Phero effectiveness on women - a article - useful

[Watcher]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Health/story_35982.asp (\"http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Health/story_35982.asp\")

This article could explain why women react and remember someone (male) when they have pheromones on. It seems women are more inclined to remember emotional intensive effects both good and bad. That is why pheromones seem to be so useful to men in this regard. It seems to be how their brains are wired, the hormonal impact then sets off events and they react to the feel good effect.

[chummym]

hmmmmmm so women have better memories than guys do when dealing with emotions ... well that makes sense if i tried to memorize all the emotionally stimulating porn i\'ve seen in the past three weeks i\'d have no room to store any other memories, girls have much less to remember ...mmmm porn....huh what was i talking about?

ahhh screw it ya got 25 posts out of me now am i a newbie?

all your base are belong to us -god-

[rjm]

It\'s probably also why they remember *EVERY* *LITTLE* *MISTAKE* *YOU* *MAKE.* /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I believe that this is very true, but there are some exceptions with it. You basically have to train yourself to remember everything. All you have to do is, when you see something, smell or the way you feel. Stop for a moment and think about it and make a mental note about it like.... that looks cool, or that smells good, or the way you feel at the moment. In the future you will be able recall the feeling that you had a couple months or years ago. It will amaze yourself how much you can remember about a certain thing that happened in the past.

[FerroMone]

In National Geographic \"NATGEOMAX\" show it has been shown that women rate men first on their smell, second on their apperance and last on their personality. While men rate women first by their appearance and second on their smell and last on their personality. That is why those women with a Waist to HIP ration of 0.7 appears most appealing to men.

[MaxiMog]

Yeah, I saw that, too. 0.7? They say we can just see that WTH ratio. But it probably has to do with the first impression, \'cause personality gets more and more important over time.

[FerroMone]

Yup if the Waist to Hip ratio of a woman is 0.7 they would be perceived by the males as an attractive female because a WTH of 0.7 signifies good health and good pelvic bone,uterus etc.

That is why a woman with a Waist of 24 cm and a HIP of 34 cm appears sexy 24 divide by 34 = 0.70

Of course we don\'t have to measure a womans waist and hip. By instincy alone we can already determine by visual inspection.

[jvkohl]

Most likely the 0.7 WHR is perceived as attractive due to pheromonal conditioning of the visual response. WHR is simply a matter of fat distribution, which is largely determined by sex hormones (like estrogen and testosterone). Estrogen gives the women their 0.7 WHR and testosterone gives the men their 1.0. Since these hormones also contribute to pheromone production, which is either of the more masculine or more feminine type, the link from these hormones to pheromones and thus to the effect of pheromones on the hormones of the opposite sex is the only biological means by which a personal preference can become established. There is no direct link from visual input to hormone levels in other people, so that\'s why visual input can\'t establish what we prefer as a WHR. Most people just don\'t think about the effect of olfactory/pheromonal conditioning, but I devote several paragraphs to it in the revised edition of my book, which will be available soon. The conditioning begins at birth, so think about what happens between birth and puberty before arguing that the WHR is in any way a visual phenomenon. Besides, Dev Singh (of WHR fame--and who, as did I, attended both the prestigious 1995 and 2000 conferences on the biological basis of behavior) and Matt Bronstad published results saying that men prefer the scent of women who are ovulating (another finding based on animal data). If we can smell them ovulating, we certainly can also smell the difference between a great WHR and a mediocre WHR, and learn to make the best associations with those ever popular 0.7\'s. One more comment, there is no animal model that even hints at why the most appealing WHR would be based on visual input.

[FerroMone]

What about the mathematical ratio of BEAUTY which is 1:1.618 does it have a connection with the pheromones also ?

It says that \"Women with elements of the face with a ratio of 1:1.618 to each other are perceived by Men as beautiful\"

[DrSmellThis]

Worth trying! That\'s the phi ratio, isn\'t it? The Greeks used it for all their human statues, which are renowned for their beauty.

Well, Ferro, if you take that ratio and apply it to 3 mones with low #\'s, it would be closest to 5:8:13, somewhere between p10 and AE! If you added a fourth and fifth pheromone, 3:5:8:13:21, and so on.

OK, you chem set geometry freaks! Let\'s try 3 -rone, to 5 -nol, to 8 A1, to 13 -none!

I love sacred geometry so this is interesting.

Dr. Kohl\'s comments are very interesting, too, if a bit monothematic.

Let\'s do a thought experiment: If you show people who were randomly assigned to two groups two sets of human pictures, one set with subjects close to the Greek mathematical dimensions of physical beauty (which are quite detailed and apply to most of the body); and one that deviates quite a bit from such ideal dimensions (but were not otherwise chosen to be systematically different); and measure all the known potentially relevant hormonal changes in a viewer after having seen them, you might find quite a large \"visual beauty effect\". I doubt seriously that this study has been done.

Imagining such likely results, it would not ultimately be parsimonious to theorize that pheromonal conditioning caused these Greek dimensions to be perceived as beautiful, as there is no experimental evidence to indicate causation, rather than correlation.

Further, the concept of multiple perceptual determinants of beauty sits better with common sense. We are not \"just noses\", any more than are peacocks or other animals. Is there really a preponderance of well done studies of peacocks, for example, that show the presence/absence of plumes has no impact on mating behavior? I doubt it.

Regarding humans, recent neurological research indicates that there are actually brain cells in the eye, cells that already impart simple meanings to visual stimuli, before they leave the optic nerve! Talk about a direct eye/brain connection! Visual beauty is like a drug in it\'s intensity --- hence, the absolutely soaring numbers of marriages broken up over internet porn addiction. It is indeed one of the few most common reasons for couples counseling now.

Another thought experiment, to test whether the exact opposite of what Dr. Kohl is suggesting could be true -- I bet you could condition men to be attracted to the absolute \"wrong\" pheromone profiles, by repeatedly pairing such smells with beautiful pornogrphic images or gorgeous in-person models. However, were this likely result to occur, I would not go so far as to argue that olfactory beauty is totally determined by visual conditioning in real people, as did Dr. Kohl for the oppsite directional effect.

