Notable Quotable:

Notable Quotable:

Remember, folks: whenever a woman says "die for me because you are a man," just look her in the eye and say "my body, my choice."
TCM

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

You Can't Fool Mother Nature

"Gender" is not a social construct (invented by the Patriarchy to subjugate wo-yadayada...)

via Red Pill Wifey:


"Chen and her colleagues asked 20 heterosexual guys to stop wearing deodorant and scented products for a few days. Then they told the men to put small pads in their armpits as they watched pornographic videos and became aroused (the researchers confirmed, using electrodes, that the images did the job). Later, the guys were asked to exchange those pads for fresh pads to collect the sweat they produced when they weren’t aroused.
Then the researchers recruited 19 brave women to smell the men’s pads while undergoing brain scans.
The investigators used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a technique that reveals the brain regions a person is using at any given time — even if their brain activity is subconscious.
Sure enough, the women’s brains responded very differently depending on which sweat they sniffed. (And no, none of them passed out.) The sexual sweat, but not the normal sweat, activated the right orbitofrontal cortex and the right fusiform cortex, brain areas that help us recognize emotions and perceive things, respectively. Both regions are in the right hemisphere, which is generally involved in smell, social response, and emotion."
Where's the study that measures women's (biophysical) sexual responses?

17 comments:

  1. I always wonder who comes up with ideas for 'studies' like this and if I'm helping pay their salaries.

    It seems that study is sort of, well, a waste of time. And money. And everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AACK! Ami! For the first time in forever(?) I actually don't agree with you! This experiment was no "social science," it was straight neurology. What IS ridiculous, is that it's new (even a few years old.) It's rather pathetic that we need to "prove" something most of us have known since the dawn of man, since we've spent the last half century pretending it's not true.

      Delete
    2. But you are agreeing with me. "pathetic that we need to "prove" something most of us have known since the dawn of man, since we've spent the last half century pretending it's not true."

      Exactly. So we wasted time and money proving something that intelligent people already know. As for the stupid? They don't care anyway.

      Delete
    3. I misread you. Whew! That was close!

      ;)

      Delete
  2. I don't believe that there is such a think as a brain scan. But it does seem to get used for all sorts to psycho-social gobble-de-gook. The images on a brain scan are "tuned" computer interpreted images from electronic data files. They aren't real pictures of brain activity. They aren't any more scientific than inkspots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neurologists would beg to differ. Not that doctors are deities, but a great deal of their knowledge is based on objective evidence. Brain scans may not reveal the chemical changes, which is something I'd like to see, but site-specific electrical activity is useful data.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Yep. I just want to ask all the social "scientists:"

      If our ancestors were so friggin' dumb, why are we here?

      Delete
  4. There's no such thing as a brain scan? Not even with an MRI?

    Love,
    Janie

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, there are brain scans, a.k.a. brain imaging, such as the CT scan. You can Google it. Maybe the reality of a brain scan isn't what it's sometimes purported to be, but oh, yes, there are brain scans.

    Love again,
    Janie, who doesn't want to smell sweat, including her own

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll bet Lola's brain would betray you on that last point - especially around a certain gentleman, who is purported to bear a marked resemblance to a very handsome celebrity?

      Delete
    2. Elvis uses Axe deoderant and he smells fantabulous. Even when he claims he stinks, he still smells beautiful.

      Delete
  6. If the test had included gay men, what would the testee's have to do, fart on the pads?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh. I'd be interested to see this done with gay men in the women's place with both women and men in the men's place...

      Blind test with no social construct in place...

      Delete
    2. Me too! Since sexual preference is inborn, I'd love to see some kind of "map" of the biochemical mechanics of non-hetero sexuality.

      Delete
  7. Suz,

    I like your blog. May not agree with everything, but generally there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Please don't hesitate to challenge my thinking - I don't want this blog to become an echo chamber, and I always like to hear from people who have come to a similar place, via different paths.

      Delete