# How to NOT get attached to your partner = avoid oxytocin.



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

So apparently, nature's pulled a cruel joke on women. Women release oxytocin, a hormone that facilitates bonding/emotional attachment, during sex. 

Men produce only trace amounts, and they produce even more testosterone that ends up negating it all.

But women's estrogen amplifies oxytocin's effects, and with each time she has sex with her partner, the oxytocin release grows stronger and stronger.

So what happens? Women get screwed over. They end up getting attached and emotionally invested in the guy, and the man is still free. The man is not emotionally bound, he is free.

Is there a way for females to "turn off" the oxytocin, avoid it, circumvent it, or counteract it? While still having sex with the same man? This doesn't seem especially fair to me, that women are set up by nature for pain and heartbreak. Whereas a man is pumped up to run off and about, chest-thumping in glee.

(I'm alluding only to heterosexual sex, since two females are going to be in the same boat.)


----------



## Night & Day (Jul 17, 2010)

That's like saying that all women who have their periods get extremely moody and feel extreme pain, which isn't true. roud:


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

Bani said:


> That's like saying that all women who have their periods get extremely moody and feel extreme pain, which isn't true. roud:


Good for you. But it's routine misery for many others.

I hate being a woman.


----------



## Night & Day (Jul 17, 2010)

dagnytaggart said:


> Good for you. But it's routine misery for many others.
> 
> I hate being a woman.


Good for me? It's actually painful for me. I was talking about other women. 

I hate pain.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Oxytocin doesn't necessarily doom you to be attached, it simply pushes you in that direction. If you practice meticulously analyzing and controlling your emotions, it'll go miles further than trying to regulate oxytocin. It's a good skill to have anyway. I also recommend meditation and enhancing your working memory to help this process (try Brain Workshop's dual n-back). We have little control over our hormones, but they're only a part of what makes us who we are. Ideally we should exercise our minds so that our higher cognition and willpower are what primarily controls us.


----------



## funcoolname (Sep 17, 2011)

I agree, we get a bad deal. I would say keep reminding yourself it's oxytocin, if necessary concentrate on what you dislike about your buddy especially after sex, but if you want to get the guy on your level force them to cuddle with you afterwards  regardless of gender, physical touch/closeness releases oxytocin


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

Manhattan said:


> Oxytocin doesn't necessarily doom you to be attached, it simply pushes you in that direction. If you practice meticulously analyzing and controlling your emotions, it'll go miles further than trying to regulate oxytocin. It's a good skill to have anyway. I also recommend meditation and enhancing your working memory to help this process (try Brain Workshop's dual n-back). We have little control over our hormones, but they're only a part of what makes us who we are. Ideally we should exercise our minds so that our higher cognition and willpower are what primarily controls us.


Thankfully, this doesn't happen to me personally. Well, not yet, anyhow. But it does seem like our own bodies "push" us to become emotionally invested, whereas men are actually physiologically protected. Lucky.

I'm just worried that one day, the oxytocin load will be too large to overcome.

All this supposedly so women can produce babies. -_- 

I'm getting a sterilization procedure done in a few months - I'm 22 and don't want kids...ever. So much for being built like a baby factory!

*/rant* 

But I'm unclear about the memory training part...does that help avoid attachment by helping you remember all your partner's flaws? 



funcoolname said:


> I agree, we get a bad deal. I would say keep reminding yourself it's oxytocin, if necessary concentrate on what you dislike about your buddy especially after sex, but if you want to get the guy on your level force them to cuddle with you afterwards  regardless of gender, physical touch/closeness releases oxytocin


But it'd increase mine, too! I'd still end up at higher levels. :I

I always hop off and shower after sex, and then I fall asleep somewhere.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Why would anyone want to avoid getting attached? Isn't that kind of the whole point of being physically intimate? If it is harder for guys to have the full emotional experience, perhaps we should be finding a way to help them feel it too, so they won't miss out.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

snail said:


> Why would anyone want to avoid getting attached? Isn't that kind of the whole point of being physically intimate? If it is harder for guys to have the full emotional experience, perhaps we should be finding a way to help them feel it too, so they won't miss out.


