Breath and pheromones.

[Icehawk]

Maybe

that is why I remember one of my ex girlfreinds telling me about this aquaintance of mine who was trying to get at

her whom didn't have the right smell. He was a nerdy gymnast instructor and disco dancer and she believed he

sweated his off on the dance floor...but maybe lesser males do not have that same smell.

I've heard

numerous times from women who say something in my breath turns them on.

And they also say they can smell when

I'm horny by something in my breath.

Something to think about.

I know I do hate the thought of

wearing colognes...which is a masking agent...societies way of trying to get women by smell...and I've heard that a

nice cologne does work in some cases.

This whole pheremone thing has me thinking. I know one dude who used to

be bisexual. His luck with women is zero dispite that he is a nice looking man.

I'm wondering if it's based

on his pheremones...maybe what made him wonder over to the faggot side wasn't as he said because he never learned

to connect with women and nobody taught him how to get them...but something in his very body...that made nasty shyt

like that possible...

Maybe men with alternate sexuality give off a total wrong or bad smell to women...hence

his poor luck with them...

Natures way of making sure that they really do not become breeders. I know he

instinctively does not want children or even a relationship is a dim possiblity...

Anybody have any thoughts

on this:

edit in:

You've all seen the belly dancer who is on my cop file. She may have a couple of

masters degrees but she is also very much intune to her physical body...having studied dance all of her Irish bred

life.

She used to keep clothes of mine just to smell them...gross to me but that is things that we all know

women say and do.

She said it drove her crazy...oh and she was married to an college proffessor at that

time...

My point is that maybe nature did endow alpha's with a certain pheremone that makes women with their

highly develped sense of smell attracted to

them.
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59989

Doable or

marketable approach? Talking with pheromones?
Would be nice. Direct, you use it when you need it, effects only

specific target. Conversion would be a killer though. Just brainstorming I guess...:think:

[Gegogi]

Maybe men with alternate

sexuality give off a total wrong or bad smell to women...hence his poor luck with them...

Natures way of

making sure that they really do not become breeders. I know he instinctively does not want children or even a

relationship is a dim possiblity...

Perhaps there is something to this, but it ain't that simple or

clearcut. I personally have known many bi and gay men whom were married and had kids. Also lots of women are

attracted to gay men. I believe the term is fag-hags. I'm completely straight but often women ask if I'm gay.

Oddly these women are usually strongly attracted to me. Never been complemented on my breath, but I'm pretty

hardcore into dental hygiene (want to keep my teeth for a long time).

[bronzie]

I think women that hang around

gay men, do it out of a sense of security, they dont feel threatened sexually, also gay men tend to have an

androgenous streak, most posses feminine behaviour and traits, women find they have something in common with these

guys because they are just like them. This said, most women ultimatly do tend to go for masculine men, and alpha

type men. By nature females, need a protective type partner, a male that will look after them.

[jvkohl]

......................
Maybe men

with alternate sexuality give off a total wrong or bad smell to women...hence his poor luck with

them...

Natures way of making sure that they really do not become breeders. I know he instinctively does not

want children or even a relationship is a dim possiblity...

Anybody have any thoughts on

this:
--------------------------------------
I have a 37-page review on this that will be published later this

year in Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality. Martins, Preti, Wysocki, Crabtree and ? published some time ago

that homosexuals prefer the natural body odor of other homosexuals. There is also a difference in the hypothalamic

response. Lots of technical information in this regard, that makes it no less clear, if you are inclined to look at

the actual research reports.

JVK

[Gegogi]

There are also cultural and

racial elements at play. Asian women--my own race--never have any doubts about my sexual orientation. They're often

afraid of me at first. I come off as somewhat dangerous--an ominous player type, bedding women and tossing them

asunder. So they say. Oddly it's women outside of my race and culture--Black and White women primarily--that

question my sexual orientation. I figured it had more to do with my small frame, "sensitive" artist status and nice

clothing than pheromones. Once cleared up they're good to go. Later they find out I'm an insensitive ass like the

other men they date.

