communismkills:

I like how everyone questioning the science behind women and oxytocin levels shut up once I linked to a few websites.

It’s true: a woman bonds with a man during orgasm in a way a man does not bond with a woman. A woman bonds with her baby in a multitude of ways during childbirth and bearing that a man does not do.

So, feminists should really just shut up when they’re talking about “gender roles” and how they need to be destroyed and that “women can achieve empowerment through sleeping around”. As I said in this earlier post:

Poly-amory is not conducive to a life-long commitment; in fact, it’s a commitment not to be committed. It’s a commitment to not be committed and not to ever expect commitment. I have no idea how anyone can thrive actually being “in love” with someone under those circumstances. You’re only fooling yourself—and, as many girls do when they go in to friends with benefits relationships, they think they can make the guy fall for them and never want to be with anyone else, so they’ll consent to sleeping around secretly pining for the guy. It never works. Movies lie. A girl might claim she’s okay with it, but deep down, she really isn’t. She never can be. It’s scientifically infeasible.

Women grow attached to men, especially during sex when the oxytocin is released during orgasm. It’s supposed to be a bonding experience—and if you’re not emotionally bonded with the man who you are sleeping with, it’s going to force you to become emotionally bonded with him, and your brain will just simply connect those neurons later on until you manifest affection towards the man. Poly-amory is simply the worst possible scenario for a woman to be involved in. A man is supposed to spread his seed—a woman is supposed to gestate, with one man, for nine months. A woman produces this same oxytocin hormone when she is going through childbirth, which fosters the bond between mother and child even stronger than the pregnancy.

Therefore…

The nuclear family has existed for so long for reasons other than religion.

Children thrive best in households in which there is a man and a woman. A mother nurtures the child (which a man is incapable of doing especially in the sense of lactating and the bonds created through pregnancy and childbirth—the first formidable years), while the relationship with the father instills values and personality traits. It is really no shocker that children born in to single-mother homes are the most likely to be criminals, mentally disturbed, or the like. Children born in to families that are divorced, or with a deadbeat father, have the same reaction.

A traditional, nuclear family is best able to suit the needs of a child economically and emotionally. With the mother as the nurturing care-taker and the father as the breadwinner and disciplinarian, each individual has a set role. In a single-mother or single-father household, there is an inevitable shortage, which leads to problems. If there is a shortage of income, the family must rely on government assistance. If there is a shortage of nurturing, and especially discipline, the child will lack critical emotional development. It’s simply not possible to wear hundreds of hats at once.

So, before you go and rant about how “alternative lifestyles” work, you obviously cannot see the unintended consequences of your lifestyle choices without hindsight.

So, lots of responses were already given, but I’m just going to discuss Oxytocin here for a bit, as simply as a could. I remember a lot of the neuroendocrinology lectures from my Biochemistry class anyway, so why not? 

Oxytocin is a peptide hormone of 9 amino acids. It’s secreted from the posterior lobe of the pituitary gland, which an endocrine gland located at the base on your skull, protruding from your hypothalamus. Now, that we know what it is, let’s discuss what it does.

It’s responsible for what they call “motherly impulses” in mammals, which is of no surprise, since it acts to stimulate the production of milk as well as contractions in the uterus. It also acts on the amygdala in social animals, which influences male-female as well as mother-child bondings and socialization as a whole. Researchers found that spritzing this hormone up people’s noses can make them more trusting and social. It can also help with the socialization of autistic people— it’s not just a sex and romance hormone. However, we should remember that although it does influence behavior, human behavior is complicated. Our choices of who we bond with are also hugely influenced by the conscious mind. For example, if a woman just knows that she doesn’t love a man, or if you know that you can’t trust somebody, no amount of Oxytocin can make you trust them. Every human is different, and every brain functions differently. We are not slaves to one hormone; the brain is made of many complex parts and they all play into who we are and how we bond with others, whether on a casual or deeper level. Different people’s hormones act differently; your pituitary gland may release the same nine hormones as everyone else’s, but the way they act on your systems varies. And, then we have external influences such as culture, religion, peer influences, etc that should not be discounted. We’re multi-faceted. No one hormone can make an entire group of people react the same way.

With all due respect, I can’t stand it when science is used to help prove a point, but the debater doesn’t explain these studies in detail. I don’t for a minute doubt your economic knowledge. You know much more than I do in those subjects, but when it comes to science, I must say that you are lacking. But that’s not an insult. It’s a valid critique from a friend, so please take it.