SEX
 

I'll try to keep this as short as I can. I've been known to start extremely long read threads. Well, it's hard for me to keep them short because I'm, well...too inquisitive? I guess.:o:p

o.k. I've been getting ready for finals so my study group and I have been visiting quite frequently the last couple of weeks. Last night we were studying reproduction/spay/neuter in dogs and cats. That kind of thing. Well, sometimes we get off subject and start debating about other topics when we should be studying. We were discussing how sexual attraction in humans and animals are very similar. A few students in my group didn't agree, but I wasn't alone in my thoughts.

Like pheromones for example. I don't know their full role in humans, but pheromones have a huge impact in the animal kingdom. Like in mice. They have cells in the lining of their nose designed to pick up sex hormones released by potential mates. In humans, we seem to go for specific body odors, especially if it's a really nice smelling cologne or perfume. We also look at symmetry when we look at the opposite sex. It's similar in animals. Like in peacocks. The male with the most symmetrical feathers walks away with the female. Men tend to buy fancy cars and nice houses to attract a woman. Bowerbirds are no different. They attract females by showing off their nest, which they decorate with the shiniest pieces of litter or debris they can get. What's cute and funny about this, is the female bowerbird stays in the nest for a few minutes to observe it. If she doesn't like it, she flies away. If she likes it, he gets her. Very funny.:p Even the music we listen to is based on sex. Rock stars get more than their share of women. Similar are whales and birds when they sing to attract females. Mice also do it through ultrasonic sounds. I'm by no means saying that animals and humans are similar in intelligence, but we are sexually.

There's a member on greekchat who starts a lot of freaky threads in the D&R forums, and we all laugh but there's a lot of truth in the threads that are started by this member. I'm not picking on this member,:) I'm just trying to make a point. Not my sort of thing, but we all know some people have multiple partners, but it's similar to what antelopes do. It's typical in the topi antelope which have month long mating rituals. The female is fertile for only one day, and she mates with several partners (I think it may be up to 10, but I'm not sure) on several occasions each time.

Look at the guys who are surrounded by a circle of women. They seem to attract other women outside of the circle. This is true with a certain species of fish. I don't remember the species but the male with the most females attracts more.

Soooooooooooo is there a science to attracting the opposite sex?

Are mating strategies still driven by the evolutionary urge for men to spread their seed?

I think there is. If the 1st few seconds of a 1st date go wrong, you might as well forget it. People judge photos of faces according to attractiveness, likeability and trustworthiness in the 1st few seconds. Only prolonged contact can reverse a poor 1st impression.

Again, I'm only comparing humans and animals because in school we do it all the time. 99% of human genes share a comparable version in mice, and many of them appear in the same order in our chromosomes. We also have similar reproductive and nervous systems. That's why I compare and also why the mouse is used as a principle model for biomedical research.

Sorry so long...again.:o:)

CG...I agree with you...there is a science to it but moreso, just plain and simple, like attracts like be it scent or visual.


I do think that when you see someone, initially you already have an idea if you are physically attracted to them.

I do however have a question...

Something someone said to me a long time ago and I think there is a bit of truth to it and I would like to know what you think.

True or false:

Once a woman sees a man (especially if he is interested in her), she already knows from what she sees whether or not she will have sex with him.

I suggest you go read Sperm Wars and Red Queen.

Can't win the game if you don't know the rules.

Hmmmmmm...

Sometimes true, sometimes false. When I first met my ex, I thought at first glance a) he looked nothing like what I thought he looked like (we knew each other from work e-mails), and b) I thought he spent more time on his hair than I did.

He knew from the moment he first saw me that he wanted me. It took another few meetings for me to get there, but once I was at that point, I never wanted to let go. It just about killed me when he broke up with me (via e-mail and text, the bastard).

And lucky me, I get to spend two days with him next week. Yea. :rolleyes:

just a quick response to this, I think it's generally true, at least for me, sometimes things happen between people and you change your mind about them, but I think for the most part, women know ;)

"The Red Queen" is a good book on the topic, as Coramoor already said.

Yes there's a science whether it be biological or sociological, and no we don't completely
understand it yet.

Pheremones are also sort of up in the air as far as how much they effect humans.

Your information on mice genes is sort of misleading, similar is not the same.

Daemon, when you say like attracts like, my question is why? What causes the attraction? :)

I think for men it's visual, but for women it's for more reasons than that. At least it is for me. I mean, at 1st sight of course that would drive me to want to know more about him, but I wouldn't have sex with him just based appearance alone.

I think there is some truth to what you said about sex for some women. I think it's all about certain personality criteria though. Women are attracted to the tribal leader, someone who exhibits those characteristics of status. I do think that a lot of women that do the speed dating thing pretty much have made their minds up about a guy within 30 seconds of meeting him. For me and for some women, a simple smile can sometimes be enough to attract me to a guy.