[platinumfox]

I guess some people have

"mutant" qualities I never heard of anyone turning on women by their breath.You would make a cool X-Men member call

yourself "Mone Mouth"

[jambat]

I guess some

people have "mutant" qualities I never heard of anyone turning on women by their breath.You would make a cool X-Men

member call yourself "Mone Mouth"
Though he'd never be able to talk to any other of the female

X-members. And I'm sure anytime he started to talk to Jean, Cyclops and Wolverine both would give him dirty looks.

May be he could make time with Storm or Rogue. We'll we know what would have with Rogue.

-Bat

[jvkohl]

I guess some

people have "mutant" qualities I never heard of anyone turning on women by their breath.You would make a cool X-Men

member call yourself "Mone Mouth"

"What's in a Kiss?" is the title of a Discovery Health Channel

special in which I appeared. In case the title is not enough of a clue... it's the pheromones. ????Never heard of

anyone turning on women by their breath???? What do you think is happening at this stage of the pheromone-driven

courtship sequence?

JVK

[jambat]

I think JVK would be Professor X

lesser known brother "The Mone Master".

-Bat

[jvkohl]

I think JVK would be

Professor X lesser known brother "The Mone Master".

-Bat

Just remember, I only use my

professorship for good, never evil--at least, not so far.

JVK

[platinumfox]

????Never

heard of anyone turning on women by their breath???? What do you think is happening at this stage of the

pheromone-driven courtship sequence?

JVK
I think its the closeness

and the anticipation of the kiss that gets people excited.Do you get turned on if someone just breathes on you?If

you are attracted to them you might because you are associating their breath to mouth to kiss and so on.It's more

psychological than chemical.

[Gegogi]

I've met many attractive women

with breath so bad I almost hurled. A real turn-off indeed.

[bronzie]

Has anyone here ever been into

ketosis? Well bad breath is a issue with this diet, and I have met heaps of women that never eat sugars or carbs,

and often are in some level of ketosis, thats why I have come across alot of women with bad breath.

[jvkohl]

I think its the

closeness and the anticipation of the kiss that gets people excited.Do you get turned on if someone just breathes on

you?If you are attracted to them you might because you are associating their breath to mouth to kiss and so on.It's

more psychological than chemical.

As you may know, I do not agree with the psychological approach.

Nothing about courtship is more psychological than chemical, since brain "chemistry" drives every aspect of our

sexual preferences. And every aspect of neuroscience, especially social neuroscience, supports this chemistry. In my

book, I detailed how pheromones are intimately involved in every aspect of the courtship sequence. But you need not

read the book to attempt to offer a psychological explanation. Just make one up, like other people have been doing

for years. But you may need some help from psychologists to include how a man would get excited by the closeness and

the anticipation of kissing another man. Then we'll look at the brain imaging results that show a male pheromone

lighting up the area of another man's brain that typically responds to female pheromones. This area of the brain

"drives" sexuality in all mammals, and is as much a part of creation/evolution as the nose on your face.



JVK

[bronzie]

As you may know, I

do not agree with the psychological approach. Nothing about courtship is more psychological than chemical, since

brain "chemistry" drives every aspect of our sexual preferences. And every aspect of neuroscience, especially social

neuroscience, supports this chemistry. In my book, I detailed how pheromones are intimately involved in every aspect

of the courtship sequence. But you need not read the book to attempt to offer a psychological explanation. Just make

one up, like other people have been doing for years. But you may need some help from psychologists to include how a

man would get excited by the closeness and the anticipation of kissing another man. Then we'll look at the brain

imaging results that show a male pheromone lighting up the area of another man's brain that typically responds to

female pheromones. This area of the brain "drives" sexuality in all mammals, and is as much a part of

creation/evolution as the nose on your face.

JVK



if

Freud were alive he would disagree, just my bet...
:lol:

[jvkohl]

Has anyone here ever

been into ketosis? Well bad breath is a issue with this diet, and I have met heaps of women that never eat sugars or

carbs, and often are in some level of ketosis, thats why I have come across alot of women with bad

breath.

