Titaniumoxide: Homosexuality and Pheromones

Titaniumoxide wrote:

I wasn\'t even aware we females produce testosterone at all.
--------most of the testosterone (T) in
women typically comes from the adrenal glands, rather than the female gonads (the ovaries). Two conditions predominate in cases of excess T in women: Congential Adrenal Hyperplasia, and Polycystic ovaries, both of which have been linked to increased masculine behavior and body type.

I was thinking, since people get attracted to one another from receiving and reacting to
each other\'s pheromones, is it possible that people become gay because of their pheromone reception?
---not only possible, but extremely likely, at least in males. I touched on this in the book, and that was 5 1/2 years ago. More recent data--including the report by Savic et al, 2001 strongly support the pheromone-homosexuality link. Trouble is, this type of support is about the most technical that anyone could imagine. Even some of the real heavyweight neuroscientists don\'t quite \"get it.\"
BOTTOM LINE: a gay gene at Xq28 probably codes for and effect on migration of the nerve cells that set up our sense of smell--and everything else about how the sense of smell affects hormone levels linked to sexual orientation. The gay gene predisposes homosexuality, and then odor associations at the subconscious level allow males to imprint more on other males, than on females--from birth on. At puberty, with sexual experience, orgasm reinforces the imprinting and cements the orientation.
I have prepared an extensively documented article (100 citations) about this for publication in Neuroendocrinology Letters. Initially, I thought it would be published in December 2001, but some concerns on the part of the journal editor have delayed publication. The article may need to be resubmitted with changes, or submitted to another journal. I\'m waiting to hear more about this.
Meanwhile, I hope that some of you can understand why many researchers do not approve of the pheromone-sexual orientation link--especially if they have a vested interest in the study of visual appeal. It\'s much easier to say that human sex appeal is based on visual input, than to prove it. Fact is, most of us know that human sex appeal is based on odor/pheromone associations with visual characteristics. But, if you had spent your entire scientific career studying visual appeal, it might be difficult for you--like other scientists I know--to accept the fact that you bet on the wrong horse in attempts to explain human sexuality.

Eg. A male is gay because he is receptive to male\'s pheromones, as opposed to female\'s. And then, I thought, bisexuals are that way because they\'re receptive to both.
---Yes, and transexuals are confused about their sexual identity because their brain is wired to respond to same sex pheromones, but their body isn\'t built that way. And anosmics are asexual because they don\'t have the influence of pheromones to give them any clue as to what \"bonding\" is all about--either with a member of the same sex, or opposite sex. All this stuff is in the literature, though, arguably, I must draw too much from studies on other mammals for support. And some researchers think that animal models should not be used to explain human sexuality. That\'s ridiculous, I know, but that\'s how it is.
The pheromone link to homosexuality was one of the driving forces for product development of SOE, which is based on human reports that homosexual males have ratios of androsterone to etiocholanolone that are representative of females. I started experimenting with androsterone in 1993, and
every experience with it, supports the link between pheromones and sexual orientation.
Unfortunately, I cannot address all this in this forum. But, rest assured, this information will be presented repeatedly until it becomes the accepted paradigm used to explain sexual orientation.
On that note: I presented in 1995 at a very prestigious conference that was held again in 2000. In 1995 there was much skepticism. By the time I presented again (in 2000), none of the behavioral development specialists gave me any flack about the pheromone link to behavioral development or to sexual orientation. Any skepticism was eliminated by data from human studies.
So now what? We wait until the data hits \"critical mass\" and becomes so overwhelmingly convincing that the professors teach their students about pheromones and behavior, and the students become professors who teach--and so on. Finally, everyone will realize what\'s happening, and the old folks who think that human sexuality is all about visual appeal will die out, leaving us with a true perspective on human sexuality--as driven by pheromones (indicated by my signature file).
Meanwhile, be patient and content that you intuitively know more about human sexuality than many of the researchers who have spent their careers studying it.

To offer another quote that sums things up...

\"It\'s not what you don\'t know that hurts you, It\'s what you know that ain\'t so.\" ---Y. Berra

I am a lipid chemist, and this line typifies my life. As far as the connections that pheros have and the current dogma, just remember the line.

Oh yeah, Weee!, I just hit the century mark on posts. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

James Kohl wrote:

1. A male is gay because he is receptive to male\'s pheromones, as opposed to female\'s...

2... human reports that homosexual males have ratios of androsterone to etiocholanolone that are representative of females.

Now, this doesn\'t make sense to me. If a gay male responds to male pheromones, but a gay male produces less male pheromones, then a gay male would be primarily attracted to heterosexual males and have a hard time getting off on other gay males.

