The Evolutionary Advantage of Falling in Love

Not massively scientific, but it was a toss-up between here and Free Thoughts.

We, as a species, love sex. The benefits of this characteristic are obvious - but why do we fall in love?

Romantic love and limerence are not all about sexual desire. You can't eat, you feel physically ill and/or depressed in the absence of someone and bashful and frustrated when they are around - how does this state of mind help you?

Surely an undying devotion to another human being is not the best way for an individual, especially a male, to pass on their genes to the next generation. Of course the by-product of love is monogamy but, as most of us will know, the associated pain can actually be detrimental to a person's libido and desire to find more partners. Many believe that we are not naturally monogamous anyway, and that our 'mates' were only ever temporary. So why do we marry, and bind ourself to one person for life?

Evolutionary pressures on sexuality are among the strongest; because of this there is nearly always a reason for our sexual behaviours. So what is the reason for an all-consuming love?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Self delusion?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The hunter is around to feed his genes, later, after sex?
(what is the evolutionary advantage of reducing love to evolutionary advantages? This organism feels slightly ill in the vantage created by viewing love in these terms. My genes rebel and seem to indicate it is not an advantageous vantage.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Strong parental group = young more likely to survive?

However, you say yourself:

If this is true then it is a learned behaviour, not a hereditary one, so where does evolutionary advantage come in to it?

 

Been reading too many romance novels, huh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"All-consuming"? Duh. Too many romance noves again, huh? Or do you watch a lot of chick flicks?

Baron Max

 

Aww Baron, who's your favourite author?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, it doesn't have to be "parental" group, only a group of humans living together. They don't need to know who the father is of any of the children not to feel a need to protect and care for them.

Personally, I think monogamy is due to the human trait of greed and self-centricity ...we all have those traits in various degrees. We see the woman we want or desire sexually, so we want to "own" her!

Baron Max

 

Harold Coyle. Larry Bond comes in a close second. Pure romance!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

I agree with you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Aww no Nora Roberts? Danielle Steele? Barbara Cartland?

 

I've read some Nora Roberts and I wouldn't classify those particular ones as romance novels ....although there was some of that mushy, gushy shit in 'em that I had to hurry passed!

Harold Coyle and Larry Bond write war novels, military fiction, ....lots of bang-bang, shoot-'em-up, Boom-Boom stuff!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

To be fair to the Baron, the more educated a society, the less likely it is that women will opt for marriage. Married women have shorter lifespans than unmarried ones, its the reverse for men.

There are many liberal societies where women receive incentives to get married and have children.

 

Oh, James, you old romantic you!

But tell me, James, in such communal living as a fuckin' cave, who could possibly know which male was the father? C'mon, James, think a little.

So you think early man, neanderthals and Cro-Magnon, allowed women to vote and have all those women's rights that you keep talking about? ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

That does not take into account that men are possessive. I really believe they would have been during those time as well, i see no reason not to.

 

She hypothesizes inherited memory as well, and various other nonsense. The idea that a tribal civilization of humans, talking and making tools an so forth, capable of the kinds of logic involved in hunting with fire and traps, would not know that sex caused babies, is pretty damn far fetched.

Judging by the physiology, humans are built to form two or three woman harems in which every third baby or so is fathered by another male than the harem guy.

It's the ratio that counts, and a ten woman family with four harem guys fits the physiology even better.

As far as love - chimpanzees often pair up, sneak off on honeymoons away from the gang-banging tribe. And chimp mothers often seclude their babies from the tribe until they've grown a bit, can keep out of harm's way a little. Humans carrying that a step further would provide a valuable nursery for the babies, among whom "grown a bit" means something like three years.

And the outlier non-harem-guy or new-harem pregnancies, so important from a genetic diversity pov, would involve real risk over extended times for both parties - powerful hormonal motives would be necessary to overcome these obstacles. Those insufficiently motivated were outbred.

 

Ha haa.

Perhaps I'm just a bit of a drip, but I've felt that way about more than one person in the past.

This sounds about right to me. Especially as love never actually seems to last forever: "undying love is like the ghost in your villa. Everybody talks about it, but try and find one person who has seen it."

 

I agree with your ideas about possessiveness, and I believe that it was true in those days as well. But all we have to do is look at that same possessiveness in today's men, and you'll readily see how easy it is to discard one woman and move on to another one! Not to mention that the "old one" is enormously pregnant or she's already busy with a kid.

I've sometimes thought about early man and the somewhat "natural" instincts for gatheriing a harem of femaless ...one big, strong alpha male controlling them all. But that doesn't work too well unless the alpha male can be around to protect his assets ...and if he did that, he probably wouldn't have much to eat.

Nope, I think it was true communal style living ...the male fucking any woman he could whenever he could.

Baron Max

 

Where did you get that info from? I've read from several sources in the past that married couples as a collective live longer than single people.

And if married women have shorter lifespans, why is it that the husbands most often die first? Haha.

And the U.S. is right up there with them.
I just don't understand the difference/big deal between marriage and just cohabitating. The committment is exactly the same. Why does a ring and a piece of paper(marriage certificate) make that much of a difference? Honestly?

That behavior is not exclusive to guys. Unless you've never seen how catty a woman can get when it comes to a man. Women can be very competitive, and can become very immature about it too; just as bad, if not worse than guys.