19 5

LINK Wired for marriage: The neural and genetic links to romantic love - Neuroscience News

I've often thought this would eventually be shown.

floWteiuQ 5 May 22

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I have come to the conclusion that these kinds of studies apply to the "average" individual and not to the population at large. There is no "one size fits all" to humans. Everyone is an individual and different from everyone else.

I suppose now you're going to tell us that there is free will. I know the mediainfotainment thrives on brainwashing us with this, but really!


Look folks.... my final comment on this topic will be to remind everyone that the language of science has to be distilled into a language non scientists and even scientists specializing in other disciplines can understand. I would suggest many of you stop playing media infotainment complex talking heads and try to learn from the information presented.

Your opinion is noted as is mine.

The article was written by a dishonest Author. Marriage has nothing to do with our neural and genetic link to our evolved instincts .. I'll go out on a limb but I bet you do not believe in evolution. Am I incorrect ?


Marriage has a completely different history. Early on there was a recognition and ceremony to show the tribe or village that two people were exclusive to each other. I suppose this would seem logical. The church did not take over marriage until the 13th century and only started strict enforcement of the sacrament in the 16th century. So, today you gotta get a license. LOL

Ok.... but what about the genetics, the biology. This article isn't about marriage. It's examining pair-bonding and trying to explain its components.


Marriage is a legally binding contract forced into culture by religion.

This "study" is about what makes someone feel good. The results would be the same if they were "studying" eating ice cream, having sex, or getting a new puppy.

With all due respect, that's a pretty shallow analysis; and like most here you're focusing on the word marraige, as opposed to the biology and more specifically the genetics involved in human and non-human pair-bonding.

@floWteiuQ With all due respect, human beings aren't biologically meant to be monogamous.


Notice the attempt by the article to smuggle in the modern concept of marriage with the millions of years of our evolved genetics and neurological processes. We developed these long before the concept of marriage. They are twisting two completely different things together. Saying that science supports the neurological link to our behavior, slipping in the word marriage and claiming a ''marriage gene'' if you will, connection wired into us.
Dishonest to say the least. Typical religious move. Same type of deal they pull with the resurrection... Their proof for it is the empty tomb,, you know if jesus is gone, and the tomb was empty..He must have risen !
Therefore the resurrection must have happened !

Stop getting hung up on the word marriage. What about monogamous behavior in the non-human animal kingdom, including different species. There's certainly no need for the word marriage, but the genetics are obvious.

@floWteiuQ Ha ha, the word marriage is In the title, it is the entire point of the article. A genuine scientific article about genetics and our evolved neurological ties says nothing about marriage because it has nothing to do with marriage. I’m not the one that brought marriage into it. This bogus article did !


How does love = marriage? One is an emotion, the other is inheritance laws.

It’s an emotion that leads to commitment. Had my youngest recently described their plans for engagement, they will have been together 4 years in Oct. I smiled, warmly. It worked, for me; it both gave me her, her sister, and the ability to raise them as a loving team. Afterward, it was over.

I would never deny what had once been as strong a feeling of life itself … only because I’m past it..

@Varn "c9mmittment" is still not necessarily "marriage"!

@AnneWimsey I view marriage as a commitment, including love. If that’s lacking, sure, it’s a mistake. But if all the ingredients are there - it’s good while it lasts..


"Love is a bullshit word." - Jacque Fresco

The study and it's measurements seem useful. I'm not wild about the terms and loose definitions like, "...the tingly euphoria of saying “I do” and starting a life with your spouse. This is romantic love, Western style."

The article makes matters worse by adding inconsistent qualifiers such as "love and attachment" and "romantic love maintenance" that seem to confuse the matter. Is love it's own 'thing' or not?

I did not come away from this article feeling any more informed. Just my opine.

Fair points, but what about the genetics. Is being gay just a lifestyle or are genetics involved!

@floWteiuQ because it is So Easy being gay in any society....yessirree, an attractive choice!


Romantic companionship and marriage are two different things.


If we are wired for anything, it is the sex drive, but to propagate the species we need not have the institution of marriage, much less the practice of monogamy. Marriage grew out of the need to preserve and protect wealth or property--it is a social contract that was appropriated by religion and romanticized by poets.



I don't want to get married again. Never worked so hard in my life! Most men want a mommy taking care of them- doing all of the housework, cooking, cleaning and meal planning- and great sex. Man-children.

Marriage is a religious and cultural custom. Taking the husband's last name dates back to when wives were the husband's property.

Men Want to Remarry; Women Are 'Meh'

"Perhaps it’s not surprising then that more guys do get remarried than women. Almost two thirds of men who have been married before and got divorced or were widowed wed again, whereas only a smidgen more than half of the women do.

"There are lots of possible reasons for the gender discrepancy. Women tend to live longer, so they may outlast all their potential suitors. Or, since women now have more economic freedom than they did 50 years ago, they may feel less need for a partner. And while women still bear the bulk of the home care duties, once liberated, they may feel disinclined to enter into another legally binding agreement to look after somebody else."

"Slightly less than a quarter of all people who are married in the U.S. today are actually remarried people. Fifty years ago, they only represented about 13% of married people. In the same half century, marriage has fallen quite markedly out of favor among the young."


If I ever got married again it would not be my idea. I think I'm safe as long as I continue to experience universal rejection.