There are many chemical imbalances that result in characteristic malodorous conditions.

Before physicians had clinical laboratory tests to assist in their diagnoses, the odors associated with different

disease processes were consistently validated. An example also attests to this validity.

An emergency room

patient presents as nearly comatose and is unresponsive. Is he in a state of diabetic ketoacidosis? That's the

presumptive diagnosis due to point-of-care treatment indicating a glucose level higher than their instrumentation

can accurately assess: greater than 400 (which is about 4 times the normal level). No, otherwise he would have the

characteristic odor associated with uncontrolled diabetes. So, the physician waits for completion of more accurate

testing. Turns out the patient's glucose is over 1500, and there is no evidence of ketones in his serum, or urine,

which is why he didn't smell like an out-of-control diabetic. Sure, he had diabetes, but it was previously

undiagnosed so his body had adapted over many years. It could have been a big mistake to treat him for symptoms that

were not consistent with a characteristic odor. Good thing the attending physician trusted his nose, and waited for

more accurate testing.

JVK

[jvkohl]

if Freud were alive

he would disagree, just my bet...
:lol:

If Freud were still alive, he would either have learned

about neuroscience, and quit making-up his unsupported explanations, or forever be branded a "quack." I've got

nothing against him--he worked with knowledge that was available to him at the time. Things have changed, many of

his followers have not.

JVK

[platinumfox]

As you may

know, I do not agree with the psychological approach. Nothing about courtship is more psychological than chemical,

since brain "chemistry" drives every aspect of our sexual preferences. And every aspect of neuroscience, especially

social neuroscience, supports this chemistry. In my book, I detailed how pheromones are intimately involved in every

aspect of the courtship sequence. But you need not read the book to attempt to offer a psychological explanation.

Just make one up, like other people have been doing for years. But you may need some help from psychologists to

include how a man would get excited by the closeness and the anticipation of kissing another man. Then we'll look

at the brain imaging results that show a male pheromone lighting up the area of another man's brain that typically

responds to female pheromones. This area of the brain "drives" sexuality in all mammals, and is as much a part of

creation/evolution as the nose on your face.

JVK
But you didn't

answer my question to you.Have you ever been turned on by someones breath?Sometimes science can only go so far in

the real world while psychology is always around us 24/7 and deals more with our real lives.To get what you want in

life its all mental not machine operated tests.

Yes I agree if someone is gay then it is a chemical

thing.Just as certain people get cancer,Parkinsons or any other disease.

Some situations you have to take the

quick "street smart" approach which is psychological.Thats how I see it if I am close to a lady and she's breathing

on me it's the association of the mouth that I mentioned before.

But I know now that pheromones can come

from breath too.I just want to hear the ladies say "Oh my god that guy has the sexiest breath...I want to have sex

with him" that would be the conclusion every guy wants to hear.

[jvkohl]

But you didn't

answer my question to you.Have you ever been turned on by someones breath?

Yes, I have. But I cannot

recall ever being consciously aware of the chemically-driven stimulus response cycle that turned me on at the time

it was happening.



Sometimes science can only go so far in the real world while

psychology is always around us 24/7 and deals more with our real lives.To get what you want in life its all mental

not machine operated tests.

Approximately 90% of our behavior is "driven" by unconscious affect. We

do not consciously process the mental data that you indicate gets us what we want. Perhaps that explains why we

don't always get what we want, and sometimes we don't even know what we want.



Yes I

agree if someone is gay then it is a chemical thing.Just as certain people get cancer,Parkinsons or any other

disease.

It's hard for me to understand how someone can pick examples of a "chemical thing" and not

realize that every "thing" is a chemical thing. Biology, especially the branch referred to as neuroscience, is not a

selective explanation. It encompasses all aspects of behavior with well-defined animal models that predict stimulus

response associations. Psychologists are willing to use animal models to predict behavior, but tend to stop short

when they "think" about human cause and effect. Somehow, something must be different--in any human condition--is an

unscientific approach, especially when it comes to the study of human sexuality.





