Love at first sight

[bjf]

Is love at first sight

really love at first smell?

[cuddlebear]

Gosh, I hope some women reply

to this one!

[Duckman]

Love at first site is nothing

more then a "bath" in favorable phermones(aka chemistry)Watch two people "fall" in love, I used to tend bar, You can

"see" the chemical fog. I am sure I will get blasted for this one, but drinking alchohl also helps your naturaul

phermone release. Alchohl will evaporate thru your pores as sweat carrying your natural and enhanced scent to

receptive females.

[cuddlebear]

I would really like to hear

JVK's input on this one ... in my own experience, I have observed evidence which would point to both theories, the

visual cue and the olfactory cue, but I will never know this stuff on the level that he does, so I hope he sees this

and comments ...

[bjf]

Thanks for the insight Duckman.

Cuddle, I agree I want to hear JVK's input to. However, I am not sure you can seperate the visual from olfactory,

at least from his point of view, because of his take on visual conditioning based on smell. In the end, there would

not be a lot of difference between scent & sight.

[Holmes]

Thanks for the insight

Duckman. Cuddle, I agree I want to hear JVK's input to. However, I am not sure you can seperate the visual from

olfactory, at least from his point of view, because of his take on visual conditioning based on smell. In the end,

there would not be a lot of difference between scent & sight.

Lucas J. West, from The Coded

Personality:

Basically, the chemicals inside your body mold and shape who you are, how you act, what

you feel, what you're attracted to. It is these same chemicals that shape what you look like. (That's why Brad

Pitt also *smells* like a guy women want to f*ck. The same chemicals shaped his face and his pheromonal signature.)

However, we've been taught to only notice the physical part. The simple truth of the matter is that there is a

chemical counterpart to all of your physical features.

Well, it stands to reason that some of your

personality would end up showing in your face as well. (Who would've realized that your thoughts shape how you

look? It's absolutely a key understanding.) The chemicals that shape your personality are one and the same with the

ones that shape your face.

[bjf]

whoa dude, Lucas West is

interesting.

[DrSmellThis]

You can't reduce sight to

smell and still be rational. Olfaction plays a role.

[jvkohl]

With co-authors from

Vienna, I reduced the visual sexual response cycle to a biologically based olfactory response. The review article

won an award for the best paper linking neuroendocrinology and ethology (i.e., animal behavior). What's irrational

is DrSmellThis implying that a peer-reveiwed journal article is not rational. The article is available to all at the

following URL.

http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm

Abstract:

The

effect of sensory input on hormones is essential to any explanation of mammalian behavior, including aspects of

physical attraction. The chemical signals we send have direct and developmental effects on hormone levels in other

people. Since we don't know either if, or how, visual cues might have direct and developmental effects on hormone

levels in other people, the biological basis for the development of visually perceived human physical attraction is

currently somewhat questionable. In contrast, the biological basis for the development of physical attraction based

on chemical signals is well detailed.

[DrSmellThis]

Well, now, that was an

unnecessarily inflammatory response to a non-controversial, obviously true statement.

Wow! Do you really have a

real published article? That won an award?? First time you've mentioned the award thing -- today!

News flash: So-called peer-reviewed articles that are totally full of BS are published

hundreds of times a day. Why do you think there is academic debate? Is there some law that idiots cannot write

articles? (BTW, I never said your lit review was no good, but nothing in it comes close to supporting such a

claim.) I repeat: It is absolutely irrational to believe all of sight can be reduced to smell. You're going to have

to do more than brag that you wrote an article to convince any thinking person otherwise. I can't believe you are

defending that position. I'd tell the same thing with confidence to whatever panel of experts you wanted to

assemble, but I don't believe anyone who really understands the neurology of perception and human psychology would

even entertain something so blindly, narrowly reductionistic. It's reductionistic in so many ways, it's

hard to keep track of them. I get hopelessly bogged down with multiple blatant reductionisms and leaps of logic just

trying to make it through that abstract with that bombastic conclusion in mind. Talk about over extending a

theory!

[Indigo]

Well, now, that

was an unnecessary insult. Wow! Do you really have a real published article? That won an award?? First

time you've mentioned the award thing -- today! News flash: So-called peer-reviewed

articles that are totally full of BS are published hundreds of times a day. Why do you think there is academic

debate? Is there some law that idiots cannot write articles? (BTW, I never said your article was no good, but

nothing in it comes close to supporting such a claim.) I repeat: It is absolutely irrational to think all of sight

can be reduced to smell. I can't believe you are defending that position. I'd tell the same thing to

whatever panel of experts you wanted to assemble, but I don't believe anyone who really understands the

neurology of perception would even entertain something so blindly, narrowly

reductionistic.

