No clear pattern....

[Icehawk]

Why do some

people seem to have great results with pretty much anything they put on where others appear impervious to

attraction? Good body hygene vs stinky vs natural? Congruency? The guy smells like an alpha or something like it but

looks or acts NOTHING like it vs congruent confident male? And what about the idea of younger guys producing way

more none than the older men should use less of it? Since the average application is like ~x1000 the natural bodys

level how would they notice a younger male (say .0010 none)vs older (.0007) ? And how big is that difference anyway?

That dosent seem to add up. My idea is maybe incongruency in the comparative levels of mones throws them off. J Kohl

posted about different ratios of mones in gay vs straight men. I have, personally on several occasions been able to

tell by smell straight vs gay vs bi males. Intersting thing was I could CLEARLY tell even the gay from bisexual...

Is that teh kind of chemical congruency were striving for? Youre trying to register clearly on the nosedar, not some

confusing blob of messages as that could in fact simply jam the recipient.

[TRock]

i think the guys that get hits

here do other things besides just wearing -mones. grooming and dressing good comes to mind. it retarded how many

guys don't know how to dress or know how to keep themselves well groomed.

[bjf]

Why do some people

seem to have great results with pretty much anything they put on where others appear impervious to attraction? Good

body hygene vs stinky vs natural? Congruency? The guy smells like an alpha or something like it but looks or acts

NOTHING like it vs congruent confident male? And what about the idea of younger guys producing way more none than

the older men should use less of it? Since the average application is like ~x1000 the natural bodys level how would

they notice a younger male (say .0010 none)vs older (.0007) ? And how big is that difference anyway? That dosent

seem to add up. My idea is maybe incongruency in the comparative levels of mones throws them off. J Kohl posted

about different ratios of mones in gay vs straight men. I have, personally on several occasions been able to tell by

smell straight vs gay vs bi males. Intersting thing was I could CLEARLY tell even the gay from bisexual... Is that

teh kind of chemical congruency were striving for? Youre trying to register clearly on the nosedar, not some

confusing blob of messages as that could in fact simply jam the recipient.

Good post. A great

topic.

[Silcat]

I think most of the guys with

huge hit lists are guys who already get hits and know their way with the ladies, and some might already be

attractive. They use mones as a "coupe de grace" the cherie on top of the cake, not even they say it all comes to

mones, or that mones will do all the work...

[surfs_up]

In my young and lustful years, that was long, long ago when Jimmy Carter was president....

horrifying thought, I'm still here running on about 1/2 of a testicle... wheeeeeze... some people knew how to dress

well even on a limited budget, they would go cruise the used clothing stores and eventually come out looking like a

million bucks. Other people would spend loads of money and look out of place, uncooordinated, not attractive, not

physically present... they weren't framing themselves right. Being well dressed (knowing which colors, which color

combinations, patterns, clothing fit) had a great impact on their social lives. The most socially astute of them

knew how to dress just a little bit better than everybody else without creating the impression that they were being

too competetive or flashy.... flashy, garish, loud, over the top... all of those screamed NEEDY LOSER or CLUELESS

COKEHEAD.... the look that worked was a casual confidence with a little twist of tightness and control... the

message was "I know how this game is played, I'm aware of the social cues involved and I'm conscious of the things

going on around me"... you had to be aware that the strong saturated colors that look excellent on a really dark

skinned black man completely blow away a light complexioned englishman, you must carefully match some of your

clothes to the color of your eyes because the eyes are very erotic, the patterns of your clothes must match your

body type.... and what you are wearing must suggest the identity you are trying to project....

Have some free

time with your DVD player ? Rent the movie
Roger Dodger (2002) for a few good tips about what not to do...

[surfs_up]

also recommend Igby Goes Down (2002) where Jeff Goldblum nails the character of the perfectly dressed

male sleazeball.

[DrSmellThis]

Why do some people seem to have great results with pretty much anything they put on where others

appear impervious to attraction? Good body hygene vs stinky vs natural? Congruency? The guy smells like an alpha or

something like it but looks or acts NOTHING like it vs congruent confident male? And what about the idea of younger

guys producing way more none than the older men should use less of it? Since the average application is like ~x1000

the natural bodys level how would they notice a younger male (say .0010 none)vs older (.0007) ? And how big is that

difference anyway? That dosent seem to add up. My idea is maybe incongruency in the comparative levels of mones

throws them off. J Kohl posted about different ratios of mones in gay vs straight men. I have, personally on several

occasions been able to tell by smell straight vs gay vs bi males. Intersting thing was I could CLEARLY tell even the

gay from bisexual... Is that teh kind of chemical congruency were striving for? Youre trying to register clearly on

the nosedar, not some confusing blob of messages as that could in fact simply jam the recipient.I do believe

the overall message you are sending is important.

