Do copulins increase testosterone in females?

[xxxPantero]

Since it is now generally accepted that copulins increase the testosterone of males, i\'m wondering if it would increase testosterone in females, as well.

although a female\'s VNO might be different, how MUCH different is it? maybe that\'s one component of the increased competitiveness, of the increased lubrication, etc...

anyone care to take a shot at this?

responses from JVKohl and Hookem would be esp. appreciated, as they have done formal research on pheromones, but in the meanwhile, everyone else feel free to share what knowledge you have!

[MadMaxx]

I wonder, does it really matter if their T is increased? I can tell you I have definitely noticed an increase in aggressiveness and competitiveness. This manifestation is interesting to me, but I never asked myself whether the chicks\' T-levels were higher or not. If you\'ve got chicks fighting over you, do you really care how much T is in their bloodstream? No offense intented Pantero, I\'m just being a little facetious and this is the thought that came to mind after I read your post.

[xxxPantero]

well, there\'s a couple other side-effects of upped T:

would it increase weight loss, more muscle, faster metabolism, increased immune system, if constantly exposed to to it?

plus since pheros might not work on a woman who\'s on birth control (FTR, any ideas) due to low/no ovulation, could copulins up their T-levels so that they have increased sex-drive?

[Bruce]

Testosterone, though lower in level, is crucial to women as well as men. It is the controler of libido in both men and women.
Bruce

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hmm, so this may imply that a good enough mix of EW inflates the ladies\' libido to a noticeable degree, when in the presence of a wearer... I CAN\'T WAIT until my EW gets here!

[MadMaxx]

Well, if EW increases T, which in turn increases a woman\'s libido, that is a good thing. From my hit experiences, as well as what the women here have told me, with exposure to EW, they feel like they want to be done, like now. Cool, but it still brinigs me back to my first point. If your target woman gets wet and wants to get done when she is exposed to EW, are you really going to be sitting there musing about whether her increased T-levels are causing this phenomenon?

[xxxPantero]

hahaha no of course not? i\'d be acting on my own T-levels!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I don\'t feel testosterony on copulins at all - I don\'t know what happens chemically, but I would be willing to bet it\'s not about testosterone, which makes you more aggressive. Copulins make women more -- \"pliable\" is the word Woman uses to describe the feeling, and it\'s a good description. They make you more -- I really hate to use this word, don\'t go wild with it -- submissive. That\'s the meaning of \"you want to be \'done\'\" - as opposed to, you want to jump the guy and straddle him, which is my usual reaction, which is quite different. Copulins make you moony and swoony, where you want to be taken and made love to. Whatever they\'re doing to us, it feels the opposite of testosteroney. The reason I know this (what testosterone feels like) is because my free testosterone runs in the high normal range (anybody surprised? bet not!); I recognized myself in an article in a women\'s magazine about high testosterone women and had my levels tested. Copulins reaction is not about that. How many men have noted increased competitive behavior in women when they\'re wearing copulins? Because this \"competitiveness\" described in women who are wearing copulins is not overt competitive behavior -- that would be testosterone. It is biologically competitive and really has no direct relevance in social life. It is competitive in that the woman wearing copulins is more wet and more submissive, and so is therefore more ready to be penetrated, which, if we were baboons, would be an advantage, but it doesn\'t mean much in terms of how you actually act toward people you don\'t know well in a social setting. If women are aggressively competitive around you, I would think it is because of something other than copulins.The theory that men who wear copulins are more attractive to women because they signal they\'ve just been with a woman -- I don\'t buy it.I think the reason men who wear copulins are attractive to women (if, indeed, they are) is because they smell like one of the girls. They\'re disguising their \"enemy/other\" scent. Which I guess is cool for getting your foot in the door -- but I don\'t know how well it would get you laid.

[Woman]

EW feels like it raises estrogen levels in me not testosterone. Feeling soft and pliable and \"wanting you to do me\" is estrogen talking, for my body chemistry. Testosterone is my sexual thoughts, my adrenaline rush of sexual excitement and feeling strong and edgy. EW alone does none of that whatsoever in my experience. However, since you guys are using EW in combinations anyway with other pheromones, it might work. I just don\'t think from my personal experiments that it is necessarily raising T levels in women. At least not this woman.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Counterpoint to the first point - since I have no EW on hand, in the meantime I will sit here and muse about whatever, whenever.

I would expect that when I meet a target that\'s ready to be so eloquently, \"done\", I\'d be proceeding to the next step, within a beat of my heart.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yeah, what she said!

Here\'s maybe a sketch of it - high T says \"I want to f*ck you this minute.\" High estrogen says \"oh, my darling...if you don\'t kiss me I\'ll die...\" It\'s like the difference between love and lust, sort of.

lol

[MadMaxx]

Once again, thank you WOMAN and FTR. Very well said.
I think I understand what you mean by the \"pliable\" and \"competitive\". When I feel that females are competing for me, it is not like they are aggressively throwing other women out of the way! lol! It is something more subtle. It might be better to say that they are making themselves very available. As you say, IF they were baboons they might be thrusting their dripping genitals in my face or something, but they wouldn\'t be attacking me or other females.
However, I have never worn EW only. I have always used it with a bit of -none, which I think is wise. Even with this -none though, I can only think of one case where the girl was a bit aggressive. She was continually touching me and taking my hand and leading me around. lol. It was quite amusing.

