Hard-wired for sex or romance?

[AllardChardon]

Humans and all other successful species are hardwired for sex. Hardwired to mate and reproduce. So the question is, what is romance? A human invention to justify our animal instincts better known as lust? In my experience, attraction starts with the eyes, continues with the nose and can enflame with the kiss, not to mention what comes next. It is a physical necessity and involves raw lust, which I applaud. So what is the purpose of romance and love?

No matter how much you want to, you cannot lust after someone you are not attracted to. Perfect sexual chemistry is hard to find but once you have had it, you will never be the same. Lust is the driving force of nature. Every living creature experiences it unless they are A-sexual.

I think love and romance are but the suit of clothes used to cover the sexual nature. We clothe ourselves to be more acceptable and desirable. I guess love and romance works the same way. Ultimately, we all want to have sex, preferrably without those clothes, at which time our true sex-crazed lusty natures can emerge, with or without love and romance first.

Blame this thread on my 7 month old yellow lab, Leo. He was humping the couch pillow this morning, practicing for the big day, which will come, because he gets to keep his nuts.

 

[3113]

Humans and all other successful species are hardwired for sex. Hardwired to mate and reproduce. So the question is, what is romance? A human invention to justify our animal instincts better known as lust?

Well, you're overlooking the fact that many species are ALSO hardwired for what we'd call "romance." Bowerbirds create elaborate works of art/bowers (seriously!) to woo a female--check this out, it's pretty amazing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPbWJPsBPdA

And there are species that mate for life. Black vultures are so keen on this that they'll gang up and attack any vulture who go philandering. And finally, there's a new book out about homosexuality in animals. It seems that a lot of species--and I do mean A LOT, have sex, homosexual and hetero, to create social bonds, not just to reproduce. Seriously. Male apes will fuck around with each other, even masturbate each other. No kids from that; so it looks like sex ain't JUST for reproduction in the animal kingdom (which is why the dog is humping your leg), and that means that "romance" likely isn't just for reproduction either. As for humans, yes, of course, DUH! we are hardwired for sex and we do want to reproduce as well as feel good and romance is part of that. What else is new? But there's more than sex to be gotten from "romance and love" if the romance is sincere. That is to say, both sides feel it and it isn't a guy or girl saying/doing things to sucker a girl/guy into bed. True romance creates a very particuliar chemical "high" that goes beyond the usual high involved with sex:

When two people are attracted to each other, a virtual explosion of adrenaline-like nuerochemicals gush forth. Fireworks explode and we see stars. PEA or phenylethylamine is a chemical that speeds up the flow of information between nerve cells. Also, involved in chemistry are dopamine and norepinephrine, chemical cousins of amphetamines. Dopamine makes us feel good and norepinephrine stimulates the production of adrenaline. It makes our heart race! These three chemicals combine to give us infatuation or "chemistry." It is why new lovers feel euphoric and energized, and float on air. It is also why new lovers can make love for hours and talk all night for weeks on end.

For more on this, take a look at this paper on the subject Romantic Chemistry.

So, sorry, it's not just the desire for sex--though, certainly, sex is going to be involved. And, no, I'm not discounting the fact that guys follow their penis. That's what will lead the guy toward the girl and may be what he's initially after. But if it's really "romance" then he's not leaving right after he's sated that need. In fact, after ejaculation, he's more likely to be chemically infused with Oxytocin. Oxytocin is the "love" drug. It's what makes us feel soft, warm, protective or safe in another's arms. Some of us, men and women, naturally have a lot of this, some of us don't. Mothers feel it strongly when they hold and nurse their babies. In general, women have more of it and feel it when men romance them, hug, stroke and show their affection with candy and flowers. Men, however, get that feeling most strongly after orgasm. Here's why:

Secreted by the pituitary gland, oxytocin stimulates the prostate, causes muscle contractions and sensitizes nerves. Research has shown that increased oxytocin produces more intense orgasms.

So, post-coital, men have higher levels of Oxy and are more likely to feel soft and "in love" with the woman they're holding in their arms.

Which leads, in the best scenarios, to a deeper connection, keeping the two together so they can raise the children they produce. Because unlike dogs or so many other species, human children are vulnerable for a very long time and need protection. They also need to be taught over a long period of time. They aren't mature enough to leave their mothers at 6 weeks. So we might well we hardwired to romance and love so that we not only have the kids, but stick around long enough to raise them.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's the way it always worked for me-- I lusted first, jumped in the sack, and then evaluated my partner to decide if I wanted more. Sometimes 'more' was for love or friendship, sometimes because I'd found a compatible bedpartner. One of those partners has lasted for thirty years now!