My way of translating that into application strategies is to

learn what each chemical (or multimone product like Edge or Chikara) does, and then think about projecting those

qualities how I want to.

I use a variety of products (especially single -mone products) to cover all my bases

and try to reach a sort of "virtual body wisdom", knowing my body also projects various -mone signatures based on

what I'm feeling, wanting and thinking (including, for example, situations of lust or fear), and what physical

issues I might be having. You imitate what your body does in all its wisdom. This gives me maximum, flexible

capabilities.

Over time, through interacting with your social environment, you will learn to project the

qualities you should project, just like socialization teaches you to project certain social qualities and not

others. You become sort of "socialized" in your -mone use.

I always want my natural mones to be as much of the

effect as possible -- therefore attracting the women I should attract and repelling the ones I have no natural

chemistry with. This I accomplish through natural hygiene habits (see "not bathing for a week" thread).



So your post brings up interesting and valid issues which I don't have all the answers to. But I think this kind

of approach circumvents the problems nonetheless. For instance if a young man is projecting too much hostility, he

will eventually be socialized (conditioned by his social environment) to project less; just as he will tend

to get, say, negative reactions from "too much" -none. Over time he will decrease his use of that chemical.

You

do also have to have good relationships with women in general (I posted on this a few days ago too), and be able to

seduce a woman when the opportunity presents itself. I developed these skills over the years on my own.



Dressing well within what you are trying to project is important. You can do this even with a very casual look, if

you are attentive to all the aesthetic elements.

[Gegogi]

Dressing well within what

you are trying to project is important. You can do this even with a very casual look, if you are attentive to all

the aesthetic elements.

I agree, dressing well but appropriately is a biggie for sucess, not just

with women but with all interactions social and business. However, how you carry yourself, speak and interact is

equally important. I have a slick dressing and nice looking friend that scares women away the moment he speaks. His

vocabulary consists mainly of curse words, making him appear uneducated, low class and crude. He thinks talkin

ghetto is macho and cool (he's actually a middle class white dude). A stained set of overalls would better fit his

persona than Calvin Klein. Now he gets plenty of slutty women but could do a lot better.

[Sir Louis]

i think the guys

that get hits here do other things besides just wearing -mones. grooming and dressing good comes to mind. it

retarded how many guys don't know how to dress or know how to keep themselves well groomed. It is retarded

how many guys think how they dress or how to keep themselves well groomed actually matters. This is understandable,

since to a male, a provocatively dressed woman generates immediate romantic interest, and they also observe

attractive females swooning over "hot guys". Women are attracted and intrigued by social status or financial

independence, or simply social dominance. Personal hygiene or a clean appearence are secondary considerations. Jay

Z and Beyonce are a good example.

Even, Gegogi, being a music professor, probably notices this.

[BIONIC MAN]

desmond morris did some shows

for tv , showing how sexes are attracted. its scientifically proven women are attracted to neanderthal looking men

during her time of the month. women want to be married to a pie face smooth looking man though. it could be there

lesbian fantasies coming through . seeing smoothness being feminine and erstrogen related. mr.olympia type men are

not attractive to women, but swim suit guys like brad pitt is what they want. when i was 18- 140 pounds with abs

women 16 to 50 were after me. dressing nice makes women think you have money which is very attractive to them. mone

should be used for a target like getting that single girl who seems to just want to be friends or respect from

people who see you as punk. and women have different tastes, like black headed women like blonde,brown,red headed

guys. my wife being blonde and pale skinned has made the comment about men like skinned being ugly. im brown headed

with skin that tans easier than hers with red and black body hair which seems attractive to her. opposites attract

in the mating game, if your black headed -reds,blondes,browns will be more attracted to you. now if your gray die

your hair different than your target like blonde looking youthful, most brown headed people were blonde as kids. now

if your asian,black shaving your head seems to be in getting you looks from all women and using lots of nol mones

will get them more friendly. and actually dressing like a pirate one gold earring and puffy frilly long sleeve

shirts with upper chest exposed with gold neck chain and pendant. tight pants with dress boots is a winner.:think:

we need a volunteer:run: :run:

[bjf]

The BEST MONE OF THEM ALL: The

SUIT

But I do agree that you guys all overrated dressing. It can hurt you, but won't help you all that

much unless you are really original and talented with it.