I have lots of respect for Dr. Kohl\'s insights. We are probably all a bit monothematic as regards our own field of accomplishment. When we have an excellent hammer, everything we see starts to look like a nail. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[DrSmellThis]

3:5:8:13:21

[Irish]

One way to test if humans are capable of independent visual perception of beauty apart from lifelong olfactory conditioning would be to test lifelong anosmics (otherwise normal) to see if they share typical views of visual beauty.

Personally I think we have some visual hardwiring tied to the concept of beauty. I read that newborns show a preference for classical attractive faces, presumably before they have had a chance to form conditioned responses to olfactory cues.

I like the concept held by some that visual and olfactory/pheromonal pathways are redundant channels to increase the chances of identufying the \'superior\' mate. I tend to think these dual hardwired channels reinforce and mutally condition our responses as we gain experience with the opposite sex.

[CptKipling]

3:5:8:13:21

A1:rone:cops:nol:none

[jvkohl]

Despite hormonal changes that correlate well with a \"beauty effect,\" there is no known means by which this effect could occur due to visual input alone. There simply is no direct connection between what we see and hormones that influence behavior, a connection that must be made before anyone goes on about how important visual input is to behavior. One pathway leads from the social-environment to behavior: gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system. Pheromones alter genes in hormone secreting nerve cells of tissue in the brain, the most important organ of any organ system involved in behavior. Nothing about visual pathways provides nearly as clear cut a link. In fact, with visual input, there is no link between the social environment (nurture) and nature (genetic make-up).

DrSmellThis is diplomatic when referring to my monothematic (i.e., hammer/nail) approach. Others I\'ve encountered have been less diplomatic; and usually tend to \"run away\" as soon as I ask what model for the development of visual preferences they suggest be used to explain human physical attraction. THERE IS NO MODEL!

With regard to \"wrong\" conditioning; the olfactory model has been applied very effectively with males who are pathologically attracted to children. Olfactory aversion therapy is the most effective treatment--even better than chemical castration. With regard to different forms of olfactory conditioning--my ASCAP article on homosexual orientation, also explains bisexuality and transexuality using the ever present mammalian model in which pheromones determine--yes, just about everything!

Finally, studies on human males born with no sense of smell, or animal males that have their olfactroy pathways ablated at birth, show very definite developmental disorders when it comes to \"knowing\" the opposite sex. Reportedly, men with Kallmann\'s syndrome: hypothalamic hypogonadism with anosmia, don\'t fall in love. They exhibit erotic apathy, delayed sexual firsts (despite hormone treatment), and seem to have great difficulty bonding with any other human--including their mother. Exactly what one would expect from every bit of mammalian data with regard to olfaction/pheromones.

[Track0714]

I would do

3:5:8:13:21

rone:cops:A1:Nol:None

[rjm]

JVK,

Freakin\' WOW!!!

Is any of this stuff available on the web? This is the kind of stuff I think I would like to read.

If only I\'d had better teachers, I could have gone into biology myself. Only problem is, when I said I want to make some new friends, I wouldn\'t have meant the usual way!

[Whitehall]

\"THERE IS NO MODEL\" only speaks to the formal level of current scientific understanding, a social invention, not to the underlying pheomonena. Your hypothesis of complete and sole dependence on pheromones for sexual stimulation - directly and indirectly through conditioning - is counterintuitive. You\'ve put yourself in the position of proving a negative - good luck!

I\'d predict that the result of your thesis will be someone looking for an inbreed and hardwired visual model of sexual attractiveness. I bet they will eventually find it too while teaching us more about pheromones too.

Isn\'t science great!

[abductor]

I agree with JVK when he says that a \"beauty model\" doesn\'t exist. What is the prettiest woman ? Zeta-Jones, Demi Moore, Marilyn Monroe (with Channel n. 5). But easily we can tell \"that woman is very good scented\" ...

[Watcher]

Remember however that women will trade sexual attraction in favour of money the odd thing about humans is our young need support and protection for 15 years of upbringing, so there fore need a good provider with committment. Dont go into the discussion on the alpha vs beta genetic vs committment argument lol.

[xvs]

There is evidence that women look for men as:

- Providers: to marry and take care of them and their children.
- Fertilizers: to have sex with and get pregnant by.

Unfortunately, there\'s also quite a lot of evidence that women tend to look for different men to provide these two functions.

[Watcher]

10% of men provide both but in the providers benefit is that they can distract women by romance presents and the threat of a withdrawl of support if they cheat and the guy finds out. Hey things are changing but women still get depressed more if they are single therefore some still keep a guy around.

[xvs]

My guess: alpha males are more likely to be fertilizers, betas more likely to be providers.

But are women less likely to cheat on alphas? I don\'t know... in baboons, the alpha male has a harem of females. The betas stay on the outskirts -- he chases them away if they get too close. But the females sneak off and have sex with the betas.

All kind of confusing, huh?

[Watcher]

Well the females need to be serviced and the alpha can only be strecthed so far so the females sneak off to the betas and do em over. In humans however women think of alphas in many different types of frame of mind. Ie a small guy might be the alpha for a tall chick but small women might want the tall guy. I have heard that women look for thier opposites for sexual preferences.

[sabSpeaks]

Speaking of creepy, look at the Greek ratio for beauty and the ideal waist-to-hip ratio:

Greek ratio: 1:1.618
Hip-to-waste: 0.7

1/1.618 = 0.62

Coincidence, anyone?

[Watcher]

Creepy definelty the greeks were onto something the ratios for attraction to the opposite sex ive heard are as follows

Females 0.6 - 0.7 hip to waist
Males 1.0 - 1.1 hip to waist thats why guys who work out get more.

= Alpha males are bigger - it really is very interesting.

