Speculation on Married Women

[Whitehall]

Some of our experts here complain about getting hits from married women. I wonder if there\'s anything to that!

We discussed before that women have two conflicting goals in mate selection. First, they want the best set of genes from a \"Champion\" male. Second, they want a protective, contributing, \"stick-around\" male to help support the brood. The problem is that the Champion is going to get offered more mating opportunities and the woman is going to have competition for his resources. It\'s like W.C. Fields\' dilemma about being asked to join a club - \"I\'d join no club that would have the likes of me.\"

Statistically, maybe 10% of all births are concieved by someone other than the nominal husband, usually by a man of higher social status than the husband. (See the book \"Sperm Wars\").

I would posit that exogenous pheromones give a signal to married women that the wearer is just such a prospect. They may not act on it but it stimulates some similar behavior.

Does this make sense to those of you with more experience with pheromones? Comments welcome.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Makes quite a bit of sense. It also ties in with some of the study reviews evolutionary psychologist David Buss performed. One of the more noted experiments determined that women preferred the smell of men with immune systems dissimilar to their own -- probably due to genetic preferences that would result in healthier children. I suspect the pure pheromones give off a \"healthy\" signal, and maybe drown out the immune system signals that would indicate a similar immune system or less-than-perfect genes. A different test found that women preferred the smell of men with high levels of symmetry in their bodies (generally recognized as attractive and a healthy gene indicator.) Same issue -- the pure pheromones we use are probably consisten with health.

BTW, my understanding is that women were more likely to cheat on a mate with someone very attractive (higher gene quality), not social status -- they were more likely to marry higher social status. The goal being to have the good resources of a high-status male, and the good genes of the attractive male.

I can say from my limited experience, this is true. Since I live in the \"friend zone\" and give off \"trust me\" rays to most women, they share the most amazing secrets. In both cases I know of personally, the women got pregnant by someone outside their relationship with someone who was very, very attractive in a one-night-stand (heck, a few hour stand) situation. Neither of the men they are/were in relationships with knows this, and think the kid is theirs.

One of the women told me after I explained the above evolutionary psychology to her -- about cheating with really attractive guys while ovulating and getting pregnant. Her face just lit up, and she said \"that\'s what I did!\" It was like I had just handed her a decoder ring to why that happened.

Next question -- will using pheros make it less likely for a woman to cheat, since you\'re giving off the high-quality gene message by using them?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

This discussion is very interesting. My hits from married women far outweigh that of the non-married... My target group would consist of women closer to my age (23). My normal vibe would be that of friend (like Scientist) or don\'t touch, apparently, to people nearer my age.

I\'m younger than the married women I interact with...[like 7+ years] I suppose said women might be applying Whitehall\'s \'principle\' up there, because I\'m viewed as a young stud. In addition to that, I should be on-par with the rest of the adults they know, intelligence wise. So, I could be viewed as a sign of virility as well as brainpower images/icons/crazy.gif images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/laugh.gif Hmmm...

This is funny... But what, now, does it say about women closer to my age? images/icons/crazy.gif Food for another topic images/icons/wink.gif

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Technologist ]

[Whitehall]

So what criteria do women use in determing \"attractiveness\"?

There are two main issues, I think. First is the physical genetic expression, i.e. the symmetrical face, manly physique, broad shoulders, height. The second is behavioral with social status as the expression of how well the male has performed which is often even more important. The social position of males directly affects their testosterone levels (almost instanteously at times) and probably the resultant pheromone releases. Winners smell like pheromones!

I would then surmise that exogenous pheromones broadcast higher social status - they certainly don\'t make you LOOK more handsome! Look at some of the rock stars that are swarmed with groupies - admit it, Miick Jagger is one ugly guy! Yet, he\'s a winner. Another example is Henry Kissinger - butt ugly AND short but look at his wife.