Some situations you have to take the quick "street smart" approach which is

psychological.Thats how I see it if I am close to a lady and she's breathing on me it's the association of the

mouth that I mentioned before.

Most situations require the quick "street smart" approach. But what

happens is that psychological explanations are then used when we think about what went right or wrong--and that's

where our thought processes and psychology fail. Unless we draw conclusions with some basic understanding of

biology, we can't possibly know what went right or wrong.



But I know now that

pheromones can come from breath too.I just want to hear the ladies say "Oh my god that guy has the sexiest

breath...I want to have sex with him" that would be the conclusion every guy wants to hear.

Most guys

want to hear about any "quick fix" that gets them the sex they want. There will never be a quick fix because the

chemistry of sex is too complex.

JVK

[Monello]

I would like to add my two, or ten cents, worth. First, I have been on both sides of the equation

(no, not the sexual side, the success/failure side). There was a period of time when I could do no wrong with

women. Making love constantly (I never f..k, I put as much into sex with a one-timer as I do with those I have

relationships with) and effortlessly. Always was funny and the center of attention.
Then, almost overnight, I

"forgot" how to be personable. Literally. I do not know how to this day. Suddenly, it was as if I could not

"remember my lines." Once my confidence began to go things, spiraled to destitution rapidly! The damnest thing.

Eventually I got back my "mojo" (ha ha:cool:), though it was never exactly the same. But here is where it is

especially ironic.

During that couple year drought, where I really struggled, an eye-opening event occurred.

This was back in the early 90's when a Saturday Night Live routine called Hans and Franz was around. For Halloween,

my friend and I went as Hans and Franz with the same foam rubber muscles and grey sweats and weight belt. Really

looked the same. I was completely "in character" down to the German accent and the obnoxious Uber-Alpha confidence.

I would walk and swagger through this packed club whilst loudly proclaiming to one and all to "scuse please...make

way for my large muscles", ad nauseum.

Now here is the funny part. Not only was the costume/character a

hit at this large Southern Florida club, but I got hit on openly and directly all night long! The women HAD to know

the muscles were fake and HAD to know the personality was fake, yet they ate it up like sugar! With that one main

exception, I was an utter failure for months at a time during that period. However, it drove home a point that no

matter how you look (I have always been blessed with a good six pack equipped athletic type body, am 6'1" tall

and have usually been called attractive: though do not claim to be a Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp level) there was

much more to it than that.

Eventually I recaptured my "ability" by working on my personality and getting back

to who I used to be. (Further,I am not talking about the "grubber" women that go after anyone with a pulse

because they have money/Ferrari/Cigarette boat, etc. They are a differnet issue) I am referring to genuine

sexual attraction for it's own sake, perhaps or perhaps not, leading to a friendship or other relationship.

Further, it cannot just be a certain smell for, as we have all seen on this forum, individuals who have claimed to

get hits, but then lose them after a short period.

If one is consdiered disgusting by societal standards, then

unless you are funny as hell or rich, you are probably SOL. Appearance, which is linked solidly to good genes and

survivability, is as basal of an instinct as there is (why do animals do all their courting routines with the

stronger or better winning far more often than not?). Now granted, one does not have to look like a sex symbol,

but one had better look and act healthy and fit and desireable, at some level, or you are going to get the second

rate women (or men).

Johnny Depp or Viggo Mortenson were hugely sexy to women (and more men than care

to admit it) in their respective characters of Jack Sparrow the pirate and Aragorn/Strider, despite their

unkempt appearance. Now 90% of men who look like those characters (unkempt and dirty) in the real world would

be rejected by all but the most "biker" type of skank. And there were no pheromones on screen. But there were

incredibly good looks underneath and a strong Alpha personality.