Hello,

I absolutely agree with DrSmellThis! Even if my opinion is not based on science it

is based on simple observation:
Didn't you ever saw a woman ( or person ) on a photo the first time and you

recognize something indistinct fascinating about her ( or him ), a certain charisma arousing any kinds of feelings

in you?!?! I think everybody has! And in those situations thre was defenitely no smell or pheromones of that

particular person in the air .
So IMHO every human beeing has a kind of evaluating system basing only on visual

information. I definitely don't know how it works, or how it correlates with smell and pheromones, but even if it

is affected by the lettest, it also works without them.
So it is certainly existing!

Regards

Ingo

[bjf]

Hello,

I

absolutely agree with DrSmellThis! Even if my opinion is not based on science it is based on simple

observation:
Didn't you ever saw a woman ( or person ) on a photo the first time and you recognize something

indistinct fascinating about her ( or him ), a certain charisma arousing any kinds of feelings in you?!?! I think

everybody has! And in those situations thre was defenitely no smell or pheromones of that particular person in the

air .
So IMHO every human beeing has a kind of evaluating system basing only on visual information. I definitely

don't know how it works, or how it correlates with smell and pheromones, but even if it is affected by the lettest,

it also works without them.
So it is certainly existing!

Regards

Ingo

JVK's

position is erotic pictures are stimulating because of conditioning.

[Indigo]

JVK's position is

erotic pictures are stimulating because of conditioning.

Well, actually I did not mean erotic

stimulation, but that what you would call charisma. Things that are more than just sex or conditioning.
Of course

our sense of beauty and attractiveness is to a high extent conditioned but I don't believe its only that!



Regards

Ingo

[DrSmellThis]

That's his position, bjf, but there are many problems with it. Off the top of my head, a pairing of

stimuli doesn't prove conditioning; and conditioning wouldn't prove causality as regards the rich experience of

visual attraction. You could easily write a whole book on a one minute experience of real life visual attraction and

not exhaust the experience. Could we say all of those aspects are due and reducible to a couple chemical reactions

paired with some abstract visual dimension? Plus, the initial conditioning of something doesn't imply determination

of how something is later on when other processes and influences kick in. Something can be caused by one thing now

and other things later. Plus, there are no studies supporting the olfactory conditioning of visual attraction in

humans, much less some olfactory determination of visual attraction. Plus, humans do not experience anything like

mature sexual attraction as infants anyway, (Chodorow has a theory of sexual identification, but that is a

far cry) so it would be impossible for what ends up being adult sexual attraction to be paired with anything in

infancy, or even early childhood. These are just a few of the huge problems that arise with trying to say something

like that. Then there is the whole problem of playing psychologist, and the groundless prejudice that explanations

of human behavior have to be just like those of insect behavior to be valid, (They shouldn't be, and if they were

they'd likely be invalid) or that they have to be hormonal (another reductionism). Then there are the

misunderstandings of science -- that because the complex neurological, visual model hasn't been traced yet, there

can't be one -- that it should for some reason already have been traced -- that just because the simplistic pathway

of -mone to LH can be modeled -- we ought to have done it with neural networks by now as they influence

neurotransmiters and hormones, etc., etc. I get exhausted trying to keep track of the holes in the argument, much

less the leaky patches that create even more holes. None of this suggests that visual attraction is not partially

influenced by olfaction, of course, but who is to say olfaction isn't conditioned by vision in certain ways -- or

that all the senses don't condition each other? Then there is the hard wiring of attraction to eyes and certain

kinds of visual contours in newborns, the prominence of hard-wired visual attraction throughout the animal kingdom,

phi ratios (and other natural geomety) and their defining of beauty throughout nature, the role of memory and

imagination, (none of which can be accounted for by olfaction) etc. Whereas most scientists cheerfully acknowledge

the holes in their theories so they can ask for more grant money to fill them; none of these problems were

acknowledged or adequately addressed in past "debates" here in the forum. Then there are the logical

misunderstandings of the debate somehow being about "visual vs. olfactory primacy" when most people don't care

about that simplistic comparison (attraction rests in all the senses, including touch, kinesthetic, taste, and

hearing -- so multiply the problems by 6! to account for their interactions among all the senses); and the logical

fallacy that all attraction has to be sex-specific. Of course, when a theory is unfounded, there are limitless

numbers of problems that arise everywhere you look. It's like asking what's physically wrong with a dead guy.

