Oxytocin Regulates Sociosexual Behavior In Female Mice 216
Chipmunk100 writes In a research article in the journal Cell scientists report that there is a subset of neurons that are vital in social interest of female mice for males during estrus, the sexually receptive phase of their cycle. They say that these neurons are responsive to oxytocin. The level of oxytocin rise when we hug or kiss a loved one. The BBC has an article on the findings as well, and reports that
Without [oxytocin], female mice were no more attracted to a mate than to a block of Lego ... [The affected] neurons are situated in the prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain important for personality, learning and social behaviour.
Both when the hormone was withheld and when the cells were silenced, the females lost interest in mating during oestrous, which is when female mice are sexually active.
Oxy-what? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, did somebody mention LEGO?!
As expected (Score:3, Insightful)
Saw this story, knew the comments would provide ammo for the SJWs. Way to go, morons.
Re:As expected (Score:4, Funny)
Funny, I saw this story and knew it would provide ammo for people who use phrases like Social Justice Warrior. Way to go, moron.
Re: (Score:3)
Saw this story, knew the comments would provide ammo for the SJWs. Way to go, morons.
What do Single Jewish Women have to do with anything?
Re: (Score:3)
Is it that offensive that people would think sexism, racism and homophobia are a bit knuckledragging and stupid?
The only ones promoting sexism are SJW's.
Re: (Score:3)
But this isn't what the majority of people labeled "SJWs" here do at all. Seriously, give us an example or I'm going to have to file this under "tin foil hat".
Re:As expected (Score:4, Interesting)
Thats great advice. The problem is statistically men aren't working more, they are just getting paid more, and thats unfair.
I'll ignore everything else[1], but that statement has long been acknowledged as wrong [forbes.com]. To be honest, if women were more valuable than men in the workplace (produced the same for less pay) the first all-female company to arise would sooner or later tower over the industry due to the lower employment costs. This does not happen - see here [dailymail.co.uk]
[1] Discussing feelings is useless; there are no objective measures hence we come down to the argument of whose feelings matter more.
Re: (Score:2)
You illustrate the problem for women quite well. Businesses only value what makes them money, where as many women do things that don't create wealth for the company but are vital for society. Of course some men do to, so it's really a problem for both genders, but tends to affect women more commonly.
If a woman needs to finish work on time to go pick up the kids while the other men in the office can stay on and put in some overtime then from the business' point of view the men are more valuable. From society
Re: (Score:3)
You illustrate the problem for women quite well.
That's because I understand the problem very well; it's an economic/fiscal one, not a cultural one. The poster I illustrated the problem to did not understand and was/is convinced that it was the culture that lowered womens' pay and not simply cold hard business logic.
More over children need fathers too, and encouraging overtime just reduces the time and energy they get.
That would be great! However I have already been convinced by the courts, the social workers, the child psychologists and the offices of the family advocate that my son needs no more than every alternate weekend with me. They all agreed that i
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of how broken your society is with regards to understanding a child's need to see its father, you missed the point. Being a parent is a valuable "profession", it provides a valuable service to society, and yet isn't factored in when considering an individual's pay.
Essentially, parents are expected to provide high quality labour for less than free, because not only is it unpaid but it also reduces their earnings from work. The result is that people either don't have children (see Japan for why tha
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of how broken your society is with regards to understanding a child's need to see its father, you missed the point. Being a parent is a valuable "profession", it provides a valuable service to society, and yet isn't factored in when considering an individual's pay.
I agree both that parenting is a valuable profession and a valuable service, however society (yours and mine) doesn't currently have a high correlation between valuable services and high pay. Why are you expecting that society in general would make an exception for this valuable service/profession?
Essentially, parents are expected to provide high quality labour for less than free, because not only is it unpaid
Maybe in the past, but courts have decided that even in the even of a pre-nup a woman who gave up a career to stay at home will still get paid. Legal precedence trumps everything else, and there's more than enough
Re: (Score:3)
"The only ones promoting sexism are SJW's."
Yeah this is going to need a citation! Because I'm pretty sure "Stop staring at womens boobs" and "Raping people is bad" are not sexist statements!
