Relationships and Butterflies

This got me into research mode 'cause I found I couldn't understand one or two of the things in the original quoted piece from Shell.  In particular, I didn't understand what "persistence" meant.  So I found the original article, Gender Differences in Sexual Motivation by Janice Miller.  And I gathered from that that "persistence" meant an ongoing persistent sexual drive in men which the author is contrasting with women having a lack of sexual interest in instances in which they have "negative feelings such as disappointment or anger in a couple relationship."

Just reading through this section, I find a lot of problems with weak connections, and lack of clinical evidence (which to me has the author leaning heavily on certain assumptions of male and female behavior).  I'm reading this as a layperson though so I may be missing things--but I also seem to see some counter evidence in other studies.  Let me give some examples:

The author makes the claim that vasopressin is associated with the male sex drive, and yet this chapter from a textbook shows a chart of the effects of both vasopressin and oxytocin and claims "no known effect" for vasopressin.  In the subsequent section, only the effect of oxytocin on sexual behavior is discussed.  ("Oxytocin and Vasopressin: Genetics and Behavioral Implications" from a text on Neuralchemistry)

As far as I can tell the main role vasopressin might play would be as a vasoconstrictor--but this would effect both men and women.  

Here's what Miller says about the effect of Vasopressin on women:

“Despite the lack of direct evidence from laboratory studies, I have proposed that the central release of vasopressin may have the opposite effect on women’s sexual urges and could actively impair arousal mechanisms.”

Well there’s the obvious problem of lack of evidence there.  But what does this mean exactly—that is why would this hormone (whose primary function is in the regulation of the amount of water and salt in our body and also has to do with blood circulation and pressure)—and in this case would seem to have to do with erectile function (erections being something that both men and women have)—why would it be part of the male sex drive and inhibiting of the female, despite evidence (and actually with counterevidence that vasopressin has an effect on either).

Well because Miller is attempting to explain why women who are angry or disappointed in their relationships would have a drop in sexual interest in their partner.  And is making the further assumption that men do not have the same drop in sexual interest when angry or disappointed.

“After female rats give birth a natural increase in vasopressin is found in brain circuits, which has been linked to the neurochemistry of aggressive and hostile reactions that enable the mother to protect her offspring from danger. Most significantly, when vasopressin is artificially placed in a precise area of the female rat brain the result is an instant decline in acceptance of copulation. It is possible, therefore, that when women have negative feelings such as disappointment or anger in a couple relationship, they are secreting vasopressin in the central nervous system, which impairs sexual arousal mechanisms and thereby inhibits the motivation for sex.”

The  weak connection to me there is that aggression=anger or disappointment and that these feelings would therefore be linked to vasopressin.

And then why would men be more likely than women to ignore these negative feelings.  Physiologically it would seem to me (as vasoconstrictors) they would be functioning in the same way.  Behaviorally can one conclude from this that men’s sexuality is naturally more aggressive—I don’t think one can if the physiology is the same—it seems to me the main basis of the behavior there is cultural.  (And this doesn’t get into the whole chicken/egg question of culture/physical cause—but there’s an interesting article here—Pink Brain/Blue Brain—which claims that some physical gender differences may be being caused by culture).

Finally—here’s the only evidence I see that Miller uses in regard to the male aggression claim: “Sex and aggression circuits are in close proximity in the brain of male rodents, and boys often become more territorial and hostile in their teenage years.”

Just a few other random things:

According to the textbook I cited above, vasopressin has an influence on social recognition—our ability to tell which people we are and aren’t familiar with.

And this was another Prairie Vole study which found that both Oxytocin and Vasopressin influenced partner preference in both males and females with a slightly greater effect (both) on males.  And one further note that I make in reference to use of language and assumptions—it seems that in these studies “partner preference” means selecting a known over an unknown partner.  This selection process is then used as evidence of monogamy.  I don’t think it’s the same.

Two Wolves

An old Cherokee chief is teaching his grandson about life:
 
"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves.
 
"One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt, and ego.
 
"The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.
 
"This same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."
 
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"
 
The old chief simply replied, "The one you feed."
 

