The importance of being naughty: exploring the science of erotic diversity

August 6, 1:34 PMCleveland Open Relationships ExaminerGaylen Moore

Previous Next

6 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Cleveland Open Relationships Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Is polyamory good for you? Recent studies have shown that sex triggers the development of new brain cells. This is just one of a long list of reasons for thinking that a good sex life can be good for your physical and mental health. Things get complicated, however, when we stop to consider the question: "What counts as a good sex life"? For many liberal-minded people, the most intuitively obvious answer is that "many different lifestyles are potentially the best – it just depends on the temperament and preferences of the individual." For more traditional-minded people, the obvious answer seems to be "life-long monogamy in the context of marriage should be the ultimate goal for everyone." There seems to be no accounting for faith or personal taste, but someone who is not committed to either end of the moral/political spectrum on this issue might wonder if science and logic can offer any interesting insights. The answer appears to be yes.

Let's start with a brief look at some things that most people don't know about brains and sex. Two key players in the brain are dopamine (a neurotransmitter) and prolactin (a hormone). (Other key players include oxytocin and DARPP-32, but let's just keep things as simple as possible for the moment.) Dopamine and prolactin are like the hills and valleys of a roller coaster. Dopamine provides the high points. If neurons wrote on bathroom walls, they'd write: "For a good time, call Dopamine." Dopamine is the reason that experiences such as great food and hot sex feel so darn good. Speaking of sex, it has been said that "orgasm is the biggest blast of dopamine available to humans" (legally, that is). Dopamine is also released when pain is encounterd (suggesting some interesting connections between pain and pleasure) and, of course, it is released by many of the most notoriously addicting recreational drugs, which is a major reason why they are so addicting.

By comparison, prolactin provides the down-slopes, which is not to say that prolactin is bad. It's the "satisfaction" molecule. Prolactin is a naturally occurring hormone produced in both men and women after orgasm. (It has many other functions too, but again we are keeping things simple.) After sex, Mother Nature wants to bring us back to reality. She wants us to stop screwing around and pay attention to other important things, like sleeping, going to work, raising children, and so on. Prolactin appears to be part of this process; without it we might do nothing but have continuous sex until we die of malnutrition, exhaustion, or what have you – perhaps without ever really feeling satisfied along the way.

One very interesting thing to know about prolactin: Scientists have discovered that proactin triggers stem cells in the brain to produce new neurons! If you see a headline saying "Sex makes your brain grow" – you can bet that prolactin is star of the show. People seeking treatments for victims of stroke and degenerative diseases like Huntington's, Parkinson's, and Alzheimers are hopeful that this research will lead to new treatment options. Advocates of more sexually liberal lifestyles are hoping that the good news about prolactin might lend credence to the belief that lots of good sex is a good thing, and thus liberal sexual lifestyles should not be stigmatized by prudish cultures. This is where polyamory, swinging, and "hot monogamy" come in.

The basic problem with long-term monogamy is that after a few years with the same person, the frequency of sex dwindles down to a trickle. If, in fact, an active sex life is good for your physical and mental health, then it seems that traditional monogamy might not be the best choice for long-term health. The problem with long-term monogamy is well-known to science, and there is even a term for it: the "Coolidge Effect." Scientists (who, as we know, love to study rats) have observed that after a lot of copulation with a particular female, a male rat will lose sexual interest in her. But if a new female comes along, he’ll perk right up and be happy to service her. It is well-known that the same effect applies to humans – and not just to males. Both men and women find it difficult to maintain a high level of sexual interest in their long-term mate. (If you have never heard the joke that is said to be the origin of the term "the Coolidge Effect," click here.) The problem generally is not that couples no longer love each other; the problem generally has more to do with the complex chemistry of sexual desire.

