Love and hormones question

[Philosophos]

OK I've been reading some stuff about love and hormones and I currently have a question. Whenever you fall in love it's because your subconscious 'reads/studies' the pheromones that the other individual sends you and it believes that this person is perfect to carry/make and so on your children.

If I haven't made a mistake so far this means that the other person should feel the same way too, I mean your own subconscious tells you that you match. Is there a mistake behind this logic (biologically speaking). If you suddenly have this urge to turn around and you see out of the blue a beautiful young lady that walked in the cafe and you suddenly fall in love is this supposed to work on the other person? Again biologically speaking.

Every opinion is welcomed, but please if you have some facts... that would be awesome. Oh and if you could like link that would be even more awesome.

Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. :laugh:

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

If this were the case then only heterosexuals would fall in love/fuck. There is a lot of quack science when it comes to humans and pheromones, where did you read this explanation? I'm not gonna pretend that I'm an expert on this but it just sounds bogus from the get-go.

[Philosophos]

it's just a thought that came through my mind nothing more nothing less. I'm trying to find some scientific articles on the subject so I could study a little bit more, but it's all the same crap from 'love' magazines rumbling about the same old.

[Philosophos]

about the heterosexual thing you mentioned it was an example of 'if I have this then I might have this as a result'.

[Jack Daniels]

The thing that your not taking into account is that we are humans, means our own personnel thoughts, personality, our mind that is unlike any other animal, this affects our deductions and thought process. You falling in love isn't just your bodies reaction to pheromones, your brain also insiders your own personality and ect. Which means while your brain will tell you you're a perfect match, the others brain will react differently dependents their personality and ect.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The thing that your not taking into account is that we are humans, means our own personnel thoughts, personality, our mind that is unlike any other animal, this affects our deductions and thought process. You falling in love isn't just your bodies reaction to pheromones, your brain also insiders your own personality and ect. Which means while your brain will tell you you're a perfect match, the others brain will react differently dependents their personality and ect.

Perhaps it is better to apply Marxism to the problem of love.

On the most basic level, love stands as a relation between the subject and the object. That is to say that love exists within both phenomena in relation to eachother; I.E the subject "being in love" with the "object of love".

Thus arises the question of the relation of the mind to nature.

According to Marx, "the abstract mind is nothing more than the self-objectification of the essence of the philosophical mind and the philosophical mind is nothing but the estranged mind of the world thinking within its self-estrangement. Logic, (the speculative or thought value of a man and nature, their essence grown totally indifferent to all real determinations, and hence their unreal essense)is alienated thinking, and therefore thinking which abstracts from nature and real man"(Critique of the Hegelian Dialetic as a whole). Hence the interest in this alienation, "is the opposition to in itself and for itself, of consciousness and self-consciousness, of object and subject"(Critique of the Hegelian Dialetic as a whole).

The object then, in this case the "object of love" finds itself within the dialectic of pure thought. Love which is a specific object-subject relation affects the subject as a particular form of alienated thinking where the mind in of itself, or unconsciously, formulates the sensation of love and the conscious mind attempts to objectify this sensation through the perception of the external object. This movement, where there is a dialectical contradiction between the in of itself and for itself, is objectified as the conscious mind receives the sensation of the object through the unconscious (that is, of love) and the experience of the object (the relation between the subject-object). Thus from the point of objectification we can see the resolution of the contradiction and of the alienation through the transformation of this contradiction into "pure thought" where "the movement of abstract thought is no longer directed outwards but going on now only within its own self".

[Magic Carpets Corp.]

Perhaps it is better to apply Marxism to the problem of love.

On the most basic level, love stands as a relation between the subject and the object. That is to say that love exists within both phenomena in relation to eachother; I.E the subject "being in love" with the "object of love".

Thus arises the question of the relation of the mind to nature.

According to Marx, "the abstract mind is nothing more than the self-objectification of the essence of the philosophical mind and the philosophical mind is nothing but the estranged mind of the world thinking within its self-estrangement. Logic, (the speculative or thought value of a man and nature, their essence grown totally indifferent to all real determinations, and hence their unreal essense)is alienated thinking, and therefore thinking which abstracts from nature and real man"(Critique of the Hegelian Dialetic as a whole). Hence the interest in this alienation, "is the opposition to in itself and for itself, of consciousness and self-consciousness, of object and subject"(Critique of the Hegelian Dialetic as a whole).

