Love and desire
Apr. 21st, 2013 04:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
foliumnondefluetThis paper confirmed some things I've always suspected:
http://www.psych.utah.edu/people/people/diamond/Publications/What%20does%20Sexual%20Orientation%20Orient.pdf
It's a scan pdf so it's hard to quote from, but it presents research on three premises:
* premise 1: Sexual desire and romantic love are functionally independent.
Children of all ages experience maximum infatuation regardless of pubertal maturation, same-gender infatuation among heterosexuals. Heightened proximity and physical contact play a critical role.
* premise 2: Romantic love is not intrinsically oriented to a specific gender.
Hereditary nature of homosexuality,correspondence between pair-bonding and infant-caregiver attachment, lack of affectional orientations, animal data.
* premise 3: The links between love and desire are bi-directional.
Evidence of relation-specific cross-orientation desires, gender differences in bi-directionality.
Regarding the last premise, the following is significant to me:
"Although the overall psychobiological process through which love and desire become interconnected during normal sociosexual development has never been fully specified, there is a tacit consensus regarding the outcome of this process: a robust pathway leading from sexual desire to infatuation-attachment, but not the other way around. Although we are expected to form affectional bonds with individuals we sexually desire, we are not expected to develop novel sexual desires as a result of affectionate bonding. It is important to note that this notion of unidirectionality in the links between love and desire has never been theoretically justified or empirically tested."
It's no surprise to me that the "tacit consensus" appears not to hold under empirical tests (although it seems to break down more frequently for women than for men).
This is also my experience; more often than not, I develop desires following affectionate bonding. So I've repeatedly run into that tacit consensus. It's taken for granted that that sexual desire always comes first, so either it was assumed that the previous friendship had not been genuine but a pretense motivated by sexual desire, or else it was assumed that the sexual desire wasn't sincere and a pretext for sympathy sex from friends out of desperation. I've also found that people often tend to deny the existence of this "tacit consensus".
Another thing I find interesting is the treating of "crushes" - infatuation - and "sexual attraction" as completely separate (some people even get the hots for the Berlin Wall, so this makes sense). That would sure simplify discussion.
Anyway, I find the article an interesting read.
I would add that the erotic drive, the "libido" is, to me, part of something larger - what makes me passionate about things, creativity, sensuality, humor, the joy of life, that sort of thing. It's not all about sexuality, but I think sexuality is an expression of that (and a fairly powerful expression). But that's a topic for another day.
http://www.psych.utah.edu/people/people/diamond/Publications/What%20does%20Sexual%20Orientation%20Orient.pdf
It's a scan pdf so it's hard to quote from, but it presents research on three premises:
* premise 1: Sexual desire and romantic love are functionally independent.
Children of all ages experience maximum infatuation regardless of pubertal maturation, same-gender infatuation among heterosexuals. Heightened proximity and physical contact play a critical role.
* premise 2: Romantic love is not intrinsically oriented to a specific gender.
Hereditary nature of homosexuality,correspondence between pair-bonding and infant-caregiver attachment, lack of affectional orientations, animal data.
* premise 3: The links between love and desire are bi-directional.
Evidence of relation-specific cross-orientation desires, gender differences in bi-directionality.
Regarding the last premise, the following is significant to me:
"Although the overall psychobiological process through which love and desire become interconnected during normal sociosexual development has never been fully specified, there is a tacit consensus regarding the outcome of this process: a robust pathway leading from sexual desire to infatuation-attachment, but not the other way around. Although we are expected to form affectional bonds with individuals we sexually desire, we are not expected to develop novel sexual desires as a result of affectionate bonding. It is important to note that this notion of unidirectionality in the links between love and desire has never been theoretically justified or empirically tested."
It's no surprise to me that the "tacit consensus" appears not to hold under empirical tests (although it seems to break down more frequently for women than for men).
This is also my experience; more often than not, I develop desires following affectionate bonding. So I've repeatedly run into that tacit consensus. It's taken for granted that that sexual desire always comes first, so either it was assumed that the previous friendship had not been genuine but a pretense motivated by sexual desire, or else it was assumed that the sexual desire wasn't sincere and a pretext for sympathy sex from friends out of desperation. I've also found that people often tend to deny the existence of this "tacit consensus".
Another thing I find interesting is the treating of "crushes" - infatuation - and "sexual attraction" as completely separate (some people even get the hots for the Berlin Wall, so this makes sense). That would sure simplify discussion.
Anyway, I find the article an interesting read.
I would add that the erotic drive, the "libido" is, to me, part of something larger - what makes me passionate about things, creativity, sensuality, humor, the joy of life, that sort of thing. It's not all about sexuality, but I think sexuality is an expression of that (and a fairly powerful expression). But that's a topic for another day.
