</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
However, there might seem to be a common high-quality, almost
universally-accepted attracive signature. I only say this because of experiments of women smelling men\'s
udnershirts, they picked those from men who happened (not coincidentally) to be better looking.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
The scent of symmetry; of genetic diversity; of darker complexion are all
most appealing to a heterosexual woman who is in her ovulatory phase. In other phases of the cycle, such cues to
reproductive fitness are of little or no concern. In this regard, study conditions are very important when making
statements about results.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
... what are the
ideal ratios between rone, none and nol in this mix that would be universally considered attractive to women?
Perhaps, the testing of the sweat of unversally (i use that word loosely) perceived good-looking men might yield the
ideal ratios, if it is in fact true that women in general enjoy the sweat of phsyically attractive males over that
of others.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
All indications point to the level of testosterone
manifest in the masculine scent signature as the key. However, since testosterone metabolizes into different
substances, and comes from different sources (gonadal and adrenal) it is difficult to determine which processes are
involved in the production of the most attractive pheromones. Add to this the fact that each person experiences
pheromones from others in a different context, and you can begin to see why no universally attractive combination is
likely. It would be akin to combining the chemicals in food to produce a food that everyone likes (not likely
because of different associations with those food chemicals in the past).
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I suspect there has been very little research on the ideal relationship
between the amounts of pheromones to one another. But isn\'t this fairly imporant, especially as you have seemed
to indicate that something like nol is incomplete without rone? So the question is, how do we use rone to complment
nol. I know you have a 4:1 ratio in your product, so perhaps you have found the answer to this.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Only -nol has been shown to alter LH levels, so until other compounds are
found that also do this, speculation on the best ratio is a guessing game. That\'s not to say that you (or I, or a
perfumer) couldn\'t guess right--like with SOE. Still, maybe something better will come along. People certainly
have tried to come up with better mixes, and have received their own rewards in doing so. Still, a mix that works
for one might not work for others, as we have all seen.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr
/>
Perhaps this is why none reactions (without rone or even nol) were bad is studies, for most of the female
cycle. The signature was incomplete (not a good indication of none\'s worthiness), and rather, needed the other
components of the idea male pheromone signature to rendure a postive overall end result using none.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
That\'s possible, of course, but repeated negative associations with
-none, make it more likely that it will typically be aversive, even in combination with other attractive components.
This would serve men well who produced -none as a signal of dominance, at least with other males. Might even be
tolerable with women at times, but it\'s not likely to be a stable response. Cyclical hormone changes in women and
tonic levels in men go a long way to explaining why there are variations in positive or negative odor associations.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I know you have stayed from none in your
products, but the same may be said about nol and rone -- that it can be improved. The inclusion of none (bad on its
own or not) may make that mix a better one.
Afterall, attractive hetero males have all three in their signature,
and conditioning would seem to not make a women reject none in a mix, unless she just is attracted to the female
pheromone signature.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Not rejecting -none is far from
experiencing a positive effect, therein lies the problem in using it with other
components.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I know alter ego is on the market,
but not sure where they came up with their ratios and why the believe that is what is ideal. Both soe and AE seem
to go lightest on the rone, while sag has been talking about experimenting with going heaviest on it (interesting
idea).
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I have little doubt that going heavier on the -rone will
appeal to some women. When I first started experimenting, I used 1mg and 2mg/ml concentrations. 1mg/ml was almost
always attractive (except to women who were pregnant). 2mg/ml was not always aversive, but typically it was too
strong. Women\'s sensitivity to -rone, and therefore their response to it, will vary with levels of hormones. The
trick is to avoid having too much of it most of the time. Too much for a more feminine heterosexual woman, might not
be too much for a more masculine heterosexual woman. I hope we hear of some results in this regard. BTW, there\'s
nothing wrong with more masculine heterosexual woman; they can be much more fun because they tend to be a bit more
aggressive, and also tend to have two peaks in their drive: one at ovulation, another just before their period
starts. Pay attention to body type: a more masculinized heterosexual woman will show signs of slightly broader
shoulder width (very slightly), less fat distribution in the hips, thighs, and butt, and have smaller breasts--all
due to more testosterone and less estrogen. The tendency also is for these women to be 5\'5\'\' plus rather
than the shorter profile of women with more estrogen. All of the preceeding is based on my own experience, but
follows the biological facts (progesterone before the start of menses can have effects like testosterone in women).
I\'m certain that other Forum members can attest to the differences in body type that correlate with sexual
behavior. If not, it should be fun for others to learn about such differences. But, watch out for large,
thick-waisted women; a more masculinized extreme. They\'re less likely to like guys.