moral question

[smackerbox]

My name\'s Henry
I have a question.I first learned about Pheromones some one month ago and I got intrigued.I started searching information about this but I still have a doubt.A moral doubt.
What if I used this stuff and it works and I hit on a girl and because of this stuff she gets attached to me.And suppose we get married.
Let\'s say 10 years later she finds out that I \"cheated\" her and that I tricked her with this chemical.
Do you see my moral question?I would appreciate women answering too.
Thanks

[bundyburger]

When a girl wears make-up, is that cheating??
Pheromones aren\'t a magic potion. That girl wouldn\'t be \'tricked\' into going out with you. There are the more modern parts of our brain, the higher intelligence parts, involved that govern the \"primal instinct\" parts of our brain. Or are supposed to. /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

They are just another way of improving body odour. Except they can\'t be smelt (kinda). They are only unfair to \'non-wearers\' when you think about it. hehehe

[bivonic]

I had these same thoughts. I think what complicates matters, & this is just my opinion is that the VNO is a 6th sense that we have that 99% of the population are unaware of. So in essense women are attracted to men wearing pheros but probably do not understand why. Other then that they THINK it is because the man smells nice. I have come to the conclusion that it is morally right to wear pheros, think of what women do to attract men, they get boob jobs, they dye their hair, wear makeup, etc... All to appeal to our visual sense. We are just appealing to their VNO sense and as bundy mentioned you cannot wear this stuff & then go pickup a supermodel, the results are limitted within your normal league of women that you could have attracted through NLP albeit good NLP.

[Elana]

Smackerbox-Those are both good answers

[Lucky]

Personally, I put it in the same category as using perfume, toothpaste, deodorant. Ease your mind, should you find the woman you want to marry while using pheromones, by not wearing them all the time - like she might not wear makeup some days. EXPOSE your true love scent!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Nah. Personally, I think there should be full disclosure. You should exchange notarized papers disclosing the full extent of what you\'ve done to gussy yourself up and influence the other person\'s libido. List out your pheromone recipe, your cologne brand, what hair stuff you use, what soap you use, what after shave, how much extra time you spent on your hair, whether or not your clothes are new or how much time you spent choosing them, etc., any rap you memorized or lines you picked up that are not strictly original, your entire seduction routine. Otherwise you\'re just fooling people and leading their instincts astray without their knowledge.

(Joke, this is a joke.)

[nonscents]

I did think that pheromones raised serious moral issues before I used them. I did think that they were like date-rape drugs. The idea of those drugs is that the aggressor would administer the drug to the target. The target would unknowingly ingest the drug. The target would lose rational control of their faculties. The aggressor then has sex with the target, who would not have chosen to have sex had that target had not consumed the drug.

Is this a valid analogy? One could make the argument that the aggressor administers a drug (pheromone) to unknowing targets who are, because of their lack of knowledge, unable to defend themselves. The drug (pheromone), which the target has unknowingly ingested, absorbed, or inhaled then causes the target to lose rational control of their faculties. The target then has sex with the pheromone-administering aggressor, with whom they would not have had sex had they not been exposed to the pheromones.

In the date rape situation, it appears that there are two immoral acts. One of the acts is to knowingly administer a drug to the target without first informing the target and gaining the target\'s uncoerced consent. The other immoral act is to have sex with the target after the target\'s rational faculties have been impaired by the drug.

With pheromones, one could argue that the first kind of immoral act is being perpetrated. The aggressor administers a powerful substance to the target without the target\'s informed consent. The argument would be that pheromones seriously impair the target\'s judgement and decision-making abilities. One could then argue that an aggressor who takes advantage of the targets subsequent impairment would be guilty of the second kind of immoral act. The aggressor induces the target to have sex. The target would not have had sex had the target\'s rational faculties not been impaired.

It\'s pretty clear to me that I would not choose to live in a society where I knew that people were free to administer powerful mind-altering substances to me which would rob me of my considered judgement and decision-making abilites. If I knew that there were places where such surreptitious administration of such powerful substances was permitted, I would avoid such places for fear that in such places others would induce me to act in ways which were contrary to my own interests.

Now, all the above seems to me to be some real intellectual masturbation. The reason I say that is because in my limited experience pheromones are not powerful, mind-altering substances that induce others to do what I want, contrary to their own interests. If they were, I\'d want them banned.

What if hypnosis really could get people to act as instruemts of the hypnotizer. So, if I wanted to murder my enemy, I would buy a few NLP books on Ericksonian hypnosis, hypnotize my target, and plant the posthypnotic suggestion that the target kill my enemy. The target commits the murder but is wrongfully convicted as they murderer. Clearly the target is not the murderer, I, the hypnotizer, would be.

If such powerful forms of hypnosis were in existence we would either try to ban them or completely revamp our criminal justice system.

If I could really put on \'mones and get beautiful women, who normally wouldn\'t give me the time of day, to sleep with me, that would be wrong. And it would be more wrong than dyeing my hair so women think that I am more attractive than I really am, or getting a nose job or muscle implants for the same reason.

[krtel]

Nah, I think the pheromones are perfectly ethical because you know what, we\'re already producing them, we are just adding on to what we already have. Does that make sense?

- Krish

[upsidedown]

I think some people assume pheromones are more powerful than they are. The don\'t make anybody do anything they don\'t want to do. What I believe they do is make the wearer more attractive to the target. It doesn\'t force any behavior on the target, it only makes you more attractive to them....or so it seems to me.

How they act on this attraction is based on how they would react to anybody they find attractive, with or without pheromones.

At least that\'s my simplistic take on it. Then again, maybe there really is something that does more in those secret LaCroy pheromones, or some pheromones that somehow lower inhibitions...but if there is any kind of pheromone that makes women react totally against their will in crazy and uncontrollable ways, then it hasn\'t happened to me yet.

