[xtraflossy]

I think I saw something about this here the other day, but I wanted to post a few more studies I found to be very interesting, and in support of.
I beleive I am feeling the effects of this, for about 5-6 weeks now!!

Men in committed, romantic relationships have lower testosterone.Burnham TC, Chapman JF, Gray PB, McIntyre MH, Lipson SF, Ellison PT.
Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, USA. tburnham@hbs.edu

Variation in human male testosterone levels may reflect, and effect, differential behavioral allocation to mating and parenting effort. This proposition leads to the hypothesis that, among North American men, those involved in committed, romantic relationships will have lower testosterone levels than men not involved in such relationships. Our study is the first to examine whether being in such a relationship (rather than being married) is the meaningful predictor of male testosterone levels. To test this hypothesis, 122 male Harvard Business School students filled out a questionnaire and collected one saliva sample (from which testosterone level was measured). Results revealed that men in committed, romantic relationships had 21% lower testosterone levels than men not involved in such relationships. Furthermore, the testosterone levels of married men and unmarried men who were involved in committed, romantic relationships did not differ, suggesting that, at least for this sample, male pair bonding status is the more significant predictor of testosterone levels than is marital status.


Marriage, parenting, and testosterone variation among Kenyan Swahili men.Gray PB.
Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA. gray@fas.harvard.edu

Male variation in testosterone (T) levels may, in part, reflect a differential behavioral allocation to mating and parenting effort. This research tests whether demographic indicators of pair bonding and parenting were associated with salivary T levels among Kenyan Swahili men. Men in the sample were either unmarried (N = 17), monogamously married (N = 57), or polygynously married (N = 14), and between ages 29-52. In contrast with earlier findings among North American men, monogamously married men did not have lower T levels than unmarried men. However, among all married men, men with younger genetic children tended to have marginally lower T levels. Polygynously married men, all of whom had two wives, had higher T levels than all other Swahili men. Possible explanations of higher T levels among polygynously married men are explored. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

PMID: 14533186 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

PMID: 13129483 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

(a little OT, but)
Do males have a better chance of mating when the number of estrous females is equal to or greater than the males' ordinal rank? Testing the hypothesis in Japanese macaques.Takahashi H.
Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, Aichi, Japan. hiroyki_takahashi@mac.com

This study was designed to test the hypothesis that male primates in multi-male/multi-female social groups with a clear male dominance hierarchy have a better chance of mating when the number of estrous females is equal to or greater than, as opposed to less than, the males' ordinal rank. I studied a Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata fuscata) troop during mating seasons from 1992 to 1995. The mean daily operational sex ratio (OSR; the number of estrous females per troop male), which was calculated on observation days, was 0.21, 1.9, 0.48, and 3.1 in 1992-1995, respectively. Overall, focal animal sampling of males yielded 118 male-day records. The male-day records for each male were divided into the two estrous female number conditions: 1) the male-day records when the number of estrous females was equal to or greater than the male's ordinal rank, and 2) the male-day records when the number of estrous females was less than the male's ordinal rank. In the 1993 and 1995 mating seasons, when the number of estrous females was equal to or greater than the ordinal rank of each male, all of the males were observed mating. Conversely, when the number of estrous females was less than the ordinal rank of some male, they were not observed mating in the 1992 and 1994 mating seasons. The percentage for each male across each male's total mating opportunity was <20% when the number of estrous females was less than the male's ordinal rank. By contrast, the percentage for each male across each male's total mating opportunity exceeded 45% when the number of estrous females was equal to or greater than the male's ordinal rank, except for one male. Of all the male-day records for males observed mating with ejaculation, 41 were obtained when the number of estrous females was equal to or greater than the male's rank; conversely, only three records were obtained when the number of estrous females was less than the male's ordinal rank. Therefore, it appears that males have a better chance of mating when the number of estrous females is equal to or greater than the males' ordinal rank, as opposed to when the number is less than their ordinal rank. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

PMID: 15195331 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Testosterone levels in women and men who are single, in long-distance relationships, or same-city relationships.van Anders SM, Watson NV.
Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6. saria@sfu.ca

Research points to an association between testosterone (T) and partnering in some women and men, and this association has been interpreted as an effect of either relationship status (i.e. differences in relationship status lead to differences in T) or relationship orientation (i.e. T is associated with the likelihood of entering relationships). To address whether physical partner presence was associated with decreased T, we examined T levels in people (72 women; 49 men) who were single, in long-distance relationships, or in same-city relationships. No participants were using exogenous hormones, including hormonal contraceptives. Participants provided a saliva sample and responded to questions about their relationship status. Single men had higher T than long-distance and same-city partnered men, which supports the relationship orientation interpretation. In contrast, same-city partnered women had lower T than single women and women in long-distance relationships, which supports the relationship status interpretation. 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).

