances, if any.
Dear Sangom Sir,
Perhaps when we speak of Fisher's work, we may need to remember 2 things.
1) Fisher is using the same term ‘romantic love’ for all 3 categories a) Lust, b) Attraction, c) Attachment. Yet, she acknowledges that all 3 categories are different, and involve different brain systems. So, in some places she uses the term ‘romantic love’ for sex (lust) and in other places she uses the same term ‘romantic love’ for attachment (that is bonding where sex is not required).
Example:
- Romantic love, Dr Fisher explained in a lecture at the 2004 American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting, is not an emotion. Rather, it’s "a motivation system, it’s a drive, it’s part of the reward system of the brain." It’s a need that compels the lover to seek a specific mating partner. [In this, she is talking about sex (lust) under the term ‘romantic love’].
- Romantic love, Dr Fisher believes, is a stronger craving than sex. People who don’t get sex don’t kill themselves, she said. [In this, she is talking about attachment under the term ‘romantic love’].
2) In this particular work Fisher was only correlating the MRI brain scans she took on her 40 participants with previously done research on the biochemistry / hormonal states of emotions. Her work did not involve studying the biochemistry part herself. Her full paper is here:
http://www.helenfisher.com/downloads/articles/Article_final_JRS_06.pdf
I don't think she makes any reference to the attachment part.
What she says is here:
Romantic love, Dr Fisher believes, is a stronger craving than sex. People who don’t get sex don’t kill themselves, she said. On the other hand, it is not adaptive to be romantically in love for 20 years. "First of all," she confided, "we would all die of sexual exhaustion." Not surprisingly, the subjects in her study who had been in love the longest (17 months) displayed markers in the brain indicating the beginnings of "the satiation response."
She is talking about the satiation response as a continuation, from her statements on romantic love being a stronger craving than sex. So, it is rather apparent that the ‘romantic love’ she refers to here is “attachment” and not "lust-sex".
AFAIK from my own life sexual attraction as well as attachment are there side-by-side from the day you take a liking for a partner and get married; of course sexual enjoyment started only after marriage in the society in which I grew up.
Sir, it may be different for different people. It is not necessary that everyone starts off with sexual attraction and attachment side by side. And by “liking” a partner what do we mean? For how long do we know the partner to “like” him / her (persuming it is the typical penn parkal or ladki dekhna scenario?). Would you be willing to spend the rest of your life without everyone you “like”?
It is not clear why the attachment should start only after the long period of passionate sexual life. And, if the people in her study did in fact move over to the attachment part, as you say, why should anyone give the gratuitous advice to re-create the passionate sexual life once again? Does it not reveal that the western mindset is geared to look at passionate sex as a sine qua non for a happy married life, and relegate attachment to the secondary position? If so, how is it claimed that romantic love, which you define as lust-attraction and passionate sexual life, ensures a strong life-time bonding when the couple are advised to ensure that passion is not lost? In short, does not all these round-about theorization indicate that romantic love and sexual attraction are one and the same?
Fisher is a biological anthropologist. This particular paper of hers is still talking about how lust leads to attachment. Which means, the brain cannot survive on lust (sex) only. It wants the emotional security of bonding / attachment (long-term companionship).
And if people move on to the attachment (bonding minus sex) part, it may become natural for couples to take each other for granted. It is possible that one may start depriving the spouse of sexual pleasure, which the spouse may still want.
I think what Fisher is basically conveying in the context of her study is this -- Stopping passion (lust-sex) after love (bonding-attachment) would be like watering a plant until it takes firm roots and grows into a tree, and then stop watering the tree (just bcoz it has bcome a tree).
It would be presumptuous to assume that the ‘western mindset’ is geared for sex as an essential ingredient of a happy married life. Methinks, all societies, asian included, lay some amount of emphasis atleast on taking care of the sexual side in a married couple’s life (why wud we have kamasutra otherwise).
As you know we are not told as to what Dr. Fisher means by the term "society", but I think it cannot be countries in the usual sense. There are more than 150 communities, social groups, ethnic groups, all taken into account, and when she says that evidence of romantic love has so far been found in only 150 out of these, it is natural to conclude that there are at least a few in which such evidence is absent. It is because of all such ambiguities that I conclude this is a PR effort for some half-baked research results which is not uncommon in today's scientific world.
I looked at this paper to see what Fisher means by "societies":
http://www.helenfisher.com/downloads/articles/Article_final_JRS_06.pdf This paper mentions a survey of 166 "societies" done by Jankowiak and Fischer (1992) which found evidence of romantic love in 147 of them. In the remaining 19 cultures, ethnographic oversight and lack of proper questioning by anthropologists was taken to be the reason.
In the same paper she goes on to mention "societies" in other "culture" forms (like data from the Demographic Yearbooks of the United Nations on 97 “societies”). She also mentions cross-cultural and historical data of people in other "societies” while mentioning a woman of the !Kung Bushman group, the Taita of Kenya, the Korean concept of Sarang and Chong, and so on. Therefore, the context of Fisher's "societies" seem to be "ethic groups" across the world.
You have said that the common feature between love (I take it that you refer to romantic love here) and gambling is a high dopamine level. Whereas you have described the other necessary characteristics of a gambler (again I presume this applies to females as much as to males, am I right?), you are silent about the testosterone level in romantic lovers.
I do not know if the characterisitics of gambling applies to females as much as males. I would need to look for papers on gambling studies which specifically mention how many participants in a given study were male or female.