[xxxPantero]

FTR: okay, so cops would be a lot better if the guy uses it right before sex, or would that make the woman see him as less than a potential \"f.uck\" and more of a \"cuddle buddy\"

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Pantero, I really don\'t know, because it messes with my head to even imagine a guy who reminds me of p*ssy - the idea of it revolts me. I think the reason I am so completely hooked on the guy I\'m with is because he can break through my high T reaction and make me be high E, just for the fact that his testosterone is SO much higher. If you\'re talking about your own situation, I swear, I\'d put the copulins ON your girlfriend. She\'s high T, I\'d bet on it. That\'s why she wants pounding, but it\'s like you have to fight her for it - and she wants it very much psychologically, but her body\'s not really ready, she\'s not having vaginal ballooning that comes from real body arousal, so when you do pound her, she can\'t accomodate you and she complains that it hurts. Put the cops on HER to calm her ass down. You do what you can to up your own T. If I were you I would not ever wear copulins around that girl.Yeah, like Woman said - too much of that stuff and she might want to snuggle under a blankie with you and watch Steel Magnolias (chick flick). (sorry to keep quoting you, Woman, but you put things so well) P.S. Pantero, remind me on Monday to send you a link. I\'ve been researching for you and found a website where a sex expert talks about women constantly needing to pee during sex and says that it has to do with trying to have sex when she\'s not fully aroused. I\'ll send it to you. I can\'t do it from home very easily.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

More evidence comes to mind: I had an extreme reaction to copulins, but to some degree this seems to be true of women who wear copulins, and I\'m sure someone will correct me if I\'m wrong -- for me, it felt like almost immediately coming down with really bad PMS, which is estrogen rush, so Woman\'s got to be right. Many of the symptoms I get from PCC are PMS-y - inability to concentrate, inability to do left-brain functions very well, some clumsiness - it gives me brain fog. But when I\'m PMS-ing is when I\'m most horny. So it does all come together. Plus, when I\'ve taken yohimbe or ephedra in a part of my cycle where there is not estrogen rush, and my T levels are boosted, I\'m sharper, faster, more aggressive. So, no. It\'s definitely not boostin the woman\'s testosterone. But women have more than one way to feel sexy. There\'s aggressive sexy and there\'s submissive sexy. Copulins bring out the submissive sexy.On a related note: I am not at all sure that if a substance causes a reaction in women, then when a man wears it and the woman smells or senses it on the man, she will react as though she is wearing the substance. It\'s different to react to something than it is to own it, to have it incorporated into your bloodstream. I have serious doubts about this whole way of thinking. Does anyone have any hard data on it? That if she smells/senses copulins on you, it feels the same to her as though she herself were wearing the copulins?I guess it\'s a matter of whether you want to polarize the energies or equalize them, but it would appear in most cases that you want to polarize them, in other words, you\'re wanting to be seen as more manly, so that she will act more femininely --so why would you want to go around smelling like p*ssy? I\'m not getting this... Maybe the strategy is, for a guy who can\'t/doesn\'t want to for some reason, initiate, that if he wears copulins and she senses them, that will create a response in her as though she had them on herself, and she will be horny and initiate.The problem with that is that it doesn\'t make her horny like that. It makes her the other kind of woman horny and in fact probably less likely to initiate.I dunno. Maybe I forgot to carry the one somewhere, but it\'s not adding up for me.

[xxxPantero]

basically there\'s 2 motivations for my question:

1. want to get the girl very wet so she can take it hard

2. want to make her feel even hornier

i read earlier on the board that cops were having an effect on women, so i was exploring that some more.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Would she wear PCC for you?

You found out about going with her timing, last time. If you make sure she\'s wet, her clit is hard, and you can feel her g spot swollen, she should be able to take what she\'s been asking you for. Ladies, am I wrong?

[MadMaxx]

FTR, I agree that Pantero should put the cops on his women.
As for your question, no, I don\'t have any hard data, but it is something that I want to know also. If we think about -none for example, -none products that make me aggressive and hostile also make the males around me the same; that is, the alpha males anyway. So, maybe it is affecting me and the other alpha males the same way.
I obviously cannot get inside the women that I get hits from, but if I was to read their behavior/reaction to me, I think it very well could be similar to the \"pliable\" that you and woman keep mentioning.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

What are you wearing besides EW?

[xxxPantero]

hahaha i can picture it now...

\"oh yeah, baby, you want it hard, don\'t you? you like me being control, huh?\"
\"oh yes, baby, please... give it to me hard. take control of me, violate me, take me. f*ck me!!!!\"
\"okay, hold on, let me make sure that you\'re wet, your clit\'s hard, and that your g-spot is swollen.\"
\"excuse me? what the hell are you talking about? never mind, you know what? you just killed it for me. good night.\"

HARSH!

and as far as the girl wearing PCC for me, i\'m trying to keep pheros as my secret weapon. /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Ok, do whatever. Pantero, not to put too fine a point on it, but don\'t you finger her before you f*ck her? You don\'t have to say a word.And you could put the PCC on her and tell her it\'s a perfume you really like and you\'d like her to wear it for you.

