Dirty Minds: How Our Brains Influence Love, Sex, and Relationships — Kayt Sukel Page xiv: “Though some might argue the point, I consider myself a relatively intelligent person.” —> 😂 self-depracation!

Dirty Minds: How Our Brains Influence Love, Sex, and Relationships — Kayt Sukel
Page xiv: “Though some might argue the point, I consider myself a relatively intelligent person.” —> 😂 self-depracation!

Page xvi: “Is monogamy natural, or even possible?” —> I don’t 👀 how this is related to 😍, though? You can definitely have each without the other. I think people just assume that’s what the norm is because our society dictates monogamy and 😍 are essentially the same thing, or have the same elements.

Page xvii: “The 😍 stuff is important, yet somewhat tangential to the kinds of results scientists are really after.” —> Good. As it should be.

Page xviii: “Our complicated behaviors make for complicated minds—I’d even go so far as to say ‘dirty’ minds, with so many variables muddying the proverbial waters—and make for complex study.” —> Ah! I like this play on words!

Page 3: “While sex was, is, and will be of utmost importance to propagating our species, Carter and Uvnas-Moberg were convinced that 😍 needed to be articulated in the context not only of genetic propagation but also of survival—specifically, the ways social bonds can help people thrive in the face of stress and other complexities of life on a daily basis.” —> Oooh yes. I like this 💡 a lot.

Page 12-13: “Basically, if you were looking for 😍 in the Victorian age, you had better hope to have your chaperone distracted long enough for you to get a good feel of a potential mate’s occiput before committing to anything permanent. According to phrenologists, one misplaced lump or chasm could make all the difference to your future happiness.” —> This is hilarious. She’s talking about how back in the early days of brain study, people used to feel people’s heads for ☠️ fractures and use that to measure how healthy a person was.

Page 14: “Oxygenated blood has different magnetic properties from deoxygenated blood.” —> Interesting!

Page 15: “Those afflicted by it are often distracted, constantly daydreaming about their intended.” —> Well, fuck.

Page 16: “and when they lowered the threshold of activation” —> 🆗 but what does that mean specifically in the contest of this study?

Page 18: “Scientists have long known that the seat of the sex drive is the hypothalamus. When it is removed, folks lose all interest in sex, as well as the ability to perform sexually.” —> Interesting. I never thought about that before, how it could all be narrowed down to one very specific region in the brain, but then I guess everything can, huh.

Page 20: “A picture may be worth a thousand words, but you do not need explicit visual stimuli to activate the brain’s romantic 😍 system. Stephanie Ortigue, a neuroscientist at Syracuse University, noticed that people 😍 are very quick to make associations between the object of their affection and certain words and concepts. If a place, words, situation, or song has the slightest thing to do with their sweetheart, they will make all kinds of interesting connections.” —> Seriously! It’s so powerful!

Page 28: “Any social interaction promotes the release of dopamine.” —> Yay. :)

Page 30: God, the brain is so fucking complicated and fascinating, 😲.

Page 32: “Some 'experts’ have even proposed that it may be worthwhile to snort a little oxytocin to help bolster your mood and sociability before a date or job interview, though the majority of scientific researchers who study oxytocin would strongly argue against such a practice.” —> 😂 what the fuck.

Page 34: “Several other neurotransmitters have been implicated 😍.” —> 😂, implicated. That’s a funny word choice and connotation.

Page 35: Brain science blows my mind. How the fuck do you even test for chemicals or hormones like this? Who were the geniuses who figured all of this neuroscience and neurochemistry out? Goddamn.

Page 42: “Twin studies have looked for genes underlying traits like altruism, trust, and fidelity, but they have been able to pinpoint the exact gene, or genes, involved in those qualities.” —> So why was it seen as more 🆗 to study these abstract concepts, but not 😍, which is another abstract concept? Why was the scientific study of 😍 in particular so taboo? Or at least regarded as not real research.

Page 44: It’s also fascinating to me that someone had to name all of these parts and compounds in the brain. Where did they come with all of the ideas to name them? Latin, probably. And other famous ⚰️ scientists.