Good Post Snail. For once I fully agree with you.

If you don't want to get attached to a guy by sleeping with him. Try not sleeping with him. I don't want to rain down on anyone's casual sex parade (wow, got to love how that sounds, right?) but maybe it's better to be with a mechanical buddy until you find someone who's not going to leave you a blubbering mess. Or focus your testosterone to counteract it. 

Women have testosterone as well. Not as much but enough if they stimulate it... You can see where I'm going with this. Just watch for the nasty side effects.
Natural Activities That Increase Testosterone | LIVESTRONG.COM
Symptoms of High Testosterone Levels | natural-hormones.net


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

dagnytaggart said:


> I'm getting a sterilization procedure done in a few months - I'm 22 and don't want kids...ever. So much for being built like a baby factory!


Any idea how this will impact your hormone levels?



> But I'm unclear about the memory training part...does that help avoid attachment by helping you remember all your partner's flaws?


Working memory isn't like hard drive memory, it's like RAM. The more you have, the harder it is to get distracted. (One of the typical markers of ADHD is a deficiency in working memory.) Emotions distract, and can derail a logical train of thought. When facing off against hormonal challenges, you should always have a logical control drive in your working memory. While you're thinking "my hormones want to do this", you should be thinking "but my head knows this is right"




snail said:


> Why would anyone want to avoid getting attached? Isn't that kind of the whole point of being physically intimate? If it is harder for guys to have the full emotional experience, perhaps we should be finding a way to help them feel it too, so they won't miss out.


Not for everyone. Many resent getting attached through means that are not part of their conscious control. I for one prefer my higher functions to control me, not my hormones. If I get attached, it will be out of admiration and love, not oxytocin/vasopressin.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

snail said:


> Why would anyone want to avoid getting attached? Isn't that kind of the whole point of being physically intimate? If it is harder for guys to have the full emotional experience, perhaps we should be finding a way to help them feel it too, so they won't miss out.


Not to me...to me, sex exists in order to release sexually and to just get wild...lol.

Emotions are the nasty side effects I want to avoid.

@Manhattan : The procedure is called Adiana. It's not supposed to have any hormonal effects. Interesting perspective on the rationality overcoming hormones, the constant self-monitoring. But in healthy people in normal circumstances, is it possible that hormones can be too powerful for anyone to reason away? Or is it usually possible?

No, I've never been in love before. Despite being in great relationships with great people. That's why I'm so clueless about how much a grip "love" and obsession can have over someone. I'm no stranger to obsession, unfortunately, but that's only involved things/achievements. I don't ever want to become obsessed with a person.

@Elyasis : I've been lucky enough to not have gotten attached...yet. But I can't keep playing Russian Roulette, I suppose. If abstinence is the only solution...while men get to play...

Being a woman has to be a result of bad karma. I don't know how else women are stuck with such a messed up wiring.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

dagnytaggart said:


> So apparently, nature's pulled a cruel joke on women. Women release oxytocin, a hormone that facilitates bonding/emotional attachment, during sex.
> Men produce only trace amounts, and they produce even more testosterone that ends up negating it all.
> But women's estrogen amplifies oxytocin's effects, and with each time she has sex with her partner, the oxytocin release grows stronger and stronger.
> So what happens? Women get screwed over. They end up getting attached and emotionally invested in the guy, and the man is still free. The man is not emotionally bound, he is free.
> ...


as opposed to the number of men who become _financially_ and _paternally_ involved with a woman and end up getting screwed over (a la divorce)

......are you serious? this trend of women on the internet venting all over the place about how they're victimized, oppressed and how life is "SO much harder for them" is getting old. 

your man turns you on while having sex and you turn around and complain about how "unfair" it is?


