Milk Chocolate or Dark Chocolate

[ahinton]

I never noticed that it had that particular effect, Susan. Even if it did I probably couldn't be bothered.

Bothered that it did? - or that it is said to do so? - or in the sense that it would in any case be of insufficient relevance to you to prompt you to eat more of less of it at any given moment? Just curious...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

men are visually stimulated.  women like to smell things.  chocolate has a good smell.  if men wore chocolate cologne they would be eaten alive.  what they don't know can't hurt them.  i think chocolate is more of an aphrodesiac for women than men.  why somebody came up with date rape drugs is beyond me.  why didn't they try chocolate.  then, the woman would be awake and willing.

put some fire under one or the other.  you know - cook some pasta, eat some chocolate, do something with a mandrake?  *never figured out that biblical passage.  what do mandrakes have to do with a man's passion?

[ted]

Now you've stumped me Alistair. Can't be bothered working out the right answer to your question. Hang on a minute......... ah, got it. I meant I probably couldn't be bothered doing anything about whatever it is I was supposed to do even if eating the chocolate had produced the often asserted but much disputed effect first alluded to by you and subsequently elaborated upon in ostensibly demure fashion by Susan.

 

[pianistimo]

demure and bawdy?  i take exception to that, ted.  what is bawdy about two people using whatever means are available to get the other person to say 'yes.'  it's so simple and yet nobody thinks about it.  chocolate is a drug.  use it wisely.   

[ted]

To which word do you take exception, "demure" or "bawdy" ? I hasten to remove either or both as directed.

[pianistimo]

you can remove bawdy.  it's just not my style.  i don't think serving a person chocolate is bawdy.  after all, if they are willing - it's not like you are pouring three beers down them or anything.  it's rather subtle. 

[ahinton]

Now you've stumped me Alistair. Can't be bothered working out the right answer to your question. Hang on a minute......... ah, got it. I meant I probably couldn't be bothered doing anything about whatever it is I was supposed to do even if eating the chocolate had produced the often asserted but much disputed effect first alluded to by you and subsequently elaborated upon in ostensibly demure but implicitly bawdy fashion by Susan.

OK - that's answered my multiple choice question clearly; thanks for that.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

men are visually stimulated.  women like to smell things.

Does the narrow-mindedness and set-in-your-ways aspects of your character as you frequently express them here really determine in your mind that each sex responds only to stimulus of the one sense? If we were to take your remark here as literally as you appear to take many of the Biblical texts that you are wont to quote, we would be left having to believe that neither men nor women respond to music, since you omit reference to four senses each for men and women in your statement.

chocolate has a good smell.  if men wore chocolate cologne they would be eaten alive.  what they don't know can't hurt them.

But would it hurt them if they did know? And if they knew what, precisely, in any case? If, for example, your second statement here is universally true, would some men were chocolate cologne in order to be "eaten alive" by women, or what? Should I await your written answer to this or go buy a 100ml. bottle of Dior Chocolat pour homme and seek to discover the answer by self-experiementation?

i think chocolate is more of an aphrodesiac for women than men.

...which is more than can be said of your spelling of aphrodisiac (unless yours is a legitimate American spelling, of course). Maybe you are right here, however; I'm not sure. Again, perhaps that experiment might reveal something, although presumably it would need to be conducted with a selected group of men under clinical conditions...

why somebody came up with date rape drugs is beyond me.  why didn't they try chocolate.  then, the woman would be awake and willing.

You make it sound as though date rape would be fine as long as the drug used is extracted from chocolate.

although -i do not think that this is particularly good adivce excepting for married couples.

Oh, OK - sorry, I see now; you don't think date rape is fine other than between married couples...

well, obviously - if two people are in love - that should be enough.

"Enough" for what? Legitimised date rape?

but, sometimes it's not.

Again, "not" enough for what?

sometimes you need to put some fire under one or the other.

Date rape using chocolate over hot coals? This is getting worse! I wrote earlier that you are possessed of quite an imagination and you're certainly not disproving me on that!

you know - cook some pasta, eat some chocolate, do something with a mandrake?

Date rape using chocolate over hot coals while cooking pasta and doing something (mercifully) unspecified with a mandrake? I think you've lost us all now...

never figured out that biblical passage.

Please, everyone, note and remember this astonishing and astonishingly unprecedented admission!...

what do mandrakes have to do with a man's passion?

