Love and Sex

First of all, let me say this is not a scientific article.  I hold no degree in biology or psychology.  It is a layman's understanding of the biological underpinnings of love and sexuality.  Looking at it from this point of view can seem cold and clinical, but I think it can also provide amazing insights that can help make sense of it all.

Love and sex seems to be a hot topic on Vox right now, at least among those in my neighborhood.  Monogamy vs. polyamory vs. sexual license without attachment - which is the most natural way for humans to live? 

I am quite aware that these are not the only three configurations, but these are the three that seem to be the focus of the discussion as of late.  I also think these are the three sexual configurations that are most prevalent in our species today.

Committed monogamy (frequently in the form of marriage) is the societal gold standard.  It's what most of us have been brought up to believe is the best way to live. 

Polyamory is the idea that we should shuck the old shackles of matrimony and jealousy, and feel free to create bonds with multiple sexual partners in a non-exclusive arrangement.  It has some very well-spoken proponents.

Sexual license without attachment is a pattern that for much of the world is still considered anathema, but is gaining more acceptance in Western culture, and is to some extent even idealized in a growing movement toward total sexual freedom.  Everything from the mainstreaming of "Girls Gone Wild" to organizations like CAKE, which promotes sexual freedom without concern about relationships or consequences, shows this growing trend.

So the question that seems to be coming up is, "What is the most natural way for people to live?"  Notice the difference between this question and, "What is the best way for people to live?"  The latter question is rife with complications depending on your religious background, your moral upbringings, and so forth, and we now live in a global society with an influx of cross-cultural contacts that forces us to find something more basic than religion and socially normed morality on which to base our behavior.

The former question - "What is the most natural way for people to live?" - implies that to live as nature would intend for us then we would be happy.  The reason this question is common is that people in troubled relationships or a series of failed relationships feel like they are frequently fighting an uphill battle.  As one person in my neighborhood said recently, love should be easy, at least most of the time, and for many or even most people, it isn't.  On the other hand, there are few people that live polyamorously, and that's because there are psychological pressures to secure our relationships (jealousy and devotion), that have to be fought against if you want to remain truly polyamorous, again an uphill battle.

So what is natural?  At this point I'm going to turn to evolutionary psychology. 

Evolutionary psychology offers some very illuminating insight into why we are the way we are.  We all have different agendas, goals, and drives when it comes to sexual behavior and relationships, but as a species our behavior has been tailored over the entire history of our evolution to maximize our potential for successfully passing our genes from one generation to the next. 

Sexual desire is probably the most basic of all evolutionary drives.  We want to feed ourselves and protect ourselves, but those drives are to provide us more future opportunities for procreation.  Evolution doesn't bother giving us a desire to procreate, however, it gives us the desire to have sex, and the procreation is supposed to take care of itself.  Evolution hasn't caught up to the invention of birth control. 

So we have a biologically driven desire to have sex.  Furthermore, we are more likely to successfully pass our genes on to future generations if we have multiple partners.  Having children by multiple partners means our offspring will have different genetic configurations and if one offspring is unable to adapt to changes in environment and live long enough to procreate, then maybe an offspring by another mate will.

If this is all there was to it, then sexual license would be a cinch.  We would only have the desire to have sex with multiple partners, and that would be that.

It's more complicated that this, however.  To successfully pass your genes on to the next generation, then the one after that, then the one after that, is the emergent drive of evolutionary forces.  If you have eighteen kids but they all starve to death or are killed by predators, you are an evolutionary dead end, and your genes won't get passed on.

So evolution introduces another drive that helps secure the success of offspring, and that is family bonding.  We're learning more all the time about the physiological basis for love and bonding, but a lot of light can be shed by looking at what is known about the hormones called oxytocin and vasopressin.  Oxytocin is neurotransmitter that is released during physical contact between people, with prolonged eye contact between people, and during sex and orgasm.  Generally, all the things we hope will happen on a hot date.  In many mammals, scent will play a roll in oxytocin production.  In humans, prolonged conversation may stimulate its production.  Oxytocin is found in both males and females, but seems to have a more profound effect on females, and also plays a role in mother-child bonding.  Vasopressin is hormone that also occurs in both men and women, and has a lot of different effects on the body, but seems to be responsible for some of the social bonding (love) that occurs in men as well as aggression toward other males (jealousy), and by correlation may play a part in a male's desire to protect and provide for his mate and children.

So we are hard-wired for monogamy and families.  The problem comes in when we consider that the other, even more basic evolutionary drives for procreation don't go away.  In fact, the tendancy for sexual desire had to have evolved before the tendancy to bond, and looked at this way, we are actually hard-wired to have sex, and love is something that is placed on top of this desire, complicating sex.  The desire for multiple sexual partners does not go away, but yet now we feel bonding toward our sexual partners and jealousy that makes us want them to bond to us.  Polyamory sounds very utopian because it does away with the concept of jealousy, which has a lot of negative connotations, but the fact is that the same chemicals that produce jealousy produce the bonding effect that we think of as infatuation and love, which most people find pleasant.  Most people can't have one without the other, and for most people you can't have sex without some oxytocin production, meaning bonding and jealousy will occur.  This is the basis for the problem of monogamy.  We want love and family and friendship and bonding with our mates, but we still have that desire to seek others.  This is the basis of infidelity, and extramarital relationships also can result in oxytocin production, causing one member of a relationship to be bonded to more than one indivual, a situation that is usually not acceptable to the other member of the relationship because of their biologically-based jealousy.  The cheater can usually be expected to feel a level of guilt that may be proportional to the level of bonding, and if the cheatee finds out, jealousy and a feeling of betrayal can be expected.