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

Oxytocin doesn't turn anyone on @Swordsman of Mana it's a hormone released after the turning on (in quite large amounts). Also "your man", really? I think @dagnytaggart already mentioned the casual nature of their arrangement.

We were only talking biologically at the moment but if you want to get into the legal systems shortchanging of men in divorce proceedings... Maybe that's not exactly for this thread and should be in your own or one already made like it. I'm not arguing that here or whether or not it's "fair".

This is about the human body and the differences in the hormones of average females and average males that cause an imbalance in the relationship. One ends up needing the other more basically.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> as opposed to the number of men who become _financially_ and _paternally_ involved with a woman and end up getting screwed over (a la divorce)
> 
> ......are you serious? this trend of women on the internet venting all over the place about how they're victimized, oppressed and how life is "SO much harder for them" is getting old.
> 
> your man turns you on while having sex and you turn around and complain about how "unfair" it is?


Ok...where did I mention marrying or having anyone's kids??

And all that happens after BOTH people *willingly* commit. If 2 people are just having a FWB, the woman has no choice but to get attached.

And I'm not even bitching about the man's behavior, or anything about money/society. This is about female *biology* that puts us in a worse situation.

This is purely about the psychological damage that occurs disproportionately to women NOT because of men...but because of their own messed up bodies.

What I'm talking about is a FWB, where no one commits, and no one intends to. But the woman ends up *wanting* more, getting emotionally attached unwillingly - while the guy is free of that.

It's not the guy's fault at all. No one did anything wrong or contrary to their casual intentions, but the woman still suffers against her will because of a hormonal process that we can't get rid of.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

dagnytaggart said:


> Ok...where did I mention marrying or having anyone's kids??
> And all that happens after BOTH people *willingly* commit. If 2 people are just having a FWB, the woman has no choice but to get attached.
> And I'm not even bitching about the man's behavior, or anything about money/society. This is about female *biology* that puts us in a worse situation.
> This is purely about the psychological damage that occurs disproportionately to women NOT because of men...but because of their own messed up bodies.


exactly, it's an example of the bolded below



> ......are you serious? this trend of women on the internet venting all over the place about how they're victimized, oppressed and *how life is "SO much harder for them" is getting old.*


whatever, I think I came on a little strong for something that was only a minor annoyance. peace out, enjoy the rest of your thread


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> exactly, it's an example of the bolded below


Yet you had nothing to counter it with, except the mention of financial and family responsibilities. Guess what? Women have those too.



> whatever, I think I came on a little strong for something that was only a minor annoyance. peace out, enjoy the rest of your thread


yeah bye. You didn't contribute anything anyway.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

So, how do men fall in love...?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

dagnytaggart said:


> yeah bye. You didn't contribute anything anyway.


hmm, coming on a little strong was an understatement. looking back on my original post, I sounded like a complete ass about something I was initially intending to be shocking yet somewhat funny, guess I got a little carried away. I apologize 
-peaces out-


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

You Sir Name said:


> So, how do men fall in love...?


Not sure, since I'm not one. It seems like it's more deliberate though, a decision made purely by higher cognition and decision, as @Manhattan alluded to (correct me if wrong).


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

dagnytaggart said:


> Not sure, since I'm not one. It seems like it's more deliberate though, a decision made purely by higher cognition and decision, as @_Manhattan_ alluded to (correct me if wrong).


I've seen men "fall in love" over desperation. I know guys who haven't been single for over 2 months since they started dating because they can't stand being alone. Is desperation a higher function? I don't know, but it sounds like survival. I've also seen men hopelessly infatuated, to the point where they did not see obvious flaws everyone was pointing out that lead to the relationships end. Love can only be truly cognitive if you have a mastery towards seeing the big picture, which most people do not. That's a problem both genders face.

We should take care that we're talking about the same thing when we say "fall in love". Love and infatuation are very different. Oxytocin doesn't lead to what I would consider "love", because it is a hormonal push. Perhaps men are less likely to be infatuated, though both genders are as likely to experience actual love?


