Recent scientific research supports Jennifer Moss’ claim that the desire for love trumps the desire for sex.
“OK. (Sigh.) Let’s go have sex.”
“No?!” (Shock and awe.)
“So what if I’m in my flannels!”
“Well, that’ll be the last time I come on to you!”
Sound familiar? With such a heavy emphasis and expectation on men to be ready and waiting for a chance (any chance) to get sexual attention, it appears that men have adopted a paranormal-like fear of saying “no” in the chance that this may quash any future hope for sexual advances.
Up until now, it’s been easy to say that men simply don’t care about romance. We’ve believed for centuries that men are only focused on the end goal and all that champagne and roses just get in the way of reaching it. Women are frequently reminded not to make the mistake of assuming their partner wants to cuddle and/or confuse sex and love when it comes to a man.
A popular video by Flight of the Concords called Business Time describes a humorous portrayal of one man’s lead-up to sex with his spouse. I think the reason it resonated with so many of us is not only that it’s wildly hysterical, but it is uncomfortably so because of how much truth there is to it. With almost three million views, there is a sense that most of us can relate. Since “Business Time” is written and sung by two men, it begs the question: are men just asking for a little more romance? Do men actually prefer picnics to porn?
My personal experiences point to picnics but first lets review the science.
♦◊♦
A recent study, from the University of New Brunswick, that provoked a high-level of attention from mainstream media brought up this exact question and challenged the myth that men prefer sex to romance.
Ashley Thompson is a UNB psychology student who authored the paper, called Gender Differences in Associations of Sexual and Romantic Stimuli: Do Young Men Really Prefer Sex Over Romance? Her testing of subconscious responses from 182 UNB students proved surprising results. By showing study participants both images of couples engaged in various sexual activities as well as images associated with romance, what was discovered is that both men and women were unreservedly drawn to the romantic images over the sexual ones.
Another earlier study conducted by Dr. Helen Fisher, Biological Anthropologist, evaluated the same theory. Fischer, who is also a Research Professor at Rutgers University, put 32 people who were madly in love, into a functional MRI brain scanner: 17 who were madly in love and their love was accepted, and 15 who were madly in love but recently heartbroken.
Fischer describes, in a 2008 TED talk, that while scanning the brains of these 32 test subjects she discovered that the same brain region that becomes active when you feel the rush of cocaine mirrored that of a brain looking at a photo of a romantic love. Fischer began to realize that romantic love is not an emotion but a drive.
She states, “It comes from the motor of the mind, the ‘wanting’ part of the mind, the ‘craving’ part of the mind. The part of the mind, when you’re reaching for that piece of chocolate, when you want to win that promotion at work: the motor of the brain. It’s a drive. And, in fact, I think it’s more powerful than the sex drive.”
She also believes that our sex drive evolved to get us out there to get looking for anything at all, that romantic love developed to focus our mating energy on just one individual and attachment works to tolerate this individual long enough to raise children as a team.
♦◊♦
After researching these two studies, I began to draw parallels to my own relationship. My husband, a professional athlete before we got married, had a titanium lacrosse stick in his hand in the early stages of meeting my parents. I recall my dad looking at me with a glimpse of terror during a more physical part of the game and asking me, “You’re going to marry him?”
At first glance, a guy that was nicknamed “The Axe” didn’t really seem like the romantic type. High-level athletes aren’t just a stereotype; physiologically they have way more testosterone than the average male. You would be more likely to assume that “The Axe” is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal that throws his women over the shoulder on his way to the bedroom. Surprisingly (or not, if you believe in scientific proof), he is quite the opposite.
What many married couples find out shortly after children arrive, or as careers take over, is that distractions dissolve intimacy. Many couples complain that there is little time for friendship, thoughtful and engaged discussion, and uninterrupted sleep. Although this is to be expected, many couples are caught off guard by this sudden shift from having all the alone time in the world, to calendaring date nights on Outlook. Often you witness husbands and wives seeking solace in their friends, who are typically in the same deer-in-headlights state of being. So, instead of gaining kinship with their spouse, isolation persists.
It was in September of 2009 that “The Axe” and I would put this science to the test. After my husband dialed 911 and spent six weeks in the hospital and months of rehab because of a bout of West Nile and, following that, Guillain Barre, we had the benefit of time to evaluate what really matters in life and love. Perspective is a special skill set and one I had yet to master—up until then. Three months earlier, I was grateful to go a day without nausea; now I was grateful that my husband was alive and holding my hand bedside, while I gave birth to our daughter.
