Sunday, September 22, 2013

Bonding - what gives?


One of the biggest bugbears of the Manosphere is that modern women don't bond to men very well. Specifically, they don't bond well to their husbands.

I am interested in this subject.
Let's just say I am back to my curious self :-)

What's the story here? Can someone help me flesh out the salient points of bonding?
Can we debunk some of the false myths of bonding? Just for a laugh?

Why is there a complaint against women that we don't bond so well these days?
Is is a straightforward 'oxytocin overload' as a result of too much promiscuity?
That seems almost too simple to be true.

Let me explain.

Even promiscuous women feel strong bonds to their objects of affection. Um, so I hear :-)
So I don't think the problem there is with bonding per se.

But for sure, there is a problem. I concede that.

What, however is the problem?

I suppose the first question to ask is, is bonding necessary for long-term relationships or marriage?

It might seem like a stupid question to some, but I feel it is a necessary question, given the situation we find ourselves in. To get to the root of the problem, sometimes we really have to start at 'square one'.

I ask this question because the implication is that there has to be some sort of bond before marriage. And when this is missing, the marriage is doomed. This is the picture I get when I read this story:

I think Beverley Craven is an exceptionally beautiful woman. And what beautiful girls she has too! Her husband could not have been bad looking :-)
It is such a shame that her marriage has broken down.

But the reason Ms. Craven gives for her marital woes is that 'love' was missing before marriage. In this sense, she needed 'love' to bond her to her husband, and its absence made it impossible to stay with him.

Is this for real??

I don't understand. She had three children with a man she did not love?

How is that possible? Am I being naive again?


And what about the many marriages where an old parent or relative simply arranged the logistics and a man and a woman who had never met each other before found themselves married to each other. And they usually made it to 'till death do us part'.

See...I think that bonding is a dynamic process. No-one is truly bonded on day one. It slowly develops over time. In many ways, it is a retrospective diagnosis, no?

If dead people could talk, the morgue would be full of men and women declaring: 'Ah, that nag of a woman, I suppose she was my life's partner afterall', or 'that chauvinist pig I had to cook and clean for all those years, he wasn't so bad afterall...'


But...again I concede. If after sixteen years of marriage, or whatever the arbitrary time period is, if a woman feels that 'the bond' hasn't arrived yet, who am I to argue with her?

It is said that men bond better than women. I don't know what to make of this so-called 'truism' yet, but I am still 'analysing' this :-)

What is true, (to me) is that most men are certainly more respecting of a marriage bond than most women, especially modern women.

Inhererently, I have an issue with the 'truism' above because logically, it would seem more plausible that the sex with the more potent consequence of the hormone oxytocin, i.e. women, would be the one to 'bond' more.

But where things break down in my thought process is this: can one bond to many people?

A promiscuous man is not likely to bond to anyone. And certainly, the current wisdom is that neither can a promiscuous woman.
But what is confusing for me is that the latter statement is not true.

A promiscuous woman is not good 'wife material' but it seems to be a matter not related to her bonding ability, I find. Am I confounding hidden variables perhaps?

Here is a question:
Is this woman more or less likely to be a good wife one day?

She is quite abnormally bonded to her cuddle bunny. So she has what one would call 'oxytocin overload', lol.

Now don't get me wrong: I am not equating her problem with a promiscuous woman. The source of the oxytocin clearly counts :-)

But the question is, could she still live a normal life with a man one day? Is her oxytocin all used up on that lamb, or is there plenty more where that came from?

Indulge me.
I am in an intellectual muddle about this, as usual. But I think I could get to the truth of the matter with your help.

After 45 years of marriage, this is how Frank reacts to Marie's accusation that he doesn't love her in 'Everybody loves Raymond'. (Response exaggerated for effect :-) but you get the idea...
Men and women's idea of 'bonding' are clearly different!

















16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller:

You really are all over the place with this post. But never fear, I am here to help you sort it all out.

From what I can tell from reading the observations of others, my own observations, and what's known about the science, there is something to physiological and psychological bonding.

Women bond, and bond hard. Once a woman bonds to a particularly alpha man or attractive man following sex, it's quite difficult to sever that bond.

Men bond, but they resist bonding a little more than women do.. But once they bond, they bond hard. Now once they decide to sever that bond, the bond stays severed. I wouldn't say it's easier for men to sever that bond, though.

deti

Anonymous said...

Beverley Craven is not exceptionally attractive. She's attractive, above average. I think she is confusing love with attraction. When Craven says she's wasn't "in love" with her now ex husband, she's saying she was never really all that attracted to him. Love is not the same thing as attraction.

So Craven was saying that, yes, she had three children by a man she loved, but was not attracted to. I think it's entirely possible for a woman to marry and have children with a man she loves, but is not attracted to.