As you wish:passed around everywhere [facebook.com]. Nevermind who said it first, everyone's saying it now. If only the feminist movement would restrict themselves to "don't abuse women", or "equal pay for equal work" there wouldn't be a problem - the problem is that they aren't interested in that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that both genders have a right not to be stared at if they don't want to be. The way I look at it, the way men are wired (yes, there are biological differences between the genders, shock horror) to stare more than women are, and sometimes we don't realize (consciously) that we're doing it. That happens. I've done it without realizing. The important part is how you react once you're called on it, once you're consciously aware that you're doing it, and that you've made the woman in question uncomf
Re: (Score:3)
I think that both genders have a right not to be stared at if they don't want to be. The way I look at it, the way men are wired (yes, there are biological differences between the genders, shock horror) to stare more than women are, and sometimes we don't realize (consciously) that we're doing it. That happens. I've done it without realizing. The important part is how you react once you're called on it, once you're consciously aware that you're doing it, and that you've made the woman in question uncomfortable. IN MY OPINION, the appropriate reaction is to quietly apologize, make corrections to the situation as warranted (for example, if you're on a treadmill that's behind a woman in yoga pants, and you got caught staring at her behind, offer to move to another treadmill), and let her vent a bit at you if she wants to.
Nonsense - looking at someone's fully clothed behind doesn't necessitate any apology. As for corrections, she is free to move to another treadmill that is not in front of me - the gym is filled with 'em.
Don't accept abuse, you've already apologized, but accepting a dressing-down for inappropriate behavior will not kill you.
I'm sorry, that's not inappropriate behaviour. She is free to leave. If you follow her then THAT is inappropriate behaviour. If she persists in staying directly in front of you and then complaining about being looked at then SHE is the problem, not you.
This applies in the other direction, too. A man should not be objectified or stared at either, IF he does not wish it. Culturally, IN MY OPINION, men are less likely to take offense at the attention,
That's the entire problem - what someone takes offense a
Re:As expected (Score:4, Insightful)
A) No one has the right to not be offended. You don't have that right, I don't have that right and some random female who wants to jog directly in front of me doesn't have that right. If you think everyone has a right to be offended and must be apologised to, then please know that I am offended by your right to an opinion (hence, by your own fucked-up logic, I deserve an apology).
B) Just because someone "feels" offended, intimidated or ogled doesn't mean that they actually are offended, intimidated or ogled. Come back and argue this point when those things can be measured independently of what the subject feels. Until then all you're doing is pandering to whoever convinces you that they are the bigger "victim", and thus the system you propose will only reward professional victims disproportionately more.
C) You are free to do whatever the fuck you want to; however until I break a law you, and the person who "feels" harrassed, intimidated or whatever can go fuck yourselves. Courts and society agree with me on this one - it's a free country and you cannot prevent someone standing in a public place simply because your unmeasurable and unexplainable "feels" are being violated by their eyes.
(PS. I'm waiting for my apology)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry that you feel that way.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point entirely. That is not a possible thing to do given today's technology.
Well if you cannot measure that something exists why the hell are you asking me to apologise for its existence?
If someone says they are offended, then they are.
I've already said that I'm offended by you having the freedom to express an opinion - by your logic you must now apologise for exposing me to your opinion and run away and express your opinion elsewhere. I mean, that's exactly what you said must be done if you've offended someone, right?
The problem, which you are obstinately refusing to see, is that asking people to accept that they did wrong when
Re: (Score:2)
No, what I said was quietly apologize and then be quiet. Arguing over who has a right to be offended, like we're doing right now, is a waste. I think your reliance on the law to be the end-all and be-all of acceptable beha
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, I'm glad I'm not married to you. Part of being married is understanding that the other person's feelings, however justified (or not), are more important than you're stating here. If she feels neglected, it doesn't matter if she actually IS neglected or not. It's a problem that you and she need to work on together.
Hang one, why is her point of view more legitimate than mine?
If you think their offense isn't justified, tough shit.
Well, tough for them - I don't have to do anything if someone is offended by me - they have freedom of association to go associate with someone else. Very tough shit - they get to put up with it or leave.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that you're trying to decide who's right. Who is right is not important when you're talking about a long-term relationship. If you go through every interaction with your wife based on what YOU think is right or not, you're going to have a bad time. People (men AND women) are irrational, illogical, emotional beings who can't be corraled into binary logic.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't have to do anything. You are free to be as big an asshole as you want. Just don't be surprised when you get called out on it. They are free to 1) not leave and 2) call you a self-centered, rude, obnoxious, offensive asshole. If you're OK with that, well, go on with your bad self. Just don't claim victimhood when they do.