DL--I agree that human beings do have the ability to interrupt the immediate stimulus-response, cause and effect with choice and that this choice is made by the self. My question about free will comes in not with the ability to choose--for example to me it doesn't make sense to say that our choices are completely determined because then there would be no difference between a choice that I make that is coerced and one that is not coerced--but with the definition of what the self and the will are. I think all those factors--the genetic, psychic, and environmental--go into making the "I" and some of them are not subject to conscious control. We can change the "I" by changing those factors--primarily the environmental ones I suppose, but we can also deal with relearning some of what we learned at young ages, and even change biological/genetic determinants. I see the work on making those changes to be part of that middle term "[Choice]" as well--work on making more emotionally intelligent choices. But that "I' and our "will" is not free in the sense of snapping our fingers and erasing those past determinants because we don't like them. I think to some extent they will always be with us. Also because the "I" and "will" are, I think, always being newly constructed by our relationships with others I don't see them as being completely under the individual's control (actually you may be suggesting this yourself in the butterfly charts below). To me it's this lack of free will rather than the existence of free will which necessitates forgiveness.

Heh, I've just realized DL that I'm kind of rehashing the conversation we had in the Free Will post--D'Oh!

  It's why I keep on talking.  Oh well - it's only a soliloquy if no one else says anything .... and that's not *my* choice.  Heh.

Definition of self and will...

But that "I' and our "will" is not free in the sense of snapping our fingers and erasing those past determinants because we don't like them. I think to some extent they will always be with us.

I think this is true, but I'm not sure to what extent.  There is always a cost for change but you're right - the change itself will always be governed by who we are to begin with.   I think you have the capability to reinvent yourself if there is enough energy put into that change.  Such as - my family raised me to eat meat.  I liked it, it was tasty.  I thought about the moral issues involved with this, and did not have a problem with it (still don't) - I tried to approach it in the same way as the Native Americans did - with thankfulness for the sacrifice of a life etc.  There were several forces in my life that lead me to consider vegetarianism.  There is a point where another person with the strength you're lacking can help you change.  The final pivot point for me - was in having to cook on a regular basis for someone who had allergies to all animal products.  It was not only all those other reasons I'd thought of and valued, but at that point in my life became also more convienient for me to be one - there was a social reason to go forward with these ideals.  It took a lot to deal with the change... but in the end, right now - I don't think I could ever go back to the way I used to eat - I have no desire.  I don't even crave that food anymore because I found a different way to meet my nutritional requirements.  It's been 15 years - me eating vegan (not counting the sporadic stuff).

There is a healthy way to approach every conflict.  I think the way I look at it - is that everyone has a special purpose on this earth.  They are part of the natural order - or God... however you might want to state it.  If you change because you are responding/reacting to fear, I think that's a destructive force and the wrong way to approach it.  Anything I've changed that way in my life simply doesn't stick.

 ...because the "I" and "will" are, I think, always being newly constructed by our relationships with others I don't see them as being completely under the individual's control ... To me it's this lack of free will rather than the existence of free will which necessitates forgiveness. 

I'm not sure if I'm getting your point completely, but personally I would not equate what you state above to a lack of free will - it's more the inability to control. I think it's important to note that I have a choice in whether I let a particular relationship change me.  An obstacle is always both an impediment, and at the same time a tool for growth.

Forgiveness to me, is me consciously thinking of, respecting, and even cherishing the differences that shaped the human being I'm interacting with.  It's about not placing my experience, genetics, or environment as more important than theirs or to be held at a higher level of respect.  It's a reminder to me that we are all always at the same time both a teacher and a student.

DL I completely agree with what you said about reinventing oneself. As far as past determinants--in examining myself over the years I think there are things from my upbringing that are sources of strength and I wouldn't want to change them. There are other things that I would identify more with sources of fear and anger though and I would love to be rid of them. I work on diminishing their effects and they are a tiny part of who I am now compared to who I was years ago. I don't know that I can imagine some future where they'd be gone altogther though.

On your second point--I'm not sure if we disagree here or are just defining things differently. To me the definition of "free will" is that the will is completely undetermined by either the past or by present circumstances. Whereas I think my will is shaped by past and present circumstances which includes my relationships with others.

I've found that the times that I have not been able to change completely in some way that I want - there is a part of me that is holding onto something that is keeping me from changing.

Take the vegetarian thing for me - because craving/liking meat was one of those things about me that I never imagined would ever be fully gone... and yet now, I'm surprised to say that it is.  There were all sorts of factors involved that I had to overcome:

Physical - Cravings for meat when my body needed iron.  Not being able to "not make the choice to be aware of this stuff " was a physical reality I had to come to accept because an obstacle entered into my physical reality.  Becoming physically exhausted sorting through propaganda and nutritional literature from both sides of a political issue.  Dealing with physical discussions with other people challenging my own personal choice.

Emotional - Positive feelings I associated with eating meat - traditions I liked such as Thanksgiving that I didn't want to give up because I equated them with family and positive things.  Loving the camaraderie I felt when I would cook out with friends.  Emotionally not wanting to feel like I was an outcast because I didn't participate in these social rituals.  Emotional distress early on when I didn't have all the answers just yet or when someone else responded negatively to this change I was going through.  Dealing with my anger when people didn't respect my personal choice.

