Sam Spade Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I'm late to the party, but in response to the OP I feel compelled to testify that I wouldn't commit to a woman that hasn't slept with me.
dreamergrl Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Where with me, I have no desire to hop into the sack with a man I don't have all three, emotional, intellectual and physical cylinders firing. As previously stated, each individual is different. Women who can differentiate, all the power to them. Women who can't, don't even bother. No amount of experimenting, will change your natural inclinations, if your core values also align with them. But (and I think you'll agree) there is no time line for if and when this happens. You are living proof, there are no set rules for when, where, how, if, what happens. It is about being natural. You have the up most beautiful life ahead of you. Did you go by a set time line? You can't control when all three come into place. I know things haven't and don't always work out how we want them too, but I think by limiting things to a limit, we are hurting ourselves in the long run. You have to be selective, but at the same time, you can't put down a time line.
threebyfate Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 But (and I think you'll agree) there is no time line for if and when this happens. You are living proof, there are no set rules for when, where, how, if, what happens. It is about being natural. You have the up most beautiful life ahead of you. Did you go by a set time line? You can't control when all three come into place. I know things haven't and don't always work out how we want them too, but I think by limiting things to a limit, we are hurting ourselves in the long run. You have to be selective, but at the same time, you can't put down a time line.Having all three happen to me, wasn't defined by timeline. In the past, it sometimes took awhile. This time, it hit fast and hard. So not only is it circumstantial, it's also individual based. I don't deny that some women can compartmentalize. But I strongly disagree that it has anything to do with experimenting. If anything, experimenting taught me to be cautious and not to have sex with someone who's actions were inconsistent.
Johnny M Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Woooooooow. DUDE. Based on what you've just stated, you've just rendered semen to basically a placebo or water. Semen is full of testosterone, which we all know drives the male do to what he does. Estrogen (in women) drives women to do what they do. I won't even touch the rape comment. I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. Testosterone and estrogen are hormones, yes, but they are not "bonding chemicals". Don't even get into rape with me, since I have experienced an attempted rape. There are many other factors involved in that scenario, including adrenaline and all kinds of fight/flight instincts. As for bonding hormones, do the research on oxytocin. It might help to illuminate your mind... I know what oxytocin is. It's a hormone. Again, just because it's a hormone does not mean that it acts as a "bonding chemical". Presently, there is no definitive scientific proof showing a connection between oxytocin release and bonding behavior. There have been studies trying to establish that link, but so far they've been inconclusive. Perhaps you are the one who needs to illuminate your mind. And by the way, men also release oxytocin during orgasm. If oxytocin was indeed a bonding chemical, how do you explain the fact that so many women suffer no ill effects after one night stands and other short-term sexual relationships?
Author BookerT Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 No pseudoscience please. There is no such thing as "bonding chemicals". Otherwise, a woman who got raped would instantly fall in love with the rapist. Bonding is a purely psychological process that can easily happen without any sex taking place. You obviously don't know anything about how pair bonding hormones work or you wouldn't have associated rape with it. If a woman is attracted to a man already, what pair bonding hormones like Dopamine and Oxytocin does is it fuses the person that's desired with emotions. So after the sex the woman will think and desire the guy a lot more than before. If it's a rapist the girl is hardly already attracted to the guy.
Johnny M Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 And by the way, rape is a pretty good example, even though you may not want to "go there" for personal reasons. There is no bonding between the victim and the rapist. Thus, bonding is not an automatic, chemical process as you're trying to portray it as.
