Genetic Dissemination Inherent Tendencies in relation to Attraction

October 12, 2009

Ok, not sure if this is the right forum but it does pertain to dating...

I was thinking last night after reviewing some medical dialogues about qualities and shortcomings in genetics, mind you this was all onset by me seeing a commercial for a bodywash which claimed that it was "pheremone infused to attract her to you magnetically!"

I realized that pheremone studies right now are pretty much a wash.

http://www.anapsid.org/pheromones.html (For your reading pleasure)

If you read that you'll gain a little more insight into my discussion. But in addition to the controversy behind whether or not humans produce (or respond) to pheremones I started thinking about the ability for women and men to "sense" genetic defects in people.

I think about all the ways we "fix" ourselves these days. Cosmetic surgery, medicines, salves, etc. Take for example me:

I have Seborrheic Dermatitis (I.E. dandruff). This is no doubt a "turn off". What do I do to fix this. I use anti-dandruff shampoo. However, if we think back a couple hundered years ago. People couldn't make up for their genetic defects. People who had psoriasis or dandruff were most likely ostricized from society because of their genetic defects being much more apparent. And that brings me to the next part of the discussion...

Do visual problems (like psoriasis, major cases of acne, dandruff, sores, chronic cysts, etc) indicate a gentic defect in people? I know plenty of people who have a few issues like these but seem very much normal (both visually and mentally). What about mental health issues and procreation?

300 years ago mentally disabled people were most likely not even allowed to live. Think about how many mental handicaps require ALOT of effort on the parents just to keep the child alive. These children were not allowed to survive back then because 1)the technology wasn't sufficient to keep the children alive and 2)it was an obvious birth defect.

Sorry, but mental disabilities are a birth defect. I know this may seem cold and utilitarian but....Why do we allow these children to live? In most cases they don't become a functioning member of society, and in the odd case that they do....will they procreate? And if they do procreate are they not further "muddying" the gene pool so to speak?

All of our defects in our bodies (visual and mental) were there as mother nature's inherent blocks to procreate with those people (making the gene pool of the human race better). In fact, going back to my first statement about pheremones, that is what women can sense sometimes. Women are more sensitive to smells and despite research I do believe some level of pheremone sensitivity remains in women. This can be a reason why some women just don't "click" with men.

Anyhow...I've lost my train of thought. So anyone care to discuss this with me? Does anyone else think that women choose dating partners on a level deeper then just looks or personality? (I.e. sensing genetic defects in some form)

*Mods*---Move this if this is in appropiate forum to post it in.

Edited October 12, 2009 by BlueHarvest

October 12, 2009

Your thoughts are actually discussions that have gone on for the better half of a century.

1) I think the research out there show that Pheremones do have an effect on human attraction, but in terms of differences in immune system. I'm not sure if humans can detect genetic defects, but many animals can, and there certainly isn't an artifical pheremone product on the market.

2) I'm sure dandruff wasn't a real problem 200 years ago. Back then a lot of people couldn't even afford soap or a host of other things we take for granted today. From deodorant to skin lotion. So people in general aged quickly and stank like crap.

3) Why do we allow children with birth defects to live? Dont' go down that road buddy, that train of thought developed in the US in the early 20th century and slowly spread. It was then adopted by the Nazi party in the 1930's and became what we now know as the Holocaust.

October 12, 2009

Your thoughts are actually discussions that have gone on for the better half of a century.

1) I think the research out there show that Pheremones do have an effect on human attraction, but in terms of differences in immune system. I'm not sure if humans can detect genetic defects, but many animals can, and there certainly isn't an artifical pheremone product on the market.

Did you read the article at all? As for the product that got me thinking...I could care less whether it validly has pheremone infusion in it or not, the point I was making was do we as humans believe that pheremones have an effect on our attraction decision making?

2) I'm sure dandruff wasn't a real problem 200 years ago. Back then a lot of people couldn't even afford soap or a host of other things we take for granted today. From deodorant to skin lotion. So people in general aged quickly and stank like crap.

Yes I know they aged quickly, but people aged quickly and "stank like crap". The average lifespan was 30-40 years and the reason was becuase mainly of the poor hygenic methods at the time (i.e. stank like crap).

3) Why do we allow children with birth defects to live? Dont' go down that road buddy, that train of thought developed in the US in the early 20th century and slowly spread. It was then adopted by the Nazi party in the 1930's and became what we now know as the Holocaust.