[MadMaxx]

JB1 and sometimes SOE, and sometimes baby powder oil. Sweet, heh? I almost feel sorry for some of these poor girls who get exposed to me.

[MaxiMog]

Hmmm, I regret having been asleep while this discussion started. (Nighttime here).

Anyway, aggression and competitiveness definitely are typical male behaviour caused by larger amounts of testosterone in the body. So if copulins cause that type of behaviour in women, then I would have to say that the testosterone level in women DOES raise.

[MaxiMog]

More muscle, huh? Of course! More testosterone makes it easier for your body to grow muscles. It\'s the difference in the testosterone-estrogen (spelled wrong huh?) balance that decides where fat will be deposited in the body and whether you\'ll grow more muscles in certain places. Now that I think of it. Venus and Serena Williams: those two DEFINITELY have a (too) high testosterone level (or they use anabolics). Even a guy would have to do regular workouts to raise a cathedral of a body like that. There are certain techniques that make it possible to never have bodyhair grow again at the places you wish. I\'m pretty sure that\'s why they don\'t have a mustach yet.

[MaxiMog]

Yep, and that\'s why women have less problems with having sex just for fun with someone they barely know later on. Their T-levels rise, and that makes it easier to have sex without any emotional commitment (\"without a lot of\" might be better) whereas it\'s very important in a young woman\'s life to have emotional bonding with the partner, even if it\'s the first time they meet.

A guy walks up to a woman and asks seriously: \"do you want to have sex with me? Apart from an occasional ****, all of them will say no and start insulting. The guy just caused that those women will never ever want to have any relationship with the guy, not even being just friends.
A woman does the same: about %98 of the guys (if not higher) will say: \"sure , no problem. Right now? Where? They immediately start asking questions like that. They\'ll almost never say: \"sure, but why do you ask a total stranger?\"

All this is caused by differences in hormonal balance AND the way our brains are wired which needless to say is very different!

[MaxiMog]

Hmmm, so it\'s the other kind of competitiveness? That could very well be true. It\'s not the same kind of competitiveness normally going on by males.

[MaxiMog]

Ok, whatever the rest that follows, the women on the boards have opened our eyes once again. So copulins raise estrogen levels? Because you\'re feeling the need for a lot of love rather than a sex?

Gonna get out of this topic now. Damn, why do these kinds of topics start when I\'m asleep?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Love=deeply satisfying sex for us. I think it\'s correct that we don\'t have enough testosterone, most of us, to have sex for the sake of sex and find it deeply satisfying. We\'ve got emotional stuff going on with the sex, so the body can be satisfied but the heart keeps yearning, so casual sex is not really satisfying. Copulins make you want the whole 9 yards very intensely - they make you want emotional bonding AND a pounding. It\'s a different thing than when men say they\'re horny, which is more about T. We have the T kind of horny, too, but what\'s better for us (because it feels more feminine, so therefore more \"right\") is the E kind of horny, which includes all the facets of the thing and is a deeper craving. Most of us won\'t bother with a strange man just to satisfy a T itch - easier and faster to take care of that yourself.

T has more dominance with it and more physicality; E has more submission and more emotion. Which is why some of us were saying, if you OD on copulins, you just want to receive, you want him to \"do\" you, while you remain passive and receptive. I don\'t have that kind of relationship. So a little SOE under my nose balances out the cops and then I\'m better able to get on top and up on my feet, as opposed to having the feeling of just wanting to lie on my back.

Ladies, this true for you too, or just my experience?

[Gerund]

--------------------------------------
Pantero, not to put too fine a point on it, but don\'t you finger her before you f*ck her?
-------------------------------------

That\'s surely a good suggestion. But I think the best way to gauge a woman\'s state of arousal is with a tongue-probe.


\"Ya gotta lick it before ya stick it\" /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Works for me! lol

[Funlover]

Oh Gerund, you are TOO funny!!! If laughter is the best medicine, I\'ve certainly gotten my fair share today. Thank you so much!!! :-)

Funlover

[Gerund]

[Whitehall]

The copulins need not change hormone levels in the target - all they have to do is prime the receptors. Women might have a built-in feedback loop where the smell of copulins from excited vaginas trigger sexual receptors in the brain - the basis for the \"orgy theory.\" That would support the defination of copulins as pheromones.

One theory is that estrogen (estradiol specifically) in the brain triggers libido for both males and females. Estrogen can directly do that and testosterone can do it too via an enzyme that converts the T to E in the brain.

I read one woman\'s remark that see loved one variety of birth control pill because she got a \"love doll\" feeling right after taking it - probably the estradiol. That seems to fit Red\'s observations of the effects of copulins.

The book to read is \"The Alchemy of Love and Lust\" by Crenshaw. Her observation was that women in their 20\'s where high in E and so craved cuddly love but might not have orgasms. Women in their 40\'s might have a decrease in E and an increase in T. That would help them crave and achieve orgasms and be more direct in eliciting sexual activity. High T women also are in general more clitoris-oriented although that\'s not a hard and fast rule - the G-spot is anatomically an extension of the clit and can be the focus instead in some lucky women. For men, the opposite trend can often be observed.