I am convinced that women everywhere are marrying men they love emotionally, but whom they aren't attracted to in that hard, visceral way that women lust for alphas. Oh, these women really, really like these "nice" men they marry. Even love them emotionally as human beings, kinda like brothers or partners. But these women just aren't sexually attracted to these men they choose to marry.

deti

Anonymous said...

Sure, promiscuous women can bond. THe problem is a promiscuous woman sometimes bonds to a man she cannot have and becomes an alpha widow.

I also think a woman reduces her ability to bond with each successive partner. She can have so many different sex partners that she can destroy her ability to bond.

With men I suspect the mechanism is different. A promiscuous man can have sex with so many different women that he just cannot bond to a woman; or he can't bond to just one woman.

I think a man can bond to more than one woman simultaneously. I'm not sure a woman can bond to more than one man at a time. I think a prior bond has to be cut before she can make a new one.

A girl "bonding" to a stuffed animal isn't the same as sex, I don't think. During sex the woman takes the man's seminal fluid into her body and absorbs it. There are all kinds of emotional, mental and physiological things happening during sex that we don't fully understand.

deti

deti

Anonymous said...

If oxytocin is the bonding chemical that releases heavily during sex AND child birth, wouldn't it hold in theory that a promiscusous woman is less able to bond with her children as well? I definitely think promiscuity has an effect on both sexes (women more than men) but exactly how that works out in the bonding aspect I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Spacetraveller said...

Deti,

I think this is the first time you have commented here. A hearty welcome to you!

I do admit I don't understand the bonding issue at all well. This is why I use the word 'concede' a lot, lol.

You see, I thought I knew a lot about this subject. And then it slowly dawned on me that actually, perhaps what I had been given to believe was true, might be false.

And now I am plain confused.

So thank you for defrosting my Windows :-)

You and I both agree that women bond more easily than men.

Hm, is this a case therefore for women having a more effective filter? For sure, women being 'weaker' than men in their emotional lives SHOULD be more careful about getting bonded inappropriately. But then again, it is also an important part of femininity to retain a certain vulnerability.

And now you might say to me: fair enough, you women should be approachable, but don't sleep with the guy before he has committed to you in the form of marriage. And then I would reply, but it is also well-known that some women can bond even BEFORE sex!

See? There is always a double-bind...

Anyhow, about what you say about absorbing semen, remember that most unmarried sex involves some form of barrier contraception or other..so how does this work in terms of your theory? I honestly don't know the answer to this question.

About the 27 year old woman with her stuffed animal, I agree with you that her bonding is of course far from the mechanism that arises from promiscuous sex. I actually believe that she is a very good wife material (except that I obviously worry about her mental health as she has perhaps taken this closeness with her lamb a little too far!). I think she is getting 'practice' at bonding by bestowing her lamb with so much affection :-) But that's my personal opinion. I would welcome an opposite point of view so we may discuss why she is a risk as a man's wife. Let's not dwell too much on her mental state though, otherwise we cannot have a debate!

About Beverley Craven, I was surprised to hear you say she is just 'above average'...but then again, you are more qualified to judge a woman's beauty than I, so no contest there.

I see what you mean about her confusing love and attraction. That is a very good point, Deti, thank you for that.

It is now easy to see how she could have been with her husband for so long and not 'bond' to him for life. But of course I wish she could have found a way to honour her vows...

I shall also ponder your words about how differently men and women bond.

I believe you are correct in your assertions. I shall come back when I have thought about it some more.

Question: These alpha widows, are they best left as alpha widows forever? If a promiscuous woman NEEDS to be gamed hard to retain her attraction for a man, the minute he marries her (becomes beta in her eyes) if she is then at risk of losing that attraction for him, then is it perhaps natural justice that he never marries her so she retains her attraction for him forever, in his (lifelong) absence?
This is both cruel and yet pandering to HER needs, no?
Do you think alphas instinctively know this, which is why they do what they do?
This tactic by a man is clearly not required for a 'normal' woman. So maybe this is why a promiscuous woman prices herself out of the marriage market?
Does this make sense to you?

Spacetraveller said...

"If oxytocin is the bonding chemical that releases heavily during sex AND child birth, wouldn't it hold in theory that a promiscusous woman is less able to bond with her children as well?"

I assume this is you again, Deti.

You know, although I actually haven't seen this play out in practice, I can see why this could be possible!

But to be completely honest, I really haven't seen a difference in the bonding between mother and child between a promiscuous woman and one who is not.

Anyone see this in real life?

Could it be actually the opposite mechanism - that a promiscuous woman who is unable to bond to a man overcompensates by bonding extra hard to her kids?
I am clutching at straws here :-) but this seems to be a very complicated subject!

Anonymous said...

Space:

No, Sep 23 at 11:53 is not me.

