SEX

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

This statement implies that for men, attraction is strictly visual. Why else specify that there's more involved for women?

If your statement doesn't mean that there's more involved for men, then don't single out the women and say we're the only ones who consider more than visual cues.

Sydney, you're adding again.

I never used the word strictly. I didn't imply anything. You took it the way you read it by adding things that were never said. It is more than visual for women. Go back and re-read PrettyBoy's post.

[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.

[sjsoffer]

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

[Drolefille]

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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.

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?

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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?

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

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.

It's great when men acknowledge the mental, emotional, and the spiritual. Those are obvious needs for all humans.

How much these stand out as compared to physical needs is largely about socialization and choice. Women's needs are only the reverse for the same reasons. Women who are driven by the physical more than the mental, emotional, and the spiritual are examples of that.

[PrettyBoy]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

It's great when men acknowledge the mental, emotional, and the spiritual. Those are obvious needs for all humans.

How much these stand out as compared to physical needs is largely about socialization and choice. Women's needs are only the reverse for the same reasons. Women who are driven by the physical more than the mental, emotional, and the spiritual are examples of that.

I believe that there are four distinct components that comprise our sexuality. The four components are the mental, physical, spiritual and emotional dimensions of our being. To me, these four parts combine to form the unique individual that we're designed to be. Like I said above. Some men are strictly physical, but some, like me need more. In a relationship our sexuality is not just limited to the physical. We're all sexual beings, wheter we have sex or not. We were sexual the day we were conceived. I think by definition, our sexuality is not what we do. Even people who are committed to celibacy are sexual beings. Our sexuality is who we are and we're made with a body, mind, heart and spirit. Therefore sexual integrity is not just about physical chastity. It's about purity in all four aspects of our being. When all four aspects line up perfectly, it reflects balance and integrity. I mentioned men are visual, but for some, like myself we want more, but I still believe the visual in men are in the drivers seat. The rest rides in the back seat.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

We're all sexual beings, whether we have sex or not.

Yes.

But what you were asserting earlier were sex and gender differences.

[PrettyBoy]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Yes.

But what you were asserting earlier were sex and gender differences.

I mentioned that women have physical sexual desires too, but the physical act of sex isn't an overwhelming temptation for women like it is for men. Like I said in an earlier post men and women struggle sexually in different ways. Men crave physical intimacy, while women crave emotional intimacy. A man's body can disconnect from his mind, heart and soul. A woman's body, mind, heart, and soul are all intricately connected. Men are stimulated by what they see, and women are stimulated by what they hear. Men have a recurrent physical needs cycle, while women have a recurrent emotional needs cycle. I think there are several differences, which is why it's so important in a relationship to try and meet each others needs.

[PrettyBoy]

Y'all are about to make me miss my movie. I'll catch up with you ladies later.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

I mentioned that women have physical sexual desires too, but the physical act of sex isn't an overwhelming temptation for women like it is for men.

Really?

And Hardee's says men don't bake (the commercial where dude asks his boys if they want his freshly baked biscuits). I wonder what makes people think such things.

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

Like I said in an earlier post men and women struggle sexually in different ways. Men crave physical intimacy, while women crave emotional intimacy. A man's body can disconnect from his mind, heart and soul. A woman's body, mind, heart, and soul are all intricately connected. Men are stimulated by what they see, and women are stimulated by what they hear. Men have a recurrent physical needs cycle, while women have a recurrent emotional needs cycle. I think there are several differences, which is why it's so important in a relationship to try and meet each others needs.

These differences seem real because physical and biological differences have been exaggerated. For instance, women are usually smaller so that has translated to women being the "weaker sex." That designation has translated to a whole lot of gender stratification and other things (mostly nonsense). From there it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you tell a man to stop being so emotional all the time, he'll stop being emotional--or pick and choose his outlets more carefully. Then observers will say "aha! see...men are not emotional like women are!" Then the cycle continues.

Suffice it to say that when my significant other and I come together to discuss each other's needs, aside from physical and biological differences between us, we are not saying "I woman...you man...."

When he and I do something for each other that the other is fully capable of doing her/himself, it is purely about social influence and chivalry rather than biological/inherent differences and needs for males and females. Our personality and behavior differences are not confined to male/female or man/woman. In fact, there are many personality traits and behaviors in both of us that defy gendered norms and stereotypes. Imagine that.

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

the physical act of sex isn't an overwhelming temptation for women like it is for men.

Like DSTCHAOS, I'm going to have to seriously disagree with this.

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

Men have a recurrent physical needs cycle, while women have a recurrent emotional needs cycle.

Whoa, if anyone has a "cycle" it's women and physical needs can be a very strong part of it.

I'm not attacking PB, I just wanted to chime in on what I see as some misconceptions.


Cheerful mentioned the commonalities of humans and other animals in her first post. There are definitely correlations but it gets very complicated when you bring psychological factors into it. Example: female birds may go for the prettiest plummage or moose for the biggest antlers but that doesn't always translate to humans. Personally, a large, "hot" guy would send me running in the other direction.

And on the other topic that Cheerful brought up and I don't think anyone's addressed....I think it tends to go against nature for males to be monogamous. All animals have the need to perpetuate the species wired in. Humans have put constraints on this. I'm not saying that I think men should run wild. I just understand that there may be a struggle between our animal instincts and what we've been socialized to accept.