CG...luv ya like a play cousin...but that last part is bullcrap:) ....nah just playing but really we are talking about the base level of sex.....before the convo really starts

See....some women have been conditioned to repress that id which gives them that urge to jump the guy's bones...LOL.

Thus, they 'want to get to know us better...'

I mean come on...you see 3 guys across the room...which one is gonna stand out?

Remember this too, women tend (not all let me say that now!!) to be more emotional than men when it comes to sex.

Yes, men may want more than just visual...but we are simply isolating one thing...sex...physical urges...putting everything else aside, we have to like what what we SEE first and then it goes from there.

What causes attraction...I dunno...I have an abstract theory that geometry has a role in it...hehehe!

Well anyway on an offside, has anyone ever noticed the dating patterns of some people? For instance a person may have 4 different women they may have dated and they may all be similar in height shape or weight?


Oh yeah....ps...I wasn't saying that women would have sex with men just based on appearance alone, what I should say is, that his chances are increased by the what she sees and his chances either go up or down from the first time he opens his mouth.


Hmmm....sounds like someone needs to channel Samatha from Sex and the City and find out if what I am saying is true!

Well, as far as pheromones are concerned the idea that the opposite sex responds to specific odors and chemicals has led to sprays that can be purchased in some stores and on the internet. Of course at this point there's little evidence that such products work, so I agree here.

Drolefille, mice have been used for biomedical research for more than a century now. Even with the advent of increasingly sophisticated genetic engineering techniques and more powerful computer technology, mice have actually become stand ins for humans upon which it seems every imaginable disease or condition is being studied, along with compounds to treat them. Hardly a week goes by without some new findings about heart disease, cancer, obesity, anxiety ect ect. From the beginning, these studies are all based on mouse models. By some estimates 25 million mice are used in medical research each year. I'm not saying mice are always the main source. Sometimes it depends on the study. Yeast, worms, fruit flies and even computer models all offer excellent insight into the workings of cell biology. We use mice a lot in school because they make better tools to study the immune, endocrine, nervous, cardiovascular, skeletal, and other physiological systems of humans and in my case, other mammals. Mice get many of the same diseases that humans do, rather it be cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, glaucoma, and to top it off, they even develop anxiety and aggressive behavior.

I know similar is not the same which is why I said 99% rather than 100%. I hardly think my information on mice is misleading at all.

Oh, don't give me that. You were so serious. Liar.:):p

Yes. This is right on. The minute he opens his mouth is what does it for me. If he's a hottie that's one thing, but if he's hot, but not very smart, romantic and can't hold a conversation with me then....uhhgg.:(

These studies use "mouse models" for the following reasons (in this order):

-Cost
-Lessened "noise" in the data due to outside factors, whether they be genetic interference, antibodies, etc. (these are Knockout mice, remember)
-Ethical considerations (it's hard to use humans)

The following has never, ever been a consideration in mice studies:

-Proximity to human research/similarity to the human body (in literal comparison with other animals; this may be true when compared with yeast, not so much with monkeys)

I'm saying this to provide context to my responses to your later points.

You're mixing your terms here. Cell biology is not similar to complex inter-system diagnoses of complex behavioral patterns (such as pheromonal interactions, or the existence of something as nebulous as "attraction"). Mice can be subject to diseases similar to humans, but that is simply because they are mammals - it is not some great, lucky advantage to the knockout mouse.

Mouse studies can indeed be misleading, by their nature. Let's take a look, again, at the reasons for using mice:

Reason 1: Cost
-These studies can be replicated, improving their utility - however, the assays are cheap and can be run with few controls, leading to a large number of trials (and outliers) that people then post on places such as message boards as gospel (for example).

Reason 2: Lack of interference (the "knockout" quality)
-This is both the best and worst part about lab studies on mice - the lack of interference is the very reason why the assays do not have any direct applicability to humans. The "noise" in the data may actually be the very interaction that prevents human use of a particularly novel or innovative observation - read up on gene therapy and mouse studies for more information on how this can be a massive problem. Just in the examples you've used, the fact that pheromones influence mice (which have little to no sociological influences as we would know them) has almost no applicability to a complex thinking organism that is subject to hundreds of outside factors (including choice). The "noise" avoided through mouse assays is actually the "signal" we need to root out.

Reason 3: Ethical considerations
-Ideally, this should not apply to an attraction study.

So the bottom line: mouse studies can be quite misleading, and should not be considered "99%" at anything except for the direct application to mice, or as an object lesson to drive future research toward its empirical end.

The moral? We can talk about bowerbirds and compare behavior, but we fall prey to logical fallacies very rapidly in these connections. Particularly, sociological connections between man and other animals is often colored by selection and confirmation bias - is buying a nice car really similar to collecting pretty things? If so, why aren't we comparing females wearing low-cut tops to female bowerbirds? Are we seeing what we want to see out of the extraordinarily simple mating methods of mice versus humans?

