It doesn't take the romance out of it at all. There is no reason why one must be ignorant of the mechanisms of a thing to appreciate its beauty.

As to your needless sarcasm -- if you had read the actual paper you would have discovered that the results amounted to a *WHOLE LOT* more than just "you can have desire for sex without love". Next time try reading a scientific paper before you criticize it.

@ Junicon, I suspect you are one of those people who like to be a d*ck just for arguments sake. Get a life... really

I am currently reading "The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity" by developmental psychologist Dr. Bruce Hood. Fascinating book. All about brain development and how the concept of a independent "Self" is really a sleight of hand by the brain. Even though we cannot really see beyond the illusion, nevertheless it exists. The brain spins a narrative based on social interaction. It's so thorougly convincing that the vast majority of us fully and absolutely believe that "we" are in control. That there is a manifested self inside us. (Sometimes known as a homonculus, but this fails because of infinite regress). That there is a brain and a mind and that the mind operates things with the help of the brain. This illusion helps us with cognitive dissonance, it tricks us into weaving stories about ourself so that we feel a sense of control and the true nature of how much we manipulate one and other is hidden. We turn failures into triumphs, rejection into scorn, we percieve ourselves as better than average in almost all general things (even though this is statistically impossible). Interestingly our early brain creates a mass overabundance of neural connections which are lost as potentialities disappear. The social encounters shape our brain to respond.

We are so much more at the mercy of others than we realize. Without social interaction we do not develop into fully functioning humans. There are "windows" that shut. Feral children can never learn to speak at much more than a very primitive level. There is no independent self that can learn this. It is totally dependent on others. We are a looking glass self. We reflect those around us. It explains why people say seemingly illogical things like, "I wasn't acting like myself today" or "I don't know why I did that" or why people say the have a "work self", a "parent self, a "sexual self", and other personae. When exhibiting preferences we are easily manipulated by considering context and our role among others. We become someone else in different situations because we the "self" is truly only an extension not only of our possessions (the endowment effect) but also everyone around us. We don't even realize that many decisions we make are done subconsciously and are actually decided long before we consciously "decide" something.

This book details many different experiments and studies that reveal really interesting things about human behavior. How we synchronize and mimic behaviors. We literally have neurons that are designed to mirror those around us. Mimicry creates a synchronized sycophantic symphony of mutual appreciation that is extremely powerful. It shows the power of the group and how easily individuality gives way to seeing oneself as part of different, larger collective. It's not the power of the group that does this, it's our innate desire to be accepted. Our need to conform is a powerful force that shapes us and literally changes the way we think. Studies show that simply having all members of a group give an obviously wrong answer will make the odd person out also give the obviously wrong answer upwards of 75% of the time. Interestingly though, as soon as there is one dissenter you can align with then the effect is reduced dramatically. Sexual arousal causes men to consider much more aggressive and forceful measures to satisfy lust than they consider wrong when not aroused. It is also why it is the rare exception and not the norm that someone transcends difficult surrounding circumstances and people to achieve success.

Fascinating yet depressing but ultimately so illuminating. Required reading if your interested in why we are what we are and do what we do, even though it is so often puzzling irrational.

That sounds like a truly interesting book. Some people will never accept that the human mind is just a series of neural pathways activiated by various chemicals produced in response to stimuli. We have so ingrained in our core identities the idea that we have free will, we refuse to acknowledge that we can be swayed by a carefully chosen word in an advertisement. Unfortunately, if we continue to bury our heads in the proverbial sand, and disregard the physiology that creates the "mind", we will be at the mercy of the groups that more completely understand how to manipulate that same physiology.

Marketers and Ad-men already know that you can increase desire for a product just by saying that product's name over and over again. You don't have to have music, or images, or anything else for that matter; just repeat the products name, and your product's sales will improve over no advertising at all.

Yeah like I said, the book is fascinating, depressing, and very illuminating. Even though research has shown the "self" to be an illusion it is impossible to see behind it. No matter what, we will always think of the core of our being as the conscious mind that makes decisions, directs behavior, and ultimately controls ones destiny. Awareness though can give one a modicum of independence. Knowing how and why we are all at the mercy of one another can at least bring it from the subconscious to the conscious. The book also gives great insight into the polarizing of politics and how it all stems from the brain. Being social beings at our core group dynamics influence everything. The forces of ostracism and acceptance are so powerful they can change our behavior almost instantaneously.