Well thank you for being yet another person to add to Godwin's Law. Seriously I think I'm going to start keeping a tally of how many people enact it.

My point about mental disabilities is still quite valid. And FYI I was talking about birth defects from a standpoint of, "just because the medicine is there to allow these people to live doesn't mean that is necessarily the right thing to do". My viewpoint was not from a standpoint of "Mental disability is bad therefore all mentally disabled people need to be killed right now" (as was your assumption of me and associting me with being a Nazi).

That being said. My point still stands, and I even stated this was just a discussion about attraction on a level that supercedes visual attraction or personality attraction and might go deeper...or that visual defects might be a cue for hidden genetic defects.

October 12, 2009

Ok, not sure if this is the right forum but it does pertain to dating...

I was thinking last night after reviewing some medical dialogues about qualities and shortcomings in genetics, mind you this was all onset by me seeing a commercial for a bodywash which claimed that it was "pheremone infused to attract her to you magnetically!"

I realized that pheremone studies right now are pretty much a wash.

http://www.anapsid.org/pheromones.html (For your reading pleasure)

If you read that you'll gain a little more insight into my discussion. But in addition to the controversy behind whether or not humans produce (or respond) to pheremones I started thinking about the ability for women and men to "sense" genetic defects in people.

I think about all the ways we "fix" ourselves these days. Cosmetic surgery, medicines, salves, etc. Take for example me:

I have Seborrheic Dermatitis (I.E. dandruff). This is no doubt a "turn off". What do I do to fix this. I use anti-dandruff shampoo. However, if we think back a couple hundered years ago. People couldn't make up for their genetic defects. People who had psoriasis or dandruff were most likely ostricized from society because of their genetic defects being much more apparent. And that brings me to the next part of the discussion...

Do visual problems (like psoriasis, major cases of acne, dandruff, sores, chronic cysts, etc) indicate a gentic defect in people? I know plenty of people who have a few issues like these but seem very much normal (both visually and mentally). What about mental health issues and procreation?

300 years ago mentally disabled people were most likely not even allowed to live. Think about how many mental handicaps require ALOT of effort on the parents just to keep the child alive. These children were not allowed to survive back then because 1)the technology wasn't sufficient to keep the children alive and 2)it was an obvious birth defect.

Sorry, but mental disabilities are a birth defect. I know this may seem cold and utilitarian but....Why do we allow these children to live? In most cases they don't become a functioning member of society, and in the odd case that they do....will they procreate? And if they do procreate are they not further "muddying" the gene pool so to speak?

All of our defects in our bodies (visual and mental) were there as mother nature's inherent blocks to procreate with those people (making the gene pool of the human race better). In fact, going back to my first statement about pheremones, that is what women can sense sometimes. Women are more sensitive to smells and despite research I do believe some level of pheremone sensitivity remains in women. This can be a reason why some women just don't "click" with men.

Anyhow...I've lost my train of thought. So anyone care to discuss this with me? Does anyone else think that women choose dating partners on a level deeper then just looks or personality? (I.e. sensing genetic defects in some form)

*Mods*---Move this if this is in appropiate forum to post it in.

Well, to respond to the first part of your post. Smell is a powerful trigger for all sorts of reactions, and memories, some on a concious, some on an unconcious level.

If you haven't , I'd suggest reading the "Scent of Desire" by Rachel Herz. It's a good read.

I don't think we can 'smell' genetic abnormalities per se. Many mammals have a much more attuned sense of smell and can sense sickness.

October 12, 2009

1) Yes, pheremones have an effect on human attraction.

2) Ok so people lived short lives and stank like crap. It's unlikely then they would be ostricized for dandruff.

3) You're advocating genetic discrimination. I believe Godwin's law states that a random discussion can gravitate to discussions about hitler or nazism. I'm jumping immediately to that, because genetic discrimination is excatly what they did.

So what you say we do? Sterlize them so their genetic defects is removed from the gene pool for the better of humanity?

The nazis did that before they started the holocaust. It's just plain evil, so don't go down that road. No one has the right to determine who lives and who doesn't, or who gets to reproduce. Otherwise, what's stopping me from say, stopping you from reproducing?

