Are we wired to be in a relationship?

[MikeyGMin]

By the way, I'm not at all bothered by the fact that I will grow old and perhaps discover that I do want a partnership. I think most of us will grow old and regret something. If that occurs, I will deal with the pain then, but for now, I'm just gonna enjoy every drop of my present choices. Lord, why do I feel like Isabel Archer all of the sudden?

This is...I'm not sure "fascinating" is the right word. Haven't you indicated somewhere that you are still in your 30's? (A mere child. )

 

My partner was killed in a car wreck when I was in my late (very late...just touching 40) 30's. I'll be honest and say that it completely derailed me and it took a very long time before I was interested in having a relationship again. I wasn't happily living my life in the interim, but for years I was content being single, and then, it felt like all of a sudden, I wasn't. By then I was past my dating prime and it is a big regret in my life. I certainly haven't given up, but I am realistic about it at this point. And I have a lot of years left to live with it.

 

I really hope you don't find yourself in a similar situation TR. It's a big regret. Not a, "I wish I had be kinder to so-and-so" type of regret. I tell all my young friends (who can stand to listen to me pontificate) that, unless they are really sure they are the loner type, they should lock that man down while they are in their prime!

[+ Truereview]

This is...I'm not sure "fascinating" is the right word. Haven't you indicated somewhere that you are still in your 30's? (A mere child. )

 

My partner was killed in a car wreck when I was in my late (very late...just touching 40) 30's. I'll be honest and say that it completely derailed me and it took a very long time before I was interested in having a relationship again. I wasn't happily living my life in the interim, but for years I was content being single, and then, it felt like all of a sudden, I wasn't. By then I was past my dating prime and it is a big regret in my life. I certainly haven't given up, but I am realistic about it at this point. And I have a lot of years left to live with it.

 

I really hope you don't find yourself in a similar situation TR. It's a big regret. Not a, "I wish I had be kinder to so-and-so" type of regret. I tell all my young friends (who can stand to listen to me pontificate) that, unless they are really sure they are the loner type, they should lock that man down while they are in their prime!

 

That's sweet advice, MikeyG. Thank you. Also, thanks for opening up about your partner. I couldn't believe how many of us in the forum have lost a loved one tragically until I started talking about it openly in here.

 

I tell you what. I've always had a penchant for men older and wiser than me. Maybe you and I should be each other's failsafe plan?

[+ Lance_Navarro]

Actually, as Big-n-tall pointed out, many scientist now are starting to realize we are more similar to bonobos than any other primate. Even in modern hunter and gatherer groups of fewer than 150 members, while emotional pair bonding sometimes happens they are definitely not the norm. All members of the tribe have sexual access to the other members of the tribe and paternity is something that is shared since the female most likely mated with many members to conceive. Romantic bonds have the same fluidity, and while sometimes pairings do take place, they are definitely not the norm. The family is not formed by a man and a woman, but many members who share responsibilities and rights.

 

We only started pairing with the advent of agriculture and private ownership. When we subscribed to the idea that we could own stuff and pass it on to our descendants it became important to determine who was my partner and who were my children and even in those times, the pairing was for administrative reasons. The idea that everyone would find a special one with whom one would have a life long romantic idillic relationship is a very, very new idea. Just a few centuries old.

 

Someone has read Sex at Dawn! . I agree completely. The need for touch and physical connection is almost universal, it shapes our DNA, most strongly during our early development, however is essential throughout life. One can't really argue nature vs nurture when it comes to forming relationships because it's both. There's a biological desire to connect blended with the social advantages and influence.

[MikeyGMin]

That's sweet advice, MikeyG. Thank you. Also, thanks for opening up about your partner. I couldn't believe how many of us in the forum have lost a loved one tragically until I started talking about it openly in here.

 

I tell you what. I've always had a penchant for men older and wiser than me. Maybe you and I should be each other's failsafe plan?

 

You got a deal!

[+ Truereview]

Hey @Lance_Navarro, how do you define relationship vs. partnership? And if you see a difference, do you see nature or nurture affecting a relationship differently than a partnership?

[dcguy20]

True review, there are portions of your post that could have been written by me!

 

I'm happily single, but very smitten with the idea of romance. I love just the idea of Valentine's Day. I adore the romance movies on the Hallmark Channel, etc. I know relationships are a whole lot more than that, but I certainly like the possibility of what if.

 

I was corresponding with a friend recently and said I just want someone to cuddle with at the moment. That's what I'm in the mood for at this point in time.

[+ Lance_Navarro]

Hey @Lance_Navarro, how do you define relationship vs. partnership? And if you see a difference, do you see nature or nurture affecting a relationship differently than a partnership?

 

Well, I suppose there are all type of relationships, I would consider a partnership a type of relationship, and one that is about 2 people sharing a life, where decisions are made mutually and based on the good of the partners, rather than just the individual. All types of relationships are a combo of nature & nurture. There is almost nothing in life that falls under just one or the other.

[+ Truereview]

Well, I suppose there are all type of relationships, I would consider a partnership a type of relationship, and one that is about 2 people sharing a life, where decisions are made mutually and based on the good of the partners, rather than just the individual. All types of relationships are a combo of nature & nurture. There is almost nothing in life that falls under just one or the other.

