One in Seven

[Whitehall]

So who are our female targets and how many are out there? Here\'s some thoughts.

Take a random slice of the female population, say at the mall. Delete the young girls and the old women (pre-menache and post-menopause), hard-core lesbians(?), pregnant women, and women breast-feeding. Of the balance, their cycle averages 28 days. They may be ovulating or close to ovulating 4 out of 28 days (more or less).

That means that out of any random group of fertile women, 1 in seven will be particularly responsive to male pheromones.
Certain locations and situations will have populations of females that are self-selected to have better odds. Bars and nightclubs, will have more fertile women (dah!) although I wonder what percentage?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

The odds are better than 1 out of 7. 14% of women aren\'t lesbians! Or at least, I hope not. And I know that 1 out of 7 of all women aren\'t pregnant. I\'d say the odds are 4 or 5 out of 7.

[Whitehall]

First, DELETE the Lesbians, pregnant women, etc. The remaining ones between 15 and 45 roughly are the targets. Of these remaining normal, healthy, generally fertile women, 1 of 7 is close to ovulating and is more sensitive to male pheromones. This is based on ovulation happening 4 days out of a 28 period.

Twenty-eight divided by four equals 7.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Uh, oops. Remind me not to post ever again directly after my Principles of Microeconomics class. That\'s a real brain-drainer. images/icons/blush.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I can agree with 1 out of 7 affected by pheros, but I believe that not all of them will show the usual signs due to various reasons as shyness, education, etc, etc. So the actual % of women showing phero effect will be lower.

[Whitehall]

Lusoman,

The idea is an attempt to explain an insight on why hits are not even more comon.

Quite right that our 1 of 7 targets will not all show responses. Many will have valid reasons for inhibiting a response - happily married, inappropriate situation (workplace?), incompatible ages, and so on.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Whitehall, one question: Why do you only consider women in their fertile period as a target? I mean, the phero´s will (almost) always have their effect on women, or am I wrong?

[Whitehall]

Women during their period seem to NOT like pheromones (aNONE) or at least be insensitive to them. (Guys, am I right on wrong on this?) They seldom want sex in any case. So that deletes maybe 5 to 7 of the 28 days.

The other 17 to 19 days (non-period and non-ovulating), women are often still responsive but the days around ovulation are clearly the best. I\'d guess that a women ovulating (ready to be fertilized) was twice as responsive to \'mones, maybe more. Maybe that should be twice as likely to respond - a subtle difference. I don\'t have any quantitive data at my fingertips although there is some out there supportive of that view.

Besides, generally, a woman ovulating is so much hotter, more likely to give it a go, more likely to have the Big O, and, as Kohl has pointed out, smell better.

A test of SoE is whether fertility and response are correlated as they are with aNONE.

[jvkohl]

Okay guys, here\'s a kicker. Our pheromones are likely to speed up a woman\'s cycle to bring her closer to ovulation with more exposure. There are even some reports on sexual intercourse causing a woman to ovulate.

--Of course this would be due to the effect of male pheromones on female levels of LH that first elicit increased estradiol levels that subsequently prompt an LH surge with accompanying peak testosterone in ovulating women, who then become conditioned to respond best to our pheromones when they\'re most likely to get pregnant, and also want to get laid at that time.--(sorry about that tech/non-tech stuff, just wanted to get a little science in).

But, since our pheromones have the potential to induce ovulation--all bets are off. Pheromones might cause a slight increase in LH and estradiol that make women more suceptible to pheromones (like when estradiol is high). So, say you meet up with a woman who is closer to her period than ovulation. You might just turn her around, and into a more fertile, responsive woman.

Besides, there is another issue. In most mammals the hormone GnRH is the first indication that pheromones are affecting hormones (and behavior). There are also several studies that say (in rodents), a
fraction of the GnRH molecule can act directly as a neurotransmitter. This allows pheromones to have immediate effects on brain chemistry in females. Conceivably, these are beneficial effects, and would tend to alter female behavior directly via neurotransmission--despite menstrual cycle phase.

Simply put, it\'s never simple.

[Whitehall]

Quite right about ovulation being a \"movable feast.\"

I understand that the most rigid part of the cycle is the fact that bleeding starts 12 days after ovulation. So once a woman has ovulated, she can\'t again for 12 + 7 + ? = 19+ days. That may not always be true and absolute given the existance of fraternal twins, indicating double eggs.

