Human beings are naturally wired to destroy relationships

This came in as a question in another thread that asked about "pair bonding," and why we feel bonded in our LTR's.

There is a lot of fantasy in the main stream world about this. So I am going to to dispel some myths.

Our brains ARE NOT naturally wired to reward "pair bonding" for the long term. We are designed to reward pair bonding for a few years, where as we lose desire and eventually mate switch. That is our nature, both men and women, and we execute it in different ways. Keep reading though because I will give you the solution to working around this in order to have exceptionally bonded and happy relationships for decades to come, even though it isn't something we naturally do.

Here is the important thing to realize. Our bonding system is designed for us to take care of a girl with our resources and protection within the context of a greater structure (tribe or city state after agriculture) while she is pregnant and while the kid is young. Survival of off spring depended on it BUT only until about age 5. After that the kid can walk and talk and participate in the tribal or city state structure, making the kid survivable within the social structure if parents were to die or mate switch and abandon.

So our innate drives are conflicting. We want to fuck multiple women and get them pregnant, and we bond with the ones we FEEL most chemistry with because that chemistry indicates strong genetic offspring potential. And then left to our own devices, we tend to mate switch for different reasons, men and women. If resources of the tribe or your resources in a city state structure were enough to have multiple children with multiple women and feel bonded by desire to those women at least for the first few years, you would. And some of those women would mate switch eventually and have kids with different men and either leave you or cuck you so you end up taking care of another man's kids.

There are conflicting theories on this, but this one seems to suss out better than the others when we look at our history, our brain wiring, along with our behavior today. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because multiple kids with multiple women (and her with multiple men) meant a higher diversity in genes and a higher number of children surviving, as disease and disability were the main causes of infant death.

We are not a strictly monogamous species. Monogamy didn't become a part of a social structure until about 5,000 years ago, and we've been around for 200,000 years. We are at best serial monogamous today, where we "mate switch" and break bonds with at least a handful of women in our lifetime for most of us. Or I should say "have our bonds broken" because women break bonds much more easily than men due to the fact that they don't have a vasopressin increase when they sexually bond, where as we do.

As I say this, understand NONE of this means monogamy isn't good or that you shouldn't do it. That's the mistake of "appeal to nature" fallacy. Just because Monogamy is "new" in human history, that doesn't mean it isn't good or doesn't have benefits.

But what it does mean is this: Your mammalian brain is not naturally wired to maintain love and attraction to a long term mate past the first couple of years. The decline in attraction naturally tends to start around year two (give or take 6 months). And if it doesn't break up then, it's completely over sexually and emotionally by year 7 (give or take a year or so). This is why most break ups and divorces occur before the 2 year mark, and if they make it past 2 years the second most likely time for divorce is year 7-8. And then after the break up we mate switch and bond with someone else.

Because most people don't use their human brains (lol as most people are stupid fucks) when making relationship decisions and are just doing what "feels right" with no awareness as to what the fuck they are doing, it stands to reason that this shorter term pair bonding and mate switching is actually part of our hard wiring.

And then when we look at brain scans of couples, lo and behold it checks out. If one or the other in a pair doesn't have high enough oxytocin and B endorphine in the beginning of the relationship, you can predict the break up before 6 months (this was done and replicated in a study). If at 6 months those neuropeptide levels aren't measured high enough, you can predict the break up before the 2 year mark. By year 7-8, trace oxytocin levels are no different then in a single person, indicating that the couple doesn't desire each other that much anymore. BUT if there is a beta endorphine stimulus still associated with the paertner, the couple will likely stay together due to comfort and familiarity that the B endorphone provides. So once the desire goes away in the LTR, the chemical make up in the brain is more of that of feeling comfortable sitting in your favorite old chair, rather then being excited and wanting to fuck your wife and her wanting to fuck you.

Because this is what plays out for MOST people, we have to assume this is how we are naturally wired. That his is how we evolved. And from an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that our pair bonding only lasts long enough to bang out a kid or two before a mate switch.

After a few years, the chick gets bored, and so does the guy but he feels the obligation to care for her (vasopressin), and then she does something disloyal, and then it ends and they mate switch. Those who mate switched more often had more surviving babies, and thus here we are.

A girl back in cave times would start fucking when she was around the age of 13-15 and spitting out kids. By the time she was 28-32 years old she was already a grandma and dying of malaria or something. Dead around age 30 (give or take) She might of had 5 different kids with 3 different fathers, and 2 of the kids died before they reached 5, and one of her kids won't produce, leaving the other 2 to carry genes into the next generation with offspring. And that's how it went for most of our history, and we are a product of it. It's kind of like when you look at places like the inner city slums or the trailer park. Those idiots are spitting out kids everywhere with different dads and moms because they don't use their frontal lobes.

So do we "pair bond" on a mammalian brain level? yes. BUT DO THESE BONDS LAST if left up to the mammalian brains? NOOOOO.

This is why relationships on a statistical level fall apart eventually, either to break up/divorce or for the couple to just lose attraction and the bond for each other.

Sounds pretty damning then doesn't it? Give up now and fuck prostitutes until we die of untreated syphilis?

Well not so fast. The good news is you and your girl have this human part of your brain. You know, that thing that most people aren't using. This means that you can actually use your higher order thinking to direct your lower brain, causing you and her to "Feel" bonded long past the few years where it would wear off for most people. Whether by accident or by consciously doing the right things, 5-15% of long term marriages and relationships STILL have regular surges of the pair bonding neuropeptides that keep them ATTRACTED to each other for the long haul.

The point is, IT WON'T COME NATURALLY. We aren't wired "naturally" for long term relationship success. We have to DO THINGS to make it happen.

If you leave a woman to her natural devices, she will LOSE DESIRE over time and eventually destroy the relationship. It doesn't matter who you are.

And make no mistake, it is women who do the destruction of the commitment most of the time. Men have vasopressin and therefore a sense of duty and a protective nature, so even if the man loses oxytocin, he tends to have a sense of duty to keep it together more so then the woman. Women do not have that sense of duty in the same way. This is why they cheat, cuck guys, and lose loyalty and respect. And loss of loyalty triggers the loss of vasopressin in men. So he will either cheat or leave her (lower percent of the time), or the woman initiates the divorce because she doesn't feel love for him anymore (statistically 75% of the time).

The answer to keeping a relationship together and being part of the 5-15% that does it right and maintains desire throughout the life of the relationship comes down to FRAME.

That is why I focus on the 4 pillars of frame in the mastermind, and give you guys the skills to develop DEEP frame. the DEEPER in frame she is, the more intensely and longer lasting her pair bonding neuro response will remain stimulated.

Whether monogamous or running a harem, there are HUGE benefits to having your woman be your closest ally as you both grow old together, and HUGE benefits for her attraction to remain high throughout each year of the relationship. And it's ultimately the fairytale dream of most men and women. And its a dream you can absolutely have, but you have to have frame. Frame "renews" the desire and attraction as it starts to go down, causing a cyclical process of high desire, followed by periods of slight drops in desire, and you as the leader of the relationship catching it before those slight drops go further and reigniting attraction and desire. That's in essense of what you accomplish with relationship game and frame.

But you have to learn these things and do them. You have to use your higher order thinking to direct your lower order thinking and feelings (and hers) to the right place. Leave it up to chance and you will stand by complacently as you watch her lose desire gradually (due to her mammalian brain drives) destroying everything you have build with her.

Well, I think I just wrote my longer post that I'll post separately lol. Hope it makes sense.

6 comments