Makes sense to me that a partnership would be a type of relationship. I think other relationship types are triads, family relationships, friend relationships, relationship with oneself, etc. I like your thought that relationships need some form of touch & physical connection...hmmm...come think of it, I think I'm gonna go give myself some nurturing while I gaze at your profile.

[Juan Vancouver]

I'm not sure I can buy that primitive man was somehow more noble and the men needed no incentive to provide for their family. Ever since there was property ownership, the vast majority of that property was owned by a few individuals. I suppose the peasant class could have just been mimicking the elites, but bloodlines meant little to people who had nothing to pass on.

 

I am not talking about the noble savage, the selfless brute who takes care of others because he is generous. He takes care of everyone in HIS group because the survival of the group will determine his own personal survival. That is why in hunter gatherer groups there is no hoarding, and everyone gets their share. Taking care of the other is the epitomical selfish action. If the other is ok, I am ok. (A statement which read filtered by US moral attitudes sounds so wrong, but evolutionary speaking it is correct and universal.)

 

Even if most of the wealth was owned by the elite, the peasants owned their trade, their name, their history, their house, their tiny plot, their tools, their clothes. Once the idea of private property became the norm, if you had a hair pin when you died, you needed someone to pass it on to. With the advent of the concept of property, humans became able to inherit ideas, not only things.

 

Whatever your definition of bonding, whether it be a single pair or a communal construct, I maintain that we are wired to be bonded. The concept that you can be happy and alone is even newer than the concept of private property. .

 

I think I was not clear. I wholeheartedly agree and so does science. We are definitely built for relating to others. Half of our brain is devoted to socializing, reading social cues, mirroring facial expressions to experience empathy, secreting oxytocin, endorphins and pheromones when we determine we belong to a group or a specific person, secreting cortisol and adrenaline whenever we are alone or feel rejected. Without close relationships with others human beings are known to go crazy. Their bodies get out of whack and die. Babies that are not socialized in their first weeks will not be able to function, even physically. We ARE made to be together, which is why there is such a huge incidence of depression, obesity and disease in this culture of forced solitary confinement and superficial cybernetic engagement.

 

In a hunter and gatherer group there is no loneliness, there is no confinement. Everything is dealt with by relating. Which is why even those who do not experience emotional pair bondings are never alone. Mental illness is dealt with by the group, so are disease, old age and child rearing. It really takes a village, but the village is always thrilled to participate because everyone's survival depends on it.

 

Someone has read Sex at Dawn!

 

Yes, I love that book, but they are not the only scientists that are exploring those subjects. There's a host of sociologists, anthropologists and archaeologists exploring that.

 

Consensus amongst them seem to be that we are living completely distanced from our nature. We have created so many social constructs that limit us, force us into unnatural behaviour and make us crazy.

 

We have to go back to re-connecting with our nature.

[+ Lance_Navarro]

Yes, I love that book, but they are not the only scientists that are exploring those subjects. There's a host of sociologists, anthropologists and archaeologists exploring that.

 

Have you read any of Robert Sapolsky's books?

[+ Lance_Navarro]

Makes sense to me that a partnership would be a type of relationship. I think other relationship types are triads, family relationships, friend relationships, relationship with oneself, etc. I like your thought that relationships need some form of touch & physical connection...hmmm...come think of it, I think I'm gonna go give myself some nurturing while I gaze at your profile.

 

Well, I think of triads as a partnership as well, but yes, they are all relationships. Glad you enjoy my profile. Assuming you've visited my website too?

[Juan Vancouver]

Have you read any of Robert Sapolsky's books?

 

No, but I just looked at his body of work and it sounds really interesting. Do you have a favourite?

 

Yay! New reading material!

[mike carey]

Thank you both. More reading for me too. The Wiki summary of S@D and of its reviews is an interesting start. I have a promising sounding TED talk by Sapolsky lined up to listen to next.

[+ honcho]

With the advent of the concept of property, humans became able to inherit ideas, not only things.

 

I would more enthusiastically agree that with the advent of writing, humans became able to

inherit ideas.

 

Although there have been studies done of the extent to which oral (aural?) traditions accurately

preserve stories, which might well precede writing, per se.

[Juan Vancouver]

Actually ideas were passed on to next generations many thousand years before the first writing attempts. You are correct in saying that oral tradition passed on very complicated concepts like spirits that protect or damage, the concept of winter or spring, explanations for the elements, you name it. Apparently writing only became necessary when we had to deal with concepts our brain was poorly prepared for, for example large numbers. The first cuneiform tablets are storage lists, cattle, bags of grain, etc. It was later that they started writing about concepts.

[LADoug1]

We ARE made to be together, which is why there is such a huge incidence of depression, obesity and disease in this culture of forced solitary confinement and superficial cybernetic engagement.

 

We have created so many social constructs that limit us, force us into unnatural behaviour and make us crazy.

 

So very true. And frightening. How do we fix this?

[+ Lance_Navarro]

No, but I just looked at his body of work and it sounds really interesting. Do you have a favourite?

 

Yay! New reading material!

 

Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers & Monkeyluv are both fantastic.

[Juan Vancouver]

Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers & Monkeyluv are both fantastic.

 

I just watched his 50 minute TED talk. I am a fan. He is a great story teller!

[seaboy4hire]

I'm at an age where if I ended up single tomorrow it wouldn't really bother me. It probably would be different if I were in my 20s again but now single or spoken for Imma do me.

 

Hugs,

Greg