Why don't men committ

[jvkohl]

Men in committed,

romantic relationships have lower testosterone

T.C. Burnham, J. Flynn Chapman, P.B. Gray, M.H. McIntyre, S.F.

Lipson
and P.T. Ellison

Hormones and Behavior, 2003, 44:2:119-122

Variation in human male testosterone levels

may reflect, and effect,
differential behavioral allocation to mating and parenting effort. This
proposition leads

to the hypothesis that, among North American men,
those involved in committed, romantic relationships will have

lower
testosterone levels than men not involved in such relationships. Our
study is the first to examine whether

being in such a relationship
(rather than being married) is the meaningful predictor of male
testosterone levels.

To test this hypothesis, 122 male Harvard Business
School students filled out a questionnaire and collected one

saliva
sample (from which testosterone level was measured). Results revealed
that men in committed, romantic

relationships had 21% lower testosterone
levels than men not involved in such relationships. Furthermore,

the
testosterone levels of married men and unmarried men who were involved
in committed, romantic relationships

did not differ, suggesting that, at
least for this sample, male pair bonding status is the more

significant
predictor of testosterone levels than is marital status.


-----------------------------------------------------------
The most likely explanation for these findings is

that men adapt to their long term partner\'s pheromones, so that the effect on testosterone levels is reduced.

This study lends some significance to product marketing of copulin-containing (pheromone-enhanced)fragrances

designed to increase men\'s interest by increasing their testosterone levels.

[Jones]

interesting

[Jones]

\"The most

likely explanation for these findings is that men adapt to their long term partner\'s pheromones, so that the

effect on testosterone levels is reduced.\"

I would say the most likely explanation is that men adapt to a

womens looks, smells, gestures, attractiveness, ect. Several other important factors in a long term relatopship

influence testosterone. The fallout from \'romantic\' love or lust, would be the prime example.

I think

your \'explanation\' is more like a \'theory\', said with plenty of repect, JVK.














someone please make this board run slower

[CJ01]

...OR perhaps

some men don´t like to commit because they´re afraid that others will think of them as having low testosterone

levels /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif.
PS what about women? Did they also do this test on

women, would be interesting for comparison.

[EXIT63]

The reason

they have lower T-levels is because their genitals are in their wives purse!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[CJ01]

Oh they must be

bloody small to fit in /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Brian]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The reason they have lower T-levels is because

their genitals are in their wives purse! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Now that sounds like something Elana would say!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[belgareth]

Studies

like this always make me wonder about cause and effect. Do the guys in relationships have low testostrone levels as

a result of the relationship or did they end up in the relationship due to their low levels. All we are looking at

is a snapshot with no idea of how we got to that point. We can theorize all day but need far more information to

truly undestand the dynamics here.

[druid]

I agree with

Bel. How can we compare a man\'s test levels without testing them before and after the relationship? maybe these

guys were lower test males to begin with.

[Sunny]

You are

absolutely right (both)!

[jvkohl]

The current

understanding of the dynamics involved strongly indicate that the lower levels of T are due to less response to a

partner\'s pheromones. Not every step from cause to effect needs to be detailed when it is known that the

pheromones of the opposite sex increase T in mammalian males, and that a novel female is most likely to cause a

greater increase. Other familial dynamics include lower testosterone levels as pregnancy progresses, increased

testosterone levels at ovulation. Studies indicate that a progesteronic pheromone lowers T, and that estrogenic

pheromones increase T. The mechanism is the same in any case, and this is not theory; it is biological fact. How

much of mammalian biology fully extends to human behavior is the only question remaining. I\'m convinced all of it

fully extends to human behavior.

[belgareth]

I agree

with you on all the points and tend to believe the human animal responds the same as any other mammal. But that is

opinion and I would like to see further studies to support both yours and my own opinions.

[Jones]

\"I\'m

convinced all of it fully extends to human behavior. \"

you, dont really believe that? I think you forgot to

qualify that statement. (your litteraly saying we are sexual animals-I know a hot ass when I see it, yet I have not

to date walked up to one and slamed my nose in its crack)

[CJ01]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
-I know a hot ass when I see it, yet I have not to

date walked up to one and slamed my nose in its crack

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> hehehe, I´m

glad to hear that, the response would not have been very pleasant for you I´m sure

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[jvkohl]

The fact that

we can consciously over-ride our animalistic behavior, does not mean anything with regard to our animalistic nature:

which precisely fits the mammalian biological model (no qualifiers).

What about the hot ass and oral-genital

sex? Do you think you were any better than any other animal when you went down on her? Such animalistic acts give

new meaning to the phrase \"looking for love.\"

[jvkohl]

Rarely, if

ever, are there enough studies to support an unqualified statement about similarities between human behavior and the

behavior of other mammals. At some point, however, it\'s a good idea to accept that there are many more

similarities than differences, and start to use \"is/are\" statements rather than \"appears to be.\" For

example: most people would agree with the unqualified statement that humans primarily _are_ visual creatures. But

there _is_ absolutely no evidence for this. In contrast, people would rather I qualify the statement that humans

_are_ primarily olfactory creatures, and instead say people _appear to be_ primarily olfactory creatures. From any

biologically based perspective, qualifiers regarding human nature are more appropriate when talking about what

_appear to be_ functions of visual input.

[Jones]

Ok, I see your

point.

I would say that it is a very valid argument, that we are essentially animals with brains to second

guess are instincts.

I suppose the other way of thinking of it is a more integrated neural system.

Congrats,

your argument just made me change my mind about this.