I never claimed victimhood, I never claimed that my "feels" were infringed or that my rights were violated. You claimed that if someone else feels like a victim I should apologise. I claimed that until I break a law there's nothing you can do and thus there is nothing for me to apologise about
And, to be fair, the only obnoxious assholes in real life (the ones that get called that to their face, that is) are those like you, who believe that everyone else should pander to what is their idea of right and wrong
Re: (Score:2)
And I think that's what you need to work on. If you can't be concerned with the feelings of others, well, you're part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Social Justice is to justice as People's Democracy is to Democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Reverse discrimination probably has a legitimate role is encouraging a transition from an entrenched, systemic bias to an unbiased situation.
But once people become invested in crusading against their pet cause, they can't stop.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Help for women with no sex drive? (Score:5, Informative)
There are several -Genuine- treatments (read: Aphrodisiacs) in trials right now.
The main promising one right now is PT-141 (Bremelanotide)
The main downside is it must be injected which will skeeve a lot of women out. It does work on men AND women though.
From their site: " In a recently completed Phase 2B clinical trial, bremelanotide 1.25 mg and 1.75 mg doses significantly increased sexual arousal, sexual desire and the number of sexually satisfying events, and decreased associated distress in premenopausal women with FSD. Efficacy was seen in both women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) and combined HSDD/female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD)."
Since it is currently just in trails and unscheduled, you can order it right now from research peptide sites.
Let's say a friend's wife has tried it, and she was as horny as a 18 year old boy for about 2-3 days. It is genuine arousal, not some blood flow modifier etc like Viagra.
Re:Help for women with no sex drive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikipedia states it (Bremelanotide) was found as a side-effect of a tanning agent.
I genuinely wonder... is this how research works in neurology? Do we even have a basic understanding that could help us design such drugs, or are we just dependent on whatever side-effects come out of drugs from other fields?
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is funny, because the very article for this thread is about neurological research.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's how discovery works. People are mucking about doing something and notice something else happening. "Hmm, that's interesting". The science part is often narrowing down a) What's happening, b) what's causing it, c) how to get it to happen by itself.
A lot of people seem to think that there's a science shovel, and if you pay a scientist enough money to dig long enough, that eventually they'll hit pay dirt and have a geyser of science flowing out. (That's why they wear labcoats and goggles, obviously
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia states it (Bremelanotide) was found as a side-effect of a tanning agent.
I genuinely wonder... is this how research works in neurology? Do we even have a basic understanding that could help us design such drugs, or are we just dependent on whatever side-effects come out of drugs from other fields?
Well, if you want another data point viagra was originally being developed for blood pressure I believe, and they found a side-effect. I believe propecia is in the same boat as well.
Happens all the time, not that this is necessarily the norm.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the "Barbie drug" is Melanotan II. I believe it was the peptide that PT-141 was derived from. PT-141 has no tanning or weight loss, just hornyness.
Now available (Score:5, Funny)
New Axe body spray with oxytoxin.
Downside (Score:2)
Re:Downside (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Oxytocin is destroyed in the gastrointestinal tract in humans. It's normally administered via intravenous injection or nasal spray. So, body spray could actually be useful for getting it to work on people.
However, it doesn't have the same effect in humans as it apparently does in mice.
In humans, Oxytocin creates and/or promotes social bonding. It does not create a sexual response in humans, but levels of it become heightened during and after sexual activities.
So, people can drop the immature sex jokes (or waste their time and keep posting them) as using it on the opposite gender won't automatically cause them to want to have sex.
OTOH, it could be used to make people like each other. World Peace drug, anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Oxytocin is destroyed in the gastrointestinal tract in humans. It's normally administered via intravenous injection or nasal spray.
It is actually available in a pill form now, but you have to get it specially compounded. I'm only aware of one pharmacy in the US that does it (though there may be more by now).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Oxytocin is destroyed in the gastrointestinal tract in humans. It's normally administered via intravenous injection or nasal spray.
