When scientists — arguably the most logical of humans — try to make sense of love, interesting things are bound to happen. As Albert Einstein concluded: “Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love.” (No one’s ruled out inertia, entropy, or nuclear fusion.) Traditionally, of course — metaphorically or otherwise — we trace the origin of love to our hearts. Thankfully, though, Syracuse University Professor Stephanie Ortigue suggests that our head has something to do with it, too — and not just when it’s over our heels.

In the new study “The Neuroimaging of Love,” Ortigue reveals that “12 areas of the brain work in tandem to release euphoria-inducing chemicals such as dopamine, oxytocin, adrenaline and vasopression.” Basically, “falling in love can elicit not only the same euphoric feeling as using cocaine, but also affects intellectual areas of the brain.” Apparently, when it comes to love, we can go from zero to sixty in 1/5th of a second — meaning that euphoria can enter our system as quickly, if not faster, than a controlled substance.

So falling in love is like being on cocaine. It happens real fast, you’re on this crazy high — and then you come down. Interestingly enough, cocaine was once an ingredient in Coca Cola. Coca Cola was first introduced as a patent medicine “for all that ails you.” Since cocaine isn’t legal and has long been removed from Coca Cola, maybe all we need is love?

Dr. Sean Mackey, chair of the pain management division of Stanford University, might agree. Writing recently in Time, Alice Park explores Mackey’s research into to what degree love might “influence how we experience physical pain.” Mackey discovered that when people who reported being in the first stages of “new and passionate love”  were shown pictures of their various pumpkins and pookies, they could withstand greater amounts of pain — even more so than when occupied by mental tests or when shown photos of equally attractive friends.

While I am all for love as a potential wonder-drug, one of my questions is: why only romantic love? Would throwing a different kind of love — say parent/child — into the pain equation garner the same results? Isn’t that love just as mind-altering? Nope, turns out. Well, not in the same way.

Ortigue’s study found that the reason parent-child love would likely not have the same effects on pain is that different parts of the brain are stimulated by different kinds of love: “Passionate love is sparked by the reward part of the brain, and also associative cognitive brain areas that have higher-order cognitive functions, such as body image.”

Parent-child love wouldn’t reduce pain physically because it doesn’t stimulate the reward center. However, that’s not to say that a parent wouldn’t be able to endure more pain should their child be in danger. In essence, Mackey’s study is strengthened by Ortigue’s assertion that the brain releases chemicals akin to cocaine to stimulate romantic love, because like cocaine, love works back and forth with the brain as it heightens certain things and dulls others. Love engages “our very deep, old and primitive reptilian system that involves basic needs, wants, and cravings.”

Since romantic love allows us to withstand more pain, perhaps it is the reason humans survive. While the end of love can hurt, to the point of making people lovesick, the euphoria of being in love keeps us coming back, much like cocaine keeps an addict coming back — all ensuring that we continue the species. From an evolutionary standpoint, the emergence of romantic love in humans may be all about survival of the fittest – rewarding us for the formation of potentially strong alliances with our mates and, as shown by Mackey allowing us to withstand greater amounts of pain, which from a primitive standpoint would have been useful in a fight with that mastodon.

Be thankful. Biology is looking out for us in more ways than one.

Used to be that when the issue of “green” came up in a relationship, someone had a jealousy problem. But now the New York Times reports that therapists are seeing a growing number of couples with serious disagreements about how far they should go to save the environment. What’s a couple to do when one wants to consume, consume, consume and the other wants to reduce, reuse and recycle?

In my own life, I’ve found myself too environmentally conscious for some and not enough for others. What it really comes down to is clear communication and the ability to gauge whether or not different values equal dealbreakers. Since I am not married, the extent to which I choose to be environmentally conscious is already a part of the whole package; slight variations in the size of our collective footprint are negotiable. Basically, I choose my battles if I really like someone.

As family and marriage therapist Linda Buzzell tells the Times, “The danger arises when one partner undergoes an environmental ‘waking up’ process way before the other, leaving a new values gap between them.” The article makes it sound as if for those already married, this is akin to someone suddenly finding God (and being married to a heathen). While it can be that dramatic in terms of thought process and lifestyle, it can also be explained as just an aspect of personal growth — which is natural over time and especially over the course of a marriage. My question is whether the problems couples are experiencing stem more from an inability to stay connected and cope with personal growth on any level (whether that takes the form of a new environmental consciousness or an interest in hot rods) or if we are looking to scapegoat Mother Nature?

Robert Brulle, a professor of environment and sociology at Drexel University in Philadelphia, said that he himself has seen this issue break up a marriage. Typically, “One still wants to live the American dream with all that means, and the other wants to give up on big materialistic consumption, “ he says. “Those may not be compatible.” Maybe it’s time to find a new American Dream and give healthy marriages and a healthy environment a place to grow within it.

Coda: Have you ever grappled over greenness? Share or opine in the comments!