Page 46-47: “'Genes of paternal origin make offspring grow larger and demand more resources from the mother,’ Haig told me. 'But the maternally expressed genes show preference to the mother’s ability to reproduce in the future and help limit any one offspring from taking too much.’” —> Why is this the least surprising genetic-based fact ever? Still such a parallel to gender relations and how men view women in the real 🌍, honestly. Like, the male genes try to be big and tough and save the offspring, as it were, and the female genes are more about preservation for themselves. What a ridiculous parallel.

Page 52: “The brain is always changing. Every experience, interaction, and relationship has the power to change the relative connections between neurons and, by extension, change the circuitry of the brain itself.” —> This is…horrifying? And extremely stressful to think about.

Page 53: “It is likely that every significant experience and interaction we have with others has the power to change our biology.” —> Ahhhh do not like. (Good thing I’m never reproducing!)

Page 57: “But they are not deciding when and where we have sex.” —> This is an awkward sentence.

Page 59: “So perhaps estrogen makes us more likely to subconsciously pick up social cues. It may enhance the sound of an attractive man’s voice or enhance the feeling of a woman’s touch.” —> The voice thing, mmmm yes.

Page 60: 😂 what even is this Dr. Micevych even saying here.

Page 65: Oooh, are we getting into monogamy talk here? I’m interested in that.

Page 67: “The average age of human menarche, or the start of menstruation, has decreased in the past hundred years. Some epidemiological studies have suggested that the abundance of fatty foods in our diet or the increased amounts of hormones we ingest may be at play.” —> Boooo.

Page 68: So the amygdala is what makes us understand this whole complicated human mating ritual? Fascinating!

Page 70: Oooph, a Bill Cosby quote on this page. That’s regrettable.

Page 71: “Could the problems we face 😍 and sex come down to the differences between our genders?” —> Yes, but only because we’re socialized certain ways. Change my mind, Kayt. Or back me up. Whichever.

Page 72: I wish it weren’t unethical to do these kinds of experiments on living humans. It would be so fascinating, and incredibly insightful. But I know there’s an ethics issue on the surface, plus it would be abused for sure. Sigh. Humans are the worst.

Page 74: “Not to mention that the 💡 of 'his’ and 'her’ brains is quite the political topic. In this postfeminist 🌍, all too often the notion of 'different’ as demonstrated in scientific study, morphs into 'better’ or 'smarter.’” —> True, I will concede this point. But also, I can’t believe she said “postfeminist.” What.

Page 78: “While the study participants made their sexual attractiveness decisions, the researchers recorded not only how long each participant viewed each photo but, using eye-tracking software, where exactly they were looking.” —> Fascinating!!

Page 78: “Second, despite the fact that men and women showed appreciation for the porn, the two groups were not looking at the same things in each photo. Women tended to rate as more attractive those photos in which the female actors were looking away from the 📹. But men did not seem to care which way the female actors were looking.” —> Interesting, but not that surprising. Speaking only for myself, I hate those “POV” videos or when women try to look sexily into the 📹. It looks corny and tacky. But I guess this division makes sense.

Page 80: I feel like being in a scientific study like this would be super fun and interesting. How do I get in on that action?

Page 81: “Goldstein concurred. 'There is more variability within a given sex than between sexes in cognitive behavior and the brain. That is important. In fact, I always say it twice so that people really understand that,’ she said. 'There is more variability observed between women than between women and men in both the size of different brain regions as well as the function.’” —> Yes. Good.

Page 83: This chapter is called “The Neurobiology of Attraction.” Yes. This right here is good 💩. This is what I want to know about.

Page 85: Lolol who the fuck thinks of these studies? Women sniffing men’s sweat to measure sexual attraction? I’ll admit it’s pretty brilliant a concept, but how does someone even come up with such an 💡?

Page 86: Hmm, the “human pheromone” isn’t a definite thing? Interesting. More research required for sure!

Page 88: “The only candidate, discovered by Martha McClintock at the University of chicago, is a chemical that helps to sync the menstrual cycle of cohabiting females.” —> And I’ve heard this is actually a myth too. Hmm.