[Elana]

<Now, all the above seems to me to be some real intellectual masturbation. The reason I say that is because in my limited experience pheromones are not powerful, mind-altering substances that induce others to do what I want, contrary to their own interests. If they were, I\'d want them banned.>

I think that the majority of people would agree with you if this were the case, but because this is not the case, it\'s really a non issue.

[nonscents]

The moral objection in my post above is based on the notion of consent. Consent is a fundamental notion for most liberal conceptions of freedom. Liberal western capitalist democracies are based on the notion of agents freely consenting to engage in agreements with each other. A marraige contract would be an example of such an agreement between consenting individuals. Some feminists have demonstrated the weakness of the notion of consent. Women \"freely\" consent to get married, but the actual circumstances are such that there is enormous financial and social pressure for them to get married. So the notion of consent doesn\'t bear all the weight that liberals would put on it. Likewise socialists point out that workers consent freely to enter into a labor contract with employers. But there is a heavy element of coercion since the workers have no other means to survive except to work for some employer.

I think that there is validity to these critiques of consent. But they are not really critiques of the notion of consent, they are critiques of the degree to which consent really is realized in contemporary institutions which purport to be institutions based on freedom. These critiques say not that consent isn\'t all it\'s cracked up to be, they say that these institutions of the marriage and labor contract are not all they are cracked up to be. The critiques say that there is more coercion and less freedom than meets the eye. They are moral critiques of these institutions based on the inadequacy of the forms of consent embodied in these institutions. So I think that consent still has a lot to offer as a foundational concept for a moral critique. And insofar as pheromones try to subvert informed consent in human relations they should be subject to a moral critique.

[Wolfe]

why is this not in \"Off Topics\" where it belongs!!

[Elana]

because it is a topic related to the science of attraction

[nonscents]

I agree that mones just don\'t seem to be that powerful, so it\'s not really immoral if one uses them.

But I do think it\'s worth addressing the issue: everyone produces mones naturally, so there can\'t be anything wrong with using them.

I think the above is a flawed argument. Everyone produces steroids. But if my son\'s athletic coach told him that he must take steroids if he wants to be a member of the team, I would argue that that\'s immoral. The coach could reply, \"I am just asking your son, Mr. Nonscents, to take a substance which naturally occurs in his body anyway.\" But of course my son would be asked to take a substance in much higher doses and concentrations than naturally occur.

There is a point at which change in quantity brings about change in quality. If it were the case that using mones in concentrations many orders of magnitude greater than occur naturally causes people to lose control of their ability to make sound judgements, I would argue that mones are immoral. They would still be something that naturally occur. But when they occur in unnatural concentrations and quantities they lose the \"protection\" of natural substances.

[upsidedown]

Your comparison to the morality of a larger than natural amount of steroids is a resonable consideration..

But, I\'ve always felt like that I underproduced pheromones big time in my younger years. I sometimes feel like my body produced NO pheromones naturally when I was younger. So now I just look at wearing a larger than natural amount as just making up for lost time.

How\'s that for logic? OK, you can all shoot me down now. /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif
We now return you to your regularly scheduled serious discussion.

[Wolfe]

and morals relate to attraction in what way?(other than you wouldn\'t want to date a rapist or a murderer?)

[Elana]

You say eether and I say eyether,
You say neether and I say nyther;
Eether, eyether, neether, nyther -
Let\'s call the whole thing off !

You like potato and I like po-tah-to,
You like tomato and I like to-mah-to;
Potato, po-tah-to, tomato, to-mah-to -
Let\'s call the whole thing off !

[Wolfe]

Lick~

[upsidedown]

I think the pheromones cause you to be more attractive to the opposite sex. But, over time, I believe most people tend to fall in love with all the qualities of the other person, not just their looks or phero signature. In fact, looks WILL fade as you grow older as will a person\'s natural pheromone production, but the other qualities are what keep you in love and together.

I doubt there\'s ANY study indicating that people who fall out of love do so because of decreased pheromones in the other person. I just don\'t think it\'s an issue as it relates to the original premise of this thread. I think the pheromones just get your foot in the door with the other person such that they can really get to know the real you.

This is my uneducated opinion obviously. Perhaps JVK might eventually jump in with some more scientific insight on this overall question.

[bivonic]

upsidedown I think you hit the nail on the head. From my experience, it gets your foot in the door & no more. The rest is up to you. You cannot compare \'mones to a date rape drug, there are many levels of magnitude in terms of strength that separate the two. If you try to over do it with \'mones you get the classic OD which turns your target off. If I were to describe the effect of \'mones, I\'d compare it to a nice cologne, it makes a nice conversation starter. If it were the case that every woman I came across would start humping my leg when they got a good whiff of the \'mones I was wearing then it would be a different story. All it does is get their attention - no harm in that.

[marv14yag]

Pheromones =

If you were ABLE to have sex with someone before (they would allow you to) this would have them want to...) If they DO NOT want to have sex with you, or do not like you, they won\'t with pheromones or not...

So, really, wearing pheromnes you wont\' be able to DO anyone you wouldn\'t have already been able to...

The only ADVANTAGE would be that, say theree\'s 20 guys in a club...There are 10 dudes she will do....You are one of those ten...

Becuaes you are wearing pheormones, she will pick you over the other 9.

Now, here\'s another scenario....There\'s 10 guys she\'d do..You AREN\'T one of them....She\'d consider you, she\'d go, \"he\'s ugly\" (not my type, whatever reason) and than she\'d go, he also smells REALLY good, and than, look again, and say, no, he\'s ugly, and move on.

So, as you see, from what i have learned pheromones act more as to get you noticed OVER other guys, but if you don\'t have what she is looking for THEY WON\'T MATTER! However, you still may get noticed in non-sexual ways however, ie, respect and etc...

