View Full Version : Mones and the pill
Traggard
11-14-2004, 09:16 AM
Thinking back,
most of the hits I have got has been either from young women (20 or under) or women in the 40+ range. True, the
women I approach in clubs are about 25-35 but the mones only seem to work on a small fraction of them. When the
mones have effect the interactions seems to go smother. But even then it has not been the obvious hits I get from
some -20 or 40+ women.
There has been some discussion here about girls being on the pill interfering with the
effect of the pheromones. Since it is reasonable to assume that most women using birth control pills are in there
20s or 30s this really explains why the strong hits I get mostly come from outside that range.Hey, maybe we can sue
the companies that make the pills for lowering the effects of mones?
Bruce
11-14-2004, 10:14 AM
Folks over 40 (men and women) are of
course depending on gradually diminishing smelling equipment to get the pheromone "message", so being able to turn
up the volume on your own pheromone output at will should give you a big advantage with older women.
Bruce
Pancho1188
11-14-2004, 12:32 PM
The pill 'smooths out'
women's cycles, making PMS less intense, etc. Therefore, one could guess that it also changes how -mones influence
their behavior because the reactions probably won't be as intense.
Side effects include: stomach cramps,
irritability, naseau, dizziness, dry mouth, decreased -mone sensitivity, muscle fatigue, upset stomach, and
stuffy nose
..............I don't think so... ;)
Silver
11-14-2004, 12:39 PM
Keep in mind this would also mean
less chance of an adverse reaction right before or durring her period. So, I guess it's a trade off.
~Silver
Pancho1188
11-14-2004, 12:52 PM
That's what I was
thinking...
jvkohl
11-14-2004, 07:40 PM
The pill
'smooths out' women's cycles, making PMS less intense, etc. Therefore, one could guess that it also changes how
-mones influence their behavior because the reactions probably won't be as intense.
The pill tricks
a woman's body into thinking it's pregnant by keeping estrogen levels fairly constant, thus eliminating the
luteinizing hormone (LH) surge at ovulation (which must be preceded by a gradual estrogen increase over approx 72
hours). Peak sensitivity to musky male scents increases with estrogen levels, but, again, this is typical only when
women cycle normally--not when they supplement estrogen, as with the pill. Peak sexual interest and both proceptive
and receptive behavior occur at ovulation in all species studied. In woman, this is most likely due to the ovulatory
surge in testosterone that is prompted by the LH surge. All of this is basic reproductive endocrinology that in
other species ensures properly timed reproductive sexual behavior. It seems somewhat ridiculous to imagine something
else is going on in women--which means that Pancho is partly correct. There is a well-detailed link between taking
the pill and loss of libido in women. But no one has linked the loss of libido to the change in olfactory acuity and
specificity to musky scents (yet). Just another example of the explanatory ability of using a mammalian model to
predict/detail aspects of human sexuality. Also, Patricia Schreiner-Engle detailed in her doctoral thesis the link
between estrogen levels and libido--using women who had "hypoactive sexual desire." It is clear from her graphs that
estrogen levels in hypoactive women never rose high enough to prompt a typical LH and testosterone surge, though
this aspect of sexuality was not included in her thesis.
JVK
ismellgood
11-15-2004, 06:07 AM
Lots of people claim that the
pill lowers libido, but when you look at big studies, the women taking the pill have the most intercourse.
Silver
11-15-2004, 10:41 AM
*shakes her head* Ismellgood,
that's a very misleading statistic. Think about it...if they're on the pill, it's probably because they're
having sex. The pill is an indication of sexual activity, it doesn't cause it.
tounge
11-15-2004, 11:36 AM
I think Traggard is talking about
the olfactory sense of women on the pill, not their sexual activity. I happen to think he is right.
tounge
11-15-2004, 12:00 PM
Actually Silver, I think you were
speaking of ismellgood. In that case, I agree with you and shake my head.
Silver
11-15-2004, 02:45 PM
Umm....yeah, I was speaking to
ismellgood lol. Thanks for catching that, tongue.:)
Sorry for the misrepresentation, Traggard.
~Silver
tounge
11-15-2004, 03:29 PM
Umm....yeah, I was
speaking to ismellgood lol. Thanks for catching that, tongue.:)
You're welcome Sliver. :)
jvkohl
11-15-2004, 08:54 PM
Lots of people
claim that the pill lowers libido, but when you look at big studies, the women taking the pill have the most
intercourse.