RevLucifer,

"Marketers and Ad-men already know that you can increase desire for a product just by saying that product's name over and over again."

Yes, marketing psychology, a truly devilish discipline.

Doh!! Love does not attract you to another person initially. You have to know said person to love said person. Lust is the initial draw. The rest follows. You don't even have to have sex, you just have to want to to be drawn to one another. As to the cow/milk thing, I doubt many men marry a woman just to get at the "milk". I'm pretty sure thay have to like hanging around her, too. However, if the "milk" is free, plenty will drink it no matter how many have drank from that cow before.

Rev Lucifer - I was fascinated when I read in this book how only 500 neurons that function in a strictly binary fashion (on/off) can make more pathways than there are atoms in the universe (2 to the power of 500 compared to approximately 10 to the 81st power)!!! And then extrapolate the fact that we have around 187,000,000,000 billion neurons in our individual brains!! We truly cannot comprehend the processing power of human brains. It is staggering. When I read that I was struck how easily our seeming endless complexity could be derived. And still humans are complete and utter crap at intuitively understanding large probabilities correctly.

To hell with the posts about how the brain works! Where was this study 40 years ago when I could have used it?

Besides that, who says "I want to f**k your brains!

C'mon - just a little humor to lighten up a way too serious discussion. But I did enjoy Sammy Jones post - very informative.

While exposing a technical possibility this article does lil to shed light on the actual phenomena...People need look no farther than Napoleon and Josephine to understand how sex binds people(often to very unfortunate destructive relationships). However notably omitted are the cultural factors which would contextualize the action. Love springs up in the oddest places, but honestly anyone who is searching for a life partner in a one night stand is slightly unrealistic. I think that this would serve for an interesting hypothesis but without numerical data, I fear this just serves as another example of the media giving people what they would like to hear under the guise of news...

Sammy John-75

This is interesting, but I wonder how the author explains persons who are raised under very extreme adverse conditions and abuse, yet somehow overcome this "programming" to become well educated decent humans who feel good about themselves in general?

It took them how long to figure that out?

lol I honestly couldn't love a woman if she wasn't sexually attractive.

Sharktopussie - I should have mentioned the "Fundamental Attribution Error" in human reason. It goes like this - when other people screw up it's their own fault, their stupid, lazy, losers, etc. When I screw up it's because of my circumstances. We regard people as "winners" and "losers" by putting all the blame on the individual even though, as this book articulates very well, social context is critical to understanding behavior.

It stops from realizing the real inequalities people face and that maybe we need to rethink success or failure not as an issue of the self alone, but more of society in general. We look at people who transcend really difficult circumstances and assume others can do that when it is by far the exception and not the norm. The problem is, is that it's basically sacreligious to suggest something that even slightly goes against notions of "The American Dream" or "Rugged Individualism". We believe it's the absolute responsibility of the individual to overcome any circumstances. That's pretty much our secular religion. For me, however, it's not an ideological debate. If these premises are incongruent with what the research shows us, then it's probably not the best premise to base solutions for collective action problems on. If we continue to expect results from faulty premises then the expected change won't happen. Of course this is only meaningful if people are interested in progress of society as a whole, were we look to benefit as many people as possible. And no it's not at all about socialism, communism, the nanny state, government expansion, or any of that. It's how do we understand the reality of human behavior as it relates to groups, social context, etc.

In fact, I think a fantastic way to get understanding and insight is to analyze message boards from this context. You'll get really neat clarity as to why message boards operate as they do. You'll also get a real sense of the power of the group manipulating the individual. This places are awesome little laboratories of human interaction. I don't want to blather on as I have enough. I've written about it elsewhere

It's way way more complex and nuanced than my brief little summary though. I highly recommend the book. It's fascinating.

It's because that's what you WANT to read into it. You're the one propagating one night stands, not the article.

The article makes no determination one way or another. It's purely clinical in it's evaluations and findings.

