Love is for the Ugly

[volcomstone]

          Hey all


     I've been away (lurking).  I've been having some rather lame thoughts about the nature of the emotion we collectively call love.  New research has shed some insight into the brain chemicals and neuro-transmitters that produce the euphoric feeling of being in love.  I don't claim to know what love really is, however, in a simple biological context it seems to be a survival strategy.

     An idea I had was that Love is a survival strategy for people of whom their outward genetic characteristics (or phenotypes) are what many would superficially see as being a flaw or weakness.  Ugliness is understood on a primal level and so is beauty. Something in the human mind processes a pretty face/good body as being signatures for good genetic stock. This makes us want to mate with them, without even knowing anything about them (for instance hidden genetic triggers for cancer, and mental illness).  Yet studies are showing that the Ken and Barbie outward appearance can be linked to good genetic health and virility.

     So basically my question is an opinion one:   Do you think that love is an evolutionary mechanism to help us disreguard physical appearance and create a partnership with people that have "less than desirable" genetic traits?  Do you think that the feeling of connection between two average looking individuals is stronger than Brad pitt and Angelina? You know the saying "a face only a mother can love".

    My arguement is simply that pretty people don't need to love because their outward appearance will guarantee them a comfortable life full of mating opportunities.   

   Please go on any tangents you have about the subject.

   Read about the effects of ocytocin. 

[AmbientSound]

You do have a point. Appearance in itself is a biological signal. Birds don't eat monarch butterflies because their bright orange color is a warning of poison. So I say you've got a point. Genetic deviation, however, is important for evolution to take place. When the first feathered reptiles walked the earth, they set the precedent for the bird kingdom. Somewhere and somehow, that feathered reptile was considered 'sexy' by the species it evolved from, and had a dominant gene.

Love can be seen as a survival strategy for sure. Human children need a great deal of attention and care, and years of nurturing and raising to become adults and deal with the complexities of the world and the human society of which they are born into or raised in. They learn their role from the parent who shares their gender, and learn about the other gender from the other parent. This helps them with social development and sets some psychological programming.

I think that the people on the other end of the spectrum, those generally considered less attractive, may fall in love for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they share a set of genes that may make the next generation slightly better, or perhaps they simply want that comfort that all the attractive people are getting, which may help them stave off depression caused by loneliness.

To be fair, though, I would say that there are also subtle signals that tell others when someone sleeps with too many others, which could potentially spread disease and become a biological risk. It doesn't matter if the person is attractive or not, there are few who want to be with anyone who has too many sexual partners. So the pretty people, who would be more at risk for this behavior, need to find a balance to ensure that they end up with at least one lifelong mate.

There is also the question of mindsets and mental qualities. Your values play a big part in finding the right mate. Someone who does not share your values is unlikely to get along with you, initially. Sometimes this can change, but changing values too much can lead to mental instability and an inconsistency with experiences.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. There's a lot to think about on this topic.

[Stookie]

My arguement is simply that pretty people don't need to love because their outward appearance will guarantee them a comfortable life full of mating opportunities.

That's assuming that lots of sex makes life comfortable. Pretty people need love too. Loneliness can exist in a crowded room.

Humans can intelligently create and put emotion into their creations, unlike animals. The act of creating and being artistic comes from the same energy center that our sexual energy arises from. It's only natural that we put emotion & love (and creativity) into our sex. Maybe those that don't are a step behind.

[CFTraveler]

I love a good challenge.  Interesting theory, lots of flaws:

So basically my question is an opinion one:   Do you think that love is an evolutionary mechanism to help us disreguard physical appearance and create a partnership with people that have "less than desirable" genetic traits?

No, because love exists and has been observed as behaviour traits in animals that are not human, which don't have the concept of beauty.  So a baby gorilla will be as lovingly nurtured by the mother gorilla regardless of it's esthetics or symmetry (which seems to be how humans judge beauty, according to scientists), a baby alligator will live in it's mom's mouth for a long period of time (I think it's five weeks) without being eaten by her, and none of these animals have the concept of esthetics (and don't tell me that in this case maternal nurturing isn't love, because it invalidates your oxytocin argument)

Do you think that the feeling of connection between two average looking individuals is stronger than Brad pitt and Angelina? You know the saying "a face only a mother can love".

This depends on the individuals and Brangelina.  We don't know how commited they are to each other, but I've known lots of beautiful people who end up hating each other, while I've met 'plain' people who hated each other just as much.

And just as a matter of personal experience, I have a friend who is very beautiful (model beautiful) who has never been able to have a relationship last more than two or three years, because when the hormones (here it would be pherormones) wore off the boyfriends (and one husband) would get to know ther real her, and realize they didn't really want to spend the rest of their lives with her.