More tangent mathematics at work - another point is that for the rise to go from 0.62 up to 0.7 may over a couple of thousand years be explained from the increasing size and better health standards compared with ancient times. Ie women and men are getting bigger on average which means that those ratios change.

www.ecorp.com.au (\"http://www.ecorp.com.au\")

[DrSmellThis]

Yes. Greek statues of bodies are way more beautiful than Roman ones for precisely the reason that the Romans did not know about phi. There might be 40-50 places where phi is measured on a Greek statue (all 20 fingers and toes to start with).

[FerroMone]

Well of course the so called \"Ratio of Beauty\" whitch is 1:1.618 is not only applicable to our faces. It was also applied to acoustics. The baffles of loudspeakers were designed such that the ratio of the length,width and height are all equal to 1:1.618 this gives them a very good sounding stereo. I think applying this ratio to pheros might have the same effect.

[DrSmellThis]

Thank you Ferro.

Your idea about phi, first mentioned above has been an inspiration for me here lately. Check hit squad.

[FerroMone]

Well, its worth mentioning coz i am really curious about the definition of \"BEAUTY\" and then \"What makes things beautiful\"

There is a study that says that the human mind is trained or conditioned to find order or symmetry in nature. So in a way, beauty is just order or symmetry. That is why if you look in a piece of mud for a very long time, it becomes beautiful to look at because your mind have already found symmetry in that piece of mud.

You can try that at even the ugliest thing you can see. It just takes time.

[DrSmellThis]

Yes, and balance. More will come of this.

[Whitehall]

\"Beauty is everywhere, but not everyone sees it.\"

[FerroMone]

Sure does, \"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder\".

[DrSmellThis]

OK, I\'ve been too lazy to do a literature review when I\'m not getting paid, and am otherwise busy. But a few remarks in response to Dr. Kohl are nonetheless due, lest someone think I ran away. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

Causality in Psychology
Of course the effect of pheromones on behavior -- in particular sexual behavior -- has been grossly underestimated. Mainstream folks are just starting to admit they exist for humans, and the research is still in its infancy. I would expect a neuroendocrinologist to trumpet hormonal causes of behavior. However, for me to believe they cause all sexual behavior would intellectually irresponsible, given the findings of psychology. These have consistently indicated multiple deterministic (external) and non-deterministic (e.g., intentions, goals) causes of human behavior. Pheromones are only one deterministic cause, among scads of other well docmented effects (e.g., classical conditioning effects).

The higher order the behavior, the more difficult it is to statistically account for it (for the variation) by reference to deterministic causes. Huge historical meta-analyses of experimental research (the only kind that can strongly suggest causality) in psychology have concluded that, at it\'s very best, deterministic science has only accounted for 1/3 of the variation in any complex human behavior (I believe Cohen was an author), when you add all the known deterministic causes (biology plus environmenal) of such a behavior together! So where does the other 2/3 come from? Experimental studies on volition (sometimes called \"free will\") typically show about 2/3 of behaviors of interest to be accounted for by agentic causes. (e.g., intentions. Look up some of the studies of George Howard, American Psychologist, early 1990\'s). The current state of the art in psychology suggests that people are meaning seeking creatures. They choose. They create their life stories mostly as they intend.

Models
It\'s hugely easier to devise plausible biological models of primitive behaviors (e.g., simple reflexes) than it is to devise them for higher-order behaviors. The trouble is, humans are way more interested in the higher-order behaviors that constitute daily living. It was really easy, for example, to make a model for what happens when somebody pulls their finger from a hot stove. It\'s just a reflex, after all; it happens all in the arm and spinal cord, and doesn\'t require us to talk about anything in the brain. Though still primitive, smell is a bit more complex, and vision is on another level of complexity. A fair amount of cerebral cortex involvement is required to perceive completely anything we see.

But folks like Dr. Kohl have identified plausible pathways for how airborne chemicals trigger the olfactory areas of the brain, the limbic system (which influences our emotions), and the endocrine system (which influences our behavior to some extent.) They are to be congratulated.

But identifying pathways for more complex process is hugely more difficult. Vision begins with, not 3-4 chemicals, but countless godzillions of patterns, hues, textures, motions, etc.; as well as the historically-embedded intentions of a person who chooses to look at one thing in one way, and not the other. For something the eye encodes to be completely perceived, lots of higher cognitive processing already has to have happened.

Is it any wonder THERE IS NO visual MODEL? That is not a fault of visual researchers. We should be fair to them. If they can show reliable effects of visual \"beauty\" on multiple hormones that influence behavior, but can\'t yet trace the exact pathways, so what? That\'s some complex stuff, compared to smell. Moreover, not having settled on a model for an effect cannot reasonably be taken to indicate that the effect does not occur. You can\'t really get away with saying \"there simply is no direct connection\", as if talking about a lack of real effect in the natural world, when all you\'ve got is a lack of a theoretical connection. These are separate issues.

Showing a likely biological pathway assists us in identifying something as somewhat of a causal influence, theoretically, speaks nothing to the effect size or its significance (statistically or in the field).

Moreover, a non-experimental study cannot demonstrate causality in psychology. And inasmuch as experiments can, experimental research suggests people are largely the causes of their own behavior, and that partial causes from nature are many and varied. The burden of proof is not so much on me, to show that visual beauty influences sexual behavior, as much as it is on Dr. Kohl, to show that the historical consesnsus of scientific findings in psychology does not apply to olfaction.

To show that something is a nessary condition for something else to occur does not show that it is sufficient to determine its occurance. So showing that a kid who can\'t smell doesn\'t learn to feel sexual feelings does not help one\'s attempt to argue for some olfactory basis of complex human sexual behavior. To move towards doing that, we would have to start off with an experiment where we randomly assign people to to groups, some of which receive pheromones, and some of which don\'t; and see how much of the variation in their laboratory sexual behaviors can be explained statistically by being assigned to the pheromone group.

Other brain injuries can cause such problems too (as discussed in the case studies of Merleau-Ponty in his Phenomenology of Perception).