Mental - Knowing what was going on with my body and my emotions at any time.  Having to search for the resources I needed to make the change.

Spiritual - Very little to deal with here - as I said above.

The physical stuff was hard - but mentally I was up to the challenge of that.  What I wasn't aware of/ready for were the emotional issues lurking around.  Changing emotions can be hard - because they just happen. 

I would get extremely sad around Thanksgiving and for years I just didn't connect as to why.  My family did not accept this change in me.  They tried to influence my choice and put a lot of social pressure on me not to go forward with what I wanted.  When I realized this was where my sad feelings were coming from - I got angry.  Thanksgiving was supposed to be about family to me and they were withholding these positive things that I wanted because they didn't want to deal with my choice.  There was a grieving process before I finally came to acceptance.  Their opinions haven't changed, but I am able to consciously acknowledge that this isn't their choice to make, it's mine - and I'm consciously accepting the obstacles that come with this choice.  I've created new personal traditions and have found that sense of "family" that I wanted at that holiday.  It took all of that before I stopped wanting the meat I connected with all of it.

When you don't realize where your feelings are coming from - it seems like you are held helpless to them.  Once we learn things - they become internalized and to change them sometimes there is digging to uncover the root of it.  Now that I'm able to identify what is going on with me - my feelings have actually changed as well.  I get angry a lot less because I understand a little bit more why family is challenging me - because in a way I think they are missing me participating in that ritual they associated with these positive feelings.  I am able to address this in other ways - I support their emotions when I can, by showing my family camaraderie in other ways when I am around.  Things are very slowly changing between us and their coming to accept my differences more easily as time goes on.

Even that is a little oversimplified, but hopefully gives you the big picture of where I'm coming from.

The "I" - Yes, I was thinking the same thing - and wished I'd put it in more simple terms.  In order to reinvent yourself - my point is that you have to want to change in order for it to work.  I'm going to throw out something sort of vague here - because  I like the way it feels:

I become what I desire.

"Free will'

When I'm bad at hashing out definitions like this - I always refer back to the dictionary for common ground (because I'm confused still too if we agree or not...)

Definitions for free will:

The definitions seem slightly different - and subtlely contradictory at first glance.  I'm gonna go back to kindergarten here so I can try to understand this - pardon me for thinking out loud...

I want to walk to the other side of the room.  I prefer to walk in a straight line, but there is a chair in my way.  You could say that the chair is a physical obstacle inhibiting your choice to walk in a straight line, because (let's say you can't walk over it) the presence of the chair prevents you from walking in a straight line.

But what I am saying is that the chair is not keeping me from making a voluntary choice - it is presenting more choices (regardless how it got there or when).  I can still voluntarily walk around it and it's still my choice - even if I don't like the choice presented to me.  The only difference is that I'm not fighting or questioning the reason the chair is in my path to begin with.  There is no person or entity holding me back from deciding what I want to do - from choosing.  Free will means to me that I'm still at liberty to choose.

I think the congruence and combination of the 2 definitions comes down to vountary choice - not voluntary circumstances.

That is why I think coersion - taking away someone's voluntary choice is about the worst thing anyone could ever do.   The degree to which this coersion manifests itself physically marks how extreme the violation.  If someone is killed - it's pretty final that they are not at liberty to choose again.  If a woman is raped and she gets pregnant - she still has a choice, but that choice to be pregnant still involves another life - and the decision she makes about that life will keep her from allowing that child to be at liberty to choose.  It's a harder decision.  Anyone listening here - please note this is a simplistic example and not a full out debate on abortion. 

I think too many people (speaking generally here) spend too much time trying to blame a circumstance, another person - or even God - for the choices they have to make in situations like that.  People in the name of justice take liberty in distancing themselves from the humanity of others - and often villify them because of the circumstances they've brought about.  They look at the rapist and see a devil - not a human being that is like them.  They don't wonder about the environment, genetics or social pressure that influenced this person's behavior.  It seems like their scared to confront in themselves they they too could become a person like this - under different circumstances.

The only devils in this world are those running around inside our own hearts, and that is where all our battles should be fought.
~ Mahatma Gandhi

I found some interesting research being done on the area of the brain where choice might reside and how it might interrupt the path between stimulus-->response. Also found some articles on the philosophical/moral implications of the research, especially in regard to how we treat/punish wrong-doers.