[TRock]

It is retarded

how many guys think how they dress or how to keep themselves well groomed actually matters. This is understandable,

since to a male, a provocatively dressed woman generates immediate romantic interest, and they also observe

attractive females swooning over "hot guys". Women are attracted and intrigued by social status or financial

independence, or simply social dominance. Personal hygiene or a clean appearence are secondary considerations. Jay Z

and Beyonce are a good example.

Even, Gegogi, being a music professor, probably notices this.



being dress good is only one area that you need to do well. women liked how you dress to how your personality is.

if you leave the house looking like trash, do you think she is going to see you as a guy who has standards and takes

care of himself? i'm not saying looking good is all to the equation but it is a factor. btw jay-z is the trend

setter when it comes to clothing in hip hop. the pretty boy will always beat out the ungroomed, poorly dressed guy

given the same skill set.

[surfs_up]

Dressing in the manner of television people is not the same as well dressed... those

identities are created for maximum visual projection from a smaller than life screen... the secret is to look

natural in a high quality way. The same goes for good manners, you don't want to come off as over scripted, over

controlled, with a long list of memorized lines or so neurotically hung up on the other's evaluation of you that

you are paralysed with self consciousness, however you better not be so indifferent to other's perceptions and full

of your own specialness that you disgust and bore other people.
Think about it this way: the secret of the

game is interest, curiosity. When someone else in interesting (for more than thirty seconds, that is) what makes

them interesting ? What makes you want to talk to them, get into their thoughts, find out what they've learned from

living ? If someone sidles up to you at a bar and they're wearing a way too tight cheezy green polyester body shirt

and overjuiced hair with a grooming product that looks like half dried snot and they're bellowing about how all the

women there are stuck up bitches you stick around for what ? 5 seconds max ? These poor sods don't get it, they're

social anti-matter, and they'll insist that those who don't appreciate their fine inner selves, "that's their

problem".....obviously such a person doesn't invite curiosity. Now, take the same scenario and imagine a well put

together, carefully dressed person who can discuss three or four topics in some detail, who the women are casting

glances at instead of the other way around, someone who radiates a self confidence and quiet authority, would you

care to be seen in the company of this person ? Would you like to be identified in other's minds with this person ?

Would you feel better about yourself being accepted in the company of this person ?

[bjf]

When everyone's well dressed though,

all you are is another schnuck. So I guess it matters how everyone else is dressed, too.

[surfs_up]

the

corporate crowd doesn't allow too much deviation, they're wild hippies compared to the investment bankers who are

so damned uptight they express their individuality with their cufflinks and that's about as far as they'll stick

their necks out. One of business textbooks used to refer to the edge as the "unique selling proposition", what can

you hone sharper than anyone else? It takes a rare mix of imagination, some cojones and a balancing factor of social

sensitivity to pull this thing off right. The geniuses have an intuition, a feel for the room, the emotional

temperature of things.... maybe you saw Clint Eastwood interviewed by James Lipton on The Actor's Studio ? Lipton

asks Eastwood about his innovative use of silence, and Eastwood talks about the importance of listening, he thought

that high schools should teach the art of listening, how one becomes aware of another person. Then there were

Eastwood clones in the '70s affecting his stinky little cigars or James Dean clones minus J.D's vulnerability and

Hip Hop clones today.

[Holmes]

The geniuses

have an intuition, a feel for the room, the emotional temperature of things.... maybe you saw Clint Eastwood

interviewed by James Lipton on The Actor's Studio ? Lipton asks Eastwood about his innovative use of silence, and

Eastwood talks about the importance of listening, he thought that high schools should teach the art of listening,

how one becomes aware of another person. Then there were Eastwood clones in the '70s affecting his stinky little

cigars or James Dean clones minus J.D's vulnerability and Hip Hop clones today.

