THE LOVE LAB

MARRIAGE, like LOVE, is just something that has evolved in order to keep two people together long enough to raise dependent young. Whereas the latter is the product of biological evolution – the former is the product of a cultural one. Incidentally, marriage may have evolved to buffer against the inadequacy of Love in fulfilling this very important role.

Surely, if passionate Love lasted for the time required to raise a dependent young we would not need a legal contract to secure a commitment. Women would be left assured that they would be supported during the vulnerable time of pregnancy and that their children would have the resources to grow up to be independent adults. Men would be left assured that their genes would be passed on without the risk of a reallocation of resources due to infidelity. Of course, women would have this assurance, as well, since infidelity can potentially lead to the allocation of the man’s resources to another woman’s child. I am working on the assumption here that if people are in love they do not cheat. This is not always the case since there are people out there who cheat even if they are in love (some may disagree with me on this). However, marriage will surely not mitigate that risk for those particular individuals so that may be a moot point.

In most people, passionate love lasts a year on an average and begins to decline thereafter. Moreover, the biggest declines are experienced 18 months after the birth of the first child and the honeymoon levels return only after the children have left the nest (if the couple is still together!). Half the couples do not survive through this stage, although it should be pointed out that the maturity of the woman at time of marriage may somehow mitigate this risk (risk declines for college educated women over 23 years of age). This could be due to their better discriminating abilities in choosing the appropriate partner. There are always the 10-15% of that marriage statistic who are an anomaly and do not suffer from this decline. Their marriage satisfaction remains the same or even increases. Nevertheless, for most people passionate love does not last long enough to make it through the particularly vulnerable periods and marriage takes over. Most divorces occur about 7-10 years after the marriage, which is also around the time when the child enters into some sort of school system and thus the woman’s ability to support herself increases. In this sense, although it is not an optimum situation, the marriage has served its purpose.

Marriage is mostly a financially/legally driven institution, since it ensures the protection of the female against a dead-beat dad. No matter how independent and career oriented the woman is before the marriage, there will be a time when she is pregnant and will rely on some sort of support from her partner (emotional, physical, and financial). This period also sets women back in careers where one needs to maintain momentum: a legal career where one may be on a partner track, academic careers where constant publications are important, and careers in medicine where there is a considerable physical and mental strain involved in the necessary steps needed to proceed with the career path. Usually, if the women is to have her first child before the age of 35 (which is physically preferred for both woman and child), then this financial set back will happen at just the most importune time where particularly ambitious careers are concerned (ones in which graduate and post graduate commitment is usually required).

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE…

The modern alpha male is a perfect example of how our social and biological selves are runners on the evolutionary track.  Biology, weighed down by the process of natural selection and genetic mutations, is lagging behind the sprinting Social.  We are biologically drawn to them, but they often make non optimal partners.

Current research points to the negative qualities of high testosterone men as romantic partners, husbands, and fathers.

Why would women want that?  Social ramifications aside, high testosterone usually means great sperm.

The visual markers of an alpha male are the physiological traits that scream high testosterone to the opposite sex.  We have also been biologically conditioned to find many of  these qualities physically or sexually attractive

Cheekbones and a defined Jaw Line

broad shoulders

heavy muscles in the arms and legs

capacity to store fat around the stomach area – (not attractive in itself, but women may prefer that to a guy with big hips)

deep voice

ring finger outstretches their index finger (greater exposure to testosterone while in the womb)

Societal Markers of an alpha male are the culturally derirable consequences of high testosterone males:

Women have been socially conditioned to find these qualities important, since they signify a man’s ability to provide and support during the vulnerable stage of pregnacy and raising a dependent young.

Power,

Wealth,

Status

The Catch-22, however, is that the men who have been able to acquire the power, wealth, and status due to the interplay of their physiology (high testosterone) and socioeconomic factors (education, good upbringing) are also the ones who seem to be more likely to display less commitement to use these resources for a long term partnership and parental investment.  Or at least so it seems…

references:

(Testosterone and Men’s Marriages Alan Booth, James M. Dabbs, Jr. Social Forces, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Dec., 1993), pp. 463-477)

Below are some examples of real modern day alpha males:

Former President Bill Clinton

Actor, George Clooney

Hugh Hefner, the ultimate Playboy

In my quest to find out the formula for the ultimate romantic partnership, I have yet to come up with better descriptions of the necessary components. Note these are necessary but not sufficient and they apply more to the relationships which have lasted past the initial period of passionate romantic love.

I am still working out the kinks of the entire formula (lovelab – get it?).

Knowledge = In order to have open communication, there has to be knowledge of the other individual and understanding of their needs and intentions.

Respect = How can you trust someone if you do not believe in the integrity of their word? How can there be idealization without admiration? How can you view the other as an equal and treat them as such when you do not respect their goals, opinions, and beliefs? Some may think that trust is its own category, but I am still debating that. At this time, I’ll have to say that trust is embedded in respect. If you respect your partner’s word that they will be loyal to you, then you should be able to trust them. Vice versa, if you respect your partner then you will not be careless with their feelings or humiliate them through infidelity.

More to come on Care and Effort…

I really appreciate all the comments people made to me on this subject personally, and also the individuals who responded to the blog post.