[bjf]

<<Then there is the hard wiring of

attraction to eyes and certain kinds of visual contours in newborns, the prominence of hard-wired visual attraction

throughout the animal kingdom, the phi ratios and their defining of beauty throughout nature, etc., etc.,

etc.>>

Hardwiring of attraction to eyes? You mean how babies look at adults eyes?

Cats do the same

thing with humans. I once read on this forum it is because the pheromones from your body rise to your face when

dispersed in the air.

Whatever it is, it seems to be universal. Not sure about the visual contours thing

and how quickly humans/animals are attracted to symetry (immediate?), but you can't just assume those things are

hard-wired.

<<Plus, humans do not experience anything like mature sexual attraction as infants anyway,

(Chodorow has a theory of sexual identification, but that is a far cry) so it would be impossible for what ends up

being adult sexual attraction to be paired with anything in infancy, or even early childhood.>>

Would it

really be???

Anyway, good points brought up.

[DrSmellThis]

Yep -- newborns seek out other

human eyes (adult or no) as soon as they open their own. You are correct that we can't just assume hardwiring. You

look at the micro structure of the eye and patterned groups of neurons in and behind the eye to see how it's

hardwired. The attaction to eyes, for instance, has partly to do with light/dark contrasts and how (where) contrast

detectors in the eye are connected to the brain.

Something has to exist to be paired with another thing.

[jvkohl]

My apologies

to those offended by the fact that I took issue with the statement by DrSmellThis that: "You can't reduce sight to

smell and still be rational." To me, this was insulting.

In the past two weeks I've made much headway with

helping to explain the olfactory conditioning of the visual response cycle, as it is now being discussed on Ian's

Pitchford;s Yahoo group: evolutionary psychology. The thread is: Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high

reproductive potential in women. Those who want to know more about what I'm saying, instead of just taking to heart

an inaccurate interpretation by DrSmellThis, should read the article I mentioned, or minimally, follow the

evolutionary psychology thread. Maximally, look at the scientific evidence page of my website, if you want the big

picture.

JVK

[cuddlebear]

Well, our forum owes quite a

bit to both of you, DST & JVK ...

I'll try to look at the scientific evidence, but I think it's going to

be above Bear's furry head

I think it's very useful to have opposing viewpoints, so long as mutual

respect is maintained ... who knows the two of you might collaborate someday and we might have a new super-product

... Scent of Pheros?

A good day to all ...

[DrSmellThis]

Thanks for your positive-spirited post, cuddlebear.

If my interpretation of his "theory" is "inaccurate",

it's because I can't read his mind. I'd absolutely love to see a cogent explanation of how olfaction is

responsible for all of visual attraction! Maybe I could find something to agree with and enlighten myself.

Unfortunately, JVK has not produced one. On what page of the paper he just linked is it?!? It's just not in there!

Look for yourself. Which of the papers linked on his site has it? None of them. I'll gladly admit if I am wrong.

But it is, um, "inappropriate" to say something is there when it isn't. If he is "too busy" to type something here,

why can't he cut and paste one he typed elsewhere? Or why can't he just write a really long post where he

summarizes the argument and evidence? I've written hundreds of them here. So he refers us elsewhere. Where?

To another internet discussion site! This might not be a "prestigious conference", (Definition: Any

conference JVK attends) but it is the largest pheromone enthusiast community in the world. What are we, chopped

liver? Or is something just fishy?

I'd love to agree with more things JVK said; if only he wouldn't make so

many "loose cannon", intellectually irresponsible, extreme statements, like that it is somehow insulting to say

ALL of sight cannot be reduced ONLY to smell. Give us a break, and show some respect! That is a hugely

ambitious, contentious and controversial thing to say, if it is to be taken seriously; one that flies in the

face of people's common sense. As far as I am concerned, if you come to the love-scent forum you have to pass

intellectual muster, just like you would in a professional setting; not just shoot from the hip! (For the most part

people do a great job here! ) I've been to many, many academic conferences, and I don't see why it should be

different here. If you come in here making outrageous claims, be ready to defend them, or don't make your

outrageous claims! Or, don't complain when nobody believes you. I've written pages of posts here

defending some controversial thing I said on scores of occasions.

