No clear pattern....

[bjf]

yea, it affects it, but all that

matters is the amount of pheromones that reach the target. Isn't the total pheromone amount far more correlated

with that than the amount per sq inch?

[CptKipling]

Yes, but there are other

factors to consider such as the location (pits can be quite sheltered) of the pheromones.

I don't fully

understand why lower concentrations are sometimes better, but I can't rule it out.

[bjf]

Well, te and npa work very

differently, and it seems as if the edge to npa ratio of 1:5 (or 4?) is false when it comes to practical use.

Amounts that work for NPA don't translate to five times that of TE, and I figured it had to do with the fact that

perhaps TE evaporates more plentifully? Or the absorbtion into the skin is greater with npa?

I hear you on

the pits thing, yes alot of out mones are under the clothes. Problem is, a lot of people apply synthetics is

sheltered locations, so I didn't bring that into the debate.


Great post Surfs_Up. I tried to figure out

if MHC immunotype stuff could be used to our advantage, ie synthetics, but it did not seem like it could happen like

it did with pheromones.

[CptKipling]

No, we can't work with MHC

pheromones, yet. Until someone does some serious work documenting what those chemicals are and what they

mean, we don't know if it is even possible.


RE dispersal rates: natural pheromones would have a pretty low

evapouration rate due to their location. This is offset by the large surface area that they cover (pit hairs), and

by the additional body heat in those areas. Increased dispersal would happen during excitement or any activity that

causes sweating, due to the extra dilution and because various compounds would be carried with the water

molecules as they evapourate.

TE will have a higher dispersal rate per mg of pheromones than NPA, purely due to

the concentration.

[bjf]

The MHC stuff is very

complex....there's 100s of them or something, and none of them will necssarily do anything. It depends the targets

own immunotype and where they want opposite or similar, and whether you already have that.

I don't think it

would even worth be pursuing. Just fake an accent or something.

[OCP]

desmond morris did

some shows for tv , showing how sexes are attracted. its scientifically proven women are attracted to neanderthal

looking men during her time of the month. women want to be married to a pie face smooth looking man though. it could

be there lesbian fantasies coming through . seeing smoothness being feminine and erstrogen related.

Or it could be that before they "settle down" they want the neanderthal because he reaks of sex and

a good time. But when they decide to settle down for a family they are looking for security and stability and the

pie faced smooth looking man is more apt to give them what they want at that time.

Although there is no

doubt in my mind that every woman in the world has secret desires to be with other women even if they are

heterosexual. I have been with a woman who only wanted to watch women with women porn, but she had never been with

another woman, but the thought of it sure got her hot. (so she claimed).

[DrSmellThis]

...good thinking, as usual, surf's up. You are thinking about the big

picture, which is exactly what I am always trying to get people to do.

To put it mildly, just because the

scientific knowledge so far is in a very limited area -- a few "certain" things about 16-androstenes and a

few short chain fatty acids -- doesn't mean we should see that area as if 's the whole picture, just because we

prefer to feel or act certain all the time. To put it less mildly, that would be very illogical and stupid of us.

Yet there are "certain" (to play with the two meanings of the word) people, even some in the field, who seem to do

just that. The insecure desire for certainty is its own foolishness.

There are other ways to feel confident in

our ever tentative beliefs as humans. This is the function of wisdom for scientists.

We need to use the

collective knowledge of the way nature generally works as the base of information, and then integrate the specific

area with the research into that knowledge base or way of thinking. That tells us how to best interpret the

research, when we have multiple ways to interpret it -- as we always do. Here our confidence comes from looking more

deeply at an ever bigger picture and seeing the consistency of the story nature is telling.

The big picture of

the way nature works (e.g., Some marine mammals use a sort of sonar to detect specific disease in other mammals.)

suggests that every emotion has a smell, and perhaps even every thought, and every state of health.

Of

course, there is nothing in the research to contradict this, and plenty to support it; especially when you count the

traditional teachings of aromatherapy. It would be the height of arrogance to think we have mentally "taken the

measure" of nature's ability to communicate within and among itself through olfaction, broadly defined -- or

through airborne chemicals in general.

What we already think of as "pheromones" are just a small piece of a

bigger picture. Smells and airborne chemicals in general are perhaps the most reliable, flexible and effective way

for nature to communicate within itself.

It would make sense to say that flowers emit pheromones for

bees, for example. The bee's interaction with the flower is just as essential of a part of their reproduction

as any animal to animal interaction.

Why not see the commonality in it all, and adjust our thinking

accordingly?

So we need to accept our measure of uncertainty and just think outside the box as surf's up is

doing.

[surfs_up]

the way I'm thinking about it at the present is that the 16-androstenes and similar

structures activate a social axis, or a couple of closely related axes that evolved from collective survival

imperatives, and revulsion or splitting apart messengers (these aren't necessarily MHC family) did as

well...

In "nature", or very primitive conditions humans are known for disconnecting from weak, ill, or

dysfunctional tribal members, as if they have received something that allows them to sever an emotional connection.

It is also well documented that when tribal groups grow large and cannot forage the same region without depleting

it, they will spontaneously divide the group roughly into halves and forage or hunt different terrain.

These

behaviors evolved from primates that lacked speech, we may assume that chemical messengers were a major

communication channel.

I would guess that a modern human could be producing both pro-social 16-androstenes

and anti-social pheromones simultaneously, which could explain non linear or paradoxical results in test subjects.

Modern lifestyle stresses combined with abnormal modern diets may trigger the production of anti-mones. Someone who

is socially successful may produce a normal amount of androstenes but a lower quantity of anti-mone. Anti-mones may

be related to putrefaction products. Have you noticed how powerfully aversional the scent of putrefying flesh is ?

We are hard wired to get away as quickly as we possibly can.

[bjf]

So would a metabolite of cortisol be

an "anti-mone"?

My belief is that generally it isn't different chemicals that send neg signals, probably

just the way they are presented.

Interestingly enough, there has been talk about being able to smell people

who are going to die in the near future on this forum. And of course, there is the women can smell fear study,

although it concluded that the ability had nothing to do with cortisol levels.

[DrSmellThis]

Stress affects almost every

bodily function, so there's a big universe of possibility there. Perhaps adrenaline metabolizes into something

repulsive or triggers some such process; since pro sexual dopamine (perhaps part of surf's "axis of attraction")

can be converted into adrenaline (part of the "axis of revulsion" process?) when we create stress for ourselves. The

relative levels of the two chemicals reflect a somewhat inverse relation between them.

Yet clearly there is

almost a sort of healthy stress that goes along with success, hard work, and activity in general. That could well be

a matter of congruence between stress and activity levels, as well as the importance of purposeful activity

for attraction. This goes back to AKA's comment on exercise earlier in the thread.

[bjf]

We certainly do need more info on

what dopamine and adrenaline waste products do (if anything).


Actually, vassopressin too.

[seduceme]

About clothing, if you outdress

everyone in a socialsetting you are outshining them.
This can incite insecurities in people and thus they'll

react negatively(if they feel they deserve the attention and admiration youre getting).
OR
It will incite

awe and admiration, desirability etc.(usually from people who feel they dont deserve that attention/admiration

etc).

To overdress is when you take it to absurdum and basically project that youre attentionseeking and thus

compensating(and we all know that compensation means lack of which is usually insecurities in the first place).