It is actually available in a pill form now, but you have to get it specially compounded. I'm only aware of one pharmacy in the US that does it (though there may be more by now).
Is there any bioequivalence or clinical data that suggests that it actually works? Or did some compounding pharmacy just throw it into a pill and start selling it?
Compounding pharmacies are both useful and necessary. However, of late some have earned a reputation for just being end-runs around regulations designed to ensure that the drugs we buy are both safe and effective. The fact that they can throw some stuff in a pill doesn't mean that it works.
Normally if you want to reformulate something into a ne
Polar Direction (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Pest Control (Score:2)
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it: there are many that consider us humans to be pests, and would like nothing more than for us to stop breeding to reduce the population down to a tenth or less what it is now.
Then again, if oxytocin in humans (and other primates, I assume) results in bonding rather than sex and (more distant assuming) peace, then what do you suppose is happening right now where people will kill you over any slight and trolls rule the online world? Perhaps, the conspiracy th
Re: (Score:2)
Many what? Other humans? Aliens? This doesn't make any sense.
If you dare... (Score:5, Funny)
Browsing at -1 in this thread is fucking terrifying.
Re: (Score:3)
You must be new here. This is an average day on Slashdot. Possibly even more civil than usual. You ought to try browsing at -1 all the time.
Re:If you dare... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't say I disagree, and I have a few opinions about that (some of which are fairly popular and well received, others not so much). Recently I've been trying to understand more about Feminism and it's been a fairly rough learning process which has probably cost me some friends, but I'm still pushing on with it. I see a lot of good there, but I'm also seeing a lot of bad, too.
I think the main problem is... there is no Pope of Feminism, so anyone can adopt that label and claim to represent it. This makes it hard to judge the intentions of that person because while most Feminists are genuinely committed to reaching true equality, some are not, and those happen to be the loudest, most confrontational, most aggressive ones who also tend to be the ones most vocally claiming to represent Feminism.
And some of those people are remarkably bigoted.
As a movement, in general Feminism makes some really excellent points, some of which have caused me to rethink a fair few important parts of my life and my own behaviour -- and that's good. Some self-reflection and introspection is an important part of living a healthy life and I really recommend it for everyone.
The problem is, it just seems like no matter how much we agree, whenever I speak to anyone who describes themselves as a "radical feminist" (the self-described part is important) it inevitably becomes a negative experience for me. This is surprising for me because of how much we agree on.
For example, I acknowledge there is a power imbalance between women and men, favouring men. It's hard for me because, as a man, I can't control how other people act, only myself. So I do my part and treat women equal to men. I have a female gym trainer, female IT head, female editors for my books and I have both female superiors and subordinates in almost all aspects of my life, as well as a large number of female friends. I treat them as I would men in their respective positions -- as cool people to hang out with, as people to follow my instructions or give me instructions respectively, or people who fix the errors in my books. Women are worthy of praise and criticism equally, and when I develop a negative opinion of someone, it's because they're incompetent, or rude, or any other attribute that's not related to their gender.
That just doesn't seem enough for the self-described "radical feminists" I meet. Whenever gender issues come up, we can usually have a great discussion -- up to the point I bring up anything that might be described as favouring men over women, even when women aren't the "cause" of it (such as the male suicide rate being twice that of women, and the suicide rate amongst trans* people twice that again). When this happens, even raising the point immediately puts them on the defensive. Suddenly I'm trying to deny that there's problems for women. Suddenly I'm the 'straight white cis guy with an opinion'; which seems to be the enemy. There's an expectation of bad faith there that means that anything I say that's not overtly stating that women are an oppressed slave-like underclass with no rights is seen as a misogynistic attack.
Ultimately, this kind of behaviour undermines the often good, legitimate points that feminism makes, making it easy to dismiss the whole movement. For feminists (male and female) who don't self-apply the "radical" term, I can almost always have a good, positive, helpful discussion with them about a broad range of issues and I usually come out feeling that there's a genuine move towards acknowledging that life is sometimes shitty for a lot of people irrespective of gender, colour or creed and that we should all work towards fixing the inequalities in our society together, as a species, and that makes me really happy.
Discussions with self-described radical feminists, though, usually end with me getting angry that my (smaller, less critical problems) are dismissed quite casually, and then as the anger fades, unable to shake the nagging feeling that the "quest for equality" is a sham and that instead
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to help then the first thing to do is stop focusing on the "radical feminists". Talk about the issues, not the individuals you disagree with.
