It can be several causes, but then again it can be ONE cause. It depends on the person. Men are more visual than women. I wasn't slapping them in the face, it's the truth.

Knowing sexual behavioral patterns in humans is not really well known, but I was comparing them to the study in animals to see what other greekchat members thoughts were on this subject. In the animal kingdom it's all about status. Like in wolves the Alpha males gets 1st pick for everything. What woman wants to be with a whimpy guy without any confidence in himself? :)

I'm not saying that this is at all accurate, I just wanted to see other opinions on the subject. That's all.

The spin of it is...from your approach tho....we aren't talking about convo wise right? we are talking about that first look....or few looks....like what turns one on that would MAKE them go over and talk to see what chances they have of hopping in the sack....correct?

to a point she is NOT lying.....but let's just say that women are better at covering up than we are...HA!

KSig RC, I did read what you said. I know humans are far more complex than other mammals, but this is all we have to go on right now. My points aren't all the way accurate. I think you're making great points, but yours aren't all together accurate either. As far as failed attempts, that's true. What I said isn't a line. It may be true. You don't have the facts and neither do I, which is why I asked is there science to sexual attraction. I just wanted other opinions. If you think you're being skeptical, that's o.k. I never said you had to agree with me.

Thanks for the insight.:)

ETA: So what if I took notes in lab and followed them.:)

Daemon, I honestly think it depends on the person. Some women look at guys and approach them and possibly would want to sleep with them the same night. Some wouldn't. I'll just speak for myself here. Yes, the physical is the 1st thing I see. Don't we all? But I don't approach guys to see what my sexual chances are with them. I want to see if we're compatible with each other 1st. He could be hot, but if he's a jerk, I wouldn't want to sleep with him. That would be a major turn off. I wait a long time before I hop in the bed with a guy. If he waits then he may really be into me, not just the sex. If he just wants sex, then everything he said from the beginning were all lies and he won't hang around, he'll look for an easier woman. I'm not easy.;)

I agree with the 2nd part of your post. lol :p

Seriously, it's more than just physical attraction for me.

I'm feelin' all this. When I met my girl, she told me she knew right away that I would be the man in bed.

I don't know man. I'm straight up visual. I don't know about you, but a woman with a nice body makes me hard as hell.

Hell, my girl didn't cover up a damn thing. She let me know up front what she wanted.

The bad science hurts my brain.

Too many comments to choose from: CG and KC you are both right.

Having published now 5 science articles using genetically modified mouse models, mice are used to correlated the evolutionary genetic relationships across all "representative" model organisms used in research.

Humans cannot be used for strict genetic research due to practical and ethical applications. However, with the advent of microarray, translation state arrays and other tests, it might be possible to organize some ontology and ontogeny for molecular pathways.

There is the area of Behavioral Genetics that is coming out with all this advent of technology. Disease states show different expression of millions of microRNAs and proteo/metabolomics profiles. Almost a predictive states that possibly wil be used for diagnosis at the earliest. However, this is 10 years down the line. Think the movie GATTACA after the "natural born" child was born and the rattling off of predictive diseases.

I have not read THAT much on pheromones in humans in the top tier science journals. Of course, I am not pubmeding that subject, that much anyways. Last I read, was that humans have too high of complex thought and socialization to really have the need to use pheromones. Of course, I guess these scientists never used aphrodisiacs or gotten pissy drunk that said these things? But, the folks at Pfizer with Viagra, and the others beg to differ on the pheromones in humans concept...

So the question remains, are the rules of attraction in humans controlled in part by genetics? Perhaps. However, we are socialized and learned as to how we attract individuals or attention to us. We use a variety of techniques. Are they different in humans from animals? Somewhat. I think in 1997 Science put an entire issue about that and how to study it.

How we understand human love connections takes several levels of study. Biology/genetics only gives us the starter materials and cannot answer this question completely. I do think technology in pharma might assist some people who feel they need it.

I don't know the whole science background as of what KSig and cheers were talking about. I think if I had to choose, I think KSig made more believable and realistic points of view. cheers, you're trying to compare animals and humans. To me they don't compare. Animals mate with multiple partners for survival. It's nature. Humans do it for pleasure. Any woman or man who have sex with multiple partners have some sort of dysfuntional problem. Men and women who have multiple partners like animals do, need psychological help. Human beings are not animals, nor should they think like animals.

cheers I agree with you when you said men are more visual. We are. SydneyK how is that a slap in the face? That's how men are made. Of course, women do struggle with sexual issues as men do, but the physical act of sex isn't an overwhelming temptation for women like it is for men. (Now I'm only speaking of decent women and men here. I'm not going to comment on the skanks) Men and women struggle in different ways when it comes to sexual integrity. While a man's battle begins with what he takes in through his eyes, a woman's begins with her heart and her thoughts. A man has to guard his eyes to maintain sexual integrity, but because women are made to be emotionally and mentally stimulated, she has to guard her heart and mind as well as her body. When it comes to sex women are dealing with it from both ends of the spectrum. For them it's both sexual and emotional.

While a man needs mental, emotional, and spiritual connection, his physical needs tend to be what stand out, and his other needs don't stand out as much. The reverse is true for women. If there's one particular need that drives women, it's by far their emotional needs. I believe men give love to get sex, and women give sex to get love. I'm not bashing anyone, it's just the way we are, and how we are made.

Another unique difference between men and women is that many men are capable of having sex with a woman without feeling the need to give their minds, or hearts where as women are unable to do this. Again I'm speaking of normal men and women, not the hoes, so don't get the two confused. A man can enjoy sex without committing his heart or bonding spiritually with the object of his physical desire. A woman's body, however, goes only to someone whom she thinks of night and day and with whom her heart and mind have already connected (unless there is dysfuntional or addictive behavior involved) When a woman gives her mind and her heart, her body is usually right behind. They both are intricately connected. Men are more aroused by what they see with their eyes. Women are more aroused by what they hear.

Again, I don't know about the science part of it, with the exception of the little bit of national geographic I've watched on t.v.:)

I never said men weren't visual. CG indicated that the one cause of sexual attraction for men is visually related. She then indicated that, for women, it's more complicated than that.

My point was simply that, even though men are indeed more visual than women, it's insulting to men to suggest that the only thing that makes a woman attractive to them is her looks. As if to say that women consider all kinds of things (attractiveness, communication skills, etc...) but men consider only one.

I agree that men are more visual than women, but I don't think that's all there is to it for men.

actually no...she didn't say that....it depends on the person...

and the important part of that is 'CAN BE' not 'IS'.

Now, I agree with you too...and fellas let's face it, when we look at women, there is a whole lot we are looking at in one good look and that in part determines how or if we will appraoacher her...

Now...interestingly last night, in a show I was recording...someone asked me how I feel about women in provocative clothing...so..let me pass that question on to you all...doesx provocative dress 'provoke' us? How? Why?

Does it take away from men wanting to more about the woman mentally?

Hmm... seems to me that her quote below suggests that men are strictly visual but women consider more than that.

"I think for men....."

"I think..."

"think..."


Breaking that down...I would translate that her 'thinking' is leading her to a conclusion but because she is 'thinking' on it and not saying 'I know'...would give me reason to believe that she has yet to draw a conclusion being as...she is not a man and unqualified to speak as a man but the other portion is well qualified as she is a woman and can speak as a woman....you get it?


But then again...who knows...you may be in the minority that believe that men aren't visual creatures. ;)

I never said men aren't visual creatures. I simply said that it's insulting to suggest that men are ONLY visual creatures, which is what she did.