I was just thinking

about that interview, while listening to another with Alec Baldwin. And the sentiments were the same: Listen

and react. Very simple. Clutch that script too tightly and you'll never be effective at either of the above.

You'll never be able to just let things evolve, and, ultimately, you'll come off as cold and phony.

Same

holds true in any social situation.

[Riley]

And what about the

idea of younger guys producing way more none than the older men should use less of it? Since the average application

is like ~x1000 the natural bodys level how would they notice a younger male (say .0010 none)vs older (.0007) ? And

how big is that difference anyway? That dosent seem to add up. My idea is maybe incongruency in the comparative

levels of mones throws them off.

I've also been thinking something along those lines does not add

up-- I've seen posts that say by wearing mones we are giving off a signature hundreds of (or a thousand) times

stronger than our normal signature... but if that were true, a person's natural signature should not really matter

in determining how much to wear before OD... it would be the same for everyone. For example, say the average dose

for a 'none wearer is .03mg. That would mean that a person's natural signature would be, say, between .00001mg

and .00005mg (allowing for one person to have up to 5x stronger natural emission than another). Wear the mones, and

you have a range of .03001mg to .03005mg... a difference hardly worth mentioning. The only conclusion I can draw is

that the 'mones we wear are NOT hundreds or thousands of times stronger than our natural scent, as is commonly

held, but more along the lines of several times as strong (single-digits here).

As for the topic of

clothing, I would say that you need to wear what shows you off the best... something I don't really do myself. I

like to wear loose-fitting shirts, but every time a woman I am with sees me topless for the first time, although she

is pleasantly suprised, she complains that I should wear shirts that show off my body better, as she did not realize

how I looked underneath the shirt ahead of time.

I also agree with what has been already said, too. This was

just my $.02 addition.


Riley

[bjf]

Actually, I used to think the same

thing, but I don't think the differences in our total output and the levels we wear are that different (1000x). My

guess is that the products are that much stronger for a drop of it compared to a drop of our own sweat, but not all

the mones on our skin.

I am sure others are more familiar with the actual numbers of our own total

levels.


"The geniuses have an intuition, a feel for the room, the emotional temperature of things....

"

this struck me too holmes. He always gives great advice.

[Friendly1]

I think most of

the guys with huge hit lists are guys who already get hits and know their way with the ladies, and some might

already be attractive. They use mones as a "coupe de grace" the cherie on top of the cake, not even they say it all

comes to mones, or that mones will do all the work...
I used to get hits before I used the pheromones, but

not on the scale I get them now.

And there are plenty of days where nothing seems to happen. It depends on who

you meet, what you do, and what you notice.

Pheromones can help increase your success, but your own confidence

is necessary regardless of what you do. You have to be confident in the belief that, if you don't meet anyone

today, you will tomorrow.

[CptKipling]

I am sure others are

more familiar with the actual numbers of our own total levels.
I did some forum research on this ages ago

(before the forum change so my links don't work), here is what I copy/pasted (sorry for the lack of coherence):



Here's a range of none for tested subjects, distributed on the skin of their armpit

(not the secretion concentration, but what's actually found on the skin):



.0033-.0077 micrograms -none/sq in (from my personal survey of the literature)



Notice that is micrograms, not milligrams.

If you work out one

spray of Andro4.2 at 0.13 milligrams/spray, covering about 10 sq in (from my experiments), you'll see that one

spray applies hundreds of times the amount of none to your skin that you would find in the armpit of the most alpha

male. Plus you are applying the product to a location more open than the armpit, most likely.



Let's get off this thing about some guys produce enough -none. The biggest none-producer I

could find (.0077microgram/sq in armpit) is producing HUNDREDS of times LESS none than we apply with one spray of

any none product. And we don't think one spray is an overdose, do we?




