(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?
This article appeared on an online magazine called "BettyConfidential.com"
The mysterious art of making love without climaxing.
(by Natalie Bencivenga) The idea of having sex without crossing the finish line may seem to some like a waste of time. Like Samantha from Sex and the City famously once said, “When I RSVP to a party, I make it my business to come.”
Images are from a fountain with a series of sculptures in Nuremberg, Germany called the "Marriage Carousel." It depicts a 400-year old poem by a former town resident about the phases of marriage. The fountain shows a couple starting out in a swan boat, the happy honeymooners. They end up grappling with each other in hell. With karezza, the story is reversed.
...When I married a girl I met in college I thought it was going to be wonderful and we would live happily ever after. I thought I was going to get my needs met once and for all. What I didn’t realize was that she had the same thing on her mind. We both approached each other with our own selfish personal agenda. To me, it seemed that all she wanted was sperm and a paycheck. And I guess to her, it seemed that all I wanted was frequent sexual loving. It became obvious that we didn’t want and value the same things in life. Ten years later found me with three children, bankrupt, jobless, homeless, divorced and heartbroken. It was a nightmare.
A friend of the site has translated the preface, chapter one and the first of the "Wisdom" essays into French, in hopes of helping to attract a French publisher to Cupid's Poisoned Arrow. Read the excerpt.
If you have suggestions of a suitable French publisher for Cupid's Poisoned Arrow, please let us know and we will pass the information on to the publisher.
About a year ago I was asked to write an article for an academic journal called The Evolutionary Review. It has finally been published. I couldn't get a proper PDF of it, so here's the galley proof for those of you who would like to read it:
"The collision of widespread internet porn use with man’s ancient mammalian brain constitutes one of the fastest-moving, most global experiments ever unconsciously conducted...."
Pair bonding is a biological program not a cultural construct
Despite a colorful array of cultural differences, humans everywhere fall in love, attach emotionally for long periods, and feel betrayed when mates are unfaithful. These behaviors are innate, not the products of random cultural influences. To make this point another way: Most mammals don't tattoo their mates' names on their bums, and are not subject to fits of jealous rage.
Human Brains Are Built to Fall in Love, an earlier post, explained that pair bonding behaviors have neurobiological mechanisms behind them. Now, there's more research evidence of our underlying pair-bonding programming.
Don't panic if the passion is gone. New research says it's hugs not hanky-panky that keeps couples together
25 July, 2011 Recently, I met a few close female friends for dinner. As is the way on these occasions, the talk swiftly turned to relationships. Tellingly, the topic of marital sex — or more accurately, the lack of it — was a big issue among this group of fortysomething women, many of whom have either young children, husbands with demanding jobs or high levels of financial stress. ‘We hardly ever have sex these days,’ admitted my friend and lecturer Jo, 37.
I went through a number of disastrous relationships. Finally, I decided, "Why date real people? Who needs the nonsense? If I have porn, I don't need anyone." So I closed myself off to the world, worked, watched TV, watched porn...and got fat. A few years ago, I took a long, hard look at myself, and decided that I could not keep living the way I was. I used to be very active and an athlete. I had basically fallen into "the pit."
A recent study assures us that romantic, sexually active, long-term relationships are possible...for a mere thirteen percent of lucky couples.