Mones and the pill

[Traggard]

Thinking back,

most of the hits I have got has been either from young women (20 or under) or women in the 40+ range. True, the

women I approach in clubs are about 25-35 but the mones only seem to work on a small fraction of them. When the

mones have effect the interactions seems to go smother. But even then it has not been the obvious hits I get from

some -20 or 40+ women.

There has been some discussion here about girls being on the pill interfering with the

effect of the pheromones. Since it is reasonable to assume that most women using birth control pills are in there

20s or 30s this really explains why the strong hits I get mostly come from outside that range.Hey, maybe we can sue

the companies that make the pills for lowering the effects of mones?

[Bruce]

Folks over 40 (men and women) are of

course depending on gradually diminishing smelling equipment to get the pheromone "message", so being able to turn

up the volume on your own pheromone output at will should give you a big advantage with older women.



Bruce

[Pancho1188]

The pill 'smooths out'

women's cycles, making PMS less intense, etc. Therefore, one could guess that it also changes how -mones influence

their behavior because the reactions probably won't be as intense.


Side effects include: stomach cramps,

irritability, naseau, dizziness, dry mouth, decreased -mone sensitivity, muscle fatigue, upset stomach, and

stuffy nose

..............I don't think so...

[Silver]

Keep in mind this would also mean

less chance of an adverse reaction right before or durring her period. So, I guess it's a trade off.

~Silver

[Pancho1188]

That's what I was

thinking...

[jvkohl]

The pill

'smooths out' women's cycles, making PMS less intense, etc. Therefore, one could guess that it also changes how

-mones influence their behavior because the reactions probably won't be as intense.

The pill tricks

a woman's body into thinking it's pregnant by keeping estrogen levels fairly constant, thus eliminating the

luteinizing hormone (LH) surge at ovulation (which must be preceded by a gradual estrogen increase over approx 72

hours). Peak sensitivity to musky male scents increases with estrogen levels, but, again, this is typical only when

women cycle normally--not when they supplement estrogen, as with the pill. Peak sexual interest and both proceptive

and receptive behavior occur at ovulation in all species studied. In woman, this is most likely due to the ovulatory

surge in testosterone that is prompted by the LH surge. All of this is basic reproductive endocrinology that in

other species ensures properly timed reproductive sexual behavior. It seems somewhat ridiculous to imagine something

else is going on in women--which means that Pancho is partly correct. There is a well-detailed link between taking

the pill and loss of libido in women. But no one has linked the loss of libido to the change in olfactory acuity and

specificity to musky scents (yet). Just another example of the explanatory ability of using a mammalian model to

predict/detail aspects of human sexuality. Also, Patricia Schreiner-Engle detailed in her doctoral thesis the link

between estrogen levels and libido--using women who had "hypoactive sexual desire." It is clear from her graphs that

estrogen levels in hypoactive women never rose high enough to prompt a typical LH and testosterone surge, though

this aspect of sexuality was not included in her thesis.

JVK

[ismellgood]

Lots of people claim that the

pill lowers libido, but when you look at big studies, the women taking the pill have the most intercourse.

[Silver]

*shakes her head* Ismellgood,

that's a very misleading statistic. Think about it...if they're on the pill, it's probably because they're

having sex. The pill is an indication of sexual activity, it doesn't cause it.

[tounge]

I think Traggard is talking about

the olfactory sense of women on the pill, not their sexual activity. I happen to think he is right.

[tounge]

Actually Silver, I think you were

speaking of ismellgood. In that case, I agree with you and shake my head.

[Silver]

Umm....yeah, I was speaking to

ismellgood lol. Thanks for catching that, tongue.

Sorry for the misrepresentation, Traggard.

~Silver

[tounge]

Umm....yeah, I was

speaking to ismellgood lol. Thanks for catching that, tongue.

You're welcome Sliver.

[jvkohl]

Lots of people

claim that the pill lowers libido, but when you look at big studies, the women taking the pill have the most

intercourse.

Written like a social scientist: throw out the mammalian model and all biological data

supporting it, based upon a result that is not biologically based. You make it clear that any debate is

pointless.

JVK

[tounge]

I think Kohl is shaking his head

too!

[Watcher]

Personally with the synthetic

pheromones we would be overcoming any reduced sensitivitiy to pheromones from any means - in older women it raises

the presense and therefore they react - i get plenty of reactions from the 30-40 female age group though they seem

more sensitive to Arone ??

Just based upon personal observations though

Thanks james kohl good science

to put the newbies on the right thinking track.

[ismellgood]

Kohl et al,
I do not

reject results from lower animal studies. However, appreciate that the highest mammal has the capacity to base

sexual behaviour more on neuronal and less on hormonal factors. Even in studies limited to sexually active women,

those women who use the pill have more intercourse.