Why does your dog keep his nuts? I lived with an unneutered golden mix for eight years. In all that time, he never got to fuck but once.

 

[AllardChardon]

Very informative!

3113,

Now that is what I call a response. Thank you. I have now changed my thinking to humans being hardwired for sex and love with romance having its proper place. I raised four children and know all about oxytocin for me, but this is the first time I have read about its effect on men. I, unfortunately, did not marry out of lust, but out of logic. A bad choice for the bedroom, but a good one for protecting those four kids. He could not leave them any more than I could, no matter what went on between the sheets or not, as the case may be. Thanks for the clarity.

 

[AllardChardon]

My dog's nuts

Stella,

We are going to breed him. Yes, we are going to find female yellow labs for him to fuck. Nice owners, I think. So, he needs his nuts.

 

[CharleyH]

Humans and all other successful species are hardwired for sex. Hardwired to mate and reproduce. So the question is, what is romance? A human invention to justify our animal instincts better known as lust? In my experience, attraction starts with the eyes, continues with the nose and can enflame with the kiss, not to mention what comes next. It is a physical necessity and involves raw lust, which I applaud. So what is the purpose of romance and love?

No matter how much you want to, you cannot lust after someone you are not attracted to. Perfect sexual chemistry is hard to find but once you have had it, you will never be the same. Lust is the driving force of nature. Every living creature experiences it unless they are A-sexual.

I think love and romance are but the suit of clothes used to cover the sexual nature. We clothe ourselves to be more acceptable and desirable. I guess love and romance works the same way. Ultimately, we all want to have sex, preferrably without those clothes, at which time our true sex-crazed lusty natures can emerge, with or without love and romance first.

Blame this thread on my 7 month old yellow lab, Leo. He was humping the couch pillow this morning, practicing for the big day, which will come, because he gets to keep his nuts.

Actually? Humans are not hardwired to mate or reproduce. Ask any woman, any gay or lesbian individual. Mating is as hard-wired into humans as is getting our next kill to eat.

 

[neonlyte]

Mating is as hard-wired into humans as is getting our next kill to eat.

Best not to do them both at the same time... Unless food is really scarce

Romance works better than sex for most long term partners, it has more shades, richer textures and sex becomes the by-product.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stella,

We are going to breed him. Yes, we are going to find female yellow labs for him to fuck. Nice owners, I think. So, he needs his nuts.

Very nice owners-- great dogs, too. The world needs Labradors, IMO.

Romance works better than sex for most long term partners, it has more shades, richer textures and sex becomes the by-product.

There was a time when I wouldn't have known what you were talking about here, but-- yes, I find that my feelings for The Old Man are quite romantic these days...

 

[CharleyH]

Best not to do them both at the same time... Unless food is really scarce

LOL Yeah.

Romance works better than sex for most long term partners, it has more shades, richer textures and sex becomes the by-product.

Indeed. We are more than animals.

 

[AllardChardon]

STORY submissions

Stella,

I am ready to send my first four chapters into STORY. What kind of formatting do you want for my 15,896 words?

Allard

 

[Stella_Omega]

PM'd you

 

[rgraham666]

Hmmm.

My first thought is that romance and sex are ends of a continuum. One feeds the other.

I've never had romantic thoughts about someone that I didn't also lust after, at least a little. And lusting after someone always means I end up having romantic thoughts about them.

I suspect that the lust is the animal brain in action, and romance is the forebrain. When the two are working together it's wonderful.

 

[WRJames]

In my experience, attraction starts with the eyes, continues with the nose and can enflame with the kiss, not to mention what comes next.

Well, physicallly, isn't romance more of a "head to head" thing -- kissing, nose rubbing, deep eye contact? I did a lot more of that in my younger days -- but every once in a while my wife and I will take the time to just "make out" for a while before we get on with it -- and it is different, really a different set of sensations than simple sex. A good kiss can make the entire body tingle -- and not just with anticipation. Now -- is that "romance"? None of the women I've been in relationships with have been overly impressed by romantic gestures. Real love is another thing altogether -- but usually that gets tested at moments that are not particularly romantic.

 

[AllardChardon]

Are women more romantic than men, as we have been led to believe?

In my sexual meanderings, and I have been a groupie more than once, I found men more romantic than women. Or should I be really truthful and say that I have found men in my life to be more romantic than me, usually. More sentimental, fragile male egos and all that. I fear I am a man trapped in a lovely woman's body and romance has always left me wondering. Great sexual chemistry is my goal. And kissing is a great way to get heated up all over. That and lots of keigels, spelling here, the muscle contractions down below to stay in sexual shape without a constant partner.

