Romantic Fiction, Reality Shaping and The Work

[iamthatis]

I think JP's advice applies well in all this - couples should regularly talk about this sort of thing, how the relationship is going, what can I differently, what can you do differently, etc. He says 90 min a week, and it should be scheduled, otherwise it'll be put off for 'more important things'. That's one disadvantange of these romance novels - they're generally focused on the heady beginnings of a relationship, and don't get into on what perhaps matters most in real relationships, which is the long term upkeep of asking for and giving each other love when all the honeymoon phase chemicals have worn off.

Didn't finish the thought! The evidence in Cupid's Poisoned Arrow and in the ideas of the Taoist love-masters means that the whole honeymoon chemical roller coaster thing can be mitigated. The bonding pathways are strengthened and the lover continues to be very, very interesting. Way less hot/cold hormonal swings due to the effects of orgasm on male neurochemicals. It's almost like sex becomes it's own form of The Doctrine of the Present when male climax is no longer the main goal. Super interesting.

 

[Mari]

It's almost like sex becomes it's own form of The Doctrine of the Present when male climax is no longer the main goal. Super interesting.

Reminds me also of what the Cs said about separating limiting emotions.

It matters insofar as we can start to know ourselves and notice what our love languages are. Deprogramming doesn't mean that we'd lose those, I think - instead, we become conscious of them as needs. In becoming conscious of them, we can also become conscious of asking to have those needs met by a lover. And we can also become conscious of trying to meet another's needs when they ask. It's a practice of giving all to those who ask.

Maybe our love languages would change over time, because some could be based on programming. The same thing applies IMO - noticing how one feels, noticing when the needs change, and learning how to ask to have those changing needs met by a lover, and also learning to meet changing needs.

Yes; my thinking - what I couldn’t fully express in my previous post - was in the line that what seems to me is that, in the context of romantic relationships, so called Physical Touch is the basic/primal need all people (should?) have, and the rest of LLs is a standard human variaty of different preferences and characteristics of people in general, whether it is programmed or simply are what they are, and they come on top of basic need for touch.

Yes, it helps to know those as well, as then one can be able to give more to their loved ones in a language they understand.

 

[SasaM]

Reminds me also of what the Cs said about separating limiting emotions.


Yes; my thinking - what I couldn’t fully express in my previous post - was in the line that what seems to me is that, in the context of romantic relationships, so called Physical Touch is the basic/primal need all people (should?) have, and the rest of LLs is a standard human variaty of different preferences and characteristics of people in general, whether it is programmed or simply are what they are, and they come on top of basic need for touch.

Yes, it helps to know those as well, as then one can be able to give more to their loved ones in a language they understand.

Why do you think Physical Touch is or should be basic or primal type to other versions of Love Languages? What is the basis, empirical or other, for that claim?

For many males, me included, it is not touch that is primarily viewed, accepted and given, as love. Is that naturally so or is it a consequence of programming and eventual trauma, as your statement seemingly indicates?

 

[Mari]

Why do you think Physical Touch is or should be basic or primal type to other versions of Love Languages? What is the basis, empirical or other, for that claim?

For many males, me included, it is not touch that is primarily viewed, accepted and given, as love. Is that naturally so or is it a consequence of programming and eventual trauma, as your statement seemingly indicates?

As I´ve said in my first post, these are my musings based on what I´ve read and connected in my head, and I´m not stating categorically that his is an undeniable fact. Perhaps I wasn´t exactly clear.

If you see in my first post where I´ve quoted from the Tao book, a lot of emphasis is put on the touch from early infancy, and for the adults in general.
It makes sense (to me), as I´ve seen it also in Connection Survival Style from the book Healing Developmental Trauma, where "individuals with the Connection Survival Style have disconnected from their bodies, from themselves, and from relationship" due to the trauma in infancy (neglect? abuse? both?), and it is the first of the trauma styles from the book.

If I look at it from pure biological wiring, in all the higher primates the touch is also the basis on how they form the connections in their groups.
So there is a lot of primal/based/rooted substance to the touch.

Further, in the Tao book, a lot of emphasis is given to a prolonged coupling, and with people who have problems (or unresolved issues) with touching and/or being touched, I see this kind of love making very difficult.

OSIT...

 

[iamthatis]

Why do you think Physical Touch is or should be basic or primal type to other versions of Love Languages? What is the basis, empirical or other, for that claim?

For many males, me included, it is not touch that is primarily viewed, accepted and given, as love. Is that naturally so or is it a consequence of programming and eventual trauma, as your statement seemingly indicates?

