Article by Marnia Robinson and Gary Wilson

Are we waxing away the line between adults and children?

At present, our culture both underestimates the power of erotic cues and misinterprets their significance. That is, sexual cues are presumed harmless because sexual tastes are thought to be hardwired whatever one views. Two circular assumptions follow from this faulty premise: First, we assume that what one climaxes to reveals one's unalterable nature; and second, we assume that if one begins climaxing to something incongruous one is merely discovering one's "true" nature. Such flawed reasoning arose in part due to medical politics which gave rise to a staunch refusal to investigate the plastic effects of sexual behaviors on the brain's delicate reward circuitry.

Did addiction politics leave us stranded on a slippery slope?

Ever wonder why the brains of pathological gamblers, food addicts and video-game addicts have been studied, yet no one has studied the brains of porn addicts? We've certainly wondered—especially as one often hears the claim that the absence of studies is "proof" that porn addiction/sex addiction is a myth (even though clients and patients are increasingly complaining of being hooked on both).

Recently, we learned why brain-science research on porn and sex addiction is practically nonexistent.

A steady drip of oxytocin may help sustain relationship harmony

Ever read about how frequent orgasm will benefit your relationship (or your health) because oxytocin (the "love hormone") is released at climax? Let's look at this claim more closely, because there's evidently more to the story. After all, if orgasm were glue, our culture wouldn't have drifted toward hooking-up as orgasms became more plentiful. And every john would be in love with his hooker.

(traducción de Francisco Moreno T.)

¿Conoces tú alguna sólida relación que parecía tener mucho a su favor... y que sin embargo terminó? ¿Qué hay con un matrimonio que se mantiene unido, pero sus miembros parecen estancados... o incluso hostiles entre sí? ¿Has visto la revista Newsweek el artículo Sexo no, por favor, estamos casados? Si la falta de armonía nunca ha afectado tu relación tú eres raro; en el 2002 en los EE.UU., la Oficina del Censo predijo que la mitad de los nuevos matrimonios era probable que terminaran en divorcio.

Nuestras lunas de miel no son duraderas, pero cuando vemos las estadísticas de divorcios a menudo asumimos que esto debe ser un problema reciente. No lo es. Es proverbial que "el período de luna de miel dure menos de un año. Lo que ha cambiado es que ahora podemos divorciarnos fácilmente cuando se produce la falta de armonía, y así lo hacemos. Por lo que un viejo problema, que estaba oculto en el pasado por el hecho de que las parejas tenían que permanecer juntas incluso cuando las cosas fueran difíciles, ya está saliendo a la luz.

New research overturns commonly held beliefs about men

Regardless how many sexual partners you've had, you may still benefit from figuring out the extent to which you're wired for pair bonding. Being a pair-bonder, by the way, doesn't guarantee "happily ever after." It means socially monogamous: having the capacity to fall in love and the desire to bond, at least for a time. In contrast, most mammal species are like bonobo chimps and rats; they mate and move on. The reasons for the differences lie in brain structure.

Despite our capacity for promiscuity, we humans are a pair-bonding species. It shows up in our powerful hankering for touch and ongoing companionship—and makes perfect sense, as our offspring benefit from parents who hang around with each other for more than one estrous cycle. (For a solid analysis of human pair bonding, see "Your Sexy Brain" in The Compass of Pleasure.) As with any trait, however, there are always outliers (atypical individuals). So how do you know where you are on the pair-bonder spectrum? And what does it mean in terms of finding contentment?