Actually, the first statement seems credible. The second one doesn\'t. Aren\'t male pheromones a by-product of testosterone? Given the great muscular development common on gay men, I don\'t think most are lacking in testosterone!

I was actually thinking that both of the statements are true. Maybe that explains the two stereotypes of gay people (either males or females). There\'s always the effeminate type and the \'butch\' type.

Is this possible :
Effeminate gay males : Like Mr. Kohl\'s first statement, \"... human reports that homosexual males have ratios of androsterone to etiocholanolone that are representative of females.\" That\'s why they\'re generally more \'feminine\', and are attracted to males.

\'Butch\' gay males : Produces testosterones just fine like straight males, but they\'re just receptive to male\'s pheromones instead of female\'s.

Same goes to the two types of lesbians :

\'Butch\' types : Produces some testosterone, hence the more masculine physique. Also explains why they\'re receptive to female\'s pheromones.

\'Femme\' types : Receptive to female\'s pheromones instead of male\'s.

Whew!! Wow, if any of this is true, then this ABSOLUTELY explains not only the roots of people\'s sexual preferences, but also why the stereotypes are as such.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: titaniumoxide ]

But I don\'t think the sterotypes are true.

The topic of pheromones and sexual orientation is very complex, so I understand why my brief explanation is confusing. First, there is a genetic predisposition; second there is the social environmental influence of pheromones on that genetic predisposition, which occurs accross a lifetime of experience, and which alters levels of hormones involved in behavior.

The issue of testosterone levels in gay males versus heterosexual males allows for much controversy--since testosterone is somewhat removed from the effect of pheromones on GnRH: gonadotropin releasing hormone (initial impact) and on ratios of luteinizing hormone to follicle stimulating hormone (LH/FSH) that determine levels of testosterone/estrogen.

Accordingly, data on sexual orientation that focusses on testosterone levels will be confusing. Better to focus on LH/FSH ratios since GnRH cannot be directly measured in humans. Thus, sexual orientation can be linked to the LH response mammals, including humans, exhibit when they are exposed to the pheromones of the opposite sex. Homosexual male sheep don\'t exhibit the LH response to ewes, but do exhibit a testosterone response when they sniff the genitals of other males.

Altering the early development of the olfactory system in male rats produces bisexual rats.

People born with no sense of smell are reportedly asexual.

Okay, these are all broken thoughts--but I put them all together in the article for Neuroendocrinology Letters, and provided all the references. It\'s a very cohesive paper, but also presents a very complicated argument that shows (accross all species) that pheromones and the olfactory system determine sexual orientation.

I\'ll let forum members know when the article is in print.

To Walter Mitty;

A lipid chemist? That\'s the next best thing to a steroid biochemist for my purposes. Do you have any charts showing the breakdown of cholesterol to the sex steroids and their metabolites? Do you have access and the ability to work with different concentrations and combinations of short-chain fatty acids (copulins)?

The topic of pheromones and sexual orientation is very complex, so I understand why my brief explanation is confusing. First, there is a genetic predisposition; second there is the social environmental influence of pheromones on that genetic predisposition, which occurs accross a lifetime of experience, and which alters levels of hormones involved in behavior.

The issue of testosterone levels in gay males versus heterosexual males allows for much controversy--since testosterone is somewhat removed from the effect of pheromones on GnRH: gonadotropin releasing hormone (initial impact) and on ratios of luteinizing hormone to follicle stimulating hormone (LH/FSH) that determine levels of testosterone/estrogen.

Accordingly, data on sexual orientation that focusses on testosterone levels will be confusing. Better to focus on LH/FSH ratios since GnRH cannot be directly measured in humans. Thus, sexual orientation can be linked to the LH response mammals, including humans, exhibit when they are exposed to the pheromones of the opposite sex. Homosexual male sheep don\'t exhibit the LH response to ewes, but do exhibit a testosterone response when they sniff the genitals of other males.

Altering the early development of the olfactory system in male rats produces bisexual rats.

People born with no sense of smell are reportedly asexual.

Okay, these are all broken thoughts--but I put them all together in the article for Neuroendocrinology Letters, and provided all the references. It\'s a very cohesive paper, but also presents a very complicated argument that shows (accross all species) that pheromones and the olfactory system determine sexual orientation.

I\'ll let forum members know when the article is in print.

