The "Visual" Question

[Whitehall]

Some of our better debates on this Forum have been about JVK\'s hypothesis that all visual sexual clues are conditioned by pheromones. We men apprecate curvey women because, according to the hypothesis, our hardwired sense of pheromones rewards the sight of a curvey woman early on with a positive feedback, thereby conditioning up to associate the sight of a curvey woman with the prior experience of smelling a curvey woman. (I hope that\'s a fair restatement, albeit oversimplified.)

The missing piece here seems to be that this hypothesis is a STATIC one - we respond to a photo as well as real, live fertile woman. It also looks at visual input in terms of assessment of desirablity. Many pheromone testing methods used in research involve a link to a static photo with a specific pheromone

Mr. Irish has recently brought us a link on the DYNAMIC visual clues involved in \"courtship\" (sexual mate selection)

http://members.aol.com/nonverbal2/lovesig.htm (\"http://members.aol.com/nonverbal2/lovesig.htm\")

This piece illustrates that courtship involves smell, sight, touch, and hearing (and probably taste but by that time....)

Another piece is the thread in \"Women\'s Forum\" about the differences between \"hits\" that men receive and those that women would get from men. Most agreed that a response sent to a man ( a hit) was a permissive signal and that women\'s pheromones would not give that signal (alone) to men - women still had to behave in ways to give that permissive - like female rats wiggling their ears works for male rats. A woman\'s use of copulins seems most effective in enhancing a guy\'s motivation once he gets a permissive and in enhancing the passion of sex once it\'s green-lighted.

The importance of these two insights is that that vision - across cultures - is used to communicate and regulate the behaviors of courtship. Vision is a factor in assessing the sexual status of the target but behavior was what prompted behavior.

As a real world test, I offer to take any serious inquirer on a bar-crawl in San Francisco where one can observe men responding to sexual behavioral clues communicated by pseudo-females. A slightly drunk (or inexperienced) male will respond to a visually marginal feminine-looking person if \"she\" acts feminine enough.

There\'s more ramifications that I welcome other forum members to provide.

[Watcher]

Well we all use visual to see that it is in fact female, although that can go astray sometimes just watch jerry springer any day of the week.
If its attractive has a pussy and can be a fun time for me im in.

[Whitehall]

Thank you for your usual insightful contribution, Watcher.

[Watcher]

Lol no one else had anything to add so i started the ball rolling as usuall.

[Wolfe]

lol@watcher (\"lol@watcher\"), well how about a simple observation here. I bet not \'every\' man could get layed, yet i bet every woman could.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Not every man can get laid and every woman can.

I believe the evolutionary reason behind this is that women were also needing to have a nesting response after conception and they had that safety and ability.

For men on the other hand they were very busy hunting and gathering, and women in a tribe which exhisted for many hundreds of generations accepted the men who had the time to seduce her. In other words, a man who already completed the hunt, and eaten his meal, and had plenty of resources had the ability to do a long term seduction. Other men who were just home to get a quick meal and tried a quick seduction, would not be as lucky.

If the man has completed the hunt, then he has time to seduce. And the women look for men who have completed the hunt earlier signifying mental, physical prowess to be passed on to offspring.

This is why women \"seem\" so selective, because those women who were (over hundreds of generations) selective survived with stronger offspring. So women seem selective even like they don\'t want sex, when they do probably more than men because they have a desire to have a baby and produce offspring.

So in conclusion, women are more likely to give permission if they have had someone hanging around, because he is \"done with the hunt\" and those men who are looking to get a quickie and go back to hunting are just showing their lack of hunting prowess and intelligence--otherwise these men would be butchering the prey, taking their woman, and sleeping.

So it\'s not about women having higher morals or wanting sex less, they just are waiting to see who is the strongest and the smartest--it\'s a test of time. The women want it more than us men.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Guys think women have it easier because a woman can always get laid.
The problem is that we don\'t want just anybody -- that\'s not how we\'re made.
So the apparent advantage is, in reality, not one.
It ends up about even.