 

[Black Tulip]

Hm, not sure where this puts me, but I usually start with lust and sometimes it develops into something like romance. But more often not.

 

[WRJames]

I and my daughter have what my wife and son somewhat disdainfully refer to as a "fuzzy" side. My college girl friend was something of a romantic -- everyone after that has been rather matter of fact.

Previous generations of women were conditioned to be very different from men. Without that conditioning, those differences are much less obvious. Also, it wasn't women who invented the whole notion of romantic love. It was men. Probably women never got to voice an opinion about whether they wanted some idiot singing off key outside their bedroom window.

 

[AllardChardon]

Romance and men

Yes, I think the idea of wooing a woman has been around a long time. Men are more romantic than women in my book. Didn't it start with a club over the woman's head and being dragged off to a new cave to live or something like that? Now that's romantic!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Also, it wasn't women who invented the whole notion of romantic love. It was men. Probably women never got to voice an opinion about whether they wanted some idiot singing off key outside their bedroom window.

Romantic Love certainly didn't preclude adultery, rape, or fucking the servants whilst you pined for your titled beloved...

 

[fifty5]

"The selfish gene..."

... requires not just reproduction, but that your offspring survive long enough to reproduce you yet again.

Romance and lust are different sides of the same coin.

 

[AllardChardon]

Trying to see if my picture is small enough to appear, yet.

Please excuse me. A newbie at work. Should have been off of here hours ago. Oh well.

 

[xssve]

Romance is a way for woman to raise her costs to the male - in the reproductive act, the costs, both biological and social rest almost exclusively on the woman, she cannot walk away from the biological costs (pregnency) even if she is able to contain the social costs.

Thus, it's in the famales interest to "raise her price", i.e., reward gifts of attention and resources (flowers, going out to dinner, jewellry) with increased levels of affection and attention until she can elicit a promise that the male will share the associated biological and social costs with her.

Naturally, this is a process that rewards the fittest males in terms of resources, however they may be aquired, maximising her reproductive potential as her offspring will demand resources both intrinsic and social in order to optimize their reproductive potential.

Then later, after they're married, she does the Gardener while he's shacked up with his secretary, in order to increase genetic diversity in their offspring.

 

[AllardChardon]

Let us not forget the men who do all their romancing in a very short time and leave a bun in the oven, never to be seen again. And the other men who step in and pick up the pieces, raise the child along with supporting the mother and maybe have a child of their own together, thus diversifying the gene pool.

 

[xssve]

Let us not forget the men who do all their romancing in a very short time and leave a bun in the oven, never to be seen again. And the other men who step in and pick up the pieces, raise the child along with supporting the mother and maybe have a child of their own together, thus diversifying the gene pool.

Absolutely - deception is a very common and successful strategy in nature: camoflague, etc.

In this case, the first male increases his reproductive potential by fertilizing an egg, but without hanging around to guarantee whether the resulting child ever reaches reproductive age - the second male, by proving his ability to share in the responsibility of raising a child provides incentive for the female to combine strategies with him co-operatively in order to optimize their mutual reproductive potential.

 

[AllardChardon]

I spoke from experience on my last post. Details of this are on another post of mine under "weak endings".

In short, I was a unwed mother of a two year old son when I met the man I married and we had three more children together, much to his parents' delight. Sounds better over here than over there! Maybe I shoud stick with the short version.

This thread has been very enlightening to me and I am glad I posted it. Romance is essential. I see that now. Even if it isn't what I seek, it is what most of humanity seeks.

I put a little romance in my first novel near the end. "Sex first and maybe romance later", is a quote from my main character, Gigi, the French Madam.
I am about to begin book two and I will add a little more romance because of this discussion. But only a little, I don't want to overdo it.

 

[xssve]

And romance, even if it's self serving, is not necessarily a bad thing at all, I think I kind of spun it in way that makes it sound more suspicious than it is - much of romancing consists of grooming behaviors, both real and abstract, and these things can serve to strengthen the pair bond, keep the female receptive, keep the male attentive, etc., which can help smoothe over the rough spots.

The problem a lot of couples face in this department, IMO, is that like everything else in this culture, romance get commodized, and becomes less spontanous, and more of another from of conspicuious consumption, or consumerism which may or may not provide the same benefits, or warp the whole thing from pair bonding into brand loyalty and/or status issues.

It came out in weird ways with my ex - she wasn't really too picky about romantic overtures, didn't care if I forgot her birthday as a spacy guy like me sometimes does and so forth, but god forbid I should buy anything off brand, even can of vegetables - then I was a cheap bastard, etc.