The idea that people are in control of their own mind and body is escapist fantasy. Evolution is a fact. If our bodies have been shaped through evolution then it makes sense that our behaviors have been too, since the ultimate source of human behavior is the brain, which is, of course, part of the body. Our behaviors are wholly determined by biological and environmental factors and the interaction thereof, of which evolution is naturally a part. Free will is purely an illusion.

And you can’t use evolution as an excuse for anything. It’s like saying I excuse that dog from peeing on my lawn because evolution shaped him to pee to mark his territory. Or saying that we should excuse that serial killer whose killed and raped twelve innocent children because his father raped him as a child.

“I’m fucked up emotionally because I behave that way, not because some evolutionary instict is fucking up my ability to hold down long term relationships. I take full responsibility for my own neurosis.”

Oh god, the biological reductionism. No, no, no, human behavior is NOT affected by any single isolated factor, but an interaction of a myriad of factors. You are fucked up emotionally because of a myriad of factors. Your genes, the environmental conditioning you’ve been through since birth, and so on. Evolutionary instinct is expressed differently in different environments. These are facts. These are descriptive facts. These are not to be used as excuses for your emotional fucked-up-ness but explanations for it.

“In short, I’m not advocating evolution to excuse behavior like infidelity and divorce, but to explain why such behavior happens quite prevalently with human beings. I’m not engaging in any sort of moralism or ethical judgment here.”

To Lizz: You were committing the naturalistic fallacy. What “is” does not equate to what “should”. Evolutionary theory is descriptive, not prescriptive, of human behavior.

“I think that entrenched desires and behaviors, such as those involved with mating, are quite easily explained in an evolutionary fashion, as we can observe similar behavior in nonhuman animals and there is good reason to think our own behavior in such a realm would have adaptive consequences.”

See “The Moral Animal” for related theories and empirical studies.

I’m not saying that the one IS the other, only that neurochemistry CAUSES the emotions we feel, ultimately. If I drive a spike through the area of your brain responsible for feelings of love and attachment, for instance, you’ll find yourself no longer capable of such feelings.

“[Romance] is, quite simply, what you do to show that feeling to another person. What you do to SHOW love, not what you feel when you’re in love.”

I don’t think that’s entirely true. If I were dating a woman who liked computers, and I bought her a new external hard drive, most would not consider that a romantic act. If I bought her flowers, on the other hand, it would be considered so—even if she did not like flowers. I’m talking about romance as a cultural phenomenon in the sense that it has certain social prescriptions and restrictions attached to the concept.

“We do things that don’t necessarily give us pleasure because we ENJOY doing things that make our partner happy.”

Yes, but I for one refuse to say blatant untruths to someone, even if it will make them happy. I won’t say, for instance, that we’ll be together forever or stuff like that, because it simply isn’t true. This is not to say I won’t do things to make another person happy.

“And I don’t believe in an evolutionary explanation for personal beliefs and behaviors.”

Why not? Most people have no problem attributing evolutionary explanations to the behaviors of, say, insects. Why does a spider spin webs? It doesn’t do so because it wants to, but because doing so has proved advantageous to survival. Now, there are of course problems with testing evolutionary explanations of behavior, but that doesn’t make it all nonsense. I think that entrenched desires and behaviors, such as those involved with mating, are quite easily explained in an evolutionary fashion, as we can observe similar behavior in nonhuman animals and there is good reason to think our own behavior in such a realm would have adaptive consequences.

“People are in control of their own mind and body, and evolution as an excuse to avoid emotional commitment is escapist fantasy.”

Evolution is not an excuse to avoid emotional commitment. Evolution is merely an explanation for WHY that emotional commitment so often falters after a few years. Whether this is good or bad is not being discussed. We’ve also evolved appendixes that can burst and wisdom teeth that can become infected and windpipes placed such that it is easy to choke, but you wouldn’t suggest that because I believe these are evolved features that therefore I use this as an excuse to advocate death from burst appendixex, infection from wisdom teeth, and choking! At the same time, it is unhealthy to deny these evolutionary features. Can you imagine living in a time when divorce was not allowed? Imagine being trapped in a marriage with a man you are no longer attracted to and no longer love. This is what happens when you ignore biology in favor of idealistic fantasy!

In short, I’m not advocating evolution to excuse behavior like infidelity and divorce, but to explain why such behavior happens quite prevalently with human beings. I’m not engaging in any sort of moralism or ethical judgment here.