First off, I completely agree with you Marlajayne…love does take effort. You mentioned Dr. Scott Peck’s theory that the act of falling in love takes volition and I think that is precisely the problem with the way many people look at love in our society. It is something they expect to occur to them. Once it does, they believe it will perpetuate on its own and they understand it in terms of what they receive, as opposed to what they give.

The thoughts you mentioned are very much along the lines of Eric Fromm’s theories whom I mentioned in my post. He believed that to truly love someone there has to be knowledge, respect, care, and effort. Knowledge is important in order to foster understanding. Respect (which really cannot come without knowledge) is important for trust. I think care and effort are self explanatory, but it is completely in line with Marlajayne’s comments about how one can say that they love someone but unless they show it through some sort of care and effort it is just noise.

I believe (and absolutely agree with Eric Fromm on this one) that love has to be an ACT. I wanted to stress that as the point I was making when I was speaking of goals.

What is driving us to produce these actions? That is the question I ask. Is it the feeling that one remembers when they initially fall in love? Or are we guided by other drives that are even more potent.

And as for my culinary and sanitary duties….I can’t say I’ve acquired a greater affinity for either one, but I recently learned how to make blinchiki (Russian for crepes). Baby steps.

You rarely hear that a relationship ends due to a lack of love. People speak of diminished satisfaction, a lack of communication, broken promises, an inability to commit or the lack of desire to do so. However, although there are cases, I rarely hear of people saying they have fallen out of love. There are those who were never in love to begin with or relationships where love did not have a chance to fully blossom. But time and time again, a disenchanted lover will profess that although they still feel love for you, the relationship cannot go on (or vice versa).

But how can that be? How can the same feeling that brought you together against all odds fail to sustain your union? Why do we no longer feel compelled to make the same compromises or sacrifices?

Is it a change of heart or a change of goals?

Many people see love as a FEELING. I agree that love is an amalgamation of many feelings, and it certainly incites particularly strong ones when it is threatened. However, the concept of LOVE is a motivational construct. This is not a novel idea. It was proposed by Helen Fisher (an anthropologist at Rutgers University) and scientific research of the brain has shown that several brain areas are active when we experience love. Some of these brain areas are responsible for GOAL ORIENTED behavior. I certainly prescribe to this description.

Even as long ago as the 1950’s, Eric Fromm (a German humanistic philosopher/psychologist) stated that love is an “act of will” in his book The Art of Loving. Fromm posited that it is this active commitment that makes the marriage of two individuals continue in liu of diminished passion or changing circumstances. Of course, not everyone honors their commitments. Certainly, in our modern world where most people are programmed with what Fromm describes as the “Marketing Orientation” – or the mentality that focuses on packaging, advertising, and selling yourself – we are prone to view love as a TRANSACTION and marriage as a contract like any other, one which can be voided if violated.

Perhaps many would argue that we cannot control when and whom we love, but the act of love need not be an act of will of which we are aware. When I speak of changing goals in the dissolution of a relationship I am referring to both conscious and subconscious desires and motivations. I think women in particular are constantly evaluating their mates to decide whether they will become sufficient and stable providers for their offspring (commitment, ambition, perseverance, intelligence, loyalty) and will increase the quality of the woman’s lifestyle and those of her children (status, power, wealth, resources). Men, on the other hand, are programmed to evaluate the fertility of a woman and her ability to give birth to healthy children that will carry on the man’s genes and resources (youth and physical attractiveness). These are, of course, only the most basic points of value for both men and women.

Depending on the individuals’ background and upbringing, other factors may drive the ultimate decision to stay or leave a partner. Some men will also evaluate whether the woman will be an emotional pillar in times of stress (understanding and emotionally stable); it may be important the woman can cook and clean and be a nurturer in times of physical need such as ailment…basically the traditional notions of a good mother and wife. Women may look for a man who has a sense of humor (often associated with intelligence and perceptiveness), someone who is honest and responsive, considerate, thoughtful, sensitive, social, and other qualities which will help create the embodiment of what that woman may consider to be a good lifestyle.

I believe the basic points of value are important in the initial attraction and passion that results when two people fall in love. Throughout the relationship, both men and women are evaluating their partner (whether they know it or not) and deciding whether they will result in the satisfaction of their long term goals and desires; they are also constantly re-evaluating their current levels of satisfaction based on these assessments.

This theory certainly worked against me a couple of times when my lack of affinity for cooking and cleaning rendered me a less valuable future partner. Something most of my partners disregarded in the beginning (I made no attempt to hide it) became relevant only as time went by and my partners began to evaluate what I can bring into the relationship. This is very in line with the modernist social contract. The “what have you done for ME lately” that Eddie Murphy joked about in his stand up.

So when a person says that they “love you but are not happy in the relationship”, it may seem confusing. If love is a feeling then how can someone feel love (a good thing) and unhappiness (a bad thing) at the same time? This contradiction can be resolved if we view love in terms of goal oriented behavior, one that has many different feelings at different times and is accompanied by different behaviors. It is the goal of wanting a particular woman to bear a man’s child that may drive a man to want to marry her and ensure that they will raise these children together. It is the realization that a particular man may not be a persevering enough in the little things that may make a woman feel that he may not be persevering enough in the big things which can make a woman decide that this man is not for her.

In conclusion, it is not the change of the feeling that makes us want to end the union, but the change of goals for that particular union.