I could look and ask around. I actually work with branched chain fatty acids (wierd things...) and a protein with a negative activation energy (wierder thing.) While I don\'t believe that the picture is anything but fuzzy, it is fun to playwith. I have friends who are way deep into sterols and the fun and games that can be derived from that. If you have any hot words or topics, I\'ll give it a go.

As far as short chain FA, I am unsure what starting cmpds you are interested in. I can tell you most of the biochem around these things was hammered out, and the whole fatty acid synthetase (Yes, it is supposed to be named that way, trust me) thing is centered around 16 C saturated FA. Anything more is another enzyme. Try Harpers Biochem for human biosynthetic pathways. It doesn\'t have copulins in the index, but maybe it is under another name.

Another thought, bacteria (and plants) also make a load of cholesterol like cmpds called hopanoids and oxido-squalenes. The enzymes that process the pheros might be related to these in some way. I dunno what generally is responsable for skin flora (MO wise) but you might look up the hopanoid synthase gene (see different spelling, but only slightly) and try to find gene homology in the genome databases. Lemme know if any of this sounds reasonable.

I don\'t know if you have access to these, but I found two refs on Steroid hormone biosynth. Here goes.

Miller, WL. Molecular Biology of steroid biosynthesis. Endocr. Rev. 1988. V9, pg 295.

Russell DW, Wilson JD. Steroid 5alpha-reductase: two genes two enzymes. Annu Rev Biochem. 1994. V63, pg 25.

Both these were taken from Chapter 50 of Harper\'s Biochem, 25th Ed. Hope it is helpful.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Walter Mitty ]

James V. Kohl, I started a thread asking the same exact question about 2 months ago. I didn\'t produce much response amongst the members. It\'s nice to see someone else may be thinking along the same lines as me [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

James,

So given how crucial the ability to detect pheromones are to sexual development, why haven\'t humans become more asexual with the advent of clothing, soap, deoderent/anti-persperants that should reduce the amount of pheros that we\'re naturally exposed to? Not all teens experience intimate contact with the opposite sex, and they develop just fine. Does a little go a long way towards development?

So when is the new Scent of Eros book coming out?

Savic, I., Berglund, H., Gulyas, B., and Roland, P. (2001). Smelling of odorous sex hormone-like compounds causes sex differentiated hypothalamic activations in humans. Neuron 31, 661-668.

Comments on Savic et.al:
Sobel, N and Brown, W.M. (2001) The Scented Brain: Pheromonal Responses in Humans Neuron 2001 31: 512-514.

James, so what were the \"pheromones\" tested in these two studies? I don\'t have a subscription to Neuron, and the free summaries contain almost no information.

From the studies you highlighted on your webpage (including the above two), it appears that all the putative pheromones demonstrated to affect the hypothalamus and hormone levels in humans are patented Realm vomeripherins or an unknown mixture contained in axillary sweat (for which we cannot isolate an active component).

It seems like we\'ve invested a lot in -none, -nol, and -rone, yet we don\'t even know if they have a hormonal effect!

So how many human pheromones do you think we\'ll ultimately discover? Currently, what are your top candidates?

Walter; Hot LF; truth

Walter: thanks for the info, but I\'m most interested in finding an interpreter for all the steroid hormone biochem and fatty acid links (like butyric acid) to pheromone production. No time to read this stuff for myself, and at this point it would take a specialist to help me wade through the literature.

Hot Like Fire: I\'ve discussed the orientation issue with many of the top behavioral development researchers ever since 1992 when Ann Perkins (of homosexual rams fame) brought home the point that my approach explained what was happening in her rams. Not much doubt that pheromones/olfaction rule both in heterosexual and homosexual male development. It\'s the psychologists who refuse to \"see\" this, not the biologists. Ann Perkins and I presented together during a symposium in 1993.

Truth: yes a little bit of pheromones goes a long way. Some recent evidence strongly suggests that the presence or absence of the biological father influences a daughter\'s onset of puberty. If dad\'s around, puberty is delayed; if not, it\'s advanced--if a step-dad or boyfriend is around--it\'s advanced further. The point is that this is exactly what happens in other mammals. So, it\'s not just initimate contact, it\'s the pheromonal world in general--and whether or not we try to mask or reduce pheromone output. On the other hand, we exhibit only tendencies to be less sexual than other animals. When inhibitions are minimized we explore the genitals of the opposite sex with our mouth and nose--just as other animals do when checking out a potential mate\'s pheromones. Accordingly, I have been known to ask those who think humans are primarily visual creatures about oral-genital sex: What are you \"looking for\" down there? Most people would agree that the visual appeal of the genitals is determined by olfactory associations, whether or not they \"think\" about it, and wrongly think its a visual thing.