So sometimes women fall for pretty boys with good genes and sometimes they go for alpha males. Of course, as guys we have some of both attributes to varying degrees. Pheromones help with the alpha male presentation.

So, if we want preferentially to attract unmarried females, what do we do? Do you want to sell yourself on \"hang-around provider\" or as \"slam-bam sperm donor.\" I\'d think the former since few intelligent unmarried females want to raise a child by themselves. Married women might be more open to the sperm donor since they\'ve got a guy on the hook already.

Am I making sense?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

In my research of the literature, the #1 signal of physical attractiveness is height. Buss goes into some detail about the order of items going into physical attraction.

However -- on the unmarried women front -- everything keeps coming down to resources and commitment, over and over again.

Buss\' studies showed that displaying fidelity and persistence in courtship were a couple of major signals to women in choosing long-term mates. Neither of these would be very interesting to a married woman, unless she wanted to \"trade up.\"

Another interesting note: for short-term sex partners, women\'s standards go up, while men lower theirs. For women, this usually means the man is exceptionally attractive, though having resources can work too (and prostitution is the most extreme case of this).

Note that \"attractive\" also means \"high mate value,\" and someone who is in high demand appears more attractive, while is why Mick Jagger can score in spite of being ugly. Of course money might have something to do with it, and I\'d bet if most of us could be exposed to a pool of 50 million women, we\'d turn up a few who\'d be willing to sleep with us as well!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hey this is an interesting discussion the ideas are right on though, one question once females know about pheromones, does that change their behaviour as you say sciencetists once they know what is happening and why they are that way, does their outlook change does it really have an impact on the way they behave etc. Just some more food for thought.

Also how does the pretty boy vs tall dark and handsome vs down to earth type work in this as well.

[Whitehall]

A couple of points - do high perceived resources in a man indicate high genetic quality? Since all societies are meritocracies to some extent, high social standing would also be an indicator of high genetic worth since they would be associated.

Also note that immune system quality is not an absolute but a relative in mating. OZ

[rjm]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Whitehall:

Statistically, maybe 10% of all births are concieved by someone other than the nominal husband, usually by a man of higher social status than the husband. (See the book \"Sperm Wars\").
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the kid has glowing red eyes, it\'s probably mine... images/icons/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hey i got me a clone randy how have you been mate good work with the breakdowns and you to oscar. Thanks a lot makes things clearer the andro 8.4 ??? is coming along great guns to and weve hit 500 forum club members to.

[Whitehall]

Ok, so this is a push, but it does tie in with my recent experience (\"And the Hits Just Kept Coming\").

At least one of the 5 women who showed obvious hits during my recent Saturday night foray was admittedly married. 3 of the other women were with male companions at the time, probably dates. Only 1 (Party Girl) was clearly single and available. I was clearly with a date myself.

[Whitehall]

Concerning complaints about interest from married women, I would venture that amongst sophisticates, one single women is good as 2.5 married women in available sexual activity. That is, one girlfriend is worth 2 or three married female lovers. The upside is that they don\'t usually require resources displays so they\'re cheaper dates - when they have the time and opportunity.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Well, do you think the high number of hits from married women also applies to girls with boyfriends? Something maybe more useful to us... :-).

Another theory is from something I read regarding the nature of -none and -nol. They have not been found to stimulate the VNO, so it\'s presumed that they affect behavior through the olfactory system as a conditioned response. The smell is associated with sex. Could it be that married women have a higher conditioned response because they\'ve had sex more times in their lives?!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

-none and -nol do NOT stimulate the VNO? I think the few actual studies of VNO activation were what validated -none and -nol as pheromones, since they _only_ activated the VNO.

That said, \'nol is specifically believed to be generated during intercourse (via sweating) and it\'s also believed that post-intercourse snuggling results in a female\'s highest exposure to \'nol (due to proximity.) I\'d bet that it does generate quite the association!

I wouldn\'t say that this is true in married women per se, but any woman with a large amount of sexual activity (monogamous or not.)

