Comments on: A new science of mating. eHistology.com?

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 20 May 2008 20:34:04 +0000

I would suspect I would be a lot like Michael Bussee – just no response at all to female images.
But lets say I did go for a scan and it showed some response to female images – and yet I know that I have no sexual arousal at all towards females – who gets the final word. I assume there must as well be a threshold – where over some response point there is enough attraction there to work with. Afterall, taken as a whole these scans would seem to indicate that all males are bisexual (which is something which I don’t believe).
As far as being attracted to ‘manly men’ – yes a lot of gay men are – but lots of guys are attracted to softer and more effeminate men. Lots of gay men don’t really even seem to have a type (other than being male) or very broad types which attract them. My partner is a lot like that – in he can find many different types of guys attractive. Myself my attractions are a lot narrower – the bearish man will almost always turn my head first. But presumably the same can all be said about hetrosexual men.
Finally, as to the idea that we cannot assume gay men are as strongly attracted to men, as straight men are to women seems to be contested by the societal evidence. Even in the face of harsh societal taboos – there are many gay men who only partner with other men. Surely if the attraction was weaker here as opposed to hetrosexuals this would rarely happen.

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:21:00 +0000

Patrick,
I think I said something to the same effect in the first post — genes are highly unlikely to determine attractions, maybe to influence them to some extent. On the scientism point, even biologists admit that we are going through a period when biological determinism is the fashion in understanding human behaviour. You can imagine the commercial potential these discoveries can have particularly in high-functioning and high-stress societies. People want to take the easy way out to disconnect, to find a match, etc.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Tue, 20 May 2008 18:58:28 +0000

Evan said: “Neither homosexual men’s brains did show any pattern of aversion on seeing pornographic images of women.”
They obviously didn’t scan my brain. I feel either nothing or definite aversion — depending on the image. A nude female figure? Nothing. A pornographic female image? Definite turn off. Male images, nude or graphic? All the lights go on.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 20 May 2008 18:49:07 +0000

What I was talking about was this reductionist idea that genes can determine who are attracted to. Yes in some biology-centric view humans are probably coded to respond to a particular ‘type’ of person. And from purely the biological point of view that person might be well suited to procreate with. But sex for humans (not for homo sapiens) is about more than procreation. In fact we (as in society we) often do everything they can to have sex without procreation. Now unless someone wants to provide an argument that who we are best suited to procreating with on a purely genetic viewpoint – is also who is *best* suited to be with as a a life partner in a romantic/physically intimate relationship than I really cannot see these ‘DNA’ matching services will be anymore useful than just dating a variety of persons based on mutual factors (which would of couse include physical features). Someone infected with scientism will of course not be able to see this – because for them everything in life – including love – reduces to some scientific problem to be solved. The old adage – when you only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail seems appropriate here.

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 20 May 2008 18:24:49 +0000

Patrick,
Wiki quote: “Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: “wise human” or “knowing human”[1]) in the family Hominidae (the great apes).”
Humans share a wide range of feelings and behaviours with all mammalians. It is true, though, that behaviours are a lot more culturally modulated, even repressed, in humans.
Our emotional reactions may have some input from the parts of the brain that are responsible with judgment, reason, cultural affiliations. In fact, I think there is one theory of emotion I can remember of that says emotion must have some initial cognition to know how to react to something. But what you are talking about is closer to affinity-based relationship, which may be typical for more cognitive-oriented people or people who place more emphasis in their relationships on shared values (at least more than the average). However, I think these people are also moved by attractions they do not respond to behaviourally. That is what you described with your example: heterosexual men may display an expression of aversion on seeing two kissing men, however the empirically established fact until now is that their brains do not show aversive reactions, like the ones produced by disgust. Neither homosexual men’s brains did show any pattern of aversion on seeing pornographic images of women. Nature is a bit more surprising than we are ready to admit. If I remember right, wasn’t Plato who talked about love as an unruly horse?