One of the articles discussing the philosophical implications written by Patricia Churchland (interesting name, eh?) argues against the strong reading of "free will" that I was talking about below: "A rigid philosophical tradition claims that no choice is free unless it is uncaused; that is, unless the 'will' is exercised independently of all causal influences - in a causal vacuum. In some unexplained fashion, the will - a thing that allegedly stands aloof from brain-based causality - makes an unconstrained choice. The problem is that choices are made by brains, and brains operate causally; that is, they go from one state to the next as a function of antecedent conditions." The complete article is here--The Big Questions: Do We Have Free Will.

An article on the scientific research of choice/control being located in the frontal lobes: Scientists Spot Brain's Free Will Center. Possible confusion of terminology here is that in this article the author is referring to the "free will center" of the brain, whereas Churchland calls this same function "self-control" rather than free will (as she is using that strict philosophical definition).

This book written by Keith Stanovich also looks intriguing. It is written in response to Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene and argues against the idea that we are "survival machines" or robots programmed to ensure the replication of our genes. Stanovich argues that the analytic capacity in human beings has the power to override those more basic survival mechanisms: The Robot's Rebellion.

RE:  Scientists Spot Brain's Free Will Center
I found a similar article that describes an experiment they used to determine this.

Physiology of a choice -
We make decisions on incomplete information. In this study they could not pin down exactly what a belief is - as correlated to a specific brain function.

They were able to map the cognitive states when a subject made a choice on a belief vs an operant understanding of a task.They found a different area of the brain was affected when we make a choice based on either of these.

This leaves the question open to me - what is in "control" of this choice.

Big Questions article

This article brings up good points about how our physiology can limit our choice, but are we slaves to the physical world? We are more than physical beings.

When considering the definition of free will I remember thinging to myself that in order to make a "free will" choice under what you name as the strict philosophical definition - that (in my example) the chair couldn't exist  - but then the floor couldn't exist either, nor a wall etc.  I didn't really at that time apply it to the self is well, but logically speaking for that defintion to be used it seems that the physical world couldn't exist at all... you and your brain included. Perhaps those using this definition use this as an arguement that humans are enslaved by the God who created us to exist in this physical world.  This probably begs the question "do we exist without a body" - but again in that instance - the very thing that would define existence in say a "spiritual world" would be constrained by the things that define it... thus restricting any choice to the existence of that world... ad infinitum.  In other words, it would seem that the concept of free will can't exist in any state where the condition of existence is defined when you think of it that way.  Even speaking in the physical realm, it seems absurd to say a dog doesn't have the free will to become a cat.   I find it more valuable to allow the definition of self to exist... especially if we are discussing free will of the self.

Maybe we are looking at the question of free will all wrong if we focus on only one realm of existence in determining what we "can or can't do" or whether the choice is "free".   I think we have to consider the physical, mental, emotional, and spriritual planes in which a human exists to even know what the definition of choice is.

We are not slaves to the physical... and even when you look at the physiology of the brain.

Science is showing us that our thoughts have an affect on our physical matter - and indeed can change the physiology of the brain itself.

Can our minds change our brains?

"logically speaking for that defintion to be used it seems that the physical world couldn't exist at all... you and your brain included."

Yes--that's an excellent reductio absurdum of that definition. I think the definition does originate in a world view that sees the physcial world as in some ways less real than an idealized spiritual world--whether in Plato's world of idealized forms or the idea of an afterlife in which the soul--trapped in and separable from the body--can finally exist in its proper and immaterial form.

The Big Questions Article--I did see her talking about how physiology limits choice yes, but also how it gives us choice. That the development of the frontal lobes in humans means we don't have to behave impulsively or just in a behavioristic fashion.

"I think we have to consider the physical, mental, emotional, and spriritual planes in which a human exists to even know what the definition of choice is."

Agreed that we have to consider those four planes--what I'm uncertain of (and this to me is probably the big question) is how separable are they. I know I'm describing different things about myself in using those words but my sense is that none of them exist on their own or detachable from the others.

I also completely believe in that neuroplasticity cited in the last article. That's one of the most important reasons that I don't believe in an unchanging, unified, transcendent version of self. In various ways, I probably put a lot of effort into the kinds of mind work the article touches on. My question again is though is "mind" something without physical cause? Even if it does have physical cause I'm not sure I would describe that as being a slave to the physical. I think it still allows for change and for choice.

Picked up a book at the bookstore today which pretty much fell open to a passage on how mind/body dualism is a category error--and it clarified things very much for me.

"It seems to me that the dualist theory falls into the trap of seeking a substance (the mind) to explain what is really an abstract concept, not an object...The fact that a concept is abstract rather than substantial does not render it somehow unreal or illusory...The fundamental error of dualism is to treat body and soul as rather like two sides of a coin, whereas they belong to totally different categories..." The author goes on to make the analogy of the body being hardware and the mind software. The book is God and the New Physics by Paul Davies--who the GC posted a link to an article about in the Science section here: Davies.