The object then, in this case the "object of love" finds itself within the dialectic of pure thought. Love which is a specific object-subject relation affects the subject as a particular form of alienated thinking where the mind in of itself, or unconsciously, formulates the sensation of love and the conscious mind attempts to objectify this sensation through the perception of the external object. This movement, where there is a dialectical contradiction between the in of itself and for itself, is objectified as the conscious mind receives the sensation of the object through the unconscious (that is, of love) and the experience of the object (the relation between the subject-object). Thus from the point of objectification we can see the resolution of the contradiction and of the alienation through the transformation of this contradiction into "pure thought" where "the movement of abstract thought is no longer directed outwards but going on now only within its own self".
lmfao

[Firebrand]

Brainiac did a test on this subject. They blindfolded a woman and made her choose the guy based on his smell. The conclusion was that cheap aftershave indicates the ideal partner.

[Philosophos]

The thing that your not taking into account is that we are humans, means our own personnel thoughts, personality, our mind that is unlike any other animal, this affects our deductions and thought process. You falling in love isn't just your bodies reaction to pheromones, your brain also insiders your own personality and ect. Which means while your brain will tell you you're a perfect match, the others brain will react differently dependents their personality and ect.

Sorry what part of biologically speaking didn't you get?

[Jack Daniels]

I got biologically speaking, but you can't just choose to ignore other factors. The whole point is that it's not just our biology that determined things such as love. That's why we don't pick the partner that is ideal for our own biology.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeah, you want a study of the biological aspect of falling in love, centered on pheromones, am I right?

I'm ignorant in this regard, completely I'm afraid. Though, it makes sense to think that indeed there is a biological aspect. We're not abstract Thoughts resolving ourselves through a dialectically magical process of contradiction-in-itself.

Yeah, that was meant to be absurd.

I would be interested in pairing the physical attraction with mental states. How can we, for instance, be intensely attracted to someone without actually either liking them or engaging in a relationship.

Oh yeah and this pheromone approach stumbles on the issue of same sex and genderqueer attraction.

[Devrim]

Oh yeah and this pheromone approach stumbles on the issue of same sex and genderqueer attraction.

I don't think it does in any way. The human sex drive is something that obviously evolved in connection with sexual reproduction. Sex is pleasurable. Any species that found sex unpleasant would probably die off pretty quickly.

The reason that the human sex drive evolved is connected to reproduction. However, the reason that we have sex is not generally because we want to reproduce, but because we find it pleasurable, and this physical pleasure is the same whatever our sexual orientation, or indeed if you are alone masturbating.

The thing about the pheromones would, I imagine work on the same level. We evolved to find certain smells attractive directly connected to reproduction. However, it is quite likely that homosexuals still have this basic system hardwired into themselves even though they are not engaged in the act of reproduction.

I don't see where it stumbles.

Devrim

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't think it does in any way. The human sex drive is something that obviously evolved in connection with sexual reproduction. Sex is pleasurable. Any species that found sex unpleasant would probably die off pretty quickly.

...

I don't see where it stumbles.

Devrim
I misspoke, I meant to say that the very particular "hormonal" approach stumbles here:


Whenever you fall in love it's because your subconscious 'reads/studies' the pheromones that the other individual sends you and it believes that this person is perfect to carry/make and so on your children

[bcbm]

The thing that your not taking into account is that we are humans, means our own personnel thoughts, personality, our mind that is unlike any other animal, this affects our deductions and thought process. You falling in love isn't just your bodies reaction to pheromones, your brain also insiders your own personality and ect. Which means while your brain will tell you you're a perfect match, the others brain will react differently dependents their personality and ect.

i don't think someone else not being interested rules out biology.

[cyu]

If you suddenly have this urge to turn around and you see out of the blue a beautiful young lady that walked in the cafe and you suddenly fall in love is this supposed to work on the other person?


If you're asking if a rapist wants to rape someone, does that mean the other person wants to be raped, then the answer is no.

[Jack Daniels]

I didn't say that it rules out biology, just that there are way man more factors then just that. so you have to include the other factors, not just biology. if you wanted something on biology, then I guess you could count that some studies have shown that symmetry on a person can be important, it shows they are generally healthy an help you first like a partner, but that would just be infatuation, and to most people, fades over a certain amount of time, just as the pheromone attraction.

