SEX

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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".

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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

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.

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?

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Men are more visual than women. I wasn't slapping them in the face, it's the truth.

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

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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!

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

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

[Ronnie B]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

[Ronnie B]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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.

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.

[Ronnie B]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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!

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

[Drolefille]

The bad science hurts my brain.

[AKA_Monet]

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.

[PrettyBoy]

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.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

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.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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...

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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.

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

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?

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

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

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I think for men it's visual, but for women it's for more reasons than that.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.