I think Mari is making a good inference from the data. It's said that our gut is our 'first brain' or earliest brain. I'd also include the skin in that. The human ear is fully developed about halfway through the pregnancy. Other pathways develop later - heart/emotional centre, brain/intellectual centre, visual. As far as I know, none of these are online at birth, and they are all dependent on skin-to-skin contact for their development.

It's also long been known that without touch, babies die or are severely damaged. So it seems reasonable that touch is fundamental. It's also fundamental for learning how to love, both giving and receiving. You might consider checking out Kathy Kain's book Nurturing Resilience:

Touch is essential not only to healthy human development, but to survival. In 1971, Ashley Montagu published his landmark book, Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin, which proved to be one of the first detailed discussions of the importance of skin-to-skin contact for healthy development of infants.

Montagu points to earlier researchers who noted that some orphanages had infant mortality rates of 30–40 percent, even when infants’ basic physical survival needs were satisfied. The researchers attributed the high mortality rate to insufficient physical nurturing (via touch), as well as insufficient relational nurturing with appropriate stimulation and responses by caregivers (Montagu 1971). More current research has confirmed the importance of skin-to-skin contact (sometimes referred to as “kangaroo care”), particularly in the first few days and weeks of life. Skin-to-skin contact can improve the connection required for breastfeeding, boost weight gain and growth rates, improve immune function, and increase the stability of hormone levels (Bigelow et al. 2014).

For babies born prematurely, this skin-to-skin contact can play a huge role in the infants’ survival, partly because an infant’s thermoregulation is better calibrated with skin-to-skin contact than it is in an incubator. This is because mothers who have recently given birth have a warmer skin temperature, up to two degrees higher than the rest of their body, on the area of their chest where the baby would naturally rest while being soothed or breastfed, which helps the baby maintain his body temperature more effectively.

We know from the research conducted with Romanian orphans that those who lived in orphanages for longer than eight months had higher levels of cortisol and lower levels of oxytocin and vasopressin (hormones affiliated with support for bonding and regulation of emotions)—even as long as twelve years later—than did babies who had been in the orphanages for less than four months (Nelson et al. 2011). Of course, it’s not only touch that may have contributed to those differences. There are many factors that influence development and many different ways neglect can manifest in later development.

However, there is now sufficient research to show clearly that skin-to-skin contact does indeed make significant differences for the infant in long-term development and health outcomes. Particularly for newborns, touch helps calm the nervous system and improves sleep (Bigelow et al. 2014).Skin-to-skin contact also supports bonding and promotes physiological changes, in both the caregiver and the infant, that support better overall regulation. Tiffany Field’s research at the Touch Research Institute has clearly shown that massage therapy, whether in newborns or senior citizens, provides the following benefits (Field 1998, 2017):

-Facilitates weight gain in pre-term infants
-Enhances attentiveness
-Alleviates depressive symptoms
-Reduces pain
-Reduces stress hormonesImproves immune function

Skin-to-skin contact is our earliest experience of co-regulation outside the womb. It is fundamental to the essential process of learning mutuality. Babies thrive when caregivers are actively engaged with them, and this includes engagement through responsive touch. Some cultures are highly touch-oriented, whereas others have lower rates of social touch, but touching infants is universally common. Early, positive experiences of touch and physical connection with caregivers provide some of the critical architecture for self-regulation and resilience.

Touch also helps us develop our interoceptive abilities. As stated earlier, Porges (1993) refers to interoception as the “infant’s sixth sense” and assigns it a critical role in survival. As discussed in chapter 2, accurate interoception helps regulate our physiological systems and helps usperceive safety and connectedness, the very underpinnings of resilience development. As was discussed in the previous chapter, infants learn during the co-regulation process that the caregiver not only affects them, but that they in turn have an impact on the caregiver; they learn that they have agency and active influence over their environments and the people who share those environments. Caregivers are responsive to babies; they areusually drawn to touch and enjoy cuddling infants. One of the most commonly repeated cycles between caregivers and babies—and even between strangers and babies, for that matter—is that of smiling. The baby smiles, and the caregiver smiles back. The baby begins to learn that she isthe causal agent in this “smile cycle.”

The same holds true with touch and co-regulation. The baby is not only learning how to regulate himself; he is learning he can influence the regulation of his caregiver. Much of the earliest experience of this comes from subtle somatic cues, including tactile responses, as well as experiencing the caregiver’s somatic responses, such as heart rate and breathing changes, or changes in muscle tone. Touch research shows that healthy touch during our early development helps us develop empathy and deepens our ability to understand the social cues of those around us (Field2014).