Page 89: “The researchers found that HLA mattered: women rated the odor of the men whose HLA systems were more dissimilar from theirs as more pleasant and sexy, compared to the men whose HLA systems were similar to theirs. This trend was reversed if the woman was taking oral contraceptives.” —> Super interesting! This refers to something called the human leukocyte antigen system, which is a group of genes that regulate the human immune system and are responsible for our unique odor-prints, like fingerprints.

Page 90: “Several online dating companies now offer HLA matching services as part of their programs.” —> 😂 what.

Page 92: “My quick spray did not result in an animal ready for some hot reproductive action. Instead it just 😠 off a normally loving feline who refused to come near me for the rest of the day.” —> 😂.

Page 97: “Maybe, they thought, speed dating would provide new insight into what attracts us to other people.” —> Hmm, this is an interesting 💡 for sure.

Page 97-98: “In an interview with Newsweek magazine, Finkel offered this advice to daters based on his study: 'Beware the shopping list. When you go into finding a romantic partner, don’t have this list of necessary characteristics that you need. Go in with an open mind. Actually meet people face to face. Because you might find yourself surprised by the person you’re attracted to.’” —> Yes! This is why I hate when people pine over finding romantic 😍. Just let it happen. Don’t seek it. If you find a connection with someone, great, but don’t force it.

Page 98: 😂 language compatibility. This is especially funny given my current situation.

Page 101: “'So attraction is mostly about weighing a bunch of different variables and calculating some output?’” —> 😂, this seems accurate to me.

Page 102: Hahah this researcher suggests that the real trick for finding 😍 is to increase your sample size. Yup, I agree with that. Meet new people and go somewhere where your sample size will be big enough to experiment with lots of different people. It makes me think of Tim Minchin’s “If I Didn’t Have You,” hahah.

Page 103: “We want to promise ourselves to that special someone 'until deadh does us part.’” —> 😂 no.

Page 105: “Some social scientists believe that the reason women are more likely to fall 😍 with a man they have had sex with—as opposed to one they have just spent time with—is due to this oxytocin-induced dopamine rush.” —> Hmm…

Page 107: So what this really comes down to is 😍 (or monogamous 😍, at least) is simple neurological conditioning. The more you have sex with someone, the more dopamine is released about that person, so you associate them with 😍 and good feelings. So it’s all just a chemical trick.

Page 107: “when you use oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine-related changes to the brain’s reward circuitry as the working definition of 😍.” —> 😂 I’m into it. Very clinical. I like it.

Page 112: “Snowdon’s results present a bit of a 🐔-and-egg problem. Do pair-bonded couples take care of each other in this way because of their high oxytocin levels? Or does putting their partner first lead to elevated oxytocin? It is difficult to sort out, but when I asked Snowdon what he thinks, he didn’t hesitate. 'We never got to test this directly,’ he said. 'But I’m inclined to think it’s the behavior driving the hormones. Good couples are sensitive to what their partners need. And by giving your partner what they need, you up both of your oxytocin levels.’” —> Interesting! I know someone who also might be interested to know this, hahah. But it really is interesting since I am such a cuddler. So does that mean my oxytocin levels are higher than other people’s?

Page 119: Aw man, now we’re going to talk about parental 😍? 💤.

Page 121: “If nothing else, motherhood changed my brain in ways I couldn’t have imagined before giving birth.” —> And this is one of the reasons why being a mother sounds terrible. Mommy brain is scientifically proven, and yet people willingly choose to do it, just for the sake of having children? Nope. No thank you.

Page 135: “As it stands, the neurobiology of parenting, like that of 😍 and sex, is still in its infancy.” —> Good pun. But also isn’t this the case for neurobiology in general? At least “modern” neurobiology, so to speak? People have always studied the brain, but it seems like most of what we know is a 20th century advancement, right? So it’s all in its infancy.

Page 140: “Just as no good deed goes unpunished, no good reward—be it sex, food, or potential 🎰 payout—comes without some risk. One might argue that risk is what gives a particular behavior that little extra oomph, making it exciting enough to want so badly.” —> Agreed.