Another puzzle is the role of progesterone in libido. For many women, exogenous P can increase libido while for others, it can stiffle it. P also increases during pregnancy where the mental effects also are similar to copulins. Giving it to men supposedly slams their libido but I haven\'t read many first hand accounts of that effect and I\'m not interested in doing that experiment on myself - we have our limits of self-sacrifice!

[Gerund]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
the G-spot is anatomically an extension of the clit
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, never heard that before. I have heard, though, that the penis and clit share the same stem cells, which grow one or the other when the baby\'s sex differentiates in utero. From there, can we extrapolate that men have a vestigial G-Spot? Or has it perhaps been established that the male prostate is analgous to the female G-Spot?

hehe Just trying to stir the pot...;)

[BassMan]

<blockquote><font class=\"small\">In reply to:</font><hr>

Or has it perhaps been established that the male prostate is analgous to the female G-Spot?

<hr></blockquote>You got it...

[Gerund]

I was teasing, but it turns out I got it right? Maybe I should go pick numbers for a lotto ticket today. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yeah, I second that. The G spot is the back of the clit, equivalent to the prostate. Can you have an orgasm from having your prostate rubbed? No? It\'s not easy being female...no wonder we have to concentrate so hard.

[Irish]

FTRH, you\'ll probably hate me for drawing this comparison (so please read to the end for my real point) - but I\'ve done a little study of animal (read labrat) female sexual behavior. Female rats exhibit both proceptive and receptive sex behavior. Proceptive behavior is definitely initiative - the female exhibits stereotyped movements that trigger the male (the girl rat wiggles her ears, plays \'tag\' with the male, does a little hopping maneuver). Scientists actually count these moves over time to gauge the female\'s proceptive state. This activity stimulates the male rat into mounting attempts (if hormone levels are right, of course). The mounting then stimulates the female into receptive sex behavior (\'assuming the position\', called lordosis for rats), which is a stereotypical posture for actual copulation. For lower mammals this is all hardwired and proceeds like a script - if circulating hormones/pheromones/stimuli are all present the behavior will unfold, resulting in copulation.

I know I know I know WOMEN ARE NOT RATS. I only brought that comparison up because of the interesting points you made about women\'s differing sexual motivations in given situations - a more aggressive sex motivation and a more receptive motivation you described from your experience. I said that only to say what I really wanted to say next:

Kim Wallen has written an excellent series of papers on how higher primate sex behavior DIFFERS from lower mammals like rats. I won\'t bore you with the details, but Wallen elegantly shows how higher primates (and especially humans) have a disconnect between sexual motivation and actual physical arousal/copulation. The bottom line of this work is that primates/humans\' hormonal state only directly affects sex desire/motivation, not actual copulation. SOCIAL SITUATION is the final determinant for all higher primates for sex to occur.

Primates are not hormonally hardwired beyond the motivation for sex - whether the act progresses to completion is determined by the social setting at that moment. Furthermore, in humans the act can occur even in the absence of the correct hormonal state (e.g., castrated men without circulating T can still often perform when stimulated, even though sexual desire is absent beforehand). This wouldn\'t happen in rats - remove the hormones &amp; the act is squelched. For us monkey types, there is a wall between sexual desire and physical arousal/copulation (although desire will certainly tend toward copulation in the right social setting).

As a dumb example, I may lust after a woman at a party and do nothing about it - but the same woman naked in may bed will get a different behavior from me (physical arousal and beyond). Or you may find yourself at a given moment to be sexually unmotivated, but able to perform given the right circumstances and stimulation. These sorts of examples don\'t happen with lower mammals, who are strictly hardwired all the way through the sexual experience.

Whew - now what I wanted to say. Human pheromones have been shown to affect our neuroendocrine system, and the resulting hormonal changes would be expected to alter our DESIRE for sex or our impression of a potential mate. But that won\'t trigger some hardwired physical mating behavior, cause humans don\'t have that. Guys that use pheros thinking women will mindlessly posture themselves for sex are doomed to disappointment. What you can expect from phero use is a hormonal shift in your target that affects her DESIRE state or her evaluation of you. YOU THEN MUST PROVIDE THE SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND ENVIRONMENT IF YOU EXPECT THINGS TO PROGRESS. This is kinda obvious if you think about it, but some guys believe the hype pushed by some phero peddlers, that women will attack you like sex-crazed zombies. Sorry guys, you are still gonna have to have some social savvy and initiative to close the deal.

It comes down to what pheros can do, and what they can\'t do. Pheros can affect a target\'s neuroendocrine state and influence desire/mate evaluation. But pheros can\'t trigger automatic behavioral responses in people, cause people aren\'t hardwired that way. Pheros can influence or make things easier, but they can\'t close the deal alone.

I\'ve wanted to spit this out for a long time - thanks for letting me hijack the thread where I saw a tie-in to the subject.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hey, Irish - hijack anytime you want, as far as I\'m concerned, and welcome. You always have something real to contribute.

What part of what you wrote was I supposed to get irate about? As far as I can tell, you were backing me up entirely. I\'ve been saying (yelling, threatening whippings if they don\'t listen) you\'ve got to TALK to the woman...and what you\'re saying about rats is exactly what I was trying to say about T sexy vs E sexy.