Going back to Buss\' meta-studies, one mate selection strategy he encountered over and over again amounted to theft of someone else\'s mate. There were several versions and reasons behind this:

There\'s the trading-up theory, which a woman with a mate is unconciously doing comparisons, and is likely to be attracted to someone better than their current mate (regardless of their romantic status). This would play into Pheromones as signals of a \"better mate.\" And result in the hits.

There\'s the pre-evaluation theory, that a woman is more interested in men that already have mates, because the men were clearly good enough to get that mate -- they were already judged by someone else as acceptable. Unmated (single) men, on the other hand, are judged as incapable of getting a mate. From an evolutionary point of view, given two pools of men, you\'re better off with the successful ones -- who are the ones with mates.

It\'s noted that many women respond to men much more agressively when they are competing with other women, presumably because the man is a scarce commodity, and if more women want him, he must be a high-value mate.

While I don\'t buy into this for ethical reasons, some dating advisers even suggest creating a mythical girlfriend that\'s better than your \"target\" in every way to stoke the flames. Many, many men report success with this tactic.

The second theory is indirectly related to pheromones. While pheros would have nothing to do with the high-demand perception, they do _cause_ this perception when they trigger a hit response from a woman, and other women notice. Ironically, this creates a snowball effect -- the first hit activates a woman\'s perception of value, which in turn may make her interested enough to hit on the man herself, increasing his percieved value even further.

I\'ve often wondered what woould happen if you went to bar after having prevoously arranged for three beautiful women you know to hit on you, exchange numbers, etc. My guess is you\'d do LOTS better with the other women who had seen this.

So...translating the theory into practice:
Whitehall shows up at a place with a woman and emitting an alpha-male pheromone signature. He\'s got two points going for him in the eyes (and VNOs) of other women, so he being percieved as a higher-value mate than Joe Single guy with no pheros. A few of them see him as higher-value than their current mates. One hits on him. Now he have three points, and thus has a even higher value, and now MORE women see him as better than the current mate. And hit...and so on.

My guess (and I\'m sure Whitehall will say) is that many of the women who he had hits from were in a position to notice other hits taking place. I think he already said that his date acted more favorably towards him that evening. It should have really had an impact on her value-perception of him.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

What studies demonstrated that -none and -nol activates the VNO? I have not come across any. A published study by some of the Realm researchers found no activation of the VNO by -nol or -none, but only by androstadienone. A more recent study found that found VNO activation by a number of other odarents, but -none and -nol were not tested.

Yeah, maybe sexual experience is a factor in the effectiveness of -none and -nol and not marriage per se. Have people found that pheromones are more effective with slutty girls? If the effect of none or nol is a conditioned response, it shouldn\'t work with virgin girls. :-).

[Whitehall]

Very insightful, Scientist! All the women were in clear sight of each other clustered around my table (except perhaps Party Girl but probably her too.) I was clearly more prosperous, better dressed, and taller than any of the other dates/husbands that I saw too. Plus I was pleasant and appreciative to all the women but encouraged and/or pursued none of them, creating a sense of both exclusivity and approachability.

I\'ve always and repeatedly reminded my date humbly that I was a high value kinda guy. She just got some colloborative evidence that night.

As to women cheating, \"Sperm Wars\" hints that social status is more important than physical attractiveness. Most women cheat with men of higher social status than their partner, according to the book. That status counts more is indicated in the research on photos of the same men dressed in suit/tie/Rolex vs. Burger King uniform. The same guys were \"cute\" in the suit but a clown in the uniform.

That\'s good news since it\'s easier to fake being upper crust than it is to appear a geneticly gifted sperm donor! Hope springs eternal.

Please provide a better reference to Buss\' work - I\'d like to look into it more.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Truth --

Without getting into too many details, I can confirm that pheros don\'t work very well on virgins. (Sample: n=1, so I could be very, very wrong.)