----------



## chrisu (Mar 6, 2012)

doesn't it help to KNOW it's the oxytocin? it does with me.
though i don't have sex with strangers and have no problem with being "attached" to friends (with benefits). i already like my friends a lot and the border between friendship and love is floating anyway.


----------



## Runvardh (May 17, 2011)

chrisu said:


> doesn't it help to KNOW it's the oxytocin? it does with me.
> though i don't have sex with strangers and have no problem with being "attached" to friends (with benefits). i already like my friends a lot and the border between friendship and love is floating anyway.


I wish, believe me...


----------



## Agape (Jan 22, 2012)

dagnytaggart said:


> And to people (@_Agape_ I'm looking at you) suggesting that avoiding sex is the only way....
> 
> :/
> 
> ...



I am pro-sex ...sexuality is one of the things that fascinated me the most. I am always doing some research and experiments with it ;p. So far I have learned that there is not such a thing as a free cake, there is always some consequence. There are some people that can have sex without any kind of attachment( of both genres) but there are others that usually tend to become emotional attached. I read that some people who have a longer version of a gene called V1a, that express receptors in the brain for another hormone called vasopressin, tend to be less promiscuous and mate with one partner. People with the short version are more promiscuous and less prone to make attachments to one partner. Probably you fall into the monogamy end of the spectrum...will be kind of difficult to override it. There are some sexual practices that turn sex into a bonding behavior increasing the production of oxytocin( white tantra, karezza) but that's to establish long lasting relationships. Most people are interested in strengthening the bond of their relationship but your case is curious and intrigues me. Because you don't want attachment so will be the opposite. Let's see what I can find. I am sure there must be a way, nature have some loopholes that can be used to our benefits. I have found several of them so far so I am sure there must be one for your specific needs.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

snail said:


> Why would anyone want to avoid getting attached? Isn't that kind of the whole point of being physically intimate? If it is harder for guys to have the full emotional experience, perhaps we should be finding a way to help them feel it too, so they won't miss out.


I personally have an example right now where it's a bad idea. I, for one thing, think I'm still probably a little bit in love with this one guy, right? But I've had a FWB since we quit speaking, and I've been with the FWB so long that I think I've fallen into an oxytocin trap, because I've noticed very strongly that if I stay away from him for a week or something, I don't feel much unless I'm with him again. It's because my bond to him is mainly hormonal (large age difference)...and seriously, oxytocin makes me nuts.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Jennywocky said:


> Have a baby.
> 
> The same kind of logic shows that male testosterone production drops after the female partner gives birth, making him more domesticated.
> 
> ... but really.


Yep, having a baby...I agree this is the answer. I mean, this is WHY the neurochemical reaction is so strong. It's your body's evil way of trying to get you pregnant.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Elyasis said:


> Same, only it's a gradual buildup given consistent cuddling with the same woman and time together spent happily. Kissing is also a component.
> 
> Hence why most guys avoid the kissing and cuddling if trying to be unattached. They also tend to get the fuck out of Dodge. This may be instinctual or a learned response from past experiences.


Yes, I think men who are very rational KNOW to do this when they've been hurt before and are intentionally trying to avoid attachment.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

fourtines said:


> I personally have an example right now where it's a bad idea. I, for one thing, think I'm still probably a little bit in love with this one guy, right? But I've had a FWB since we quit speaking, and I've been with the FWB so long that I think I've fallen into an oxytocin trap, because I've noticed very strongly that if I stay away from him for a week or something, I don't feel much unless I'm with him again. It's because my bond to him is mainly hormonal (large age difference)...and seriously, oxytocin makes me nuts.


You're in love with one person, but having sex with a different person?


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

fourtines said:


> Yep, having a baby...I agree this is the answer. I mean, this is WHY the neurochemical reaction is so strong. It's your body's evil way of trying to get you pregnant.


My other suggestion would be, "Don't have sex with him." ha ha!

