Are hormones key to sex differences?

No.

It’s genetics.

Duh.

It’s the oldest theory before we had neuroscience of structure and genes after that.

It would be like saying an empty wallet is the cause of poverty.
It’s more of an effect, isn’t it? It skips out on a lot of vital info there.
Ah, but you can’t sell people better genes…………………*

Most hormones aren’t sex-specific and amounts are rarely exclusive (even E and T).

https://johndenugent.com/images/Brizendine-Female-Brain-chapter-1.pdf

Here’s a good book about how hormones influence the female brain though, sample chapter only.

Called The Female Brain, as it happens.

I wish Testosterone Rex, another generally good book on sex differences took the same approach and covered men and male psychology. There’s a need.

The biochemical is gene-mediated and environment also plays a role (think fight/flight). You can’t have epi-genetics without genes. Sexuality is such a large confound, as well as sexual strategy between sexes, that porous boundaries don’t really exist, you will naturally be more one category than another

There aren’t really books on neurogenetics yet.

YET.

Structural differences (mixed parental genetic) are close.

To blame hormones is sexist and wrong in every conceivable sense, whether it’s claiming a man can hit another because T or a woman can drown her baby because she’s too sensitive.

Genetic variations are either

  1. natural fucking up but not causing infant mortality e.g. genetic disease, various other forms of disease a la Medical Model.
  2. nature evolving a mutation for shiggles to see if it passes the second threshold, successful procreation.

*it’s weird how the men laughing at transgender hormonal treatments are obsessing over taking tons of ‘testosterone supplements’ like that’s good for you? What’s your excuse?

New hormone explains frigid men

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319973.php

Could the levels be depleted by behaviour somehow?
Such as porn abuse?

Did you check adrenal function? In compulsive masturbators, the system is fine but the head’s wrong and eventually the glands pack up and give up.
The masturbators are not actually frigid, although their nervous system might be damaged with time. The idea that looping any addictive behaviour is fine for your health is Peak Boomer.

And by Jove, that title. It’s so true it’s painful.
The butthurt it shall produce, I should buy shares in painkillers.

Empathy can be bad for you

https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/05/13/empathy-can-be-hazardous-to-your-health/120471.html

https://psychcentral.com/news/2014/11/07/compassion-can-drive-aggression/77067.html

It can also cause aggression.

Oxytocin, huh. Well, logically neurohormones are the reason asking for tolerance for generations has caused backlash.

People aggressing on behalf of others has been widely researched, but Buffone and Poulin say “the idea that empathy can drive aggression absent of provocation or injustice is quite novel.”

Aggressive activists. Nope, never heard of it.

Fun fact: many conditions characterized by lack of empathy e.g. autism, narcissism/histrionic or borderline, will claim to be more empathetic than other people. They have higher personal emotionality and instability, then assume this makes them superior, because obviously, their emotions > everyone else (what you might recognize as low empathy mindset).

You can’t justify violence. No, not even against baby Hitler. You’re still an abuser. It goes to show how violent they are that they’d rather slaughter a baby than teach it (nurture hypothesis) or prevent its conception.

Oxytocin promotes patriotism

It is the love hormone because love also means protection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029708/

“Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members.”

Have we found the hormone for the k-selected?

The higher oestrogen of women (general finding) depresses amygdala (stress) activity (this is written up on wikipedia if you want to link-follow) but oxytocin release increases amygdala stimulation over the top of the oestrogen signal, which is otherwise fine and generally neuroprotective (presumably so we don’t miscarry when a shadow looks like a guy).

So maybe the way to get women caring less about the ‘refugees’ and remember their personal safety is now their job, not a husband, is to pass out free oxytocin nasal sprays?

Or put it in the water supply?

I’m kinda serious. It’s crazy enough to work.
Compassion fatigue already set in years ago, ride the wave and reduce the maternal clucking of middle-age Boomers.

I wonder if military service induces oxytocin release for male-male bonding?

“Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.”

K-shift…?

Dare I dream?

It doesn’t mention that when ANY ingroup meets ANY outgroup, the natural result is competition because Darwin.
It isn’t a choice or a value judgement. War happens constantly, it is the norm. When modern food supply runs low, it’ll come back, roaring back, bigger and badder than ever. We’re in the experiment.
Race to survive, anyone?

You might remember there was a BS flurry in the MSM about a chemical that reduces ‘racism’ – this was it.