On second thought, though, I think this may be a selection issue -- they could be virgins due to a breakdown in reacting to pheromones, a strong moral ethic, etc. I think it\'s safe to say a number of factors can override pheromones. I would imagine age is an issue as well.

[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: Scientist ]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Whitehall -- Thanks. Nice to know I\'m not theorizing out of my ass. Well, actually I am, but it\'s nice to know I\'m right. images/icons/laugh.gif

I do the same \"high value\" thing with the woman I date, but it goes nowhere. I\'m increasingly confused as to why she goes out with me, since she acts so unattracted and is obviously persuing other men and hiding it from me.

My takeaway from this behaviour is that nothing is believed until there\'s outside confirmation, your words are useless, she\'s been lied to by most men in her life and if\'s she smart she won\'t believe anything until others confirm it. As an example, I\'m considered quite wealthy, drive a porche, dress well, etc -- and get ignored. What\'s fascinating is this weekend a friend\'s husband commented on how well I was dressed in front of her, and she actually commented later that she was confused because I always dressed that way and what I was wearing was \"nothing special.\" I could tell she was re-evaluating things due to outside comments, though. Educational.

I\'m still a bit confused on the status/looks equation. The studies I\'ve seen definitely show that in seeking a mate, status outscores looks by leaps and bounds, but in seeking a one-time fling, looks standards go up considerably.

Anyway, David M. Buss -- he\'s got a couple books, The Evolution of Desire being the main one. He had a great website, but it appears to be off-line.

Try this one, though:
http://www2.ebham.ac.uk/pkilcoyne/ep/male_and_female.htm (\"http://www2.ebham.ac.uk/pkilcoyne/ep/male_and_female.htm\")

It\'s got a fair number of links and a FAQ on the book.

Also, drop \"Evolutionary Psychology\" into google and lots of good stuff comes up. As I\'ve mentioned before, I\'ve been using this as a guide for changing my \"signals\" to try and up my chances. It works, slowly, but it works.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Truth --

I\'m getting burned out on web references, but a google search on \"Vomeronasal and androstenol\" (try this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vomeronasal+androstenol (\"http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vomeronasal+androstenol\") ) which should turn up a few.

Note that Erox claims to have done a VNO study which found \'none and \'nol weren\'t triggers (see http://www.erox.com/SixthSense/StoryOne.html (\"http://www.erox.com/SixthSense/StoryOne.html\") ) but I know I\'ve seen studies that show otherwise. Erox would have an interest in only their special brand of pheromone activating the VNO, wouldn\'t they?

I\'d love to give you an exact cite, but I\'ve read so many of these things I can\'t keep them all straight in my mind anymore.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Its human nature nothing is certain so lets stop trying to be certain the thing is everyone has a different neural wiring which means a vast difference in responses what about the \'10\' woman who only wanted to have sex with and date dwarfs. That was considered weird but that was obviously her experiences and the way she was put together mentally. Mostly its standard but there are always exceptions to the rule. Thats why no two of us are the same. Why a minority of women will make a move on a guy where most wont.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Well, every site says that none and nol are pheromones, and pheromones act through the VNO. However, I haven\'t seen any studies that demonstrated their direct effect on the VNO. All the studies I\'ve seen have been behavioral.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

There are several (and only several) studies that measure the electrical activity of the nerves from the VNO -- the Erox-funded study is one of them.

I\'m sure the lack of studies to due to the cost and relative invasiveness of sticking electrical probes into/near the VNO.

The one I remember was done at a northeastern university. Maybe Pennsylvania.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

What about some other imaging techniques.

MRI or some other form of brain imagery. Its an idea which i wonder if anyone has followed up. Remember mainstream science has yet to pick this up. Also the bible belt seems to have funding over science labs so this sort of thing is relunctant to be discussed.

Mycroft you touched on this somewhere along the line i think. The lack of uptake but that is also to our advantage in the fact no one well few people know about this stuff yet.