Without dragging anyone through the details, the attentive reader can notice that my suggestions, per se, weren\'t really addressed by the reply. I tend not to put my tail between my legs and run off, before l I\'ve been first smacked by the newspaper.

For instance the olfactory aversion therapy example is not about pheromones at all, much less my thought experiment, but is about painful punishments administered via noxious substances llke ammonia. I still maintain I could take the pheromone profile of an unnactractive woman (\"the wrong profile\") and condition men to get turned on to it by it by pairing it repeatedly with live lap dancers followed by gratuitious sex. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Whitehall]

Excellent exposition, DrSmellThis!

Part of the problem is that the subjects are as smart as the investigators; applying Godel\'s Theorem, no logical system can explain itself. I would apply that as saying no brain can explain itself.

The mass and volume of the human brain devoted to vision is much larger than that for smell. One would expect smell to be the easier to decipher based on weight alone. Add our primitive knowledge of the limbic system (emotions) and answers will have to await the continued pile-up of knowledge.

As for ugly women,

\"There are no ugly women; only lazy ones\"
- Helena Rubinstein

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Ok ill chuck up an idea (not necessarily my viewpoint but one thing that may get people talking and fill in some gaps.)

It would appear that certain parts of brain work together to accomplish behaviours and goals.

Ok it has been proven that by myself i have female friends who use pheromones and when they are around i know and can sense that they have them on now sometimes i will tend to follow them around but because i know why i can control the behaviour and appear not to react to pheromones unless they are used in higher amounts its a constant battle between the subconscious and consciousness because when they are used in higher amounts its almost like being on a drug for sexual behaviour.

So when a woman senses a strong pheromone signature she looks around to see where it comes from then the other parts of the brain kick in ie sight to see where it is (relate to NLP information for this) the ears listen to see what the target says - the mouth may or may not try to talk to the \"sexually attractive thing in front of her\" ie the mouth and tongue (audio) depending on her previous experience and behaviour with men if men have always made the move she will sit back and wait based on her memories on how to sexual behave around men or if she is a mover and always has been she will try to make the move

If she is in a relationship based on her willingness to cheat she will either run away or try to show no interest to fiend off the sexual beast to another. She may giggle with nervousness knowing that she is with another.

Ok someone pick up my idea here other people react to strong pheromones based on how they have behaved and interacted with others in the past in the sexual area.

[Irish]

Here\'s an opinion with no science behind it, but see if it makes any sense…

I think we have hardwired ideas of visual beauty. Across all cultures and age groups there is a near-universal appreciation of the beautiful visual spectacles of nature - without any olfactory reference. I also think these concepts apply as well to human beauty, since any pre-pubescent child can pick out a \'pretty woman\' or \'handsome man\', long before they have any sexual drives of their own.

What I think may happen is that when we undergo puberty and complete our final sexualization, that our existing hardwired visual ideas of beauty become intertwined with our emerging ideas of sexual attractiveness (probably pheromonally driven, I grant you). Since classical human beauty and genetic symmetry/superiority seem to be related, the attractive scent of these beautiful/superior individuals will begin to reinforce and condition (in a sexual context) any pre-existing visual concepts of beauty.

[CptKipling]

The introduction of consciousness, and more specifically, culture, has added many layers of complexity to the explanation of the human perception of beauty.

Corriebright mentioned the ability to \"ignore\" the pheromone induced reactions to people, which is an example of higher thought processes overriding primitive ones, which I believe to be possible in almost all circumstances. To make a very rough comparison; sometimes when talking to a very beautiful woman or whilst in the middle of some really good sex, it is possible to \"zone out\" and sort of let auto-pilot take over. This I think is a mix between a visual perception and a pheromonal reaction, either as a result of conditioning (actually, I can remember my very first encounter with \"woman juice\" /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif , and yes, I did \"zone out\" to some degree, which raises some questions with any conditioning theories) or otherwise. A similar state of mind is achieved when high or drunk, (bear in mind this is only a personal experience) and i can sometimes regain complete rational thought, unfortunately this is only limited to thought, and can not be said for my senses and motor skills, and normally ends up in me being sick. Pheromonal perception of beauty can only be taken as partially valid, because how many times have you seen a beautiful woman at a distance? Of course, some of these occasions could be put down to olfactory-visual conditioning, but this does not explain why higher thought processes validate the \"opinion\" of the lower ones.

There is some hard wiring of beauty in pre-pubescent children, but this is also partially driven by the opinion of others, i.e. to the popular beauty which can be see in most pop and film stars. When puberty arrives, individual perception of beauty becomes more specific and varied between individuals, but still has roots in some common visual areas, such as the phi. ratio, WTH ratio, big eyes (pupils), symmetry etc.. These things i suspect are a result of pheromonal conditioning towards beautiful individuals, but the more specific preferences can be attributed to an individuals experiences and personal history.

What must also be remembered is that beauty is often influenced by social conditioning, which is brought about by civilisation. This also explains younger women’s behaviour around alphas, they see others around him, and although they may not find him attractive, they are convinced that they have to have him because other women think he is worth it. Strangely, I have not noticed the same behaviour in men, at least to the extent that women show it. This also has some parallels in the reasons women cheat.

This is from a post by Irish, quoting some David Boss material, which gives some explanations as to why women cheat:

1.resource accrual - she may get \'gifts\' from an alpha lover.
2.mate expulsion/switching - a way to deliberately ditch a boring nice guy when she\'s ready.
3.fertility backup - in case stable partner has deficient fertility.
4.status enhancement - temporary liaison may improve status if alpha has status.
5.honing mating skills - increase her skills at attraction and seduction by seeking an alpha.
6.self esteem improvement - self explanatory.
7.mate assessment/preference clarification - gives her comparisons among lovers.
8.sexual gratification – obvious.

