The Effect of Familiarity

[vwrw]

They (the most cited authority in the US, BTW  ) say familiarity produces contempt.

Ever since I have learned this adage, I was disagreeing with it. I was wondering how came that this wrong adage could become so popular. The basis for my disbelief was the fact that I have not  been  contemptuous of all the people with whom I am closely familiar.
 
However, recently I learned about empirical evidence that suggests that there is some truth in the adage. Although familiarity does NOT produce contempt, it breeds sexual disinterest to the person you are closely familiar with.  For example, a study of an Israel community (wherein children live with their peers and separate from their families, and are in constant interaction with their peers , from birth to maturity) revealed that despite parental encouragement of marriage within their peer group, there was NO one instance, among 125 couples,  in which both mates were reared in the same peer group. Familiarity with each other not only deterred them from marrying each other, it also made them avoiding any sexual relations among themselves.


The question is "Is it possible for couples to remain actively interested in each other sexually after years of marriage... or marriage is a social construct which compels humans to behave unnaturally for the sake of providing a better care for offspring "?

[Eduard]

Very interesting discussion this could be... well the fact that kids who grow up together aren't that interested in each other sexually probably goes way back on the evolutionary latter, way before insest became the law and probably even way before humans evolved as such. There is a psychological mechanism of sex avoidance with closely related peers both in humans and primates (although it doesn't always work, so there are deviations). It's natures way, through the evolution, to insure that genetic pool stays diversified and to avoid genetic diseases.

[Gator]

I was married for 25 years, and sexual interest did not wane until the final couple of years when it became apparent that the marriage was over.  Remember that the body's largest sexual organ is the brain. 

Familiarity doesn't stop West Virgina brothers and sisters.   

[Daveman]

Familiarity doesn't stop West Virgina brothers and sisters.   

Nor Alabamian brothers and sheep!   

[vwrw]

It's natures way, through the evolution, to insure that genetic pool stays diversified and to avoid genetic deceases.

Ed, the individuals who grew up together were not relatives. Their mating has the same chance of producing healthy offspring as the mating of any unrelated individuals has.

For me the results of the study and other studies that suggest that familiarity breeds lack of sexual stimulation and sexual disinterest was quite a revelation. Maybe it was naive of me but I believed that whether a person would have sexual interest to other largely depended on whether mating of the two people could produce healthy children, and once there is sexual attraction, it can be sustained during life span by taking good care of your appearance and intellect.  Evidently I was wrong. 

[vwrw]

I was married for 25 years, and sexual interest did not wane until the final couple of years when it became apparent that the marriage was over. 

Gator, knowing a little about how busy you were with  building your business during your first marriage, I am inclined to believe that you might not have had the time necessary to become really familiar with your ex wife, enough for sexual interest to disappear. 

[Misha]

Gator, knowing a little about how busy you were with  building your business during your first marriage, I am inclined to believe that you might not have had the time necessary to become really familiar with your ex wife, enough for sexual interest to disappear. 

An important factor to consider: sexual attraction at the start of the relationship. If there was minimal sexual interest in either partner at the beginning, then there is likely to be little sexual interest in later years.

[Jooky]

For example, a study of an Israel community (wherein children live with their peers and separate from their families, and are in constant interaction with their peers , from birth to maturity)

So these people were raised from birth to maturity in some small commune of peers and not with their family? Some kind of orphanage or prison for children?

I wouldn't apply the findings of this study to anyone outside of this strange specific situation.

I can tell you, the familiarity of spending all day in grammar school and highschool together doesn't stop kids from having sex.

:noidea:

[SANDRO43]

They...say familiarity produces contempt.

Actually, the idiom is "familiarity breeds contempt" and is believed to be inspired by Aesop's fable no.42 (dated around 500 BC), although its original moral is not quite as drastic as to imply contempt:

Ἀλώπηξ μηδέποτε θεασαμένη λέοντα.