[jvkohl]

... appreciate

that the highest mammal has the capacity to base sexual behaviour more on neuronal and less on hormonal

factors.

Sexual behavior is the result of hormones influencing neuronal development; thats' how

hormones organize and activate behavior. You seem to believe that sexual behavior is based upon cognitive function,

but approximately 90% of it is based upon unconscious affect--as in sensory input from the social environment

activating an organized system of communicating neurons (biology again). Olfactory/pheromonal input is the only

sensory input that is processed differently in males and females, and the processing is not a function of cognition.

Think about it all you want, then explain oral/genital sex based upon conscious thought, neurons, or whatever.

It's the effect of pheromones on hormones that gets us "down there" and keeps us heading back for

more--typically--like other animals.

JVK

[ismellgood]

Kohl,
You are trying to

misrepresent what I wrote to make it easier to dismiss.
Women not on the pill have a "mindless" increase in

liklihood of intercourse around ovulation; women on the pill want to be ready for sex throughout their cycle.
And

there are subtle sex differences in acoustic and visual processing.

[Watcher]

Kohl is the expert n the field -

written many books on pheromones and of course the maker behind Scent of eros. Has interaction with many other

experts in the field. He has battled the pheromone versus sexual audio/visual lobby for a while so he should be

considered more on track, all my experience indicates pheromonal influences with some subtle audio/visual feedback

to a factor of about 10%

Women on the pill are less interested in animal sex than those not. Of course they

can do sex at any time but the extra drive to mate that comes with a period is animalistic and of course they will

latch onto the strongest attractive male if able to - ie alpha with the strong mones acting as the attractant.

[ismellgood]

Women on the pill seem to be

interested in quality and quantity intercourse than those not on the pill.

On a personal note, I have found

that women on the pill are much better intercourse partners than those not on the pill. The latter may seem more

impulsive (is this what you mean by "animal sex"?), but when it comes to the actual intercourse, they are lesser

quality.

[jvkohl]

Kohl,
You are

trying to misrepresent what I wrote to make it easier to dismiss.

What is it that you think I'm

trying to misrepresent by describing the process through which hormones influence behavior? If you bring up neuronal

factors, it is important that you realize hormones influence neuronal development; and the neurons aren't doing

anything after they're developed except sending hormonal messages (yes, neurotransmitters are considered hormones).

Perhaps you lack some basic knowledge of biology, which means nothing--unless you intend to continue debate with a

biologist.

Women not on the pill have a "mindless" increase in liklihood of intercourse

around ovulation; women on the pill want to be ready for sex throughout their cycle.

"Women on the

pill _want_..." sounds like they know that the pill will influence their sexual readiness--and most of them do not.

So, what you have is women who _want_ to be ready for sex, who mostly could care less about sex because they don't

have the midcycle surge in testosterone. These are the women that tend to drive men crazy. All month long they can

take it or leave it (the sex, that is). At least women who are not screwing up their hormone cycle want sex for 3-5

days each month--and they want it as bad as men want it all month long (for the same reason: testosterone is the

libido hormone).

And there are subtle sex differences in acoustic and visual

processing.

It would be nice if you would tell us where your information comes from. That way I could

better explain why the information isn't particularly relevent to sexual behavior. Sex differences are either

innate (present at birth) or develop along with olfactory conditioning--and only sex differences in the olfactory

system are innate--unless Dennis McFadden has done work with newborn infant humans that I don't know about. And,

even if you want to argue about sex differences in other sensory systems that appear to be innate; there is the

requirement for social-environmental sensory input to affect males and females differently (like pheromones do).



JVK

[ismellgood]

1. Perhaps I need to use

simpler words for you to understand. By "neuronal", I was referring to higher cortical processes of appraisal and

planning, not the banal level to which you refer.
You also misrepresented other research (in a different thread)

by claiming that women prefer a male waist to hip ratio of 1, whereas Singh and others have shown that women prefer

men with a trimmer waist, in the .8 to .95 range.

2. Women who integrate intercourse into their sense of self

want to be ready for real intercourse, and put themselves on the pill.

3. There are many thousands of studies

on sex differences outside of the olfactory realm. Just try medline with ("Sex Characteristics"[MeSH]) AND (acoustic

OR auditory OR visual OR tactile OR gustatory).

[Friendly1]

1. Perhaps I

need to use simpler words for you to understand. By "neuronal", I was referring to higher cortical processes of

appraisal and planning, not the banal level to which you refer.

What you need to do is stop leaping to

unwarranted conclusions.

The pill does not induce women to have more sex. The women are going to have sex

regardless of whether they are on the pill or not. Studies have shown that men and women who take responsibility

for their sexual activity are more likely to report it, whereas men and women who don't take responsibility for it

are less likely to report it.

