An essay on Sexul orientation, Attraction and Pair Bonds

[Alyrium Denryle]

This litle essay is by no mens complete, this was done intentionally to spur discussion on the subject. So read, enjoy, discuss.

Sexual Attraction

What makes us, like who we like? What makes us want to have wild passionate monkey love with a certain individual? And what makes us feel an emotional connection so strong that we would be willing to die for another? In this essay I intend to answer these questions. First I will discuss the basic principles of attraction and sexual orientation determination, then I will discuss what makes us attracted to an individual person, finally, I will delve into the emotion that we humans like to call love. I will do my best to support my ideas with scientific evidence and personal experience, though I must admit, I do not have a full knowledge of the subject. But I shall do my best

Sexual orientation, and the gender one is attracted to, is the cornerstone of all sexual behavior. It determines not only what gender you are attracted to, but also how you will pursue you chosen mate, and even how society will respond to your union. And as such, it is necessary to at least begin to comprehend the root causes sexual orientation on a biological level. My research and personal experience as a homosexual has led me to believe that sexual orientation is in some way biological in nature, and I will support that contention.

Research by Stanford University [Stanford 96] has shown that a gene known as the Fru gene controls sexual behavior in fruit flies. This is very important in that it shows that sexual behavior at least in some insects is controlled by genetics, and that it was in fact possible to engineer male flies, that mated with other male flies. It showed that there was a genetic control for sexual orientation, but the mechanism that exerted this control is as yet unknown. Until a British study of homosexual sheep revealed brain differences in the brains of homosexual sheep, and heterosexual sheep. These differences were in a structure in they hypothalamus called the preoptic hypothalamus. This structure controls mating behavior. LeVay found similar differences in humans, but due to the AIDS epidemic there is some controversy surrounding his findings. What this tells us is that the brain controls which gender we are attracted to. Now what the mechanism is, I simply don’t know.

What I do know in general terms is what attracts us humans to an individual. Humans, even homosexuals are still driven by the drive to breed. Even in the case of homosexuals, they are still driven by the urge to find the best mating candidate possible. Many animals do this through scent, but scent does not apply for humans so far as can tell. The main reason for this is that humans have a shitty sense of smell. Only a tiny portion of our brain is devoted to this sense, and we simply cannot identify trace chemicals or levels of any other chemical we may produce. This is why we, unlike he vast majority of other mammals cannot tell when a female is in ‘heat’, most other mammals can pick up on those hormonal signals, we cant. Our use of smell is limited to what we can detect. Often this is on the form of body odor or the smell of disease, or uncleanliness. Even body odor in small amounts can be rather enticing. I, myself, am driven crazy by small amounts of that typical male odor. But scent simply isn’t well developed enough in our species to be used as a primary means of determining if a mate is suitable, so you need other senses, like sight.

Sight is probably the most important. Of all our senses it is the best developed and can be used very effectively to gauge health and breeding ability. One of these forms of visual stimulus is surprisingly the waste to hip ratio, at least for heterosexual males it is very important because a waste-hip ratio of 2/3 shows that the female in question is able to bear children safely [“Science of Sex” DHC]. This also comes in handy when playing “spot the drag queen” as males generally have a ration of 9.5/10. But typical females have that nice hourglass shape… Another important one is facial symmetry no one likes Quasimodo. Facial and body symmetry shows that an individual got a good set of genes from their parents and is therefore a better choice than someone that looks like a Picasso painting. Another generic non-gender specific marker is generally physical build. How a person’s body is structured is probably the best indicator of a person’s health. A person who is stick thin, is not only weak, but in all likelihood cannot adequately feed themselves (or just have a very high metabolism, but when trying to find a mate you cant determine that) so generally, they are out. People that are too muscled, often just cant move quickly on the grasslands to catch anything, and those that are overly fat, while well nourished, will not have the stamina for those long treks across the grassland when the water hole runs dry. So a balance must be found. Generally this is at or around ones scientifically determined ideal weight.

Now that the physical requirements are down. What of the emotional ones? Generally this boils down to how your prospective mate will treat you. Will he/she treat you kindly? Will he/she stick around to help you raise your offspring? These are questions that make themselves clear in the courtship process. You date a person, to determine if they are suitable mate. If a date goes poorly, if they don’t respect you, or rush into things like inviting you into their apartment to quickly, you can generally guess that that is the same way they will treat you while you are… attached. So you will not pursue them as a mate any further. However, by treating you with respect, and waiting until you are ready to advance the relationship, the prospective mate shows that they will treat you with respect, provide for you, and it shows an investment in your future offspring.

