SEX

[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 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.

[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?

[cheerfulgreek]

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.

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.

[PrettyBoy]

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.

Sydney, men are visual by nature. I don't think cheers meant it to be "the one cause". I think what you wanted her to say was "more" visual, which probably would have been a more appropriate way of putting it. Either way, you have to understand that men are straight up visual beings. Do some men want an emotional connection to women? Yes. For me, as well as for other men, we have to have a serious commitment with one woman in order to be sexually satisfied, but the bottom line is the visual stands out more than anything else. I'm not speaking of the low down jokers who can't or won't commit to ONE woman. Those jokers just want women to use their panties as ankle warmers, so to me they're pointless and not worth talking about.

I was trying to avoid breaking down how we think graphically, but I think it might be best, because it might help you understand us men better. Moderators if you have to delete this post, I'll understand, but I'm only trying to help.

SydneyK, because of sperm production and other factors, men naturally desire a sexual release about every 3 days or so. Some feel this need as often as every couple of days. Others experience it less. While the frequency of the need varies from man to man, each one has his own sexual cycle in which he experiences these physical desires. We receive sexual gratification through our eyes. We don't need a date, and we don't ever need to wait. We have our eyes, which we can use to take in sexual gratification at any time. We're turned on by female nudity in any way, shape, or form. We're not picky either. It can come in a photograph of a nude stranger just as easily as in a romantic interlude with a naked girlfriend. It's almost like we have a visual ignition switch when it comes to viewing the female anatomy. Women seldom understand this because they aren't sexually stimulated in the same way we are. A lot of women view this visual aspect of our sexuality as low down, shallow and dirty, but it's not. It's how we're made.

When it comes to having an orgasm, our minds are on one thing. The actual physical act of sex with the woman. It's that simple. For women, (and I may be wrong here) but for women, orgasm is probably 10% physical and 90% mental. If a man is trying to please his woman, he can forget about it if her mind is a million miles away. For men it's all physical, but generally women need to focus mentally on the sexual experience in order to receive ultimate sexual pleasure.

Sex is a cyclical need for men, meaning, we want it all the time, or whenever we can get it. Hell, we don't even have to look at a woman to get an erection. We can think it, it doesn't take long. Now, women have their own unique cycle. Although physical pleasure may not be a cyclical need for them like it is in men, women long for attention and affection on a regular recurring basis. For example, just as a man would become far more vurnerable to physically cheating if his woman rarely responded to his physical needs for a sexual release, a woman becomes far more vurnerable to physically cheating when her emotional needs are neglected over and over again. When a woman cheats, most often than not, it begins as emotional cheating. A woman's emotional needs are just as vitally important to her as a man's physical needs are to him. I'm not disagreeing with you when you said it's more than that, because for some men it is more than that. The bottom line is for the men who want a long term commitment, we're still visual and want sex on a recurring basis, but of course always with the same woman over and over again.

If you're currently in a relationship or married, I wish you the best. If you're single, good luck with your dating.

[cheerfulgreek]

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. 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.

YES!!! This is so good!

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

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

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.

I found this statement from Wiki... A jump off point.

Humans

A few well-controlled scientific studies have been published suggesting the possibility of pheromones in humans. The best-studied case involves the synchronization of menstrual cycles among women based on unconscious odor cues (the McClintock effect, named after the primary investigator, Martha McClintock, of the University of Chicago).[5][6] This study proposes that there are two types of pheromone involved: "One, produced prior to ovulation, shortens the ovarian cycle; and the second, produced just at ovulation, lengthens the cycle". This is analogous to the Whitten effect,[7][8] a male pheromone mediated modulation of estrus observed in mice.

Other studies have suggested that people might be using odor cues associated with the immune system to select mates who are not closely related to themselves. Using a brain imaging technique, Swedish researchers have shown that homosexual and heterosexual males' brains respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the homosexual men respond in the same way as heterosexual women. The study was expanded to include homosexual women; the results were consistent with previous findings meaning that homosexual women were not as responsive to male identified odors, but their response to female cues was similar to heterosexual males.[9] According to the researchers, this research suggests a possible role for human pheromones in the biological basis of sexual orientation.[10]

Another study demonstrated that the smell of androstadienone, a chemical component of male sweat, maintains higher levels of cortisol in females. The scientists suggest that the ability of this compound to influence the endocrine balance of the opposite sex makes it a human pheromonal chemosignal.[11] In 2002 a study published in the quarterly journal Physiology and Behavior showed an unnamed synthetic chemical in women's perfume appeared to increase intimate contact with men. The authors hypothesize, but do not demonstrate, that the observed behavioural differences are olfactory mediated. [12]

In 2006 it was shown that a second mouse receptor sub-class is found in the olfactory epithelium. Called the trace amine-associated receptors (TAAR), some are activated by volatile amines found in mouse urine, including one putative mouse pheromone.[13] Orthologous receptors exist in humans providing, the authors propose, evidence for a mechanism of human pheromone detection.[14]

Some body spray advertisers claim that their products contain human sexual pheromones which act as an aphrodisiac. In the 1970's "copulins" were patented as products which release human pheromones, based on research on rhesus monkeys.[15] Subsequently, androstenone, axillary sweat, and "vomodors" have been claimed to act as human pheromones.[16] Despite these claims, no pheromonal substance has ever been demonstrated to directly influence human behavior in a peer reviewed study.[15][17][16]

[cheerfulgreek]

^^^^This is really good. AKA_Monet thanks for this.

Also, I'm not sure if any of you heard of this experimental compound called bremelanotide, it's like a peptide which is currently still under development. What it does is, it blocks certain receptors in the brain that are involved in regulating basic drives such as eating and sex. So I'm guessing that it has an effect on boosting sexual arousal and desire in men and women. Pretty cool drug.

Hey, did you guys know that researchers at MIT are developing phone tech to make it easier to meet people? Serendipidy is a mobile phone application that uses Bluetooth to alert users when people with well matched profiles walk past them on the street. lol

[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.