Although it wasn’t overnight and we had a long road ahead of us, we eventually started to reassemble. What was revealed to me so many years later was that there was a sense of longing for authentic time together, real presence, romance, and friendship. Don’t get me wrong, sex is always an essential aspect to any healthy relationship, but perspective challenges us to evaluate priorities and friendship, for us, frequently claimed the Title.
Robert Frost, who believed strongly in the endurance of love and marriage, so aptly stated, “Love is the irresistible desire to be irresistibly desired.”
It appears that Robert Frost had it right, proven now with scientific evidence. Love is the motivating factor behind desire. Men are no longer looking to simply procreate and move on; they want more meaningful, lasting relationships. Men are evolving creatures, and it makes sense that they too want romantic love as much as women do. Maybe women just need to take a few minutes to light the candles, shave the legs, break free from the flannels, put in a little effort, and stop expecting men to bark on command—it’s time to recondition Pavlov’s Dog.
So, if you still think this is all bullshit, ask yourself these last three questions: Could your heart feel like it was going to stop beating if it lost a one-night stand? Would you pick up a gun and a vest and go to war for sex? Would you jump in front of train for it? If you answer “no” to these questions, then ask yourself, what would you do for love?
—Photo chico./Flickr
About Jennifer Moss
Oh, I just love this article! Great stuff. And thanks for reminding me of “Business Time!” It’s a terribly funny but also sexy song.
“Business Time” makes smile every time I hear it, or snort things out of my nose if I happen to have a mouthful of something…
Great article! Thank you, thank you, thank you! Even though most of the articles here are written by females(kind of ironic for a site known as “The Good Men Project”), this is one of the few that doesn’t paint all men to be a) Potential rapist and child molesters, b)unrepentant horn dogs , or c) knucle dragging, unfeeling Neanderthals. You’ve given me hope for the future. So again, sincere thanks.
“Men are no longer looking to simply procreate and move on; they want more meaningful, lasting relationships.”
More WMD?
NO Longer? Who said it was that way before = Procreate and Move on?
I sense a Stereotype being peddled as reality from long iteration and presentation.
I often have to wonderer how both sexes, and eve the human race, survived before the invention of the printing press! The saying “BELIEVE ONLY ABOUT HALF OF WHAT YOU READ AND EVEN LESS OF WHAT YOU HEAR.” does spring to mind.
I get the impression that so many have been writing books and telling the world how to live and love – and the authors credentials have been as factual as a Barbara Cartland novel.
As a man ( well I was the last time I looked ) I have always been interested in meaningful, lasting relationships – but I have noted over 30 plus years that so many tell me what I am supposed to see or believe as Meaningful and Lasting! Odd how so many think it’s great to tell people, and yet lack the capacity to ask what actually is “Meaningful and Lasting” for them.
I’ve even been subjected to lectures on what exactly meaningful is supposed to mean and how to change everything to make it all ever so lasting. I’ve been happy to just be myself. I am happy to listen to lectures, but I have often found that those lecturing have a problem with discourtesy and lack the capacity to also listen. When that occurs – I just ignore their pontifications and motivations.
I just haven’t been interested in the advertising that has been about – and I know far too many other chaps who have not been sold the advertising either. It’s a bit like the myth of The Marlboro Man. Nice advert – shame about reality. I even know a few who bought nice big belt buckles – but they didn’t care for the stereotyping.
Time has shown that what some have been writing and preaching has not lasted – and was only meaningful to their bank balance. I think it’s time for past bad advertising campaigns and stereotypes to be buried – They No Longer serve a purpose other than to be discourteous and show who has not been listening or even asking the right questions.
Meaningful and Lasting – Dialogue can do that, but as dialogue is a two way communication, for it to be meaningful it requires open ears and minds – and it does not work in a lasting way when people have the latests best seller rolled up and stuck in their ear!
Though the science is important and interesting, your final paragraph pretty much says it all. Thanks for an engaging read on an intriguing topic.
I’m somewhat baffled that it’s supposed to be news that men “want meaningful, lasting relationships”, and that we need science to teach us that. With the number of men who live in long-term, committed relationshops, who work hard to maintain their relationships, you’d need some really narrow stereotypes to believe that men only want to “simply procreate and move on.” There’s plenty of male-male longterm, committed relationships, too, so it’s not that men are just sucking up to their women. It may be a widespread stereotype, but I there’s so much data contrary to it.