So what of this whole love issue? Humans, unlike most species are largely monogamous. Why? This flies in the face of most of biology. The male’s goal in life is to pass on his genes to as many offspring as possible. So why do we stay with a single mate for so long? The answer, child rearing. Humans, have the longest period of parental care of any mammal. We put so much time into our children that unlike most other mammals who produce new children every few years or less, if a human has multiple offspring, they must be in quick succession, otherwise the offspring will literally be orphaned by dying parents. So this small number of children represents a huge investment of time and energy on the part of the parents to keep their children alive, and because we are born with so few instincts we must literally be taught how to be human. We don’t have any instinctual codes of conduct, we don’t know what is safe to eat, and we don’t know how to hunt, or make tools. All this must be taught to us. Doing this is very difficult on one parent so in general, two parents need to be present, at least in the early stages when the child is completely helpless. So there must be some incentive for the male to stick around. This is when a complex web of emotional dependencies kicks in.

This web of emotional dependencies starts out as sexual attraction. You have picked someone out as a potential mate. And so, in the process of trying to mate with said person, you become infatuated by this person, through conditioned responses... According to Tennov this infatuation is called “Limerance” It is a type of short term (lasting no more than 4 years) emotional bond that is aimed at keeping a couple together during the early years of their offspring’s childhood. It is marked by

• Intrusive thinking about the limerent object (the LO, or the object of one’s desire)
• Acute longing for the LO to reciprocate affection
• Euphoria or buoyancy of mood when reciprocation occurs
• Feelings, thoughts, and actions focus on the LO to the extent that other concerns – even very important ones – are ignored or neglected
• A strong, delusional-like bias that distorts the limerent person’s perception of the LO: this bias magnifies the appearance and importance of the LO’s admirable qualities while simultaneously minimizing the LO’s negative traits, rendering them either neutral or even positive
• Sexual desire for the LO
[Reference Tennov 1979] http://www.ulm.edu/~palmer/Pair.pdf


This bond is of course short term, and many people actually get married while under its influence. Many times they divorce, which accounts for the high divorce rates among newlyweds, as this bond wears off and the two begin to see each other’s negative qualities. Often however, they develop a longer lasting bond. Unlike limerance this could actually be called love, and is characterized by an intense bond of loyalty and affection. Like limerance it is also characterized by a desire to build a “love nest” from which to raise offspring.


Even in homosexuals these same principles apply, though of course, there is no rearing of children, but the emotional bonds still form.


Well, I have made good use of the information at my disposal, and have tried to answer a few questions regarding sexual orientation, attraction, and pair bonding. My information is by no means complete however, and as new research into both of these subjects sheds new light on this rather difficult topic, what we think we may know now could go spiraling down the drain of inadequacy.

[InnerBrat]

post deleted (where's the delete button?)

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ah hell, I forgot the reason homosexuality exists... got the cause, forgot why it surives natural selection.

[kojikun]

Ah hell, I forgot the reason homosexuality exists... got the cause, forgot why it surives natural selection.

simple genetic causes that dont cause "homosexuality" but instead cause a preference for a specific gender. probably.

[InnerBrat]

Just a quick skim thorugh the main points off the top of my head, as it's too hot to scour WOS and/or lug lever arch files full of notes across the room.

I think your section of the causes of sexual orientation is far too simplistic. Sexuality is a complex subject, especially in humans, who not only have elaborate social structures and mating rituals, but are also subject to a number of environmental stimuli designed to hit our sexuality.

Basically, while I accept all your genetic and neurological studies, I would argue that we cannot automatically discount the influence of the environment in our sexual development, and the possible elasticity of sexuality throughout adulthood.

I will not, therefore, address your exmaples, but I do disagree with your conlcusions.

What I do know in general terms is what attracts us humans to an individual. Humans, even homosexuals are still driven by the drive to breed. Even in the case of homosexuals, they are still driven by the urge to find the best mating candidate possible.

Could you support this with studies into mate choice by homosexuals? I have only read mate choice studies on heterosexuals.

Many animals do this through scent, but scent does not apply for humans so far as can tell. The main reason for this is that humans have a shitty sense of smell. Only a tiny portion of our brain is devoted to this sense, and we simply cannot identify trace chemicals or levels of any other chemical we may produce. This is why we, unlike he vast majority of other mammals cannot tell when a female is in ‘heat’, most other mammals can pick up on those hormonal signals, we cant. Our use of smell is limited to what we can detect. Often this is on the form of body odor or the smell of disease, or uncleanliness. Even body odor in small amounts can be rather enticing. I, myself, am driven crazy by small amounts of that typical male odor. But scent simply isn’t well developed enough in our species to be used as a primary means of determining if a mate is suitable, so you need other senses, like sight.