I mean, if we're vulnerable and he's going to skip away after without a care in the world, the only way to stick it to him is to not let him stick it to us first... (wow, the puns are just rolllllling right off the fingers, aren't they? But I think I need sleep.)


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

snail said:


> You're in love with one person, but having sex with a different person?


Well, I still have lingering feelings of love (which have thankfully decreased in the past three to four months) for a person I had a much more intense MENTAL bond with. I differentiate that mental bond as being a more mature, real kind of love.

I do care about the guy I am having sex with, we are friends, but our mental bond is nowhere near as close, and that is both due to the fact that he is intentionally avoiding getting close to anyone because he got his heart smashed, and possibly due to our age difference...however, who knows, if he decided that he was capable of real intimacy we would develop a deeper mental bond.

We do have a bond, don't get me wrong. I think to say my attachment to him is ONLY hormonal is definitely exaggerating, but the kind of love I felt for the guy whom I stopped speaking to a few months ago is the kind of love I felt when I was in a six year relationship, something that is definitely not *just infatuation.*

I can't be with the first guy, so after around a month I started to move on, I mean to me that's only sane. And it's just a FWB relationship, but the longer the FWB situation goes on, the more complex it becomes, and I attribute that largely to oxytocin attachment.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

I've found a possible solution....

Poppy seed bagels.

This is only a loosely stringed-together theory of mine, but why not share it? Morphine appears to inhibit the release/effects of oxytocin - and poppies are a natural source of morphine.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

dagnytaggart said:


> I've found a possible solution....
> 
> Poppy seed bagels.
> 
> This is only a loosely stringed-together theory of mine, but why not share it? Morphine appears to inhibit the release/effects of oxytocin - and poppies are a natural source of morphine.


I think another solution besides stopping having sex altogether is to be promiscuous with different men. Which of course, can be bad for other reasons.

I mean in my FWB situation I'm seriously considering stopping it, entirely. I think simply not having sex with him may be the only way, because objectively, when I am away from him, I can think about the relationships I've had with other people, and recognize just how strong the feeling that I have for him is based in our hormonal bond.

Conversely, with the first guy I mentioned, just seeing an old picture of him sometimes is enough to make me feel like I've been punched in the stomach. 

And that's how I know the difference, that's how I know it's just oxytocin playing its evil tricks on me. 

It becomes harder and harder to resist a guy you've built an oxytocin bond with, in his presence, and the less you resist him the more the oxytocin bond increases, and ...yeah, well, you get the picture.

I don't think bagels help at that point.


----------



## LQ9 (Jul 24, 2010)

snail said:


> Why would anyone want to avoid getting attached? Isn't that kind of the whole point of being physically intimate? If it is harder for guys to have the full emotional experience, perhaps we should be finding a way to help them feel it too, so they won't miss out.


Yeah, I immediately wondered, "Why don't we find a way to get men to produce more oxytocin?"


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

dagnytaggart said:


> twoofthree said:
> 
> 
> > How not to get attached?
> ...


You quoted @_Runvardh_ then saying they feel strong oxytocin bonds during physical touch. So do I. Touch is my preferred method of expressing emotions by far. Though men experience less oxytocin, I believe they experience more vasopressin. I think that's similar. Anyway, though I also experience a huge rush from physical affection, I am able to enjoy it at the time and then compartmentalize it. It's enjoyable, but it's not exclusive. This person that I'm feeling the bond with? I can feel that with others, so I don't fool myself into thinking they possess some sort of exclusive way to make me happy. 

I believe @_twoofthree_ is right; consistently using your brain is the best method to reduce hormonal enslavement. Your consciousness is your willpower + your physiology. 

Drug addicts often have some severe deficiencies in self worth. By extension, they don't always believe they can accomplish what they need to. If they had a high self image, they wouldn't partake in something that is damaging to themselves. It's too complex an issue to discuss in a paragraph, though. Still, there may be some similarities! Being clingy is also worsened by poor self image. The more you think you can have whoever you want, the less the person in front of you seems worth committing to. Maybe a more "I can have almost whoever I want, and waiting to settle only increases my chances of a better option" approach should be selected.