In my opinion, 4, 6, and 8 are the most important. A male perceived by females to be beautiful, or attractive, will give a woman (even one in relationship) an enticing target to prove her worth as a woman to other females, and also the better males, and also improving her own self worth. Among younger people, this female who got this guy will be perceived to be more attractive, giving her access to more and better men.

I kind of went off on a bit of a tangent at the end, so apologies for that.

[Watcher]

Well being one of those alphas now (i was fat 2 years ago and now have worked myself into a muscular athletic state and i will by running comparasions to the way used to be say that this is true but being aware of this and having that goal in mind when i started working out i can play some very interesting games with this and also not just be led around by sexual flirtations it makes me a harder target and i make women work harder to get into my \"inner circle\" it confuses them stupid all i expect and when they figure it out they get in but i dont say anything is that they have to try harder than normal and actually make some of the moves and keep making them. This forum is very benefical hang around and learn folks.
It is also useful for me to make things harder because i get what i want from other females/males to get my attention. Although if they arent direct with me and are just hanging around for nothing i will soon take care of it.

Cannon fodder for discussion folks.

[DrSmellThis]

Way to chime in, guys! This is an interesting thread.

[CptKipling]

Bump

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I was with a guy for two years who I met this way: I was at a club, sitting with friends, and I FELT eyes on me...turned my head and found myself looking straight into his eyes, he was in a crowd of people but my eyes went straight to him, and I felt electrified/scared/aroused. I have no explanation for that. He walked straight over and said \"Would you mind if I sat down?\" and my pulse was fluttering and I said \"If you like\" trying to be cool, knowing my defenses were shot already. He smelled good to me all the time, cologne, no cologne, shower/no shower. Could it have been pheromones?

[CptKipling]

That does sound like that guy got a hit yeah, but it depends on how far away you both were when you \"felt his eyes on you\".

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Oh. He was behind me, actually, about 10 feet away. So it couldn\'t have been pheromones. Never mind! (Emily Latella)

[CptKipling]

Its not completely unreasonable at that distance, but not very likely.

[CptKipling]

ahem- bump

What happened to all the theorising over beauty, that was really interesting.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yeah, hey! where do those descriptions come from -- newbie, phero dude, journeyman, etc.? are they ranks? if so, how do you earn them?

[EXIT63]

It has to do with the number of posts. And Baby, you\'re on your way to the top.

[jvkohl]

Some of you make it more difficult than others for me to avoid lengthy diatribes. On one hand you are to be congratulated for the intelligent manner in which you approach debate. On the other hand, it might be best to read more of the heavyweight neuroscientific pubs: like Neuroendocrinology Letters and Hormones and Behavior. These articles may seem, at first, to gloss over the visual versus olfactory conflict, but this is only possible for me to do with the knowledge that none of the behavioral development specialists at a very prestigious conference on the biological basis of sexuality and sexual orientation remained unconvinced of human olfactory prowess with regard to all aspects of human sexuality. No one even tried to argue for visual input. Of course the lack of argument for vision is expected. 1) there is no mammalian model for visual primacy 2) there is no sexual dimorphism in the visual system 3) visual perception involves very ineffective conscious processing; we simply cannot discern the critical information required for species survival from visual--or any other non-olfactory sensory input. Thus, there is no link from any non-olfactory sensory input to behavior, and therefore since olfactory input has the power to condition responses attributed to other sensory input: olfaction rules. I am not saying that visual input isn\'t important to arousal/attraction, whatever. I\'m saying that in and of itself vision can have no determining effect on behavior because there is no direct link from vision to hormones, thus there is no link to hormonally determined behavior--and yes, all behavior is determined by hormones--whether or not we choose to act on hormonal drives.

If there were a direct pathway from visual input to hormones this would favor visual input; if the visual system of males and females were sexually dimorphic, this would favor visual input; if there were a mammalian model for the primacy of visual over olfactory input, this would favor visual input. Doesn\'t it strike anyone else as being very odd that psychologists have placed stock in measures of attraction based on visually appealing features, with absolutely no biological basis for such measures?

DrSmellThis wrote:
Is it any wonder THERE IS NO visual MODEL? That is not a fault of visual researchers. We should be fair to them. If they
can show reliable effects of visual \"beauty\" on multiple hormones that influence behavior, but can\'t yet trace the exact
pathways, so what? That\'s some complex stuff, compared to smell. Moreover, not having settled on a model for an effect
cannot reasonably be taken to indicate that the effect does not occur. You can\'t really get away with saying \"there simply is
no direct connection\", as if talking about a lack of real effect in the natural world, when all you\'ve got is a lack of a theoretical
connection. These are separate issues.

The issue is not the lack of a theoretical connection. It is partially the lack of any reason to suspect a theoretical connection (again, there is no mammalian model--so how do we arrive at such a very different \"visual\" origin for sexual behavior in humans). It\'s as if the visualists are baking a cake from scratch, but have no ingredients. In contrast, the olfactory connection is not theoretical: the effect is on gonadotropin releasing hormone (the biological core of mammalian reproductive sexual behavior). And there is no doubt that this effect is manifest in hormonal changes directly linked to sexual behavior. All the while \"affective reactions\" occur throughout the limbic system, the emotional core of the brain. Other factors that have been tossed about during past debates include the overwhelming amount of processing power required for the brain to generate a response to visual input--as compared to a complete lack of cortical processing when it comes to olfaction. Using such differences in brain power to make a case for vision seems counterintuitive for any mammal where species survival is required. Thinking about how you\'re going to survive is useless if you can\'t smell the fire approaching that will kill you, or process the chemical input from a potential mate that indicates the likelihood of successful reproduction.

Sorry if I have failed to address any direct or indirect questions in the past or in this post. I do not want anyone to think that I am avoiding such questions. However, I have written--at length--on this topic, both in journals and in a newly available second edition of my book. To attempt to reproduce the basis of my strong assertions with minimal text is impossible. However, as I have indicated in the past, if you have any direct questions--those that can be answered in a sentence or two--I will do my best to quickly respond. Just title your post Question for JVK--or something like that so I can scan the forum without taking all evening to find questions. I nearly missed the ongoing discussion in this thread, simply because it has become such a lengthy thread. Nice to see such interest, but hard for me to keep up with everyone. Honestly though, some of you are much better at conveying your thoughts than many of the top researchers.

