Posted by: Nepe November 14, 2008
Love for Sex or Sex for Love??
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        

NS,

 

I do not see anybody here denying the link between sex and love. Linked but different- that’s what seems to be what most of the posters are saying. So there is no disagreement on that part. Disagreement is rather on how much different they are.

 

From Sternberg’s triangular theory and Helen Fisher’s research to Pushkar Dahal’s speculation, all are basically saying that love is sex and something more.

 

Their views can be roughly summarized this way:

 

Robert Sternberg:

Love = sex + intimacy + commitment

(Note: “passion” includes both sexual and non-sexual attraction, so the above is extreme approximation)

 

Helen Fisher:

Sex (lust)--> attraction --> attachment

 

Testosterone and oestrogen --------------> Lust

Adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin -----> Attraction

Oxytocin and vasopressin ----------------> Attachment

 

By the way, Helen Fisher is my neighbor. Incidentally, the other day, I was having a discussion with a student from her university and my friend on Fisher’s work and Sternberg’s ‘triangular theory’. After hearing about the three components of love that Sternberg identifies, she said to me that he has missed another important component of love. She calls it “value”. I thought that was a striking observation. I suggested her to write to Sternberg. He will now have to modify his theory to include the fourth component.

 

On other points, the genetic basis of homosexuality is really interesting. However, my impression was that that was found only in limited cases. I am citing here Savolainen and Lehmann (Nature 445, 158-159, 11 January 2007):

 

“No predisposing gene for homosexual behaviour has been identified, but there is evidence that genetic controls are involved: for example, human twins are more likely both to be gay compared with non-identical brothers; and male homosexuality is more often inherited maternally, indicating that heritable maternal effects and/or genes linked to the X chromosome are in operation”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7124/full/445158b.html

 

 

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

 

Guest4 Ji,

 

Some of your questions are explained by Nails-ji. On other questions, I think love is not a constant; it is a dependent variable. It can change, fluctuate, even die or revive depending on the beloved’s action/behaviors and circumstances, including one’s own mental condition (for example, depression affects all components of love).

 

So a genuine change in a genuine love is not unnatural.

 

As for what I mean by what our cave-dwelling ancestors passed onto us, I was talking about the natural state of love. Let me illustrate it by the example of the cultural institution/contract called ‘marriage’. Once one is in this kind of cultural contract (marriage, engagement or even simple relationship), he/she would be in a social/cultural/political/moral pressure to declare love, often the deepest one, the highest one, no matter what the reality is. So I thought it is necessary to distinguish between natural love and cultural love (one conditioned by the cultural pressure) to understand it more accurately. Tetti kura ho.

 

 

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

 

Nails,

 

Thanks for your elaboration on our points. I agree with them.

 

And as for your thoughts on genderwise difference in the perception regarding infidelity, it makes sense, I think, from socio-cultural and evolutionary perspective as well. In fact the socio-cultural perspective in this particular case may have an evolutionary explanation.

 

As for translating what I wrote in Nepali, the first thing was basically Sternberg’s theory rephrased. In the second point, I talked about four possible channels/domains in a love relationship:

 

1. A’s original “love” for B

2. B’s original “love” for A

3. A’s reciprocal “love” to B

4. B’s reciprocal “love” to A

 

These four channel/domains are partially interdependent. I was, therefore, suggesting that when relationship goes bad (which naturally would make us sad/worried/hurt), we have to examine each of these channels separately, instead of thinking that love might have gone holistically bad.

 

If we examine all channels meticulously, we might often diagnose that only one or two channels have gone wrong and all others are still intact. Such meticulous diagnosis shall help us to locate the problem precisely, hopefully solve it and even if otherwise, help us to appreciate and cherish what still are intact and remain unscared of falling in love again, no matter how uncertain that might be too.

 

Hope I could explain it well in my poor English.

 

Nepe

 

     

Read Full Discussion Thread for this article