Ask the nearest duck...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

for novel writing purposes - i should like to forget the 'selected group' of men and just use you alone.  as i see it - the experiment would be unbiased in that you only eat chocolate three times per year - so it would not have this 'generic' response for you.  perhaps there would be a slight bit more reaction.  sucking on ones toes - occasional whimperings.  ok. alistair - sometimes i do like to see men suffer.  yes...women occasionally think it's funny. 

[ahinton]

for novel writing purposes - i should like to forget the 'selected group' of men and just use you alone.

I hadn't previously appreciated the connection with your novel writing ambitions which are alluded to in another thread, but the remainder of what you write here seems clear.

as i see it - the experiment would be unbiased in that you only eat chocolate three times per year - so it would not have this 'generic' response for you.  perhaps there would be a slight bit more reaction.

You do not say how the experiment should be conducted, or by whom, or how the results, if any should be determined; perhaps you need to be a little clearer on this point.

sucking on ones toes - occasional whimperings.  ok. alistair - sometimes i do like to see men suffer.  yes...women occasionally think it's funny. 

Now - and not, of course, for the first time, by any means - you've lost me; I don't get what you're saying here at all, especially in the present context, so perhaps you might care to explain.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

perhaps i am not the consumate novelist yet.  i must retrace some steps back to my first theory teacher.  prof. belden.  he was not particularly drawn to the idea of music or anything else being a systematic way to attract the attention of people - unless done with seductive precision for approximately a weeks time.  he did not like the casual 'that's hot.'  it would not affect his mind.

and, as we all know - affecting men's minds is what women are after when they are attemtping any sort of experiment that would be 'novel.'  now, most men - 98% react approximately the same way in any given experiment.  so you may as well just use one man and get it over with with less hassle.

let me think about what i would do.  first of all - you would be in the 2% that might just react in an unusual way.  for instance, turn the tables quite easily.  this is very dangerous to a test and we must make sure that we have the illusion of much freedom - where the chocolate would not be some sort of 'treat' for good behavior, or an attempt at any sort of behavior modification - but rather a close eye would be kept on the manner and speed which the chocolate is eaten and how it affects you first with composition.  i would divide the chocolate bar into four sections.  the first would be required to eat very slowly over a period of a day.  the second, over an hour.  the third, within minutes.  the last - made into a chocolate latte or drink that would be gulped immediately. 

at the same time - you would be required to watch a video with norwegian mermaids in it and compose at the same time.  a certain number of bars would be required for each set time.  now, as i see it - concentration and aphrodesiacs do not work in tandem unless one has trained their mind.  sort of like the man who does calculus whilst maintaining nothing is happening.  personally, i believe rachmaninov could do this.  anyways, back to the test.  i happen to think that the mermaids may do nothing but provoke images of grieg's music and a slight blip to the concentration levels for your composing.  you may even be seduced when drinking the latte to compose in griegs style - whereas - if the chocolate were spread out over a day - we would see more of your own composition techniques.

for one thing - i believe that a man has to be convinced there is no danger to the test - to be fully available and willing participant.  i would say - the point of most manipulation of the music would be at the 8 minute mark after the latte was drunk.  at that point, if i were single and wanting a connection with you - i would simply say - 'look over there! and then, plant a kiss on your cheek.'  being that i am married - i cannot go into any more detail than this simple style of 'test' for aphrodesiac qualities.  of course, sponge bob's friend patrick does have balloon pants.  but, we are not necessarily talking about infatuation or lust - but some sort of aphrodesiac qualitiy that will also work like a truth syrum, too.

[ahinton]

perhaps i am not the consumate novelist yet.

Nor the consummate speller, either - but then I didn't think that the aphrodisiac reference had actually gone as far as dealing with questions of consummation.

i must retrace some steps back to my first theory teacher.  prof. belden.  he was not particularly drawn to the idea of music or anything else being a systematic way to attract the attention of people - unless done with seductive precision for approximately a weeks time.  he did not like the casual 'that's hot.'  it would not affect his mind.

I don't imagine, however, that he'd have gone anything like as far as to suggest, as you did, that all men respond only to visual stimuli and all women only to olfactory ones, if for no other or better reason than that such an admission would have made his job a redundant irrelevance.

and, as we all know - affecting men's minds is what women are after when they are attemtping any sort of experiment that would be 'novel.'

Ah, it's that kind of "novel" we're on to now, is it?...

now, most men - 98% react approximately the same way in any given experiment.  so you may as well just use one man and get it over with with less hassle.

On what scientific evidence do you base so rash a claim?

let me think about what i would do.  first of all - you would be in the 2% that might just react in an unusual way.