As with all hormones, however, not all people will produce them equally.  Some people may have very high naturally occuring levels of oxytocin, and fall in love easily, whereas others may not produce much oxytocin at all, and don't understand what all the fuss is about.  Furthermore, the same hormones won't have exactly the same effect on all people.  Bonding may occur in some without jealousy.  People who respond this way to our chemicals are pobably rare, but would be excellent candidates for polyamory.  For most, though, the two go hand in hand and jealousy is unavoidable.  I think this is why the truly polyamorous - experiencing bonding and love without jealousy - seem to be a very small portion of the human population, despite the utopian ring that it has.  Human biology can't be changed by adopting a philosophy of a jealousy-free life.

The truly oxytocin deprived would feel neither bonding nor jealousy.  These are the people that can have "friends with benefits" without feeling emotional angst over what most other people would consider the "stalling" of the relationship from developing into something more committed.  The greatest difficulty these people will have is with accidentally stimulating oxytocin production in others, causing their partners to feel dejected and used when the oxytocin-free lover happily goes on to their next conquest. 

However, even a person with normal oxytocin production can avoid attachment.  Oxytocin takes time to build up.  By having the relationship only last long enough to reach the sexual connection, then terminating it, the bonding formed is minimal.  The fact that prolonged conversation with a potential sex partner can stimulate oxytocin production in humans, coupled with the fact that deep conversation is really not part of the "Girls Gone Wild" culture, seems to back this up.  Having multiple sexual partners in a short time frame, too, will cause the oxytocin production to be unable to form bonding in the brain, since bonding involves a strengthening of neural bonds associating a particular individual with positive feelings.  Alcohol and drug use can interrupt and supress hormone production, as well, and that does seem to be part of the licentious culture.  The culture of sexual license without attachment is one that is based on satisfying sexual drives in a way that is least likely to lead to the bonds formed from oxytocin production.  This type of culture has a lot of consequences that could generally be considered negative - transmission of STDs, unwanted pregnancies without prior familial or financial support, alcohol abuse and drug dependancy, vulnerability of the participants to sexual predators, and the paternity test episodes of the Maury Povich show - but the attraction of it is strong.  The idea of sex without all of that messy bonding is one that clearly appeals to a lot of people, though others would say that they are missing out on some of the things that makes life worth living - love and romance.

So what is the answer?  Unfortunately, evolutionary psychology provides explanations, not answers.  It's true that each of us have different bodies, and some may not naturally bond as easily as others, and there is also research to show that a person's oxytocin production changes throughout their adult life.  What this means is that there really isn't a single "best way" to live that will fit all individuals, and that as we age our relationship needs will change. 

The thing that makes us different from other animals is that we do have some conscious input into our behavior.  That input may be minimal, but it can tip the balance.  For instance, knowing about oxytocin production and the triggers that stimulate it allows us to intentionally strengthen our existing bonds if we wish - making sure we get plenty of time with our mate, engaging in touching, eye contact, long conversations, and don't forget the sex - all of that can strengthen existing bonds.

Knowing that all sexual behavior has a biological underpinning can help us be less judgmental.  On the other hand, we also have intellectual capacity to understand the consequences of our behavior and the ethics of it.  Knowing that cheating is based on a biological drive doesn't give us license to betray someone we've committed to, nor will it relieve the guilt associated with betrayal, nor will it make us feel better when we learn that our mate has cheated on us.  Knowing that different people have different sexual constitutions means that we can go into any relationship (or lack thereof) knowing that what we desire or expect out of that connection may or may not happen, depending on the other person's desires and expectations.

It also means that we can't ever expect to be anxiety-free when it comes to relationships.  Our conflicting evolutionary drives almost guarantees some level of discomfort. 

Sexual ethics means being up-front with those desires and expectations, in short being aware of the potiential for bonding and not betraying that.  It also means being true to yourself.  If you're the type of person that bonds easily, don't think you can live a sexually licentious life and not feel anxiety over it.  If you're the type of person who just doesn't bond at all, understand that your partners may not be like you, and that you need to let them know before the opportunity for bonding occurs.  If you're one of the rare folks that experiences bonding but not jealousy, don't be surprised if one of your partners changes as they get older and decides they want more security.

The bottom line: the other animals act in whatever manner suits their biological needs at the time.  We as human can consciously choose to avoid hurting each other while pursuing the fulfilment of our needs.  That sounds like a good place to start.