Thanks for catching that error - I meant to say ml instead of mg there. Let

me write it all out so you can verify:

Andr04.2 0.14 mg/ml
Sprays 0.13 ml/spray
1

spray A4.2 gives (.13)(.14)= 0.018 mg/spray

I sprayed the bottle on a piece of paper and

got about 10 sq inch wet coverage for one spray, so one spray A4.2 delivers:



(0.018mg/spray)/(10 sq in)= 0.0018 mg/sq in none distributed on the sprayed surface
OR,

in micrograms, 1.8 mug/sq in

My number for none naturally distributed on male underarm skin

is 0.007 mug/sq in (max), so divide to get the ratio of phero product vs. natural occurence:



1.8/0.007 = 257 times the natural distributed none of the male

underarm


----------------------------------------------------




I sat in a medical library one day and found three references to none distributed on the underarm skin in test

subjects. I was more interested in that than in the gland secretion concentration, which we often see posted here -

I wanted to know what is actually presented by the human skin, not about the mechanism of its generation. Anyway, I

didn't note the sources since I don't intend to research this as a hobby. When the numbers looked consistent

across three studies I just compiled them, converted them all to same units and pressed on. I use these numbers -

you may want to verify if you care enough about it. I just searched under 'androstenone' and 'axillary'.


A couple studies showed nol much more variable, numbers like 0.002-0.045 mug/sq in.



If you find better numbers post em...I'm really just interested in order of magnitude info

once I figured out how much these applied products exceed anything ever generated in the natural

condition.

IRISH



----------------------------------------------------




The concentrations of five 16-androstene steroids were determined, by a GC-MS

method, in freshly-produced apocrine sweat (adrenaline-induced), in 8 men and 2 women. The ranges of concentrations

(nmol/microliter) in
apocrine sweat were: 5 alpha-androst-16-en-3-one (5 alpha-A), 0.1-2.0 and

4,16-androstadien-3-one
(androstadienone), 0-1.9, 5,16-Androstadien-3 beta-ol (androstadienol) was also found in 5

of the subjects (range
0.05-1.05). 5 alpha-Androst-16-en-3 alpha- or 3 beta-ols [3 alpha (beta)-androstenols] were

only found in small
amounts (< 0.1 nmol/microliters) in a few subjects.




The amounts here are tiny, but the volumes are different

than what we use with synthetic pheromones. 2 nmol/microliter [thanks truth!] of androstenone

(5alpha-androst-16-en-3-one) is about 0.0014%. To compare, PI has 0.05% -none and APC has 0.005%


Of course, we only use a drop or two of PI (about 100 microliters), while we sweat

more profusely. The same amount of -none as 100 microliters of PI would be in about 3.5 ml of sweat. That's a lot

of sweat for me, unless I'm exercising.

I don't know much about the other compounds

mentioned in the study, but they are probably metabolites of -none. From what I've read here, they're not in any

of the pheromone products.

This study may not have much to do with sexual arousal. Notice

that the sweat they measured was produced with adrenaline. That means that it was "fear" sweat, which is usually

stinky stuff. Personally, I smell different when I'm afraid vs. exercising vs. aroused.



So, I don't really see how to translate this study to 'mones from bottles.



Hope this helps,
Laney
(biochemist but NOT sterol expert)





------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, truth, I know you're joking about getting pheros from

elsewhere, but...

I wonder if phero effectiveness could also be due to the fact that

they let you "relocate" your armpits and groin to more interesting locations. I put my pheros in the hair, behind

the ears/neck, and wrists. Not exactly places you'd expect to find pubic hair. (Well, at least my own pubic hair. )



BTW, updating my math for the MW of andro___ puts it at .29mg/ml. Now this is based on me

taking the middle of the range (1) of 0-2 nmol/microliter. As I said before, I'd like to know what the distribution

was. If 90% of the test subjects were clocking in at 0.1 nmol/microliter, then our store-bought pheros are much more

potent that "average" sweat.

In reading the abstract, a couple points:
Androstenols were

present in very small amounts (<0.1 nmol/microliter) so your typical androstenol product here is probably running

about one or two orders of magnitude more potency -- or maybe more, read on.

The cited

potencies I did the math on were for apocrine sweat. It's clear that there's WAY more pheros here than in axillary

skin samples. Note that the 'nol levels in axillary skin were higher than in apocrine sweat for some of the

subjects, and the concentration was measured in picomol -- so the 'nol pheros sold here are ~ 10,000 to 100,000

times stronger than typical sweat from either apocrine or non-apocrine glands!

Also note

that the androstenone concentrations for non-induced sweating (aka everyday skin) were 2.5 picomol per cm2.



Now, this gets interesting...

2.5E-12 pmol/cm2 * 20000 cm2 = 5E-8

pmol
where 20000 cm2 = surface area of the body.
5E-8 * 290 g/mol = .0000154g, or
.0145 mg of 'none on your

body.