I have had other dudes open doors for me and s*** for no reason, lol.

But, as you see, pheromones get you noticed, however, her PERECEPTION WON\'T CHANGE!!!

Because there\'s the part of the brain that thinks things out....Ie, considers things, and etc..The visual part will say no, and if the VISUAL is wrong IT ALL IS WRONG! Visual would be the most imporant more than likely.;

I think that there\'s more than just pheromnally conditioned too, ie, your eyes were through evolution made to look left and right and not so much up and down, so could your ideals of women.

However, even WITH pheromonal conditioning the visual will still ourtrule the pheromones EVERY TIME.

In my opinion, pheromones aren\'t really like makeup, that will actually make you LOOK better, they are more like nicer looking clothes....Or a haircut, or, whiter teeth....etc. Because all of those things make you stand out, and look better, but if you are not someone she would go out with before, it won\'t matter so much ( a lot of times a girl would go with you but you DON\'T have those things...)

Bart

[druid]

Look guys. If I take my car and run over little old ladies -- that would be an immoral act. If I take a gun and go on a shooting spree and kill 3 small children, their parents, and a couple of innocent bystanders that would be an immoral act. If I take my car and use it to deliever meals on wheels to little old ladies that would be a moral act. If I took a gun and went hunting and feed that family of 2 parents 3 kids and let the bystanders have left overs that would be a moral act.

It is not the instruement but what YOU do with that instrument. Pheros are instruments -- IMO instrements do not have a moral value. People (or more precisely their actions and the circumstances surrouding those actions) have moral value.

People should be aware of deontigcal (sp?) (detongoly was a branch of ethics that upholds that actions withing themselves are right or wrong regardless of the circumstances -- ie LYING IS ALWAYS WRONG, etc.) thinking. I THINK I read somewhere that Hittler and his upper SS officers were fans of immual kant -- he was a big time up holder of deonotlogy(sp?).

[bundyburger]

That\'s a great way to put it! Instruments don\'t have a moral value. People do.

I\'ve gotten many hits with pheros, and now even greater hits with stronger pheros. But do you know how people I\'ve slept with who have shown a lot of intrest in me (it seems with help of pheros)??? One.
My own personal \'morals\' are not to \'USE\' someone I wouldn\'t consider as relationship material (Well that\'s simplifying it a lot). The pheros don\'t/won\'t change my mind for me about that. I could of gotten layed quite a bit lately if I didn\'t give a sh!t about the other people. But my morals stopped me.

Phero\'s are like a big flashing light on the top of your head. They help you get noticed above the crowd. They help bump you up the list of candidates (when you get the mix right for you)

Nonscents,

What about the poor guys who have big \'bouncer\' like bodys and look intimidating???
Pheromones,it seems in the case of an -none OD, can make girls (and guys) petrified of them.
He could be the nicest guy on the planet!
Would it be inmoral for him to \'fix\' his phero signature to show his friendliness????

[smackerbox]

Thanks guys
My computer measured how many words I received from my question.Altogether 172,325 words.I really did not expect such a reaction.
No, i\'m not convinced at all, at least not yet.

My favorite answer came from a girl called Elana, Thank you Elana, you make me feel very strong with your :

You say eether and I say eyether,
You say neether and I say nyther;
Eether, eyether, neether, nyther -
Let\'s call the whole thing off !

You like potato and I like po-tah-to,
You like tomato and I like to-mah-to;
Potato, po-tah-to, tomato, to-mah-to -
Let\'s call the whole thing off !

Words of wisdom.I\'ll call the whole thing off.

[Wolfe]

LMAO..

[upsidedown]

>>No, i\'m not convinced at all, at least not yet. <<

Smakerbox. About all I know to say now is to just suggest that you just try them. Without you having tried them, I don\'t think you can really understand just how they work. Give them a try, see what kinds of reactions you get, how they differ from your life without pheromones, and how you act on them. Then see how you feel about the whole thing. Then maybe you\'ll have a better basis to form an opinion on this.

Of course, if you want to call the whole thing off as well, that\'s you\'re call.

[belgareth]

I think Druid has hit the nail on the head. You can argue the relative morality of any product or tool. In the end, it is how you used it that matters.

[franki]

\" I think some people assume pheromones are more powerful than they are. The don\'t make anybody do anything they don\'t want to do. What I believe they do is make the wearer more attractive to the target. It doesn\'t force any behavior on the target, it only makes you more attractive to them....or so it seems to me.

How they act on this attraction is based on how they would react to anybody they find attractive, with or without pheromones.\"

I am afraid people who are against pheromones would have good arguments against it. After all they are supposed to affect people\'s brains in a very direct wayand are changing people\'s hormone levels. They don\'t do this in a \"natural\" way I think, because we apply 100-1000x as much pheromones, than we would ever put out ourselves naturally.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[TBiRD]

I believe using mones is very moral.
Just think about it , there are men in this world who have very good mone concentrations because of genetics. They get hits from women no matter what they look like.
So if my natural-mone offset isn\'t \"of the hook\" , why shouldnt I take few extra mones in order to be equal ???
Same chances for everybody !
People who don\'t care about mones are either ignorant or they already have good results because of looks/genetics.

[Goddess]

Hell no - all\'s fair in love and war! Did you stop using pheros in the ten years since you got married? If you did was she still attracted? Are you a nice guy or a real sh*thead? Are you a good lover? Who\'s to say you\'ll still be married after 10 years? LOTS more comes into play than what happened when you met!!!!

[Gerund]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is not the instruement but what YOU do with that instrument. Pheros are instruments -- IMO instrements do not have a moral value. People (or more precisely their actions and the circumstances surrouding those actions) have moral value
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Pheromones don\'t screw people, people screw people?

Sorry, couldn\'t resist. Yep, gonna get another day in purgatory, if there is such a thing.

