View Full Version : Breath and pheromones.
Icehawk
10-07-2006, 12:38 PM
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
10-07-2006, 01:08 PM
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
10-07-2006, 01:29 PM
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
10-07-2006, 07:48 PM
......................
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
10-07-2006, 10:38 PM
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
10-08-2006, 08:01 AM
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
10-08-2006, 01:54 PM
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
10-08-2006, 08:20 PM
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
10-08-2006, 08:23 PM
I think JVK would be Professor X
lesser known brother "The Mone Master".
-Bat
jvkohl
10-08-2006, 08:43 PM
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
10-09-2006, 03:15 AM
????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
10-09-2006, 02:58 PM
I've met many attractive women
with breath so bad I almost hurled. A real turn-off indeed.
bronzie
10-09-2006, 05:26 PM
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
10-09-2006, 07:41 PM
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
10-09-2006, 07:54 PM
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
10-09-2006, 08:06 PM
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
10-09-2006, 08:11 PM
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
10-09-2006, 09:48 PM
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
10-10-2006, 06:12 AM
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
10-10-2006, 03:57 PM
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
10-10-2006, 04:47 PM
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
10-10-2006, 07:57 PM
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
10-10-2006, 08:31 PM
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
10-10-2006, 08:49 PM
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
10-10-2006, 10:53 PM
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
10-10-2006, 10:55 PM
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
10-10-2006, 11:04 PM
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
10-10-2006, 11:14 PM
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
10-11-2006, 07:07 AM
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
10-11-2006, 07:11 AM
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
10-11-2006, 08:32 AM
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
10-11-2006, 10:07 AM
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
10-12-2006, 07:53 AM
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....
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
10-18-2006, 08:12 AM
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
10-18-2006, 08:36 PM
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
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.