Ἀλώπηξ μηδέποτε θεασαμένη λέοντα, ἐπειδὴ κατά τινα συντυχίαν ὑπήντησε, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἰδοῦσα οὕτως διεταράχθη ὡς μικροῦ καὶ ἀποθανεῖν. Ἐκ δευτέρου δὲ αὐτῷ περιτυχοῦσα ἐφοβήθη μέν, ἀλλ' οὐχ οὕτως ὡς τὸ πρότερον. Ἐκ τρίτου δὲ θεασαμένη οὕτω κατεθάρρησεν ὡς καὶ προσελθοῦσα αὐτῷ διελέχθη.

Ὁ λόγος δηλοῖ ὅτι ἡ συνήθεια καὶ τὰ φοβερὰ τῶν πραγμάτων καταπραΰνει.

The fox who had never seen a lion.

The fox had never seen a lion before, so when she happened to meet the lion for the first time she all but died of fright. The second time she saw him, she was still afraid, but not as much as before. The third time, the fox was bold enough to go right up to the lion and speak to him.

The fable shows that familiarity makes it easy to confront even frightening situations.

[Gator]

Gator, knowing a little about how busy you were with  building your business during your first marriage, I am inclined to believe that you might not have had the time necessary to become really familiar with your ex wife, enough for sexual interest to disappear. 

Some truth, yet not as bad as you would expect. 

You can ask me whatever you want because I lost all respect for the woman after her pack of attorneys came after my ass (pardon me, assets) three years ago with a trumped up complaint, even asking the judge to jail me.  It eventually proved futile for her. I will always, of course, be grateful to her for the birth of my sons.

My wife and I were indeed familiar with each other although not soulmates.  We had children early and she chose to stay home, so she was always available when I had a break from work.  We were both dedicated to our children so we spent much family time together at home, and friends were over frequently.  We made a point to spend interesting vacations together for the first 10-15 years of our marriage.   

I did not stray with one exception which she approved (yes, strange), so my emotions stayed at home. 

As years passed by, her depression became worse, yet she always tried to make sex interesting even if it did become more mechanical with time.  Maybe that is what you meant about sexual interest declining, because sex can be described in many ways other than having an orgasm.  She was gloriously beautiful (some described her as a “10”) with a sexy body even after children, so I remained physically attracted to her as well as emotionally.  And we always enjoyed each other's sarcastic SOH.

As our marriage was failing, one day I just lost all interest in sex with her.  I remember that day.  I did not seek a divorce (she filed), yet divorce was the lesser of two evils. 

vwrw - are you taking a course in anthropology?

[Eduard]

Ed, the individuals who grew up together were not relatives. Their mating has the same chance of producing healthy offspring as the mating of any unrelated individuals has.

For me the results of the study and other studies that suggest that familiarity breeds lack of sexual stimulation and sexual disinterest was quite a revelation. Maybe it was naive of me but I believed that whether a person would have sexual interest to other largely depended on whether mating of the two people could produce healthy children, and once there is sexual attraction, it can be sustained during life span by taking good care of your appearance and intellect.  Evidently I was wrong. 

I didn't say that they have to be related, just to live in close proximity of each other will do the trick. There is a phenomena where  small town women would be a lot more attracted to men from bigger cities or just a different town, some one she has never seen before. I think it's nature's way to expand the genetic pool.

[vwrw]

So these people were raised from birth to maturity in some small commune of peers and not with their family? Some kind of orphanage or prison for children?

I wouldn't apply the findings of this study to anyone outside of this strange specific situation.

I can tell you, the familiarity of spending all day in grammar school and highschool together doesn't stop kids from having sex.

:noidea:

According to my textbook, those people could communicate with their parents, otherwise the parents would be not able to encourage marriage within the peer group. My understanding is that the children-peers groups live in proximity from their parents but in separate building. It is the community customary way of childrearing.

If the parents can communicate with their children freely, then their situation is NOT very different form the situation of many Russians and other people who have to leave their children in day care for the whole day (because of their work), then they use TV as a child’s pacifier (because they are exhausted after their work), and then the child sleep alone in separate room. In both situation there is not much interaction between a parent and a child.