PMID: 17196592 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE


Multiple partners are associated with higher testosterone in North American men and women.van Anders SM, Hamilton LD, Watson NV.
Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6. saria@sfu.ca

Previous research has shown that being partnered is associated with lower testosterone (T) in men and women. To address how multiple partners may be associated with T, we examined 47 men and 48 women who were single, monoamorously partnered (partnered), polyamorous (having multiple committed relationships), or in a polyamorous lifestyle but not currently multipartnered. Men who were partnered had lower T than all other men, and polyamorous men had higher T than single men. Polyamorous women had higher T than all other women. Measures of sociosexual orientation (SOI) and sexual desire differed in women by relationship type, but not in men. Findings are interpreted in light of 'competitive' and 'bond-maintenance' relationship orientations and statuses.

PMID: 17316638 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Romantic involvement often reduces men's testosterone levels--but not always: the moderating role of extrapair sexual interest.McIntyre M, Gangestad SW, Gray PB, Chapman JF, Burnham TC, O'Rourke MT, Thornhill R.
Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA. mmcintyr@hsph.harvard.edu

Testosterone (T) appears to facilitate what biologists refer to as mating effort--the investment of time and energy into same-sex competition and mate-seeking behavior. Multiple studies show that men who are romantically involved (i.e., are paired) have lower T than single men, which may be due to a facultative adjustment by men of T levels in response to lower demands for mating effort. The authors proceeded on the basis of the idea that men who retain interests in sexual opportunities with women other than a primary partner continue to dedicate more time and energy to mating effort when romantically paired, and so they predicted that the association between relationship status and T depends on men's extrapair sexual interests. Study 1 used the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory to measure extrapair sexual interests, whereas Study 2 used a broader measure to examine this interaction. Both studies found support for it. These results have implications for an understanding of the biosocial regulation of men's behavior in romantic relationships. 2006 APA, all rights reserved

PMID: 17014290 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Multiple partners are associated with higher testosterone in North American men and women.van Anders SM, Hamilton LD, Watson NV.
Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6. saria@sfu.ca

Previous research has shown that being partnered is associated with lower testosterone (T) in men and women. To address how multiple partners may be associated with T, we examined 47 men and 48 women who were single, monoamorously partnered (partnered), polyamorous (having multiple committed relationships), or in a polyamorous lifestyle but not currently multipartnered. Men who were partnered had lower T than all other men, and polyamorous men had higher T than single men. Polyamorous women had higher T than all other women. Measures of sociosexual orientation (SOI) and sexual desire differed in women by relationship type, but not in men. Findings are interpreted in light of 'competitive' and 'bond-maintenance' relationship orientations and statuses.

PMID: 17316638 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

[CROWLER]

pftttttt it is just cause they want some strange and aint getting it lol


CROWLER

[crader]

I guess it depends on how many times his wife calls on him to use it

[Jayhawkk]

I guess thinking of it in basic terms, I can understand the reasoning. I know my nuts were in a jar during my marriage :P

[xtraflossy]

Originally Posted by Jayhawkk

I guess thinking of it in basic terms, I can understand the reasoning. I know my nuts were in a jar during my marriage :P

I was looking into explinations where I loose that "hooneymoon" period.

Later, I found a study that concluded that BASELINE T levels did not change durring periods of commitment to being single, suggesting that it was men with lower T levels were more inclined to become commited, not that the commitment itself lead t othat decline.

ALTHOUGH, in the studies, it also stated that the FEMALES had lower T levels tha twere commited.

I am still not totally convienced though, that being in a commited relationship DOESN'T effect your T levels.

Ive been kinda legtheric the past 6 weeks, lower motivation, and a few other things that are assoiacieated with having lower T... And I've kinda gotten lazy and by default I suppose, been in a commited relationship :P

..But why the hell do Ihave MUCH better sex drive when Im seeing more then one person? Why do I just look better when I do? why am I in a better mood most of the time? ...I just generally feel more "normal", or on the high end when Im NOT commited?
lol- all just perception I suppose, but there are just too many questions for me..

[wastedwhiteboy2]

I've also read studies that said the more you do it the higher your test levels will be. when I was married I did not get it much.

[Jayhawkk]

I feel better about myself and have much more drive because i'm on the look out for an attractive mate and work extra hard into getting it. The higher sex drive is there because there's always something new to be encountered and tried and that puts us in a state that adds to the arrousal...All imho opinion anyways.

[xtraflossy]

Originally Posted by Jayhawkk

I feel better about myself and have much more drive because i'm on the look out for an attractive mate and work extra hard into getting it. The higher sex drive is there because there's always something new to be encountered and tried and that puts us in a state that adds to the arrousal...All imho opinion anyways.