Page 142: “After all, it’s hard to make the argument that evolution has naturally selected humans to be susceptible to drug abuse. Instead, perhaps this mesocortical limbic circuit that was developed to promote sex drive and loving attachment was hijacked by drugs, leading to addiction. It’s possible. But does that mean 😍 itself is an addiction too?” —> Interesting! I never really thought about this before. But yeah, clearly something in the brain can be wired to develop an addiction, so it’s interesting to think what evolution intended humans to be addicted to before drug abuse came around.

Page 142: “Why is it that women are willing to pop out another kid after the harrowing and painful experience of labor? Perhaps pregnancy and childbirth tweak a mom’s mesocortical limbic system—and with it, her assessment of risks and rewards—so she will focus only on the positive aspects of reproducing and consequently continue birthing those babies.” —> Seriously!! This is baffling me. The brain must go through some pretty significant changes, that’s for sure. No thank you.

Page 144: “The group recruited ten women and five men who had been rejected 😍 yet could not quite manage to let go of their intended. More to the point, despite all, they wanted the person who rejected them to come back. These folks reported thinking about their sweetheart more than 85 percent of their waking hours.” —> Jesus. I know these numbers are self-reported based only on personal perception, but still….Jesus.

Page 148: It’s utterly fascinating to me how much our brains control us. That sounds dumb and obvious, but the 💡 that these tiny little genes that you had no choice in having can determine so much about you—and that’s not only your appearance or health or whatever, but also your behavior. Like this study here that suggests a single gene variation can cause either monogamous habits or non-monogamous habits. That’s so interesting. I would 😍 to be able to afford some kind of intensive genetic test to tell me what kind of genes I have, not to know answers to behavioral things like this, just because it would be fascinating to know.

Page 149: “Each relationship is different. These variations raise a good question: Is all 😍 and sex addictive? Or do certain partners, those who bring with them the right 🍸 of internal and external chemistry, provide a more addictive state? The latter, intuitively, seems more accurate.” —> I like this a lot.

Page 153: “Your garden-variety human male produces about two hundred million sperm per ejaculation after sexual maturity. It can be up to eight hundred million if he hasn’t seen any action in a while. There is no 'waste not, want not’ rule in effect here either. Men can ejaculate as much as they like and their body will just keep producing more sperm.” —> This is fucking horrifying.

Page 159: “just as they might be more likely to jump out of airplanes, drive fast cars, or eat bizarre ethnic cuisine.” —> Ooph, a little judgmental there at the end.

Page 160: “It is the same in human beings; there is no biological evidence to suggest that every human, regardless of vasopressin receptor density in the nuclear accumbens or a particular variation in DRD4, is naturally monogamous. We may be culturally and socially encouraged to be faithful, but it is unclear how much sway that may have over our biological natures.” —> Yes. I like this. It’s sensible and research-based.

Page 164: “So even if there is only a single gene at work—which is unlikely—all manner of different environmental variables may have an effect on how that gene is actually expressed in the developing brain.” —> This can really sum up most of the information in this 📓, and most of the information we know about the brain. 😂. Convenient.

Page 167: “I was tempted to tell him that his behavior could also just be a severe lack of judgment on his part that could be handled with a little self-control, but I refrained.” —> 😂 seriously though. Men act like they have no control over themselves in most behaviors but especially sexual behaviors.

Page 169: Saying that low sexual desire among women is literally a mental disorder is so fucking dangerous. We are not problems and we do not need to be fixed. God. I’m sure some women wish they had a solution to this, but saying that’s a general problem is so frustrating. It’s not that black and white.

Page 170: “Most women admit to faking a time or two, and most men believe no woman has ever pretended with them. You do the math.” —> I still don’t totally understand why you would ever fake it. That seems like you just set up a series of terrible sexual encounters that the man thinks are great. Case in point, this study.

Page 171: “That’s right—orgasm is possible with no downstairs action involved.” —> I remember reading this in Emily Nagoski’s 📓 and being so intrigued by it.

Page 176: “fMRI has evolved since their initial work in this area. Like a time-lapse 📹, new paradigms can follow the brain activation as the orgasm happens so that the researchers can map its path in real time. But the brain moves fast, perhaps even faster than current technology can measure.” —> Amazing!!! I 😍 the 💡 that even if we have technology that’s cutting-edge and absolutely incredible, there will be tons of stuff we still don’t know just because it’s so complicated. Obviously I really value knowledge, but I also like that some knowledge will always be unattainable. It’s a weird balance.

Page 178: “Would I be able to find any inspiration to explore Ladytown in the kind of setup I was facing?” —> Ugh, don’t use euphemisms like this. This one is especially embarrassing.

Page 182: This is such a fascinating chapter. I’m so interested in her personal experience here, which is rare for a 📓 of this sort.

Page 183: “I lowered my ✋ to signal my finish and, with it, let out a long breath of relief. If I could have reached around to pat myself on the back, heck, to pat myself anywhere except on my clitoris, I would have done so.” —> Hahaha! Relatable!

Page 184: “After being instructed to relax for the next ten minutes as the researchers finished up my scan, I closed my eyes and did exactly that. This time, despite the noise, I managed to catch a few Z’s. It would seem an orgasm is an orgasm is an orgasm for me too.” —> I wonder what the connection is between orgasm and 💤. I would be interested to know what about the orgasm makes you tired, neurologically speaking.

Page 185: There’s a photo on this page of Sukel’s brain scan but she doesn’t give any context for what we’re looking at. That’s kind of disappointing.

Page 188: Oooh, this chapter is on sexual orientation. I’m sure the research on this subject is viewed as controversial regardless of what Sukel actually talks about. But I’m wildly interested in this topic, for obvious reasons.

Page 188: “Most of these shows focused on bullying and the role it played in these terrible suicides, but the odd conservative pundit on one show used his airtime to insinuate that Clementi’s death was nothing more than a bad (and perhaps expected) end to an immoral and unnatural lifestyle choice.” —> It’s 🆗, you can say his name. Call out these motherfuckers.

Page 189: Oh damn, this 📓 was published before SCOTUS struck down DOMA. That’s weird to think about.

Page 189: “Please note that bisexuality will not be discussed in this chapter. There has been very little neuroscientific research into this particular orientation, likely because there is such wide variability in behavior across those who identify as bisexual, making it very difficult to study.” —> Aww. Understandable though.

Page 189: “'But the more you look back at the science that’s been done, you 👀 how the questions and the studies fit into the beliefs when that research took place.’” —> Yup. This is an example of how nothing is truly objective in this sense, because humans are always biased even when they don’t think they are.

Page 190: “These pesky fruit invaders are very, very heterosexual. Right-wing 'family’ advocates might do well to use these flies as a banner mascot next time they want to mount some sort of protest.” —> Loool this would be hilarious.

Page 191: “With homosexuality removed from the list of disorders in the DSM, the scientific focus was no longer on a cure or treatment but on how sexual orientation may develop.” —> Good.

Page 192: “Chankyu Park and his team of researchers at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology originally called this gene FucU, until a kind journal editor suggested FucM might be more appropriate.” —> Hahahah!

Page 195: “Also like heterosexual women, they have good recall of spatial landmarks during navigation.” —> Loool straight women are good at directions? I’ve never met anyone else who’s good with directions, regardless of sexuality or gender.

Page 197: “These individuals often say that they were born in the wrong body, that their outsides do not reflect their true gender. It is an extreme condition—and one that can cause immense suffering for both the individual and his or her family.” —> Yikes. This already hasn’t aged well. Not gonna go off on this subject right now, though, even though I absolutely could.

Page 207: “The kicker? Women did not show the same effects.” —> This is actually really interesting. It was after an experiment involving men trying to do cognitive tasks after talking to attractive women. Women doing the same tasks after talking to attractive men didn’t have the same effects. It’s kind of amusing, but I also genuinely wonder why that is.

Page 209: “If beautiful women make men stupid, then the corollary is obvious: good girls like bad boys.” —> Huh? How is this an obvious corollary? It doesn’t follow logic to me.

Page 213: “When women were most fertile, in the follicular phase, they showed increased activation in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area of the brain implicated in reward and risk evaluation as well as judgments of attractiveness.” —> How did the researchers determine which part of the menstrual cycle these women were in? Did they just ask about their last periods? Did they do some type of physical test to determine the fertile period? I’m curious how they would have known for sure without some kind of test.