If we have reliable access to this early experience of co-regulation, we will more effectively develop our individual ability to notice cues regarding our own experience of regulation: settling, the pleasure of feeling well-fed, a sense of safety, and so on. As was discussed in previous chapters, the foundational development of the autonomic nervous system, which gives usfull access to the ventral parasympathetic physiology, occurs during these early phases of our lives and requires the attentive responsiveness of our caregivers. Caregivers literally nurture our resilience.

As we also know from many different sources of research (Carter andSanderson 1995), neglect, including lack of skin-to-skin contact, profoundly impacts our development, often throughout our lifetimes. Our stress chemistry is negatively impacted, our immune systems don’t function as well, and we experience greater difficulty regulating both our physiological and emotional responses.

Research tells us that the long-term effects of neglect can be greater than those of physical or sexual abuse for the child. These changes are documented through MRIs and PET scans. The structure and chemical activity of the brain show a decrease in both size and structural connectivity. Such early neglect or abuse can also be blamed for hypersensitivity in stressful situations, as well as the inability to respond to nurturing and kindness (Shonkoff and Phillips 2000; Shonkoff, Boyce,Cameron, et al. 2004; Shonkoff et al. 2012).

 

[SasaM]

As I´ve said in my first post, these are my musings based on what I´ve read and connected in my head, and I´m not stating categorically that his is an undeniable fact. Perhaps I wasn´t exactly clear.

If you see in my first post where I´ve quoted from the Tao book, a lot of emphasis is put on the touch from early infancy, and for the adults in general.
It makes sense (to me), as I´ve seen it also in Connection Survival Style from the book Healing Developmental Trauma, where "individuals with the Connection Survival Style have disconnected from their bodies, from themselves, and from relationship" due to the trauma in infancy (neglect? abuse? both?), and it is the first of the trauma styles from the book.

If I look at it from pure biological wiring, in all the higher primates the touch is also the basis on how they form the connections in their groups.
So there is a lot of primal/based/rooted substance to the touch.

Further, in the Tao book, a lot of emphasis is given to a prolonged coupling, and with people who have problems (or unresolved issues) with touching and/or being touched, I see this kind of love making very difficult.

OSIT...

Thanks for added explanation.

Agree that physical touch is important, especially in childhood or infancy period, and that it could point to trauma if there are issues there. Empirically though, only one of my three longterm ex partners, so not really statistically significant sample, has had touch as primary or basic type of the Love Language. While in cases of my family and other males who I've been in interactions with, that could be in part explained by upbringing and previous traumatic experiences, it was interesting to note similar trend with my female ex partners. OTH, there could have been underlying trauma issues there too.

 

[SasaM]

As I´ve said in my first post, these are my musings based on what I´ve read and connected in my head, and I´m not stating categorically that his is an undeniable fact. Perhaps I wasn´t exactly clear.

I've seen it in the intro part of that post, haven't read it in full though, and was wondering about the grounds for statements in today's post I replied to.

Apologies if my questions came across as criticism or disagreement or even as an attack, that certainly was not the counscious intention why they were asked. Apparently, my presentation and self-representation might benefit from a bit, or a lot, of fine or even gross tuning, not to appear like a bear or a dog is coming with its jaw open after the person I'm engaging the conversation or discussion with.

Sorry again, hopefully that old one, dog that barks does not bite, might decrease unnecessary stress hormone levels apparent increase.

 

[Mari]

I've seen it in the intro part of that post, haven't read it in full though, and was wondering about the grounds for statements in today's post I replied to.

Apologies if my questions came across as criticism or disagreement or even as an attack, that certainly was not the counscious intention why they were asked. Apparently, my presentation and self-representation might benefit from a bit, or a lot, of fine or even gross tuning, not to appear like a bear or a dog is coming with its jaw open after the person I'm engaging the conversation or discussion with.

Sorry again, hopefully that old one, dog that barks does not bite, might decrease unnecessary stress hormone levels apparent increase.

No worries!

Many times I have difficulties to put my thoughts into words, so my worry was that I wasn´t clear enough.

To each their own [neurosis ].

 

[nicklebleu]

Why do you think Physical Touch is or should be basic or primal type to other versions of Love Languages? What is the basis, empirical or other, for that claim?

I think that the need for humans to experience physical touch is well established - eg the above cited Spitz’ notice how orphans wither away when loving touch is missing.