Maybe I\'m just seeing what I want to see.

[Irish]

I guess I\'m being careful about comparing women to rats...There\'s something to be learned by comparing our behavior to animals, but that can lead to folly if we aren\'t careful. Plus I didn\'t want to sound degrading, or inadvertently imply women can be understood/appreciated by equating them to lab animals.

Men, maybe. Women - way too complex to figure out in the animal lab (for me anyway!).

Heres to the human experiment!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I\'m not that touchy but I sure appreciate the consideration. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Lab animals at least give us a place to start.

[xxxPantero]

IRISH &amp; FTR:

i don\'t always finger her before i f*ck her, about half of the time. hmmmmm... maybe i just learned something. thanks, you shoulda posted it on my board /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

anyway, so instead of watching for an elarged clit, thanks to irish, i will now look to see if her ears wiggle and she starts hopping around (could be an interesting fetish...)

/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif thanks for the contributions, guys.

[Whitehall]

Irish,

I respectfully disagree on your main argument. Humans ARE hardwired for both libido and consumation. What we have in abundance that lower animals may lack is inhibitions. Those discriminatory blockers work between the libido (desire) set of behaviors and the copulatory set of behaviors. Given the investment to be made in a human child, a woman has to choose her sperm donor carefully, whether or not she consciously intends to make a baby with him. Hence, more inhibitions. Those inhibitions are largely social and serve to \"qualify\" a male although some can provide feedback to lower libido (religion?).

From my field observations and experiments (OK, so I\'m not so disinterested!) I\'ve seen that pheromones act to both stimulate the whole range of internal initiatives and responses to external stimuli AND to lower the inhibitory constraints. The latter is the weaker effect and one that\'s harder to prove - maybe its just that the dishibitory effect of alcohol amplifies the stimulation of pheromones. Again, drunk, ovulating females are the best targets!

Perhaps it\'s a matter of impulse control - pheromones seem to both increase the impulse AND lower the control.

As to lordosis in human females, a lot of my lovemaking arts are focused on helping a woman get into a state where she responds with lordosis - backwards arching of the back with butt presentation. If I can bring my lover to feel wild enough to cut loose like that, she and I enjoy loving to the fullest.

Note that various hormones and aphrodisiacs work on various \"phases\" of sexual behaviors - for women, E makes them lovey-dovey, T makes them more aggressive and clit-oriented, oxytocin helps them fall in love and bound, daminana helps with lubrication and blood flow to the vagina, etc. Liquor, pot, \'ludes, GHB, etc serve to lower inhibitions and let the person act on their exposed libido.

[Irish]

I think we may be saying close to the same thing really. Especially what you mention about inhibitions, Maybe I can say it better.

Dogs encoutering each other in the right hormonal status will copulate, right in the street. If a man encounters a woman on the street, she is fertile and they are mutually attracted, they will not NECESSARILY mate, and will almost certainly not mate right there in public. Cultural inhibitions, if you will. The motivational state is a go, but the social situation overrides the physical behavior-response to desire. Humans almost never mate in public, although there is no psysiological reason not to do so. If they met on an isolated beach the story might be different.

Wallen\'s point is that in primates/humans the motivational state called desire or libido is hormonally controlled, like all mammals. But in the primates motivation and access will not necessarily lead to physical arousal (erection in men and lubrication in women) - social/inhibitory/emotional factors have the power to overide. Wallen calls this the emancipation of copulation from the endocrine system. It also works in the reverse in primates - reducing the T level in monkeys doesn\'t necessarily prevent them from copulating IF they have high social status and the group setting is right. This is not the case in lower mammals - reduce the hormones and copulation stops.

I did not mean to say that there are no hardwired actions on both sides of the desire/copulation divide. The situation of desire causes all kinds of physical unconscious cues (nervousness, mirroring, preening, etc.). And the act of copulation itself has many built-in unconscious reflexive acts - erection, spinal/brain reflexes for orgasm, etc. My take on Wallen is that the primates don\'t necessarily progess from motivation to arousal/copulation, even if the hormonal states and stimuli are favorable. And, more interestingly, the primates can be stimulated into arousal/copulaion in the ABSENCE of the correct hormonal state, which doesn\'t happen in lower mammals.

I guess my point would be that the hormonal state induced by pheromones and other stimuli certainly can prompt a state of heightened desire (with all the attendent physical cues). But that will not generate an automatic sterotypical physical respose analagous to lower mammals - cause humans don\'t work that way. For the state of desire to progress into physical arousal and copulation it must pass through the gate of social context (you might call that inhibitions). Once past that point actual sex occurs with all it\'s attendant reflexes and instinctive action.

That bridge from desire to physical respose is, in my opinion, built from encultured inhibitions plus a component of innate behavior. I say the latter because apes mate or not based somewhat on the presence/absence of other apes, and a complex social equation of their fellows\' status. They don\'t learn this - it is innate (from the work at Yerkes Primate Center). I think people have some of this innate social processing, plus the superego inhibitions parents and society drill into us.