And I have to agree with MediaHound on this one – for an article that is supposedly dispelling stereotypes, it’s ironic to find “Men are no longer looking to simply procreate and move on; they want more meaningful, lasting relationships. Men are evolving creatures, …”. Jill, that reads as if you believe that the stereotypes were true until recently, and that only now do men desire meaningful, lasting relationships – and that you do in fact buy into the stereotype, only things are now changing?
As a man, I’ve always found the stereotype of men wanting only sex to be meaningless, and offensive. To me, the really interesting question is why is this stereotype so strong with you.
Lars – I agree! It seems that Stereotypes have been created, and rather than error in the creation and use of them being addressed, it gets mocked up as evolution linked to a study that shows the stereotypes have been wrong all along. It’s not about some new scientific discovery – just the debunking of past faulty thinking and assumptions. I would find a study on the persistence of stereotypes far more valuable and comment worthy. It is interesting that studies have shown just how persistent they can be, even when presented with evidence that the stereotype is wrong.
Persistence of stereotypes concerning sex differences. Fernberger, Samuel W. “1948″ – some could do with reading it!
It is also interesting that the creation and adoption of gender related stereotypes has been observed more frequently in women than men. Stereotypes are also recognized in warfare – as many have observed, you only give a group a negative name and image once you are at war with them. It was Gooks in Vietnam – Argies during the Falklands War – and it happens all the time. Demonizing makes it easier to demean and attack – whether that is deliberate intention or unwitting.
The idea that a couple of dozen people having brain scans shows some sudden evolutionary jump in men is all part of The Junk Science that keeps on being created and peddled against men. Men haven’t changed – but the definitions some apply keeps changing. They are not the same thing.
The scans show that views have been wrong – not that some new view and emergent male subspecies has been identified scientifically. So many have eaten up the idea that It’s a “Common Sense” view of men that all they are about is Procreation. Men are just Testosterone filled sperm donors that need to be treated like cattle and either cut out from the herd and retrained, else treated like hunks of prime beef and consumed whilst young and tender!
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Albert Einstein
If some wish to try and drag up Evolutionary Biology, they should look at what is best for the survival of the species – and that is female infidelity and selection of the best sperm donor, which is not the same as the best male to provide nurture and support. Cuckoos are not the only bird!
I am surprised that so many buy into the Phallocentic view of procreation when so many have written against it for so long. I would recommend Elaine Morgan’s book “The Descent Of Woman” 1972 as an eye opener for both sexes. I remember one reviewer saying “She takes sacred cows and mows them down in high powered vehicle”. – and she did it without the aide of MRI scanners.
I love the humor in the book too – Mrs Proto ape turning into a leopards breakfast is a definite LOL moment. Her demise is not the funny thing – just the trail of eviscerated stereotypes and gender foolishness left behind that can’t be ignored.
Old news validated by a new study telling us what we all knew already.
Must be a surplus of grant money rolling around.
Said it before: When I was a fraternity grad adviser, and before that, the guys who got almost clinically depressed were not the guys who missed on on getting laid that evening. It was the guys whose SOs had told them that there was no longer any feeling left on her part.
It’s not as if anybody is ignorant of this.
It merely pleases some people to pretend something which is demonstrably untrue.
Like to know why.
The part I love the most about The Good Men Project is that their readers are insightful, thought-provoking and intelligent. Proven again with the persuasive arguments and commentary to the post above.
As the writer, I should note that I played up the stereotype in the article to highlight the irony. If my husband-to-be was really a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal I may not have given him a second look – I prefer my men to be upright.
What had me so intrigued with this particular study was the way it tested its subjects. One difference is past research has relied on self-reporting surveys where people may predispose themselves to responding and reflecting traditional views that men should prefer sex over romance and respond accordingly.
Thompson believes the implicit association test is the better tool for determining behavioural response because we tend to respond (both men and women) through a stereotypical filter.
And, I dislike stereotypes as much as the next guy. They anger me. Specifically, when it forces us to go against what we innately desire because the thinking is now so ingrained. However, if we agree that they exist and open up, have dialogue as we’re currently engaged in, then small cracks are made and we get to move forward. So thank you. By sharing your thoughts, it helps us turn those cracks into caverns and eventually they cease to exist.
I think in many cases it’s not an either/or choice between sex and romance but rather a feedback loop. For many men, being romantic makes the sex even better, and the sex adds to the feeling of love and affection for his partner. They both reinforce each other. Yes, there are moments where a man may be forced to choose between them, but on the whole the two are not in opposition to each other.