[Philosophos]

If you're asking if a rapist wants to rape someone, does that mean the other person wants to be raped, then the answer is no.

Really? I mean really?

[bcbm]

I didn't say that it rules out biology, just that there are way man more factors then just that. so you have to include the other factors, not just biology. if you wanted something on biology, then I guess you could count that some studies have shown that symmetry on a person can be important, it shows they are generally healthy an help you first like a partner, but that would just be infatuation, and to most people, fades over a certain amount of time, just as the pheromone attraction.

its all still biology in the end though, really, isn't it?

[cyu]

Really? I mean really?


What do you want - a kinder, gentler version? If you're attracted to someone, does that mean the other person is attracted to you? The answer is still no.

[xxxxxx666666]

I supposed that a person's upbringing may have an effect, and the society and the values of that society the person lives in.

In addition to biology as already mentioned of course.

[Philosophos]

What do you want - a kinder, gentler version? If you're attracted to someone, does that mean the other person is attracted to you? The answer is still no.

you think I want a gentler version? you really think that's my problem. I spoke about biology. Do you have any proof that humans don't like each other according to the hormone match they have? It's completely different from rape and it's completely different from liking someone for his/her mind because we are not fucking animals and we can surpress these things.

That would be an apropriate way to answer not saying things like we are 10 year olds. Feel the room plz...

[human strike]

I don't think it does in any way. The human sex drive is something that obviously evolved in connection with sexual reproduction. Sex is pleasurable. Any species that found sex unpleasant would probably die off pretty quickly.

The reason that the human sex drive evolved is connected to reproduction. However, the reason that we have sex is not generally because we want to reproduce, but because we find it pleasurable, and this physical pleasure is the same whatever our sexual orientation, or indeed if you are alone masturbating.

The thing about the pheromones would, I imagine work on the same level. We evolved to find certain smells attractive directly connected to reproduction. However, it is quite likely that homosexuals still have this basic system hardwired into themselves even though they are not engaged in the act of reproduction.

I don't see where it stumbles.

Devrim

I don't like this idea that pleasure is anything but a social construct, whether it be in relation to physical stimuli, smells or anything else. Sex (a social construct in itself) is pleasurable because we (and not even all of us) have learned for it to be that way. Also, the assumption is that people have sex because they enjoy it physically - I don't know how well that holds up, especially historically. People engage in sexual relationships for all sorts of different reasons, not least affirmation of gender roles. How far can we actually talk of sex as being motivated by the pursuit of pleasure? And what the hell do we even necessarily mean by "pleasure"? Any purely biological assessment of this question is bound to fall down because it ignores the learned nature of sex and pleasure and the structures of social power and hierarchy that they are learned within.

[cyu]

Do you have any proof that humans don't like each other according to the hormone match they have? It's completely different from rape


How is it different? If a rapist is captured, and he attempts to justify his actions based on "hormone matching", how would you refute his argument?

[Philosophos]

How is it different? If a rapist is captured, and he attempts to justify his actions based on "hormone matching", how would you refute his argument?

see there is something called human's mind/sustaining instincts that, guess what, we humans can do it. We managed to understand that raping is not good that's why we sustain any urge to go for it. That's what makes us different from animals that can't control this urge. Am I wrong until now? Is the sustaining of insticts confusing by any way?

BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING we have a hormone match with some people (it's SCIENTIFICALLY proved). My question was, if I like a girl that I just saw (and just to be clear I won't rape her I will try asking her out to see if we can have a relationship, it's common to do so in our society in case you haven't heard of it) will she be interested in me? Will my hormones be fit for her because (in case you didn't get it) her hormones are fit for mine? My hormones might be fit for her BUT she can always turn me down because her MIND tells her that we don't have the same interests/hobbies, I'm ugly for her, she heard that I cheat a lot and so on. WE WILL BOTH DECIDE IF WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH EACH OTHER.

If you can answer scientifically or link it would be appreciated. If you have any blurred thoughts on what I just said please let me know without mentioning rape, I think most of us here have some clear thoughts about it and we don't need to put it in every conversation that it doesn't belong to.