I think YOU are reading what you want to from my post. Love hypocrasy. It clearly states that sex can lead to love. loveless ex happens 1 of two ways, one night stands or 'friends with benefits'. Its called logic and deducation, something that people should be able to use but obviously not.

the article didn't do anything of the sort simmons. maybe you should actually read it all the way through. and the concept of 'building true meaningful relationships' is a condition that only really developed in the West in the 20th century. prior to that, marriages were a working, business type relationship that included sex. and in many parts of the world it remains so. much of the romantic love propagated by poets and philosophers was never consummated- it was much more 'brain love'. the concepts and conditions of human romantic love are a continuously evolving process, much like everything else in our culture. the ability of science to be able to grasp the basics of how and why lots of things work is just a side effect of said evolution. it shouldn't make the actual feeling of love any less, just because one understand's its chemistry better.

I have to disagree Ssimmons. My wife and I started out as a one night stand that became an ongoing sexual relationship, and of course at first we didn't really know each other very well, but the lust was there. Eventually lust turned to real love, and in a couple months we will be celebrating our 31st anniversary.

And yes the lust is still there after all these years.

I did read it all the way through, I have no doubt there is brain chemistry involved, never once did I deny that. But 85% of all loveless sex relationships ive seen that end up 'being love' end up in divorce. And I didnt once say marriage. Marriage yes was a business deal back in the day, but there were plenty of people, and history has shown this, that despite marriage some people will strive to be with one they love. Think its all about your 'brain' being happy? Takes more than that to make a relationship to work, IE: Both brains have to be alike. If they arent, it can cause major conflict depending on the personalities. Sometimes you can lvoe someone and get along great with them, without sex. Sometimes you can just be FWB, and have feelings develop later on, but subconciously you only thought of that person as a piece of meat, regardless if you changed your mind about them later on. If people are happy with that fine, I am not judging, just stating what is the underlying thing they are getting at. But it isnt always about the brain, if its real love, you'll feel it in your heart. You'll feel their pain if they hurt, or their sadness. I know because I have experienced love. I just think people should try developing a relationship via communication instead of at first based solely on sex. is this 100% gonna make things better? No, I'm not guaranteeing anything, just stating some hard truths. If you wanna have a FWB or one night stand go ahead, I don't care because it is your body. I just know from what I have seen and experienced. Dont believe me? I couldnt care less. Just dont presume im reading too much into something or assuming anything. All I have merely point out, was that most relationships ive seen based on sex, ends up hurting someone. again I say MOST. BTW if science is the key, answer me this. Why did we KNOW beyond a doubt the earth was flat? Why did we KNOW beyond a doubt everything revolved around the Earth? Science proves about 5-10% of everything, in all honesty, and that can change dramatically over the years. All anyone has to do is say Scientists have discovered ----!" and people buy into it like its fact. Just saying don't assume this article is 100% genuine. You never know. Look up how the subconcious mind works and how it can be given subliminal messages to change the ways people think. Proven tactic, even used in the military to create whats called Manchurian candidates, or in the media to 'make us think' evil islamic people are going to nuke the world, when in fact 95% of all islamic people just want to be left the heck alone. I know a thing or two about how the mind works, and how people can perpetuate it. Is the human mind going to do something 100% everytime? Nope. Because the human mind does what it wants in the end.

ssimmons - "sometimes the world needs romance and mystery, and just not have an answer for it."

actually, i think THIS is the real problem.

romance and mystery can be pretty awesome, but they are no substitute for a level head and the ability to brush off a failed relationship and accept that you got burned...and just move on. it also helps to spot people who arent capable of letting go of a failed relationship, and saves you the time of wasting your efforts (as you seem to lament about those poor 3-5 guys who let that evil woman take it out on them).

in a perfect world, that guy that just wants lust...would go seek out a girl that just wants lust, and he wouldnt break any hearts. but you want mystery and romance, so he's not going to be clinical about it...he's going to be romantic and mysterious about it...if she wins him over, so be it...if not, he'll just have his lustful fun and move on when the fun burns out.

in a perfect world, that girl that wants love....would go seek out a guy that just wants love, and is honest about it...and the minute she realizes he isnt in love with her, even if she thinks she's in love with him, she'd accept it and move on it...and try her luck elsewhere...rather than hanging on, wanting him to change, hoping and praying he'll feel like she feels and live in some delusional sad land for far too long.