I think this is another area in which the whole “opposite sex” idea is distorting people’s view of reality. There’s this big assumption that men and women are inherently at odds with each other, and therefore one must want sex while the other wants romance, and because the sexes are of course opposite to each other therefore sex and romance are opposite of each other. Maybe we’re complementary sexes and not opposite sexes? Maybe sex and romance are complementary and not opposites?
I’ve just about given up on rehabilitating people’s views of prehistoric humans. Last time I’m going to mention this – Neanderthals have been grossly misrepresented in popular culture. They were another species of human alive at the same time as Homo sapiens. Their knuckles did not drag on the ground. There’s nothing to indicate Neanderthal men treated Neanderthal women worse than Homo sapien males did (or still do).
It’s also quite remarkable that people use the term Neanderthal exclusively to refer to males, when Neanderthals were people. Half of the Neanderthals were women. Why are women never referred to as Neanderthals? Curious.
Wellokaythen.
Not sure about the half thing. I have read reports that considerably more than half the Neanderthals, and H. Sap, for that matter, dug up so that the gender could be determined, were male. The most recent hunter-gatherers, Eskimos, Bushmen, Aussie Abos, practiced female infanticide in order to keep their numbers in line with what they could collect. While our ancestors lived in more prosperous areas,not having been driven to the margins like the most recent h-g types, it appears that limiting their numbers was important to them, too.
I had not heard that about the gender ratio of Neanderthal remains. I had forgotten about female infanticide, so it does stand to reason that perhaps the gender ratios were often not equal. I am wondering, however, if remains of people “buried with honors” are more likely to have been male, if men were of higher status. Perhaps the remains are a little skewed towards male bodies being preserved more than women’s and that might explain *some* of the uneven ratio.
I will concede that “half” was likely inaccurate. There were SOME Neanderthal women at least. It’s still a variant of sexism to use Neanderthal in a negative way to refer exclusively to males.
Neanderthals lived in Europe for more than 100,000 years. Think about that: recorded human history goes back only about 5,000 years. We are talking about a time period more than 20 times longer than that. Furthermore, only about 400 Neanderthal fossils have ever been found. Most of these fossils are nothing more than pieces of bone; gender indeterminate. Even the famous Shanidar cave burial site only has 8 adult skeletons. You can’t possibly extrapolate from such a small sample size to conclude that Neanderthals practiced female infanticide or that they had a skewed sex ratio.
Wake up the slaves.
I like this article – excepting the last paragraph. I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but the notion that men had to evolve – stated in a manner that implied recently evolved- to desire love is unfair. Monogamy in long-gestating/long youth species is beneficial. I know you stated such in a different manner earlier.
Bah, I’m just confused by the ending compared to the rest. In any case, kudos for writing an article on how men are not sex machines.
Gwen – thank you for pointing that out. I agree that the writing implies a recent evolution and I should have expressed that differently. The article’s intention was to emphasize that men have most likely felt this way much longer than recent studies are now trying to prove. I should have stated that men have evolved since the time of their ancestors – 250,000 years ago and that they, similar to women, continue to evolve and their needs shift with regards to both sex and romantic love.
I like the article. I think it’s important to note that Thompson’s study found a gender difference. Specifically, though the study found that both sexes significantly preferred romantic images to sex images, the preference for romantic images was much higher for women than men.
Personally, my interpretation of the data is that almost everyone has positive associations with romance. A sizable minority of people have negative hang-ups regarding sex, and these people are more often female than male. Yet still a lot of males have these hang-ups. When you average the data, both males and females prefer the romance images, yet the size of the preference is smaller for men.
One issue I have is with the type of images used. I imagine that more vanilla sex images would more often be viewed as pleasurable. Kinkier stuff might get a few people anxious. So I think that contrasting romance with kinky sex would lead to the results seen (men and women both prefer romance and women show a stronger preference). But if you really make the images sufficiently vanilla, maybe you would find men preferring the sex images to the romance images.
In my opinion, a worthwhile study that implies a need for more research.
If men are so into love, why do the risk everything with infidelity???
Most likely for the same reason women do.
yes, but men still cheating more than women
There is most likely a difference, but it’s not significant enough to be meaningful.
Two things to that: 1) statistics on cheating behaviour are near impossible to get accurate; I don’t think anyone has hard facts about who cheats more. 2) what’s the relevance? Do you think the fact that some men cheat invalidates the desire of men to be in longterm, stable, loving relationships? Or are you just taking a cheap shot, trying to paint all men as cheaters?
If we reduce the conversation to the level of “all men are cheaters”, “all women are gold-diggers”, etc., we’re just wasting time. Nothing will be learned.
Well said.