Hug the Monkey

Oxytocin Becomes Part of Sex Ed

A pamphlet designed to give young women information about sex includes a discussion of how oxytocin's bonding effects can have unforeseen consequences, according to LifeSiteNews.

Miriam Grossman, a psychiatrist at UCLA, got attention, not all of it positive, for her recent bookUnprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness Endangers Every Student. While she was criticized for being anti-sex or promoting double standards, I think it's crucial that men and women both understand the neurochemical differences between the sexes when they have sex.

The LifeSiteNews article says:

It discusses in familiar words the effects of oxytocin, a hormone released by intimate behavior, on one's ability to make clear choices and on the long term consequences of the choices one makes: "Because of it [oxytocin], you could develop feelings for a guy whose last intention is to bond with you. You might think of him all day, but he can't remember your name."

This certainly happened to me, over and over. It was intensely painful and damaging. And I don't think this pain and loss should be seen as just a natural part of growing up and dating.

Sex Marathon Improves Love Relationship Too

When Doug and Annie Brown realized they weren't having sex for months at a time, they made a pact to have sex every day for 101 days. Then, they wrote a book about it.

In this article in the Boulder Daily Camera, writer Aimee Heckel discusses how the neurochemistry of sex, including tons of oxytocin released during touching and orgasm, makes every part of the relationship better. She interviewed Doug Brown, who said that while they really really didn't want to have sex some of the times, it changed not only their sexual relationship but also transformed them emotionally.

Brown told Heckel:

"It's a very powerful and unique act," he says. "I think in the context of a relationship, it can really add an almost spiritual shine to the relationship."

When he talks about the "spiritual" dimension of sex, he isn't talking about religion, but rather something primal, something natural.

"There's definitely an electricity. A sort of flesh-to-flesh electricity that happens," he says. "We also found the more we did it, the stronger that electricity was. There's something there beyond just kind of having sex. It is beyond just pure pleasure."

Sex is the thing that keeps couples together. It's what creates and maintains the bond. In my experience, it does get harder and harder to find time to connect in bed, but it's a really necessary part of being with someone.

Hug Your Monkey Even If You Don't Want Sex

I thought this was a good column from the Times Online: Touching Shouldn't Always Mean Sex.

Relationship expert Pam Spurr points out how hard it can be for male/female couples to send and understand signals about touching. Sometimes, you don't want sex, but you need to be touched and held. She points out:

When our skin is touched, our bodies produce various responses including producing oxytocin, the emotional bonding hormone. This makes us feel good around our loved one. That heart-warming feeling means that we want more of their company. And so the cycle goes on bonding us together.

Interesting that most of the comments are very hostile. I agree it's a bit of a stereotype that he wants sex, she wants to cuddle, but certainly mismatches in how much sex people want are not uncommon.

Romance: Best Enjoyed in the Middle Ages

Last night I was listening to an audio book that mentioned the relationship between Dante and Beatrice, celebrated as an example of romantic love at its finest. Dante, of course, wrote The Inferno. Beatrice was his cousin. He fell in love with her the first time he saw her, when he was nine. They didn't speak to each other until a few years later, and they never had what we would today call any kind of relationship at all. Instead, his love for her was in the mode of "courtly love" possibly "invented" during the Middle Ages.

I've written several times about the problem of mistaking romantic love, which may be evolution's way of making sure a couple stayed focused enough on their relationship to have sex and get pregnant, then keep the baby alive for the first couple of years, with committed love. Romance is fired by dopamine and lowered levels of serotonin, while committed love is fueled by oxytocin. (The theory goes.) Oxytocin produces a more "social" love; the oxytocin bond activates the same brain systems as trust and generosity.

This story from The Independent in the UK, Aspects of Love, illustrates the conflicting definitions we have of love. (Some of the interviewees also state as fact some of the neurochemical bases of emotion that haven't been completely proven yet, as I'm often guilty of doing, such as in the previous paragraph.)

I like what Alain de Bottom says:

One of the things that happened in the modern age was that suddenly people decided that romantic love could be put together with marriage, so the sort of feeling people always had around a lover, an intense romantic passion they thought might last a few months, you could stick that together with what people had always followed which was to get married.