Written like a social scientist: throw out the mammalian model and all biological data
supporting it, based upon a result that is not biologically based. You make it clear that any debate is
pointless.
JVK
tounge
11-16-2004, 11:06 AM
I think Kohl is shaking his head
too!
Watcher
11-17-2004, 01:20 AM
Personally with the synthetic
pheromones we would be overcoming any reduced sensitivitiy to pheromones from any means - in older women it raises
the presense and therefore they react - i get plenty of reactions from the 30-40 female age group though they seem
more sensitive to Arone ??
Just based upon personal observations though
Thanks james kohl good science
to put the newbies on the right thinking track.
ismellgood
11-20-2004, 12:54 PM
Kohl et al,
I do not
reject results from lower animal studies. However, appreciate that the highest mammal has the capacity to base
sexual behaviour more on neuronal and less on hormonal factors. Even in studies limited to sexually active women,
those women who use the pill have more intercourse.
jvkohl
11-20-2004, 08:35 PM
... appreciate
that the highest mammal has the capacity to base sexual behaviour more on neuronal and less on hormonal
factors.
Sexual behavior is the result of hormones influencing neuronal development; thats' how
hormones organize and activate behavior. You seem to believe that sexual behavior is based upon cognitive function,
but approximately 90% of it is based upon unconscious affect--as in sensory input from the social environment
activating an organized system of communicating neurons (biology again). Olfactory/pheromonal input is the only
sensory input that is processed differently in males and females, and the processing is not a function of cognition.
Think about it all you want, then explain oral/genital sex based upon conscious thought, neurons, or whatever.
It's the effect of pheromones on hormones that gets us "down there" and keeps us heading back for
more--typically--like other animals.
JVK
ismellgood
11-21-2004, 02:50 AM
Kohl,
You are trying to
misrepresent what I wrote to make it easier to dismiss.
Women not on the pill have a "mindless" increase in
liklihood of intercourse around ovulation; women on the pill want to be ready for sex throughout their cycle.
And
there are subtle sex differences in acoustic and visual processing.
Watcher
11-21-2004, 02:56 AM
Kohl is the expert n the field -
written many books on pheromones and of course the maker behind Scent of eros. Has interaction with many other
experts in the field. He has battled the pheromone versus sexual audio/visual lobby for a while so he should be
considered more on track, all my experience indicates pheromonal influences with some subtle audio/visual feedback
to a factor of about 10%
Women on the pill are less interested in animal sex than those not. Of course they
can do sex at any time but the extra drive to mate that comes with a period is animalistic and of course they will
latch onto the strongest attractive male if able to - ie alpha with the strong mones acting as the attractant.
ismellgood
11-21-2004, 09:42 AM
Women on the pill seem to be
interested in quality and quantity intercourse than those not on the pill.
On a personal note, I have found
that women on the pill are much better intercourse partners than those not on the pill. The latter may seem more
impulsive (is this what you mean by "animal sex"?), but when it comes to the actual intercourse, they are lesser
quality.
jvkohl
11-21-2004, 08:50 PM
Kohl,
You are
trying to misrepresent what I wrote to make it easier to dismiss.
What is it that you think I'm
trying to misrepresent by describing the process through which hormones influence behavior? If you bring up neuronal
factors, it is important that you realize hormones influence neuronal development; and the neurons aren't doing
anything after they're developed except sending hormonal messages (yes, neurotransmitters are considered hormones).
Perhaps you lack some basic knowledge of biology, which means nothing--unless you intend to continue debate with a
biologist.
Women not on the pill have a "mindless" increase in liklihood of intercourse
around ovulation; women on the pill want to be ready for sex throughout their cycle.
"Women on the
pill _want_..." sounds like they know that the pill will influence their sexual readiness--and most of them do not.
So, what you have is women who _want_ to be ready for sex, who mostly could care less about sex because they don't
have the midcycle surge in testosterone. These are the women that tend to drive men crazy. All month long they can
take it or leave it (the sex, that is). At least women who are not screwing up their hormone cycle want sex for 3-5
days each month--and they want it as bad as men want it all month long (for the same reason: testosterone is the
libido hormone).
And there are subtle sex differences in acoustic and visual
processing.
It would be nice if you would tell us where your information comes from. That way I could
better explain why the information isn't particularly relevent to sexual behavior. Sex differences are either
innate (present at birth) or develop along with olfactory conditioning--and only sex differences in the olfactory
system are innate--unless Dennis McFadden has done work with newborn infant humans that I don't know about. And,
even if you want to argue about sex differences in other sensory systems that appear to be innate; there is the
requirement for social-environmental sensory input to affect males and females differently (like pheromones do).
JVK
ismellgood
11-22-2004, 04:48 AM
1. Perhaps I need to use
simpler words for you to understand. By "neuronal", I was referring to higher cortical processes of appraisal and
planning, not the banal level to which you refer.
You also misrepresented other research (in a different thread)
by claiming that women prefer a male waist to hip ratio of 1, whereas Singh and others have shown that women prefer
men with a trimmer waist, in the .8 to .95 range.
2. Women who integrate intercourse into their sense of self
want to be ready for real intercourse, and put themselves on the pill.
3. There are many thousands of studies
on sex differences outside of the olfactory realm. Just try medline with ("Sex Characteristics"[MeSH]) AND (acoustic
OR auditory OR visual OR tactile OR gustatory).
Friendly1
11-22-2004, 09:03 AM
1. Perhaps I
need to use simpler words for you to understand. By "neuronal", I was referring to higher cortical processes of
appraisal and planning, not the banal level to which you refer.
What you need to do is stop leaping to
unwarranted conclusions.
The pill does not induce women to have more sex. The women are going to have sex
regardless of whether they are on the pill or not. Studies have shown that men and women who take responsibility
for their sexual activity are more likely to report it, whereas men and women who don't take responsibility for it
are less likely to report it.
Many young women take the pill for other reasons. Teenage girls, for example,
don't always have regular cycles. The pill helps them establish a cycle until their body can do it on its own.
Some teenage girls (and women) also take the pill to help control acne.
Many virgins take the pill. They are
clearly not having intercourse. Some of them take it in preparation for marriage (they don't want to conceive
right after getting married, and they are advised to start the pill a few months before marriage).
All of these
examples are taken right out of real life, btw, not just "studies" I have read. My mother worked for two Planned
Parenthood clinics and she dispensed a lot of birth control pills to virgins, married women, sluts, good girls, and
prostitutes. She used to tell me I would be surprised at how many of the girls I knew were on the pill, and how
many of them were NOT having sex, and how many of the girls I knew who were NOT on the pill WERE having sex (she
also helped in abortions at one clinic -- although she walked off the job the day she had to prepare a 12-year-old
girl who had been raped -- it was an emotionally wrenching experience for her each time she put a teenage girl on
the table).
Anyway, there is no evidence of causality between taking the pill and having sex. There IS evidence
of correlation between taking the pill and reporting sexual activity. Hence, the results of some studies are skewed
(and they usually include plenty of disclaimers regarding the availability of reliable sources of information).
CptKipling
11-22-2004, 09:17 AM
Sexual behavior
is the result of hormones influencing neuronal development; thats' how hormones organize and activate behavior.
JVK
Careful with the sweeping generalizations, JVK. Sexual feelings may be the result of hormonal
action, but actual sexual behavior in human is a combination of that and higher brain functions (inhibitions,
etc.).
Hormones may tell me that I am sexually aroused by a girl, but hormones don't make me pursue or
have sex with her.
Watcher
11-22-2004, 12:02 PM
of course higher thinking does get
in the way - ie rational thoughts. Its an interesting discussion but lets avoid flaming on this one - of course a
few more years of scienctific research is needed as this field is only in its embroynic stage.
jvkohl
11-22-2004, 05:15 PM
Careful with the
sweeping generalizations, JVK. Sexual feelings may be the result of hormonal action, but actual sexual
behavior in human is a combination of that and higher brain functions (inhibitions, etc.).
I agree
that I made a sweeping generalization; it was based on a reductionistic mammalian model. Arguably, without sexual
feelings, there would be no sexual behavior--and higher brain functions would have nothing to do with it. Just
because we have the ability to incorporate higher brain functions into our sexual behavior, does not mean that we do
so. I keep reverting back to the example of oral-genital sex. Higher brain functions or can the ultimate intimacy
be reduced to its mammalian origin? Sweeping generalizations are not always bad, and need not always be explained. I
was trying to make a point.