Now, I didn't make ANY of this math up, just following the numbers. What's the

magic dose I found from reviewing the hits here?

0.02mg, which, given the margin of error,

is pretty damn close to the above figure.

I wonder if we're just washing our own pheros

down the drain when we shower, then adding them back? In any case, it looks like the 'none figure is 0.015 mg, and

we're adding another 0.015, becoming twice the man, so to speak. Or maybe just a man who hasn't showered.



The mind boggles.

[bjf]

That's what I was saying (if i read

this right)....the concentration or per square inch is completely different, but the total about of none that

you have on your entire body is not completely different than the total level of synthetic we are

applying.

Is this right or am I reading this wrong?

[DrSmellThis]

Good question, bjf. I used to

wonder about that too.

[bjf]

I don't think the chicks give a damn

about per sqare inch....seems pretty irrelavent

[CptKipling]

That last post is very

interesting, but I wouldn't bank on it being accurate. You have to take into account the variation of the

concentration of pheromones on different areas of the body (assuming a constant distribution over the whole surface

of our skin is fairly crude).

But yeah I would say you are basically right (without researching the numbers

properly though). My best guess at this stage is that total amounts of pheromones on our bodies are nearly

comparable to what we apply (maybe 1 order of magnatude out), but concentration is way less and the actual pheromone

dispersal even less.

[Icehawk]

Ok so finally some numbers to go

on. It would make sense that you would not be humanly possible to have something like .05mg on none one your body as

then your representing something like 4 arnolds toghether. At this point it becomes unnatural and you smell like a

freak (subconciously probably/counciously u smell like piss, also bad) But what you're trying to project is the

best of your species, not some abnormality. Of course clothes and presonality matter, as youre trying ot be

congruent here, not some fake, which once again exibits abnormality/insecurity.

[BIONIC MAN]

Ok so finally

some numbers to go on. It would make sense that you would not be humanly possible to have something like .05mg on

none one your body as then your representing something like 4 arnolds toghether. At this point it becomes unnatural

and you smell like a freak (subconciously probably/counciously u smell like piss, also bad) But what you're trying

to project is the best of your species, not some abnormality. Of course clothes and presonality matter, as youre

trying ot be congruent here, not some fake, which once again exibits abnormality/insecurity. thats

where we have to find a dose that makes us seem more masculine but not overbearing like a testosterone raging wife

beater:whip:

[a.k.a.]

Why do some people

seem to have great results with pretty much anything they put on where others appear impervious to attraction?


There are lots of tricks you can pick up with experience, but I bet the biggest factor (especially

for beginners) is fitness.
Guys that exercise regularly look better, feel better, carry less stress, exude more

natural confidence, have better skin, produce more natural testosterone and probably have a pretty decent pheromone

signature to begin with.

[Riley]

That last post

is very interesting, but I wouldn't bank on it being accurate. You have to take into account the variation

of the concentration of pheromones on different areas of the body (assuming a constant distribution over the whole

surface of our skin is fairly crude).

But yeah I would say you are basically right (without researching the

numbers properly though). My best guess at this stage is that total amounts of pheromones on our bodies are nearly

comparable to what we apply (maybe 1 order of magnatude out), but concentration is way less and the actual pheromone

dispersal even less.


That's basically what I was saying... the amount we are applying has to be

somewhat comparable to the amount people give off naturally, or the risk of OD would not vary so much from person to

person.

Thanks for repeating it in a way that was easier to understand than what I was

saying.


Riley

[CptKipling]

I don't think the

chicks give a damn about per sqare inch....seems pretty irrelaventThat is important, that affects the

concentration and amount of pheromones that reach the target.

Incidentally, this is why I have always diluted

mixes quite heavily. Same amount of pheromones over a larger surface area is more natural.

[surfs_up]

I think this is a point that was lost along the way... we're speaking of one group of known

chemical messengers, the 16-androstenes, as if they're the only substances that have important signaling functions.