[Irish]

Yep. It\'sa good thing the effects of mones aren\'t too dramatic, or they would probably be banned.

The daterape drug analagy is interesting, cause mones appear to work unconsciously - the target\'s brain/hormone level is triggered to view the sender as more attractive, without consciously knowing whats going on. The pheromone circuit(s) in the brain appear to bypass the consciousness centers. In the sense that the target does not know what is being done to her body, it\'s like slipping someone a mickey in her drink. The pheros are transmitted through the air to the target where they have their effect on her brain, without her knowledge.

That makes pheros different from makeup, boobjobs, etc. Those enhancements are on display for all to see - the conscious brain receives those signals and processes the info. If I see a beautiful fixed up woman I can consciously analyze it - what would she look like WITHOUT makeup, those boobs might be fake, etc. If pheros work like science says, they are signals being sent to the unconscious brain of the target - the target doesn\'t know what\'s happening. Same as someone being unknowingly slipped a drug, in that regard.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

That\'s right. Potato, potahtoe.
Put your \'mones on and get on with it. Do you want to have some fun, or sit around talking? /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

[seadove]

Yes FTR
Her potato was the winner.
She\'s the best there is.

[Elana]

{{{{Ivan}}}}

[marv14yag]

I tend to think more of it as advertising, or, as another member has said, as a big red flashing bel on top of your head.

It\'s JUST like ADVERTISING you guys, isn\'t that what sexual attraction is?

I don\'t think there is ANY limit to pheromones as long as it is ADVERTSING!

A date rape drug would FORCE someone into something which they don\'t want to do, pheormones wouldn\'t, simplpe as that, pheromones, clothes, makeup, body, looks, are all ADVERTISING.

Now, pheormones, are just another TYPE of advertisement....Instead of looks, they get you noticed, like a bell on top your head.

Bart

[Walter_Mitty]

OK, my 2 cents. I agree with the statement that you are the one that is in question as far as morals, not the pheros you wear. But, to be the Devils advocate, I got in a couple of these discussions a long while ago, the pheros are sort of subliminal. You can wear perfume or makeup or what have you, but you are not fooling people in any way. You are trying to make yourself attractive. Pheros are not the same. You can add them, and the other folks around you have no idea what you have done, but still there can be an effect. So in essence, from that point of view, you are imposing yourself. This has really nothing to do with morality (from the dating standpoint) but you are keeping a secret from the world, and it does have some effect. I have no real solution, but it is something to throw around to keep us honest.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

There used to be laws against women wearing makeup and hair pieces, they were thought to deceive to such an extent. Makeup mimics youthful, fertile features in sexual heat. While you may realize a woman is wearing makeup, she is most certainly fooling you with it, if she\'s wearing it right. Her eyes are brighter, her lips are wetter and redder, her cheeks are more flushed, her skin is more smooth -- those are all indicators of health and fertility, therefore sexual appeal, enhanced. Just because you see it doesn\'t mean you realize the extent to which it is working on you. (When you might realize that with full impact is the morning after, when it\'s all worn off...)

\"All women, of whatever age, rank, profession or degree, whether virgins, maids, or widows, that shall from and after this act impose upon, seduce or betray into matrimony, any of His majesty\'s subjects by the use of scents, paints, cosmetics, washes, artificial teeth, false hair, Spanish wool, iron stays, hoops, high-heeled shoes, or bolstered hips, shall incur the penalty of the law now in force against witchcraft and like misdemeanors, and that the marriage, upon conviction, shall stand null and void\" (Corson, Richard, Fashions In Makeup, Peter Owen, London, 1972, p. 245).

[upsidedown]

OK, try this idea on for size. If subliminal attraction is immoral, shouldn\'t everybody be forced to scrub off all their natural pheromones? Or, we should all be forced to put some sort of product that strips us of our natural pheromones. It\'s really not fair for anybody to have ANY kind of subliminal influence over the opposite sex whether artificial or natural. Or, is it only a matter of degrees, and only a large amount of pheromones that\'s immoral? And, where is that fine line between being OK and being too much? If it\'s a matter of quantitiy, then we have an equal rights problem. It\'s totally unfair for all those guys who have a naturally strong phero signature to have an advantage over the less fortunate guys. Make them scrub them off to be fair to the rest of us guys. And it\'s not fair to the women either. After all how in the world can you expect them to resist the super natrual-phero dudes and make rational choices? Let\'s remove all pheromes and make everybody bland. Then we\'ll all be able to make intellgent and rational decissions on who is actually attractive without being subliminally influenced in any way.

[bundyburger]

I thought this argument would get dirty...
Elana put it really well, Pot-ay-toe Pot-tah-toe Per-tit-oh, but most posts, if not all here, have been really good arguments too.

FullTilt,

Witchcraft. ROTFLMAO
I love what you dug up there. Where\'d you find that?

Uppy,

What yoo said... \"how in the world can you expect them to reaist the super natrual-phero dudes and make rational choices?\"

We\'ve seen that before... the guy that can pick up any girl he tries to (mostly), \'plays\' her and she regrets it the following week becoz he now ingores her and has moved to his next target.
What would be wrong with the genuine nice guys bringing themselves up to the same or better level?? That way the ladies have a better chance of finding a genuinly \'nicer\' candidate... ...who she also wants to \'jump\'. /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

[bundyburger]

FTRH,

Ooops.... You said where you dug it up. LOL

[Watcher]

Some of the power males in society however may find this wrong or immoral because it means competition, where i work if i apply AE i get heaps of males further up the ladder in terms of the organisation hanging around making comments about how things arent right bla bla bla, without being able to pinpoint me.

This said they come out of the woodwork every time, ive started using this to my advantage when i want the department i work in to stop yapping and get some customer service going, they compete with each other and me but they work harder and generate more sales, i have kept pheros a complete secret of course where i am now.

It benefits us nice guys because the players are made more accountable and just cant run amok without giving something in return, it makes them by virtue of their ego sexual view of themselves to bend over to the more successful male and try to get his attention.

Ok ive ranted on about this before and it can get very dirty. Elana has the right idea. Anyone wanting more info do a forum search.

[Watcher]

Its amazing where she digs things up, FTRH must have one great search engine to get access to all sorts of data, but you can find anything on the web these days anyway.

[upsidedown]

>>I thought this argument would get dirty... <<<

Bundyburger, since your comment came right after my post, I hope you weren\'t refering to my preceeding comments as being dirty. It certainly wan\'t my intention in my comments.. It was intended to be taking a farce to an extreme to make a point.

Hopefully the latter part of your post is an indication that you did get the basic point I was making. Some guys get all the women they want because they have great pheromones....and they aren\'t always the best choices that women can get. Is it immoral for them to take advantage of this natural unconscious effect they have on women? I see no problem with just making life better for the guys who need a little more help. I don\'t see it as wrong or immoral.

[Watcher]

I see it as perfectly moral, even if you are a successful male, basically life is constant competition and any edge you can get well i say use it. I put this in the same category of working out, plastic surgery, a good mouth, NLP skills, money, a fancy car, being smart, good tits, eating healthy, good clothes, a loose dick being able to impregnate many women, good perfume or colonge, good legs, butt arms etc.
Being young or being old etc etc. Its just another advance designed to get those of us that use them to get more sex.

There is no need to take it to an extreme farce level either. Women and men never make the best choices in life we use what we want here and now and what we have at our desposal as far as knowledge and external feedback to make choices. If i get a beautiful woman as a result of using this stuff or more oppounities then i say why not. At least i can use my brains and have sex appeal as well.

[upsidedown]

I\'ve been thinking about this a bit. Here\'s some other thoughts.

I recall a time not too long ago when I went into a store and found an item I had been thinking about getting. This very hot blonde came over to help me wearing a rather revealing open top. She didn\'t go to any extreme trouble to protect her modesty while showing the item and demonstrating it to me either. Now, I\'m going to make a confession here folks...I\'m a normal weak male with the normal male weaknesses..and she got to me. I knew she was getting to me at the time, and I knew how she was getting to me, but I didn\'t care. I bought the item from her because she put me in a good mood, when I normally might have done some shopping around first. On top of that, when I was paying for the item at the register, she suggested I get one more little item that they were selling at the counter, and being the weak man that I am I said \"sure, why not?\" After leaving the store I laughed to myself and said \"you sucker, she really did a great sales job on you.\" But, I didn\'t care. I knew what was happening at the time, but I let it happen. Was her using her natural sex appeal wrong, and should it be outlawed? It was effective, but it didn\'t compel me to do anything I really didn\'t want to do since it was an item I had been planning on getting anyway. It just prompted me to buy it from her instead of the old bald guy with hair growing out of his ears in another part of the mall.

I\'ve also heard studies that waitresses who touch their clients on the arm tend to get higher tips. Should touching of customers by waitresses be outlawed? I don\'t think so. It\'s a subtle but effective thing that effects someone elses behavior.

I don\'t think pheromones are that singnificantly different in terms of their moral implications. I admit they\'re not perfect comparisons since people don\'t know that pheromones are working under the radar, but they do think the person is attractive for whatever reason, and whatever they do is because it\'s what they want to allow themselves to do. Even extremely aroused people can control themselves if they don\'t want to act on their feelings.

[krtel]

I\'m the same way. I also have those same weaknesses, and I\'ve been in very similar situations.

Good post though, very convincing. This has to be the best analogy on the thread.

- Krish

[Watcher]

Look i think youre feelings and thoughts on the subject are spot on, good work on finding an example to use and to explain it. I agree 100% with u on this, it gets me attention and most of the time that does it for me.

[franki]

\"This has to be the best analogy on the thread.\"

I don\'t understand the analogy with the blonde. With the blonde the attraction is obvious, with phero\'s not (or am I missing something?).

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I don\'t believe that using pheromones are immoral. The dictionary defines \"immoral\" as obscene, lewd, without virtue. I think that it is immoral when guys beat the crap out of their wives, girlfriends, etc., and same goes back for more. That to me is obscene, i.e. immoral. Another example of immorality is child pornographers and molesters. People that don\'t look after their kids or their elderly parents are immoral. People that use pheromones to attract attention without the intent to harm or abuse are not immoral.

[upsidedown]

>>I don\'t understand the analogy with the blonde. With the blonde the attraction is obvious, with phero\'s not (or am I missing something?).<<

Well, I admitted it wasn\'t a pefect analogy. But, all I was trying to say is that regardless of the reason I was attracted to her, she didn\'t force me to do anything. She got my attention, put me in a good mood around her, but didn\'t reach into my pocket and take the money from me by force. Pheromones are supposed to make you more appealing to the other person. The only difference is that the reason you find them attractive isn\'t obvious as in my example.. But, I still had control of myself with the blonde, and people under the influence of pheromones still have control of themselves (unlike the date rape drugs.). Her physical attibutes caused me to be more attentive to her and prefer her to another salesperson, but in no way did she force me against my will to buy what I did from her. I did it of my own free will. And, no matter how attractive she was, I would not have bought it if I really hadn\'t wanted to. It was an example of a subtle yet effective way of motivating another person. So, the point is that there are all kinds of subtle ways of getting attention and motivating behavior in others...but nobody is about to outlaw those approaches. So, I\'m making the same argument with pheromones....they make you more attractive and get their attention, but you\'re not forcing anybody to do anything they don\'t want to do. You\'re just making yourself more appealing to them so they\'ll pick you if that is their inclination.