Women are incredibly fantasy oriented and if

one can appeal to a fantasy part of their mind then they may very well succeed with them sexually. My point in this

rambling diatribe is that there surely must be a synergy between appearance, pheromones and personality. With all

respect JVK it cannot be only pheromones, though they must play a huge part. Otherwise every "shrek-looking" guy

wearing pheromones would be knocking down Jessica Simpson types.

There is a point to be made here. One

absolutely cannot under-estimate the power of personality, where even an obviously fake (and all too frequent

obnoxious) Alpha-type will get hit after hit, while the "wall flower"-type, no matter how good-looking, is going

to come up short time and again. That said, regardless of how one looks, one damned well better try and dress well

and with style, have something to talk about of interest to most people and remember that even being a little fake

and bombastic is better than sincere, quiet and invisible. At least if you are trying to attract women initally!



Once they get to know you, then maybe OK, but if they never "see" you in the first place, then it does not matter

how rich, smart or funny you are. Do not misunderstand, I strongly believe the pheromones are important to set you

apart. To catch attention and maybe to help close the deal. But it is not a holy grail my friends.

[bronzie]

If Freud were

still alive, he would either have learned about neuroscience, and quit making-up his unsupported explanations, or

forever be branded a "quack." I've got nothing against him--he worked with knowledge that was available to him at

the time. Things have changed, many of his followers have

not.

JVK


Sigmund Freud theories and teachings have been

proven to be correct and are supported with research, he is no quack by any stretch of the imagination, his

teachings are the basis for many disciplines taught in Universities all over the world, including psychology and

psychiatry and the psychiatric therapy that developed from his teaching serve an important function for modern

society and help a lot of people. No disrespect here, but someone claiming that human sexuality and their

preferences are based only on brain chemistry and triggered only by pheromones, may come across as a quack to a lot

of people. Saying this amounts to saying, humans are no more evolved then moths or other insects.

I believe

pheromones work and achieve a desired result, to an extent, and you have a great pheromone product which has served

me well in the past, but trying to discredit a giant mind like Freud is rather futile in my opinion and probably in

the opinion of millions of academics around the world.

[live4themusic]

The majority of modern

psychologists hold little stock in Freud's theories AS RULES. There are psychologists who will give a nod to SOME

of his theories and how they are related to the actual models in use, or how current models were developed from his

theories. He is a prominent historical and cultural figure in psychology, and this is why most everyone knows about

him, but for the most part, I would say J.V. Kohl is right. He is about as much of a scientist as Nostradamis...

make enough vague speculations and you are bound to be on target with a few of them.

If any therapist tried to

explain to me how any of my problems stem from an oedipal complex, they would not see another cent from me, but I

guess that must be because of my own defense mechanisms,

right?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freud


However,

most of Freud's specific theories--like his stages of psychosexual development--and especially his methodology,

have fallen out of favor in modern experimental psychology. Some psychotherapists, however, still follow an

approximately Freudian system of treatment. Many more have modified his approach, or joined one of the schools that

branched from his original theories (see Neo-Freudian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Freudian)). Still

others reject his theories entirely, although their practice may still reflect his

influence.



(http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=AbnPsyc.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=

/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=32&division=div1)[

1] (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/t

occer-new2?id=AbnPsyc.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=32&division=div1). A. C. Grayling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._C._Grayling), writing in The Guardian in

2002, said "Philosophies that capture the imagination never wholly fade....But as to Freud's claims upon truth, the

judgment of time seems to be running against

him."[2] (http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,741510,00.html)

Peter D. Kramer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Kramer), said "I'm afraid [Freud] doesn't hold

up very well at all. It almost feels like a personal betrayal to say that. But every particular is wrong: the

universality of the Oedipus complex, penis envy, infantile sexuality." A 2006 article in

Newsweek magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek_magazine) called him "history's most debunked

doctor"[3] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11904222/site/newsweek/)





Freud's

theories are often criticized for not being real science. This objection was raised most famously by

Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper), who claimed that all proper

scientific theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theories) must be potentially

falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable). If a theory cannot possibly be falsified, then it

cannot be considered scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science). Popper argued that no experiment

or observation could ever falsify Freud's theories of psychology (e.g. someone who denies having an Oedipal complex

is interpreted as repressing it), and thus they could not be considered scientific. On the other hand, numerous

experimental and correlational studies have provided empirical support for certain Freudian concepts, such as the

pattern of the anal personality.