In all fairness, we all make extreme, false

statements from time to time, myself included; but most of us eventually back off from them, instead of

clinging to them, pit-bull like, with hubris; like the former Iraqi Minister of Information. It doesn't hurt

that much to let go and allow our thinking to evolve. I've had to eat "humble pie" before here, and I will again

(maybe with my next post -- who knows?). If we reform our theories we still get to claim them as our own! That's

the nice thing about intellectual humility: "I'm wrong, and I'm right about that, dammit!"

[jvkohl]

...it would be

impossible for what ends up being adult sexual attraction to be paired with anything in infancy, or even early

childhood.

The above statement best represents why I choose not to debate anything with DrSmellThis.

Defend my claims? He just threw out everything I know about the development of human sexual behavior, with disregard

for everything written in the review article that was published in Neuroendocrinology Letters, my book, or anything

else I've published/presented. If you want to get an idea of where I've been, and where I'm coming from, you

don't necessarily need to read anything I've written (or look in another forum/group). Just do a search on human

pheromones, James V. Kohl, James Kohl, or Scent of Eros, and see what turns up. There are plenty of respected

researchers/institutions (e.g., Axel labs and Ludwig Bolzman Institute) who link their sites to ;

plenty of articles/interviews that mention me; plenty of just about every kind of support for my work that anyone

could want. Earlier this week, was the top site listed in a google search on human pheromones--and I

do no advertising for the site.

In contrast, I have not dealt with anything even remotely resembling the

antagonism of DrSmellThis for many years. Coming from someone who so obviously does not understand that adult

sexuality is genetically predisposed and developed from birth, this antagonism deserves no reply. Still, I might

tend to spend a minute or two from time to time in hopes that others might not be led too far down the wrong

path.

JVK

[DrSmellThis]

If you'll notice, I obviously

didn't say the fact of general sexual preference (i.e., homo vs. hetero -- what he is calling "sexuality",

which is imprecise language -- you'd rarely hear a pro mix up the two) wasn't genetically predisposed (Fetishes

and other finer points aren't determined until later.) Everyone but religious fundamentalists knows it is. What

psychologist would ever say something like you imagine I said? Apparently, you have decided not to honor my

request to "give me a break". But the complexities of mature adult sexual attraction are not there at birth,

and don't even start gelling until puberty, under various hormonal, cognitive, and social influences. They

are two different things. Have you ever heard of "latency age?" You would have to know something about developmental

psychology, but you have never had a course in developmental psychology, or human sexuality for that matter.



Um, what does how great you think you are have to do with anything? Google Schmoogle. Other people have

accomplishments here too. Throughout this thread you have dropped names and bragged instead of presenting a case.

Dude, nobody here said you didn't know anything about pheromones. You wrote a book on it. When I've had certain

questions about -mones in the past, I've asked you. But you seem to have no interest in recognizing when you've

crossed into territory in which you should have some humility, and openness to others opinions. Maybe you

won't debate here because I call you on some things you say, and you have a fragile ego. Could that be it? If I say

something that is incorrect, why can't you just call me on it? Maybe I shouldn't be debating with

you, because you are acting arrogant about things you have no training in whatsoever. Look. I have a PhD in

psychology. You haven't had more than one undergrad course in it, and you come in here lecturing me on

developmental psychology. You've had millions of chances to show respect, but haven't. Why shouldn't you get

corrected? You created that situation and won't own it. Without your escalation there would not be that level of

antagonism.

And don't tell us no one else has a hard time swallowing some of the things you say. You've told

me how psychologists often receive your stuff, for example, and how you don't respect that whole field (even though

you've never studied it).

[SMILING PJ]

So, it was mentioned by Cuddlebear that he hoped for women's response, huh? Well

I'm new here, this is my first post, but I'll give you my perspective for what it's worth. I am not a chemist,

psychologist, human behavior scientist or any other such trained individual, but I have studied and help many women

in the area of hormonal balance. The chemical messengers in our body are amazingly powerful and affect our moods,

health, organ functions and even other people around us. I've already noticed very favorable repeated results with

"extreme friendliness" and "chatiness" from others the few times I've worn my recent first purchase TE.