As to alpha widows: This is a tough place for a woman to be in, where she has bonded so hard to a man that she can't let him go and all other men pale in comparison. Until that "bond" (whatever it is) is severed, she won't be able to bond to a husband. That bond has to be cut, and I'll confess I think the only way to do it is through faith in God and all the work that goes with it -- no contact at all; stop the social media and clubhopping, stay away from old playmates and old playgrounds, etc. Much like addiction recovery.

I don't believe for one minute a woman tries to get into this predicament, that she wants alpha widowhood. She just doesn't know how to cut that bond. It's very, very difficult, but I think it can be done. I just think that most women don't really know how to do it.

deti

Anonymous said...

"If a promiscuous woman NEEDS to be gamed hard to retain her attraction for a man, the minute he marries her (becomes beta in her eyes) if she is then at risk of losing that attraction for him, then is it perhaps natural justice that he never marries her so she retains her attraction for him forever, in his (lifelong) absence? This is both cruel and yet pandering to HER needs, no?"

Well, the risk is that she loses attraction for him if he offers her commitment. That's a risk the man takes. A man is wise not to take that risk with a promiscuous or formerly promiscuous woman. The man avoids commitment to shield against the risk; not necessarily to preserve or sustain attraction. In my experience her attraction will naturally wax and wane, and that may or may not have anything to do with the man. So in short, a man withholds commitment mainly to protect and manage risk. Sustaining attraction is a side benefit.


"Do you think alphas instinctively know this, which is why they do what they do?"

I think they know that withholding commitment tends to keep her on her toes and can sustain attraction; but mostly alphas withhold commitment because (1) the risk is too great; (2) they don't have to commit to get sex; (3) he can move on if she gets to be a hassle; and (4) they know that her attraction will wane anyway.


"This tactic by a man is clearly not required for a 'normal' woman. So maybe this is why a promiscuous woman prices herself out of the marriage market?"

Well, this is HOW a woman prices herself out of the marriage market. All she can attract are betas and she hamsterizes herself into marrying one even though she isn't attracted.

A promiscuous woman can (doesn't always, but can) get to the point that she needs so much alpha to get and stay attracted that betas just can't do it for her. That's how she gets herself priced out.

This is all based on observation, obviously. It's not based on a lot of research or "scientific" study. I've heard so, so many women who have racked up Ns of 15, 20, 30 or more, and they just insist on absolute perfection in a man -- he has to have Brad Pitt's body and face, George Clooney's charm, and Warren Buffett's money. A normal guy will never, ever measure up to that, and that's why these women remain single.


deti

Spacetraveller said...

Deti,

"Until that "bond" (whatever it is) is severed, she won't be able to bond to a husband. That bond has to be cut, and I'll confess I think the only way to do it is through faith in God and all the work that goes with it -- no contact at all; stop the social media and clubhopping, stay away from old playmates and old playgrounds, etc. Much like addiction recovery."

Great advice, Deti. True repentance comes from sincerity of heart and a firm belief that past wrongs can be righted, with the grace of God.
Yes, I applaud you for this great nugget of advice.

This whole bonding topic (especially the problem of 'alpha widows' makes me realise that we all are really kind of slaves to our Natures, aren't we?

Yes a woman does not seek out to be 'bonded' to a man who will not want to be with her, but it happens so often that there must be a flaw somewhere that needs correcting, for sure. This calls for compassion for those for whom this happens time and time again. Perhaps the more impulsive among us fall prey more than the more 'hardy' among us in this regard...

Wow, you have single-handedly cleared up a lot of confusion I had on this subject.

I thought about what you said about men being capable of bonding to more than one woman simultaneously. I think this is certainly possible, although there must be a limit on this number. For women, it is exceptional to be able to do this, because women's love for a man is so 'all-consuming' so this is perhaps one area where even women cannot multi-task!

Great discussion...

metak said...

Hey ST. Back to writing after a long break,I see. :-)

Well, what is called Manosphere comes almost entirely from America so let's start there.

"More that a quarter of American women (26%) take such drugs (psych drugs) -- including antidepressants, anti-anxiolytics, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drugs, and atypical antipsychotics. That compares with 15% of men."

That numbers (26%) is in it self really high, but there are also side-effects from birth-control pills and god knows what else. i.e. unstable women

"Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended; about 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. (AGI)."

Again, that has to seriously damage lots of women and their ability to 'bond'.

Plus after decades of listening to "Woman-man-fish-bicycle", how men are this awful oppressors sent from 'Petrearkey' far away to oppress women 24/7 and yada yada...
I think there are serious trust issues because of this. You can't bond with someone if you don't trust them. Put all this together and what comes out ain't pretty. Of course I listed just a few things that I think are important, but there's so much more to it.

How am I doing ST? Any closer to my goal to become an arsehole? :-)

Spacetraveller said...

