From: Bizarro7@aol.com
In a message dated 3/26/01 5:14:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, stephend999@yahoo.co.uk writes:
<< Is it ? I had better tread carefully here but I would have thought that the feelings one has for Avon, or whoever, who we know are fictional characters are going to be different to the feelings we have for our significant others. Assuming that identical physiolgical changes occur when someone undergoing a crush sees Avon and when someone who is in love with a real person sees their beloved we are, none the less, identifying two discrete phenomenon. >>
The *relationship* we have with our significant others is quite different,
if
only because we have access to them in the real world. The mechanism that makes us fall in love or develop a crush on them at the beginning of the process is identical.
But occurs within a much different social context. To take a parallell example, I think what Steven's saying is that the adrenaline rush one feels at the beginning of a race is exactly the same, biologically, as the adrenaline rush one feels if one is attacked in a dark alley. But this does not mean that running a race is the same thing as being attacked.
The crush on the TV character is "safe" in our society's context because there is no contact and no realistic expectation that the relationship can ever be anything but a fantasy.
See elsewhere, on "stalking." And outside the lunatic fringe-- why do people go to cons, if not to have contact with their idols?
It seems reasonable to assume that the chemical process that triggers this leverence process
was
developed to help us form lasting relationships and allow our offspring a better chance for survival and continuance of our genes, because both of
the
parents might still be together, protecting and providing for the
offspring,
a few years later.
Once again, Leah, I'd like to know where you're getting all this. In your last post I asked you if you could cite references (ideally with dates) to support your position; you haven't, and I'd like to ask again if you can back up your position with reference to extant studies. Without references, we have no idea whether you are speaking based on a body of scientific evidence, tested and substantiated, or whether you are just making it all up.
There would be no logical genetic justification for a 'separate' crush mechanism on an unattainable potential mate.
Plenty of justifications, though, from the meme theory and the anthropological studies you disparaged in your last post on this subject. Even the hardest of biological scientists these days admit that there's more to a human being than just self-replicating DNA.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com