Edited October 12, 2009 by WillieB

October 12, 2009

The problem here is that you sound like you think that disabled people/people with mental disabilities, etc, are somehow inferior to able bodied people/people with no mental disability. Not saying you meant it to sounds like that...but that us how it sounds. Being free of mental or physical disabilities doesn't make us any more valuable or worthy than others that suffer disabilities. It was sick that, years ago, society may have felt differently. We'd have been denied some of the most incredible people of all time had that way of

of thinking been perpetuated. Think of the great Stephen Hawking, for example...

October 12, 2009

A friends wife told me the other day attraction for women is all about pheromones..She made it seem like women almost have no say in who they are attracted to thats how powerful this is..

October 12, 2009

A friends wife told me the other day attraction for women is all about pheromones..She made it seem like women almost have no say in who they are attracted to thats how powerful this is..

I agree, I don't think attraction is all about pheremones. We are humans, not animals. We have different things that we look for, but the article I read put it quite well....we may base our initial attraction on looks, personality, wealth, what-have-you. But pheremones might just be powerful enough to nudge us in a certain direction towards liking someone inexplicably. It also might be the reason behind those initial moments when you first meet someone and for some reason feel a powerful attraction to them. (Though personally I would take that one with a grain of salt and possibly attribute that to more about looks than pheremones).

October 12, 2009

I get where you're coming from, not so much a thought to how we should not let this person or that person breed, but rather how much do pheromones contribute to warning us against "dangerous?" genes.

I have wondered about this too. Like when some animals won't willingly breed with the seemingly optimum mate we provide them in zoos or on farms. Or when you meet someone new and they seem like a good match but they just smell WRONG and you can't explain why. Oh yeah, I've had a few of those dates!

I can't say as I ever later learned they carried a defect of some kind, but it would make more sense than just thinking they smelled wrong. But then there are a few I did date that I later wondered why I didn't smell their particular defect.

I think it is possible that pheromones are a biological signal of desirable or less than desirable genes. Possible, but hard to quantify too.

And what are we to do about it? You can't just expect someone who smells inexplicably "off" that they cannot have sex, marry, reproduce. I see a few posters who're already acting like you're suggesting exactly that.

We can correct many conditions that were once life threatening, so I can't see us going back to Spartan methods for less than perfect offspring. And many conditions that are potentially life threatening can be detected prior to birth, leaving that decision (if it is to be made) to the parents. I do see, more often than I think to be wise, the choice to bring that child into the world. Likewise, most states no longer require blood testing for a couple interested in getting married and having children. Wise for democracy, but perhaps no so wise for the gene pool.

October 12, 2009

Sorry, but mental disabilities are a birth defect. I know this may seem cold and utilitarian but....Why do we allow these children to live? In most cases they don't become a functioning member of society, and in the odd case that they do....will they procreate? And if they do procreate are they not further "muddying" the gene pool so to speak?

You don't get to make these types of statements and then cry foul when someone brings up the euthanasia programs for the disabled in Nazi Germany because it this is the type of thinking that brought it about to begin with. Besides, did you really not expect anyone here to draw the parallels or take offense to the direction you took here? I would think it was pretty obvious how it would play out. This is the type of really touchy subject matter that is best left on a philosophy board, not loveshack for crying out loud.

October 12, 2009

It's useful to keep in mind that there are defects and differences. A lot of what you seem to consider defects are perhaps less clear cut than you think, after all, one mans defect is another mans immunity to malaria.

Some research I've read has indicated that women in particular are wired to prefer to mate with men who are at least to some degree genetically different from themselves and that smell is one way women can identify this.

As for retards being culled, I suspect it's more what I've seen in developing lands, they are not actively culled, but in fact are often treated with some extra care but really people just don't have the resources to provide a LOT of extra care, so they often die young, and almost never procreate if they are male.

October 12, 2009

Or when you meet someone new and they seem like a good match but they just smell WRONG and you can't explain why.

There is actually specific research that seems to indicate this might be due to genetic similarities in your immune response and that of the man in question rather than a specific defect.

October 12, 2009

You don't get to make these types of statements and then cry foul when someone brings up the euthanasia programs for the disabled in Nazi Germany because it this is the type of thinking that brought it about to begin with. Besides, did you really not expect anyone here to draw the parallels or take offense to the direction you took here? I would think it was pretty obvious how it would play out. This is the type of really touchy subject matter that is best left on a philosophy board, not loveshack for crying out loud.

You are quite right Muse. I guess I expected too much from LS posters...and my original intent wasn't to create that direction.

Like Sally so well-spokenly said...