[bronzie]

wikipedia is hardly a point of

reference (mostly used by people that cant be bothered visiting a library) in any sense of the word, especially

academic.

I can list a few thousand academic book references on freud and his influence on modern day

psychology with research that his teaching are correct and proven.

But this is a pheromone forum....alas

[live4themusic]

I will give you that there

are books that will state that Freud's teachings are correct. But there are many more books that indicate

otherwise. For example, the psychology books I used in all of the psychology classes I've had in college have

mentioned that Freud's theories have not been empirically proven, even though we still learned them. My teachers

also said as much.

By saying you CAN list a few thousand, you are implying you already have read a few thousand

such books, right? I mean I can list a few thousand books describing how we can harness the energy of the aether,

and progress being made towards the conversion of lead into gold, but that doesn't mean these books are correct or

that I actually know what these books are. The only reason I say I CAN list them is because I know they're out

there. Of course actually listing them would probably take me a year or more of research completely devoted to

tracking these books down, but hey... I CAN do it.


Either there is a huge conspiracy, and everything being

taught in schools round the world are geared against Freud for some unknown reason, or it is in fact correct that

Freud is considered outdated by MOST psychologists.

Let's start with a local example. In this thread, J.V. Kohl

and myself, both students of psychology, are claiming that most of Freud's theories are unsubstantiated. So far,

you are the only person I have ever encountered who has stated that Freud's theories and teachings have been proven

correct and are supported with research, let alone on this thread.

Now I know you are going to say "well, just

because I am outnumbered on this thread doesn't mean that I am wrong that in general he is considered correct." So

I issue you this challenge: Find me ONE thread on ANY forum where the majority of posters are in support of your

statement that Freud's teachings and theories have been proven correct and are supported with research. Not just

one of Freud's theories, but at least half of them. If, after searching, you wish to retract your statement, then I

will also concede to you that there are a FEW of his theories which hold some water.

[maxo-texas]

So ...anyway... about the

breath thing and the clothing thing.

Yes- women are notorious for smelling/wearing their man's clothing when he

is away.

I've read somewhere in the last year that your breath smells good/bad based on how close you are to

someone by blood.

I can believe someone out there has some unusual oral hygiene too.

[jvkohl]

No disrespect here,

but someone claiming that human sexuality and their preferences are based only on brain chemistry and triggered only

by pheromones, may come across as a quack to a lot of people. Saying this amounts to saying, humans are no more

evolved then moths or other insects.

No disrepect taken, but I don't like anyone indicating that

I'm saying "humans are no more evolved than moths or other insects." I detailed the species differences in my book,

and have further detailed them with a molecular biochemical approach that links Creation and evolution in a

forthcoming 37-page review. The review includes more than 100 citations to recent data, which is based on thousands

of less recent studies.

Try finding 100 citations to data that support anything that Freud ever said and you

will discover a significant difference between psychobabble and neuroscience. You might also want to read my review

of a book by Arthur Janov, who is also considered (by some) to be an important figure in the world of psychology.

Simply put, he's a quack, but here's a link to my Journal of Sex Research

review:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_38/ai_84866962






I believe pheromones work and achieve a desired result, to an extent, and you have a great pheromone product

which has served me well in the past, but trying to discredit a giant mind like Freud is rather futile in my opinion

and probably in the opinion of millions of academics around the world.

I'm not trying to discredit

Freud. His explanations for his observations have already been thoroughly discredited. But this does not discredit

the role he played in the development of psychology as a "soft" science. In contrast, neuroscience is a "hard"

science, which generally means that reported results are not just someone's thoughts on how things work, but are

representations of data-based explanations of how things work.