From today’s New York Times:

Suppose scientists could erase certain memories by tinkering with a single substance in the brain. Could make you forget a chronic fear, a traumatic loss, even a bad habit.

Researchers in Brooklyn have recently accomplished comparable feats, with a single dose of an experimental drug delivered to areas of the brain critical for holding specific types of memory, like emotional associations, spatial knowledge or motor skills.

The drug blocks the activity of a substance that the brain apparently needs to retain much of its learned information. And if enhanced, the substance could help ward off dementias and other memory problems.

So far, the research has been done only on animals. [Elephants: FAIL.] But scientists say this memory system is likely to work almost identically in people.

One might think that that “Brooklyn” lab is actually BG’s — that this one would be THE killer breakup app. What, indeed, if you could neuralize that night, that “loser,” those five years too many?

Yeah, well, you wouldn’t want to. No, really. Every breakup/hookup/screw-up: like it, or LIKElike it, or not, it’s part of who you are. (Don’t make me say “learning experience.”) Each one helps you say to yourself, “Okay, not that.” Each one gives you an opp to look back and say “See how far I’ve come.” Each one reminds you, looking back, that you survived: that all this love business is the messy stuff of life, not the sloppy kiss of death. So no neuralyzers being developed over here, sorry. We put our R&D dollars toward the Affirmatron.

Reruns from February 2, 1998…

Laura writes: I’m 36, divorced (for over five years), and have been seeing a great guy for four months. But last week, a guy I fell head over heels for a year ago came back into my life (after having moved away for a year). I really like the guy I’m seeing, but have never felt that “magic” with him — as so wonderfully talked about in “Sleepless In Seattle” in the attic scene with the old wedding dress. I did feel “magic” with Mr. Return.

My plan of action is to spend time with Mr. Return on a non-sexual, nothing but friends basis to see if there is, truly something there. I want to be fair to the guy I’m dating, as well as to my soul — after all, I so want to find my destiny, and believe that abiding love has that “magic.” Do you have any other ideas? Do I sound like I’m totally barking up the wrong tree? Your advice is most welcome.

Lois Lane writes: I’ve been married for seven years (not happily) and about a year ago I met up with my ex-boyfriend from high school. It was like we never broke up. My husband can provide for me with material things but not emotionally. On the other hand my ex is there for me emotionally, but not for material things. Should I divorce my husband or should I stay for the sake of the kids? I’m so sad!

(more…)

Because you know you’ve always been curious about your neighbors lives, the Binghamton (N.Y.) Press & Sun-Bulletin has created a database called “Why We Divorce”. It uses state Department of Health records to detail county-by-county in New York state the reasons people cite for the demise of their marriage. Mental (and “other”) cruelty was the number one reason people across the state divorced in 2005, which was the last year the numbers appear to be available. Abandonment came in at number two. And apparently only five people in the entire state of New York, pop. 19,306,183, divorced because of adultery that year — which, we assume, is probably a little like when celebrities split citing “irreconcilable differences” (i.e. “We have irreconcilably different opinions of Madonna“).

On a more upbeat note, the site also tracks the most popular wedding month per county in the state. Even if you’re not from New York, you know you’re curious when most Staten Islanders get married (August) and how many January weddings there were in Herkimer County (9). That, or one may learn that come October in Dutchess County, those with wedding fatigue may wish to get the heck outta Dodge.

When it comes to sex smarts, the youngish generation has — at least in theory — an advantage. We come from the school of sex ed that — never mind the condoms passed out like candy and the environmentally evil towers of pamphlets — scared the living crap out of us with horrifyingly explicit medical details and threat of death by French kiss.

So at least we came out with bit of a clue. But (never mind these folks) what about those who went before? A new study has revealed that the rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among those over 45 more than doubled in less than a decade. Genital warts was most commonly diagnosed; men in general and people between the ages of 55 and 59 were significantly more likely to have an STI than anyone else.

Experts say that once you’re beyond fearing pregnancy (or so you might think) it’s easy to forget that you need protection for, you know, other stuff. They also stress the importance of equating sexual health only with young people.

“The almost exclusive focus on the sexual health of young people has tended to ignore older age groups, who are also at risk,” say the study’s authors. “Programmes aimed at preventing sexually transmitted infections should be tailored toward different age groups and do more to dispel myths and assumptions about the level of sexual activity among older age groups.”

Hey, this other new study shouldn’t hurt either.

Having once seriously dated a fantastic, and fantastically ugly, guy, I have developed the following fugly-guy philosophy: You have to feel in your lusty places that your man is, like, the hottest guy in the world. In your head, however, you may acknowledge that he is perhaps the hottest guy in the world only according to you.

A recent study about the relative physical attractiveness of spouses seems, at first glance, to bolster my theory, stating that hot-wife/not-so-hot hubby couples often feature the most mutual encouragement and support.

(more…)