We can correct many conditions that were once life threatening, so I can't see us going back to Spartan methods for less than perfect offspring. And many conditions that are potentially life threatening can be detected prior to birth, leaving that decision (if it is to be made) to the parents. I do see, more often than I think to be wise, the choice to bring that child into the world. Likewise, most states no longer require blood testing for a couple interested in getting married and having children. Wise for democracy, but perhaps no so wise for the gene pool.

October 12, 2009

I agree, I don't think attraction is all about pheremones. We are humans, not animals. We have different things that we look for, but the article I read put it quite well....we may base our initial attraction on looks, personality, wealth, what-have-you. But pheremones might just be powerful enough to nudge us in a certain direction towards liking someone inexplicably. It also might be the reason behind those initial moments when you first meet someone and for some reason feel a powerful attraction to them. (Though personally I would take that one with a grain of salt and possibly attribute that to more about looks than pheremones).

I agree..Though she had another interesting one where we were talking about a friend who not only cant get women but seems to be kryptonite to them and i couldnt figure it out because he isnt a horrible looking guy or anything..

She explained to me the pheormone thing but also said he doesnt seem fertil eand women see that in him

Seemed pretty harsh to me and made it seem like women see men as nothing more them sometihng to give them a baby with good genes..

October 12, 2009

I think in some ways, this subject is too close to home for people with disabled family members.

Not all disabilities are life threatening, I didn't see any suggestion that we ought forcefully cull the gene pool of these disabilities. It would be pointless; not all mental handicaps were genetically born. Sometimes it is due to birthing stresses or injury. And even if we were to try to eliminate handicapped people at birth as a rule, we cannot stop people from trauma and injury.

But I have wondered if a person who is mentally handicapped would decide to remain so if they had the ability to choose to not be mentally handicapped.

October 12, 2009

But I have wondered if a person who is mentally handicapped would decide to remain so if they had the ability to choose to not be mentally handicapped.

Mentally handicapped is a sort of arbitrary line in a way, intelligence is a spectrum, physical prowess is a spectrum, and so on.

October 13, 2009

Sorry, but mental disabilities are a birth defect. I know this may seem cold and utilitarian but....Why do we allow these children to live?.

We allow them to live because we're human beings with a heart......

What type of discussion and forum is this anyway, when people talk about whether mentally disabled people should die?

I find it interesting that two people's comments have been deleted from this thread and have been banned after they criticised Blueharvest.

Is blueharvest just a mod abusing his power? Hmmm.

October 13, 2009

We allow them to live because we're human beings with a heart......

What type of discussion and forum is this anyway, when people talk about whether mentally disabled people should die?

I find it interesting that two people's comments have been deleted from this thread and have been banned after they criticised Blueharvest.

Is blueharvest just a mod abusing his power? Hmmm.

Is this having a heart?

http://www.discovery.org/a/3893

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1289216.ece

"Afflicted with a severe brain impairment known as static encephalopathy, she cannot walk, talk, keep her head up in bed or even swallow food. Her parents argued that “keeping her small” was the best way to improve the quality of her life, not to make life more convenient for them."

Now I can totally sympathize with the parents of such a child if they could not have known she would turn out this way. However, some similarly debilitating conditions have prenatal tests. It may not be a popular opinion, but mine is that parents who would knowingly bring a child similar to Ashley X (Pillow Angels) into this world are cruel and do so misguidedly at best.

I see the sense in the treatment Ashley X's parents sought, but if they knew she would be this way, they were monsters long before they sought to have her altered for their convenience.

October 13, 2009

Mental disability covers many spectrums. If we were to not let them live, as the OP suggests we would be killing tens of millions of people. Many that can live a productive life.

I mean if you had a car crash and lost the use of your legs OP, would you want someone to be posting how people that are crippled are less attractive and shouldn't be allowed to live?

October 13, 2009

Everyone with an IQ under 95, please form a line at the gas chamber doors.

October 13, 2009

Mental disability covers many spectrums. If we were to not let them live, as the OP suggests we would be killing tens of millions of people. Many that can live a productive life.

I mean if you had a car crash and lost the use of your legs OP, would you want someone to be posting how people that are crippled are less attractive and shouldn't be allowed to live?

I think my one of my previous posts addressed these concerns.

And with the added concept of pheromone super smell, I don't think it would apply to accident injury as that would not be a genetic condition. Unless clumsiness has a genetic marker we can trace. Even then, not everyone is at fault for their own accidental injury.