Reg testesterone levels, I have not browsed for specific papers as yet, but from a cursory search I came across this paper
Hormonal changes when falling in love. [Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2004] - PubMed result and this paper
Hormones converge for couples in love - 05 May 2004 - New Scientist -- which says that testosterone levels were lower in men in love and higher for women in love. So, if gambling and high risk taking is caused by high testosterone, it is apparent that love may help lower testesterone, and may help wean a man away from gambling. We do not know the reason why testosterone increases in females when in love as yet, but it may be linked to the libido as well as fertility (since testosterone falls as women get older and during menopause).
Using the word "love" creates confusion. I hold that the love is of different colours; mother to child,
child
to mother, husband to wife, wife to husband, a
kind human being to others, and so on. What we are specifically dealing with here is "romantic love".
The resulting possessiveness/aggresssiveness towards* other males (vasopressin) is also to be taken into account.
Will the nature and composition of vasopressin change according to the gene?
*
Vasopressin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unfortunately sir, love depends on far too many neuroendocrine factors; most of which are not understood properly yet. So far we only know that certain hormones like oxytocin play a role in all forms of bonding-love (mother-child, husband-wife). And we also understand that love is different from lust / sex.
The wiki article
Vasopressin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia refers to Larry Young’s paper when it talks about initiation, pair-bonding and inducing the male to become aggressive towards an other male. I had a quick look at Larry Young’s paper. It is talking about mice and takes into context the debated hypotheses of behavioral neuroendocrinology surrounding the rapid surge in testosterone following a male–male encounter or following exposure to female stimuli.
However, it is to be noted that even without a female around, males still experience high testeterone levels when competing with each other. John Wingfield and collegues formulated the effect into what is called the “challenge hypothesis” which postulates that male–male challenges leads to a rapid surge in circulating testosterone and the magnitude of this surge depends on the social system of the species considered. Which perhaps means that testosterone may be high in ambitious males when in competition with other men (and love may help lower that testesterone levels).
Am sorry but I am not able to understand the question whether nature and composition of vasopressin changes according to the gene. Vasopressin is just a chemical. Wiki has a space-filled model of its chemical structure:
File:Arginine vasopressin3d.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This composition and structure need not change unless there are some interacting factors.
There is no reference to the woman being a divorcee; she has applied for divorce. It is also not correct to presume that she was forced into the marriage. Such presumptions only tend to indicate a preconceived pattern under which behind every such abnormal behaviour there is a "forced" marriage. Can it not be that hers was not a forced marriage, she found it not OK later on and then, even before getting a
divorce
[FONT="][/FONT]
, started loving this man and also reached the attachment stage if we go by what you say?
Some reports do call Anuradha a divorcee like this one:
Murderer nailed by a strand of evidence, News - City - Bangalore Mirror,Bangalore Mirror and this one
Dell employee found guilty of wife’s murder – Techie’s hair provided vital info to reach the murderer
I agree it is not right to presume, which is why I said “
It may be possible that Anuradha was also forced into an arranged marriage”.
--------------------------------------
Sir,
I notice that perhaps your concern (from your post to Shri Kunjuppu Ji above) may be of same-caste marriage. It is true that in arranged marriages the mental compatibility factor of the couple is not taken into account (kindly excuse me for saying this). The typical horosocope matching for mental compatibility is useless. Given a choice, many elderly couple who entered arranged marriages with well-matching horoscopes will divorce.
Arranged marriages of the "resume" kind, which comes with a biodata, photo and horocope attached is silly really. Such people might as well search for a job instead of a spouse. And girls make the mistake of seeking 'well-settled" boys, which means they are buying some sort of an LIC insurance policy or social-security in the name of marriage (for their own social betterment). They might do better to openly communicate and look for ways how well they are going to get along with the prospective husband (for what he is as a human personally).
And love marriages also fail because "love" in the indian context means impressing the girl / boy. The couple knows only the 'good side' of their love-interest. They do not know the 'natural-side' of the guy / girl. It is un-natural to marry expecting that the 'lover' will always be the 'good side'.
So both love marriages and arranged marriages have their pitfalls. And therefore we see divorces or mental-seperation cases in both of them.
If caste is the issue, and not love, then why not "arrange love-marriages" ? It would also be the better way to reduce divorces. Afterall, the business of marriage is not about just getting 2 people tied up with a mangalsutra.
To "arrange love marriage" the best way (to me) is to put boys and girls of the same caste into a big hall and get them to interact with each other. Parents please stay aside and do not influence their choice in any manner. Because a parent really has no role in the "actual" or biological mate-selection process.
Perhaps your son / daughter may even fall in "love" and will decide to marry in a few days. It is also possible that they want to "spend more time" with a specific someone. Please do not discourage them from meeting and getting to know the other person. Ofcourse parents can put barriers, ex: a couple is not allowed to meet at a secluded place alone. Here we are encouraging attachment which comes from getting to know each other, and not lust. These gathering can be on a weekly basis, to let the youngsters get to know each other better over a period of time. You can call it a "youth-meet" with games and some refreshments. And you can also bring in teenagers (kids from about 15 onwards ? ).
Please note that your child may break-up with the love-interest, and move on to someone else. It is also possible that your child may go on in a circle undecided. All this is a natural process of growing up. As a parent please be prepared to accept whatever decision your son / daughter makes. And i should think, that this process will certainly increase same-caste marriages.
Finally, as Larry Young says, Love emerges from a "cocktail of ancient neuropeptides and neurotransmitters". It is crucial to the propagation of the species. And it is equally crucial to raising a peaceful household.
I really hope some people will decide to "arrange love marriages"
Regards.