but you dont want a perfect world...you want a romantic and mysterious world.

and as such, you dont know if the girl you start dating is damaged goods...or potentially, The One.

and when you find out she's damaged goods, you get to lament all you want about how much everyone but you is screwing this world up.

this article doesnt remove romance and mystery, though, ive been in a relationship for 13 years...i've come to appreciate that those butterflies dont last forever, and that lust...comes and goes depending on ones mood, and the real love that is built brick by brick over time, not something that happens in an instant (and can just easily vanish in an instant)...battling disease, family issues, marital issues, life issues, it takes real love to go through all that and come out the other side happy and in love...not mystery and romance.

@Jessica - Now that can make a lot of sense right there. But I wasnt trying to imply that romance and mystery remove your level headedness either. Goodness knows I have had a few friends not use a level head before when it comes to the trials of 'Love and War.'

Finding and documenting a relational connection between two things isn't an attempt to "propogate" anything... That's like saying that if they found that fatty foods improved memory, that it was an attempt to "propogate" obesity in society. Same concept; just because they found that love can evolve from lust, that doesn't advocate for sexual promiscuity. There is no indication that it's easier for love to develop from lust than from friendship, and so the article and the study doesn't suggest any particular relationship model; just that a relationship that is purely sexual can create emotional love.

If we usually got a rock to the other side of a hill by rolling it around the hill, but suddenly we discovered that we could roll it over the hill too (reaching the same goal through a different course of action), that doesn't mean that we should roll the rock over the hill, just that we can. Your inferrences from the study shows what the lack of science education in our country brings us; people that don't understand how scientific research works. First, we see if it's possible. Then, we see if it's effective. Finally, we see if it's better than the current method or process. This is stage one of that process.

I should have added, some of my favorite literature to read is romance: novels and poetry

but what i've come to realize, most of the stuff is written in the very beginning...and im not so sure they are talking about love, as much as lust.

Take the Titanic (a movie, I know)...Jack and Rose, is that true love? It would seem so...yet, we have no clue what would have happened had that ship never sank, they made it to shore and actually had to live real lives and make real choices and have all the stresses of the real world bear down on them.

the literary world is full of jack and rose's, romeo & juliets...

not too many old folks who've been together for 65 years, and still digging on each other just as much now as they ever did...

Simmons,

But 85% of all loveless sex relationships ive seen that end up 'being love' end up in divorce.

Anecdotal evidence has no place in scientific inquiry. To rebutt your claim, I'll posit this anecdotal evidence:

The vast majority of relationships begin because there is a sexual attraction, regardless of whether they have sex or not. People date those whom they are attracted to, attraction = lust or sexual desire. 50% of all marriages end in divorce. If 85% of all marriages based on sexual attraction as the primary cause for starting a relationship end in divorce, then that would mean that in order to adhere to the 50% divorce rate, only 59% of marriages would be from a relationship where sexual attraction was a primary motivator. That doesn't match with what I've seen, which is that a much larger majority of relationships are motivated by sexual desire.

SS - I am implying that romance and mystery almost ALWAYS cause people to lose their level-headedness.

i've watched too many friends (and family) abandon their relationships when the romance and mystery dies down, believeing so too has the love.

my brother in law just recently left his wife (of 15 years) and two kids (15 and 11) because he's "not in love" anymore, and he's been cheating with this lady he works with...who's about 8 years younger than him, and he just cant help how he feels when she looks at him (his words, not mine). He believes now, he never was in love with his wife, but knows undoubtedly he's in love with this other girl.

I call BS. I think he simply wants out of his responsibilities, doesnt want to work on his marriage, and someone showed him attention and he ran with it...and is making excuses all along the way.

thats your mystery and romance you are talking about...and he went chasing after it just like his life were a movie.

ignoring the destruction he's leaving all along his path.

DEEP BREATH, here goes -

Do any of you know what is the biggest factor in creating a happy long term stable relationship?? I'll tell you. It's when your partner perceives YOU as conscientious. Makes sense, no? If the other person feels that you think about their needs, look after their needs, and make them a priority then it goes a long way to building a successful long term relationship. It doesn't even matter if you see yourself that way. The true secret to happiness is a perspective where you embrace joyously duty, responsibility, sacrifice, and compromise. Selflessness has the paradoxical effect of bringing fullfillment. As Viktor Frankl said so eloquently, "It's not through self actualization that we are realized, it's through self transcendance."

