[Jay Pan ROKK]

Interesting and makes sense.

[Cafu]

it seems too generalised - so depending on what part of the month it is, she is either attracted to bill gates or the rock.

Originally Posted by Rinksterk

Instead of demeaning and categorizing people who enjoy sex as "sluts," we should categorize people who don't/can't get laid as "biologically unfit."

that will be the day.

[NasDestiny]

Originally Posted by Ian Coe

but the latter is so much easier and you don't have other peoples problems burdening you

If I tell him to stop talking to me I'll be considered an ass, and the guy's pretty popular at my work. It's not quite the best thing when people can use someone (my) name in an unflattering way

[piedra]

As long as there are no more threads about dolls everything is fine.

[Ok]

Originally Posted by Seliente

The observation is a little more specific than you give it credit for. They have evidence using the sweat of different types of males, these studies show that women find the 'macho' sweat to have a better scent than the 'nice' scent while they are ovulating. There are also separate studies that show that women generally dress 'sluttier', are more sexually aggressive and seek out short-term male partners (selfish partners = short-term) while they are ovulating.

Also, on a very practical level, I was having a class discussion on this last year, and one of the girls in the classroom said "Well that makes perfect sense, because women are hornier then and all they want is a quick fix - we know to look for the selfish asshole because he will give it to us with no strings attached".

I may be misunderstood; this fluctuation in preference holds only a general significance. By which I mean just because a guy might find someone who is not their partner attractive, or simply see what would make them attractive (which surely is all but the most enamoured of souls) , does not mean this perception will override all other relationship factors and lead to an attempt at mating. Unless of cf course they were unfaithful material to begin with.

it is not a mechanistic law of behaviour, it is however an interesting observation of human nature, and goes lengths to explain the amorphous nature of the female kind.

[Ok]

Originally Posted by Rinksterk

This is exactly why I don't believe in love. This shit is all explained biologically.

Instead of demeaning and categorizing people who enjoy sex as "sluts," we should categorize people who don't/can't get laid as "biologically unfit."

many dubious assumptions are present. As a rule the more intelligent, the less children and later age of child birth.

consider certain countries, contrast with Japan

[Smashandgrab]

Originally Posted by Seliente

In a study that can be related to the former one, women are much much more likely to orgasm with a man who has a symmetrical face. Also, when a woman orgasms, her chances of becoming pregnant raise dramatically as the contractions actually serve to suck up semen. Women are also more likely to orgasm when they are ovulating.

Awesome.....don't have to worry about getting anyone pregnant then.

[Seliente]

Originally Posted by Ok

I may be misunderstood; this fluctuation in preference holds only a general significance. By which I mean just because a guy might find someone who is not their partner attractive, or simply see what would make them attractive (which surely is all but the most enamoured of souls) , does not mean this perception will override all other relationship factors and lead to an attempt at mating. Unless of cf course they were unfaithful material to begin with.

it is not a mechanistic law of behaviour, it is however an interesting observation of human nature, and goes lengths to explain the amorphous nature of the female kind.

Ah yes, of course. It is only a behavior that is seen in some women, although ALL women do prefer the 'macho' sweat when ovulating. At the very least, that neurological mechanism operating through the stimulus of pheromones, shows at least one biologically influenced aspect of attraction (but only a small part, as in humans there are MANY factors to attraction that operate through other mechanisms, especially for women - the book explains these too). That is precisely why it does not determine behavior mechanistically.

That's a question that hasn't been studied yet. Scientists don't really know what the frequency is for women actually acting out that kind of behavior. And they aren't even close to deducing why some women succumb to that urge, while others do not. One woman while she is ovulating may just sit at home and watch a movie, while another might go out on the town and three-wayed by three bikers.

I have some theories on why that have to do with Neo-cortexal influence on behavior, but it's all just theories. I think a lot of the variance in behavior stems from the interplay between the Neo-cortex, and the older parts of our mammalian brain. It's all just theories though, I would like to actually investigate the question some day.

[Seliente]

Originally Posted by Rinksterk

This is exactly why I don't believe in love. This shit is all explained biologically.

Actually, you should believe in love, it's as real as cake, or any physical object. Love, initially, has to do with the influx of oxytocin in the brain. If oxytocin levels rise, so does a person's 'love'. That is, if you assume monogamy as a function or manifestation of love. With other animals like the Prairie Vole and the Canadian Goose, who share the same influence of oxytocin, find only a single partner and mate for life. Also, upon meeting they are 'head over heels' and mate non-stop, often for days on end.

The most important practical evidence of love being real comes from the influence oxytocin has on a person's neurological makeup and nervous system structure. Oxytocin, well, this is a poor analogy, but consider it like nature's copier. It influences two peoples' nervous systems to interact, and sort of imprint upon each other.

Have you ever asked a couple a question while they are sitting together? What happens if they are getting along at that time? They look at each other first, they might discuss the answer together, and then answer the question. Lots of the time, the first look will serve as all the discussion they need to know that one person can speak for both. In Canadian Geese, couples sing a song together, one sings one half, the other sings the other half. When one of the geese dies, the other one simply sings the part of the song their partner would have sang, along with their own part. Also, if you ask any person who has lost their spouse they will tell you it feels like they lost half of themselves, and really, they practically have. Their nervous system is so dependent on the existence of another to maintain it, that lots of the time an older person who has lost their spouse might die soon afterwards. The likelihood (well, I'll admit, this part is personal observation) of the person dying closely after their loved one seems to be related to three factors: age/health, length of relationship, and intensity of relationship - the two last factors being a direct influence of oxytocin influence.

How do I know it's a direct influence? All men have a gene called (I think) C-22. This gene is responsible for the amount of oxytocin that a man produces when he meets/dates/marries/has sex with a woman. Men with a shorter gene produce less oxytocin, and men with a longer gene produce more. Men with the short gene are shown to generally be much more promiscuous and unfaithful, while men with the longer gene are shown to be much less promiscuous and more faithful. Oxytocin provides that crazy head over heels feeling that some people get - the crazier the feeling, the larger the impact, the more oxytocin pouring into that person's brain.

Not believing in love is just plain wrong, but you may be the type of guy who experiences less of it than others. (Myself, I am one of those long-gene guys, I get head over heels crazy for a girl that I start seeing, and always seem to go for long-term, intense relationships). Believe me, they both have their negatives and positives.

[MMAfan007]

Seliente, are you having a hard time getting laid? Nobody will kick you around if you are trying to solve a problem.