OP questioned mental disability, and everyone seems capable of pointing out that some disabilities are highly functioning while other are not. I'm just wondering why the assumption that the OP wants to wipe out everything from medication controlled epilepsy to vegetative state, non ambulatory conditions? Why is that what OP must be saying? I mean, we DO have tests so parents can detect some conditions and it isn't unusual for the action taken to be abortion of the fetus.

Why are we not able to discuss the topic rationally when we know these things?

October 13, 2009

OP questioned mental disability, and everyone seems capable of pointing out that some disabilities are highly functioning while other are not. I'm just wondering why the assumption that the OP wants to wipe out everything from medication controlled epilepsy to vegetative state, non ambulatory conditions? Why is that what OP must be saying? I mean, we DO have tests so parents can detect some conditions and it isn't unusual for the action taken to be abortion of the fetus.
Why are we not able to discuss the topic rationally when we know these things?

He's said those "muddying" the gene pool should not be allowed to live. So now we're qualifying the statement for him? Maybe he shouldn't make such sensitive comments in the first place. Sounds like a neo nazi rant.

October 13, 2009

He's said those "muddying" the gene pool should not be allowed to live. So now we're qualifying the statement for him? Maybe he shouldn't make such sensitive comments in the first place. Sounds like a neo nazi rant.

You suggested the OP of being an undercover mod with an agenda because you felt anyone disagreeing had their posts deleted.

I offered that it could be that the OP was not suggesting a course of action so much as having an open discussion because the OP DIDN'T say anyone should not live. In fact actually questioned readers views rather than stated anything:

"And if they do procreate are they not further "muddying" the gene pool so to speak?"

It was just an offered alternative to your conspiracy theory. Reading comprehension supports my alternative much more than a nazi agenda....

You can qualify the OP's statements however tickles you, but it would be nice if you allowed others to do so too. I just took a less histrionic route?

October 13, 2009

You suggested the OP of being an undercover mod with an agenda because you felt anyone disagreeing had their posts deleted.

I offered that it could be that the OP was not suggesting a course of action so much as having an open discussion because the OP DIDN'T say anyone should not live. In fact actually questioned readers views rather than stated anything:

"And if they do procreate are they not further "muddying" the gene pool so to speak?"

It was just an offered alternative to your conspiracy theory. Reading comprehension supports my alternative much more than a nazi agenda....

You can qualify the OP's statements however tickles you, but it would be nice if you allowed others to do so too. I just took a less histrionic route?

Not their posts deleted, but accounts banned. I can't find them anymore. Looks like the OP can dish out, but can't take the heat himself.

Anyway, back to the original topic. There are two very well established camps regarding genetic dictatorship, and who's genes is allowed to be past on and who's is not allowed.

It is illegal in every country of the world not to allow a human being to exist because of a disability. No allowing a human to be born is another matter, but that's the choice of the parents, no one other than the parents has power in that regards.

Problem is most mental defects cannot be detected until the kid is born.

In any case what the OP proposes and what you support is frowned upon in every single developed nation, because we've already been down that path in the path. It's been tried with disastrous consequences.

October 13, 2009

Not their posts deleted, but accounts banned. I can't find them anymore. Looks like the OP can dish out, but can't take the heat himself.

Anyway, back to the original topic. There are two very well established camps regarding genetic dictatorship, and who's genes is allowed to be past on and who's is not allowed.

It is illegal in every country of the world not to allow a human being to exist because of a disability. No allowing a human to be born is another matter, but that's the choice of the parents, no one other than the parents has power in that regards.

Problem is most mental defects cannot be detected until the kid is born.

In any case what the OP proposes and what you support is frowned upon in every single developed nation, because we've already been down that path in the path. It's been tried with disastrous consequences.

It is not illegal in every country for a woman expecting a child to have tests ran to check the development of her fetus, and then choose to terminate the fetus based on test results. YOU KNOW THAT. Why lie or pretend just to argue?

Can you tell me what it is that I support? I'm dying to know.....

Sign In

Genetic Dissemination Inherent Tendencies in relation to Attraction

Recommended Posts

BlueHarvest

WillieB

BlueHarvest

northstar1

WillieB

torranceshipman

AD1980

BlueHarvest

sally4sara

theBrokenMuse

clv0116

clv0116

BlueHarvest

AD1980

sally4sara

clv0116

BookerT

sally4sara

BookerT

clv0116

sally4sara

BookerT

sally4sara

BookerT

sally4sara

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...