The updated Scent of Eros book will be available two months after I send it to the publisher. I keep hesitating to send it, and then procrastinate. Would love to include reference to Preti\'s next publication, and I may wait until he publishers to finish the rerelease. Meanwhile, correspondence keeps me busy.

Still, I\'m continuing to monitor the research. OL has been shown to affect LH levels in humans by a Japanese group headed by Shinohara--I think the refs on my site. RONE will most likely be shown to affect LH sometime during the next few years. NONE probably affects LH, but the effect is just as likely to be negative: like with progesteronic pheromones on males--as it is to be positive like the androgenic pheromones have on females.

I think we will find as many pheromones as there are steroid hormone metabolites which are secreted through the skin (this usually means they\'re also found in other body secretions). The trick will be to find the right combination. I can be fairly certain that RONE provides an attractive masculine addition to one\'s natural scent, but cannot be sure that it acts entirely on its own. I can also be fairly certain that RONE alters LH, because it is intimately connected to gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), LH, and adrenal hormone (gut instinct) effects.

----------
Compounds used by Savic:

Savic et al used the estrogenic compound oestra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) and the androgenic compound 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND). They demonstrated with Positron Emission Tomography (PET) that hypothalamic activation with the androgenic compound was significantly greater in women, while hypothalamic activation by the estrogenic compound was greater in men. Furthermore, the effect of EST on men was concentrated in the dorsomedial hypothalamic nucleus. In contrast, the effect of AND on women was in the POA, an area that is essential for gonadotropin (e.g., LH) release, and this effect was concentrated in the preoptic nucleus.
---------------
If you are really into neuroscience, the above makes sense, and extends to make sense of sexual orientation, since the POA is involved in GnRH release, which links it to all of sexual differentiation--including differentiation of the olfactory system and thus our response to pheromones of the same or opposite sex, which alter what\'s happening in the POA, and provide a social-environmental link to genetically predisposed sexual orientation.

OK, color me a bit confused. As far as the fatty acids are concerned, what is the prob? Butyric? 4 carbons, saturated. Mw = 88 if protonated (better be if it is going to be volatile) For the rest of the fatty acids, in general add 28 to the Mw, and you have the form for the saturated FA\'s. As far as the bio chem, it seems pretty straight forward from the synthesis point of view. But, from the induction aspect, I couldn\'t tell you much. If you start from Pregnenolone (quite similar to cholesterol, except the tail is replaced with a methyl ketone by a cytochrome P450 side chain cleavage enzyme (P450scc)(linked to C-17)) then you can make quite a few of the cmpds mentioned on this board, and the chart I have ends with testosterone. Maybe I just misunderstood what you were looking for.

Needless to say, the stuff I have is more on the hormonal biosynth, but it does not appear to be far removed from the paths for phero synthesis.

Oh yeah, sorry to get so far off the topic of the post [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

James, given that much of the research has been on androstadienone, would you recommend using it, if we could obtain it as an additive? We had a whole discussion about whether an additive would constitute an infringement on Realm\'s patent recently. However, in the worse case scenario, I\'m pretty sure we can obtain androstadienone from Steraloids.com and add it to our mixes ourselves. Think this is a good idea?

By the way, what do you think of the idea of Realm patenting all these pheromones before anyone can try them?!

If it\'s true that attractive facial and bodily features have been conditioned through association with pheromones, could the visual conditioned response be so strong that they override the advantage of using supplementary pheromones? In the extreme case, if we put pheromones on a 300-lb female, I think the visual effect would override her appealing pheromone profile. From the theory, the 300-lb female should only be viewed as attractive if all such females encountered by the male in his lifetime exhibited this pheromone profile. Then, this male would be conditioned to find 300-lb females attractive. If visual conditioned responses are strong, it still pays more to improve your appearance than improve your pheromone profile, regardless of how these visual preferences arose.

Agree?

Walter Mitty: The problem is that I would not know how to prepare the mix of short-chain fatty acids that Astrid Jutte used; several different solutions are involved with concentrations based upon the work with rhesus females. The rhesus females, lacking natural estrogen production, also did not get any attention from the males. When the copulins were added to the genital area of the females, the males showed typical interest in copulation. This makes sense and most likely reflects an increase in testosterone in the males due to the copulins. All I am interested in doing, is getting someone to make up the same kind of mixture; have men try it, and see if there is a behavioral effect. Any effect would be subtle, but I think most men would willingly tell whether or not they liked and could identify the scent of the copulins. That\'s a good start on setting up a study of behavior.

You\'re right, the hormone biosynth is what pheromone synthesis is all about, but with females it\'s more the effect estrogen has on the concentration of various fatty acids--Astrid used the ovulatory phase combination since that phase is most estrogen related. On the other hand, using a progesteronic pheromone--Berliner\'s group found testosterone decreased in men. This is like exposing men to the odor of a woman who is having her period (more progesterone content). But, as you know, you start with Prenanolone to get to estrogens or to progestins--and even the androgens. No one is quite sure how much the role that sex differences in types of bacteria colonizing the skin might play in the production of different pheromones--or how the bacteria effect pheromone synthesis in the end stages.

So, back to square one. Do you think you could get hold of the short chain fatty acids and prepare a mix based on RP Michael\'s work, one that would rival Astrid\'s ovulatory mix. I\'m not even sure whether the right chemicals are available.

Truth: I don\'t think that there would be much of an advantage to androstadienone, since whatever effect is has would also depend upon odor associations, like with androsterone for example. Preti found the female LH response on exposure to axillary secretions (very non-specific). Androstadienone has not been tested (yet, to my knowledge) to see if it elicits the all important LH response. But I can certainly bet that androsterone elicits the LH response because so many women have told me it reminds them of sex (in different ways). I guess the bottom line will be reached if Berliner\'s group Erox/Pherin finds the LH response to androstadienone. If this happens, I would try to get as much of the compound as possible, and spike any masculine pheromone product with it. But I have doubts that in and of itself, androstadienone would be very effective.

Truth (2): The olfactory conditioning of visual preferences is very strong, and can--from a distance--overide olfactory appeal. That\'s why we can be attracted to someone from a distance--the pheromones set the biological stage for the attraction, but once the visual response is conditioned, we respond visually--until we can get close enough to sample the pheromones. If we like what we see, we\'ll go a long way to try and get more exposure to the pheromones. First we get close, then kiss, then nuzzle the female breast--finally in some cases going for oral-genital sex (and maximum exposure to her pheromones).

From her perspective, it does make sense for men to increase their visual appeal. So what do men do to increase their visual appeal: lift weights; tan their skin, and whatever else they can do to increase their testosterone level, which also increases their masculine pheromone production. Get the picture? You might think women are responding to visual cues, but they can only respond to visual cues if they have made olfactory associations with increased masculine pheromone output--which alters their hormones and ensures properly timed reproductive sexual behavior with the most reproductively fit male they can find.

Even with the best pheromones (e.g., Scent of Eros--a blatant product plug), physical appearance makes a difference. That\'s why I spend several hours lifting weights each week, and use the tanning booth whenever I can find time to do so. The more desire that women have to approach me, the better off I will be by having the right pheromone mix to ensure I hold their interest. Some of my pheromone output will be natural; some added with SOE. The combination is a relatively sure thing. But either a better body with a tan, or SOE would provide an attractive competitive edge, if I were only able to have one: the better body; or SOE.

And, certainly you have seen men who prefer large women--even the 300 pounders can have someone who\'s interested in them sexually. Yes, it\'s probably because they\'ve had their best experiences (and maybe their only experiences) with heavy women; imprinted on the pheromones, which change with the amount of fat tissue, and develop a preference for to big girls.

I\'m not pitting visual input against olfactory input; simply saying that it is olfactory input that conditions the visual response.

If you could get me a list/ref of the mix, I\'d look around. Quite honestly, if you are involved with the SoE project, I\'d have them order the stuff from Sigma-Aldridge. I could give you the exact recipe to mix together, but actually getting the stuff myself would be difficult. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with my research. With everyone paranoid about cash these days, red flag. And, I am sure that I probably don\'t have all the components in my lab.

One other odd idea, the short chain fatty acids are all smelly, up to about 12 C\'s Think of goats and you have 8-12 covered. But, as acids, they have to be protonated to fly (go into gas phase.) They do not fly when ionized. This can be easily fixed by making the methyl esters of the native fatty acids. Easy rxn, ask me if interested, but it adds another fun thing to try.

As far as the bacterial modification of the pheros, there are quite a few varibles to keep track of. I think that is out of range.

Finally, any of the cmpds with a 5-ene or a 4-ene-3-ol are really sensitive to oxidation. The 3-none-4-ene have much greater chemical stability (thermodynamics and conjugated bonds, O-chem revisiting...) No really, I bring this up because the nasty derivatives of cholesterol (oxides, disease causing cmpds) have the same susceptibility to oxidation. If there is a temperature degradation, this is the most likely route for cmpds with those attributes.

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: Walter Mitty ]