I understand the need/force of sexual diversity, and this is part of what makes the feeling great about it.. however, I don't know if or how that translates hormonally speaking. ..being one of the questions I have

The more you get sex, the more estrogen (aromatase) you have, signaling LH.
Estrogen is very important in libido. NOT having sex can result in higher test levels though, although I beleive that function to FORCE (in natures way of course) intercourse :P

[Dr Packenwood]

During my marriage, and to be perfectly honest here, we went nearly 2 years before we ended it. Which was fine. It was actually me not having the sex. She was having plenty.

With my relationship now, we are 1 year into it we only see each other 3 times a week at this point and we hit it 1-3 times that week.

4 months ago when we saw each other everyday it was 4+ per week, and according to her (she brought it up) she can't wait to move closer in the next few weeks so we can resume.

I know from experience, the less I got it the worse I felt. With this one, the more I get it, the better I become as a whole.

[xtraflossy]

Originally Posted by Dr Packenwood

During my marriage, and to be perfectly honest here, we went nearly 2 years before we ended it. Which was fine. It was actually me not having the sex. She was having plenty.

With my relationship now, we are 1 year into it we only see each other 3 times a week at this point and we hit it 1-3 times that week.

4 months ago when we saw each other everyday it was 4+ per week, and according to her (she brought it up) she can't wait to move closer in the next few weeks so we can resume.

I know from experience, the less I got it the worse I felt. With this one, the more I get it, the better I become as a whole.

lol- but what happens aftre you two see each other every day?,. Your 4+ times a week thing seemed to come after NOT being able to be together like that, and then seemd to be a period of time before your time appart resumed.

It's the being away that makes everything great. Once you get together consistantly, there seems to be a magical built in half life of all that..

[Dr Packenwood]

Originally Posted by xtraflossy

lol- but what happens aftre you two see each other every day?,. Your 4+ times a week thing seemed to come after NOT being able to be together like that, and then seemd to be a period of time before your time appart resumed.

It's the being away that makes everything great. Once you get together consistantly, there seems to be a magical built in half life of all that..

Well, we saw each other every day for almost 5 months before I moved, and thats when we were hitting it alot. After I moved it went down, because we didn't see each other more than 3 times a week, and I couldn't get to her house before 8pm. We both work early hours so we were alot more tired than we were when I lived closer to her.

When she moves closer, we'll see each other everyday, and even she's stated she misses what we had before I moved, and that she can't wait to start getting it 4+ times a week now that we'll have more than 2 hours a night in each others company.

[xtraflossy]

Originally Posted by Dr Packenwood

Well, we saw each other every day for almost 5 months before I moved, and thats when we were hitting it alot. After I moved it went down, because we didn't see each other more than 3 times a week, and I couldn't get to her house before 8pm. We both work early hours so we were alot more tired than we were when I lived closer to her.

When she moves closer, we'll see each other everyday, and even she's stated she misses what we had before I moved, and that she can't wait to start getting it 4+ times a week now that we'll have more than 2 hours a night in each others company.

I hear ya. It's still no period beyone the magical 6-8 months though. In EVERY relationship Ive been in (lol- ok, ok, so BOTH relationships Ive bee nin :P) over 6 months, "the thrill gone baby":P

Its always good until then.
Its NOW, that Ive been seeing her almost every day-ish (she was my primary ) that for around 6 months that I have notived a drop in things.. litterally

lol- I think I just need someone else, to add variety. ..maybe that tricks (or REALLY delays) any biologicial settings for this..

[Dr Packenwood]

Originally Posted by xtraflossy

I hear ya. It's still no period beyone the magical 6-8 months though. In EVERY relationship Ive been in (lol- ok, ok, so BOTH relationships Ive bee nin :P) over 6 months, "the thrill gone baby":P

Its always good until then.
Its NOW, that Ive been seeing her almost every day-ish (she was my primary ) that for around 6 months that I have notived a drop in things.. litterally

lol- I think I just need someone else, to add variety. ..maybe that tricks (or REALLY delays) any biologicial settings for this..

In all honesty what I think it comes down to is incompatibility. Me and my ex weren't compatible on literally every level.
Now, me and the new girl are so alike its like looking into a smaller, cuter mirror every time we're together. Since we both have similar sex drives (more like a run away train than a 'drive') we tend to enjoy each other more often than most couples that get used to one another, then become a 'oh its you again' type of couple.

After a year, this girl is probably one of the most compatible people I've met in my lifetime. Friends, girlfriends, etc. We think alike not only in the bedroom but nearly every where else. I think thats the biggest key in having a great relationship, sexual and otherwise.