[jvkohl]

Most of this can be found in various links from my website: with one exception. The article on homosexual orientation is not yet available as a .pdf. But it will be sometime soon, and I will provide a link to it from my site.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Break it down for me, I\'m dense. Are you saying that whether you find someone sexually attractive or not is a function of smell rather than sight, because smell sets off hormones whereas sight does not?

[jvkohl]

Whitehall wrote: \"THERE IS NO MODEL\" only speaks to the formal level of current scientific understanding, a social invention, not to the underlying pheomonena.\"

I disagree, it speaks to scientific understanding of the biology of behavior; a dearth of knowledge that requires no social invention. Biological facts are (until proven otherwise) facts. Yes, I know that facts can change--but so many facts would require change to invalidate the olfactory model, that change is unlikely.

\" Your hypothesis of complete and sole dependence on pheromones for sexual stimulation - directly
and indirectly through conditioning - is counterintuitive. You\'ve put yourself in the position of proving a negative - good luck! \"

Others have this idea also: that I am saying complete and sole dependence on pheromones. What I am saying is pheromones condition the response to other sensory input. Thus they do not influence us in a vacuum, but in all social circumstances. However, if these social circumstances included no other sensory input, the driving force of chemical communication would somehow pull us through--the species would still survive. I think that\'s a bit different that saying \"complete and sole dependence.\"

\" I\'d predict that the result of your thesis will be someone looking for an inbreed and hardwired visual model of sexual attractiveness. I bet they will eventually find it too while teaching us more about pheromones too.\"

The above is a very unlikely scenario for reasons I have detailed in other posts. You can bet that others have tried to find a visual model; I\'ve been antagonistic about this for many years now, and there are at least a few other researchers who would like to \"put me in my place.\" The fact that no one has even begun to propose a visual model speaks for itself-especially when so many researchers present papers on visual aspects of attraction

[jvkohl]

Simply put: YES!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

That\'s so radical I can\'t even really grasp it.

May I ask you questions? (I\'ll certainly take \"no\" for an answer; maybe it\'s tedious to have to talk down) - but - if that is true, how then would we explain the effect of pornography on arousal?

[Watcher]

In response to fulltiltredhead the smell or sense of pheromones comes first and then this triggers the brain into kicking the visual system in to compare this to previous visual representations of sexually attractive males with the same phero sig. Its a chain reaction sight is just one aspect. Response is based on previous experiences with various individuals with the brain using association as a general baseline.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Watcher, you can\'t smell pictures.Also I am confused because, among other things, it seems beauty/sexuality are being sort of equated and they\'re not the same thing at all. You can be sexy as hell and not be aesthetically all that pleasing, which would back up Dr. Kohl - haven\'t we all experienced that?

[Watcher]

Yep you can smell the scracth and sniff pictures lol. Im totally confused by it (i know they do work however maybe its a combination of sight and smell that influence our response to someone sexy.)

www.ecorp.com.au (\"http://www.ecorp.com.au\")

[**DONOTDELETE**]

He\'s just saying smell is processed before sight and so determines the way in which sight is processed? So whoever smells right then will tend to look right to us as well, if other factors also fall into line.Actually, that makes perfect sense for me, it explains some things I could previously only attribute to esp or throw my hands up and say it\'s a mystery.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I dunno. I\'m seeing a case being built for \"I want him to smell like Daddy...\"But it could very well explain why you can know within seconds of meeting someone whether you\'ll get along long term or not, which I have previously attributed to intuition, having nothing else to explain it. It could be you know because your nose is processing information in a part of your brain that isn\'t directly talking to you. That certainly makes more sense than \"intuition.\" It would explain the phenonmenon of love at first sight. (more powerful than just \"wow, he/she\'s good looking\" - i\'m talking about when your gut is engaged at first glance) Maybe it\'s really at first smell.

[Watcher]

Listen to fulltiltredhead shes got my garbed response and turned it into an intuitive response that everyone else can understand. Love at first site is exactly as above. There are a few theories ill explain that are going around.

a) women look for men that are close matches for their father in terms of pheromone - DNA signature pheromones signal what our DNA sequence is like. As far as the different ratios etc.

b) women look for diversity something different to thier fathers/family line. Im not sure which one is true maybe others will fill in the gaps.

But the thing about processing is true but the brain makes a final decision with many factors involved.

www.pshollow.freeservers.com/custom.html (\"http://www.pshollow.freeservers.com/custom.html\")
www.ecorp.com.au (\"http://www.ecorp.com.au\")

[jvkohl]