At this point, the potential benefits of non-monogamy may seem to be fairly obvious. The Coolidge Effect suggests that our sex lives could plummet to oblivion after marriage, if we stick to monogamy and don't find a way to keep things "spicy". One obvious way to spice things up is to have sex with other people even while continuing to love our spouse. But before concluding that non-monogamy is the only option for a good life-long sex life, we should consider the possibilities of "hot monogamy." It can be argued that what the Coolidge Effect really shows us is that novelty can be a powerful aphrodisiac. Anything can become boring if you always do it the same old way – and sex is obviously no exception. The standard advice for monogamous couples wishing to maintain an active sex life is to introduce variety. Dr. Patricia Love suggests a variety of non-controversial ways to increase intimacy, such as "doing something a little different each day" or "demonstrating thoughtfulness with your actions." No doubt Dr. Love's suggestions are helpful, but many couples will need something "hotter" – more explicitly sexual – or shall we say: just plain naughty. For example: try new sex positions, new locations, new toys, watch porn together, do some erotic role-playing, explore your kinks and fetishes together, or simply hang out with swingers and try something like same-room sex. (Orgies can be great fun for monogamous couples!) These hotter options require a certain liberal-mindedness about sex, but so long as this is not a problem, hot monogamy is a good way for those who are naturally best-suited for monogamy to stay true to their principles and yet still have a lot of sexual fun.

But not everyone is naturally best-suited for monogamy, and there are limits to how "hot" a spiced up version of monogamy can be over decades of time. For those able to handle non-monogamy, a whole new realm of erotic adventures can be enjoyed. But to fully appreciate the twisted trinity of love, sex, and science, we should really take a moment to consider the role of oxytocin.

Sex is fun, but what really binds people together is "the cuddle hormone" or "bonding hormone" – oxytocin (pronounced ox-ee-TOE-sin). It is thought that without oxytocin, we could not fall in love. It is the "unconditional love" hormone associated with nurturing, generosity, and intimate affection. From an evolutionary point of view, one of its functions is to bond us (especially females) to our mates and our children so that our genes are safely passed to future generations. Oxytocin and dopamine are a "tag team" of love. Early indications are, however, that this team functions somewhat differently in different people.

In some very famous studies of prairie voles, neuroendocrinologist Sue Carter found that the oxytocin receptors in monogamous voles overlapped with dopamine receptors in an area of the brain called the nucleus accumbens, whereas in the non-monogamous voles, the oxytocin receptors were located elsewhere. Does this mean that non-monogamous people are unable to stay in love for a lifetime? No, not at all. But it may mean that non-monogamous people simply don't get the same sort of reward from monogamy that more naturally monogamous people do. The implication here is that tendencies toward monogamy or non-monogamy are personality differences rooted in the nature of different people's brain chemistry. This, in turn, may suggest that social stigmas and political policies arrayed against non-monogamous lifestyles could be seen as just another unreasonable and unjust form of discrimination.

Similar conclusions can be reached in very different ways. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers who consults for the dating website Chemistry.com (a division of Match.com), believes that certain personality types correspond to the ratios of specific chemicals in the body. She examines blood, urine, and saliva samples to test her theory. Studying 28,000 clients using the Chemistry.com site, she built personality profiles based on people's answers to a questions, then sorted them into different categories and followed their dating experiences to see which types were attracted to which other types. For example, she identifies "explorers" (creative, risk-taking personalities) and "builders" (people with more conventional, calm, conscientious personalities). Explorers tend to have more active levels of dopamine and norepinephrine (another brain chemical), while builders have more active serotonin. She also found that explorers tend to be drawn to other explorers, while builders are generally drawn to other builders.

So what appears to be the bottom line lesson in all of this? Science is telling us that our personalities – including our tendencies to favor monogamy or non-monogamy, are rooted in our natural, individual brain chemistries. Virtually everyone suffers to some extent from "the Coolidge Effect" in long-term monogamy. Some people, however, seem to find great reward in monogamy just for its own sake. Such folks can pursue "hot monogamy" but eventually some just might feel more comfortable sacrificing sexual excitement in the long run for the satisfaction that monogamy gives them. Many of these folks will strive for life-long monogamy and end up either cheating or practicing serial monogamy, but in any case they simply feel best when focusing on only one mate at a time.

Others do not find monogamy – just for the sake of monogamy – to be inherently rewarding. These people are just as capable of loving their mates for life, but they don't feel a need for monogamy; it is simply not an intrinsic part of their neurobiological reward system. Especially in light of the numerous mental and physical health benefits associated with an active sex life, it would seem downright irrational for the naturally non-monogamous folks to force themselves into the Procrustean bed of monogamy. If they don't need monogamy in order to love and feel loved, and if they don't feel any intrinsic reward from monogamy just for the sake of monogamy, then why should they commit themselves to a monogamous lifestyle? For such people, a non-monogamous lifestyle such as polyamory might, indeed, be good for their health.
 

 For more info: