• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!

Is E sexually transmitted?

Right guys, you're getting a little off topic here. As far as your statement "I am [concerned about] the claim that human sexual function has been established to this degree in neurophysiology"

As far as the statments made in the contentious citation, nothing there is new. D1 agonists DO induce erection. D2 agonists do facilitate ejaculation. Now while I've never read any claim about the the concentration dependent effects of dopamine on the receptors in regards to sexual behaviour, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that someone has written in their discussion before. Also, it is not unusual for textbooks too contain completely un-proove shit. In "A Primer on Drug Action" it says something retarded like "There are no CB1 receptors in the brain stem, and hence cannabinoids are non-lethal", even though there are CB1 receptors in the brain stem, and cannabinoids can be leathal (albeit in huge doses).

Meanwhile, if you want to ask about neuroscience courses, C10H12N2O, I suggest you go to college and university.
 
BilZ0r,

I have nothing more to say, I haven't been talking about one find point or another.

Originally posted by Decibel
As for serotonin, as stated, it is a very important neurotransmitter in the body; it has 25 +/- receptor proteins throughout your nervous system. Also, when serotonin attaches to a receptor, it doesn't let go. The molecules have to be pulled off in order to make whatever reaction is occuring within the postsynaptic cell cease. (On a side note, this is why MDMA is so abusive to serotonin receptors in the body... it wears them out like a maufugger.)

By all means, let's have everyone believe that it known for certain that MDMA is "abusive to serotonin receptors" due to the attraction tenacity of serotonin. 8)

BilZ0r I can appreciate your desire to stand up for the poor picked on undergrad student. But the fact is, unfortunately, that a large number of people derive their drug education from this forum. It can either be a reliable and respectable reference, or the MDMA equivalent of one of Rupert Murdock's "news" services.

You know as well as I do, you've read those posts and you work in science, that this stuff is highly misleading. If you feel it is more important to play the role of knight in shining armor, rather than try to enforce some semblance of fact maintenance, so be it. But what ever is posted here, and especially if it "appears" to be coming from a knowledgeable person, will become a part of the meme in the recreational drug community (most of whom the notion of verifying such claims never crosses their minds).

So what it comes down to is, is this forum to be a reliable source of information, or simply an online source of entertainment? And that depends of whether your role is that of a school yard mom, or an information librarian.

I have nothing further to say.


EDIT:
Actually, I do have one more thing to say. Your defending him, without any critique of his claims, is offering nothing in helping him to get out of the habit of making statements of opinion and speculation in the voice of fact. Maybe you should give more thought to that impact, as well.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that quote is bullshit of a severe magnitude.

I just got in here because you accused him of making up a citation. All I'm saying is that there is nothing in the contentious quoted text that makes me think it was made up. In my mind accusing someone of making up a reference is pretty serious, so I came to referee that accusation.

If you want to pick apart his posts, statement by statement, feel free. Just don't say he made up his citation unless you have good proof.
 
BilZor: if you feel we are getting off topic here, use your newly acquired mod powers (congrats by the way!!!) and feel free to change the name of the thread... I like the discussion that is going on here, to be honest, I am hoping Bluelight evolves into something more serious than "hey i am gonna drop everyday for the next 365 days, will I get a brain damage?" website, i really think there is a potential for it, cause other sites are either too technical or too etarded (nothing wrong with either, i just think this is the most balanced one).

As to your suggestion about college or university, I have checked out NYU, Columbia and Fordham and they do have some interesting programs, but despite my master's degree i would have to take a lot of basic courses, which is a drag, cause i do run a business and work 12 hours a day, and am looking at neuroscience as more of a potential hobby, so I am obviously looking for some off-curriculum classes, but more so an advice from somebody who has graduated majoring in the field on what is the best way to proceed to gain knowledge in this area, cause I do think the future in this field is tremendous...

Now I am really getting off topic, so I will stop right here.
 
Last edited:
BilZ0r,

I still believe that the citation is made up, or someone at the universtity is solely focused on the price rather than the content quality of their textbooks.

Anyway...