It doesn’t – because ‘ingroup preference’ (the positive social term, along with the lesser known and more genetic genophilia) is totally natural. They stupidly assumed they could extend the ingroup to literally everyone in the whole world. The brain resists this, that’s why they haven’t drugged us all by now.

 

Since among other findings;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122242/

It increases patriotism for one’s culture and love of one’s family.

It changed freedom of association to genetic kin and love of the flag but not corporations.
It studies Asians which is a hiccup but hormones tend to have broad effects.

The men of society love strength in their social group of other men.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25193946

It also leads to monogamy and fidelity – in MEN.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23152592

Ding ding ding K-type central.

“Together, our results suggest that where OXT release is stimulated during a monogamous relationship, it may additionally promote its maintenance by making men avoid signaling romantic interest to other women through close-approach behavior during social encounters. In this way, OXT may help to promote fidelity within monogamous human relationships.”

I would bet that sluts, the promiscuous with higher and higher N counts, with damaged pair bonding, release less.

More studies on whites and women needed but otherwise, great work.
Nature is literally against these ‘social engineers’, too kind a term, for penpushers and petty meddlers.

New fave GIF, will get a lot of use.

BTW the primary source of oxytocin in humans would be ..the nuclear family. You’d have to knock that out to bring multiculturalism in.

Do men have hormone cycles?

http://www.popsci.com/do-men-have-hormonal-cycles

wide-eye-omg-shock-gents

Duh. Men are mammals. Obviously they do.

No excuse for gaslighting neither.

“Endocrinologist Peter Celec of Comenius University in Slovakia, thinks that men have a straight-up monthly hormonal cycle too. In 2002 he published a study showing that both men and women experience roughly lunar rhythms of testosterone; the levels in men’s saliva peaked dramatically on day 18 of a 30-day cycle. Celec’s findings have not been replicated or accepted in the field, yet he remains convinced: “I have searched the literature for negative findings, but I have not found anything.”

The powder-dry witticism at the end slayed me.

I won’t ruin it.

[chuckles in science]

Coffee, hormones and physical distress

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/coffee-and-hormones

superman drinking give up nope

Back to liquor then.

On some level, everyone knows coffee is bad for the body. That’s why they self-medicate later with alcohol to relax and sleep.

Perhaps this relates to mental illness in a modern population, perhaps not.

Caffeine has also been shown to increase serotonin levels in the limbic system, a relatively primitive part of our brain involved in regulating basic functions such as hormonal secretions, emotional responses, mood regulation and pain/pleasure sensations. This has a similar mode of action as some antidepressant medications.

That includes the amygdala, folks. A sense of appeasement and belonging.

Ever notice chronic coffee fiends are generally very sad, lonely people?

which can lead to sub-clinical mood problems such as mild depression (aka “the blues”), low motivation, irritability, and impaired cognition.

Starbucks Zombies.

It doesn’t even give them more energy after the first week or two, they just need it to feel normal, like any addict.

I’m not saying this is urban liberals and SJWs especially…. but they tend to have spare tires that lead to this.

You don’t see many skinny SJWs who don’t abuse some substances (sugar, caffeine, alcohol).

Today’s women, yesterday’s prostitutes

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/08/05/todays-women-yesterdays-prostitutes/

I take issue with an over-reach regarding this topic. It’s rhetorical and makes us all look stupid.

Every time you hear an otherwise intelligent man discuss this topic, he will make a rare lapse and blame women. It’s trendy and edgy, they think.

i.e. the problem is women’s sexuality.

You can cut the woman part out, the problem remains.
They are discussing something where it literally takes two.

Unless they’re casually suggesting all men will suddenly turn gay?

I don’t think so.

Sexuality, period, is the destructive force. 

Anyone’s. In aggregate. Look at Africa.

Take a long, hard look.

Previous civilizations knew this. So you either bought in with marriage or forgo the benefits. Women don’t visit hookers. Which sex make up the majority of porn addicts? Perverts? Deviants? Sluts? Have you seen the paraphilia data? The STDs rising among young men, who pass it around easier for the same act, based on anatomy?
If you get to blame testosterone, well, women have that too. Some have naturally high levels. Does it excuse rape, because logically, if hormones rob you of agency I find that a rather sexist argument against your fellow man. To blame your body for the will of the mind makes a man into an animal, not deserving human rights. Women cannot attack men based on our hormones nor vice versa. If you are incapable of restraining yourself, you have no right to be beyond the confines of an asylum. The same could be argued of oestrogen but that hasn’t been linked to aggression as much as crying and craving chocolate, I think we’re safe.