My other point was that there are all kinds of subtle ways to motivate people, whether it be the sex appeal approach of the sales woman, or the subtle touch by a waitress which makes her seem more friendly to the customer....nobody is suggesting that subtle forms of influence are immoral or wrong, and pheromones are just another example of a subtle form of influencing.

I never claimed to have a perfect example, but it just came to mind while thinking of this. I don\'t have all the arguments worked out yet...they\'re sort of a work in progress.

Also, I guess I just wanted an excuse to admit my weakness for hot blondes in front of thousands of people and get it off my chest. I feel better now. /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Watcher]

Given that explanation on immoral and moral and the definitions i think youre on the right track, it just comes down to the individuals intent, its really just boosting ones attractiveness anyway so there is no right or wrong. Its just something that can be used to slide under anothers subconscious to make the self appear more desireable, you are signalling genetic and immune strength and appearing to be a perfect biological donation ie sperm. You also raise their hormonal levels resulting in more sexual behaviour i see everything right in that idea.

[bundyburger]

Uppy,

Nahh mate...not at all. I was refering to the original \"nonscents\" poster if anything, but even then I just meant the thread in general.

I liked what you said. It illustrated what I think too.

[xvs]

Here are some arguments I like:

- If some people have better vision than others, is it wrong to wear glasses? If some people have more pheromones than others, is it wrong to wear pheromones?

- If pheromones manipulate people, and you manipulate someone into feeling great, is that wrong? If that\'s wrong, aren\'t Hollywood movies wrong too (well maybe they are but...)?

[franki]

Those are really bad-ass reasons from people who whine about the fact nature is not fair.... A bit like me whining because I don\'t get laid lately. /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[belgareth]

A million or so years ago, some guy figured out that he could throw a big rock and knock an animal down rather than chase it. This increased his reach and made him a better hunter. He was more likely to eat, survive and be able to feed a mate and offspring. Being better fed probably contributed to increased success hunting and greater pheromone output. It was a survival advantage that gave him a better chance to reproduce.

Was he cheating? I don\'t think so but the other members of his group who weren\'t coordinated enough to throw a rock might have thought so. It has been happening all throughout history. The ones who figure out how to get ahead get to reproduce more often.

Mones are just another example of that. The other primitives had every opportunity to pick up a rock, just as anybody can look into and purchase pheromones. We are not cheating. Instead, we are using our minds to give us an advantage.

[franki]

My point is, people are always so jealous of other people. (\"He has more mones than me, I want that too ...\") Me included. Hell, I am probably one of the most jealous people there are... /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif A little bit of jealousy is a good thing, because it makes you put on a better effort to get what you want. A lot of jealousy is destructive ...

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Wolfe]

Excellant post

[belgareth]

Well, sure. That\'s perfectly normal. We all want something somebody else has, if we didn\'t, most people wouldn\'t strive to achieve. It is a good thing, so long as it is kept under control and not allowed to possess you.

[franki]

It is ok as long as people are not saying \"it is not fair, and therefore we have the right to use synthetical mones....\"

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Wolfe]

why?. some use dildos or vibs cause they wern\'t created =

[belgareth]

Somebody is always going to be saying \'Its not fair!\' about something. You do what you believe is right and ethical and let them do the same. Most of them are just noisemakers without a purpose, anyway. If they weren\'t crying about mones, they would be crying about something else.

In short, ignore them.

[Irish]

Yeah, I get a kick out of folks saying it\'s not fair that they are unattractivr, can\'t get women, have deficient pheros - as if it was a right to to do well in the mating game, and they have been \'unfairly\' deprived.

It\'s a *competition*, not a legal case!! There\'s no fairness about the sexual jungle - only winners and losers. And sexually attractive people actually *are* superior mates from the physical standpoint, several studies have shown (better genes, better immune systems, etc). Natural pheros are what\'s known as an \'honest signal\' - they accurately report the condition and reproductive value of the individual. Same with physical \'good looks\' (symmetry). Attractive people look good, smell good, and have more sex because they *are* better sexual specimens than those that lack these traits! They look better because they ARE better (in the reproductive sense).

Synthetic phero use is a way to send a false signal, a better signal than our bodies can naturally - we are hiding our deficiencies, trying to appear more desirable than our genetics justify. Same with plastic surgery. Nothing wrong with that either IMHO - as someone noted that\'s using our mind to overcome natural deficiencies. If it\'s successful long enough natural selection will begin to shift towrds smart sneaky people that can hide their physical faults, or mimic their physical superiors.

Anyway, my point was the fairness issue - fairness is valid when you discuss people\'s worth as human beings, the right to decent humane treatment. Fairness applies there. But there is no right to sexual success - that\'s an arena for competition. And just as clumsy oafs cannot say it\'s unfair they aren\'t football stars, neither can the sexually inept complain it\'s unfair that they don\'t get the same action as natural-born \'sexual athletes\'.

We\'re stuck with the genetic hand nature dealt us - ingenuity will help us overcome deficiencies, but none of that has anything to do with \'fairness\'. That\'s why it\'s important to separate your value as a human being from your sexual attractiveness. It makes for a healthier outlook.

[franki]

I like that post.
You can say the same things 10 times more eloquent than me. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

Franki

[Irish]

Not 10x more eloquent - just 10x longer!

[bivonic]

I can sum that post up in 6 words.

\"All\'s fair in love and war.\"

[Wolfe]

that\'s 7 /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif
ones a contraction /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[CptKipling]

The bottom line of this issue is that pheromones are not as powerful as some people have made out. Despite constant ravings about the new \"magic bullet\", there simply is no such thing.

The whole concept of pheromones is that they target primal instincts (no pun intended) and subliminal areas of the brain. These are areas that are used much less than they used to, because the development of civilised society has made them (theoretically) redundant. This is not to say that they do not influence people, because that would be nonsense, but social conformities (i.e. bathing rituals) greatly reduce the capacity of pheromones to function.