Okay, now you\'re tuned into the concept. Quit thinking about what you see: visual erotica et al. Realize that thought processes are not involved in the biology of behavior. Sure, you can think about your response and alter it, but such thoughts occur long after your response has been biologically hardwired. Pheromones are the social envrionmental stimuli that hardwire genetically predisposed responses. The effect, via hormones, begins at birth. By the time you\'re thinking about adult attraction, you\'re many years past the first several thousand opportunities you have to imprint (subconsciously) on another person\'s pheromones: dad, mom, brother, sister, all other relatives, all other strangers--everyone has a chemical signature that you process in whatever context you are exposed, and your limbic system (i.e., the emotional core of the brain) remembers the context and holds the imprint. As I recall, Martha McClintock was a co-author on a study that reported women prefer the scent of their fathers--so the media take was: guys should smell like her dad to get in her pants. Wrong! The context of the study clearly showed that such a preference (for the smell of one\'s father) might be manifest when a woman is in the infertile phase of her cycle, but when she\'s ovulating she chooses the smell of genetic diversity---just like other animals, who prefer the scent of the next when infertile, but go for genetic diversity when they\'re most likely to conceive. Go with the mammalian model; you can\'t go wrong. Go with some psychologists lame perspective on the hows and whys of attraction and you\'ll continue to be as confused as most people are. Most don\'t have a clue about why they behave in a different manner at different times and due to different stimuli. Any good biologist could evaluate the hormones and tell you exactly why you were behaving that way at that time. But, we don\'t need to measure your hormone levels to tell you that your behavior is as hormonally driven as the behavior of any mammalian male or female--and that mammalian pheromones are responsible for the behavior. In the second edition of Scent of Eros, we add some info on the theory Desmond Morris has promoted for the development of the pendulous human female breasts. True to the form of evolutionary psychologists, he proposes a bizarre development due to some need to mimic the fleshy buttocks (to provide additional visual stimuli geared to ensure mating behavior.) That\'s insane. The pendulous human female breasts are modified apocrine (scent producing) glands. Hair traps scent. The lack of hairy chested women provided all the reason required for women to better develop a method for scent distribution (which, of course, is the most effective means to signal different hormonal states). So, here we have the contrast between biology and psychology. Mammalian biology makes clear what psychology can only theorize about--and the psche theory is horrid to start with. But, since your teachers never told you anything about pheromones, many of you are still wondering about how much impact pheromones have. If you were any other mammal (or if you can put yourself in the position of any other mammal) there would be no question about the importance of visual input compared to olfactory input. Only humans question such biological facts, largely because we think we are different than other mammals. Biology is biology, regardless of the species, and species survival depends on pheromones--not visual input. I can\'t condense this concept much further. In fact, it\'s still best to look at the NEL article, get the full picture, and attempt to incorporate it into great discussions like this one. http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm (\"http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm\")

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I wonder why our custom is for women to shave. First thing that comes to mind is maybe men want their women to shave to limit pheromone disbursal, but that would seem to be really theoretical, because all the men I know are grossed out by women who don\'t shave their legs, and increasingly (to my alarm) women who don\'t also shave their nether regions --jeemonetty, man, seems like more and more we can\'t have any hair whatsoever other than on our heads/eyelashes/eyebrows or it offends men.

[CptKipling]

I think its because some women dont actually have to shave their legs, and smooth skin is considered sexy. Cant think why there would be an argument for reduction of pheros.

I havnt read JVK\'s last post, but here\'s what i grasp of the theory.

Smell tells us who is an attractive reproductive partener. This responce visually conditions us to recognise what an attractive person looks like. When we see an attractive person, we think \"Ohh she(/he) fine!\". Pheros by-pass the visual conditioning and take us back to the original identivication of an attractive person.

Erm, is that right?

[marv14yag]

The only problem is....How long does it take to RE-CONDITION someone, and, WILL it ever?

Example, I am wearing the pheromones, and, at the right dose, but a lot of people EVEN ones that I DON\'T know, are resistant, because of the way they have been programmed, how long does it take to reprogram them?

If people can become gay because of f*** up programming, than I can CERTAINLY program someone to like me, lol.

Bart

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Because pheros have to do with body hair.I never met a woman in my life who didn\'t have to shave. Maybe she waxes or uses depilatories but all women I\'ve ever known have hair on their legs/underarms.

[jvkohl]

Women who limit the amount of visible hair also limit pheromone distribution. In this regard, studies show that less odor production is consistently associated with women; more/stronger odor with men. So, in this case what we have is most likely a social stigma which causes women to attempt to reduce visible hair--especially from areas with large numbers of apocrine (scent producing) glands (e.g., underarm and pubic areas). The result could be that the woman smells more feminine because of the lack of natural odor. In contrast, longer head hair has typically been considered more feminine-though it would probably not be considered appealing if it were not clean. So, of course, women with long hair complain about maintenence, but they must also believe there is some reason for keeping up the work. Is the added attention from men worth it? Obviously it is for some women. But most men would probably think they were responding to the visual appeal of long hair--how does this appeal develop in the absence of olfactory conditioning?

Can\'t seem to connect all my thoughts in a short post but will add that the study that showed men prefer the scent of women who are in the ovulatory phase of their cycle seems to attest to the biological fact that increased estrogen levels are associated with more pleasant odor. Did I mention that Dev Singh and Matt Bronstad first spoke with me about a study that might show women with waist to hip ratios of 0.7 smelled better than those with higher (more masculine) ratios. Someone else will probably show this in the near future; the current problem is trying to reach statistically significant results. The reason 0.7 women should smell better is because proper body fat distribution (as an indicator of fertility) is determined by estrogen/androgen ratios--with women having higher ratios than men.

Meanwhile, European women do not all shave their axillae (underarm area). Some cultures know that by doing so, a woman might limit her olfactory appeal. Similarly, French prostitutes reportedly know how to advertise by dabbing vaginal secretions behind their ears (wafting their wares to a potential customer). It\'s probably no wonder that The Scent of Eros book was received much better in Europe than here in the U.S. Europeans typically are not appalled to think that they are responding to pheromones--just like other animals do. Instead, they seem to think it\'s a natural response, which it is.

[jvkohl]

Reprogramming/reconditioning is a difficult task, and requires repeated exposure in pleasant surroundings--unless, that is, she happens to be ovulating--when she is much more likely to throw caution to the wind and simply respond to male pheromones. If you happen to be the guy she choses and you show her a good time in bed, she will--by virtue of the strong reinforcement of estrogen increased oxytocin-associated orgasm--be very inclined to bond with you and continue to develop a relationship. Without the reinforcement or orgasm, you can only hope that you\'re nicer than some of the other guys who\'ve been hitting on her lately, so that you get more chances. My apologies for introducing this type of performance pressure into the picture, but it\'s always there waiting to rear it\'s ugly head. Pheromones alone will not recondition any woman or man; it takes some positive reinforcement along with the pheromones. That\'s why pheromones do not act as aphrodisiacs.

[xvs]

I have to second what JVK is saying here.

Once you get the gal into bed, if you can manage to drive her nuts sexually, she\'s yours. If not... ?