I think the question here is flawed. It sounds like you're looking for ONE cause; as if it isn't possible for attraction to have several "causes". One plus one plus one equals three, but one isn't a "cause" of three.

Ouch. There's a slap in men's faces.

Again with the generalizations.

Look, I see where you're going with the whole mice/human comparison thing. Lots of scientists have gained lots of information through testing mice (and other animals). Studying one thing can often be an avenue to understanding something else, but when you're talking about something as complex as human sexual attraction, then the comparison is way off.

We have no way of knowing whether the ugly boy mice have better communication skills than the hottie boy mice. And since this seems to play a role in human attraction, well, surely you can see how the comparison doesn't quite work.

KSig RC I agree with what you said about cost. I'm not saying mouse studies are exactly accurate. I just said that human genes share a comparable version in the mouse, and many of them "appear" to be in the same order in our chromosome. I didn't say they "are" in the same order. I wasn't mixing cell biology with behavioral patterns. I was responding to why I don't think mice studies are totally inaccurate. I already said that the pheromones are not yet known in humans.

I agree with some of the things you mentioned, but mice were used early on because highspeed computers and scanning electron microscopes didn't exist 100 years ago. Other organisms or cultured cell lines can be better models for some purposes. It really depends on the question being asked. That dictates the best model to use. Though mice are stand ins in some studies, they are still not a true substitute for humans. Treatments that work one way in mice can't always predict the same outcome in people. I'm aware of that, but we use them because of some similarities. Scientist constantly strive to create mice that more closely resemble human physiology. Nowhere is there a greater problem than in immunology research. Though we have many afflictions in common, I agree, mice have not evolved with a susceptiblity to many of the diseases that affect humans. Like HIV for example. To further complicate such research, the immune system involves many organs and systems throughout the body.

Consequently, understanding the genentics of the immune system isn't just a matter of inserting a gene into a mouse and waiting to see what happens. We must instead learn how genes behave as part of a complex network. It's also not trivial to simply transplant human cells into a mouse. You make great points, but they do make great models for studying humans and other mammals.

I really don't think you read anything I wrote - it's almost as if you simply regurgitated some notes from a class you took last semester, and I'm not sure why . . . perhaps I was unclear (I've been known to have that problem), so I'll reiterate, and hopefully not come off as a jerk or anything:

Mice do not, in fact, make great models for studying humans. Mice make acceptable models when conditions dictate a certain kind of assay or a certain "scale" is all that is available.

This is easy to prove, by counting the number of FDA approvals that have happened because of mouse studies (or, in a rather less snarky fashion, the number of failed attempts that were deemed a potential success after animal trials), but that's neither here nor there.

Running out the "mice use pheromones and ultrasound signals" line, similar to using peacock feathers or gay gorillas, has a strong chance of confirmation bias - Occam's Razor here. It's a fun thought experiment, but I think you're carrying it too far - it may be that I'm more skeptical, but I also may simply have more experience or a more realistic view.

I think you're too trusting of scientific findings that are of low real-world utility, and far too trusting of theoretical connections between animal sociology/mating behavior and human behavior, and I think this is connected to a misunderstanding of how to use research such as mouse studies. See: the mouse tar-painting studies for a great example of how to use mouse research - it even has epidemiological connections, so the complexity is much higher than usual.

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.

I disagree.

I said men are visual. I never said it was just one cause. Please show me where I said that. All I said was men are visual which they are, and that's o.k. And yes, for women, it is more complicated than that. I mean, it's like you were totally against what I said about men being visual, as if you didn't think so, but now you post that they are visual. It's almost like you just wanted to disagree with me just to be doing it.

Sydney, why are you adding to my post?:confused:

This is really good.

Like I was saying before, I thought KSig made some very valid points, I was just saying that neither one of our views are all together accurate.

I tried to tell him....people just don't read for comprehension, dear...

YES!!! This is so good! http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/41.gif

PB do you think you can make at least one post in the D&R forum without using the word hoe?:rolleyes::)

Maybe she just misunderstood me. But how?:confused:

I didn't add to your post. You said men are visual, and that women have more involved.

I'm a she, DS. And I certainly don't need to justify my reading comprehension skills to you.

Sorry Sydney. I thought you were a he.:o I edited my post from a he to a she.:p

You did add to my post. You said that I said "ONLY". I just said they are visual. Can you please show me where I said "ONLY"?

I don't know...I think you should really go back and re-read the first few passages that CG posted early on...she never made it concrete that THE CAUSE for attaction in men is visual.

it's very clear to me and no you don't need to justify it, but if you keep debating her on it when she has clearly stated that's not where she stands, then certainly comprehension becomes a question...

...carry on