Many young women take the pill for other reasons. Teenage girls, for example,

don't always have regular cycles. The pill helps them establish a cycle until their body can do it on its own.

Some teenage girls (and women) also take the pill to help control acne.

Many virgins take the pill. They are

clearly not having intercourse. Some of them take it in preparation for marriage (they don't want to conceive

right after getting married, and they are advised to start the pill a few months before marriage).

All of these

examples are taken right out of real life, btw, not just "studies" I have read. My mother worked for two Planned

Parenthood clinics and she dispensed a lot of birth control pills to virgins, married women, sluts, good girls, and

prostitutes. She used to tell me I would be surprised at how many of the girls I knew were on the pill, and how

many of them were NOT having sex, and how many of the girls I knew who were NOT on the pill WERE having sex (she

also helped in abortions at one clinic -- although she walked off the job the day she had to prepare a 12-year-old

girl who had been raped -- it was an emotionally wrenching experience for her each time she put a teenage girl on

the table).

Anyway, there is no evidence of causality between taking the pill and having sex. There IS evidence

of correlation between taking the pill and reporting sexual activity. Hence, the results of some studies are skewed

(and they usually include plenty of disclaimers regarding the availability of reliable sources of information).

[CptKipling]

Sexual behavior

is the result of hormones influencing neuronal development; thats' how hormones organize and activate behavior.



JVK

Careful with the sweeping generalizations, JVK. Sexual feelings may be the result of hormonal

action, but actual sexual behavior in human is a combination of that and higher brain functions (inhibitions,

etc.).

Hormones may tell me that I am sexually aroused by a girl, but hormones don't make me pursue or

have sex with her.

[Watcher]

of course higher thinking does get

in the way - ie rational thoughts. Its an interesting discussion but lets avoid flaming on this one - of course a

few more years of scienctific research is needed as this field is only in its embroynic stage.

[jvkohl]

Careful with the

sweeping generalizations, JVK. Sexual feelings may be the result of hormonal action, but actual sexual

behavior in human is a combination of that and higher brain functions (inhibitions, etc.).

I agree

that I made a sweeping generalization; it was based on a reductionistic mammalian model. Arguably, without sexual

feelings, there would be no sexual behavior--and higher brain functions would have nothing to do with it. Just

because we have the ability to incorporate higher brain functions into our sexual behavior, does not mean that we do

so. I keep reverting back to the example of oral-genital sex. Higher brain functions or can the ultimate intimacy

be reduced to its mammalian origin? Sweeping generalizations are not always bad, and need not always be explained. I

was trying to make a point.

Hormones may tell me that I am sexually aroused by a girl,

but hormones don't make me pursue or have sex with her.

Hormones organize and activate sexual

behavior, which is a biological imperative for species survival. Without the organization you would neither pursue

nor have sex with a woman; alter the hormonal organization and your sexual response cycle is likely to be activated

by someone of the same sex. Eliminate the sense of smell (from birth) and you have no sexual interest because there

is no activation of hormones during development. Hormones don't force the issue; but without them sexual behavior

is not an issue.

JVK

[Watcher]

hormones sitll are a big influence

on behaviour just look at women when they hit manopause hormones go all over the place and so does their behaviour

quite often they become horiner. So yes the case is there jkohl its just the overall influence that is in debate.

Its high but how high.

[jvkohl]

Perhaps the best way to distinguish

between the cognitive and hormonal influences on behavior is to study other animals. Other animals do not appear to

think about their sexual behavior--it's all driven by hormonal differences/changes. It's always seemed somewhat

ridiculous to me when others posit that humans are not as hormonally driven as other mammals when it comes to sexual

behavior. Just because we can think, doesn't mean that our thought processes triumph over hormonal drives. More

likely is that we just think our thoughts are more important. Males and females still choose for reproductive

fitness, a function of pheromones and their ability to signal all biological aspects of reproductive fitness. So

what if women (or anyone) includes socioeconomic status or any other social factor? From an animalistic

perspective--such thoughts come into play long after we develop the ability to respond to the chemistry of

reproductive fitness.

JVK

[Watcher]

Hence rich women still get

pregnant to poor men and then get the rich husbands to look after if they can get away with it. Yes good points

jkohl - DNA testing helps rich men see if their women have cheated etc.

But reproductive fitness most times

is a big factor and signalling is done via pheromone compositions and strenghts.

[Felstorm]

Just because we can

think, doesn't mean that our thought processes triumph over hormonal drives.

Humans are animals first

and foremost. Scent, is by and far the biggest fetish of mammilian life. Without it countless species would not

reproduce.

Rational thinking overrides instinct most of the time, but all in all it is instinct that affects

us more than our rational thinking would like us to believe.

Sex is something you are, not something you do.