SEX

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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.

[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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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.

Sydney, why are you adding to my post?

[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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Sydney, why are you adding to my post?

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

[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 DaemonSeid

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

Maybe she just misunderstood me. But how?

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Sydney, why are you adding to my post?

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

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

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

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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

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

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"?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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"?

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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

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

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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

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.

[DaemonSeid]

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.

see...you missed the first two words...and that is what I was trying to tell you BEFORE.


"I THINK..."

If she had omitted that out from the beginning then the whole statement on BOTH sides would become more concrete....do you see the logic of that yet??

[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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

[SydneyK]

ALL of this is clouded with an "I think". None of us know. It's all opinion. Her opinion (as I've gathered from her own posts) is that men are strictly visual. I even said that her words SUGGEST that men are strictly visual (no where in this whole mess of a thread did I ever say she came right out and said it - it's suggested, or implied).

I think she's wrong.

And I think this thread's a hellamess, so I'm bowing out.