My fave book, \"Sperm Wars\" noted that ovulation is often held in suspense awaiting the right male stimulus. Strong pheromones are certainly one, indicating to her a good sperm donor. I\'ve also read that women who are raped have a higher probablity of becoming pregnant since the overpowering stimulates ovulation - that might explain a few kinks out there.

So as a rule of thumb guide for field use, do you agree that my 1 in 7 estimate is valid and useful?

But still unanswered is, how much more responsive are women around ovulation? I\'d think we\'d get a qualitative different response as well as a better quantitative chance of a response. We know that frequency of sexual intercourse is higher around ovulation. From personal experience, I\'d say that the intensity of female sexual behavior is stronger and subtly different - they seem to want to get to the stroking, need and want less foreplay, lose themselves more in the act.

Maybe a DIHL indicates a woman strongly responding around the time of her ovulation????

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Man, this is getting too scientific for me ... I\'ll just keep with the Nike phrase \' Just do it\'.

I\'m trying this pheromone thing is because I\'m not around that many \'eligable\' women to begin with.

Most women around my age are married. My day job is spent half in a shop with four other guys and half the time in the customers homes - in which 95% are married couples. My two home based businesses don\'t deal with people much except over the phone and through the mail. I despise the night club scene; the smoking, drinking and watching people trying for the Academy Awards with their acts is something I never got into even when I was in my twenties.

So any type of \'lead\' I can certainly use, which is what I thought this pheromone thing might do.

My first, minor test today with SOE ( about a two inch swipe on each side of my neck - way too much for my sence of smell ) resulted in nothing out of the ordinary. I went to two different banks, a market, and ate in a restaraunt just to see what happened when a dozen waitresses walked by me for forty minutes.

I think my situation will be harder and require even more thought and planning than the rest of you guys with my \'target\' probably alot smaller than most of yours. I\'ll keep you guys posted on things if anything happens.

I just received SOE yesterday and mistakingly ordered APC after I realized from the posts I\'ve read it\'s nearly useless. I\'m not complaining but curious about why this stuff is still being offered when most here say it\'s so weak it\'s impossible to OD with a whole bottle ?

From what I told you seasoned pheromene users, did I pick the right one with SOE in my situation or should I have picked something else like PI with more of a punch to it? That was my original choice but the \'cat piss\' stories scared me off.

I\'m not expecting miracles with pheromones but find it really interesting and I\'m looking forward playing around with it.

[Whitehall]

My line of thought on this thread is that you still need a large audience (? - smellence??) pool since the major respondees are randomly scattered at 1 in 7 in the pool of females. Another way to look at it is that for a single, specific target, she\'s only highly resceptive maybe 4 days out of her 28 day period.

I work in a pool of older male engineers with attractive female targets few and far between. Sounds like we both need to get out there more and mingle. One female friend pointed out she went to a poetry lecture and 85% of the attendees were female. That\'s almost enough to put up with poetry!

As to SoE, I\'ve found, and many other posters seem to agree, that it\'s great and highly effective for breaking the ice, getting women to let their guard down, surprisingly so. However, it doesn\'t seem to get them in the ovaries like products with high aNONEs - like NPA, PI, or TE. Not everyone agrees on this impression. Many of us see layering of SoE and, say, NPA, as the most effective technique. APC is weak but everyone seems to rave about the fragrance as it is a great cover.

The downside of aNONE is that it can be so effective it can, and does, intimidate people , male and female. Its easy to overdose.

Whatever you do, wear a smile!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Well, Jim I think some ballroom dance classes would be a good way to test your pheromones out. :-).

Interesting that you say that two 2-inch swipes on the neck were too strong for you. I seem to get negative results when I use 18 inches, which some other people recommended. Scientist had estimated that 30 inches are needed to reach an optimal dose, but I\'m very skeptical of that figure. Considering that SOE is the same concentration as PI, NPA, and AE, I would have guessed no more than 8 inches would create an optimal dose (by eyeballing the amount applied).

As far as quantity of targets, I actually think it would be more interesting to observe the effect of pheromones on a single target that you see often. Does she exhibit some reaction on regular monthly basis? Testing out the pheros on a large group of women who you only see once can lead to inconclusive results, since there\'s such a big difference in personality.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Truth:

Yeah, I guess that would be a great way for everyone to try it out. Thing is with any sort of social things I don\'t have enough time with everything else I do. Like I said in an earlier post,for me and my situation this will really be a challenge. Don\'t get the wrong idea - I\'m not complaining about my life in the least! images/icons/wink.gif

But reading about this pheromone thing and finding this site really got my interest up. I understand the numbers game , that works with everything, but just got so amazed at all your successes with the products I thought I\'d play around some things and see what happens - even with my limited \'target\' number of women.