Something that needs to be understood; the pheromones currently in use in pheromone products are just bulk attractant pheromones; -none to induce fear, sexual tension, and respect; -nol to induce friendliness, mood elevation, relaxation and comfort; -rone to give an aura of masculinity (and the follow on effects that this brings)…etc. There is further evidence which suggests the existence of a very specific pheromone profile, but it will be made up of other compounds, probably relating to the immune system and other genetic qualities. It would therefore be possible to tailor a phero mix specifically for an individual, in essence creating the impression of an ideal partner, but at the moment this is beyond current technology.

As has been mentioned by other posts, the race to reproduce is a competition with no rules, there is no concept of fair, there is only people using there good points to their advantage. Is this cheating? No and no. Is it morally wrong for women to apply makeup around their eyes, making them seem bigger and doll-like? No, even though big “doe” eyes are a major trigger for male attraction. There is falsification of attractive features going on all over the place, breast implants (and this IS a phero related topic, ask JVK), dyeing of hair, even working out could be called cheating by some, but they will always be the ones watching TV and not reproducing.

Something which I don’t think has been mentioned before, is acting like you have a good natural signature. Most “players” do it, and is their favourite trick for getting laid. It can be described in one word, confidence. Confidence is the most important thing regarding psychological attraction, if you act like you “get it” and are going to get it, no matter what, then women find you more attractive. In fact, this applies to more than just attraction; male stand offs, business situations, the list goes on… But is the morality of these situations considered even once? Again, no.

Pheros do not enter into moral consideration, in every case, its the morality of the user that is in question.

[upsidedown]

Some thoughts for the sake of discussion. Let\'s just assume that pheromones DO cause actual changes of some sort in the mindset of the target. Let\'s assume that it\'s not just a matter of making you seem more attractive, but that it also causes the target to get more aroused than they otherwise would become without pheromones. My contention is that any arousal caused by mones is nowhere near as powerful in lowering the inhibitions to follow through on the arousal in the target as drinking alcohol is.

So, I would just ask anybody who thinks pheromone usage is wrong just how they feel about making any kind of move on a woman who has been drinking? Do you have any problems making any kinds of moves, even just asking for a telephone number, from a woman who has had anything to drink? If not, why not? If you have no problem with hitting up on a woman who has been loosened up by alcohol, why would you have a problem with using mones on a totally sober woman who still has full use of her judgement?

If you do have a problem with hitting on women who have been drinking, then just how many drinks do they have to have before you cross the line from moral to immoral? To what extent does her judgement have to be impaired before it\'s wrong?

I\'m no scientiest, but my guess is that any woman who has been drinking is much less inhibited than she would be under the influence of even the most powerful of pheromones while sober. When she has been drinking, thre is some lowering of her inhibitions and judgement. With pheromones, she may find you more attractive AND might even be more sexually aroused around you. BUT, assuming she hasn\'t been drinking she will still have control of herself and can make a rational decision on how she wants to act on her feelings of attraction and arousal that she feels for you and your pheromones.

[Irish]

Again, the key difference is one of target awareness/control. The target in your example put the drinks in her own system, could presumably refuse to drink, etc. - she was in control of her own soberness or lack thereof. A phero user imposes the \'intoxicant\' (pheros) without the target having anything to say about it.

A more exact version of your analogy would be \"how many drug tablets could you slip into that woman\'s drink before it is morally wrong? Is it ok if the drug tablets are mild in effect?\"

Don\'t get me wrong - I\'m personally not opposed to using a little trickery in a seduction. I just think we should be honest with ourselves about it. and not rationalize away what we are up to.

[Whitehall]

One twist on the \"How many drinks?\" question is that at some point, the woman can claim that she was unconscious. Then, it is no longer moral but a legal question. You can be charged with rape for that or lose your job and career. Of course, too often, she will conveniently \"forget\" that she said yes or even instigated intercourse.

Recent, the Dean of the University of California law school had to resign because a female student claimed that he had driven her home after a party and had intercourse with her after she had lost consciousness. This was several years after the fact too.

Let me restate the worst intepretation of pheromone use again. The pheromone user releases a volatile steroid, already a controlled substance in the US albeit at higher concentrations, into the air around an unsuspecting victim. She inhales this steroid and it affects her central nervous system and her own hormone levels. This causes her to behave in ways that she would not otherwise behave sexually. The intent is sexual intercourse where it would not have taken place otherwise without the chemicals being inhaled.

The basic problem is our philosophical concept of consent and free will. Science is showing us that here is another area where the bright line between free will and coercion is fudged.

My personal opinion is that the practical line we need to draw for public policy is between childhood and adulthood. That can be 18 years of age - below that age, the sale should be prohibited (sorry Bruce) and most certainly, no person should be targeted and sexually closed with using pheromones under that age. That way we protect children while adults get to take their chances.

[Wolfe]

that would apply rather -mones where involved or not

[Watcher]

Could be written into existing laws but those laws get ignored 70% of under 18s here in australia have already have sex by 18. The age of consent is 16 out here just to note. What about those with naturally high pheromone production would it be made legal for them to scrub them off once daily and they would have an *advantage* over those that werent able to get their hands on synthetics anyway.
WHat about a genetically enhanced individual designed to produce a high amount of pheros.
But u are right whitehall there needs to be at least discussion, maybe avoiding closing (sex) on someone under 18 should at the very least enter the moral thoughts of synthetic pheromone usage. At the moment nillthisim rules therefore the tangent maths says whatever goes, goes.

[marv14yag]

When you say, altering another\'s hormones...Yes, a steriod such as pheromones will do this HOWEVER, the thing is, so will a VISUAL response too, so,would you say anything that a girl likes that raises her hormone levels is immoral?