My opinion is that all 4 planes exist intrinsically... and that you can't really separate them and have anything meaningful in relation to the things we are talking about.

To explain a parallel in only physical terms - you couldn't take my right arm off of my body and parade it around to be equal to "me" as a person.

All of the intrinsic needs of a human being together make a "soul".

"Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to suffering." 
~ Yoda

The answer to Yoda's quandary:

Keep your thoughts positive because your thoughts become your words.
Keep your words positive because your words become your behaviors.
Keep your behaviors positive because your behaviors become your habits.
Keep your habits positive because your habits become your values.
Keep your values positive because your values become your destiny.
~ Mahatma Gandhi

In talking about the 4 words for love used in the Greek language, it dawned on me that this was the problem in describing love in our conversations here as well.  It made me wonder whether the terms could be applied to the Katerpillar Chart.  It seemed to have a pretty close correlation:

Eros:  Physical (affection/sex)
No Interest ------Interest ------ Desire

Phileo:  Emotional (love)
No Interest ------Interest ------ Desire

Stergo:  Mental (collegues)
No Interest ------Interest ------ Desire

Agape:  Spiritual (kindred souls)
No Interest ------Interest ------ Desire 

It was a little difficult to assign the spiritual and mental, but my reasoning for the choice is this:

I assigned Stergo to "Mental" because it's contextual, logical...
It is the Greek word for love based a natural bond... out of a set connection or context, familiarity such as the Partner Attachment article - our biologic need for attachment.

Agape was assigned to "Spiritual" because is deals with our choices based on our moral standards or values.  It can be "good" or "bad"; in accord with "God's law" or "man's law" etc.

The Greek definitions are slightly different than how I used the chart, and almost seem to define the term of love based on the hormonal process in action for a given state.

I heard about the couple in Canada that were about to be wed and found out they were actually siblings and it got me thinking about all of this relationship stuff again.

I think it's definitely the "Stergo" contextual kind of love that prevents a person from engaging in this type of behavior and as adoptees these kids didn't have that.  It was interesting to note that they mentioned feeling a very strong bond when they first met... wonder what that was...

Anyway - came across an interesting article on the scientific aspect of all of this:

I think there is the strong genetic component, but I also wonder if there is a social/cultural one that helps explain why even unrelated children who are raised together feel that incest taboo.  The social/cultural reason would be that mating exogamously would establish bonds with another kinship group--maybe making both groups more likely to survive and thus reinforcing the taboo genetically.

So--I have one sib--a brother.  And somehow the patterning part of my brain said--Adult Male & Female=Child Male & Female--so that must mean that I'm supposed to marry my brother (I was 5).  When I told my Dad this, he gave me the same genetic reasons against incest cited in this article.  To which I replied...well, we'll adopt.  Luckily, this attitude did not persist.

Hmm... interesting. I agree with what you put up there.

I read that Stergo and Ero are different than the other two - that they correspond with the 'strings attached' where as Agape and Phileo does not.

But dang, good eye... didn't even cross my mind to apply those to the "Katerpillar" chart.

(It was one big research article...) 

The psychological literature distinguishes between emotions (affective states of feeling) and motivations (brain systems oriented around the planning and pursuit of a specific want or need).

Aron has proposed that romantic love is not primarily an emotion, but a motivation system designed to enable suitors to build and maintain an intimate relationship with a preferred mating partner (Aron & Aron 1991; Aron et al. 1995).

In fact, these findings suggest that romantic love is a primary motivation system, a fundamental human mating drive (Fisher 2004). Pfaff (1999) defines a drive as a neural state that energizes and directs behaviour to acquire a particular biological need to survive or reproduce and he reports that all drives are associated with the activity of dopaminergic pathways and a few other specific neural systems (as well as other neural systems specific to each individual drive state).
Romantic love has many characteristics in common with drives (Fisher 2004).
(i) Like drives, romantic love is tenacious and emotions ebb and flow,
(ii) romantic love is focused on a specific reward and emotions are associated with a range of phenomena instead,
(iii) romantic love is not associated with a distinct facial expression and the primary emotions are all associated with specific facial expressions,
(iv) romantic love is difficult to control and all of the basic drives are difficult to control, and
(v) human romantic love and mammalian courtship attraction are associated with dopamine-rich neural regions and all the basic drives are also associated with dopaminergic pathways.

Drives lie along a continuum. Thirst is almost impossible to control, while the sex drive can be redirected, even quelled.