It's my experience and belief that #1 OUR BODIES ARE AN UNFATHOMABLE COMPLEXITY OF CREATION, #2 THAT WE ARE

INFLUENCED BY A COMBINATION OF OLFACTORY, HORMONAL, CHEMICAL, VISUAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, EXPERIENCIAL AND SO MANY OTHER

FACTORS simultaneously, that I think it's really difficult to attribute anything to a single stimulus. I see

adding mones as enhancement, perhaps "ramping things up" in advance-before they would have taken the natural course

there if there were true attraction based on other factors. #3 Once a person opens their mouth and shows their

attitude, confidence, intelligence, humility, sense of humor, ability to listen, etc. the effect of the mones can

be overriden to a great degree if the communication is repulsive. Haven't you seen a beauty through the window (no

mone effect) and thought....then she opened her mouth on the way out of the store and she reminded you of a

disgusting truck driving Uncle you didn't like? I've been influenced by sight, smell, mones whatever and then the

guy said the most arrogant, unfeeling things about others that I was quickly "unattracted" to put it mildly! For

women, alot of it is mind and emotion. I'm not discounting the effect of the mones, they are a plus, an initiator,

but there's got to be something else there to keep it going I think. I applaud your interest, your diligence, your

pursuit and your passion, but as far as it relates to "figuring out how to get a woman" (if that's the target)...do

you think there will ever be a simplistic answer...humans are all so complex, especially the multi-faceted Eve

version that was fashioned from Adam. If people just want a short romp in the sheets, as risky, temporary and

unfulfilling as that is, then they probably don't care about much past the intial mone influence into relationships

anyway. I guess it all depends on what you're looking for...Good luck in your research, I know I'm having fun

doing my own experiments! P.S. Geez, so what's with all the hostility guys? WOW! (be kind, I'm a "newbie" and a

lady!)

[DrSmellThis]

This might sound strange in

this context, but, ahem, welcome Smiling PJ! I do appreciate your perspective.

[SMILING PJ]

Thanks for the welcome,

Dr.!

[Friendly1]

But the

complexities of mature adult sexual attraction are not there at birth, and don't even start gelling

until puberty, under various hormonal, cognitive, and social influences. They are two different things.

Well, in my opinion, the thread went south as soon as you accused JVK of being inflammatory. He was defensive but

not inflammatory. You, on the other hand, have resorted to ridicule and sarcasm to support your criticism, and such

arguments usually signal a lack of substance.

After all, if you had something precise to say, you wouldn't feel

compelled to cloud it with hyperbole, would you?

In fact, your argument is not well presented at all. For

example, there is no scientific concept of adult sexual attraction. That phrase has no real meaning and is used in

various ways outside of the scientific community.

I HAVE found the phrase used in a number of FAQs and white

papers addressing pedophilia, and the phrase "adult sexual attraction" is closely associated with "sexual

orientation" -- the phrase "adult sexual attraction" thus addresses the objects of sexual desire of a given adult

(in other words, some adults are sexually attracted to children).

So, you need to provide a clear and precise

meaning for your use of "adult sexual attraction" that helps us understand what you are trying to say here.

Frankly, I cannot find much of what you say that directly addresses the issue raised in the paper.

I prefer not

to make extreme, false statements. I don't see that they serve any purpose, except to create a reputation for the

statement-maker of being unreliable, untrustworthy.

One technical paper won't convince me that all visual-based

attraction is the result of conditioning, but I see nothing in the paper's presentation which seems false or

seriously flawed. It is far from BS, since olfactory research has shown that we do associate memory with odors. It

is not much of a leap to suggest that we may associate pheromonal stimulation/compatibility with visual cues from

early childhood.

Babies have been determined to be pheromonically active. They identify their mother's

pheromonal signatures. I am sure that babies are well aware of my own (artificially) strong pheromone signature.



So, there is a lot of comparable literature on related subjects to lend credence to JVK's research in this

matter. It's not coming across simply like a revelation plucked out of the blue.

If you want to argue, then

please refrain from making further personal attacks. I see far too many of those in other fora. Love-Scent has

been refreshingly free of them for quite some time. I hope people here will strive to keep it so.