History of Great Empires and their social decline?
The Greeks weren’t famous for screwing little girls.
The Romans did not have their most depraved orgies in women’s bath houses.

Which sex was at the centre of all these? The sex that to this day, holds the title of the Probable Sex Criminal? More paedophiles, at least? Can we agree that’s bad? Look at the crime data, the Right Wing say. Okay, we’ve looked by age, race, what about sex? Can we get some intellectual honesty here? Are the men involved less culpable for those crimes, as they demand female paedophiles be punished? [correctly] Does this not seem like a grand distraction to you? We have millennia of evidence on this one, unlike all other demographics.

If men (with power) get the sex they want, Empires fall. Lesson of ancient history.

You know what that means? You don’t get to blame the women. Especially since you also argue from the other side of your faces that women are weaker (physically true) and rely on men for protection (somewhat, historically, yes) – which makes women the victims of male power, logically?

You cannot argue two opposite things. They contradict, its impossible. Logic, invented by better men. Biology says men are the ones with the power, as does history. So if anyone is to blame, if either sex is ‘It’, men dropped the ball in the West. If there is an issue in the Sexual Marketplace, as the sexually dominant sex, that is the man’s responsibility.

This is not even complicated, logically. Moving on to details.

Cultural Marxism would’ve been impossible without the Sexual Revolution.

Why did the Sexual Revolution come about?

The Pill yes, but also to force women into the workforce while appeasing their men.

It was entirely economic. A quick way to make money Post-War. After all, millions of men workers had just died. Positions were available. Taxes were lacking to rebuild basic infrastructure.

Tradition, which is to say, Patriarchy, was more restrictive of male sexuality than female.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/patriarchy-discourages-all-promiscuity/

Nobody mentions this fact.

Nobody dare ask why.

So no, you don’t get to argue Down with Vagina, whatever your emotions on the subject from pure to bitter, but that everything from Tinder to porn addiction is fine because you like it. We are not F60.89 leftist hedons here. Is it wrong of me to expect some maturity, a defining trait of men previously, on this issue? Can they look past self-interest and their own throbbing…. opinions?

It’s either a bad behaviour for society, or not. They’re casually arguing that promiscuity damages women, but not men? From what? Where’s the biological evidence?

Please, post it to Nature. Science. Collect Nobel in Medicine for averting disaster.

Ask the mature question.

Is the behaviour bad for the individual, full stop? Long-term? aka The Future?

All the evidence thus far says it is.

Neuroscience is catching up to bad social policy.

yourbrainonporn.com

You are harming yourselves.

Like any self-harm, first you must acknowledge a problem to fix it.

For argument’s sake, let us assume every woman in the West shut her legs tomorrow.

Okay, what happens to male sexuality then?

It’s impossible to balance a one-sided equation.

Come on, you’re smarter than this.

Expression is fine. Let’s keep it social.
The political is very personal, but the personal is not political. Unless you trust future adminstrations not to restrict your sexuality, keep it out of public politics.

There’s nothing wrong with men and women voting (see UK GE 2015, Brexit, Trump).
There’s nothing wrong with either sex owning property. If you study real history, not the past 300 years, inheritance was quite common among widows, who outlived their husbands usually. Property went to the family, blood, disregarding sex. To say women didn’t hold property is a feminist myth, and they do this deliberately, as you can’t prove a negative, and many ancient societies held them in the family too. While the men were away fighting, guess whose job it was to manage those estates? The women. To this day, women run the home. It is our domain. Now tell me who ‘owns’ it.

However, arguing against the evidence of pair bonding damage, vital for successful marriage, and expecting nuclear families to blossom out of overstimulated Pajama Boys as if by magic?

https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Science-Casual-Affecting-Children/dp/0802450601

Doomed.

Random OT, sorta

Aside from strawmen, over-reactions and non-sequiturs…

Cosmetics were used by both sexes until recently, including rouge. Like today, they are medicinal. Many modern formulations are good for the skin, at least providing a UV barrier to make skin cancer less likely. Actually, men invented high heels, men wore tights/stockings first, and French poofs wore blusher and lipstick first in the West. Men also wore restrictive clothing, to suck in their guts, including corsets. Corsets (old clothes) and togas (very old clothes where breasts were exposed) are sexier than jeans and hoodies (modern clothes).
Just because a bad person does something doesn’t make it a bad idea e.g. plenty of bad people donate to charity.
The red lipstick thing had nothing to do with America, get over yourselves. It was our Queen, I covered this in detail. You followed us, America.