As for clinical depression, you're talking about a chemical imbalance strong enough to create at least six months of severe symptoms (severe enough to be worse than dyphoria). Are you sure you want to compare butterflies to clinical depression? 



fourtines said:


> I think another solution besides stopping having sex altogether is to be promiscuous with different men. Which of course, can be bad for other reasons


That's not a bad idea. If the hormone is experienced enough and with different people, a tolerance to it's effects should develop. Maybe this can be practiced online, without any of the risks associated with sex? Perhaps you could try developing close FWB relationships with online partners and going from there? 

I've heard several times in this thread that testosterone inhibits oxytocin. T levels aren't set in stone. Encouraging sexually aggressive behaviors, encouraging competitively aggressive behaviors, and strength training increases testosterone. I suppose that if you want more masculine sexual behavior, it makes sense to put yourself into a more masculine frame of mind. (And really, we aren't balanced if we aren't some of both. Should this be as okay as it is in our society?) Compartmentalizing is also associated with masculinity. Could that be a result of testosterone, or more white matter? (while women have denser brains with more grey matter) Can such a skill be learned? When you're young, you have more neural plasticity. Try now.

Willpower and awareness are traits that can be exercised. I would not downplay their importance.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Manhattan said:


> That's not a bad idea. If the hormone is experienced enough and with different people, a tolerance to it's effects should develop.


I was joking. And, no, that's not true. You're going to bond with guys you really like. If you have sex with a couple of guys who you aren't that attracted to in an attempt to break an oxytocin bond with a guy you're totally hot for, it's just not gonna work.




> Maybe this can be practiced online, without any of the risks associated with sex? Perhaps you could try developing close FWB relationships with online partners and going from there?


What? That doesn't work. No physical contact. Sure, you get your "attention" needs met from on-line relationships, so I mean potentially you could actually be developing a REAL relationship on-line with a guy who is interested in your mind while having casual sex with one person IRL, sure.

It will help you resist the casual sex partner a little more, MAYBE. Depends on how much you like/love the on-line partner, how constant your contact is...but yeah, it isn't foolproof. 

It could work, though. You might end up with a real bf/gf with the person on-line. 

And no, I'm not interested in dulling my sexual pleasure or ability to fall in love. 

Reason and awareness are enough, thanks.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I was joking. And, no, that's not true. You're going to bond with guys you really like. If you have sex with a couple of guys who you aren't that attracted to in an attempt to break an oxytocin bond with a guy you're totally hot for, it's just not gonna work.


Obviously you'll bond with guys you like more than guys you don't. I wouldn't suggest having sex with guys you're not attracted to. However, I would suggest having sex with as many guys that you are attracted to that you find trustworthy. 



> What? That doesn't work. No physical contact. Sure, you get your "attention" needs met from on-line relationships, so I mean potentially you could actually be developing a REAL relationship on-line with a guy who is interested in your mind while having casual sex with one person IRL, sure.


I feel infatuation over people I only know online. It's not as strong as offline, but maybe that makes it a better means of practice. 



> It will help you resist the casual sex partner a little more, MAYBE. Depends on how much you like/love the on-line partner, how constant your contact is...but yeah, it isn't foolproof.


What is foolproof? Experiences can only be generalized so far anyway. 



> And no, I'm not interested in dulling my sexual pleasure or ability to fall in love.
> 
> Reason and awareness are enough, thanks.


Losing your sexual pleasure or ability to fall in love? I don't know. I enjoy oxytocin bonds as much with every partner. The hormone does no overpower me, but I do feel it's effects. Rather now I have perspective.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Manhattan said:


> I feel infatuation over people I only know online. It's not as strong as offline, but maybe that makes it a better means of practice.