Originally posted by Decibel
One of the primary effects of orgasm on your nervous system is the close tie between your sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system. These two systems work entirely detatched from one another during all other actions: digestion, sleeping, moving, et cetera. The cross-over between whichever system is operating in the foreground is considerably slower at any time with the exception of orgasm; then, the switch is quite fast, and that itself throws your body for a loop.

So where is the, "I believe" or the "I suspect" or "in my opinion" in all of this? Otherwise, would you care to provide an authorative scientific reference to verify this?


Originally posted by Decibel
As for serotonin, as stated, it is a very important neurotransmitter in the body; it has 25 +/- receptor proteins throughout your nervous system. Also, when serotonin attaches to a receptor, it doesn't let go. The molecules have to be pulled off in order to make whatever reaction is occuring within the postsynaptic cell cease. (On a side note, this is why MDMA is so abusive to serotonin receptors in the body... it wears them out like a maufugger.)

"As for serotonin, as stated..." A confident beginning, and assuredly everything which follows is based on fact. Right?

So the mystical "reaction" is only concluded after the mysterious hand "pulls" the tenacious molecule off of the stubborn receptor. Just like picking cherries in the rain...

I'm almost afraid to ask "who" it is prying these little serotonin molecules from the stronghold they have on these poor receptors. 8)


Originally posted by Decibel
I'm not entirely certain, but unless I'm mistaken (which I probably am), orgasm only releases a relatively large quantity of both serotonin and dopeamine. Epenephrine/Adrenaline and norepenephrin/noreadrenaline I'm not so sure about. But those dopeamine and serotonin releases both end up stimulating the reward center in your brain, which coincides with the basic desire/necessity to procreate; speaking in terms of basic primal survival, orgasm is tied in with procreation, and procreation = propagation of the species = good.

This is ackward, is an attempt at suggesting that you may be in error, but in error of your references (it doesn't say that you have arrived at these conclusions yourself and that your conclusions may be wrong).

You next say, "Epenephrine/Adrenaline and norepenephrin/noreadrenaline I'm not so sure about." which suggests you are sure about your previous statement.

And then follow with, "But those dopeamine and serotonin releases both end up stimulating..." which is an assertion of fact, rather than an assertion of one's own point of view.


And I know, pick, pick, pick... But this is all speculation, and except for the very beginning, sounds as though you are sure of what you are talking about. Leaving someone reading this with the impression that they've learned something. And it is at that sad moment where your words begin to take on a life of their own, along with your speculation becoming someone else's "fact."


Originally posted by Decibel
Here's where it ties in: the drastic switch between your sympathetic and parasympathic nervous system at orgasm has just thrown your body for a loop; also, there has been a quantity of serotonin and dopeamine dropped into your system. Dopeamine is already giving you a pat on the back, but when you toss the really clingy serotonin into the mix, I'd imagine for a short while at least, your body is going to allow the serotonin to remain attached to the receptors for longer than usual.

"Here's where it ties in:" This isn't "speaking frankly" this (regardless of intent) is completely deceptive. And what follows, is just mental masturbation without abandon. Not that there is anything wroing with that in itself, but you are stating this as fact.


Originally posted by Decibel
When this happens, your body is going to realize that there is less free serotonin floating around your nerve synapses than normal, and the cell (are they cells or glands?) that store serotonin are going to release some to equal it out. When the dopeamine high-of-sorts wears off, your body will then realize there's too much serotonin, and start reclaiming it. But still, that's enough time for serotonin to take your body by storm for at least a few minutes, hence the potential for something of a short MDMA-like high/buzz.

Decibel, can you see the limb that you are out on here? All of this started off with vague impressions of what is occurring neurologically, and has at this point resulted in more of a story line than anything of real scientific substance.

What is wrong with speculation and taking it to extremes? Absolutely nothing at all. It's healthy and shows that you have an active mind. In fact, your willingness to take things so far may even make you a world class reseacher in the sciences one day (should you decide to go in that direction).

But that's not the problem that I am having (nor why I am acting like such a brutal asshole about all of this).

The problem is that you are doing all of this (whether you are aware of it or not) under the voice of someone knowledgable (i.e., with a working understanding), and where the majority of what you are presentating is a statement of fact. The problem with that is someone else will believe that picture you have drawn up, and they will incorporate it into their active model of the world. And as a result, you've contributed to the muddy waters of misinformation.