If human sex was completely hardwired we\'d see a lot of couples going at it in public. But that\'s not to say there aren\'t a lot of hardwired behaviors associated with different phases of the sexual experience. I was trying to say that triggering desire in your targets endocrine system with pheromones was not sufficient to produce automatic physical arousal and copulation. It MIGHT lead to that, if you get through the gateway of inhibitions/innate social processing. If we were rats things would proceed to completion once triggered, if the hormonal states were correct.

[Gerund]

To summarize: \"You can lead a horse to water, but you can\'t make him drink?\" hehe

[Irish]

Pretty much.

Maybe:

You can lead a thirsty labrat to water and he\'s damn well gonna drink. You can lead a thirsty woman to water and she might drink, if you get her drunk or buy her flowers.

[Whitehall]

\"the emancipation of copulation from the endocrine system\"

Also known as \"Civilization.\" One train of thought is that the ascent of man is based on better inhibitions rather than extra capablities.

You\'re right about people not copulating in public very often although I\'ve known more than one woman who got a special kick out of it!

So maybe we are saying the same thing only different ways. I\'m saying that hardwiring is all there but we have additional hardwired inhibitory circuits that are socially conditioned. The good Doctor Wallen is saying \"the emancipation of copulation from the endocrine system\" but I would counter that the endocrine system and the nervous system are all apiece and inseparable. It\'s sociobiology at work - behavior is evolution-based.

Good luck with those disinhibited and/or over-stimulated females!

[jvkohl]

Sorry for not picking up on this thread earlier, but Irish and Whitehall (maybe others) seem to have covered most of the important ground with regard to what pheromones can and can\'t do. They do not act as aphrodisiacs, merely as enhancement. With regard to copulins increasing testosterone in women, I think that\'s unlikely. Typically, the hormone response occurs on exposure to the opposite sex: increased testosterone (T) in men exposed to pheromones of women is the rule. However, the effect first shows up with increased luteinizing hormone (LH). Enhanced libido of women exposed to androgenic (testosterone-like) pheromones also shows up first with increased LH, but then it gets tricky. Increased LH helps increase estrogen levels which cause a surge in LH that correlates with peak T levels of ovulation. That\'s why the effect of androgenic pheromones is most likely to occur when a woman is in the most fertile phase of her cycle; it\'s easier for the pheromones to effect T. But, in other mammals, the effect of pheromones also occurs in a part of the gonadotropin releasing hormone secreting molecule; a part that has direct effects on behavior because it functions more quickly as a neurotransmitter. Nobody says much about this, because so far it\'s only been shown in rodents--but it\'s also very likely to occur in all mammals, which would explain a more immediate effect of pheromones on behavior--in either males or females. So, the trick is to get something that can elicit this direct effect, and so far as men are concerned--and their effect on females the chemical involved is more likely to come from the adrenal glands. That\'s why SOE contains androsterone, but it may be several years before its effects on LH can be shown, and effects on human GnRH are unlikely ever to be shown (too hard to measure in humans).

[**DONOTDELETE**]

\"since pheros might not work on a woman who\'s on birth control\"

What ? Are you saying it doesn\'t work on women using birth control pills ?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

If pheromones are what govern the desire to mate, then pheromones most definitely work on women who are on birth control. I swear to you this whole business about ovulation is being over-emphasized. The glory of being a human female is that you\'re ALWAYS ready to mate. If pheromones did not work on women who use birth control, then all of us would suffer a lack of libido. I\'m here to tell you, I\'ve been on the pill off and on (mostly on) for 32 years now, and it\'s never affected my libido in the slightest, nor my ability to respond to men. If sensitivity to pheromones governs desire to have sex, then obviously the pill does not negate their effect.

[HB_88]

Well, that\'s you, Redhead. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Quite a few women have complained that the pill does decrease their libido.

HB_88
No matter where you go... there you are.

[EXIT63]

45-32=13

[**DONOTDELETE**]

If it\'s true for me then it\'s also true for other women. Even if the pill lowers libido for some, it (normally, usually and generally) doesn\'t make them not want sex at all. The question was whether pheromones have any effect on women who are on the pill. If pheromones govern desire to mate, any woman who is mating at all is responding to pheromones. Maybe the pill decreases her libido, but would you agree generally she\'s still willing *sometimes* at least. There are pills and pills, too -- the formulations are all different - so if libido loss is a problem, the prescription can be adjusted. Exit, yes, I went on the pill at 13. My skin was starting to break out, and the dermatologist thought it would help. Did you have a point, or were you just out to dazzle us with your arithmatic abilities?

[EXIT63]

Oh I definitely have a point.

Unfortunately, It\'s on the top of my head.

[franki]

LOL ..... /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[MaxiMog]

Kinda reminds me of a \"Bottom\" episode... /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

Never mind...

[jvkohl]

Statistically, you are an exception. Of course the link between oral contraceptives and decreased libido was established when \"the pill\" was laden only with estrogen--doses maintained long enough and high enough to convince the body of pregnancy. Now that Tri-phasics, which mimic a natural hormone cycle are available and popular, a study might not show the same link. The point is that a natural mammalian (including human) hormone
cycle is the key to andogenic (i.e., male) pheromone\'s effect. With fertility, sensitivity and specificity increases, prompting the mating urge. Pheromones can and do have an effect throughout the cycle, but fertility amplifies the
effect of opposite sex pheromones.