Romantic love is evidently stronger than the sex drive because when one’s sexual overtures are rejected, people do not kill
themselves or someone else.  Instead, abandoned lovers sometimes stalk, commit suicide or homicide or fall into a clinical depression.

The points to consider in any prospective choice fall within meeting the basic human needs in these 4 categories - Physical, Emotional, Mental, Spiritual. 
These points apply both to the individual as well as the society at large:

INDIVIDUAL NEEDS             SOCIETAL NEEDS

Physical                            Physical

Emotional                          Emotional

Mental                              Mental

Spiritual                            Spiritual

The problem:

Sometimes there is disagreement between an individual's needs and the needs of society.

Resolution of a choice (choice to action):
Our choices to act will depend on how we choose to address the conflict created by differences in those needs. The solution will depend upon where the conflict of needs falls.  
Resolution of this conflict relies on our own abilities and strengths as an individual (what we can handle) as well as the abilities and strengths of the society.

There may be more than one solution given all that.

Take the previous post and apply it to this.
A permanent relationship with another individual introduces a new dynamic. 
Their choice to make a permanent bond presents the same challenges as the individual/society model, but on an individual/individual level.

INDIVIDUAL A NEEDS           INDIVIDUAL B NEEDS

Physical                            Physical

Emotional                          Emotional

Mental                              Mental

Spiritual                            Spiritual

The balance is equally complicated when there is a conflict.

BUT It's incrementally moreso because the relationship does not exist "in a vacuum" and itself becomes another entity of its own in the eyes of society. 
It is a "subgroup" of individuals - so to speak, which is presented in almost the same way as an individual is to society.
The balancing act for this subgroup of people will need to include all these factors:

INDIVIDUAL A's NEEDS        INDIVIDUAL B's NEEDS        AB RELATIONSHIP NEEDS    SOCIETAL NEEDS

Physical                            Physical                            Physical                            Physical

Emotional                          Emotional                          Emotional                          Emotional

Mental                              Mental                              Mental                              Mental

Spiritual                            Spiritual                            Spiritual                            Spiritual

The point:
The more people you add to a permanent bond that affects your decision making process, the more complicated it gets.
Any choice is easier if there are fewer differences between the factions in all of this.

This is a summary of information I found in this cool research article:

Courtship attraction has traditionally lumped the human motivation/emotion system together with the sex drive. However, there are exceptions.

A distinction between the sex drive and the courtship attraction shows that the occurrence of copulation depended as much on individual affinities and aversions as upon the presence or absence of sex hormones and that proceptive and receptive behaviour in the female may depend upon different anatomical and neurochemical systems in the brain.

One example of this would be a study that distinguished between ‘cold choosers’, such as insects that become attracted to ornamental displays without any sensation of pleasure, and ‘hot choosers’, animals whose choice of mates is directed by subjective feelings of pleasure; and he proposed that the endorphins may be involved in the mate choices of hot choosers.

It was proposed that courtship entails a sequence of choices, each requiring different mechanisms, and sex hormones may not have any specific role in the establishment and expression of mating preferences.

One study proposes that romantic love is not primarily an emotion, but a motivation system designed to enable suitors to build and maintain an intimate relationship with a preferred mating partner.
 
Available literature suggests that at least three distinct, yet interrelated neural systems play a role in reproduction: the sex drive, courtship attraction and partner attachment.
Each of these motivation/emotion systems is associated with a different behavioural repertoire, each is associated with a different and dynamic constellation of neural correlates and each evolved to direct a different aspect of reproduction.

More investigations need to be made to understand the flexibility, variability and durability of this neural mechanism for mate choice, romantic love.
 
We expect that human romantic love will be found to engage a wide range of varying, overlapping and dynamic brain systems, as would be appropriate of a multi-faceted phenomenon that has significant social, reproductive and genetic consequences. Nevertheless, the primary neural correlates associated with intense, early-stage romantic love are likely to remain similar across individuals and cultures, even among species,because this neural mechanism evolved to direct a crucial aspect of mammalian reproduction, mate choice.

Keeping in mind that we are more than our biology...  Underlying biologic need for attachment as observed in animals:
Partner attachment, or pairbonding, in birds and mammals is characterized by mutual territory defence and/or nest building, mutual feeding and grooming, maintenance of close proximity, separation anxiety, shared parental chores and affiliative behaviours.
The ethological literature commonly infers that this constellation of attachment behaviours associated with pairbonding evolved primarily to motivate mating partners to sustain an affiliative connection long enough to complete species-specific parental duties.