I've fallen in love with someone I met on-line. HOWEVER, that's not something that happens overnight, and it's not the same thing as a physical oxytocin bond. Oxytocin is involved in any relationship bonding, but we're specifically talking about the oxytocin rush that comes from touching, making out, and sexual intercourse.

Of course, you can eventually have sexual intercourse with an on-line partner, but having several people you're infatuated with on-line is NOT the equivalent to having one person on-line who you're in love with who you talk every day with and have a close mental bond with (which takes time, and energy, and a certain level of devotion) and it's not the same as having a lover IRL.

I don't see it as the solution to the OP's problem, nor to my personal experiences.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I've fallen in love with someone I met on-line. HOWEVER, that's not something that happens overnight, and it's not the same thing as a physical oxytocin bond.


It takes longer to happen, sure. However, once it happens, it's still powerful, isn't it? Don't dismiss it too quickly.



> Of course, you can eventually have sexual intercourse with an on-line partner, but having several people you're infatuated with on-line is NOT the equivalent to having one person on-line who you're in love with who you talk every day with and have a close mental bond with (which takes time, and energy, and a certain level of devotion) and it's not the same as having a lover IRL.


I suppose that would take time. What if the online relationships lasted several years, while the in-person relationship was only a couple of months? If you feel the same bond for the in-person relationship, maybe your gameplan should be to train yourself to bond cognitively more than hormonally. Intellectually, the relationships are not equal. Intellectually, the several year online relationships have more foundation. 



> I don't see it as the solution to the OP's problem, nor to my personal experiences.


It's likely not a singular solution. The human mind is complicated, and so operates under the effect of many variables. The significance of psychological effects is very stringent compared to other disciplines. You can very rarely point to one attribute as a singular cause of an effect. Rather there are usually many causes to one effect. Keeping the above in mind, it can be concluded that though it is not a sole solution, it can still be a helpful practice. It's not too hard to imagine. Online experience is likely the best method to practice offline interactions without actually experiencing them. Why would this be any different?

Not that I want to make the internet my primary advice for reducing the effect of oxytocin bonds. It's one way to achieve control over hormones among many.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Manhattan said:


> It takes longer to happen, sure. However, once it happens, it's still powerful, isn't it? Don't dismiss it too quickly.
> 
> I suppose that would take time. What if the online relationships lasted several years, while the in-person relationship was only a couple of months? If you feel the same bond for the in-person relationship, maybe your gameplan should be to train yourself to bond cognitively more than hormonally. Intellectually, the relationships are not equal. Intellectually, the several year online relationships have more foundation.


That's what I said. I said that a very long-term relationship is different. If you have an on-line relationship that lasts for a year or more, and it's a very real emotional/mental bond, then OF COURSE it's more serious than a sexual fling that lasts a couple of months.

You're talking about having mini-affairs with several people on-line. That's not the equivalent of one long-term intense internet relationship, nor is it the equivalent of a real life affair. 





> It's likely not a singular solution. The human mind is complicated, and so operates under the effect of many variables. The significance of psychological effects is very stringent compared to other disciplines. You can very rarely point to one attribute as a singular cause of an effect. Rather there are usually many causes to one effect. Keeping the above in mind, it can be concluded that though it is not a sole solution, it can still be a helpful practice. It's not too hard to imagine. Online experience is likely the best method to practice offline interactions without actually experiencing them. Why would this be any different?


Because it's not as intense as one long-term focused on-line relationship, or a physical IRL relationship.

Have you ever had sex? Have you ever had a LTR? Or have you only had short term Internet relationships?

I'm just curious because I'm sure you'd see how they're not the same at all.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

fourtines said:


> That's what I said. I said that a very long-term relationship is different. If you have an on-line relationship that lasts for a year or more, and it's a very real emotional/mental bond, then OF COURSE it's more serious than a sexual fling that lasts a couple of months.