If the performance anxiety gets to you... there\'s always viagra.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

\"if not, there\'s always viagra.\"Listen to me: it\'s not about your dick. IT\'S NOT ABOUT YOUR DICK!It\'s 100% infallible if she has an orgasm with you every time, she\'ll stay with you and very very likely not stray.But there are a million and one ways to make her cum that don\'t depend on your dick, it\'s size, it\'s hardness.In fact, many of us believe that a guy with a big dick is to be avoided because often well-endowed guys don\'t bother to develop any technique other than the wham-bam, which don\'t get me wrong, I love the wham-bam too, but if you have good hands and good oral and you\'re enthusiastic about being with her, everything else is gravy. Women are not so genitally focused in bed as men are, and most women don\'t have orgasms from intercourse without direct clitoral contact (even if they do, it\'s likely not as intense). It doesn\'t matter HOW you make her cum, it only matters than you do. Please please please heed this, I\'m so telling you the truth.

[Watcher]

Full tilt ill wait back in. Foreplay involves the realise of lots of the aNOL compound. That is why women react by giggling laughing generally getting in a good mood. Anone comes with the actual dick going to work. Both are usable as pheromones Arone comes from the underarms hence thats why most men dont shave their.
So wether you have clitoral contact or not it doesnt matter youll still get a strong realise of Anol women produce lots of anol thats why women can stimulate each other and still get a good response and enjoy it (Androstenol)

[marv14yag]

If a girl is horny around you, but she is also nervous, is it a good idea to try something or not, and is this why NOL works so good? Because they have that fear of society, and or they are nervous, etc...??? I need ANSWERS! For real though, I think some girl gets really h*rny when I\'m around her, but really nervous too, I\'m afraid if I tried something, she would want me to back off... Suggestions? All I\'m using is none, and I\'m probably NOT going to buy any nol..... Because, I\'m no girls firend, I don\'t play the game buy asking to borrrow her notes, etc, tha\'ts not how it goes with me...

Bart.......

[xvs]

-nol and A1 make women more relaxed, so that the barriers are lowered.

With regard to the performance anxiety comment I made... yes, I agree that it\'s making the woman cum that\'s important, though I\'ve been with a few who apparently can\'t cum from sex.

But women are really fascinated by a hard cock and are not very interested in a soft one... so if you want to continue your alpha male presence in bed, I think it is pretty important to have some stamina.

[Watcher]

Women are interested in a hard cock and to get all the stamina you need the following will be repeated again to help others out there.

Aphrodisiac inducing herbs. (that is it will boost testostrone levels therefore boosting performance and as a side effect natural pheromone production.)

Tribulus - raises Leutinizing hormone levels - boost phero production
Horny goatweed (staggiterium root - hope i spelt that properly) works great also along with tribulus.
Zinc - magnesium - DHEA supplements.

Weight work and exercise. Protein powders

WATER WATER and carbohydrates and a healthy diet also.
This works great and will drive her nuts in bed.

[CptKipling]

Yeah you\'ll be surprised what the effects of a healthy, balanced diet are. Very usefull when in training. Currently on a \"get SUPER fit\" drive, for the football season and for my running, which I gave up before my exams.

[Whitehall]

May I suggest some reading in the philosophy of science? The most succinct volume is \"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions\" by Thomas Kuhn. A good read too.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=54ZLMS7F2U&isbn=0226458083 (search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=54ZLMS7F2U&isbn=0226458083)

Another writer is Karl Popper but I\'ve only read summaries of his thoughts.

So far, I unconvinced. I will buy and read your book within the month so my opinions are admittedly ill-formed. I will say again that your hypothesis faces an uphill battle refuting my experience of life\'s realities as seen from the inside of my brain.

If the other guys are denying that pheromones help shape the individual from crade to grave, then they are wrong. It is one factor in a multi-factor equation. I still suspect hardwired visual \"standards.\"

[DrSmellThis]

It had also occured to me that phil of science, as well as research methodology, are the problematic areas for JVK. The few refereed articles I\'ve ready by him were much less problematic that way, but then again the statements were less extreme than in the forum here.(e.g., \"all behavior is caused by pheromones\". I find it hard to believe a professional scientist would say something like that. Then comes an ever more confusing, self-contradictory statement, something like \"even if we choose not to act on our olfactory info.\" This implicitly posits volition as a first cause. These kinds of statements would, in my experience, make research methodologists or philosophy of science pro\'s run around kicking and screaming. As he leaps into the philosophy of science business and the measurement theory (research methodology) business of his own accord, he should well expect to have to get up to speed in these areas.

The same can be said about me and my knowledge of neuroendocrinology, though I\'m quite willing to take what JVK and the experts say at face value -- until it treads on my scientific turf.

I have never had a problem with the \"primacy\" of smell vs. vision, per se, as smell is a more primitive or primal brain function, and vision is higher-order. Primal information is more available to us first. We do have to be careful to specify exactly what we mean by primacy, however.

I was using vision only as an example of one of the multiple causes of behavior. (JVK was striking at paper windmills, when he talked about the \"lame psychologists\" who trumpet the \"primacy of vision\". No one here suggested this at all. Few psychologists would bother to \"go there,\" just on the grounds of general principles. This does not mean, however, that, in particular situations, smell might not account for less of the variability in behavior than other causes. Even if vision and other things are conditioned by smell in their development, like other children, they do develop a life of their own. (Though having been infuenced by their parents)

[Tom]

Anybody realize that jkohl or James V. Kohl
http://www.server2.love-scent.com/ubbthreads/showprofile.php?Cat=&User=jkohl&Number=25011&Board =UBB5&what=showflat&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0 &fpart=all&vc=1 (\"http://www.server2.love-scent.com/ubbthreads/showprofile.php?Cat=&User=jkohl&Number=25011&Board =UBB5&what=showflat&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0 &fpart=all&vc=1\")

Still \"Newbie\" /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif