Sex and Novelty

Ever fall in love with total abandon, experience mind-boggling sex, been sure you wanted to stay together forever -- and then notice recurring emotional friction arising? Does one of you sometimes becomes clingy or demanding while the other feels devoured and needs "space?"

This misery isn't necessarily due to bad luck or personality quirks. Quite possibly it's coming from an ancient genetic program running in a primitive part of your brain. It becomes more evident after lovers' initial booster shot of honeymoon neurochemistry wears off, so new lovers firmly believe they are immune -- as do people who aren't getting enough loving.

Consider what happens when you drop a male rat into a cage with a receptive female rat. First, there's a frenzy of copulation. Eventually, the fireworks stop. As a result of his changed body chemistry, he now finds her uninteresting. However, if a new female shows up, his exhaustion will miraculously fade long enough for him to gallantly attempt his fertilization duties.

His renewable virility is not indicative of an insatiable libido. Nor does it increase his well-being -- although it may look (and temporarily feel to him) that way. His behavior correlates with surges of neurochemicals in his brain, which command him to leave no female unfertilized (the "Coolidge Effect"). Surging dopamine (the "I gotta have it!" substance) is a "Yes!" Dropping dopamine -- as copulation with a familiar mate continues -- says, "Okay...I'm done."

Dopamine naturally drops after orgasm, which plays right into this phenomenon. Incidentally, this tendency for "fertilization frenzy" to move us toward novel partners is not confined to males. Female rodents have been seen flirting a lot more -- arching in inviting displays -- with unfamiliar partners than with those with which they've already copulated.

Does a variation of the Coolidge Effect show up in human behavior? "I quit counting at 350 lovers," confessed a man from Los Angeles, "and I guess there must be something terribly wrong with me because I always lost interest in them sexually so quickly. Some of those women are really beautiful, too." At the time of our chat his third wife had just left him for a Frenchman and he was discouraged. She had lost interest in him.

Porn-using introverts are as much puppets of this subconscious drive as Italy's President Berlusconi or South Carolina's Governor Sanford. Whether someone attempts to fertilize a hot babe or a two-dimensional image, his genes are cracking the whip. Consider this man's words:

I watched a documentary on guys with extremely expensive "love dolls." One guy had so many that he was running out of room in his home. Even though these were dolls, he had already started to see them as girls he had spent enough time with. Probably why guys collect so much porn....I thought I was amassing some wonderful database of pleasure. But I can't remember ever actually going back. The compelling part is the NEW image, the novel image...the novel love doll.

Why would biology cause a regular partner to look like cold oatmeal and a new one to look like rich chocolate mousse? So more offspring with greater genetic diversity are produced (on average across populations). Your genes prefer to sail into the future on as many different boats as they can clamber aboard. Monogamy is as risky as putting all eggs in one basket.

Want proof? No mammals are monogamous (in the sense of being sexually exclusive), and only three percent even bother pair bonding. These pair-bonding outliers (including humans) are known as socially monogamous. They readily form long-term attachments and often raise their offspring together, but they frequently stray. It's the same for swans and other lovebirds.

Even if spouses manage to stay faithful, this neurochemically induced dissatisfaction can push them out of sync sexually, or make them see each other like another serving of "Hamburger Helper." Indeed, research shows that spouses tend to find each other more irritating the longer they are married.

Some couples attempt to fool the brain that a new mating opportunity has arrived by viewing porn, or acting out sexual fantasies. Others swap mates or raise their dopamine by generating intense feelings (as with bondage). However, it can be exhausting to have to orchestrate an adequate dopamine surge every time you want to make love. Indeed, the more intensely you stimulate each other, the more tolerance tends to increase, which means more and more stimulation is needed. And what happens when one partner wants a "fix" of sexual excitement and the other is not ready to invest so much effort, or run the proposed risk, to get a thrill? The more frequently and intensely we attempt to satiate each other sexually, the more restless many of us are likely to grow.

But what if couples want to stay together rather than serve strictly as prime "gene machines?" Fortunately, there are ways to expand our lovemaking repertoire with techniques that stave off habituation effortlessly. Next post: "Staying in Love the Lazy Way."

 

Comments

[GrizzlyBowman]

Your analysis of the biological contributors to waning interests over time in a single monogamous partner is testament to the need for greater societal acceptance of open relationships.

Morals of love in societies are rarely based on anything more than assertions made in a handful of religious texts. Marriage is rather ridiculous; it is a legally binding contract which flies in the face of that fickleness instituted by our very makeup. It is as absurd as demanding that a hamster run on two legs, or a horse to do a back flip.

When the absurdity of marriage is brought up, people inevitably point to people who have been married for decades. The existence of a legal bond is neither evidence to happiness nor fidelity.

[Marnia Robinson - Huffpost Blogger]

You are right that we are not necessarily molded by evolution for lifelong monogamy, but that doesn't mean we're better off, healthier, or happier serving our genes as impetuous gene machines. Close, trusted relationships and warm, affectionate touch are powerful medicine for pair-bonders like us. This has nothing to do with "marriage." I agree that monogamy has to be a choice from within, or it can be an empty, miserable fiction.

What we haven't realized is that by learning an ancient technique of making love differently, we can make monogamy surprisingly lighthearted and enjoyable. It's our choice.

[DC in Chicago]

Wow - this and one other post has been very insightful. Lots of food for thought. Thanks for sharing. I think you make some very strong points about how we deal with intimacy. Just wanted to let you know you have a new fan!

[terris]

The problem is that there is always something and someone that could be better. That's our social Dis-Ease. It's the result of advertising that we are exposed practically when we emerge from the womb. There's an antidote - Giving. Men who don't understand that sex is the entire experience are missing out, and their partners are missing everything.

[Marnia Robinson]

So true, and yet that fiery neurochemistry that drives us to engage in fertilization behavior is so loud and persuasive at a neurochemical level that no one can be blamed for falling for it! In my experience, it's hard to see the benefits of moderation until you've done something to balance your brain chemistry...such as meditation, karezza (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marnia-robinson/another-way-to-make-love_b_272759.html), healthier diet, tai chi, regular prayer, qi gong, whatever. Until then, those loud "Yes!" signals seem like the obvious choice. However, when I wrote my book, I was amazed to see that the evidence about the benefits of orgasm itself is surprisingly thin, while the evidence about the need for regular affectionate connection with others is mounting daily. Hmm....

[thinkb4uleapII]

I read your article with great interest since I am now of the belief that monogamy is an ineffective, if not unnatural, form of relationship bonding. I have many questions but will reserve those until I have read your book and other writings.

However, can you please expand on your statement: "it's hard to see the benefits of moderation until you've done something to balance your brain chemistry.."

Are you suggesting that our neurochemically triggered desires need to be brought into submission by counteractive influences in order to fully enjoy meaningful and fulfilling long-term romantic relationships? Most religions maintain that theory as dogmatic ideology - some to the point of asceticism. Are you advocating the same?

[sharingpeace]

While it's true that recent research reports have implied that more orgasms are beneficial to health, the actual experiences of that are reported very much otherwise at street-level and have been for years - it's more bonding behavior, which naturally engenders more loving kindness, that is the real answer, and it is the usual answer when women are aked what they really want - many men, too... you are so right-on with this research. The implications for creating happier couples, then families, and then communities are huge with this approach - not wanting to sound too Pollyanna-ish, we're basically talking world peace, here. I'm excited!!!