Hormones may tell me that I am sexually aroused by a girl,
but hormones don't make me pursue or have sex with her.
Hormones organize and activate sexual
behavior, which is a biological imperative for species survival. Without the organization you would neither pursue
nor have sex with a woman; alter the hormonal organization and your sexual response cycle is likely to be activated
by someone of the same sex. Eliminate the sense of smell (from birth) and you have no sexual interest because there
is no activation of hormones during development. Hormones don't force the issue; but without them sexual behavior
is not an issue.
JVK
Watcher
11-22-2004, 05:26 PM
hormones sitll are a big influence
on behaviour just look at women when they hit manopause hormones go all over the place and so does their behaviour
quite often they become horiner. So yes the case is there jkohl its just the overall influence that is in debate.
Its high but how high.
jvkohl
11-22-2004, 08:37 PM
Perhaps the best way to distinguish
between the cognitive and hormonal influences on behavior is to study other animals. Other animals do not appear to
think about their sexual behavior--it's all driven by hormonal differences/changes. It's always seemed somewhat
ridiculous to me when others posit that humans are not as hormonally driven as other mammals when it comes to sexual
behavior. Just because we can think, doesn't mean that our thought processes triumph over hormonal drives. More
likely is that we just think our thoughts are more important. Males and females still choose for reproductive
fitness, a function of pheromones and their ability to signal all biological aspects of reproductive fitness. So
what if women (or anyone) includes socioeconomic status or any other social factor? From an animalistic
perspective--such thoughts come into play long after we develop the ability to respond to the chemistry of
reproductive fitness.
JVK
Watcher
11-22-2004, 09:06 PM
Hence rich women still get
pregnant to poor men and then get the rich husbands to look after if they can get away with it. Yes good points
jkohl - DNA testing helps rich men see if their women have cheated etc.
But reproductive fitness most times
is a big factor and signalling is done via pheromone compositions and strenghts.
Felstorm
11-23-2004, 03:53 AM
Just because we can
think, doesn't mean that our thought processes triumph over hormonal drives.
Humans are animals first
and foremost. Scent, is by and far the biggest fetish of mammilian life. Without it countless species would not
reproduce.
Rational thinking overrides instinct most of the time, but all in all it is instinct that affects
us more than our rational thinking would like us to believe.
Sex is something you are, not something you do.
CptKipling
11-23-2004, 09:52 AM
Sexual behavior is the result
of the combined input of hormonal action (lust, hornyness...etc.) and thoughts.
Are you telling me that if you
see someone you are attracted to (via hormones) you follow instinct and manouver to have sex with her, regardless of
anything else? To be honest, models based on lower mammals tell us little to nothing about the interaction between
cognition and hormonal action with regards to sexual behavior. I don't need an experiment to tell me that, it is
plain for all to see.
A monk's life, anyone?
ismellgood
11-25-2004, 02:46 AM
Friendly1,
The fact that
many women taking the pill are not sexually intercourse active means an even higher intercourse rate among those
who are active, given the overall higher intercourse rates among pill users. The origin of my discussing this is the
spurious claim that pill use suppresses intercourse frequency.
Your point about the difference between reporting
sexual behavior and engaging in sexual behavior is of course true, but that is the case for almost any study that
involves self-reported behavior. The alternative of looking at other species (which tend to be more homronally
driven) presents many other problems.
Friendly1
11-26-2004, 12:08 AM
Friendly1,
The fact that many women taking the pill are not sexually intercourse active means an
even higher intercourse rate among those who are active, given the overall higher intercourse rates among pill
users....
As I said before, sex surveys all come with disclaimers. Percentage variations range up and
down based on how broad the surveys are.
And most of them, by the time they are published, are out of date
anyway. For some reason (or reasons), it seems they take 5-10 years (on average) to reach mainstream publication.
...Your point about the difference between reporting sexual behavior and engaging in sexual behavior is of
course true, but that is the case for almost any study that involves self-reported behavior. The alternative of
looking at other species (which tend to be more homronally driven) presents many other problems.
Psychology has never stopped seeking insights into human behavior through the study of other species.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.