[xvs]

There have been studies which showed libido loss in women who used contraceptive pills, and this is correlated with other studies which showed substantially lower testosterone levels in these women.

Additionally, there seem to be some very interesting effects on olfactory response -- it\'s inhibited in pill takers (ie: the thresholds are increased and they\'re less sensitive to odors). I wonder what JVK would have to say about that... perhaps that since they are less sensitive to odors, they also may be less sensitive to pheromones? I don\'t know of a proven correspondence between olfactory and VNO sensitivity, but...

This article from the journal \"Human Reproduction\" contains lots of interesting information on the topic:

http://www3.oup.co.uk/eshre/press-release/freepdf/162288.pdf (\"http://www3.oup.co.uk/eshre/press-release/freepdf/162288.pdf\")

They also show that women have higher olfactory sensitivity during ovulation.

Another odd side effect that has been noted (and this one is quite important, potentially) has to do with mate selection and contraceptives. As JVK has noted in his excellent review article:

http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm (\"http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm\")

there is evidence that women seek to mate with men who have a high degree of difference in their immune systems, as determined by the major histocompatability complex (MHC), and that they can detect these differences through the men\'s odor. Women can also detect MHC similarities through odor and this helps biologically enforce the incest tabu by making closely related males smell unattractive.

So women seek the company of males with different MHC when they are fertile. But they also seek the company of males with similar MHC when they are pregnant. This has been theorized to be because a pregnant woman needs protection and care, and she is likely to get that from her relatives.

What\'s interesting and a bit disconcerting is that there is evidence that contraceptives, by mimicking pregnancy to prevent fertilization, also makes the woman prefer the odor of men with similar rather than disparite MHCs!

This means that women on the pill may tend to select mates who are genetically too similar, and whom they would have rejected (because they smelled wrong) had they not been on the pill when they met them!

This hasn\'t been proven, but it is something to think about...

(and before anyone asks... yes, the first article I posted a link to does show that women on the pill have lower sensitivity to odors, but not so low they can\'t smell \'em at all!)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I\'ve been on the pill all my life, have always had a very high sex drive, and my sense of smell is so sensitive it\'s a real nuisance.

But you men talk it out and be sure and let me know what conclusion you come to. I\'m sure you know best.

[jvkohl]

It is generally agreed that people will lie about sex; and that statistics can lie--but statistics typically do not lie about sex. Nor can statistics tell us anything about a particular individual\'s sexual response--to pheromones, or anything else. In other words, FTR knows her own response better than anyone else; if it doesn\'t fit the statistical analyses, fine. On the other hand, there have been enough pregnancies in women on the pill to show that the ovulatory increase in estrogen is sufficient to evoke the LH surge, which prompt release of the ovum. If estrogen levels rise but fall ever so slightly short of evoking the LH surge, one could expect that ofactory acuity and specificity to male pheromones would be enhanced--as this enhancement is believed to be caused by the increased estrogen levels of women--as compared to men. If estrogen levels are maintained at either high levels or low levels (less than 200) the LH surge is not likely to occur, but we don\'t know whether the higher levels correlate with increased libido in some women. We do know, statistically, that low levels correlate with \"hypoactive\" sexual desire from a study by Patricia Shreiner-Engle in the early 80\'s. However, she did not report this correlate; clearly seen in the graph of her data. We also know that the LH surge correlates with peak testosterone levels in women who are believed to be as testosterone driven as men, at ovulation. If humans were any other mammal, we could know for sure that maximum fertility is a part of maximum olfactory acuity and specificity and the only truly important factor in properly timed reproductive sexual behavior--since that\'s the way it works in every other mammal. Still, it seems likely that predicting such strong correlates in human females would provide a degree of insight into what might otherwise be considered totally unpredictable sexual behavior. Accordingly, just because we may not be able to predict FTR\'s response-cycle phase correlate, there is still good reason to enhance one\'s masculine pheromone signature, as it helps us reach out to those wanton ovulatory babes who might not want to think they are behaving like animals, but don\'t mind doing so--given the proper incentives.
-----------------------

(All of the above with tongue in cheek, of course.)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

JVK, if it\'s true that the pill renders a woman insensitive to pheromones, then that also means that so does Depo-Provera and Norplant. You\'ve just ruled out a huge portion of your targets for pheromones - I don\'t know exact numbers, but I\'m aquainted with a lot of women in an age range of from maybe 25-50 and we\'re all on one or another hormone-type birth control for various reasons, whether to even out irregular cycles, control pain, stop having periods, etc., never mind just to control fertility I argue so stubbornly because of that. Maybe it\'s just the women I know, because we all have to work, and just can\'t afford the wide mood swings, energy fluctuations, and inconvenience of periods and a natural cycle. (You know you can take the active pills in the pill pack continuously and not have a period at all. Or you can do Depo, and eventually msot women\'s periods will stop.) I\'m just saying, if you\'re gonna rule out all the women who are on hormone-based birth control of one sort or another, you almost may as well not use pheromones, because that\'s a huge portion of the fertile middle class population from first period well into perimenopause. Studies be damned, oodles and oodles of women are on hormone-based birth control and they\'re all just as boy crazy as they ever were and they\'re all having sex. We don\'t have sex if we don\'t feel like it, y\'all know that. So to my mind, what\'s happening in real life is not what\'s going on in the lab, if lab results indicate that birth control kills our ability to respond to men/pheromones. I guess we have a tendency to believe what we want to believe in the face of all other evidence, (I\'m proving that point as I go) so I hear people arguing, well, human females don\'t act like primate females because of social conditioning and inhibitions and etc. etc., but REALLY they\'re responding the way primate females would, so that\'s the hand to play to. I\'m not sure it\'s true. Granted it would make life a lot easier in some ways to believe that, but it doesn\'t seem to play out much in real life. Women\'s reasons for wanting sex are much more varied than because of response to hormone cycle, whether natural or superimposed by synthetics. And for sure any studies done re the pill when it first came out, you can pretty well disregard. Doctors don\'t prescribe that kind of pill any more, almost never. The side effects are way too high.