And on what scientific evidence do you base this? I would have thought that the various possible physiological and psychological effects of chocolate consumption would be a far less simple and clear-cut matter than you im[ply here.

for instance, turn the tables quite easily.  this is very dangerous to a test and we must make sure that we have the illusion of much freedom - where the chocolate would not be some sort of 'treat' for good behavior, or an attempt at any sort of behavior modification - but rather a close eye would be kept on the manner and speed which the chocolate is eaten and how it affects you first with composition.

I only mentioned its claimed aphrodisiac properties; I made no reference to its possible effect on the mental processes involved in composition and your bringing of this into the issue serves only to complicate what would otherwise be a relatively straightforward matter.

i would divide the chocolate bar into four sections.  the first would be required to eat very slowly over a period of a day.  the second, over an hour.  the third, within minutes.  the last - made into a chocolate latte or drink that would be gulped immediately. 

The last of these would almost certain make me throw up, thereby possibly risking the negation or at least reduction of the effects of at least some of the first three...

Anyway, I am still unclear not only as to how you would observe and conclude upon the outcomes of the various parts of this experiment, especially since you seem to believe that these aphrodisiac properties work on women's behaviour rather than men's in any case...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

well, the visual stimulation would be the chocolate bar itself.  i would be behind a curtain.  only to come out at the 8 minute mark.  the mermaid would make it a double-blind experiment seeing what would cause the most distraction from composition (which would be used to make you feel secure and not in any sort of danger).  in thinking this through, i suppose that i would have to check on progress between the various time-limits and quantities of chocolate -so occasionally would peek out of the curtain.  perhaps mostly after the main experiment had taken place.  the connection between man and chocolate.

if it truly had aphrodesiac qualities - the music produced would become more and more sensual sounding.  and norwegian.  and, also, the way one would hold the chocolate bar or latte would indicate feelings.  the cup, for instance, might be held close to the chest.  whereas - in the first experiment the candy bar might be bitten and then held out away from the body.  as though to check it out.  it might also be unwrapped one bite at a time.  slowly peeling away the wrapper with each bite.  by the time the one minute morsel had been tested - the wrapper would be immediately discarded and no particular care given to bite-sizing it. 

perhaps time limits are not good for experiments, though.  because the speed was already predetermined and could not be used again for impression of desire.  maybe the best experiment would be to let the chocolate be handpicked - and eaten in any way or under any circumstance or time allottment desired.  of course, the experiment would take longer that way. 

knowing that i should not speak for all women, it behoves me to stay somewhat silent about the olfactory nerves being highly sensitive on me.  perhaps other women are not so olfactory oriented.  as i see it - scented candles equal beautiful moments.  and a fine cologne - more important than what a man wears.  but, alas - my husband is allergic to fragrances and claims that they cause congestion and allergies.  so, i stick to magazines and sniff the pages that allow for scents to be smelled.  they are like stacks of playboys in my bathroom.  i sniff and then go to my husband with the smell still wafted in my nose.

[ahinton]

well, the visual stimulation would be the chocolate bar itself.

I rather think that (again, by no means for the first time), you're going off at a tangent here. Your reference to visual stimulation was not, I believe, in reference to the alleged aphrodisiac properties of chocolate, so its relevance in such an experiment is unclear; furthermore, I have never in any case heard it claimed that the appearance of chocolate possesses such properties - only that its consumption may give rise to such effects.

i would be behind a curtain.  only to come out at the 8 minute mark.

Oh, so you'd personally be preent at the experiment, then?...

the mermaid would make it a double-blind experiment seeing what would cause the most distraction from composition (which would be used to make you feel secure and not in any sort of danger).

What "mermaid" are you talking about? As far as I was aware, the only participants in the experiment would be the person upon whom it was being conducted, the chocolate itself and the observer of the experiment; you do have quite a propensity to confuse, do you not? Is your reference to compositional activity in this context for the purpose of ascertaining whether the alleged aphrodisiac properties of chocolate might also act as some kind of suppressant to creative workings. And why would I feel in any kind of danger in any case?

in thinking this through,

I really don't believe that you've done that, you know!...

i suppose that i would have to check on progress between the various time-limits and quantities of chocolate -so occasionally would peek out of the curtain.

So would your rôle in the experiment would be as impartial observer or would you be conducting it?

To return to your reference to "eating (someone) alive", however, I mentioned before that I had understood you to mean that this (which I take in any case to be an intended euphemism rather than a literal expectation) might occur only after a woman had consumed chocolate, so it remains unclear what conclusions you or anyone else present might expect to draw as a consequence of a man eating some.