And, hey, I\'m 17 now, but was using pheromones at 16...

Like it\'s been stated, and I have known and SAID this like a million times on this board...

Even if you look attractive, have the pheormones, work out, girls don\'t always want to screw you...In fact, at my age, it\'s 19 out of 20 times it is like that.

Alchohol not ONLY would let her do something she normally wouldn\'t but it would ALSO make YOU look better (ie, beer goggles.)...But, alcohol would probably be a MILLION times better because it would let them do something they NORMALLY wouldn\'t do... If there was SOMEONE somehow made to be the PERFECT male, immune system, pheromones, etc....He probably STILL wouldn\'t necessarily get laid. The key to it is more letting DOWN her inhibitions (through NLP, etc, alcohol) than the way you look.

I don\'t know, but I\'d say it\'s equal....Personally, I find probably 8 out of every 10 girls, if not 9 out of 10 attractive. Attractive to the point where, yeah, given the change I definately would do them....

I\'d say it\'s the same with girls too....Unless you are ugly, a girl won\'t NOT do it with you (unless they are that way and want only the best, HOWEVER, that isn\'t usually the case) It\'s the fact that a lot of the times they have been programmed by SOCIETY NOT TO!

Back in cave man\'s days it was the OPPOSITE...

Now, it\'s starting to get back to the way it was in cave men\'s days...I think that is PRIMARILY because, yeah, society says don\'t f** people, etc...However, girls like sex....They have learned if you want sex, you have to be more sexually aggresive, forget what society says...In fact, someone I recently read has proved girls to be much more sexualy aggressive than previous years...I don\'t know from when that was, but it is changing...Girls from like the age of 16-18 speed more than guys driving too, etc....

Either way, if it\'s not FORCING someone to do something and they do it because they WANT to, it\'s not immoral...Personally, I don\'t think anything is IMMORAL or WRONG, however, I don\'t HAVE definition for it, but if you\'re not forcing someone to do something, you\'re not forcing someone to do something, plain and simple...I think that NLP would be more immoral than pheromones....Alcohol would be worse than pheromones....

But, there really is no WORSE because it\'s not FORCING anyone to do ANYTHING.

Oh yeah, who wrote about the makeup around the eyes....I didn\'t know bigger eyes was attributed to sexual attraction, I just knew that the eye make up looked good (perhaps the colors make it appear as though bigger doe eyes, or is COLOR involved, I know that darker hair contributes to stronger characteristics v.s. blonde hair (however, many times submissiveness is a good thing (for a girl...ie, blondes, etc.)

Bart

[Walter_Mitty]

This is kind of fun to debate. Back to the Devils advocate (since no one else seems to want to be that) I would like comment on a few things I have read. One, the post about scrubbing off the natural pheros. No, those are there anyways, you are not manipulating the playing field. The Movie Line about feeling good, Well, most of us are in a fair mental state when going to movies, and know what to expect. I think the reason we go to movies is to be entertained. The Glasses quote was kinda funny, I fail to see how better vision is immoral (unless you were using it for something immoral in the first place...) There is some fun stuff to mull over in the archives, and some good questions to think about. I just wanted to make the point that pheros do effect people (to a greater or lesser extent) and there is no way that anyone but you could know this without telling the crowd. By adding synthetic pheros, you can tip the tables in your favor in a way that is not natural. I don\'t think the arguement that make-up and perfume is unnatural fits, cause civilizations have been using these two things for eons. The ability to synthesize and purify pheros is only decades old, and honestly, the way some of these things smell, would you put them on if you didn\'t know that they were pheros? So knowing that these pheros do effect behaviour, and using them on an unsuspecting crowd might have some issues of morality.

Personally, I ain\'t quitting using them, but it is fun to think about these things.

[Watcher]

Oooh devils adovate this is fun. We keep this secret inside our heads and dare not mention, the few times i have all sorts of fun commotion has broken out amoung friends etc. Ok so using them on an unsuspecting crowds raises issues of morality right, so ok any extra comments welcome.

Do we ban their use, bury their knowledge and existance for all time, bring in the UFOs to disperse massive amounts of pheros over unsuspecting cities to make the human populace so horny it will be to busy bonking to mount any effective resistance to an invasion from space.
Perhaps laws and measuring devices to measure the presence of synthetic pheromones (big business opportunties there) give every man woman and child access to synthetic pheromones (big business oppourtunity there also) which would be one answer to places like australia where the population is aging and the birth rate falling putting huge pressures on the economic support sturcture to care for the aged. Spread phero usage around women might get pregnant more often and more children booms come hence balancing everything out.

Ok ive gone overboard again but some points to add to it.

[Wolfe]

ROFLMAO

[belgareth]

There is no real answer. The puritans will insist that they be made illegal. The liberals will want them made freely available and the science community will want to run endless experiments with them.

You are not going to put the genie back in the bottle, never have been able to with other things either. Think about the drug war, its a failure and drugs are bulky by comparison and also have a more noticable effect on the user.

Mone use is here to stay, how do we control the use? Should we? Do we need to? Over time, as the science develops, won\'t they become more common and therefore have a reduced impact because they will be all around us?

[Watcher]

What has got u so worked up wolfe lol, didnt think my post where that funny, but now that i have gone back over it i guess some would get a chuckle out of it he he.

Sorry just got a economic education in my background so some of my posts tend to concentrate on those implications of pheromone usage on a widescale thinking ahead about UFOs etc.

[Watcher]

Maybe some sort of pheromone counter compound that the user can apply on the inside of the nose to remove the effects of breathing in super pheromones coming from other people.

Lots of business oppourtunities there. I agree that they will never go back into the bottle either, genies are by far to useful anyway (anyone here brittany spears to play samatha in the bewitched movie version)

[Wolfe]

was the alien part /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Watcher]

I wonder what the morals of an alien invasion would be.