As I said earlier, many people come to this forum to learn about recreational drugs, their effects, and safety guidelines. Basically, they come here to "learn." Very few of them concern themselves with the notion of verifying the information provided. That makes it all the more important to plainly show which assertions are speculation, and which are based on fact (or as close to "fact" as is the current state of the art in the science).



Originally posted by Decibel
How's that sound? I feel kinda smart after writing all of that. :)
~Decibel

I think it all sounds like a lot of speculation, but by all means don't let that stop you. And you have every right to feel smart, or at least creative. :D

;.
 
Last edited:
Because I am now someone ignorantly adding more 'mud to the water', or what have you, I'll make my final statement and quit posting.

Yes, I'm an undergrad, a peon of academia. As such, I obviously have not mastered either the realms of neurosciences or writing. I apologize that my post was apparently not a) entirely correct or b) entirely cohesive or flawlessly-written. But seriously, Invalid, you've started not only an entire other tangent by being an asshole about my stupidity, but you completely missed (what I felt to be) the entire point of your complaint: releasing incorrect information into online data streams. I still fail to understand why you didn't just say, "Decibel, you're sorta/kinda/not really on the right track. REALLY, it's x, y, z..."

That, coming from my endlessly inferior brain, just seems like using a bit of common sense in order to avoid what turned out to be a rather consuming argument that could've been completely avoided or at least much more concise.

Just so you can sleep easier at night, I'll stop posting and polluting the information pathways of Bluelight... If it really, really vexes you that I was so desperate for attention or acceptance that I made up a source, then I will post one more time, just to provide you with the cover, the title page, and the page from which I drew my quote. But other than that, I will just shut up and let the professionals do the talking.

Again, sorry to cause such a problem.
~Decibel

P.S. I'd delete my other post/s, but since they've been sufficiently quoted in the post, there really isn't much of a point.
~D
 
Decibel,

You are throwing a temper tantrum, which you well know, isn't going to get you anywhere. So why even bother going there?


You didn't even read what I wrote. No one has said that you have an "inferior brain," and in fact, I said quite the opposite.

It's rather difficult to correct you since a good deal of where your speculation travels lies outside the body of known neuroscience. But after you have a better working understanding of basic neurophysiology, one of the next places you might want to look is in the area of neuroendocrinology. It's not going to answer your questions, but it will provide you with a better foundation of how the body and brain work in tandem, and help you develop a more grounded field upon which to base your speculations.


Now go delete the part where you say you aren't going to post here any longer. :D
 
Yeh, Decibel please dont stop posting... I think what Invalid Usename is trying to do is to give you some advice as a person with years of experience. He might have gone overboard a bit, but we all have low-on-serotonin days, dont we, that's what we have mdma for :) I would highly recommend that you two guys get together and roll together, maybe hold each other's hands, but dont let it get too weird, ok? Hehe... Anyways, I just want to say there is not that many intellectually stimulating posts on Bluelight like Bilzor's or Velocide's or yours (no matter how wrong it might be) or Invalid's. Somebody had an idea of "science and drugs" forum here, and I am in strong support of that, cause that way we can post our crap speculations there and not worry about somebody taking the info as a fact... And please dont get me wrong i think the etard forum is great too, but it has its own purpose... and Invalid would be right - posting speculations in the etard forum is highly dangerous...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Decibel
"Biological Psycology" 8th. ed.; Kalat, James. W

"In moderate concentrations, dopamine stimulates mostly type D1 and D5 receptors, which facilitate erection of the penis in the male and sexually receptive postures in the female. In higher concentrations, dopamine stimulates type D2 receptors, which lead to orgasm. The effects at D1 and D2 receptors tend to inhibit each other. As a result, the early stages of sexual excitement are characterized by arousal but not orgasm; the late stage is marked by orgasm and then a decrease in arousal.

Whereas dopamine stimulates sexual activity, the neurotransmitter serotonin inhibits it, in part by blocking dopamine release. Many popular antidepressant drugs increase serotonin activity, and one of their side effects is to decrease sexual arousal and impair orgasm.
Click to expand...
Originally posted by Invalid Username
I have no idea who you expect to impress with all of this, but you're making all of this crap up
...
What did you intend to gain by making something like this up and claiming it was in one of your text books?
Click to expand...