Author BookerT Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 I know what oxytocin is. It's a hormone. Again, just because it's a hormone does not mean that it acts as a "bonding chemical". Presently, there is no definitive scientific proof showing a connection between oxytocin release and bonding behavior. There have been studies trying to establish that link, but so far they've been inconclusive. Perhaps you are the one who needs to illuminate your mind. Oxytocin is just one of the hormones. In reality it's more like a hormonal mix. Serotonin, Dopamine, and Vaspopressin (in men). There's a huge amount of research on the subject, so I don't know why you say there's none. Go google it.
threebyfate Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I know what oxytocin is. It's a hormone. Again, just because it's a hormone does not mean that it acts as a "bonding chemical". Presently, there is no definitive scientific proof showing a connection between oxytocin release and bonding behavior. There have been studies trying to establish that link, but so far they've been inconclusive. Perhaps you are the one who needs to illuminate your mind. And by the way, men also release oxytocin during orgasm. If oxytocin was indeed a bonding chemical, how do you explain the fact that so many women suffer no ill effects after one night stands and other short-term sexual relationships? Do some research. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17118932 I'm not a scientist but I do read well...
aerogurl87 Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 You obviously don't know anything about how pair bonding hormones work or you wouldn't have associated rape with it. If a woman is attracted to a man already, what pair bonding hormones like Dopamine and Oxytocin does is it fuses the person that's desired with emotions. So after the sex the woman will think and desire the guy a lot more than before. I can say from experience that that isn't always true. I've had sex with some guys I didn't desire after having sex with them. One was a guy I had sex with for 7 times in one night, but after that I didn't care to see him again unless I was horny. So I've got to agree with Johnny M that such a thing does not always occur. Most behaviour is learned and not innate. I think "chemical bonding" may be one of those things and to me that's largely due to the fact that most girls have been taught that prince charming will come and sweep them off their feet and carry them off into happily ever after. But that's for another thread...
Johnny M Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 If a woman is attracted to a man already, what pair bonding hormones like Dopamine and Oxytocin does is it fuses the person that's desired with emotions. So after the sex the woman will think and desire the guy a lot more than before. Sorry, but this doesn't sound particularly scientific. What exactly do you mean by "fuses the person that's desired with emotions"? Even if we assume that oxytocin is a "pair bonding hormone", which, like I already stated, hasn't been proven yet, what is this mysterious "fusing process" that you speak of?
threebyfate Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 And by the way, rape is a pretty good example, even though you may not want to "go there" for personal reasons. There is no bonding between the victim and the rapist. Thus, bonding is not an automatic, chemical process as you're trying to portray it as.This is my last post in this thread because your rape reference is seriously pissing me off. I'd like to say some things to you but choose not to. All I'm going to say to you is that unless you have scientific proof, like I've provided for you, STFU about rape. Thank you.
littlewhiterose Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Johnny M, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, here. It seems a lot of yours posts, you're telling how women should be, feel, act and react. By any chance are you a woman also?
Author BookerT Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 I can say from experience that that isn't always true. I've had sex with some guys I didn't desire after having sex with them. One was a guy I had sex with for 7 times in one night, but after that I didn't care to see him again unless I was horny. So I've got to agree with Johnny M that such a thing does not always occur. Most behaviour is learned and not innate. I think "chemical bonding" may be one of those things and to me that's largely due to the fact that most girls have been taught that prince charming will come and sweep them off their feet and carry them off into happily ever after. But that's for another thread... First of all, the level of bonding varies between individuals, just like some people are tall and some people are short. Some people are prone to addictive behaviors and some are not. The likelihood goes up a lot more only if you already like the guy, you have sex more than once and pair bonding hormones actually work on you. People tend to think that when behaviors don't happen to them, then it's proof the behavior doesn't exist. Rather those people are in the minority groups.
Johnny M Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I'm not a scientist but I do read well... No, you don't. That study is about social bonding in rodents, not sexual bonding in humans. And look at the last sentence: "These studies have generated testable hypotheses regarding the motivational systems and underlying molecular neurobiology involved in social engagement and social bond formation that may have important implications for the core social deficits characterizing autism spectrum disorders." Pay particular attention to the words "hypothesis" and "may'. Like I said, there is no conclusive proof yet.