(leaving the short chain fatty acid copulins aside)... however, we have some limited information about MHC proteins,

class I and II that are known to bind short peptide chains, "MHC class I molecules bind smailer antigenic peptides,

8-10 amino acid residues in length"... so the MHC molecules are much too big for evaporation, but it is quite

probably that short chain residues on the skin can have significant information value about what one is "looking

for" in a mate... the third, I believe highly important, almost unknown area are repulsion pheromones. These have

been well documented in insects. An ant painted with "dead ant pheromone" will be repeated turned on his back by a

group of worker ants and dumped at a safe distance from the nest, whereupon the bewildered worker ant will turn over

and head home to do his job, only to be rolled over once again and dropped off at the town dump. It does make

evolutionary sense to signal ill health to lessen contagion in a tribal group. Human schizophrenics, for example,

can have an apalling body odor (once you've smelled this you'll never forget it) that makes you want to get away

from them. When I've had a high fever my body odor has a foul reek that doesn't smell anything like my tee shirts

after a hard workout. High adrenaline will produce an unusual, acrid, rancid harsh odor. If we've been capable of

evolving sophisticated signaling mechanisms that indicate approachability, group solidarity, fertility, high

communication states, it seems equally logical that we have evolved signals that express health risks, mental

instability, avoidance. These may in fact be coupled with depression, so that a depressed person may produce an

avoidant messenger signal, that further isolates the depressed person, increasing the signal, in a vicious cycle.

Depression is known to correlate with lowered immune responses. It would seem reasonable that there is a complex

interplay between the immune system, hormonal conversions, emotional state, and social status, and especially today

with an excess of processed foods, diet where fats and fatty acids have been extensively chemically altered.

[bjf]

yea, it affects it, but all that

matters is the amount of pheromones that reach the target. Isn't the total pheromone amount far more correlated

with that than the amount per sq inch?

[CptKipling]

Yes, but there are other

factors to consider such as the location (pits can be quite sheltered) of the pheromones.

I don't fully

understand why lower concentrations are sometimes better, but I can't rule it out.

[bjf]

Well, te and npa work very

differently, and it seems as if the edge to npa ratio of 1:5 (or 4?) is false when it comes to practical use.

Amounts that work for NPA don't translate to five times that of TE, and I figured it had to do with the fact that

perhaps TE evaporates more plentifully? Or the absorbtion into the skin is greater with npa?

I hear you on

the pits thing, yes alot of out mones are under the clothes. Problem is, a lot of people apply synthetics is

sheltered locations, so I didn't bring that into the debate.


Great post Surfs_Up. I tried to figure out

if MHC immunotype stuff could be used to our advantage, ie synthetics, but it did not seem like it could happen like

it did with pheromones.

[CptKipling]

No, we can't work with MHC

pheromones, yet. Until someone does some serious work documenting what those chemicals are and what they

mean, we don't know if it is even possible.


RE dispersal rates: natural pheromones would have a pretty low

evapouration rate due to their location. This is offset by the large surface area that they cover (pit hairs), and

by the additional body heat in those areas. Increased dispersal would happen during excitement or any activity that

causes sweating, due to the extra dilution and because various compounds would be carried with the water

molecules as they evapourate.

TE will have a higher dispersal rate per mg of pheromones than NPA, purely due to

the concentration.

[bjf]

The MHC stuff is very

complex....there's 100s of them or something, and none of them will necssarily do anything. It depends the targets

own immunotype and where they want opposite or similar, and whether you already have that.

I don't think it

would even worth be pursuing. Just fake an accent or something.

[OCP]

desmond morris did

some shows for tv , showing how sexes are attracted. its scientifically proven women are attracted to neanderthal

looking men during her time of the month. women want to be married to a pie face smooth looking man though. it could

be there lesbian fantasies coming through . seeing smoothness being feminine and erstrogen related.



Or it could be that before they "settle down" they want the neanderthal because he reaks of sex and

a good time. But when they decide to settle down for a family they are looking for security and stability and the

pie faced smooth looking man is more apt to give them what they want at that time.

Although there is no

doubt in my mind that every woman in the world has secret desires to be with other women even if they are

heterosexual. I have been with a woman who only wanted to watch women with women porn, but she had never been with

another woman, but the thought of it sure got her hot. (so she claimed).

[DrSmellThis]

...good thinking, as usual, surf's up. You are thinking about the big

picture, which is exactly what I am always trying to get people to do.

To put it mildly, just because the

scientific knowledge so far is in a very limited area -- a few "certain" things about 16-androstenes and a

few short chain fatty acids -- doesn't mean we should see that area as if 's the whole picture, just because we

prefer to feel or act certain all the time. To put it less mildly, that would be very illogical and stupid of us.