I think that you still have some explaining to do...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

ok we'll turn the experiment around (i knew it would come to that) and give the taste testing to 10 women and the 'wrap the chocolate bar around a pole' for you.  yes, i would be the impartial observer. 

[ahinton]

ok we'll turn the experiment around (i knew it would come to that) and give the taste testing to 10 women and the 'wrap the chocolate bar around a pole' for you.  yes, i would be the impartial observer. 

Of exactly what, once wonders. I'm not quite sure why, but somehow I had suspected that a pole might come into this scenario at some point and that you would be the one to introduce it - but, the best will in the world notwithstanding, you really wouldn't be doing this for me, you know...

Now I rather think that this "dark chocolate night of the soul" stuff has by this time pretty much run its (un)natural course and yet no proof one way or the other has emerged therefrom about the alleged aphrodisiac properties of chocolate so, unless you have any other bright ideas, I suggest that the thread now returns to discussing other properties of chocolate; what do you say, Susan?...

Best,

Alistair

[ted]

This morning I found a partially eaten bar of chocolate from three years ago in the dressing table drawer. I ate it and loitered around the local shops for half an hour; alas, I experienced no desire to mount passers-by.

[Bob]

lol...   Did you check the expiration date?   

[m1469]

Milk chocolate or Bob chocolate ?

[Bob]

(barks) Hey!  HeyHeyHeyHeyHeyHey!  Hey!   Hey!

[pianistimo]

chocolate does have an expiration you know.  i think it's under a year.  my kids were given some halloween chocolate - and not wanting them to eat it all in one day, i put it into a tin and stashed it high in the cupboard.  then, six months later - i went to find something to snack on and remembered i had put it there.  yuk.  it tasted different.  no real flavor.  maybe little candybars are different than big ones.  and, perhaps if one kept the chocolate in the freezer - it could keep up to a year.

ted, why don't you try a fresh candy bar on your wife.  let her eat it - and just stand by.  or put pieces of it on yourself. 

milk chocolate is for when people are depressed and feeling terrible about something.  poor test results.  it makes people think about the dreamy and creamy side of chocolate.  eating less of this is probably better.

[ahinton]

ted, why don't you try a fresh candy bar on your wife.  let her eat it - and just stand by.  or put pieces of it on yourself. 

I note that you have moved onto Ted now (if you and he will pardon the expression) but it appears that you remain determined to test out the potentially aphrodisiac properties of chocolate, come what may (if you'll pardon the expression) and I am sure that we're all agog to hear the end results; may we all presume in the meantime that the fact that you do not already have a thorough knowledge of this subject is down to there being no Biblical reference to this particular property of chocolate (and, if so, is that why Adam & Eve had to resort to a mere apple?).

I should also tell you that no perfurmery local to me sells any essence of dark chocolate or any similar product; one would presumably have, therefore, to resort to improvisation (assuming one had any motivation so to do in the first place)...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

alistair, i can hardly motivate myself.  how should i hope to motivate anyone else.  well, occasionally i do some seductive moves on my husband just to see if he's awake in the evening.  yes.  i've always had a curiosity about aphrodesiacs.  after all, people make money selling them.  there has to be a way to test their supposed capabilities.  and, for me - chocolate, pasta, and vodka works.  not necessarily in that order, or in large amounts.  in fact, very small but potent amounts seem to work.  you know - dark chocolate, thick pasta, and concentrated vodka in a glass of peach schnapps.  i tried this drink the other day and only had two sips before feeling quite energetic.  it gave me this strange power to multi-task.

but, seriously - i am usually quite serious and do not need the feeling of being 'happy' or 'high' to be happy.  it would be a sad thing to suggest that one must eat chocolate or have pasta or absolut vodka on a daily basis.  however, i think ted's case is extreme.  that is why i asked him if he replaced the 'three times a year' with any other forms of aphrodesiacs once he ditched using chocolate.  (just kidding with you ted!)

perhaps the most sensual thing a couple can do is to prepare the chocolate in some manner that is time consuming.  people usually think the more time somebody spends doing something for them - the more mental involvement is there.  you know - like 'take home chef' does.  he spends a good hour in the kitchen.  usually the husbands are quite suspicious of him at first.  perhaps if both women and men took time when they cooked.  no microwaving. 

just between you and me, alistair, probably the chocolate cologne would be #5 on the list - and something more with a wiff of something that reminds one of the scottish highlands first.  in nyc they have a place where you can 'create your own scent.'  i've always wanted to go there -lacking the parking for van sized vehicles - i've thought about buying essential oils wholesale and experimenting at home.