JVK

[Monello]

I believe Freud was off in some

areas, obviously, as no "headshrinker" can be entirely correct in a field so subjective. In my opinion, the vast

majority of analysts likely are in the field through conscious or unconcious issues of their own. As to academia: to

paraphrase..."those who can't do oftentimes teach..." But I digress.

Since a challenge was issued, I pick up

the gauntlet! Merely Google Freud +Psychology and on the first page one can locate multiple references to Freud.

Including the validity of many of his theorys, ironically, many of which he later recanted himself (likely due to

his own psychiatric issues and subsequent denial). Nonetheless, if hitting .400 makes a hall of famer, one can

likely say that in the Psychoanalytical hall of fame Freud is a member, not just for being the most recognizable

name, but for creating many theorys and paths down which others have further trodden. Put another way, is Dr.

Livingstone less of an African expert than Cecil Rhodes merely for not having learned as much about what later

became Rhodesia? Strange analogy, but it is late at night and it is the first that came to mind!

[Monello]

Just to play Devil' Advocate,

though I am hugely a critical and analytical thinker (with a degree in aviation science) I recognize the

limits of modern science. According to aeronautical engineering, it is impossible for a bumblebee to fly, yet it

does. There is simply no way that all of a human being's thoughts and behaviours can be predicted solely on

environmental or neurological factors. There are too many intangible, qualitative behaviors. Simply, I give you a

test: prove in a reproducable study why Johnny believes chocolate tastes better than vanilla. Or that Suzy is hot

and Jane is not. How does one quantify an opinion based on something so subjective? Are there neurological reasons

for it? OK, way too philosophical, I am going to sleep now. What is terrible is that I will likely lay awake for

some few minutes thinking about this thread. But I will tell you this, there are some smart folks on this site with

JVK right on up there!

[jvkohl]

There is simply no

way that all of a human being's thoughts and behaviours can be predicted solely on environmental or neurological

factors. There are too many intangible, qualitative behaviors.

Agreed


Simply,

I give you a test: prove in a reproducable study why Johnny believes chocolate tastes better than vanilla. Or that

Suzy is hot and Jane is not. How does one quantify an opinion based on something so subjective? Are there

neurological reasons for it?

There are neurological reasons, but the inherent diversity of combining

influences of nature and nurture preclude pinpointing any individual's preferences, sexual or otherwise. All

research can show is the neurological basis for preferences, many of which are predictable from animal models. But

all preferences can be sufficiently suppressed by human cognition, and this explains at least some of the limits in

extending animal models to humans.

JVK

[maxo-texas]

Actually the bumblebee thing

is a *very* old urban legend. ( http://www.paghat.com/beeflight.html among many other listings). BB

Flight fits very well with known physics and flight models developed back in the 1800's. It doesn't fit *fixed*

wing dynamics but hey, bumble bees wings move don't you know.

The reason it comes up a lot is that creationists

like to use it as an argument point a lot in evolution/creationism debates.

Science has many limits but that's

not one of them.

---

The biggest reason I've always found Suzy hot vs Jane is that Suzy shows the slightest

hint that she is interested in me. So part of my game these days is to take someone I'm only interested in

philosophically (Hmmm she's nice, does some of the things I like doing and is hot) and prod them into a mode where

they exhibit interest in me (so then my beast will be interested i them). I didn't used to do that and so had only

about 11 females put themselves into the proper state without my help in 30 years.

[Monello]

Gotcha Maxo and JVK!

You are correct, of course, in the fixed wing component of bumble

bee flight. Give the first over-simplified example that comes to mind and one can bet that someone will disprove the

theory!

Let me qualify something, at times it is interesting to take a stance in a debate in which you may or

may not agree at all, or partially, merely to make the discussion more lively. I give you Hannity and Colmes or

Roper and Ebert as examples!:POKE:

But let us take the Jane thing further. May we assume that the average man

has not had interaction beyond the fantasy world with Angelina Jolie, for instance? Yet I venture that most healthy

men in Western society will say she is hot. No pheromones, no interaction, frankly, no hope of an approval from her

whatsoever. Yet she is the subject of fantsy and desire. How does one explain this?