Untrue. Humans do respond to odours in choosing their mate. You admit yourself you find the scent of a man enticing. Has it occured to you that you might find the scent of one man more attractive than another?
One of the studies I can't be arsed to look up in the folders behind me dealt with the role of scent in heterosexual female mate choice.
There is a gene locus which humans share with other mammals and with birds, which is often associated with pheromone production in the animals. The exact genes at this locus vary within species.
Men with varying genes were each given T shirts to wear non-stop for a week or two - after which time women were given a "blind smell test" to decide which they found more attractive. They had a tendency to go for the scent of men with different gene groups than themselves: this chemical is probably, therefore, an inbreeding prevention mechanism.
(as an aside, the sensitivity of women to this smell was influenced by their menstrual cycle and hormonla contraception - so be careful, men, if you've never known your girl off the pill. When she comes off it to have kids, she may cease to fancy you)

-- snip physical attraction by sight

All true, but bear in mind this is also affected by environment.
In areas of low food availabilty, women with better food reserves are favoured, while in more fertile areas, a thinner body is preferred.
These preferences are still retained in modern society in racial differences in body size (in women) as mate choice (in men). How long these differences will survive in a multiracial society should give some indication as to how innate these preferences are.

Now that the physical requirements are down. What of the emotional ones? Generally this boils down to how your prospective mate will treat you. Will he/she treat you kindly? Will he/she stick around to help you raise your offspring? These are questions that make themselves clear in the courtship process. You date a person, to determine if they are suitable mate. If a date goes poorly, if they don’t respect you, or rush into things like inviting you into their apartment to quickly, you can generally guess that that is the same way they will treat you while you are… attached. So you will not pursue them as a mate any further. However, by treating you with respect, and waiting until you are ready to advance the relationship, the prospective mate shows that they will treat you with respect, provide for you, and it shows an investment in your future offspring.

Here is where you overlook something important - what you have described above are qualities we look for in a partner, nont a mate. The difference is vital, and the main reason you've overlooked it is because of this fatal mistake:

Humans, unlike most species are largely monogamous.

Actually, we're not. Current theory is that we're naturally polygyandrous, (many males, many females). You're absolutely right that human children are expensive and require biparental care (at least), but that doens't always have to be given by the biological father. In modern polygynous societies, the wives work together to raise their children, in other serial monogamous societies (in which couplings last a few years), grandmothers and female relatives help the mother.

Even in monogamous societies, EPCs (extra-pair couplings) are common. Obviously this varies between cultures, depending on social construct and ecology (some Inuits, for example, are fully monogamous due to resource sparcity), but there is often a degree of paternal uncertainty. Harsh as it may seem, a woman looks for different qualities in her mate (for he must have good genes) than she does for her partner (for he must be a good father). These sometimes overlap, but not always.

(I'm sorry, I'm tired now. But I didn't really have much more to address in the rest of the essay. Good work.)

[Alyrium Denryle]

Untrue. Humans do respond to odours in choosing their mate. You admit yourself you find the scent of a man enticing. Has it occured to you that you might find the scent of one man more attractive than another?
One of the studies I can't be arsed to look up in the folders behind me dealt with the role of scent in heterosexual female mate choice.
There is a gene locus which humans share with other mammals and with birds, which is often associated with pheromone production in the animals. The exact genes at this locus vary within species.
Men with varying genes were each given T shirts to wear non-stop for a week or two - after which time women were given a "blind smell test" to decide which they found more attractive. They had a tendency to go for the scent of men with different gene groups than themselves: this chemical is probably, therefore, an inbreeding prevention mechanism.
(as an aside, the sensitivity of women to this smell was influenced by their menstrual cycle and hormonla contraception - so be careful, men, if you've never known your girl off the pill. When she comes off it to have kids, she may cease to fancy you)

Hmm... point conceeeded.(never before have I been happy to say that)

Could you support this with studies into mate choice by homosexuals? I have only read mate choice studies on heterosexuals.

Basic sex drive. Even though our mating behavior is geared toward those of the same gender, we would, logically be driven by the same breeding instincts that heterosexuals are.

Actually, we're not. Current theory is that we're naturally polygyandrous

I both hate and love being wrong simultaneously.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Just a quick skim thorugh the main points off the top of my head, as it's too hot to scour WOS and/or lug lever arch files full of notes across the room.

I think your section of the causes of sexual orientation is far too simplistic. Sexuality is a complex subject, especially in humans, who not only have elaborate social structures and mating rituals, but are also subject to a number of environmental stimuli designed to hit our sexuality.

Basically, while I accept all your genetic and neurological studies, I would argue that we cannot automatically discount the influence of the environment in our sexual development, and the possible elasticity of sexuality throughout adulthood.

I will not, therefore, address your exmaples, but I do disagree with your conlcusions.

The complexity is why I would really like to do a sort of round table discussion with everyone on the board...(I wish I had those file folders full of notes with which to lug accross the room)

[Sam Or I]

I do agree that scent does play a major factor. I can tell my girlfriends scent, even though I cannot actually smell her. Its weird and hard to explain, I know I detect her scent, but there is no real physical smell, or its going to a different part of the brain.

About monogomy, there are theories that point in both directions. But the non-monogomy part shows why girls usually like the jerks early on in life, and then settle for the "nice" guy later.