And marriage used to be about "handing on the farm" to the next generation and suddenly it was thought you could have the farm and this great intense romantic relationship. You no longer needed what the aristocracy had suggested you always needed, which was a wife and a mistress, or the other way around if you were a woman. This idea that you can have romantic passion and the practical benefits of keeping a household together – modern society has fallen for this idea and it's making us miserable.

De Bottom is author of Essays in Love, which sounds pretty interesting.

In the Middle Ages and into Dante's time, marriages were arranged, and based on social and economic benefits. People might have had lovers and/or asexual romantic relationships like that of Dante and Beatrice. I don't think we can -- or should -- go back to that, but I wish our culture would learn to celebrate committed love the way we do romance.

The adorable embroidered heart is by Minha lojinha, a wonderful artist.

See also, Sex, Orgasm, Bonding and the Marital Blahs; and Get Over Romance; please, please please?

Science vs. Religion (When It Comes to Love)

Some very heated discussion on the Ave Maria Gratia Plena blog following author Michelle's comments about oxytocin, bonding and premarital sex. It shows how attempts to understand how our biology affects our emotions gets mired in emotion.

In Why I disagree with promiscuity and fear for the FLDS kids that will be taught modern sex ed, she writes that she's worried that the children removed from the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints camp will be taught modern society's ways, including acceptance of premarital sex. She goes on to make some statements about how the bonding effects of oxytocin following sex and orgasm can cloud a woman's judgment about a man.

I think she makes some very valid points; I do agree with this:

Ever wonder why so many women are "in love" with total losers and won't end the relationship? O-x-y-t-o-c-i-n...
~ This is why so many marriages fail when the couples have slept together before being wed: a woman that is chemically bonded to a man is in danger of settling for a husband that is totally not compatible with herself. She can't see this because she is trapped in a bond she probably knows nothing about. (When do they teach girls about oxytocin in sex ed classes??)

However, framing these ideas with this really tragic situation makes it a lot harder to examine what she says. As commenters rightly point out, surely the situation these women, and especially the very young girls who were married to older men who had multiple wives, were in a worse situation than someone who finds herself "bonded to a total loser."

Still, many comments accuse her of ranting and twisting science. One wrote,

You made the claim that a woman is bonded to her sexual partner against her will by oxytocin. That a woman falls in love with a "loser" because of oxytocin. You cannot ask me to offer counterproof until you offer some credible evidence - other than a reference to Wikipedia - to support your statements. Then you'll get your "argument".

I really wish it weren't so, but there is plenty of credible evidence that both men and women become bonded to their sex partners -- and women more so than men. I wish we humans were able to create new forms of relationships and new societies based on our ideals, not our biology. But we remain deeply influenced by our animal natures.

It's completely proven that men and women release oxytocin during  orgasm. Following are some studies that, taken together, make a very strong case that oxytocin creates the bond of human love, and that estrogen increases oxytocin's effects:

Bale, Tracy L.; Davis, Aline M.; Auger, Anthony P.; Dorsa, Daniel M.; and McCarthy, Margaret M. 2001. CNS Region-Specific Oxytocin Receptor Expression: Importance in Regulation of Anxiety and Sex Behavior. The Journal of Neuroscience 21(7):2546-2552.

Bales, Karen; Lewis-Reese, Antoniah; Pfeifer, Lisa; and Kramer, Kristin; and Carter, C. Sue. 2007. Early Experience Affects the Traits of Monogamy in a Sexually Dimorphic Manner. Developmental Psychobiology 49:335-342

Carter, C. Sue; DeVries, A.C.; and Getz, L.L. 1995. Physiological substrates of mammalian monogamy: the prairie vole model. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews 19(2): 303-14.

Carter, C. Sue. 2007. Sex differences in oxytocin and vasopressin: Implications for autism spectrum disorders? Behavioural Brain Research 176(1):170-86.

Chung, Wilson C. J.; De Vries, Geert J.; and Swaab, Dick F. 2002. Sexual Differentiation of the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis in Humans May Extend into Adulthood, The Journal of Neuroscience 22(3):1027–1033.