And this is more of a

legitimate question than one that is rhetorical. I am curious as to what reasons various people have on this site.

[Mtnjim]

But let us take

the Jane thing further. May we assume that the average man has not had interaction beyond the fantasy world with

Angelina Jolie, for instance? Yet I venture that most healthy men in Western society will say she is hot. No

pheromones, no interaction, frankly, no hope of an approval from her whatsoever. Yet she is the subject of fantsy

and desire. How does one explain this?

And this is more of a legitimate question than one that is rhetorical. I

am curious as to what reasons various people have on this site.

Remember Pavlov’s experiment where when a

dog would salivate a behaviorist would ring a bell? :blink::lol::lol::lol: Well, same thing. The man has been

“trained” by the scent of an attractive, healthy female, then when he see another, he associates the appearance with

the scent.

[ohmmmm]

I just want to jump in here and

get back to the breath thing. My experience has been that dental hygene is a must for people wanting to attract the

opposite sex. One needs to use a mouth wash in the morning followed up by brushing. I would add that brushing the

gums and roof of the mouth is important too. Believe me, I'm not a neat freak. I don't like to do these things

but experience has proven that a clean mouth offers you a much better chance with women.

As far as scents goes,

I like the traditional minty crest. Starbucks used to have a peppermint breath losenge that was excellent, but

about a year ago they changed the manufacture and formula. Overall, peppermint breath using some natural scent is

the best...altoids has a mint lozenge which is ok.

If you want my other opinion about the breath...keep it

relaxed and don't take short breaths when talking with women. I don't know why this works, but practice relaxing

and taking longer and deeper breaths. People try to get into rythem with breath unconciously and short breaths can

make the other person nervious or uncomfortable. There are a lot of other reasons to slow down your breath and sync

it up to the other person. Once you sync up the breath you can then feel a closer bond. It takes practice....

[Lor]

I just want to jump in

here and get back to the breath thing. My experience has been that dental hygene is a must for people wanting to

attract the opposite sex. One needs to use a mouth wash in the morning followed up by brushing. I would add that

brushing the gums and roof of the mouth is important too. Believe me, I'm not a neat freak. I don't like to do

these things but experience has proven that a clean mouth offers you a much better chance with women.

As far as

scents goes, I like the traditional minty crest. Starbucks used to have a peppermint breath losenge that was

excellent, but about a year ago they changed the manufacture and formula. Overall, peppermint breath using some

natural scent is the best...altoids has a mint lozenge which is ok.

If you want my other opinion about the

breath...keep it relaxed and don't take short breaths when talking with women. I don't know why this works, but

practice relaxing and taking longer and deeper breaths. People try to get into rythem with breath unconciously and

short breaths can make the other person nervious or uncomfortable. There are a lot of other reasons to slow down

your breath and sync it up to the other person. Once you sync up the breath you can then feel a closer bond. It

takes practice....
breathe sync is an interesting study . i remember hearing about diffusing

arguments/debate in a meditation group years back.
my experience is that breath mints do not work. you cant

cover-up a wet dog, and you cant make bad breath smell good without brushing. IMHO.

[ohmmmm]

LOR,

I agree that most breath

mints don't work. I think mints can be the exception, but it depends upon the brand. I hightly suggest that

people serious about mones and attraction brush your teath often and use a mouth wash....as Lor suggests. A clean

mouth is totally underated...even if you can't smell your own bad breath and its not strong, it can be picked up by

people around you. Best bet is to get rid of the breath factor in the equation and let the mones do their work...

[jvkohl]

Remember Pavlov’s

experiment where when a dog would salivate a behaviorist would ring a bell? :blink::lol::lol::lol: Well, same thing.

The man has been “trained” by the scent of an attractive, healthy female, then when he see another, he associates

the appearance with the scent.

Nice to know that you understand how it works. Thanks for the concise

non-technical summary.

JVK