- Joined
- Oct 9, 2012
- Messages
- 6,064
While doing the research for my new piece on testosterone and motivation, I came across this gem of a piece of research in Hormones and Behavior:
I had the experience of watching multiple men in long-distance relationships (LDRs) over the years, and noticed the men quite often became needy while the woman slowly rebelled. Men in LDRs tend to be some of the whiniest and most womanly of men... often to excruciating degree. Apologies if you're in an LDR; don't mean to step on your feelings, and maybe you're an exception, but for most guys in LDRs this tends to be the case. These guys have lots of doubts and ask you lots of questions about, "Will it work out?" and other wispy, nervous-yet-hopeful queries. Questions that are more normal to hear from women, but not from men.
Anyway, my conclusion back then was that women need a certain amount of time in-person with men to stay committed to their relationships. Or else the relationship unravels. I always felt (monogamous) LDRs were quite bad for men and empowered the female at the same time it emasculated the male.
The research here from Simon Fraser University gives some hormonal support to this observation. Basically, in a long-distance relationship:
But that's not even the full story. Take a look at this beauty:
So, for women, hormones levels are slightly lowered in an LDR, compared to being single. But they are about 2/3 of the way up between being partnered with a man in the same city, versus being completely single. She's only 1/3 into the relationship, hormonally.
But for men? A man in an LDR has even lower testosterone than a guy with his girlfriend in the same city. Presumably because he's still monogamous, but doesn't even get laid at all. Hard to keep those T-levels up when you're not allowed to take new women but also get zero poonani.
In both men and women, testosterone is associated with sex drive, novelty seeking, risk taking, penchant for cheating, etc.
Put simply, in an LDR, you become hormonally sub-monogamous, while she remains hormonally quasi-single.
Food for thought if you're considering an LDR.
(my recommendation - same as always - is "Yeah... probably don't." Or at least if you will do an LDR, make sure you can still bang girls in your city, too)
Chase
We conclude that physical partner presence is not necessary to see an association between partnering and hormones in men (since same-city and long-distance partnered men had similar T levels), but may be necessary in women (since same-city partnered women had lower T than long-distance partnered women).
I had the experience of watching multiple men in long-distance relationships (LDRs) over the years, and noticed the men quite often became needy while the woman slowly rebelled. Men in LDRs tend to be some of the whiniest and most womanly of men... often to excruciating degree. Apologies if you're in an LDR; don't mean to step on your feelings, and maybe you're an exception, but for most guys in LDRs this tends to be the case. These guys have lots of doubts and ask you lots of questions about, "Will it work out?" and other wispy, nervous-yet-hopeful queries. Questions that are more normal to hear from women, but not from men.
Anyway, my conclusion back then was that women need a certain amount of time in-person with men to stay committed to their relationships. Or else the relationship unravels. I always felt (monogamous) LDRs were quite bad for men and empowered the female at the same time it emasculated the male.
The research here from Simon Fraser University gives some hormonal support to this observation. Basically, in a long-distance relationship:
- The man's testosterone levels plunge to those of a man with a nearby committed girlfriend, while
- The woman's testosterone levels remain close to that of a single girl's
But that's not even the full story. Take a look at this beauty:
So, for women, hormones levels are slightly lowered in an LDR, compared to being single. But they are about 2/3 of the way up between being partnered with a man in the same city, versus being completely single. She's only 1/3 into the relationship, hormonally.
But for men? A man in an LDR has even lower testosterone than a guy with his girlfriend in the same city. Presumably because he's still monogamous, but doesn't even get laid at all. Hard to keep those T-levels up when you're not allowed to take new women but also get zero poonani.
In both men and women, testosterone is associated with sex drive, novelty seeking, risk taking, penchant for cheating, etc.
Put simply, in an LDR, you become hormonally sub-monogamous, while she remains hormonally quasi-single.
Food for thought if you're considering an LDR.
(my recommendation - same as always - is "Yeah... probably don't." Or at least if you will do an LDR, make sure you can still bang girls in your city, too)
Chase