Cushing, B.S. and Carter, C.S. 1999. Prior Exposure To Oxytocin Mimics the Effects Of Social Contact and Facilitates Sexual Behaviour In Females. Journal of Neuroendocrinology 11(10):765–769.

Georgiadis, Janniko R.; Reinders, Simone A.A.T.; Van der Graaf, Ferdinand H.C.E.; Paans, Anne M.J.; Kortekaas, Rudie. 2007. Brain activation during human male ejaculation revisited. Neuroreport 18(6):553-557.

 

Young, Larry J. and Wang, Zuoxin, The neurobiology of pair bonding (Nature Neuroscience Vo. 7. No. 10, October 2004)

Zak, Paul J.; Kurzband, Robert; and Matzner, William T., Oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness (Hormones and Behavior 48 (2005) 522 – 527)

 

Chocolate, Sex and Love

When we're lonely, depressed or bummed out, we reach for the chocolate. Especially for women, the liquor of this magic bean seems to spell relief from the blues.

Science hasn't figured out why, although, intriguingly, chocolate contains phenylethylamine, a substance that seems to be produced in the brain when we're in the throes of romance.

Personally, I think it's simply because chocolate provides sensual pleasure, while its fat stimulates a release of oxytocin into the gut and bloodstream via the vagus nerve. That oxytocin feels just like the oxytocin we'd get from making love or being close to someone we love.

At any rate, Aphrodisiology.com has a fun analysis of the satisfactions of chocolate, as well as a list of reasons why it's actually better than sex:

Chocolate will never ask you to wear a wig and scream "Who's your Daddy?"

The Virginity Dilemma

Kaya at Afropologe riffs on a recent New York Times magazine article on True Love Revolution.

True Love Revolution is self-described as a "on-sectarian student-run organization at Harvard College dedicated to the promotion of premarital sexual abstinence. We strive to present another option to our peers regarding sex-related issues, endorsing ideas of abstinence and chastity as a positive alternative for ethical and health reasons. "

According to the NYT, the club's ideas include:

... the belief that “ ‘safe sex’ is not safe”; that even the most effective methods of birth control can fail; that early sexual activity is strongly associated with all manner of terrible outcomes, from increased risk of depression to greater likelihood of marital infidelity, divorce and maternal poverty. Premarital abstinence, on the other hand, is held up by True Love Revolution as improving health, promoting better relationships and, best of all, enabling “better sex in your future marriage.”

I think the current leader of the organization makes an important point:

Conventional feminism, she explained, teaches that control of your body means the freedom to have sex without consequences — sex like a man. “I am an unconventional feminist,” Fredell said, in the sense that she asserts control by choosing not to have sex — by telling men, no, absolutely not.

I was very involved in feminist culture in the 70s, and we did sometimes lose sight of the idea that freedom of choice includes choosing not to do what others are doing.

Kaya takes issue with one student's comments about wanting to abstain from sex with her boyfriend so she won't become too bonded and then hurt if they break up.

I think this may be an oversimplification -- and so may True Love Revolution's concepts, and/or the article's -- but she is very funny and her post is worth a read. She helps define the contradictions and confusion we all face in our ultra-modern society.

BTW, the folks at Afropologe have a no-quoting policy for their blog, which seems awfully weird and unbloggy, but whatever. 

What Are the Human Pheromones?

  Butt Sniffing Ying Yang 
  Originally uploaded by Tim Dorr.

This is slightly off-topic, but it fits in with the recent guest post, Sex, Love and Oxytocin: A Real Love Story.

Liquid Trust is now "enhanced with male and female pheromones." Now, the idea of human pheromones -- chemicals emitted by one animal that change the physiology or behavior of others of that species -- is not accepted science at this point. There have been a few studies that I find really convincing, and I'd bet that this is another case where we're not so different from the rest of the animal kingdom.

At any rate, I saw a mention of human pheromones in this article, which led me to a pretty good, science-based discussion of human pheromones: Y2K Man and Pheromonal Communication. According to the author, F. Ligabue Stricker, the human pheromones are (or are thought to be) androstenol-androstenone for men and copulin for women.