I have a workout scheduled tomarrow morning so I\'ll do the SOE thing again then. Even though it makes me smell like a French whore nobody is going to question me being a \'girly man\' deadlifting 415lbs for a dozen reps, do you think ? images/icons/laugh.gif

Anyway, I\'ve received APC today (ordered it before I read it was basically useless) and now have PI and NPC ordered. You guys got me hooked without even a response to what I already bought!!

I\'ll defineately let you all know of any results whether its a fight from someone commenting about me using my aunts perfume to being throw out of a customers house from smelling like cat piss images/icons/shocked.gif You\'ll hear all about it.

Thanks for all your advice and suggestions!

Sorry for the long post and will relate a \'natural\' pheromone related (I think it was) thing that happened to me a couple years ago.

[jvkohl]

Jim; deadlifting 415lbs x 12 suggests you may already be putting out enough masculine pheromones to shut down some of the women. Don\'t mean to burst anyone\'s bubble, but most women say they don\'t prefer men to look like they\'ve built themselves up using steroids--like the muscle mag pictures. Steroid abuse is the only way to look like a Swartzenager. That this body type is not visually appealing to most women suggests that too much testosterone related pheromone output is linked to conditioned avoidance.

On the other hand, you could be a heavier powerlifter, with muscle mass and fat mass to support the deadlifting. In that case, all bets are off as to what you might accomplish using pheromones, but my advice is to use very little of any product, at least initially. You\'re already putting out some potent male pheromones, and excess is not good for attracting anything but \"biker chicks.\"

Whitehall; I can\'t truly agree with the 1 in 7, since I\'ve gotten good responses from many more women than these odds would suggest. Since male pheromones drive their cycle, I think its likely a more potent effect that is happening with the pheromone-behavior connection--more potent than the 1 in 7. This could be because pheromones alter GnRH, and a fraction of the GnRH molecule acts directly as a neurotransmitter (in rodents, at least). No reason to believe that this doesn\'t happen in women, and the more immediate neurotransmitter response could be linked to changes in behavior at any cycle stage. I still consider the conditioning to pheromones that occurs with ovulation to be most important, but don\'t discard the neurotransmitter effect, which nearly all the other olfactory researchers have overlooked. If not for one of my mentors, the late Robert L. \"Bob\" Moss, I probably wouldn\'t have known about the neurotransmitter effect that he was the first to detail. If it does happen in women, it would certainly explain a lot more than just the conditioning with ovulation. In effect, the neurotransmitter response precedes the GnRH neuroendocrine response (i.e., change in LH). Sorry, I\'m getting off track with the jargon. Probably best to say that anyone interested in the neurotransmitter effect should do a Medline search for Moss RL (Rajendren G and Dudley C were co-authors as I recall).

[**DONOTDELETE**]

James ;

Thanks for the advice. Just to set the record straight though , I don\'t or haven\'t used stroids, just have built up my strength over many years of training and don\'t have that steroid look. I\'ve competed in BB contests only twice over ten years ago and only because my girlfriend at the time wanted to see me compete. I\'m not a powerlifter in any stretch of the imagination. I\'m 5\'6\" at 180 with usually 10-12% body fat at 49 years old. I really don\'t fit in either catagory as BB or powerlifer- just someone who has enjoyed training over the years.

But what you say about putting out alot of pheromones is very interesting - I never would have thought of that. Maybe I should be using my aunts perfume instead. images/icons/crazy.gif

I appreciate the advice.

Anyone what to buy some new, unopened pheromones ??? Just kidding.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I think the female response to pheromones shouldnt be connected to reproduction only. Women who are not in their fertile period also need strong/friendly men to protect them and their children and to provide them with food/money. So this should mean women should always react positive on phero´s, maybe not to a-none, but to a-nol for example. images/icons/wink.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Whitehall, do you remember your own \"And the Hits just kept coming\" thread? Would you say all those women who were butt-presenting were fertile (or almost fertile)? images/icons/crazy.gif

[Whitehall]

James, Franki, Jim, et al,

So perhaps I painted too dismal a picture? One in seven is too limiting? Good!