It's the opposite of what so often happens. We take the other for granted. Our current society is such a self orientated one it's no wonder that people cannot make relationships last. Not that all of them should by any means. But if one is selfish, thinking only about their own needs then it's doomed. It inevitably breeds contempt and resentment. "Brain Love" doesn't last. But it can give way to a deeper more meaningful kind of love where we become truly connected to another individual. They become one of the threads on which we weave our life and try, feebly, to give it a higher meaning. We humans are uniquely blessed with a huge prefrontal cortex which gives us values, beliefs, and reason. There's more though. Much more. We must go deeper. As I pointed out in my long post above detailing a book about how the "Self" is actually a brain illusion and how we are actually much more at the mercy of others than we consciously realize, with awareness of why we do what we do we can assert enough autonomy to shape our lives to fit the way this internal "self" perceives. Because we cannot see behind the illusion, even though it is real, we will always think of this internal conscious voice in our head as the core of our self. Does this contradict my previous statements declaring what one could or should "rationally decide" to do to make long term stable relationships? Yes and no. Our brain truly does weave a complex narrative which gives us an illusion of self so we feel in control. But awareness opens up possibilities. Knowing how are brains are shaped by social interactions and that we are reflections of others allows gives us a modicum of power. If you know how the brain responds (subconsciously) to social interaction and group settings you can avoid pitfalls like Facebook, chatroom sex, workplace affairs, etc. You'll understand situations where you used to be puzzled by your behavior and say things like "I wasn't myself" or "I didn't behave like myself". The powerful need to conform, to meet expectations, to consider context and our role amongst others subsumes the individual quickly (great revealing studies included in the book). Without awareness it will happen on its own accord because of how the brain operates.

For those that want to be monogamous it is possible. That said, nonmonogamy isn't the norm and neither is monogamy. Variation is the norm.

@Rev Do you think this is scientific inquiry, or just a news article saying scientist have found? Got another one for you, Science just discovered that the Earth, is in fact, the source of the big bang!" Science can say what it wants, but outside the lab and in the real world, things are different.

At least people are talking about love and lust. The actual article, after saying they are in the same part of the brain, changed its mind and said that one is in the ventral portion and the other in the dorsal portion of the striatum. Think about this: in the brain, or any part of the nervous system, different parts of the same section of either brain or endocrine system could cover things as different as growth and reproduction, or fight/flight and healing. And the brain does separate functions: hearing is not the same area as speech or memory. But it is disturbing that the love section is the same as the addiction section, so obviously more is going on; relationships offer far more depth than a "fix."

But the article also does not cover grief and more mature relationships. People can love each other for many years, and if one of the partners becomes sick and not so physically attractive, the love can grow, not become less. The key may be that it is a study of developmental psychology, which aims at childhood development looking toward adult love and not the whole experience of a human being; so the entire article is based on early love.

In teenage love, or young adult love, there is usually some hurt, whether there are sexual relationships or not. There is more jealousy, insecurity, reactivity, or in some cases fear of intimacy or just simple pride and not wanting to be "brought down," and these are more likely to cause break-ups. When a sexual relationship is added, it does stir up brain chemistry too, there's no denying it. Starting with a sexual relationship is a self-arranged trial marriage although the relationship may grow later; BUT, people tend to rebel against arranged marriages, especially in our culture, but the only way to counter that is to extend the relationship to at least some shared activities. Unless there is a social safety net, there are disadvantages to these arrangements, even if self-arranged. Just know that at some point the word "commitment" may lead to deeper fulfillment than either lust or the modern quick romantic love. And work in it instead of whine at each other.

2.

Unless you're Canadian, it doesn't matter how many tax dollars went into it; the Concordia University of Montreal is in Quebec Province, Canada.

Beauty, eh?

@oldgaffer: LOFL - brilliant retort; it's like you took Leiya123 into the boards, stole the puck, and then scored. The only way it could have possibly been better is if the Hansen brothers were somehow involved.

Good for you. I'm happy it worked out for someone.