[human strike]

Why do you assume rape is driven by hormones rather than masculinity? This idea of out-of-control male sexuality being the cause of rape is bullshit; men rape women (and children and other men) because it affirms their masculinity and therefore their dominance. That's also the reason many men have sex and the way that they do. It's hard to say what role (if any) pleasure or hormones play in that. Is affirming gender pleasurable?

[Philosophos]

Why do you assume rape is driven by hormones rather than masculinity? This idea of out-of-control male sexuality being the cause of rape is bullshit; men rape women (and children and other men) because it affirms their masculinity and therefore their dominance. That's also the reason many men have sex and the way that they do. It's hard to say what role (if any) pleasure or hormones play in that. Is affirming gender pleasurable?

OK the purpose of this thread is not to discuss rape so if you want to analyse rape go in some other thread, I'm tired of asking and not getting an answer for the very specific purpose of the thread that I created. Secondly I try to explain what the hell I meant in my questions NOT ANALYSE EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF RAPE, ITS ORIGINS AND SO ON!

For crying out loud stay on the subject RevLeft community just for once!

Edit: In case you want to discuss something that is troubling you about my opinions and so on there is always private messaging for not screwing up my thread that I look to find an answer. Just in case you haven't thought about it.

[Hermes]

BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING we have a hormone match with some people (it's SCIENTIFICALLY proved).


Could you link the study you're talking about, and then what exactly it is you're confused/want to talk about?

It might make it a lot easier, at least for me, I'm still a little confused as to what you're asking, exactly.

[Philosophos]

Could you link the study you're talking about, and then what exactly it is you're confused/want to talk about?

It might make it a lot easier, at least for me, I'm still a little confused as to what you're asking, exactly.

http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/lovesex/sciencelove.htm the article I read was in greek so here's the first link that I got from love and hormones. My article basically was saying that when we are near a person that has a very good hormone-match he/she attracts our attention (even when you think the other person is a complete turn off for you like stupid, a liberal, immature etc).

My question was that if I'm attracted to this person biologically, because her hormones were read by my subconcious, telling the reproductive part of my brain that she's a very good match for having kids with her, would she have the same feelings as I do? What I mean is that since my subconscious says that her hormones are perfect match, wouldn't be logical that her subconcious says the exact same thing about my hormones?

Hope I made you understand.

[cyu]

We managed to understand that raping is not good that's why we sustain any urge to go for it.


Clearly there are rapists in the world. Some probably do not understand that "raping is not good" - or they think up rationalizations for doing what they do. Would they be able to use "hormone matching" as one of their rationalizations? If not, why not?

If a rapist attacks someone, clearly there is no "hormone matching" going on, if such a thing exists. And because there are millions of cases where one person wants to have sex with someone who does not respond in kind, then what does it really say about the validity of the "science"?

Either "hormone matching" does not exist, or that if it does exist, cannot be relied upon to explain attraction, or else rape and unrequited love would not exist.

[human strike]

OK the purpose of this thread is not to discuss rape so if you want to analyse rape go in some other thread, I'm tired of asking and not getting an answer for the very specific purpose of the thread that I created. Secondly I try to explain what the hell I meant in my questions NOT ANALYSE EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF RAPE, ITS ORIGINS AND SO ON!

For crying out loud stay on the subject RevLeft community just for once!

Edit: In case you want to discuss something that is troubling you about my opinions and so on there is always private messaging for not screwing up my thread that I look to find an answer. Just in case you haven't thought about it.

Excuse me if I don't let the kind of logic that reinforces rape culture go unchallenged. I answered your question by explaining how your categories for discussion are completely inadequate and you didn't reply to it so...

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't like this idea that pleasure is anything but a social construct,
Orgasm is also a matter of physical stimuli. Therefore, one borders on a particularly mystical notion of a "social construct" if they were to argue the way you do. Anyway, to deconstruct the metaphor, if you want to construct anything, you have to have raw materials at hand.


Excuse me if I don't let the kind of logic that reinforces rape culture go unchallenged. I answered your question by explaining how your categories for discussion are completely inadequate and you didn't reply to it so...
And you're wrong that this argument reinforces rape culture. Nowhere did rape as a subject matter appear here except for your accusations.

But what's more problematic is that you seem to blur the boundary between "logic" and fact (subject to correct or incorrect theses by science).

[Philosophos]

Clearly there are rapists in the world. Some probably do not understand that "raping is not good" - or they think up rationalizations for doing what they do. Would they be able to use "hormone matching" as one of their rationalizations? If not, why not?