Right, so an online relationship can be more intense than an offline one. It just needs more time to develop. So, online relationships aren't too bad of a way to prepare yourself for the effects of offline oxytocin bonding, are they? (not that oxytocin is the end-all some are making it to be)



> That's not the equivalent of one long-term intense internet relationship, nor is it the equivalent of a real life affair.


It doesn't need to be. Several less intense encounters can be a stepping stone to more intense encounters, while still being a very enjoyable learning tool. They also do not need to be "mini-affairs". Some of my online FWBs have still not ended, though they have boyfriends and husbands. We are relief for each other when SOs are not available or desired.



> Have you ever had sex? Have you ever had a LTR? Or have you only had short term Internet relationships?
> 
> I'm just curious because I'm sure you'd see how they're not the same at all.


Sex is why I took so long in responding to this post. I'm single now, but I have FWBs. My longest relationship was 8 years. Is that long enough to be long term? You'll have to let me know. During that entire period, I felt closer to her than my FWBs. Though I was having more physical experiences with them and not her, my cognitive link to her was strong enough to make me feel powerful loyalty.

I've had my share of short term internet and offline relationships too. One was purposely short term because I knew I didn't have any long-term compatibility with the girl, but she was dying, so I let it go on until she stopped signing online. Others I did feel compatibility with, but faded for their own reasons. My point is that I've had many experiences, and so speak from a position of at least limited knowledge. If I didn't, I'd mention it as a disclaimer or not comment on the subject at all. 

And still, though I've felt bonding with flings and also those I love dearly, I have not become a mindless slave or addict to my hormones. 

I felt idiotic infatuation to my first girlfriend, though I realized that she was very flawed regardless of how positively I viewed her. From that point on, I found that my feelings were enjoyable, but not a good basis for my thoughts on an SO. Practice from that point led me to the person I am now. A person who does not give my feelings sole power over my mind.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Manhattan said:


> Right, so an online relationship can be more intense than an offline one. It just needs more time to develop. So, online relationships aren't too bad of a way to prepare yourself for the effects of offline oxytocin bonding, are they? (not that oxytocin is the end-all some are making it to be)
> 
> It doesn't need to be. Several less intense encounters can be a stepping stone to more intense encounters, while still being a very enjoyable learning tool.


It still doesn't keep you from feeling oxytocin bonds with men you're actually having sex with. It can help you learn about relationships, but it's not going to less the physical affects of oxytocin bonding.



> They also do not need to be "mini-affairs". Some of my online FWBs have still not ended, though they have boyfriends and husbands. We are relief for each other when SOs are not available or desired.


I don't even know how to respond to this. You cyber with married women? Yes, you've certainly dulled your oxytocin bonds and over rationalized them.



> Sex is why I took so long in responding to this post. I'm single now, but I have FWBs. My longest relationship was 8 years. Is that long enough to be long term? You'll have to let me know.


I'm not sure what your attitude here is about. 



> During that entire period, I felt closer to her than my FWBs. Though I was having more physical experiences with them and not her, my cognitive link to her was strong enough to make me feel powerful loyalty.


Why don't you get that I've argued already that you can be in love with someone that overpowers the oxytocin bonds of short flings? Anyone who has ever had a LTR knows that. 



> I've had my share of short term internet and offline relationships too. One was purposely short term because I knew I didn't have any long-term compatibility with the girl, but she was dying, so I let it go on until she stopped signing online.


Jesus. 




> And still, though I've felt bonding with flings and also those I love dearly, I have not become a mindless slave or addict to my hormones.


I don't know man, you seem pretty comfortable having affairs with people who are already attached to partners, and you calling actually getting attached to someone being a mindless slave?

Dude, yeah...



> I felt idiotic infatuation to my first girlfriend, though I realized that she was very flawed regardless of how positively I viewed her. From that point on, I found that my feelings were enjoyable, but not a good basis for my thoughts on an SO. Practice from that point led me to the person I am now. A person who does not give my feelings sole power over my mind.


I don't want to be the kind of person you are.


----------