So I'd say that the idea of beauty (or healthy-gene-carrying appearance) works as an evolutionary trait, because good- looking people have more sex (and more opportunity to pass the genes to the next generation), but love wouldn't be, because it goes almost the opposite, and that would be against evolutionary success- the successful pairing of people that genuinely love each other guarantees that there won't be an interchange of genes except for that exclusive union, keeping gene recombining to a minimum, which is not good from the point of view of evolution.


  ps.  My pretty friend is very lonely and very frustrated, because she never found the right guy.  So this shows that
a- pretty people have feelings just like not-pretty people
b- they are not necessarily any happier
c- they have more chances of reproducing and spreading out their genes (more sex with different partners)
d- people that have successful long standing emotionally rewarding (presumably) relationships have less chances of  spreading around their genes, so are at an evolutionary disadvantage.

[volcomstone]

but love wouldn't be, because it goes almost the opposite, and that would be against evolutionary success- the successful pairing of people that genuinely love each other guarantees that there won't be an interchange of genes except for that exclusive union, keeping gene recombining to a minimum, which is not good from the point of view of evolution.

  Ah but the maternal instict for nurturing ,which could be considered a form of love evolved as a way of creating a healthy upbringing for their young by ensuring that two partners will be together to long enough that the offspring could fend for themselves. A majority of animals do this for some period of time (even earwigs!) humans must do this because we are helpless when we are delivered into this world.  Animals that have more advanced development (many reptiles, insects etc) are able to disreguard this evolutionary tactic simply from sheer numbers and genetic predisposition. (however they are more sensitive to environmental changes)  I would say in this arguement that the female species, because they typically raise the young would have a stronger predisposition to being in "love" simply becuse they are more invested in the upbringing. 

and none of these animals have the concept of esthetics

   I disagree, "good" genetics in healthy animals are portrayed by thick coats, large antlers etc.  There is a form of esthetics for the animal kingdom.

To be fair, though, I would say that there are also subtle signals that tell others when someone sleeps with too many others, which could potentially spread disease and become a biological risk. It doesn't matter if the person is attractive or not, there are few who want to be with anyone who has too many sexual partners.

    I've noticed this as well, there's little alarm signals that are set off when certain words or phrases are used.  I've also started to wonder the true role of viruses and bacteria in the world.  Some have put a biblical/religous tone to the argument, however I would say that it's simply a check and balance system that evolved long before humans walked the earth. 

[Genie]

I think there is a lot of hypocrisy going around using the label of love.  An ability to have more love than others can even be an ego trip.  There is so much love and light going around now-a-days especially if you have enough money to buy all the BS being sold.  It hasn't failed to amaze me as to what people will come up with to sell more of god or source or whatever name you wish to call us.
New ideas are being put forth for a new paradigm, a new oneness with all that is, as if you could really and truly separate from all that is.  The more money you have, the more seminars you can attend, the more boat cruises you can take and the more love you can fill your heart with.  Amazing!  If you add good looks and/or talent, there is no stopping the amount of love that can flow to you.

[volcomstone]

ps.  My pretty friend is very lonely and very frustrated, because she never found the right guy.  So this shows that
a- pretty people have feelings just like not-pretty people
b- they are not necessarily any happier
c- they have more chances of reproducing and spreading out their genes (more sex with different partners)
d- people that have successful long standing emotionally rewarding (presumably) relationships have less chances of  spreading around their genes, so are at an evolutionary disadvantage.

   I wasn't implying that "pretty" people feel "less" love (or are any less compassionate etc) than the less physically attractive (that would be presumptious and also demeaning), although my first post did refer to brangelina... 

[bondgirl3007]

Ha ha.....I've always wondered this myself.......if I was ugly would I be attracted to an ugly person? There was this couple at work.....and they were (I'm not trying to be mean just honest) both obese and really ugly. I was always wondering if they were really attracted to each other or if they just settled. But maybe it's just the law of attraction- like attracting like.........

[AmbientSound]

I think people who settle do not tend to be very happy. Thus, I think it is best to aim for what you desire, and if you find something close to it, consider yourself lucky.

[Stookie]

Would this be considered "settling"?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l6buDfU9AY

[AmbientSound]

Haha... yes.

[CFTraveler]

 
volcomstone  wrote:   

Animals that have more advanced development (many reptiles, insects etc)

Sorry, but evolutionary science states that reptiles and insects are less advanced, not more advanced.  That's why we have a neocortex and they don't.  You're saying the exact opposite of what science knows to make a point that has no basis in fact.

I disagree, "good" genetics in healthy animals are portrayed by thick coats, large antlers etc. There is a form of esthetics for the animal kingdom.

esthetics follows genetics, not the other way around.  This is basic science.