Children who are spending all day in grammar school and highschool together are unlikely to have the same degree of familiarity with each other as children who live together. Like adults  working together, children in school only see each other cleaned, dressed, and in good health, whereas children in the Israel community know each other  on a much deeper level, which is only possible to reach when you live with the person for a long period of time.   

[vwrw]

vwrw - are you taking a course in anthropology?

Yes, I do.

Gator, I hope you did not take my remark about your first marriage as rudeness on my part. I just wanted to offer an alternative explanation. 

Let's assume that one can maintain sexual interest to his /her spouse despite their familiarity with each other and the explanation of the researchers is not valid, then how would you explain the findings differently?   Why would the unrelated through blood adults, who know each other very well and have a lot of in common, be not sexually attracted to each other?

[vwrw]

I didn't say that they have to be related, just to live in close proximity of each other will do the trick. There is a phenomena where  small town women would be a lot more attracted to men from bigger cities or just a different town, some one she has never seen before. I think it's nature's way to expand the genetic pool.

Okay Ed, now I think I understand your point. You are saying that people indeed are predisposed to lose sexual interest to well familiar people with whom they live in regular interaction and that this is the nature’s way to increase the chance that relatives (who are usually well familiar with each other) do not mate. 

To me, what you are saying sounds plausible…as Gator reminded me the brain is the body's largest sexual organ because by releasing or not releasing certain hormones, it can regulate to whom humans feel sexual interest. So when the brain gets the signal that the person staying/laying in proximity is familiar, the brain does not activate the release of the hormones, and the person has no sexual attraction as a result. If it is so, then may spouses be helpless to sustain their sexual interest to each other?

[vwrw]

Another study was done in a Taiwan community where some practice custom of raising daughter-in-law from childhood. An unrelated girl is taken home and brought up together with her future husband. Informants report sexual disinterest to their spouses and these couples are noted to have fewer children, higher % of extramarital sexual relationships, and higher % of them gets divorced.

All these studies are cited in my book to substantiate the theory that sexual disinterest to each other among people living together is largely the effect of their familiarity than a consequence of them being relatives.  If this theory is valid, spouses may be helpless to sustain their sexual interest to each other as their familiarity of each other grows. 

[Eduard]

…as Gator reminded me the brain is the body's largest sexual organ

So we finally have it from a woman! Size does matter! 

[Jooky]

Another study was done in a Taiwan community where some practice custom of raising daughter-in-law from childhood. An unrelated girl is taken home and brought up together with her future husband. Informants report sexual disinterest to their spouses and these couples are noted to have fewer children, higher % of extramarital sexual relationships, and higher % of them gets divorced.

Just goes to show that researchers will find the conclusions they are looking despite the facts.

In this case, there is the obvious factor that these couples not only grew up together, but they did not choose each other as mates. That alone is enough to account for lack of sexual interest etc.

[vwrw]

In this case, there is the obvious factor that these couples not only grew up together, but they did not choose each other as mates. That alone is enough to account for lack of sexual interest etc.

Ops, I should have mentioned that in the Taiwan community, they practice betrothal. Children are arranged to marry someone that their parents have chosen, so people do not choose their own mates in the community, at least for the first marriage. The only difference between the married couple is that some future brides are raised in their own families and others are raised in the future husband’s family and the comparisons were done between those two classes of marriages.  I am sorry I did not clarify this fact early and caused some misinterpretation.

[Gator]

…as Gator reminded me the brain is the body's largest sexual organ because by releasing or not releasing certain hormones, it can regulate to whom humans feel sexual interest. So when the brain gets the signal that the person staying/laying in proximity is familiar, the brain does not activate the release of the hormones, and the person has no sexual attraction as a result. If it is so, then may spouses be helpless to sustain their sexual interest to each other?

Yes, neurochemistry is extremely important.    Years ago I read about brain chemistry in an attempt to understand my ex-wife’s clinical depression.  Very complicated field of study - it could keep you occupied for a year.  Testosterone, estrogen and progesterone affect sexual desire and pleasure as well as dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin.

