I found this on the Huffington Post: “past a certain age, casual sex is like recreational heroin – it doesn’t stay recreational for long. That’s due in part to this thing called oxytocin – a bonding hormone that is released when a woman a) nurses her baby and b) has an orgasm – that will totally mess up your casual-sex game. It’s why you can be f**k-buddying with some dude who isn’t even all that great and the next thing you know, you’re totally strung out on him. And you have no idea how it happened. Oxytocin, that’s how it happened. And since nature can’t discriminate between marriage material and Charlie Sheen, you’re going to have to start being way more selective than you are right now.”
I see this as a contradiction. She admits nature can’t discriminate between marriage material and Charlie Sheen, meaning it doesn’t matter who, per say, is causing the release of the Oxytocin. But before that she says “you’re totally strung out on HIM.” It would appear that recreational sex could indeed not stay recreational, but the recipient of the sex, so to speak, doesn’t matter. Just the act.
Even if she’s right, oxytocin in no way proves that monogamy was the ancestral condition for humans. For a while now, my conclusion has been that it wasn’t.
Also, I love the irony of a woman purporting to give advice about how to find “everlasting love” when she herself apparently hasn’t found it.
That woman doesn’t understand chemistry and the reason she is not married is because she is an idiot.
“past a certain age, casual sex is like recreational heroin – it doesn’t stay recreational for long.” What oxytocin does is give you a particular desire. Satisfying that desire then becomes “recreational”. Nowhere in logic does it fit that fornication is no longer recreational. The only thing that can be concluded from biological research is that you might not be able to be “casual” about anything that involves such strong desire. I’d guess that was well known long before the advent of microbiology.
That Gary Wilson talk was incredibly bad. By half-way through I was thinking “weak” but by the end, it was simply bad. Anecdotal evidence counts as a basis for sound scientific conclusions? Seriously? There are no control groups? You’re telling me that men in all cultures, everywhere on the planet all regularly use high-speed, HD porn? Really? I’m sure that’s news to most African, Middle Eastern and Asian men.
I’m just going to quote Dr. Szasz: “Behavior is not a disease.” If you look at porn and you’re not having any other issues in your life, you don’t have a disorder and I’m not sure it should be called an addiction, no matter how frequently you do it. The same goes for smoking or anything else.
As for root-causing sexual performance problems or other sex-related problems, dropping the porn for a while is an obvious experiment. If you’re having problems with depression, motivation, and so on, another experiment you should try is going off grains which are probably much more deleterious to your overall health - psychological as well as physiological - than porn.
Seriously, I felt like I was listening to a Catholic priest delivering a sermon on the seed of Onan. Just horrid, not TED-worthy material at all.
That site is the epitome of douchery, the apex of which is having your own vitamin brand. Let’s see some research papers and not some gimp trying to market $200 bottles of pills.
I should specify that oxytocin is not a “bonding hormone”. “Bond” is a context dependent term used in research papers to encapsulate a class of behaviour. You could in similar fashion call a heroin addict’s behaviour a “bond” to the drug. Oxytocin affects behaviour through the reward system and there are other areas of behaviour where it has been examined. Most oxytocin research and most research in general that I’ve read has not been done with humans. People with hidden agendas, namely religious propaganda, will use research on chemicals in lab animals, for which results are qualitatively different, to push their BS.
What’s that saying? Something to the effect of “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”? Sisson is no douche and if you had bothered to read even a preliminary introduction to his dietary philosophy, you’d know this.
Wow, the self-proclaimed math genius is a dietary expert as well! Just link him to some studies (that he is too lazy to find himself)! I also consider the “gimp” comment to be libelous, considering Mark Sisson’s current state of health.
It’s something to the effect of using old marketing tricks to sell his own product line. It’s the same as Ben Johnson holding a Cheetah can, except he is his own celebrity. I read the page you linked to. It’s simply common sense with a dose of comical throwbacks to primitive life for flavour. His sales tactic is ye olde scare people out of “modern medicine” and into his expensive product line. He claims that, “Most of life is really much simpler than modern medicine and science would like to have you believe.” Yet not so simple as to live without his $200 pills, “premium content” and whatever other junk he pitches. Apparently “simple” in his language means ignore everyone else and listen to his “special” wisdom. There’s a good reason that guru marketers distance themselves from anyone with education and play rebel. If there are fools here, I’m not one of them.
The only things I’ve “proclaimed” are facts about my history. This is my view on experts. At least try a less transparent lie next time.
FTR, my comment was rhetorical. It’s rather absurd on the face of it to make some abstract statement about “health” in reference to research. Research produces specific results. It doesn’t define “health”.
That choice of word was random. I wasn’t commenting on his health, I wouldn’t assess his health and I don’t care about what anyone else invalidly assumes about his “health”.
the apex of the epitome of douchery is marketing products on a website?
so you have a problem with celebrity endorsements…that is so all-encompassing that it extends to entrepreneurs.
however sensible it may be to eschew grains, it certainly is not common sense at least not in a country where things like soy, rice, and bread are considered healthy.
actually it isnt. Sisson infrequently pumps his own products, an activity that you may dislike personally, but an activity that is hardly unusual in the diet and fitness industry. Pick up a bodybuilding/fitness magazine and you’ll see what I mean. As for his statements on modern diets, lifestyles, and medicine, they are supported with reason and evidence, but you never read that far, did you?
no where does he imply that his products are necessary for health. They are primal products, more or less (which fits with the philosophy of the website), and they tend to make primal diet easier for some people. You seem to have a problem with the very idea of retail sales.
nothing on that website would justify that equivocation, nor even suggest it. You are making stuff up.
implying that Mark Sisson distances himself from educated people. More imagination-driven rhetoric from Caley.
Not in your own estimation, of course. You think the 50 year old small business owner is a fool for selling supplements and telling people not to eat grains. Youre a math genius.
its poorly executed rhetoric, since those studies are referenced on Sisson’s website. And if you would take the time to read a few articles with an open mind (assuming thats even within your capacity) you would see just how concrete data is applied to abstract notions such as wellness in order to arrive at practices such as the primal diet.
yes, I dont think anyone should care about invalid assumptions. If you would take five minutes to research someone before you slander them or apply random pejoratives, you could see that recognizing someone’s physical condition and characterizing it as “healthy” doesnt have to be invalid and it doesnt have to be an assumption.