[xvs]

I realize the article I linked to is rather techical, but if you page through it you get to some tables and can see the results of the olfactory sensitivity tests. Also, the conclusions are interesting to read, even if you skim over the rest.

It did NOT say or show that women on the pill were unable to smell. It merely showed that they had a reduced sensitivity compared to women who were ovulating and not on the pill. And again, it only tested certain substances, not all of them.

So far as I know, no one has done a study comparing responses to known pheromones with VNO affinity such as androstadienone.

It could be that women on the pill have a lower sensitivity to some pheromones and a higher sensitivity to others. For example, I would predict that there might be a less positive reaction to androstenone, since that pheromone evokes a positive reaction mainly in ovulating women.

The upshot: without a lot more data we are theorizing (or, if you don\'t want to be charitable, speculating) about many of these things.

We don\'t know why the pill is associated with lower sex drive -- if it is the lowerd testosterone levels, does that in itself lower the sex drive, or does it reduce pheromone sensitivity which in turn lowers the sex drive, or both?

Interesting to think about, but I don\'t think anyone knows...

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I look forward to reading the article. I can\'t open it with the internet appliance I\'m using at home and will have to wait until Monday to access it on my work computer.I\'m an intellectual property secretary specializing in chemical/biopharm patents, so I read technical stuff all day. Hopefully, I\'ll be able to get through it. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gifMeanwhile, are you telling me the literature says categorically that the pill lowers libido in all women who take it? Does what you\'re reading along these lines differentiate between types of pills, how were the women for the studies selected, how current are the studies?I wish I could cite to this but I can\'t - do you remember studies wherein women were shown sexually stimulating materials while being hooked up to measuring devices and then were asked to report their arousal levels, and most of the women reported no arousal levels, when in fact and without a doubt, their bodies were aroused? Since our stuff\'s internal and we can\'t see it, half the time we don\'t even know how we feel, since we can\'t see the physical evidence, apparently.That makes everything women say in the lab about their sexuality suspect to me.Reports are extremely conflicting, too, about the effects of complete hysterectomy (ovaries and uterus) on women\'s sexuality. Some women lose their drive completely. Some have an entirely new lease on life and are horny like mad. If you can\'t get consistent data from physical complete castration, how could you expect to get anything meaningful when it\'s just a matter of tinkering with hormone levels? (the general \"you\" I mean, not you in particular).

[xxxPantero]

FTR, which pill are you on, specifically?

[xvs]

FTR:

Of course the article doesn\'t say that contraceptive pills lower libido in every single woman who takes them. Just that there have been studies (one of which they cite) which showed that it did have a pronounced libido lowering effect.

Also, the results on testosterone levels and on olfactory sensitivity appear to be objective.

Just read it tomorrow and then you can comment!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Pantero, I take Ortho-Novum. Why? (It\'s a fairly strong pill.)

[Watcher]

Im sure vast differences will come up not everyone is bilogically the same, sure generalisations can be made, i wonder what FTR would have been like if she had or has been off the pill at any point. Maybe even more sensitive or maybe she is less sensitive off the pill than on. She may have high T levels for instance which throw that whack out of balance or she might have a very highly developed sense of androgen detcetion..

[jvkohl]

A study to be published soon (it\'s overdue) showed that menstrual cycle phase didn\'t make any difference in ratings associated with pheromones. Thus it appears to fly in the face of other data, but seems to agree with FTR\'s writings. I have been acused of presenting information that is \"ahead of the data.\" She\'s doing it, too! Must wait to assess the article\'s worth, before commenting further.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hey, the truth always prevails.

That\'s cool, can\'t wait to see the study.

[ccbythesea]

Just thought I\'d throw my two cents worth in here as a non-ovulating woman. My ovaries \"died\" about 12 years ago as a direct result of a non-related medical problem. I don\'t menstruate and I don\'t ovulate but I sure do get horny and I love having sex. Everything is in perfect working order too!! Also, the pheromones I wear (primarily PI/w &amp; PCC) enhance/heighten my horniness as well as evoke very obviously phero-induced reactions in people around me. Glad I never read any of these studies....maybe they would\'ve had some sort of negative influence on my libido....NOT.
CC

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Thanks for the backup, CC.

[Watcher]

I think the body has a backup system, plus its human nature to constantly be ready for sex, something about our evolution and the fact we have taken sex to a 24 hour a day persuit.