Page 216: “My use of the term boys here is intentional. These sweet young things, like the first one displayed, were all demonstrably handsome. I certainly cannot argue that point. Yet not one was my cup of tea. Between the piercing gazes (a la Zoolander’s Blue Steel) and really stupid hair, I was consistently left cold.” —> Hahahah!

Page 219: “When researchers conduct partner preference tests with the prairie voles, in which a bonded animal is placed in a Plexiglas cage with its mate and a stranger of the opposite sex after a separation, it doesn’t take long for the bonded animals to get aggressive with the interloper. A pair-bonded male will fight another male to the death for his mate.” —> Uhhh, and they actually saw this in tests? They put together these tests knowing that could happen? I wonder if people got all crazy about animal rights about these kinds of things too.

Page 221: “Participants snorted some oxytocin or a placebo (they were unaware which they were getting) before sitting down to play the game.” —> 😳, that took a turn in this research test.

Page 222: “De Dreu believes this work illustrates oxytocin’s role in soldiers’ ability to work cohesively as a unit against a common hated enemy.” —> There are a lot of things about this sentence that I hate, one of which is the 💡 that all soldiers hate that particular enemy. When more likely they are told they’re supposed to hate someone and blindly follow orders.

Page 227: “He plans to continue looking at different kinds of hate, ranging from ex-lovers to racial divides, in future studies. As Ferris said, context is important—critical, really—to understanding what might be happening in the brain. A great 😍 that turns into hate seems very different from a defensive posture against a hated out-group or a coworker who stole one’s promotion.” —> Yeah, this would be an interesting distinction to research, since it’s probably likely that most people have people they hate that fall under these types of different categories.

Page 228: “Her final words are what stuck with me; she ended her account with another proclamation of 😍. 'There is nothing else on 🌏 like opening your 💛 to a close and personal relationship with Jesus,’ she exclaimed. 'It is true ecstasy.’” —> Does no one else find this creepy as fuck.

Page 228: “Change the context and this woman might well have been talking about a new boyfriend with a hot bedside manner, not her Lord and Savior.” —> This is why it’s so fun to play the game Jesus or Lover when you listen to pop songs, 👀 which ones could go either way.

Page 231: “Persinger argued that he had induced a religious experience using only a 🏍️ helmet and some solenoids (a solenoid is a thin, coiled loop of wire that produces a magnetic field if treated with an electric current).” —> Solenoid! I just heard this word for the first time like three days ago.

Page 232: “'These nuns believe that you cannot self-induce a deep, mystical state because it’s the product of God’s will. This is according to both their belief system and tradition,’ said Beauregard.” —> Convenient. Scientists want to study nuns in these moments of talking to god, but they’re like, nope, can’t do it, it’s god’s will. Verrrry convenient.

Page 232: Not gonna lie, I’m pretty 😞 she put this chapter about religion in here.

Page 238: “'I think it’s amazing that things that we never considered to be biologically based or chemically driven, like 😍, desire, and attachment, really are just that,’ Young told me. 'There is a cascade of neurochemical events happening in the brain that cause us to feel the way we feel about another person and behave the way we do when we feel them. Sure, we have this cortex that allows us to think about things and to plan things—but underneath we have these ancient neurochemical systems that influence states we’ve long considered to be uniquely human. That’s a big deal.’” —> I like this.

Page 244: “Though we may wish it were so, there are simply no easy answers when it comes to 😍. There is no clever playbook for navigating 😍’s messier situations; there are no promises to be revealed by five-step magazine stories or brain chemistry supplements. The brain is too complicated for that. That’s the bad news. But take 💛: that same neurobiological complexity is also the good news.” —> I thought she didn’t want to make this into a self-help 📓? And it’s definitely still not, but I don’t like the tone at the end here, assuming that all her readers are searching for answers about how to find that special someone through all these neurological processes. I’m just curious about it anyway, not because I actively pursue that kind of thing.

#dirty minds #kaytsukel #science