[Mtnjim]

Sorry, but hunting was a group adventure, and \"seduction\" is a fairly modern invention.

[Gerund]

Ahhh -- the \'ol \"Quantity versus Quality\" conundrum, eh?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Definitely. And I think it has to do with how women\'s brains are wired to connect EVERYTHING with some emotion. We tend to invest more, emotionally, in sex, as in everything. There\'s that. There\'s the fact that our senses are more keen so what pleases, pleases big, but what displeases, spoils...

Women are just more complicated. So to say a woman can always get laid -- yes, but she won\'t. So what\'s the point of the observation. In actual fact, we don\'t have it any better, sexually, than guys do.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Mtnjim,

So the groups that got back earlier from were able to take the whole tribe of women. And the other groups stayed out another month.

I believe that seduction, maybe not in it\'s current form, has been around since the human desire to reproduce.

[Gerund]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
we don\'t have it any better, sexually, than guys do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps not, but just once I\'d like to experience 4 or 5 orgasms during a single session, to establish for myself that it isn\'t all it\'s cracked up to be... /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[MOBLEYC57]

Yeah G!!! And not need two weeks of sleep and a case of Wheaties!!!!! /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif I got three in a day (2 hours tops), and staggered for a week!!! /ubbthreads/images/icons/shocked.gif And suuuuure they have it better....they get to choose!!! Do I wanna, or don\'t I wanna? That tis the questione!!!

[Whitehall]

If a man wants to experience multiple orgasms in one session, all he has to do is have a bunch of women wanting his sperm. It\'s called the Coolidge Effect.

The reason why men do not usually get to have multiple orgasm is because with a single partner, she needs 15 to 30 minutes to assimilate the sperm that the male has just deposited. Her cervix sucks the sperm out of her vagina and into her uterus where the eggs are. That\'s why our \"refractory period\" is a minimum of that length. If we kept on pumping after ejaculating, we would literally pump our own sperm out and so lower our chance of reproducing. BTW, that\'s why our penises have that \"flange\" ridge near the tip - to make it a better pump for other guys\' sperm during gangbangs. (Blame it on our chimp ancestors if you must.)

Now, if another woman presented herself immediately after we ejaculated in our first woman, many of us could get it up right away. I\'ve had five or six ejaculations over a two hour period with just two women.

And that\'s how you do it!

[Gerund]

You know darn well I was referencing the ability to routinely have multiple orgasms with a single partner! /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif How often do you think that most men have the type of opportunity you spoke of, anyway? Hmmm... maybe I\'ve really been missing out all these years? /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

[Whitehall]

Never heard of such a thing!

I thought you would appreciate PRACTICAL advice.

[Gerund]

<sigh> I guess I\'m just not living life in the fast lane!~ hehe

[Whitehall]

Here\'s a hint - get a hot tub....

[Gerund]

You mean my bottlecap collection won\'t be enough of an inducement? /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

[oscar]

Gerund,

\"You mean my bottlecap collection won\'t be enough of an inducement? \"

Not unless you can juggle them.


With your tongue! /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

Oscar /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[bundyburger]

I\'ve heard women say it before. \"I wish I could just go out and have sex without the consequences. Just like guys can\". Or something along those lines. It\'s sitting in my memory bank there somewhere. :-S
It is kind of even. I told of one situation yesterday: Young single mother. Father not interested.

My best friend is also a girl. She has major fears of getting pregnant while she is young. To see her get majorly upset because she missed her period said it all to me. (found to be due to stress)
That\'s what the pill is for? Well she has to take a more expensive version because of medical reasons, it isn\'t always easy. And of course not everyone is made of money.

I\'m sure you know other examples FTR. Even the emotional situation I\'ve heard plenty of. She\'s my best friend? Yeah, but also had a major problem with me at one point in time. \"Have feelings for him. Good friendship, it will spoilt it. Can\'t do it\" etc, that really screwed her up for a while.