Also note they specifically studied newlyweds. This sounds more like an explanation for limerence, the excited passion of a new relationship, than a study of long lasting marriage. To me, this sounds more like "wired to get married" than "wired to stay married."


The chemistry of attraction is real, which, if sustained, may lead to the "falling in love" phase. I just don't think it lasts. Just like all highs, it goes away. At some point people make a decision to commit, or not. Some don't commit, but put on the greatest and longest pretend show ever. Some are realistic and move on so they can still live life with some amount of authenticity and joy.

I agree on all counts. Once the limerence fades, it takes quite a bit to hold a couple together.


I can see a tendency to form binary attachments. I just don't think they are permanent.


I don't buy into it. Marriage--or pair bonding--is a cultural aspect that helps males establish paternity of children and to to protect children as they grow. Some cultures do not marry based on romantic love but on other aspects including strengthening ties with other families or to climb a social ladder. For centuries, marriage were arranged in many cultures and the idea of marrying for love, while idealized, was not practical and not practiced.

Ok.... but the actual article says:

“The study showed that the maintenance of love is not only associated with activation of subcortical regions but also higher order centers of the brain,” she said. “Also, for the first time we provide evidence that the propensity to sustain romantic love may be affected by genetic variability. Specifically, the genes we examined are associated with pair-bonding behaviors including fidelity and sexual behaviors; and social behaviors such as trust, eye-gazing and attachment.”
Clearly, that's more than a social/cultural construct.

@floWteiuQ Again, for thousands of years, marriages were arranged and were for convenience, not "love." As for "fidelity and sexual behaviors;" what does that mean? Humans are not monogamous by nature; polygamy was also practiced for thousands of years. Fidelity? Really? And "provides evidence" is not proof.

By the way, millions of women stayed in marriages because Christianity forbade divorce or they bought into the injunction that divorce was a sin. Men stayed for the same reason, but had affairs on the side.

@Gwendolyn2018 fair points, but like many of the comments here I think you're not looking at the genetics. Some men and women stray, some don't. Is that a predisposition reinforced by environment or not is what the science is examining. Remember to keep in mind, authors try to reduce and refine technical language to something average people understand.

@floWteiuQ We are biologically wired to have children, and to produce children, a male and female are needed. To insure that said children have the best options of living and making it to adulthood, both parents are needed. "Marriage" is a contract--official or not--that helps insure both parents stick around.

@Gwendolyn2018 Women had affairs on the side as well. My great grandfather married 4 times, had children with two women. I've taken the DNA spit test at a few ancestry sites. A woman, who found me because I posted my family tree, has a grandparent that resulted from the first marriage while my grandmother was a result of the last marriage. On paper, we are related. Yet, we share absolutely no DNA. The woman who contacted me couldn't figure out how that was possible. I didn't have the heart to tell her.

@Toonces I am not saying that women did not have affairs, but they were not privileged enough to have the same double standards as applied to men who had affairs. I could go into a bit of history, but my grandkids are here.


..without looking, sounds like me. I’ve long saved a cookie fortune that reads, “You are domestically inclined and will be happily married.” Silly me ~

Varn Level 8 May 22, 2020

it makes sense to me. No one in my family or my husbands family have divorced. Perhaps we aren't very adventurous. It interests me to know how my sons will go if/when they marry. My husb died 20 yrs ago when all four boys were under age 8. No male role model. No marital role modeling.


I'm calling bullshit.
It's just like anything else.
We're NOT all "wired" the same.

I've heard there's research that shows humans are wired to believe
in religion.
I call bullshit on that, too.
I am absolutely convinced that we're all born not believing, and that
we have to be indoctrinated with that garbage.

Marriage is no different.
It's just another social construct.
And a useless one, at that.

Agree on everything but the part of marriage. Yes chemistry puts people in the beginning but it cannot maintain a lousy relationship. Been there and done that. But have also been lucky in having a great marriage. Yes it is another social construct but as many social constructs it can have a use if two people work at it.

Well.... you're entitled to that opinion, bug what about the study. Did you read it?

@JackPedigo Glad you were able to see the positive side of marriage.
It only works when BOTH parties are committed to making it work.
If it's only just one, it's not sustainable.

@floWteiuQ I did read it. I've also read others putting forth some of the same types of nonsense.
I'm not buying any of it.
Like I said, there are "studies" that show humans are wired to believe in gods and religion.
I don't see this one as being much different.

A lot of these studies are conducted to demonstrate a certain viewpoint.
They're like statistics.
Most of them can be used to support or refute just about any idea or agenda.

@KKGator Absolutely, and one thing that helped was that we both came from broken marriages and knew what to look for and what to appreciate.

@JackPedigo I'm not being facetious when I say I'm pleased for you.
Unfortunately, there are many people who aren't as aware, or mature.
Lots of them keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

@KKGator I did not see the remark as facetious. It's easy to do and I know the circumstances of our meeting helped a lot. It's far easier to really get to know another without the element of chemistry interfering. When we finally met, the chemistry was not there but the knowledge was. In these times people become a bit desperate and are too willing to settle. Dangerous move.


Marriage is a social construct defined and designed by people. There is no "wiring" associated with the notion of marriage.

I think there exists a genetic predisposition for monogamy. You can see it in the animal world, not just among humans. As for the institution of marriage, it is a construct.


My family is genetically wired for divorce.

Mine too.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:498564
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.