Again. Bond does not equal love less.
I know this is the Pit, but I’d like to see a cite on this. Taking this completely at face value…If this truly was the case, *all * women would want to be mothers which is simply not true.
Maybe here is where the miscommunication lies. I’m not talking about an emotional bond, which is what some people seem to equate my statements as. I’m talking about a biological bond which exists on a chemical level. The cite that I linked and Motorgirl discussed earlier addressed this.
No, you’re talking about instinct. And as far as I know, the jury’s still out on whether or not humans have any instincts. Please provide a cit.
I never claimed there was one.
And all mothers would be loving, nuturing, and caring toward their children.
I didn’t say all women. In fact, I specifically did not say all women because I knew someone would come back and say “But it doesn’t, or all women would want to become mothers!” 
Maternal instinct exists in females, especially in female mammals, to a varying degree depending on the female. There is no 100% of anything that exists in nature.
Uh, money that’s marked for bills or expenses isn’t exactly available, I would think.
Discussed, yes. Concluded it supported your claim, no.
Is this bond one directional? Do biological children have a bond with their parents that adoptive children do not? I think what you are describing is better termed a set of changes within the mother.
But what does that chemical bond do? How do you know it’s there? What makes it different from an emotional bond?
Sure you did. Then when I explained that wasn’t my statement at all, you moved the goalposts
Hm. Well, while this site refers to it obliquely:
it doesn’t actually discuss the question of instinct in humans, but takes it as a given natural response.
Because I like dogs. My husband wanted a dog who could catch Frisbees, and I like the safety they provide. so we went to rescue, and got one. Then we thought that the dog might be lonely, so we got another.
Why did you have kids? Perhaps your husband and you just wanted something you could care for together? Maybe that’s why we got a dog. One day I said “honey, let’s get a dog. And we did”
I drive 1500 miles for Christmas. I have to stay with people. I don’t mind leaving my dogs alone, when I go to friend’s houses at home, I leave them home. However, when I am staying at a strange (for them) house or the holidays, I don’t want them to get destructive. They normally don’t but I don’t know. I can visit longer if I have them with me. As for SIL not being comfortable, she has dogs of her own, and it certainly wouldn’t hurt to put mine in the back with hers
Or sister stays for a short visit. Your choice, you’ve made it. However, if you came over to my house I’d put my dogs in the backyard. Will you do me a favor and do the same with your children? (BTW tying up dogs is not generally safe unless you have a proper tie down)
I guess I just really never realized that a whole lot of people resent people who love their pets! So I can say over, and over, that I realize they aren’t children, but you still think I have a screw loose. That’s weird. Why should you give two hoots who, or what, I love, and how much I love it? And here I just thought it was the asshole who yelled at me at the Farmer’s Market.
I think we are speaking at cross-purposes.
My parents have two large, wonderful, loving dogs. They have their own beds, which they do lay on when company is over. However, they are allowed (note the choice of words) to lay on the couch when company is NOT over. It is not that the couch is “theirs”, necessarily, but that it is a favorite place for them to lay when it is appropriate. If my mother hasn’t had a chance to vacuum the chair before guests come over, people get warned that if they sit on the couch they’re going to be covered in dog hair.
Similarly, my cousins have a ratty, beat-up old recliner that they do call “Cody’s chair” (Cody being the dog), but that’s because it’s not the most comfortable chair for humans to sit in, and they’ve kept it only because Cody likes it (I doubt it’s been in any sort of human-comfy condition for longer than Cody’s been alive, however). That said, when there are enough people over at their house that the chair is needed for a human butt a warning is given (as I mentioned, largely WRT hair and dander and not “don’t sit there at all”) but people can and do sit in “Cody’s chair.”
I’ve known all sorts of pet owners in my life, and not a one of them has ever designated a piece of human furniture as only for a given pet. I don’t doubt your example, I just think it’s an extreme and not at all representative. By the same token, I have heard of people who won’t let their children (or anyone else’s) sit on the “good” furniture.
But then I still want to see a cite that proves *any * women have this so-called “maternal instinct”. Because as I said earlier:
Can anyone provide a cite on human instincts? Our brains have developed to the point where our babies are completely useless. They can’t even burp themselves and must be burped! I know the consensus of the scientific community leans towards “no instincts”; I’d like to hear some opposing viewpoints.
No, stupid, I didn’t. I made no claim at all about the feelings of adoptive parents.
I think I finally understand. Please tell me if this is true?
**The mother undergoes a brain chemistry change. **
I will buy that; it would appear to be a provable portion of the “Maternal Instinct”
**What is the hard link to the baby? **
Unless we are talking, pheromones or some other unproven theory it sounds like the Mom would have the same “Maternal Instinct” with a surrogate child.
I note your link would support the idea that on a biological nature Mothers would have a stronger bond to a child they are caring for then Fathers. This of course would vary my individual but it looks like they have proved what most of us already knew.
Jim {This thread is moving too quick 
}
I would agree with that statement, and this site seems to back that up as well.
anaamika, I don’t know what to tell you. Human beings are mammals, animals. To me, that automatically implies instincts. A different level of evolution does not imply that we lost animal instinct along with the necessity for our appendix. I hadn’t previously seen anyone assert that humans lack instincts. Do you have a cite or study?
Sorry, I’m a little late to the party - got distracted, by work of all things. :rolleyes:
No, but I didn’t make the initial claim! As for a cite, only my professors in college, who universally claimed there were no human instincts left. I will look when I get home, but work has gotten kinda busy, so will be back later.
Damn, this thread is moving fast.