I myself have made similar observations - when I have a patient in my care that is very anxious, I often take their hand and hold it, maybe lightly stroke it, and in a very short period of time they start to relax. Of course I also talk to them, it is not just the touch, but the whole of my being that is put into the holding of their hands.

I think humans are hardwired for touch, and the fact that a lot of people, predominantly males, have issues with touch is more of a cultural problem that anything else. Interesting to also see that other cultures (Middle Eastern/ Arabic) have no such barriers - it is quite normal for two males to hold hands while walking together in the streets. To do that the Western culture automatically implies that the two are gay - something that most heterosexual males don’t want to be associated with.

To me it seems that touch is another facet of the hypersexualisation of our times, where the simple gesture of holding hands acquires a sexual component that formerly was not present.

 

[Yas]

This would mean that default language all people are born with is Physical touch, only later when all that baggage falls on our true selves, that first need morphs to whatever. Kind of what the G said that other centres are under influence of a sex centre.

In the context of romance novels, there were numerous examples of men and women who implemented various disguises to mask deeper issues and traumas, and that was reflected in their relationship and their love making.

I was kind of convinced that it would be easier if a couple had the same or similar LL, but now I´m questioning if that´s even a thing, or perhaps better way to put it: does it even matter? In the romances, once the couple is free of his/hers traumas, programming, beliefs, etc - it all falls into place and is reflected in their sex life.

It's an interesting musing, Mari

I think touch is very important to all human beings because of the many reasons some of you have posted above already, like it being our first and foremost way of interacting with the environment and attaching to our primary caregivers. I read recently something about how even our sight takes time to develop when we are babies and how that is also a reason why touch is so important for attachment, and also how attachment is like a basic need for babies. Some of you have mentioned already how babies don't survive without attachment, so, there's that.

But, regarding your question about love languages, I think that it's definitively due in great part to past experiences, trauma, etc., but also in great part to temperament (which is usually understood as qualities and features that a person brings to this world before developing their personality, so, perhaps, genetic?). So I guess it is similar to the attachment styles and what the Cs said about it being 60 percent genetic inheritance and only 40 percent nurture (which, by the way, goes against what most people believe about attachment styles, which makes it even more interesting )

For me, it is very interesting because, even though some features may be greatly influenced by our genes, you can see many differences among brothers and sisters, and that is not only in temperament but also in attachment styles, and I would dare say love languages too. For instance, among siblings, the temperament of one child may be completely different to another, which creates different dynamics between the primary care givers and each child. So, siblings may be very different people with different attachment styles and love languages, even though they have similar genes, same parents, and very similar upbringing. And I think this the case for many siblings around the world, if not most. Then there is also the fact of the circumstances surrounding the birth and early months of each child and how that impacted development, etc. And then, that genes may manifest differently even among family members and also the idea the the soul can influence how these genes manifest, past lives, etc. So, in the end, I think there are lots of things combined that forge a particular individual.

So, to your question, do the love languages really matter? I guess it depends. I'd say that for the most part yes, but not so much that it is a rule of thumb that needs to be followed as dogma. I think that demanding that your partner should learn your love language, for example, wouldn't be conducive to a loving relationship, and unfortunately this is something that you can see people doing around this "love languages" topic. I think what matters about it is that it is a process of discovering the other person and learning about them, learning to love them as they want to be loved. Yes, in a romantic relationship, most people would appreciate physical touch because we are hardwired for it, but, I think that on top of that, some people may like words of appreciation more than others, while others may like thoughtfulness from their partner more, and another may like gifts more. So, apart from physical intimacy, lovers discover each other and learn to build their psychological intimacy this way. Even the fact that a particular love language is related to past experiences is also a window for discovery. It can spark a lover's curiosity about the other person, to learn about how they didn't have a lot of words of appreciation when they were little and that perhaps that's why they need it a bit more from their partner, or how they were neglected and now they don't want to feel neglected, etc. Yes, these might be wounds that need to be healed, and once they heal the love language may change or become less important, but, my point is that perhaps these love languages are just a way in which we can discover the other person more, understand them more, and love them more in the process.

Last but not least, for many people, it is important to develop that emotional and psychological intimacy before being able to fully open themselves to physical intimacy. I know that's not usually what happens in these romance novels, but what you do see in these stories is that usually there is some sort of emotional intimacy that needs to happen by the way of discovering each other and understanding each other so that there is real love. Usually there is physical intimacy between the characters but they feel somewhat disconnected until they finally understand each other and they continue to have physical intimacy but they are now fully connected and open to loving each other, so to say.