I don't think one can exist without the other. If it's just love without physical, that's just a friend and likely to lead to "fooling around" when they discover they're missing part of the relationship and see that missing part in someone else. If it's just physical, that's a kind of "buddy" I won't repeat the name of on here. Most relationships start with a physical attraction. I'm lucky enough to have found both in the girl I'm engaged to.

Wow, so happy it worked for you! I can definitely attest to falling in lust at first sight, and then finding yourself to actually care for the person (even if it may not always be mutual...), so it does happen.

um, TMI dude

Not all guys are like that, Ron. I grew up pretty shy and naive, and was always friends with girls/women; did the dating thing and whatnot, getting to know them as a person. I totally felt ( and still feel ) that sex was for after marriage. Sure, I was attracted to most of the girls, but my primary desire from age 14 to 23 was to get to know their minds and personalities. I lost quite a few because I missed the signs that they wanted it to become physical; and had talks with a few others that I was flattered but that wasn't my primary goal. Most laughed it off and moved on, some were touched. Until I met my wife, none wanted to travel the same course. I realize that since the 60's guys like me are the minority, but we still exist.

Pitts

It sounds like you dated Rosey Palm for years. Do you have warts on your hand and are you blind. Most guys between 14-23 want to get laid and who cares about anything else. You said you were attracted to most girls, it sounds like you were attracted to guys also.

Wow, holy crap, Ron-2402090, lucky wife! Hope she takes care of you as well!

"You don’t make a connection that love is a drug; it acts just like drug addiction" You can have love without sex. In fact, perhaps love is made stronger without it.

How about people confuse sex with intimacy. Sex is about procreation but the pleasures associated with it and the hormones released during orgasm have alot to do with ones feelings of intimacy or love. As stated, "love is a drug" If love is a drug then sex is the drug dealer.

Very good point, Canopy. We presume that to be physically intimate means we are also emotionally and spiritually intimate; but that is not the case very often anymore. For some people it is very true, but for more and more people, they can detach the physical from the emotional/spiritual.

And as Robin Williams stated, God only gave men enough blood to operate one brain at a time.

I won't use percentages, but I think you're right for most people most of the time; but I can state there were women I was attracted to due to their personalities or intelligence, while I did not find them physically attractive.

In that case you were attracted to their brains rather than their bodies.

Attraction is all in the brain anyway. If your turn on is big brains, you will find an average-looking brainiac to be hot; whereas if your turn on is big boobs, then you'll find the hot airhead to be perfect for you.

Ain't that the truth!

hmmm, I think you'd enjoy a strong man.

bingo on that one. I'm not sure about this, but If you are Robert Reford, or Clint Eastwood....or like you have 500 million in the bank....you might be able to get lucky!!!

at least your hand doesn't b_i_t_c_h and moan at you all day!!....about everything you've done wrong in the last 30 years.

Sounds like you have a great deal of experience with that. Like 30 years. Ever wonder what your wife does while you're away?

I agree; take my wife for instance. I was perfectly willing to let her cheat with my girlfriend - I even volunteered to hold the camera, but for some odd reason, she declined. So then I said it was ok for her twin sister to participate - I even said she could bring her dog, but still no-go. I hear you, women are really mysterious creatures.

node4,

Why don't you let her cheat with your 2 best boy friends, maybe she'll go for that. Then you can sit in the corner and play with the dog, She could go out and bring someone to cheat with home and you could film that, maybe you could cheat with her not so manly friends, she might like that. After all fare is fare. I know you could be like to 60's and do it all together.

I agree with bubba

Funny node. People misplaced their sense of humor today.

but then you've got to bang the old bag.... women have a tolerance for doing that if there is a payday at the end of the day, but guys? im not sure it'd be possible....

Someone once said, "Love is not an emotion, it's a choice" which would seem to back up what you're saying.

But, if love is a verb, what inspires us to be loving? I personally cannot love (or behave in a loving manner) to someone I don't - well, love. Anger is an emotion, slamming the front door is a behavior. Love is a feeling, and sex and care and comfort are behaviors. One can slam the door without being angry, and one can have sex without love.

Perhaps falling in love should be described as 'allowing oneself' to take the risk in being vulnerable to love.