If a rapist attacks someone, clearly there is no "hormone matching" going on, if such a thing exists. And because there are millions of cases where one person wants to have sex with someone who does not respond in kind, then what does it really say about the validity of the "science"?

Either "hormone matching" does not exist, or that if it does exist, cannot be relied upon to explain attraction, or else rape and unrequited love would not exist.

Oh for crying out loud, either my english sucks and I can't give you an answer or you're just itching for a fight for no reason. You won the argument. Happy? please go to some other thread .

[Philosophos]

Excuse me if I don't let the kind of logic that reinforces rape culture go unchallenged. I answered your question by explaining how your categories for discussion are completely inadequate and you didn't reply to it so...

simple words for the non-english man please

[human strike]

Orgasm is also a matter of physical stimuli. Therefore, one borders on a particularly mystical notion of a "social construct" if they were to argue the way you do. Anyway, to deconstruct the metaphor, if you want to construct anything, you have to have raw materials at hand.


And you're wrong that this argument reinforces rape culture. Nowhere did rape as a subject matter appear here except for your accusations.

But what's more problematic is that you seem to blur the boundary between "logic" and fact (subject to correct or incorrect theses by science).

I was replying to their post directly above mine where they said that men rape because of a failure to resist urges.

Orgasm isn't simply a matter of physical stimuli and people don't simply have sex to orgasm.

[cyu]

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the "scientific" phenomenon of what people call "love" - however, when I read the initial post, all it really said to me was that this original post would be really handy for a rapist to use to justify his actions.

As for what I consider to be "love", I've mentioned in other threads here:

1. Physical attraction
2. Feeding your ego

I would say physical attraction is drilled into you by a combination of your past experiences and what your environment brainwashes you with. If the media says a certain breast size is attractive, then those who consume a lot of that media will tend to agree with what the media is telling them. Current societal norms combine with your own past experiences to determine what you are attracted to. For example, if your mom smelled like lemons when you were a kid, you may consider it "normal" for women to smell like lemons, and "abnormal" for them to smell like something else...

As for completing the feeling of "falling in love" I would say it's just someone, who you are physically attracted to, who is feeding your ego in one way or another.

[Thirsty Crow]

I was replying to their post directly above mine where they said that men rape because of a failure to resist urges. Sorry, I'm kind of messed up today. Concentration falling.


Orgasm isn't simply a matter of physical stimuli and people don't simply have sex to orgasm.
Sure, people also bond emotionally among other things by having sex. I think there are biological processes at play here, but that doesn't imply they are the sole determining factor. But some processes simply aren't socially constructed.

[Philosophos]

I was replying to their post directly above mine where they said that men rape because of a failure to resist urges.

Orgasm isn't simply a matter of physical stimuli and people don't simply have sex to orgasm.

when did I say that men rape because they fail to control their urges? What I mean by controling urges is that all humans can do it, so there are people that choose not to (rapists in case you didn't understand). I never mentioned rape in this thread, it was never meant to go to this way but thanks to you and the other guy you try to make me seem like a rapist apologist or prove something to yourselves I don't know.

Accept the fact that I made a simple question, you haven't replied to my question with any scientific evidence and you just started talking about rapes something completely irrelevant with the thread because you thought that I have some rapist ideas or whatever else you thought.

[Philosophos]

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the "scientific" phenomenon of what people call "love" - however, when I read the initial post, all it really said to me was that this original post would be really handy for a rapist to use to justify his actions.

As for what I consider to be "love", I've mentioned in other threads here:

1. Physical attraction
2. Feeding your ego

I would say physical attraction is drilled into you by a combination of your past experiences and what your environment brainwashes you with. If the media says a certain breast size is attractive, then those who consume a lot of that media will tend to agree with what the media is telling them. Current societal norms combine with your own past experiences to determine what you are attracted to. For example, if your mom smelled like lemons when you were a kid, you may consider it "normal" for women to smell like lemons, and "abnormal" for them to smell like something else...

As for completing the feeling of "falling in love" I would say it's just someone, who you are physically attracted to, who is feeding your ego in one way or another.

Oh so your opinion in that matter is just fine?

When I say hormones attracting you I mean the physical attraction you just mentioned. What part of what I say is difficult for you to understand? You say that my first post is perfect for rape apologists. Have you read the other posts making clear that I don't by any means imply rape or that I'm not trying to prove that rape is OK or whatever is near that idea?

