Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray (Completely Revised and Updated with a New Introduction)

Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray (Completely Revised and Updated with a New Introduction)

Language: English

Pages: 464

ISBN: 0393285227

Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub

A contemporary classic about love now completely revised and updated.

First published in 1992, Helen Fisher’s “fascinating” (New York Times) Anatomy of Love quickly became a classic. Since then, Fisher has conducted pioneering brain research on lust, romantic love, and attachment; gathered data on more than 80,000 people to explain why you love who you love; and collected information on more than 30,000 men and women on sexting, hooking up, friends with benefits, and other current trends in courtship and marriage. And she presents a new, scientifically based and optimistic perspective on relationships in our digital age―what she calls “slow love.”

This is a cutting-edge tour de force that traces human family life from its origins in Africa over 20 million years ago to the Internet dating sites and bedrooms of today. And it’s got it all: the copulatory gaze and other natural courting ploys; the who, when, where, and why of adultery; love addictions; her discovery of four broad chemically based personality styles and what each seeks in romance; the newest data on worldwide (biologically based) patterns of divorce; how and why men and women think differently; the real story of women, men, and power; the rise―and fall―of the sexual double standard; and what brain science tells us about how to make and keep a happy partnership.

Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache

The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The Foraging Spectrum (2nd Edition)

Anthropological Perspectives on Tooth Morphology: Genetics, Evolution, Variation (Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, Book 66)

Significant Others: Interpersonal and Professional Commitments in Anthropology (History of Anthropology, Volume 10)

Tristes Tropiques












education?” Just about all would say yes. Evolutionary logic holds that women sleep around for goods and services. And until scientists take into account the underlying genetic motivations of both genders, we will never know which sex is more interested in sexual variety. 56.  Ford and Beach 1951, 118. 57.  Gregor 1985. 58.  Reichard 1950. 59.  Bullough and Bullough 1987. 60.  Nimuendaju 1946. 61.  Beals 1946. 62.  Nadel 1942. 63.  Wiederman 1997; Brand et al. 2007. 64.  Lampe 1987, 199.

Because philandering is so prevalent worldwide, because it is associated with a wide range of psychological, sociological, and economic factors, and because it is correlated with a growing number of biological systems, it is likely that our human predisposition toward infidelity evolved during our long prehistory. Why Adultery? From a Darwinian perspective, it is easy to explain why men are—by nature—interested in sexual variety. If an ancestral man bore children with one woman, he had,

more than the situation calls for, she or he is probably flirting too. Talking is dangerous for an important reason. The human voice is like a second signature that reveals not only your intentions but also your background, education, and intangible idiosyncrasies of character that can attract or repel a potential mate in moments. Actors, public speakers, diplomats, and habitual liars know the power of vocal tones, so they regularly modulate their voices. Movie actors raise their voices almost

verbally skilled, intuitive, empathetic, trusting, nurturing, and driven to make social attachments. They are also emotionally expressive, introspective, and have a good memory. So Negotiators may tend to obsess about the partnership—continually raising the ghost and re-traumatizing themselves. This rumination may lead to a disproportionate susceptibility to clinical depression and attempted suicide. Some data support my theory. Rejected women report more severe feelings of depression, as well

then jockey for better positions, whereas women form more egalitarian, stable cliques? Yes. A host of data suggest they do.22 Moreover, men’s sensitivity to rank is linked with the activity of testosterone,23 while women’s drive for cooperation and group harmony is linked with the activities of estrogen.24 There is biology to this gender difference. So two million years ago Homo habilis males, such as George, may have spent a good deal of time jockeying for rank, while Twiggy probably had a

Download sample