[ted]

Perhaps for somebody who thinks about sex all the time a multitude of different stimuli might appear to be aphrodisiacs, simply because any physical or mental change is immediately related to the underlying obsession. In the same way as a creative musician finds his art can be influenced by almost anything he perceives, so the dedicated voluptuary relates all experiences to libido. We already see this in the way the word "sexy" is now used as a generic intensive. Desks, cars, houses, chairs, toothpaste, chocolate are all advertised and described as "sexy". A visitor once remarked that our shower curtain was not pretty, colourful or practical but "sexy". It probably works because a large proportion of the population fantasise about sex most of their waking hours. Therefore just about anything is capable of acting as an aphrodisiac. Chocolate is just one of many arbitrary memetic sexual associations in modern life. It only works if the effect it is supposed to produce is already in the brain and the person decides to activate it into reality.  It didn't work with me because I was actually expecting some sort of involuntary, digestive, chemical process to take place, which is obviously nonsense. There is also the subtle point that an aphrodisiac, as I understand the term, is a means of increasing desire itself, not a means of increasing the capability of acting on the desire, as with viagra, which function is an entirely different thing.

[timothy42b]

what is bawdy about two people using whatever means are available to get the other person to say 'yes.' 

A tasteful dribble of Hershey's syrup is erotic.  Ten pounds of fudge is bawdy and you can never get it off the sheets.  (don't ask me how I know)

Getting the other person to say yes is mostly dependent on gender.  There was a recent experiment where men and women were approached by an attractive stranger (opposite sex) who said, "I find you attractive.  Would you like to sleep with me tonight?"  9 of 10 men said yes.  10 of 10 women said no. 

Of course they didn't run into Susan.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[pianistimo]

   tim, what makes you say this?  do you have a list of suspects? 

[ahinton]

Perhaps for somebody who thinks about sex all the time a multitude of different stimuli might appear to be aphrodisiacs, simply because any physical or mental change is immediately related to the underlying obsession. In the same way as a creative musician finds his art can be influenced by almost anything he perceives, so the dedicated voluptuary relates all experiences to libido. We already see this in the way the word "sexy" is now used as a generic intensive. Desks, cars, houses, chairs, toothpaste, chocolate are all advertised and described as "sexy". A visitor once remarked that our shower curtain was not pretty, colourful or practical but "sexy". It probably works because a large proportion of the population fantasise about sex most of their waking hours. Therefore just about anything is capable of acting as an aphrodisiac. Chocolate is just one of many arbitrary memetic sexual associations in modern life. It only works if the effect it is supposed to produce is already in the brain and the person decides to activate it into reality.  It didn't work with me because I was actually expecting some sort of involuntary, digestive, chemical process to take place, which is obviously nonsense. There is also the subtle point that an aphrodisiac, as I understand the term, is a means of increasing desire itself, not a means of increasing the capability of acting on the desire, as with viagra, which function is an entirely different thing.

Whilst not disagreeing with a word that you have written here, the point is that the chemical content of chocolate has been reckoned to possess the properties that have been discussed, which is quite a different matter to the now widespread ascription of the term "sexy" to all manner of things that are not and cannot be connected with sexual issues and to which you draw salutary attention. I have no evidence to support or countermand these reckonings in respect of chocolate, however. Your understanding of the meaning of aphrodisiac concurs with my own, incidentally.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Getting the other person to say yes is mostly dependent on gender.  There was a recent experiment where men and women were approached by an attractive stranger (opposite sex) who said, "I find you attractive.  Would you like to sleep with me tonight?"  9 of 10 men said yes.  10 of 10 women said no. 

Of course they didn't run into Susan.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Do you actually have sufficient detail about the experiment that you mention to be certain that Susan was in no sense involved in it, or are you just surmising that?...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

just between you and me

She says on a forum with over 15,000 members.

Thal

[pianistimo]

i meant between me and alistair.  you're just jealous.  besides - alistair lives in scotland and i live in usa - so how much is going on there. 

my husband happens to be the man of my dreams.  i really don't fantasize about the 'take home chef' or the carpenter guy on 'trading spaces.'  although occasionally i just sit in awe for a half hour.  i think it's very sexy when a guy knows how to make things.  my husband is a good carpenter when he has time.  watching men work is probably an aphrodesiac.  if they don't mess up the job.  watching him do calking is another story.  quite the mess maker on that one.

[ahinton]

i meant between me and alistair.  you're just jealous.  besides - alistair lives in scotland and i live in usa - so how much is going on there.

Actually, I live in England...

Best,

Alistair