... in women were found compounds similar to “copulin” detected in Primates (Michael et al. 1971, 1974). Copulin is a blend of aliphatic acids (acetic, propionic, butyric,, isovaleric, isocaproic.) usually present in vaginal fluids of healthy women. They are under hormonal control and their fluctuations during the menstrual cycle communicate the ovulatory period (Mc Clintock, 1971). As in Primates,in fact, near the middle of the menstrual cycle their concentration is higher. The use of hormonal contraceptives reduces the production of copulin and its fluctuations.

In Man the “ musky “ odour ” (Kloek 1961), is due to metabolites of androstenone and androstenol, typically pheromonal substances produced by the testes and present with high concentration in urine, saliva and axillary sweat. The effect on social interactions is more constant and stronger than copulin one (Kirk-Smith 1978).. The higher intensity of the male odour compared to female odour is due to greater amounts of skin secretions and concomitantly more odorogenic microflora.

So, these are likely what's in Liquid Trust. I still wonder if there's enough of anything in this product to make a difference and if there is, how long it lasts after you open the bottle.

Sex at Work?

Oh, those crazy Italians. "Sexologist" Serenella Salomoni supposedly did a study showing that having an affair at the office made them happier and more productive. According to the article from The Sun (the UK version of the National Enquirer)

She said: “We discovered that people who had an office romance said they were happier, more energetic and more productive.”

Taking a break from his coverage of the Internet industry, Jason Lee Miller of WebPro News debunks this insubstantial little article, and then asks,

Is this going to affect our team-building activities? Because the three-legged race is already more intimate than I want to get with some people. 

Heh heh.

But seriously, I can see sex really livening up the workplace, and getting your energy up -- as long as your oxytocin response is weak. If bonding kicks in, an office romance can be a nightmare. Oh, yeah, and it also can be a big mess even if you don't bond with each other.

Using sex to relieve boredom at work seems like a really bad idea. Get another job or play Tetris.

Here's Salomoni's contact info; she's a psychologist and psychotherapist. But this study doesn't come up on Google Scholar or PubMed; in fact, neither of them turns up any studies.

Sex, Orgasm, Bonding and the Marital Blahs

Commenting on my post about how getting together with friends can provide a nice oxytocin boost that makes a woman happier in her marriage too, Dave said:

Over the years I have heard the importance of communicating, sharing non-sexual intimacy, supporting each other, etc., etc., but have rarely heard women openly say that sex is what bonds them to men. How about the more experienced couples (I don't want to say "older") - would most women who have been married 10, 20 years or more agree that sex is still the bonding element ? I believe it is, but do they ?

I think "ideally" is the operative word. Unfortunately, when it comes to sex and orgasm, the situation for women is far from ideal.

Orgasm can be problematic for women for several reasons. While this doesn't hold true for everyone, and I think our culture might be changing, many times:

Women are taught that sex is dirty or bad.

Women are not taught to get in touch with our bodies to learn what feels good, and what good sex should feel like.

Women are not taught to ask for what we want, in bed or out of it.

Pornography, as well as our soft-porn entertainment industry, portrays men and women as always sexually ready and available. Men can be really surprised, frustrated and bored  when a woman needs a lot of foreplay. I mean, we may be talking 20 or 30 minutes. How many men are, ahem, up for that?

Men get angry, annoyed, put off or insecure if women ask them to change what they're doing during sex, because  it makes them feel criticized.

Neither men nor women are taught anything about making love. We blunder through it at first, and often pick up bad habits.

Once a man and a woman become regular sex partners, it's not as *exciting*. So, the woman may actually need more foreplay or to be approached more slowly, while the man may feel he doesn't have to seduce her any longer.

As a man gets older, his erections may be less strong or less reliable. Our culture unfortunately expects men to be always ready sexually, so they feel shame if they don't get an erection right away. Instead of focusing on his partner and letting it happen or not, the man starts to focus more and more on his penis, making sex less and less pleasing for his partner.

So, a couple may start off with some bad sexual habits: He rushes things, she doesn't demand that he slow down, etc. Then,  after 10 or 15 years, when his testosterone dies down, sex begins to seem kind of pointless to her and she puts him off more and more.

They hopefully still will bond through sleeping together, hugging and other less sexual kinds of touching. We hear about couples who have sex into their 70s and 80s. I suspect they're the lucky minority.