Basically, I think the concept of “romance” has to be rebranded into something more realistic, so that we may show others we care for them in ways that aren’t boiled down to pre-set, cliched behaviors that may be unrealistic and far-fetched.

You enjoy your dopamine and your engorged weinie all you like, just don’t confuse it with the emotions you bestow on a partner in an actual committed relationship.

I also think you entirely missed MY point - which is that whether or not you appreciate romance (and no, I am not referring to pleas of undying love where you don’t FEEL undying love - or really any such blatant lie) - romance isn’t about you. It isn’t about your biology. It isn’t about your capability of feeling. It is, quite simply, what you do to show that feeling to another person. What you do to SHOW love, not what you feel when you’re in love.

You may feel love. I don’t doubt that you do. It is the trivialization of the feelings of your partner that I find obnoxious. Romance involves effort to please - and yes, if a woman wants flowers, does it really hurt you to go and buy a bunch of flowers? No. But does it make her little heart beat like crazy and fill HER up with dopamine? If she’s into that, then yes.

Women have the same obligation to men they love - they have to show it. Granted, most men would rather have a blow job than flowers, but it is the same concept. We do things that don’t necessarily give us pleasure because we ENJOY doing things that make our partner happy.

And I don’t believe in an evolutionary explanation for personal beliefs and behaviors. People are in control of their own mind and body, and evolution as an excuse to avoid emotional commitment is escapist fantasy.

I’m fucked up emotionally because I behave that way, not because some evolutionary instict is fucking up my ability to hold down long term relationships. I take full responsibility for my own neurosis.

Of course, hideous rants and blatant bitchiness don’t tend to attract potential mates any better than Flavin’s penis showing technique. One in a million - my dear - you better cling to that one.

One, a monogamous strategy with high male parental investment to ensure carriers of their genes survive to reproduction-hood, and two, a polygamous strategy of impregnating as many women as possible to ensure at least some gene carriers survive to pass on their genes.

It is adaptive for human males to use a mixed strategy depending on the environment thus giving rise to the Madonna-whore dichotomy whereas the male choosing a Madonna-like woman (one who is likely to remain faithful to him) to bestow monogamous love upon, while having sex with other women if the chance to do so arises.

And ultimately love is just a mechanism that evolved to maximize human reproductive success… but that doesn’t mean the emotion of love is any less real or valuable. And I do agree that romantic love is a product of Western culture.

And you may want to vomit in my ear for my talk of the short longevity of romantic love, but note that I said “romantic” love (i.e., “sexual” loving feelings). It is possible to have feelings of good will and companionship for much longer. Thus, the cliche about marriage ultimately leading to a sort of celibate relationship is often spot on, but that doesn’t mean such a partnership has to end. For my own part, I thoroughly divorce sex from love.

on the other hand, I am sure I could Love many men & Lust after more but never will flowers, sweet words or any of that crap make up my mind as to which man is which of if he makes the cut at all. That requires chemisty…. not emotion.

And lust at first sight… that, I understand.

And relative length of love based on evolutionary necessity makes me want to vomit in your ear.

Love doesn’t have to be romantic - I’m certain you feel the same things that all the rest of us feel; however, that feeling’s expression is the very essence of romance, so you shouldn’t be disappointed when that mediocre infant disses your romantic skills.

I think you have misinterpreted romance. It is a cultural phenomenon that is associated with love, but not necessary to it. In fact, romance without love is equally possible.

Romance is an attitude, and a bit of mystery, and an atmosphere, and yes, occasionally, silly gifts, though most sane people prefer something more thoughtful and meaningful then a pile of dead plants. Your neurons may fire with their dopamine, but if it is a flare for romance that you’re seeking, then your focus is all wrong. Romance isn’t about what you’re feeling, but how you’re expressing that feeling.

Romance is about… wait for it… are you sure you’re ready for this one???… I don’t think you can handle the truth… it’s about the OTHER person. Duh duh duh. Romance isn’t about your feelings at all. It is about the other person’s feelings and your attempt to make them positive, which often has a very similar effect on yourself simply because most of us enjoy making other people happy - especially people we love.

So the only way to improve your romantic standing on your “certain dating web site” is to go back in and retake a bunch of love quizzes and claim that you enjoy doing sweet things for your partner (even if it doesn’t involve candles and flowers - sometimes it is just about effort.) Basically, lie - you’ll do much better.

Or, you could just be yourself and not care what a stupid dating website deems as your major characteristics. There are women out there who don’t care for such things. I’m sure I’ve met one… I think… well, burden of proof is on you to prove they don’t exist - isn’t that how this game works?