Author BookerT Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 Johnny M, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, here. It seems a lot of yours posts, you're telling how women should be, feel, act and react. By any chance are you a woman also? That was my point earlier. Then he got all mad at me.
aerogurl87 Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 First of all, the level of bonding varies between individuals, just like some people are tall and some people are short. Some people are prone to addictive behaviors and some are not. The likelihood goes up a lot more only if you already like the guy, you have sex more than once and pair bonding hormones actually work on you. People tend to think that when behaviors don't happen to them, then it's proof the behavior doesn't exist. Rather those people are in the minority groups. I'm just saying, I think bonding occurs on more of a psychological level than a chemical one. Most young girls are taught that sex is special by their mothers and that they shouldn't go out "whoring around" as my sister would say. On the flip side, guys are taught that to be manly you must sew your wild oats and get as many girls as possible to impress friends, be successful, etc. So I think it's a mixture of psychological, social, and chemical factors. I think there is more at work here than some chemicals.
Johnny M Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 This is my last post in this thread because your rape reference is seriously pissing me off. I'd like to say some things to you but choose not to. All I'm going to say to you is that unless you have scientific proof, like I've provided for you, STFU about rape. Thank you. If you're getting pissed off, don't read my posts, it's as simple as that.
Author BookerT Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 I'm just saying, I think bonding occurs on more of a psychological level than a chemical one. Most young girls are taught that sex is special by their mothers and that they shouldn't go out "whoring around" as my sister would say. On the flip side, guys are taught that to be manly you must sew your wild oats and get as many girls as possible to impress friends, be successful, etc. So I think it's a mixture of psychological, social, and chemical factors. I think there is more at work here than some chemicals. The human mind works on two systems. Chemical/hormonal and higher reasoning/logical thought processes. So basically our psychology is a combination of both. There are times when the two systems conflict. For example if you're a drug addict then you might logically want to quit, but because you're chemically addicted, you can't. That's actually very similar to a woman that logically knows her boyfriend/husband is a scumbag but can't leave him.
littlewhiterose Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Ok, check this out. It's super short. http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/oxytocin It very much has to do with chemicals, including testosterone & estrogen. And as Booker T said "higher reasoning/logical thought processes..." is justification for the actions we take/decisions we make.
Johnny M Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Johnny M, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, here. It seems a lot of yours posts, you're telling how women should be, feel, act and react. By any chance are you a woman also? It's interesting that you chose to pose this question to me. Maybe you should have addressed it to the person who started this thread, who is also a man and who has no problem telling women that they should be exclusive before sex. I stated my opinion on the subject matter raised by the OP. That's what people do on discussions forums like this one. If that's not to your liking, no one's forcing you to be here.
littlewhiterose Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 It's interesting that you chose to pose this question to me. Maybe you should have addressed it to the person who started this thread, who is also a man and who has no problem telling women that they should be exclusive before sex. I stated my opinion on the subject matter raised by the OP. That's what people do on discussions forums like this one. If that's not to your liking, no one's forcing you to be here. I'm sorry I didn't clarify. This was in reference to your women/rape comments. So yes, I was addressing you.
aerogurl87 Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Ok, check this out. It's super short. http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/oxytocin It very much has to do with chemicals, including testosterone & estrogen. And as Booker T said "higher reasoning/logical thought processes..." is justification for the actions we take/decisions we make. Haha I love that magazine And thanks for sending me the link, that reminds me that I need to renew my subscription. But anyway, I think this goes back to the whole social factors vs. innate factors argument that is prevalent in the world of psychology even today. Hence why I said it's more than chemicals being at work here.
Author BookerT Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 I'm sorry I didn't clarify. This was in reference to your women/rape comments. So yes, I was addressing you. Yeah I was just about to add. There's a difference giving advice about a sensible strategy, and how a woman feels if raped. Why even bring up rape anyway? It's a crap topic to talk about.
littlewhiterose Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 And it's interesting that if someone offers the flip side argument to something you've stated, you subtly tell them to fly a kite/"F" off. Instead of offering further information to back up your argument.
Author BookerT Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 And it's interesting that if someone offers the flip side argument to something you've stated, you subtly tell them to fly a kite/"F" off. Instead of offering further information to back up your argument. This is my guess and just a guess. He likes the option of sex without commitment, and he's actually one of the guys that has sex with a girl and then walks off. So basically if all women asked for guys to be exclusive with them before sex happens then his game gets crushed. So he's getting defensive in this post. He's not picking the best option for women, but the defending his way of life.
Recommended Posts