I say ONCE AGAIN, that there are people that attract us because of the chemical reactions that our bodies create from smelling (without us realising it) their hormones. Once again I ask is it mutual? If my body believes that this girl is good for reproduction does she believe (SUBCONCIOUSLY) that I'm good for her too?

Once again I make clear that I talk about our insticts not logic, not love but about the reproduction. About bodies and hormones. Each human being can control these urges but some people choose not too. Can you udnerstand the freaking question and give me an answer about how these hormones work?

Yes? Very well please do so. No? Please stop making me look like a rape apologist and go to another thread to make someone else that tries to get some answers angry. Thanks a lot.

[cyu]

I don't by any means imply rape or that I'm not trying to prove that rape is OK

I'm not accusing you of being a rapist. I'm saying that the argument is one that a rapist may use to rationalize his actions.



If my body believes that this girl is good for reproduction does she believe (SUBCONCIOUSLY) that I'm good for her too?


Again no. Just because you are attracted to someone does not imply anything about what they think. While it is true that some people are more attracted to people that are attracted to them (that is, they may feel flattered by the attention, and that ego boost then translates into their own attraction), this cannot be generalized. To say that just because you're attracted to someone, that must mean they are attracted to you, is not only a logical fallacy, it is wishful thinking.

If you're trying to attract a girl you like, talking about hormones is not the way to do it. As implied above, I would recommend you do 2 things: investigate the type of media she consumes the most, and work on making her feel good when she is around you.

[Philosophos]

I'm not accusing you of being a rapist. I'm saying that the argument is one that a rapist may use to rationalize his actions.



Again no. Just because you are attracted to someone does not imply anything about what they think. While it is true that some people are more attracted to people that are attracted to them (that is, they may feel flattered by the attention, and that ego boost then translates into their own attraction), this cannot be generalized. To say that just because you're attracted to someone, that must mean they are attracted to you, is not only a logical fallacy, it is wishful thinking.

If you're trying to attract a girl you like, talking about hormones is not the way to do it. As implied above, I would recommend you do 2 things: investigate the type of media she consumes the most, and work on making her feel good when she is around you.

Dude I'm not asking for tips on how to get a girlfriend, I'm not trying to make my "wishful" thinking to be aproved.

What I say is not about what she thinks because the hormones tell her that she's supposed to do. I'm not saying that she will be attracted to me because I'm attracted to her.

I will drop this thing because I can't make you understand what I'm trying to say here. Maybe it's because of the different languages I don't know.

[cyu]

The very fact that there are instances in which one person is attracted to another person, but the feeling isn't mutual, is a counter-example to claims of hormonal "matching".

Still, since psychology isn't an exact science, you could still make claims based on some "preponderance" of evidence.

For example, let's say you measure that in 99% of cases in which A is attracted to B, that B likes A, then you may be on to something.

You may even be on to something if you measure that in 50% of cases in which A is attracted to B, the feeling is returned.

What would you be able to conclude with different measurements? What is it really like in the "real world"? What can we say if only 25% of the time that affection is returned? What if it's 10%? Even if the measurement is low, that doesn't mean it can't be a factor, but even if it is a factor, if the measurement is low, then it would say very little about the probability that your attraction is returned.

Consider the cases of fans being attracted to celebrities. Even if it doesn't affect you personally, it affects millions of others. How many of those celebrities would return the attraction felt by each one of their fans if they actually met? I would estimate the percentage of some kind of match would be very low.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Intersubjectivity is a useful concept so far missing from this thread.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

lmfao

Philistine

[Devrim]

I don't like this idea that pleasure is anything but a social construct, whether it be in relation to physical stimuli, smells or anything else.

It's OK if you don't like it. I don't like anything you have to say in this post, and think it is all post-modern garbage, but I am not worried about it.


Sex (a social construct in itself) is pleasurable because we (and not even all of us) have learned for it to be that way.

Sex is not in anyway a 'social construct'. Our ancestors had sex before we were even human, and before we had any notion of society even. In fact before we even had any notions whatsoever.

Devrim

[Jack Daniels]

thats what i tried to bring up their brain is different then animals, we can have personalities that affect that even more than our animal instincts. personality is directly affected by upbrining.