I'd also say it's worth looking at men's liberation too. Most guys are horribly repressed, obsessed with living up to the ideal of the "real man" rather than being happy with themselves. Women got past that in the 60s when they rejected the 1950s housewife ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, I acknowledge there is a power imbalance between women and men, favouring men.
That smells like a crock of shit to me. Please list examples in Western societies today where there is a power imbalance between the genders. Including ones where women are given preferential treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Please list examples in Western societies today where there is a power imbalance between the genders. Including ones where women are given preferential treatment.
Well, there are a few places. For example: I write in speculative fiction, especially sci-fi, and it's hard for female sci-fi authors to be taken seriously in that field. The reverse is true in other fields (I write paranormal romance under a female pen-name, because nobody will buy romance written by a man), but that is one example of where men an
Re: (Score:3)
Politics.
Women can vote too. Apparently they're voting for men. Or maybe not as many women are willing to put in the time and effort to be high-ranking politicians. Either way I don't see any "power imbalance". Women have equal opportunity.
The only ones of which I am aware are Maternity leave (more common that Paternity leave) and alimony.
Yeah quite. Rather unfair to men, isn't it? Especially alimony, which as I understand it in the US is basically a free monthly payment to a woman when she decides sh
Re: (Score:2)
Women can vote too. Apparently they're voting for men. Or maybe not as many women are willing to put in the time and effort to be high-ranking politicians.
Are you really this ignorant of how politics works? Do I really have to explain the influence of the media, and corporate money? This stuff isn't new.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are we talking Western politics, or American politics? They're vastly different things.
The direction the money comes from changes, but nothing else differs.
Re: (Score:3)
There's an expectation of bad faith there that means that anything I say that's not overtly stating that women are an oppressed slave-like underclass with no rights is seen as a misogynistic attack.
You're not acknowledging their victim status. They want to claim victim status because it exempts them from responsibility for their status.
There are a lot of thoughtful women who have claimed to be feminists and even some who would claim the title radical feminists, but in my experience those that hold tighte
Re: (Score:2)
Most accurate description I've seen of Slashdot's seedier side in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't about hearing something I disagreed with at all, just turn on -1 and see.
Just see.
Oestrous? (Score:2)
OK Brits, any other vowels you feel like tossing in there?!
Re: (Score:2)
In other news (Score:3, Funny)
High concentrations of oxytocin found in larger than average sums of money.
And in other science news... (Score:3, Funny)
Biologists have now discovered the most powerful oxytocin suppressant on Earth.
It is known as "Wedding Cake".
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why there no-one ever gets engaged after being a guest at a wedding.
Lego (Score:3)
Without [oxytocin], female mice were no more attracted to a mate than to a block of Lego.
And... How attracted are female mice to blocks of Lego?
This is news? (Score:2)
Err ... okay. I'm sure you can do a lot of research into the finer points of oxytocin action, but that it is an immensely important hormone affecting all kinds of social behavior has been known for quite a while ...
Oxytocin (Score:3, Interesting)
Aspergers / Autism (Score:2)
One of the things I've read about is that individuals with Aspergers may have different than normal levels of oxytocin
http://www.autism.org.uk/livin... [autism.org.uk]
Firefly reference (Score:4)
Wasn't this the basic plot of Serenity? They tried to make some type of "peace" drug and ended turning the population that didn't outright die in to "Reavers"?
Re: (Score:3)
He can't help it, Oxytocin is regulating his socio-sexual behavior. Or mice are. Either way, welcome to Slashdot, newguy, hang around for a bit and you'll see posts a lot more ignorant than that one.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: This is why I only fuck other men. (Score:4, Insightful)
First, I agree completely with you and I suspect that this is a real troll. I'm going to go a bit offtopic now.
I've noticed a trend of people using the word troll as a synonym for disagreeing (where the person accused of trolling legitimately believes their position/statements). They then complain that they get accused of trolling and it's ruining the Internet and everything needs to be censored/harmonized. I've got good friends of mine who suffer from this very same desire to censor speech they disagree with (while calling it a troll), and yet still complain that they get called trolls when they voice unpopular opinions. Perhaps if people recalled the definition of trolling, which is making a provocative statement with the primary (and only) goal of eliciting a response, instead of calling disagreeable viewpoints trolling, we wouldn't have this issue.