Hello Metak!

Welcome back to you too. Hope you had a fantastic summer too, mate.

Mate, you know you could NEVER be what you accuse yourself of :-) Wash your mouth out with soap and water :-)

You know something? You bring into the discussion factors I hadn't even considered. External factors like drugs/prescription medication may be a very important part of the equation! Thank you for mentioning those...
Afterall, as a population, we are far more medicated than our ancestors/predecessors. In fact our whole lives are heavily medicalised these days. Who knows what the effect of these drugs are on our systems and our ability to bond to one another?
Abortion is of course a natural consequence of promiscuity, so I am entirely unsurprised that it might affect a woman's ability to bond. In fact, one could argue that a woman incapable of bonding enough to her own unborn child to let it live is unlikely to ever bond to another human being. Is this a tad harsh?
I am afraid I am rather unapologetic when it comes to abortion - you know how I feel about this subject...
But...apologies to those who might feel I am being less than compassionate to those with a history of abortion nonetheless.

Metak, you raise another important point. If by "Woman-man-fish-bicycle", you mean 'feminism', then of course it makes sense that a movement which specifically undermines a woman's ability to bond to a man would somewhat succeeed in achieving this goal. Yes, women are taught not to trust a man, and therefore not to NEED a man. And yes, trust and need are both major issues in bonding, especially in the way WOMEN bond.

Hey, you are taking this discussion to a whole new level :-)

But that's what you do best!

Do you, like Deti, believe that all is possible with God? Do you have this hope?

I sure do. And I am really pleased that someone like Deti who is an experienced man also has this hope. Now, I hope you can make my day by telling me that as a young guy, you do too.





metak said...

"Religious hope", ST? Naaahhhh :-)

I think you already know that I'm in no way a religious person. (sowwwyy :-(
Really not my place to talk about it.

I just wanted to remind you that when you're reading Manosphere blogs and what not, you need to also look at who's writing it and where is it all coming from. Articles, like this one, clearly show what I wrote before. That picture in the article also says it all.

http://www.thumotic.com/2013/09/15/feminism-depression-epidemic/

Spacetraveller said...

Uh sorry, Metak, I meant, do you believe in a divine Being?

:-)

The article you link to is indeed depressing!
I wouldn't linger on it too long - it sucks the life out of one...
Yes, the picture is that of someone whose life HAS been sucked out of her.
I sympathise...

Marellus said...

For eight years we’d rarely made love. We slept in separate bedrooms. Neither of us played away — that would have been disrespectful. There was no one else on either side. A lot of couples limp on in such adequate relationships for the sake of the children.

The problem is right here : sexual incompatibility ... or incompetance ...

I know a woman, who left her husband after 16 years, and then went on to pursue a relationship with a womanizer for 6 a period of years.

They went at each other like rabbits. Problem was, he couldn't leave other women alone ... and that is why she dumped him

But she still talks about him, and he still calls her, telling her he misses her.

She forbids him to visit her. Why ? She knows when they meet, that they'll be at each other like rabbits again.

Sad story. True lesson.

What she told me that will always stick with me though, is this little gem of wisdom regarding men :

Where you find him, is where you'll loose him ...

She met him at a bar ...

Spacetraveller said...

Marellus,

If I should ask myself the question, 'To which of these men was this woman bonded?' I would probably guess ...the HUSBAND! despite the sexual incompatibility.

Bonding is not just about sex, is it? She has a *history* with the husband. On her deathbed, is she more likely to regret messing things up with the husband (with whom she probably also has kids maybe?) or the guy she had a lot of meaningless fun with?

I suspect the former...speaking as a woman. Sometimes you don't really need to experience something yourself to know exactly how you would feel under similar circumstances, right? I think this is one of those situations...

Good story...and a brilliant lesson to be learned from it.
Thank you.

MIx Jon said...

Let's be honest, penis size is an important aspect of any man's life whether they want to admit it or not. The market is flooded with products and solutions that claim to have the answer to making your member bigger, but usually these products fail to deliver. Luckily, I happened to come across what might be the "Holy Grail of Penis Enlargement", it's written by this guy named John Collins and it's called the Penis Enlargement Bible.

What I found mind blowing about John's program is that he backs up his claims with actual video proof and testimonials from customers who have used the product. It's said that a picture is worth a thousand words, but I would say most of these videos are worth 3 to 4 inches!

Forget extenders, pills, suction devices and surgery. They are either expensive, too painful or they just don't work. The Penis Enlargement Bible is a proven two step program that combines natural over the counter supplements with a specially designed exercise regime to achieve up to 4" of growth within just a few months.

If you are serious about getting bigger, check out the Penis Enlargement Bible here:

===> A Penis Growth Program With Actual Video Proof That It Works! <=====