This parental attachment system has been proposed that, to promote survival of the young, primates have evolved an innate attachment system designed to motivate infants to seek comfort and safety from their primary caregiver, generally their mother.  More recently, researchers have emphasized that this attachment system remains active throughout their life and serves as a foundation for attachment between spouses as they raise children (Hazan & Shaver 1987; Hazan & Diamond 2000).

Data from the Demographic Yearbooks of the United Nations on 97 societies suggest the prevalence of this attachment system in humans. Approximately 93.1% of women and 91.8%of men marry by age 49 (Fisher 1992).
Pairbonding and attachment behaviours are central aspects of the multi-part human reproductive strategy (Fisher 1992).

Since it's obvious that this attachment is not indicative of the relationship - it's seen with parent/children as well as the spousal... I believe the reproductive applications would be applied in general to the human race - as that circumstance which evolved to promote the survival of the species - not an individual's need to reproduce specifically.

Hatfield (1988) refers to feelings of attachment as companionate love, which she defines as ‘a feeling of happy togetherness with someone whose life has become deeply entwined with yours’. Extensive research has been done on this attachment system in adults (Fraley & Shaver 2000), but this literature does not regularly distinguish between feelings of attachment and feelings of romantic love (Aron et al. 2006).

Current brain imaging investigations in humans and animal studies indicate some of the neural correlates of this attachment mechanism. These data also suggest that the neural correlates for attachment are distinct from those for early-stage intense romantic love in humans and courtship attraction in other mammalian species, yet these two brain systems interact.

This is how most people - including this study define "romantic love", by identifying it with its associated traits in today's culture:

Intense romantic love is a cross-cultural universal or near universal. Moreover, romantic love is associated with a specific set of physiological, psychological and behavioural traits.  Most of these traits are also characteristic of mammalian courtship attraction, including increased energy, focused attention, obsessive following, affiliative gestures, possessive mate guarding, goal-oriented behaviours and motivation to win a preferred mating partner.

The Pursuit
Romantic love begins as an individual starts to regard another individual as special and unique.
The lover then focuses his/her attention on the beloved, aggrandizing the beloved’s worthy traits and overlooking or minimizing his/her flaws.
The lover expresses increased energy, ecstasy when the love affair is going well and mood swings into despair during times of adversity.
Adversity and barriers heighten romantic passion, what has been referred to as ‘frustration attraction’ (Fisher 2004).
The lover suffers ‘separation anxiety’ when apart from the beloved and a host of sympathetic nervous system reactions when with the beloved, including sweating and a pounding heart.

Lovers (not necessarily involved sexually) are emotionally dependent; they change their priorities and daily habits to remain in contact with and/or impress the beloved. Smitten humans also exhibit empathy for the beloved; many are willing to sacrifice, even die for this ‘special’ other.

This can move over to sexual desire - as these needs overlap with the "mate choice" decision, but I feel the need to point out this was not always culturally the case.  These behaviors they observe I see as intrinsically tied to the social context of that choice:
...that the lover expresses sexual desire for the beloved, as well as intense sexual possessiveness, and associate it with mate guarding behavior observed in animal study.

Our culture today teaches that when we have these feelings for someone, that the sexual desire must follow.  However desires, like goals can be superceded or changed.

The study makes the point that the lover’s craving for emotional union supersedes his/her craving for sexual union with the beloved. I think this is important to note and why prior to the 50's in America, both sexes had many "romantic partners' that were not necessarily related to sexual desire.
The most characteristic behavior they list is that the lover thinks obsessively about the beloved, and they call it ‘intrusive thinking’.

I think humans are predisposed to form families and clans and a social culture in order to build upon strenths of many people and ensure a cultural diversity in order to survive.  I call romantic love a healthy, deep and natural care that we have for people that we find valuable to us in any way - emotionally/spiritually/mentally/physically.  They are people we become attached to ... and I think it is possible to have many deep attachments - none of which override the choice of the type of relationship (sexual or not) that we choose have with these people.

DL, I got a bit confused toward the end of what you were saying above because you are referring to the feeling we have toward those we become attached to as "romantic love"--nothing wrong with that, it's just different from the distinction Fisher was making between romantic and companionate love (I think). In fact what she's calling companionate love (the attachment kind) she says has a negative chemical relationship with romance, and it's probably a good thing that it does because some of those features listed in "The Pursuit" or that kind of obsessive thinking about the beloved "intrusive thinking"--it would be hard to maintain those feelings and go about day-to-day life (for instance, raising kids).

I agree with you though--we can have deep attachments (with all kinds of combinations of those four planes coming into play) for all the valuable people in our lives. I think what people in our culture especially have trouble with is that we are raised with the idea that we need the constant "high" of romance. And when the high goes away, the person interprets this as something "wrong" with the marriage so that the partners have to work on maintaining that level or leave the marriage when they feel that high for someone else.