And I quote from Biological psychology, James W. Kalat, 6th ed (1998).

When the concentration of released dopamine is only moderately high, dopamine stimulates mostly type D1 and the closely related D5 receptors, which facilitate erection of the penis in the male (Hull et al., 1992) and sexually receptive postures in the female (Apostolakis et al., 1996). When the concentration of dopamine reaches a higher level, dopamine stimulates mostly type D2 receptors, which leads to orgasm and ejaculations (Giuliani & Ferrari, 1996; Hull et al., 1992). The effects at D1 and D2 receptors tend to inhibit each other. As a result, the early stages of sexual excitement are characterized by arousal but not orgasm; when orgasm occurs, it is followed by a decrease in arousal.

I think someone deserves an apology.
 
Just so that we are clear on this, the legitimacy of that citation has little bearing on the overall issues which I raised. So determining that the citation was not contrived has little bearing on my central points which I raised.


As far as the accusation which I made that Decibel had faked that citation, I was completely wrong in doing so. And I deserve the "asshole of the week award."

I sincerely appologize to Decibel for having accused him of faking the citation.


With regards to the claim made in Biological psychology, James W. Kalat, 6th ed (1998), I would very much like to see how he proves that these mechanisms are considered "de facto" neurochemical effect/responses to produce these sex related reactions.

If these were the accepted mechanisms producing these sexual responses, then it would be widely available within the scientific journals along with the neurophysiological studies to validate such conclusions.

I don't care if this claim is published in a college textbook or not. I do not believe that anyone in the neurological sciences can support such a claim, given the current state of understanding of how human sexuality is represented within the brain. And if these methods of action are widely accepted within any of the neurosciences, then indisputable evidence exists in the way of studies.

The claims made by James W. Kalat just aren't consistent with our science. And if I am wrong, it should be simple to provide conclusive evidence proving it.
 
Well I don't think these claims are unfounded, the citations he has used certainly back up his claim. I think Kalat may have gone a little far, in stating it as fact, or given the impression that it was known to be the major causative factor.
 
^^^
This is the exact same issue that I have been talking about. When speculation puts on the coat of fact, science becomes nothing more than another religion.

Early in the 20th century they noted that Venus was cloud covered. And that since there was such dense cloud cover, that there must be a great deal of rain. And with so much rain, there must be a great deal of plant growth. And with so many plants, there must be dinosaurs on venus eating these plants.

Observation: Clouds
Conclusion: Dinosaurs

Kalat's claims are not unfounded from the standpoint of the dopamine systems [likely] being one of the factors in the human sexual response. But we are a far cry from being about to talk about these processes with a definative sense of understanding them. Much less, from the moronically simplistic manner in which Kalat has described them.

The neurology of human sexuality is something that I have been keenly interested in ever since my early days in college. But given the lack of willingness for funding into such research (a direct result of the long term impact that religion has had on our culture), I suspect that it will be a very long time before these mysteries are understood.

I keep hoping that this area will open up, but at the rate things are going, the SETI program will have found evidence of intelligent life elsewhere before we understand the neurology of what makes us tick sexually. And I'll probably be pushing up daisies long before then, and will never get to see how the process works. :(
 
Invalid, I sincerely accept your apology, and in turn, offer my own for throwing my tantrum and such. Here's hoping we'll both be able to move away from this with positive vibes. :)

Because of recent events, my brain isn't exactly capable of thinking about or adding any further ideas to this conversation. I just would like everyone to take a step back, read the title of the thread, and realize that we've filled some two to three pages with (what I feel to be) moderately detailed and fairly/highly advanced scientific discussion in response to a Yes/No question. :P

That really does amuse me to no end.
~Decibel
 
Yeh Decibel, great to see you back. Make sure you dont give up on your pursuit of knowledge, one day you will invent a drug that will make one feel like having sex with Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears at the same time, while rolling your balls off....

My friend is taking Uprima these days (stimulates DA) and says it is way better than Viagra in a way that it truly makes you feel aroused, rather than just giving you intense wood. I guess somebody already figured out a substance that pushes the right receptors. I just have a suspicion that Uprima works on serotonin too, but that's just a suspicion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top