I am something of a paradox mainly in that I am both hopelessly romantic and intensely cynical (scientific proof is what I need to believe anything, unless my heart and soul jump onto the careening bandwagon first). Love, in particular, is easily summarized by the hormone oxytocin. Oxytocin is synthesized in the hypothalamic neurons and secreted into the bloodstream when—in a strictly scientific setting—the nipples or teats of an animal are stimulated. Created in a positive feedback loop (when a little oxytocin is produced, the synthesis of the hormone kicks into overdrive to create a surplus, not in a homeostasis effort), it is released when mothers give birth, explaining why women willingly have multiple children, when people make skin-to-skin
…show more content…
Now, let’s take it back to caveman era, where language was sparse and life was lived at the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. At this point in time, each organism’s sole aim was to procreate, increasing the spread of genetic material and size of the population. From this standpoint, mates are chosen based on the physical appearance of reproductive success. For women, these attributes are defined as wide “birthing” hips, a small waist, large eyes, strong hair, and facial symmetry, all of which indicate good health and various favorable traits. For men, their biologically attractive features have more to do with ability to hunt/provide for/protect his family: broad shoulders, strong legs, etc. However, a great deal of attraction occurs at an even more subconscious level. In a rather pungent study conducted by Swiss zoologist Claus Wedekind, 49 women were asked to smell the sweaty t-shirts of 44 men and pick the scents they were attracted to. All participants had been tested for their MHC gene type (Major histocompatibility locus), which controls the immune response—combination of two different MHC types results in healthier, more infection resistant offspring, which accounts for the poor health of children born of incest. Of the 44 women, the majority were attracted to the scents of men whose MHC gene type differed from their own, proving—to an extent—that attraction is driven by biological forces angling for genetic compatibility. So, is there any such thing as free will? And is true love really a choice? Let’s ask
Now, let’s take it back to caveman era, where language was sparse and life was lived at the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. At this point in time, each organism’s sole aim was to procreate, increasing the spread of genetic material and size of the population. From this standpoint, mates are chosen based on the physical appearance of reproductive success. For women, these attributes are defined as wide “birthing” hips, a small waist, large eyes, strong hair, and facial symmetry, all of which indicate good health and various favorable traits. For men, their biologically attractive features have more to do with ability to hunt/provide for/protect his family: broad shoulders, strong legs, etc. However, a great deal of attraction occurs at an even more subconscious level. In a rather pungent study conducted by Swiss zoologist Claus Wedekind, 49 women were asked to smell the sweaty t-shirts of 44 men and pick the scents they were attracted to. All participants had been tested for their MHC gene type (Major histocompatibility locus), which controls the immune response—combination of two different MHC types results in healthier, more infection resistant offspring, which accounts for the poor health of children born of incest. Of the 44 women, the majority were attracted to the scents of men whose MHC gene type differed from their own, proving—to an extent—that attraction is driven by biological forces angling for genetic compatibility. So, is there any such thing as free will? And is true love really a choice? Let’s ask