[Y]ou can be f**k-buddying with some dude who isn't even all that great and the next thing you know, you're totally strung out on him. And you have no idea how it happened. Oxytocin, that's how it happened. And since nature can't discriminate between marriage material and Charlie Sheen, you're going to have to start being way more selective than you are right now.
[Y]ou know what really gets me about this sort of thing? If it were true, you wouldn't have to be told about it. Falling in love after sex would be like getting thirsty on a hot day -- blatant and predictable. "Welp, now I'm in love with you" would be as everyday as "welp, now I want a nap." When someone tells you something about your own nature and it comes as a surprise, skepticism is in order.
I dunno if "nature" can distinguish between marriage material and Charlie Sheen, but I can. But wait... I'm made of nature!
Source: The Pervocracy
First of all, like men never get "strung out" on our partners, even very short-term partners...
...wait a minute!
I'm sure I was going to say something all intelligent and quirky and thoughtful-like but I've just been distracted by numerous recollections of first, second, and third-hand reality.
Quick survey time for any reader who's ever had a (biologically and/or self-identified-as) male partner:
Is it true, as McMillan implies, that only women form uncontrollably, dare I say uncomfortably deep attachments to short-term and even one-night-stand partners? Can it be that this never happens to men? Answer in comments, below.
And now quick survey time for any reader who's ever been a biologically and/or self-identified-as male:
Is it true, as McMillian implies that you've never become deeply, dare I say even goopily attached to a short term or even one-night-stand partner? Can it be this has never happened to you or another man you know? You can answer in comments as well but speaking for myself the answer is no, I've fallen embarrassingly hard for women I'd barely met.
Because, as the whole point of the oxytocin narrative is that women have it by the gallon and men only by the milliliter. And without oxytocin, why, you can barely form an attachment to your catcher's mitt let alone a full-sized, interesting-in-her-or-his-own-right human being.
It seems to me...
That there's an awful lot of hurtin' cowboys out there. At least as many as there've been hurtin' cowgirls. And I'm pretty sure there always have been, and I'm guessing there always will.
Gee, if you can get the same thing when you've got lots of oxytocin and next to none then... maybe the oxytocin theory is a contrived piece of batshit cooked up by conservative, gender-essentialist fundamentalist cranks to explain why women shouldn't have sex except for reproduction.