Truly, non-ovulating females respond, no agrument there (flattered you remembered by earlier posting and very pertinent too). So let me quantify my SWAG (scientific wild ass guess):

For a given setting, with similar exposure to the same guy presenting constant non-pheromone characteristics, let\'s break our target into four groups and give each a rating for chances that they will respond (a hit) and chances that they will be consciously considered an f-close. For a random exposure, let\'s include the probablity of even meeting them, my original one-in-seven concept. My numbers are Super-SWAG but offered as a way of thinking about the problem Your results may vary!!

Group Meeting Responding Considering Net
Pre-Ovo 7/28 .10 .02 5E-4
Ovo 4/28 .20 .05 1.4E-3
Post-Ovo 10/28 .10 .01 3.6E-4
Period 7/28 .01 .00001 2.5E-8

Sorry, couldn\'t figure out how to format this table better but hope you come to the same conclusion I do - for any random meeting, the odds of getting a hit and being considered as a sexual partner are dominated by women around ovulation. The total odds also pass a sanity check - roughly one in 500 random women you meet using pheromones will consider you as a sexual partner. Again, some enviroments are \"target rich.\"

At one in 500, maybe this is really sexual economics - you know, the \"dismal science.\"

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Whitehall ]

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Whitehall ]

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Whitehall ]

[a.k.a.]

Hmmm....
I can’t read minds that well. So I just assume that the right brew will make me irresistible to all women at all times. When I fail, I try to gauge all the factors: ratio, concentration, dosage, scent, appearance, demeanor, body language, attitude, etc.... I haven’t kept a tally, but it seems I’m doing way better than 1 in 500 and practice seems to steadily raise the odds.

PS “Targets”? Isn’t that taking the “battle of the sexes” a bit too literally?

[Whitehall]

So, for every woman you have contact close enough for her to be exposed to your pheromones, more than 1 in 500 considers having sex with you?

Now, getting a hit from a woman between say 15 and 45 would have odds of maybe 1 in 4, using my SWAG numbers; a \"hit\" being a reaction. The 1 in 500 is for where you think the thought at least flashes in her mind of you being a sexual partner so that she returns flirting.

Maybe 1 in 500 is low but the fuzzy part of the analysis is reading her mind! At 1 in 500, you\'ve got closing in sight. If I\'m within an order of magnitude, I\'d claim some validity to the analysis! But then, I\'m in physics where truth is \"close enough.\"

I certainly agree with the continual self-improvement based on experience.

[a.k.a.]

Whitehall,
OK. So we both agree that mind reading is not a reliable measure.

Here’s the way I look at it. My ex-gf dumped me in late September. I was depressed until late November. Since then I’ve had sex with five different women — three of which didn’t know I existed until December. So, if I meet an average of one woman a day, that’s more like one in thirty (one a month).

This is a very liberal figure, because on most days I don’t meet anybody new and I’m extremely lucky if I meet 6 new girls in a club or at a party. Then you have to figure that I hit on less than one out of every four women that I meet (It’s probably more like one in twelve.)

I think I’m very fortunate, and I know that if it wasn’t for pheromones I could still be crying the blues in July. But at the rate of meeting one woman a day and hitting on 25%, it would be more than 10 years before I got laid by your calculations. This is inconceivable — not to mention extremely depressing. (I mean, isn\'t sex bonding one of the laws of nature? Where would the species be if we only got lucky once every 10 years?)

[Whitehall]

Great Perfomance!

My assumption was that females who smelled the mones and could interact/be hit formed the 500. So count every checkout counter girl, fellow shopper in the mall, librarian etc, etc.

We all lead different lives - I seldom go shopping, my coworkers are almost all older married guys, and I seldom get out on the town. Working lot\'s of overtime too. Ergo, it takes a while for me to rack up 500 exposures.

The next step is turning a hit into a consideration - sounds like you\'re doing well there - then closing.

How to define (or understand)\"consideration?\" Getting a hit is having a little light go off in a female\'s head that says \"Pay attention - sexy male.\" Getting \"consideration\" is passing the first screens for you as an individual. The severity of the screens varies between females and time in their cycle. Women are very big on inhibitions since sex is a bigger investment/risk for them compared to men. Getting to close usually requires active prodding from the guy although a few women will just decide early-on that you\'re going to get it so they\'ll make it happen.

The idea for th \"one in seven\" exercise came from a book on the search for extraterrestial intelligence on a conference chaired by Carl Sagan. Just break the search process down into logical steps then assign a probablity to each step. Multiply and and you\'ve got a best guesstimate. Then work on the steps where you can make the biggest difference.