The word 'troll' has been hijacked. The real trolls are outnumbered by idiots who don't even know what a troll is and are too stupid to recognize one. For the record, this post is not a troll. I'm being entirely serious. The sad part is that it's driving censorship, where a well-executed troll is closer to satire: it should enrage and enlighten simultaneously for maximum effect.
Okay, I'm done. Mods, you can go ahead with the -1, Offtopic now. But if you want to keep your ability to voice dissenting views, lay off the Troll mod except for real trolls. Overrated is a better mod if you disagree. </karma_burn>
Re: (Score:3)
It might be closer to satire but it's not satire, it's primarily intended to elicit negative reactions. I would disagree with a definition of trolling that says that enlightenment is part of the intent.
As for patent troll, I think that's a separate derivation; it's not really the same word. Internet trolling is like fishing-trolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org], and we get a troll as "someone who trolls". Perhaps instead it should be angler.
Patent troll is like mythological trolls that live under
Re: (Score:2)
I figured that part was obvious from where I complained about "people using the word troll as a synonym for disagreeing (where the person accused of trolling legitimately believes their position/statements)".
Guess I'm putting too much faith in humanity these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is why I only fuck other men. (Score:2)
Nice Dune reference :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
not just because Free Will, but for Great Social Justice.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It is heresy to even suggest that there are biology driven gender specific behaviors. Everything bad in the world is because boys are socialized incorrectly. Don't worry though, social science ( nee studies ) professors are retooling our schools as we speak!
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You are either ignorant or want to be a victim. Obviously both sexes are affected by hormones, it's just that it's not okay to attribute every decision you don't like or every behaviour you don't understand to PMT or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
You are either ignorant or want to be a victim. Obviously both sexes are affected by hormones, it's just that it's not okay to attribute every decision you don't like or every behaviour you don't understand to PMT or whatever.
I'm sorry but that sword cuts both ways - it's equally not okay to dismiss the influence of biology merely because the influence is something that you don't like. You can't always dismiss physiological effects as ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I knew you were going to say that.
Re: (Score:2)
But I have no person experience of this, so I don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've observed that a similar dynamic applies to men. Most will ignore a smart, resourceful and mentally stable woman if she only has average looks in favor of a woman that's feckless and irrational if the latter happens to be pretty. (Even if the former is obviously interested in him and the latter manifestly isn't.)
Both are equally capable of having babies (the biological reason you're interested). The former is going to be a lot more enjoyable to be with over the long haul.
I'd be interested in seeing w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Your conclusions are invalid. (Score:2)
But we're nerds, remember, so we get the plain and practical woman. In the long run, this gives us more success in life than those whose success was in following their hormones.
Re: (Score:2)
Men are slaves to their biology, too. It just takes a different form. We are all the slaves of hormones, particularly when it comes to reproduction, (or love, if you prefer).
Re:Your conclusions are invalid. (Score:4, Insightful)
In debate logic, that's known as the "mind reading fallacy".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how it can be taken any other way.
But by all means, let TDM clarify this for himself, rather than offer to... read his mind for us.
Re: (Score:2)
Jane was right. If you read the post, you'll see that nowhere in there does he say men don't do the same thing. You inferred it because that's what you wanted to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lemme propose a hypothetical. What if you and other males are just as 'irrational' as you think females are... but you don't notice it because you take your own irrationalities as given? It's hard to judge a culture from within; how much harder might it be to judge one's own biology?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas men are always perfectly rational when choosing a partner?
I don't think he was claiming this.
I don't really believe that anyone who is a man or even knows a man would claim that.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe I'm just cynical, but when somebody starts out with, "I'm sorry but I've had more than enough evidence that women..." it's a pretty clear indicator IMO.
I'm not bothering any more with this thread unless/until TDM responds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's not rational about choosing tits and ass?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we're 100% rational. We just start from some really dumb axioms, like "the best partner is the one with the biggest boobs and smallest waist".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's that -1, Nutjob mod when you need it?
Re: (Score:2)
I kinda knew it had to be something like that. I mean, let's be honest, someone spewing vitriol like that usually just needs a good blowjob.