We all know that the crazy romantic love that we have in the beginning does not last forever.  People in “crazy love” have a specific chemical mix that is associated with obsession among other conditions.   Maybe sexual “interest” doesn’t dwindle because of familiarity but because  love changes from passion to something more profound, and familarity is simply a covariable.  Just guessing.  But why would sexual desire be higher for a stranger - spreading one's seed. 

My point about the brain being the largest sexual organ goes beyond hormones and the neurochemistry that activates the pleasure center.  The brain is also powerful because it controls memory and imagination and mood, each having powerful influences on sex.  And I would think even more important are emotions (unless you believe emotions originate from the heart not the brain).  My ex-wife’s medication for her depression changed her chemical mix, and as a side effect lowered her libido.  Yet she still sought sex so I presume that was more about emotions than hormones.   

[Boethius]

I've read many of those studies, and the key was that the subjects lived in close proximity as children-bathed together, dressed together, etc.  It is known as the "Westermarck effect", named after Edvard Westermarck, the first anthropologist to report on this connection.  I believe the theory is that particular the "familiarity" in childhood, particularly under six years of age, which desensitizes them to the development of later sexual relationships.  I don't think the same applies to marriages.

[BC]

Lets help VW with her homework..

I chalk it all down (or a major part) to pheromones.
Nature has a given us a very good toolkit in the form of our nose.

Without it we taste nothing - had a friend that lost her sense of smell after an accident that damaged a part of her brain.. everything tasted like cardboard.

In the animal world we share, mothers will know their offspring and vice versa by smell alone.  Believe it or not it may one day become the most accurate biometric identifier. - one that cannot be easily replicated.

Growing up together at a young age, one 'learns' the pheromones around them as 'family'.  In the brain this discourages mating interest.

Take a young kid just before or near puberty however and put them in an environment with 'new' pheromones and you may find that physical sexual development may hit high gear very early.  Stepfathers and stepmothers beware.  IIRC this is well documented.

Here VW is trying to correlate sexual interest with long term relationships but forgets to add another important factor, instinctual drive to procreate in a manner that enriches the gene pool.

Along with pheromones that stir chemical interest (Oh yeah, we had good chemistry!) our animal instincts drive both genders to actively procreate with many partners instead of being content with monogamy.  Humans as many other species are simply built to screw around.

Add it all up and you'll have the answers you seek, or at the very least enough to ponder for a while..

After all, variety is the spice of life.

[Eduard]

good post, BC

[vwrw]

  The brain is also powerful because it controls memory and imagination and mood, each having powerful influences on sex. 

Well, I can agree that imagination has powerful influence on sex. However, I have never heard people saying that they use imagination to image making sex with the same partner with whom they really are engaged in sex. Usually people image making sex with somebody else, other than their well familiar sex partner. Therefore, it seems safe to say that people use imagination to fool their brain into believing that they do not make sex with their well familiar partner because otherwise they cannot get aroused.

Mood gains influence over the desire to have sex with a partner as familiarity between the partners increases.  I mean in the beginning of a relationship, only the sight of your beloved sets you in an appropriate mood for sex. However, as familiarity between the sexual partners grows, they start imaging somebody else as their sexual partner to get into the appropriate mood for sex. 

[vwrw]

I don't think the same applies to marriages.

Could you explain why you think that familiarity may desensitize only children living together but not adults? Married adults certainly have plenty of opportunities to see each other naked, haven’t they?

[vwrw]

Along with pheromones that stir chemical interest (Oh yeah, we had good chemistry!) our animal instincts drive both genders to actively procreate with many partners instead of being content with monogamy.  Humans as many other species are simply built to screw around.

If people are indeed built to screw around, then many marriages may fail not because the spouses are incompatible but because one of them is incapable of repressing his /her desire to screw around for the sake of keeping the marriage intact.   Since it is likely easier for people with weaker sex drives to repress their sex drives, should they be viewed as better marriage material  ?