Wow. Its like prozac for bad marriages. LOL! At least he’s responsible in saying it could be used in combination with therapy.
Oh great. Another pop-science article to get the abstinence only crowd talking about oxytocin and bonding and making the leap that monogamy is the only “natural” way to be.
I thought about that too, Victoria. The research itself doesn’t make any such conclusions, but facts have never gotten in the way of abstinence education.
The “human sexual fascination with breasts” thing pisses me off, since it is common knowledge that it is a cultural thing, as many peoples do not consider breasts erotic and think Westerners and other cultures that do so are bizarre. Also the “monogamy is natural” thing — monogamy is good if you want it, but since few mammals actually practice it, to say it’s the ideal and only correct desire is quite dishonest. Yes, science for choads.
I can’t see the article, but as someone with a bare familiarity with this stuff. Going outside…eh, John Tierny isn’t the best of science writers.. Anywayz, Ain’t no such thing, and any product that does make it out is most likely bad for you. As in de-gayification bad. As in lobotomy bad. Just about everything in your head, neurochemical and otherwise, is recycled to multiple purposes. absolutely *no* drug that we could make now or in the near future would be target specific to an emotion like infatuation–and there is no fucking way that I’d ever take anything that would fuck with my vasopressin levels. Tierney also gives me the impression that he’s made a hash of what Young said in his interview and article. I’d really need to read the paper. This creeps me out, more than anything else. Infatuations are bothersome, yes, but they certainly make my life more interesting and can often be thought-provoking. Of course, other people might have much more severe problems.
And I concur with RacyT that there is a buttload of what seems to be evo-psych bull in there. I am thinking that this is probably Tierney, and not Young.
My thought was, “what the heck is NYT doing running articles from Maxim?” Really, I have no idea what to think about the actual research given the crappy job presenting it.
My marriage was the equivalent of an anti-love vaccine. When I feel that old giddy infatuation bubbling up, I automatically remember how I felt about what’s-his-name in the beginning, run the whole prospective relationship through in my head, thus saving me the effort and pain involved in having an actual relationship. Leaves me free for reading and cake decorating.
My thought was more about the slut-shaming “hookup culture” articles, than abstinence only, but I think we’re basically just getting the same thing. and yeah, both of those hormones have a lot of positive health affects-don’t get them removed just to avoid ill advised crushes. just no.
Um, eww. I really do not need to think that sex feelings are just sort of snatched up from happy baby feelings. My husband is NOT a baby. This is the stuff of whacked-out oedipus complexes. And I’m pretty f*cking sure (although maybe I should ask those who have given birth) that childbirth does f all for the clit and g spot. Anyone? Bueller?
This is absurd. I have known since my teens that love removal is accomplished not by pharmaceutical, but by machine. Ian Astbury told me so.
Shah already pretty much said what I was going to say: the science isn’t there, what is there seems unwise, Tierney is a poor writer with a lot of bias, etc. The one thing I’d really like to add is that people should always be weary when they hear about some group of scientists making some kind of discovery about the human brain and everyday experience. Theres a big problem in brain science right now, which is amplified by poor reporting, involving researchers who are essentially pushing a particular dogma at the expense of science. The person who Tierney is writing about is a guy named Dr. Young. Dr. Young has a doctorate in Neuroendocrinology and teaches psychiatry in the medical school at Emory. “Neuroendocrinology” means that his specialization is the study of the function of hormones in the human brain. Teaching in the psychiatry program of a medical school means that he has a certain commitment to, and investment in, a particular way of viewing human behavior and motivation as ultimately reducible to biology. Now I haven’t read the entire paper Tierney is referencing but it’s always worth considering the source.
Yuck. So… BigPharma has decided we can’t maintain healthy cholesterol levels without medication, we can’t stay sane without medication, and now we can’t love without medication. Gross! If my marriage ever requires “a little boost” in the form of a nasal spray I’m calling a travel agent or divorce lawyer, not a drug pusher, er, doctor.
Ismone, actually there was an article recently in AlterNet about orgasmic birth: http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/117526/
John Tierney is a sexist idiot. He’s been discussed on this blog before, and that’s pretty much the consensus. He’s the one who wrote that despicable article about how promoting women in science may not be such a good idea.
Heh. While I was writing about this, I was thinking “I wonder what Jill thinks of this.” Specifically whether illegitimate use would be qualitatively different from GHB.
Ha, to clarify, I meant that I would pay a lot of money for the vaccine to make you NOT fall in love.
Oxytocin is tied to bonding (among other things), and does increase in response to touch, sex, orgasms, etc., and there’s really nothing wrong with talking about the science of that; I don’t see this particular article as going off in the really twisted directions of Totally Making Stuff Up about oxytocin (which would be, oh, the “fact” that with women, but apparently only with women, it works like the stickiness of tape and goes away if you have sex with too many people – having sex with people does involve a chance you’ll fall for them and they’ll break your heart, but doesn’t involve a risk of lifetime oxytocin depletion). So, lightweight maybe, but not Creepy Abstinence Analogies level lightweight. As for monogamy, well, humans are naturally monogamous – relative to other mammals. We frequently pair bond and also frequently have sex outside pair bonds; relative to most other mammals, that’s an unusual amount of monogamous inclination. Relative to birds, not so much. Individual mileage, of course, varies. As does mileage of different cultures. If you’re talking about nature, rather than moral strictures, monogamy’s a relative thing, and our species seems to fall somewhere in the middle on the monogamous to nonmonogamous continuum. I’m torn on the “love” drug and “anti-love” drug. My first thought was that I’d rather see the “anti-love” drug developed, because it would be more likely that people would just use it on themselves when they chose, rather than slipping it to other people who’d not have chosen it. Then I realized that parents could slip the “anti-love” drug to their kids. So both of them could have morally dubious applications. As well as, yeah, you really don’t seriously want to muck with your vasopressin levels. Still, I can see the appeal of the fantasy of being able to turn those feelings on and off at will (as long as it’s the will of the person having the feelings, not someone else’s will).
Relative to birds, not so much. Or gibbons, which are closely related to humans and great apes, but are lifelong monogamous.
Ismone, Abby – I think the orgasmic birth is just that – for the birth (and I guess just for those people that have tried it). To clarify – it’s the after giving the birth that it all changes. It gets better, though I can’t say that the oxytocin works in any way to improve relationships during that time. Sigh.
Did anyone read the article? It is the anti-love drug that increases polygamy, the love drug increases bonding/monogamy. “If we give an oxytocin blocker to female voles, they become like 95 percent of other mammal species,” Dr. Young said. “They will not bond no matter how many times they mate with a male or hard how he tries to bond.” I don’t see how the anti-love drug would be liked by the abstinence only lobby.
TD-oh they wouldn’t be pro giving the drug out. they’d be horribly against that. but the research used, and the assumption that without it all women fall hopelessly in love due to oxytocin? That argument will get thrown around as to why women without this “vaccine”(which will be all women if they can manage it) should be forced never to have sex until they’re married.
http://web.me.com/ncomfort/Site/BioBlog/Entries/2009/1/13_Drug_is_the_love_they%E2%80%99re_thinking_of.html