[DrSmellThis]

I'd be happy to try to

provide whatever clarification you think I need, though at this very second I'm pressed for time. "Sexual

attraction" is a recognizable phenomenon, (experience) I think, not a construct or well-defined concept. You

are correct that that would be hard to define and has not been so. But briefly, there doesn't have to be a coherent

construct of "adult sexual attraction" in order to say there are many various aspects loosely attributed to it as a

phenomenon, and that these aren't predetermined by pheromonal conditioning as far as we know. There are multi

causes to attraction, as far as we know, just like most other things in psychology. Think about the number of women

who swoon over Barry White's voice. Think about looking deeply into your lover's eyes and feeling uyou recognize

their soul, and how much the attraction grows at that moment. Love is a complex thing. Human sexuality and sexual

attraction is not just about which abstract category of beings (men, women, children) you are attracted to. I don't

think the literature in the social sciences tends to equate them at all. They might be flip flopped as a manner of

speaking in a paper where the context is well-defined beforehand.

I am open to any questions on substance of the

things I say, like the one you just asked. I like them. I try to have substance underneath what I say, so if

there's a hollow place I'd like to know.

What you are seeing, BTW is anger with a history, (there was a

context to "inflammatory") and I apologize for dragging you and others through it. It is what it is, for the moment.

I'm open to further criticisms. insights, or suggestions here.

One thing to keep in mind is that I'm not

saying that such conditioning doesn't happen at all. In fact I'm almost sure it does to some extent.But

determining everything is another matter. That flies in the face of what psychology knows so far (e.g, multi

causes of things like that have repeatedly and consistently been demonstrated in thousands of research studies)



And I never said his paper was BS. In fact I have praised it publically a few times here, "to JVK's face" as

well. I said it doesn't demonstrate complete olfactory conditioning of adult sexual attraction in all its

complexity, or visual attraction. There is really little in the paper about that.

Thanks for your response.

[Friendly1]

But briefly,

there doesn't have to be a coherent construct of "adult sexual attraction" in order to say there are many various

aspects loosely attributed to it as a phenomenon, and that these aren't predetermined by pheromonal conditioning as

far as we know.

If you're going to challenge a peer-reviewed paper, then you MUST provide precise

definitions for your expressions, if they are not already established in the literature.

So, yes, there MUST be

a coherency in your assertions. Otherwise, you're just making unsupportable sweeping generalizations.

There are multi causes to attraction, as far as we know, just like most other things in

psychology.

Psychology does categorize triggers or states in which attraction occurs. Psychology is also the

only discipline I know of which allows multiple modes in a statistical analysis (in pure Statistics, you either have

only one mode or no mode). But Psychology is defined as the study of the behavior of animals. That is, the core

discipline is rooted in the analysis of external events, not the physiological mechanisms which produce those

events.

Physiological psychology and evolutionary psychology are as close as you're going to get to unlocking

the secrets of the body's chemical processes from a psychological standpoint. They look at what actually happens

inside the body when emotonal states, including states of attraction (and repulsion) occur. They also regard

attraction as being based in chemical or homornal activities. So, there is support from the psychological field for

JVK's research.

Conditioning has been studied in many different ways since well before Pavlov's time. In fact,

Freud himself studied some aspects of conditioning. So, one cannot simply dismiss JVK's claims on the basis of

psychological arguments. There are many psychological arguments which favor his presentation.

One thing

to keep in mind is that I'm not saying that such conditioning doesn't happen at all. In fact I'm almost

sure it does to some extent.But determining everything is another matter. That flies in the face of what

psychology knows so far (e.g, multi causes of things like that have repeatedly and consistently been demonstrated in

thousands of research studies)

Having read a fair amount (for a layman) of evolutionary psychology and

physiological psychology literature regarding attraction and love, I can only disagree with you. Psychologists are

still arguing among themselves about how human emotion and mental states arise and evolve, but there is widespread

recognition of evidence supporting the biological perspectives.

JVK's research will undoubtedly be used by many

psychologists in years to come.

There is no real conflict between categorization of external events and attempts

to identify the biological processes which lead to them. There may be a conflict behind the philosophies of the two

modes of research.

In the end, it's all about making babies and ensuring that they survive to make more

babies.

[DrSmellThis]

Here are some things I need to

clarify or understandings I need to establish between us before going further:

*Sexuality is about babies; it's

about family and survival, emotional happiness, fulfillment, companionship, mental stimulation, etc, as well. These

are needs that occur within a single life span, as opposed to just continuing the species -- also important.



*Psychology is mainly about humans -- about behavior and experience (the main internal event of interest), not

just behavior, and the biology that supports these things, which is secondary (not just chemical/hormonal, but also

neurological in the broader sense). Biology is primary for biologists. It's also a helping profession.

Psychologists aren't just interested in chemical process, or primarily interested; to say the least.