Yet there are "certain" (to play with the two meanings of the word) people, even some in the field, who seem to do

just that. The insecure desire for certainty is its own foolishness.

There are other ways to feel confident in

our ever tentative beliefs as humans. This is the function of wisdom for scientists.

We need to use the

collective knowledge of the way nature generally works as the base of information, and then integrate the specific

area with the research into that knowledge base or way of thinking. That tells us how to best interpret the

research, when we have multiple ways to interpret it -- as we always do. Here our confidence comes from looking more

deeply at an ever bigger picture and seeing the consistency of the story nature is telling.

The big picture of

the way nature works (e.g., Some marine mammals use a sort of sonar to detect specific disease in other mammals.)

suggests that every emotion has a smell, and perhaps even every thought, and every state of health.

Of

course, there is nothing in the research to contradict this, and plenty to support it; especially when you count the

traditional teachings of aromatherapy. It would be the height of arrogance to think we have mentally "taken the

measure" of nature's ability to communicate within and among itself through olfaction, broadly defined -- or

through airborne chemicals in general.

What we already think of as "pheromones" are just a small piece of a

bigger picture. Smells and airborne chemicals in general are perhaps the most reliable, flexible and effective way

for nature to communicate within itself.

It would make sense to say that flowers emit pheromones for

bees, for example. The bee's interaction with the flower is just as essential of a part of their reproduction

as any animal to animal interaction.

Why not see the commonality in it all, and adjust our thinking

accordingly?

So we need to accept our measure of uncertainty and just think outside the box as surf's up is

doing.

[surfs_up]

the way I'm thinking about it at the present is that the 16-androstenes and similar

structures activate a social axis, or a couple of closely related axes that evolved from collective survival

imperatives, and revulsion or splitting apart messengers (these aren't necessarily MHC family) did as

well...

In "nature", or very primitive conditions humans are known for disconnecting from weak, ill, or

dysfunctional tribal members, as if they have received something that allows them to sever an emotional connection.

It is also well documented that when tribal groups grow large and cannot forage the same region without depleting

it, they will spontaneously divide the group roughly into halves and forage or hunt different terrain.

These

behaviors evolved from primates that lacked speech, we may assume that chemical messengers were a major

communication channel.

I would guess that a modern human could be producing both pro-social 16-androstenes

and anti-social pheromones simultaneously, which could explain non linear or paradoxical results in test subjects.

Modern lifestyle stresses combined with abnormal modern diets may trigger the production of anti-mones. Someone who

is socially successful may produce a normal amount of androstenes but a lower quantity of anti-mone. Anti-mones may

be related to putrefaction products. Have you noticed how powerfully aversional the scent of putrefying flesh is ?

We are hard wired to get away as quickly as we possibly can.

[bjf]

So would a metabolite of cortisol be

an "anti-mone"?

My belief is that generally it isn't different chemicals that send neg signals, probably

just the way they are presented.

Interestingly enough, there has been talk about being able to smell people

who are going to die in the near future on this forum. And of course, there is the women can smell fear study,

although it concluded that the ability had nothing to do with cortisol levels.

[DrSmellThis]

Stress affects almost every

bodily function, so there's a big universe of possibility there. Perhaps adrenaline metabolizes into something

repulsive or triggers some such process; since pro sexual dopamine (perhaps part of surf's "axis of attraction")

can be converted into adrenaline (part of the "axis of revulsion" process?) when we create stress for ourselves. The

relative levels of the two chemicals reflect a somewhat inverse relation between them.

Yet clearly there is

almost a sort of healthy stress that goes along with success, hard work, and activity in general. That could well be

a matter of congruence between stress and activity levels, as well as the importance of purposeful activity

for attraction. This goes back to AKA's comment on exercise earlier in the thread.

[bjf]

We certainly do need more info on

what dopamine and adrenaline waste products do (if anything).


Actually, vassopressin too.

[seduceme]

About clothing, if you outdress

everyone in a socialsetting you are outshining them.
This can incite insecurities in people and thus they'll

react negatively(if they feel they deserve the attention and admiration youre getting).
OR
It will incite

awe and admiration, desirability etc.(usually from people who feel they dont deserve that attention/admiration

etc).

To overdress is when you take it to absurdum and basically project that youre attentionseeking and thus

compensating(and we all know that compensation means lack of which is usually insecurities in the first place).