I usually agree with the guys too sometimes when I\'m walking home alone for the night by myself. lol
But, I\'ve been lucky enough to see the otherside of it too and TRY not to complain. /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

Cheers

[Gerund]

Hmmm, probably not. But I can lick my eyebrows~ hehe

[Whitehall]

I was hoping that we could have some further discussions on the underlying theory of pheromones.

However, we seem to revert back to that topic we all love so much - getting laid.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Speaking of which. My SDR has multiple orgasms. Four in one session. And walked out the door with another hard on. And it was just me with him, no other woman with us. I swear on a stack, no lie. But ok, back to the subject. I\'ve seen a couple of rounds on this. I have not yet seen the point raised that men respond to she-males on the strength of visual and behavioral cues, despite the pheromonal evidence to the contrary. To that, I say HA! HA! I say! That would seem to me to be proof.

[Whitehall]

As to male multiple orgasms, with you, I\'ll grant any number is possible.

I too think that the she-male response refutes JVK\'s more extreme interpretations and claims. All we have to do is taking him barhopping in SF and let him deny the evidence right before his eyes!

I still would love to see a real, in-situ hit on tape; I think it would support a lot of what I\'ve been trying to say.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

You just wanna watch dirty movies.

[Gerund]

What in the world is an \"SDR?\"

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Studly Do Right

[Gerund]

ahh -- of course, I should have realized!

Anyway, I sometimes have two distinct orgasms a few minutes apart, without a refraction period. And your SDR is capable of at least four, which is wonderful.

But do you allow that multiple orgasms for males are fewer and further between than for females?

[Gerund]

--------------------------------
I was hoping that we could have some further discussions on the underlying theory of pheromones.
--------------------------------

Okay, I hear ya. I\'ll be good.

[jvkohl]

In garter snakes, the she-male is pursued because of pheromones; the males don\'t even consider visual appeal.
In every other species of mammal, visual appeal is not a consideration. This thread has no point, unless someone at least attempts to provide a biologically based explanation for human physical attraction that is not conditioned by pheromones. It seems inappropriate to say \"it\'s visual\" because I believe it\'s visual, or to site examples of visual appeal, when there is no established biological basis for visual appeal. You might just as well say that the visual appeal of food is what causes personal preferences to develop for particular foods. Of course, that\'s foolish. Food choice is based upon the conditioning of appetite to olfactory input. Mate choice is based upon the conditioning of visual responsivity to pheromones.

[jvkohl]

http://members.aol.com/nonverbal2/lovesig.htm (\"http://members.aol.com/nonverbal2/lovesig.htm\")

This piece illustrates that courtship involves smell, sight, touch, and hearing (and probably taste but by that time....)
--------------------------------
Does it illustrate how sensory input is involved in courtship; how sensory input manages to alter courtship behaviors, how sensory input alters hormone levels; or how sensory input is processed differently in males and females? Even without reading the article, I can be assured that the answer to all these questions is no. What
you have done is take an article with no biological basis in fact and offer it as an example of the common opinion that pheromones are less important (or not important at all) to human behavior when compared with other sensory input.
----------------------------
The missing piece here seems to be that this hypothesis is a STATIC one - we respond to a photo as well as real, live fertile woman. It also looks at visual input in terms of assessment of desirablity. Many pheromone testing methods used in research involve a link to a static photo with a specific pheromone
--------------------------

I\'ve repeately said that conditioning occurs across a lifetime of experience and that it begins at birth. Nothing I\'ve written or said implies that this is a static hypothesis. Also it is not a hypothesis; it\'s biological fact. Olfactory input affects hormone levels that affect behavior, whether that behavior is exhibited at the time of birth, adolescence, in adults, or any other specific time period you wish to examine. That you seem to think examining a picture produces a hormone and behavioral response in the absence of olfactory conditioning is without biological support.

Please tell us, for example, why a homosexual male would find a photo of another man to be more attractive than a photo of a woman.