*Support

for a "bioloical perspective" doesn't mean reducing everything to only biological causes of behavior, as there are

also environmental and agentic (e.g., cognitive) causes. And biology is way bigger than the current simplistic

models we have. So we shouldn't think we have it figured out already. How the brain works is fundamentally

unknown (in paticular, how consciousness works) despite what we know about how it works.

*Most important

concepts about humans (e.g., love) aren't adequately defined (this is a huge issue in the philosophy of psych and

in research), but we still have to talk about them, usually because they're recognizable as important experiences.

Talking about them doesn't make someone incoherent. You can use narrow, easily observable, simplistically defined

"operational definitions" or temporary definitions for your experiments, but they have their own problems if we take

them seriously outside the particular experimental context. If you define attraction ahead of time as only a set of

hormonal chemical reactions, whihc is a step broader than operational definitions, that's still all you'll ever

see, and you'll be blind to other crucial aspects of the phenomenon.

I'm interested in attraction and

sexuality as the larger experience -- the experiences of being attracted and of relating to another individual or

individuals romantically, in the broad sense. That is the way I am using the term. The best definitions in

psychology are phenomenological, where all the things that essentially make up an experience are summarized and the

structure of it experientially is articulated. That is what makes a definition of a human construct empirical, or

based in evidence. That is how you get solid footing in psychology. Do most people do this? No. I am a long time

advocate for people to do this.

So biology is important as a contribution to human experience, not as an

end in itself. And if you limited psychology to narrow mammalian, biological explanations, you would really have an

impoverished, marginally useful psychology.

Psychology ultimately has to answer to every day humans having

everyday concerns experiences in their everyday lives. That is therefore where it must center itself, as challenging

as that is.

[bjf]

Doc

On "*Sexuality is about

babies, it's about family and survival, emotional happiness, fulfillment, companionship, mental stimulation, etc,

as well. These are needs that occur within a single life span, as opposed to just continuing the species -- also

important."

I'd argue sexuality is really only about babies, annd then the emotional happiness,

fullfillment, companinship, mental stimulation, etc falls into a different category, somethng we have that other

species might not.

But I think sexuality has to be limited to biology, hormones etc, and then the happiness,

fullfillment, companinship, mental stimulation is why we don't just go around having sex with people with biologies

that sexually stimulate us. I think that's where psychology picks up.

When explaining sexuality, how our

hormones operate and such, I don't think ours should be explained differently than any other mammal.

I do

think our visual preferences - what we find beautiful - has to be learned, I don't see how it can be inate, unless

someone can pin down what instinct really is. Instinct in my mind is only about chemicals. Where, then, is our

knowledge of visual preferences stored if we come into this world with our minds as clean slates? I don't see

anywhere to store it, save the soul.

I also think people keep losing sight of what Kohl is saying. All of

these other things (such as happiness, fullfilment, deep voices etc), he acknowledges is very much a part of how we

behave, but when you boil down what sexuality is, you've got to be able to biologically explain it. Sexuality

existed before species were even self aware.

[DrSmellThis]

Why limit sexuality to baby

making and hormones, when the fact of our sexuality is inseparable from just about every aspect of life? Why can't

humans be accepted as humans and not be forcibly crammed into say, the "rat model". You can't ask a rat what's

happening, but you can a human. Rats don't study themselves. Humans do. Rats don't have a say in what their

research is ultimately to be for. Humans do. These are crucial differences. Are people's experiences and human

uniqueness irrelevant? I agree that biological aspects are important, but who says psychology has to be reduced to

biology? We already have biology for that.

Physical reproduction, sexual and asexual, maybe existed

before self awareness, depending on how you define consciousness. But any gay person will tell you sexuality is not

just about reproduction. Further, there are hormonal aspects to sexuality, and there are other aspects. The concept

of sexuality itself comes from self-awareness -- from humans. It did not exist before. Those are the roots.

Maintaining the perspective of the big picture is not trivial.

Obviously, this is more the background stuff.



Attraction is what it is for people in their everday lives in all its richness. That is what we have to answer to.

Otherwise we aren't really concerned about helping anyone. Then we try to support that with biological, social,

physical environmental underpinnings. But even within biological, it's not just about simple endocrine functions.

Neurology is way more complicated.
So while I am enthusiastic about the endocrine processes related to olfactory

influences on everyday attraction, I fight against reducing the latter to the former.