One last thing in Fisher's article--she uses this quotation to introduce the section on "male-female attachment": "So we grew together,/Like to a double cherry,/seeming parted,/But yet a union in partition;/Two lovely berries moulded on one stem" -- but actually that quotation is about two women's attachment for each other.

Right... this is the only point where I digress from the article really... that's probably why I lost you there.
I did have issue with a few of her conclusions/definitions... which I think were correlating animal studies to human behavior and attempting to ascertain a cause/effect type of relationship with the physiology researched.

Sexual attraction as she studied it - is a feeling.
Love as she studied it, is not a feeling it is a choice (specifically choice of a life partner).  Romantic or Compassionate notwithstanding- to me these are degrees of the same thing.
Companionate love seems to me to be an extention or the next step of romantic love - the only difference is the willing inclusion (a choice) into one's family/tribe.

Feelings are definitely involved with all of it.  I also think both romantic love and companionate love were described in the study as having a level of "attachment" - a feeling... and I do think this feeling of attachment is a defining quality involved in the choice to love.  There are healthy ways and unhealthy ways to address this feeling for both types of love. 

I think "to be possessive sexually" is a behavior choice in response to feelings/environment and should not be in the definition of romantic love.  She seems to contradict herself here by doing this - in essence her research says that emotions and choice (goal setting behaviors) are separate, but then she defines romantic love as a slave to the physiology (sexual attraction) she's researching.  A choice involves all areas of a person mental/spiritual/emotional/physical - these are some of the areas that she noted needed further research in studying human behavior.

I do not believe that either romantic love or companionate love will always lead to sexual/physical attraction/desire.
I think the tendency to define romantic love to include sexual desire is a measure of a cultural norm of behavior, not a cause/effect of the chemistry of a personal choice.

I see what you're saying--that is a flaw in her argument because at some points she's distinguishing between romantic love and sexual attraction but when she discusses any of the negative aspects of romantic love she sees it as a slave to physiology--and therefore needing to be given up for the more mature companionate love. Instead, what I think you're saying, (and I would agree with) is that the positive side of romantic love is that attachment which is a step toward the choice one makes to welcoming someone into one's family/tribe.

And I think it makes sense to think of both (romantic and companionate) as having healthy and unhealthy forms of attachment, instead of seeing romance as the negative and companionate as the positive. There certainly are unhealthy forms of that companionate attachment--I've seen them.

I like the way you define it too because of your emphasis on choice. When talking about romance people tend to present the feelings as overriding any ability to make choices, and I don't think that's true at all.

More from this study: 

However, cross-cultural and historical data indicate that people in other societies and centuries do distinguish between feelings of romantic love and attachment.

Nisa, a !Kung Bushman woman of the Kalahari Desert, Botswana, reported, ‘When two people are first together, their hearts are on fire and their passion is very great. After a while, the fire cools and that’s how it stays. They continue to love each other, but it’s in a different way–-warm and dependable’ (Shostak 1981).

The Taita of Kenya say that love comes in two forms, an irresistible longing, a ‘kind of sickness’, and a deep enduring affection for another (Bell 1995).

In Korea, ‘sarang’ is a word close to the western concept of romantic love, while ‘chong’ is more like feelings of long-term attachment;

Abigail Adams, wife of America’s  second president, distinguished these feelings when writing to John Adams in 1793, ‘Years subdue the ardor of passion, but in lieu thereof friendship and affection deep-rooted subsists, which defies the ravages of time’ (McCullough 2001).  <--- Here's your quote Jaz

I was teaching this today and two things came up that I thought were problematic. One was Fisher's statement that there's a relationship between the sex drive and making and keeping friends.  I wouldn't think that that would be the correspondence--I would think it was romance that corresponded to making friends as it's designed to select people we feel a kinship with whereas the sex drive is much less about selection.

The other thing--and this came out of discussion not from the article itself--is that students brought up the idea which they said they had learned in psychology classes that evolution designs men to be polygamous and women to be monogamous because polygamous men have more chance of passing on their genes through having children with multiple partners whereas women need the support of a mate in order to ensure their child survives. I've heard this idea before but it has never made sense to me. I mean if men are being polygamous aren't they being polygamous with women (who therefore wouldn't have the monogamous mate they are supposed to have according to the theory) and conversely if women are passing on their genes by having a monogamous mate--then wouldn't this monogamous mate also have his genetic material passed on? And then of course there are assumptions like the fact that in these scenarios the social unit is always a mother/father/children--that kind of nuclear family is actually a pretty recent structure isn't it?