The Biology of Love—Not

this is pathetic

I think this is a fantastic article, and maybe not suitable for a science/biology venue, but then you must be missing the point. It's about time someone addressed men's cop-out excuses for not using their brains and/or hearts or taking responsiblity for their choices. Proudly assuming that they are "programmed" and followers of their evolutionary destiny is just their way of making their lustful actions OK, and all the scientific research and studies are helping to fill people's minds with this nonsense. You would never have heard my grandfather's generation talking like that. We all need to get back to being classy civilized human beings.

Evolution is the central concept in all biology and one of the most powerful, mind-boggling ideas that exists. It needs to be defended and explained, yet Sharon Begley has chosen to editorialize that evolution is not that important. If she prefers non-scientific explanations to human behavior she should stop posing as a science writer.

I think it's true that when a women is ovulating she feels sexier. I know that in the past when I was single. It was obvious to me that a woman changes alot during a month. Especially in 'dating mode' ! I remember my life coach from healthyvibesuk.com telling me this and I didn't really understand. But if you keep an eye on the phases of the moon, and make a note in your calendar, you'll see a pattern.

I was going to say exactly what 'imaging' said!

Sharon Begley joins the traditions of Cato the Elder, Pope Urban VIII, and many biblical fundamentalists in arguing that it is ???a mistake to let scientists anywhere near [certain] topics.??? The scientific topic that she disdains is the ???Biology of Love,??? by which she means that part of evolutionary biology that attempts to explain human sexuality. She has two complaints about this topic: miscreants misuse it to ???blame the genes??? for bad sexual behavior, and practitioners effect bad science by relying upon inadequate evidence to draw implausible conclusions that are contrary to ???plain old thinking and feeling.???

Neither complaint holds water. That some people misuse evolutionary biology, or any other branch of knowledge, is not, by itself, sufficient reason to disdain its study. Nor is bad science made good science by abandonment.

I am neither an evolutionary biologist nor a scientist and cannot intelligently comment upon whether any of Begley???s several purported examples of bad science is valid. I have, however, read several excellent books that touch upon evolutionary biology and commend, among others, Jared Diamond???s The Third Chimpanzee. Diamond makes an excellent argument in favor of some of the conclusions that Begley holds to be contrary to ???plain old thinking and feeling.??? Diamond also makes an excellent argument that our species is doomed to extinction unless we gain a better understanding of evolutionary biology.

Regardless of the overall biology vs. free will debate, the really sad thing here is that the author wrote such a poorly thought-through article and that Newsweek published it. And the only one here that seems to have noticed either is "Sylvanus" .
The author cites two examples of how "(male) scientists" present research that makes love all about biology and she counters with alternate reasons for the purported results of those studies, namely "Women feel sexiest when ovulating." and "Ovulation increases libido". Does she have no understanding that she proposed alternate BIOLOGICAL explanations? Women feel and have increased libido during ovulation? Is that not likely because of chemical reactions in her body? Isn't that BIOLOGY?
I do not actually disagree with her basic premise that we are not slaves to our biology. I am just appalled that she uses arguements that counter her own premise - and she doesn't even seem to realize it. And where are the editors? A little more QC please.

It seems that Sharon Begley did not read the article in question properly. the authors of the study in question excluded the possibility of human pheromones as humans do not have a vomeronasal organ unlike other organisms. The authors speculated that it could be something in the movement of the women rather than any olfactory input. The genetic basis of mate choice does not appear to abolish free will but bias it in ways which lead to noticeable changes in outcomes. In any case we need to start thinking of humans as biological entities instead of a "magically conscious beings" set apart from the biological realities of our brains.

Is it just me or the article was not too smart ?

Of course the article is correct, however it isn't an refutation of an evolutionary perspective. The statistics given in the last paragraph pertaining to age selection is undoubtedly true, and any serious student of evolution and or "dna research" would obviously agree. The truth is, any serious student of the human condition would have to predict those results. The arguments to the contrary are under ideal and greatly exagerrated conditions. J. Howard Marshall was exceedingly wealthy and also had exceedingly youthful taste in women with respect to his own age. Science only seeks to explain the tendancy, and as we all know, tendencies aren't law. Women who are ovulating could just as easily be thought of as exhibiting an evolved response to be more attractive and interested as making a concious decision to be so. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that this is a subconcious effect in nearly all instances, which points to an evolved response as opposed to a rational decision. The bottom line is that science explains much of what we understand better when we seek to apply it. While science can't currently (or possibly ever) be described as having all the answers, it certainly is applicable to situations such as these. My problem with this article is that it tries to get us to stop thinking about the way our mindless DNA guides us in love, when the reality of the situation is that our mindless DNA and the processes of natural selection consistently guide us in astounding ways. The future of these discoveries about what makes us love and how our evolved brains think about our relationships is awe inspiring, and may just be more worth dreaming about this Valentine's Day than some ethereal heart and mind.

This quote is a bit misleading "A libidinous wife is more likely to send signals???readers are invited to provide their own examples???that she would welcome affection. Again, no genes controlling us like puppets. A loving heart and working brain are enough."
Perhaps the fact that she is seeking affection because she is ovulating is what causes her to arouse the lustful urge in her selected mate. A loving heart and a working brain only pertain to getting the sexual attention she wants. Love? Ha.

Man's intelligence has evolved yet he would have you believe his other head has not?

This article is correct, but there are those who would love to spin it otherwise.

I would say it's a little naive to assume our biochemistry has nothing to do with it. We are animals and as big and important we would like our selves to be because we are almighty humans, we are not exempt from the world of creatures. Either way, the cultural relationship we have also plays a role in what we do. So I think like most science the answer to this question lies somewhere between.

Genetic denail... tsk tsk tsk. How many woman do you know that make rational decisions about the men they do or don't date?

There is no question that awareness of the often unconscious nature of genetic control is the key toward understanding the forces that each gender is subject to when seeking love and happiness.

Whether men admit it or not, nature seems to have programmed them to desire sexually reserved women as prospects for marriage. They may want to date the other kind, but the girl they can???t get off their mind, is likely the one who is not easy to get.

Radical feminists, with their advocacy of sexual liberation have done women a major disservice. When women today complain that men seem unable to commit, one needs to tell them that: ???they certainly can, but maybe not with you.??? Somehow, someway, men???s genes are looking after their interests and investments, and eagerness on the part of a woman is pushing all the wrong buttons. Clearly sexual eagerness on the female???s part is not always correlated with latter infidelity, but natural selection plays the odds. Somehow, something deep within him is saying that marriage just doesn???t feel right with this accommodating girl. But that other one who is aloof, mysterious, difficult to attain, somehow he can???t get her out of his head; and if there is a chance he might lose her to another man, he hasn???t got a chance of escaping the spell.