Sunday, May 29, 2011

The Science of Sex Appeal

Okay guys. Still in Hawaii. How sad. Wait, no it's not.

Take a listen from my good friend Katie today.
She's great. And funny. And sweet. It's sure to be a treat! Oh hey, I didn't even do that on purpose!


ah, my first guest post!
(take a moment to revel in it.)
(another moment if you need it.)
(i needed it.)

mmmmk moving on

so normally the only things i watch on the ol' tellyvision are Saved by the Bell or Boy Meets World dvds. (i'm not complaining.) but recently i tuned in to a discovery channel show, "The Science of Sex Appeal."
i watched 2 min.
then i watched 5.
then maybe like an hour.
one word: fasc-i-na-ting.
(i might've just made that into like 4 words. just go with it.)

the show basically explains the biological reasons why men and women are attracted to one another, in incredible detail.

for example, men secrete some kind of hormonal whatnot (sorry, i didn't take notes and i don't have much of a science brain ... and some of you do and would catch me if i fibbed and invented pretend scientific terms...)
i digress.
the point is, men secrete some kind of...chemical...that women are actually naturally averse to EXCEPT when women are ovulating, in which case they can't get enough of the aforementioned secretion.
there was also a bunch of stuff about the attractiveness of our voices
and the way we walk
and symmetry
and i think something about dancing and flirting
(i, for one, cannot multitask those two endeavors or it gets scary and possibly harmful to anyone in the near vicinity.)

but yeah
food for thought, eh?

by the time the show ended, i thought, "we are all basically animals."
(actually, i think this same thought after catching glimpses of anything on MTV, but that's a blog for another day...)
but really,
i put all this thought into relationships
and playing the dastardly dating game
and pretending i know how to flirt
(yeah, yesterday a boy told me i have a frequent habit of almost touching him and then stopping my hand just short of his body, like he has a force field around him. apparently i have a subconscious barrier to completing the most basic of all flirtation moves: the arm touch.)
(either that or he does indeed have a force field around him.)
(debatable.)
the question is,
if biology plays that big of a factor,
are the rest of our efforts only fruitful to the extent that our carnal natures are also giving us a green light?
my vote?
i'm sure science plays some factor
and i'm sure there's something innately built in that causes those initial sparks with certain people
but i don't think it's the deciding vote in who we end up loving.
i do believe in choice, you know.
and the power of love.
(celine dion? anyone?)
(...anyone?)

anyway.
your thoughts?
how much weight do you think biology pulls in who we end up with?

6 comments:

Gentri said...

Hilarious and interesting! Haha! I agree and think that it plays a part- but in the end we have the final say. :)

Caitlin said...

Oh my, this just made me laugh! And I have to agree with you, I think it plays a small part, but in the end we choose.

-The Frog Princess- said...

Interesting stuff! Thanks for sharing!

Lili said...

And it does not even end with that. There is considerable research on the question "Do we even have a free will?". There is no real conclusion as of yet, but it's quite thought provoking. Google it, there's lots on the net :-)

Relatable Style

Double A said...

I've always been fascinated with this subject. I think that, initially, it is a very chemical thing. Otherwise, why in the world would we approach people or have a desire to kiss or anything else. (If you think about it, kissing is actually gross but feels so good!)
With that said, after initial, and the continued attraction to the physical aspect of a person, the choice comes in when you get to know your partner. Are your personalities and communication styles compatible? Is their sense of humor similar? Can you stand to be around them for hours, or for just minutes? The answer to those questions, and more, is what I believe determines our choice to actually create a relationship with someone that we are chemically attracted to. But, it is OUR choice. Not natures. :)

Danrock said...

What most theories on sex appeal miss is the relevance of each factor.

Take for instance that chemical you mentioned that women are actually naturally averse to EXCEPT when women are ovulating.
I don't deny it
It is probably true

BUT,

what is that chemical's impact on mate choice in real life? 70%? 50%? or maybe only 1% ? I mean only this chemical decides? Nothing else matters? If other issues matter, what is their relevance?

Another question is how to measure the impact of each factor?
well, I dare to say that I found a factor that is decisive in human mating

proof?

you won't be able to find even one couple in the whole world that contradicts my theory

What are the odds? It must have some meaning, right?

This decisive factor is responsible for „those initial sparks with certain people” as you put it.
People also call it „chemistry.”

Have you ever wondered why sometimes people feel attracted to someone even before talking to that person? So it must be connected with the looks.

But it is NOT about beauty. Otherwise you wouldn't use the word „sparks” you would simply state “I feel attracted by handsome men”

Read more at nosuchcouple.com. I also recommend Suzi Malin's “Love at First Sight”, all Helen Fisher's works and Femininebeauty.info in the scope they explains how to read facial features (I don't agree with every opinion presented on that website). When you know how to read facial features you may try to overthrow The No Such Couple Paradox.