Pheromones/conversion/body chemistry

[jvkohl]

Truth wrote: \"James, so what do you exactly mean that pheromones are designed to work with your natural body chemistry if you don\'t think any conversions are important?
----------
Your natural (genetically determined) body chemistry determines most of your pheromone production. SOE and other products work with your body chemistry, by adding some additional masculine components to it. Conversion of these masculine components (like OL to NONE) occurs naturally. I\'m not concerned about this conversion because additional OL and RONE clearly signal masculinity, so any conversion of these compounds would also signal masculinity. Besides, it is unlikely that anyone is going to convert enough OL (or possibly RONE) to NONE during the course of an evening to become offensive.

Lurker wrote: \"But how would your your body \"know\" that the pheros you are sensing are your own?\"

Your body knows the difference between \"self\" and \"non-self\" because the immune system genes also determine pheromone production. That\'s why tracking dogs can follow a scent trail from a particular person--basically they are tracking the person\'s genetically determined chemical signals (though diet can alter this slightly).

Artificial pheromones do not alter the immune system genes. Instead, the hormone driven and derived pheromones (like OL; RONE; and NONE) add a masculine component. Subconsciously, you still can identify self from non-self. Adding masculine pheromones is beneficial because it allows men to signal increased masculinity. But, adding signals of masculinity does not change the underlying genetic nature of your body chemistry, which allows you to determine self from non-self.

Pheromones that work with your natural body chemistry should not lower your own natural pheromone production. Instead, they should just add components that most women find to be attractive-because these masculine components are linked to male hormones that signal reproductive fitness.
--------------
Both these questions (above) are good, but it is very difficult to answer them without getting into a lot of other subjects--like genetic diversity and the hormone-pheromone link. This tells me that I really should be working on re-release of my book, so that those who are interested can get more background information. But, I\'m still trying to focus on this Forum while procrastinating with the book, because I enjoy the questions. Just wish I could provide more complete answers.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Good, James, I like asking a lot of questions. :-).

So, why would putting pheromones on my shirt not allow them to work with my natural body chemistry? Is the female nose so attuned that it can discern that the articificial pheros are coming from my shirt and not my skin?! My natural and artificial pheros are emitting from approximately the same place (me). Wouldn\'t that be enough?

I had asked some questions about natural pheros in an earlier post but didn\'t get a satisfactory response. Since science has not identified all active components of sweat, we\'d be taking a big risk by eliminating our natural pheromones and relying primarily on artificial. I use a deoderent but not an anti-persperent/deoderent. Does a dedoderent simply mask my natural pheros without eliminatng them? Would an anti-persperent reduce sweating and phero output?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I get annoyed with the natural vs synthetic arguement. I have to lay down a few rules. If it is a chemical cmpd, there is no difference between natural and synthetic. If the \"other\" cmpds in sweat effect the response, it has no real meaning to the response of the applied cmpd. OK, that is obtuse. It doesn\'t matter where the pheros come from to me (if they are the same chemically, then nat vs synth are equal) If there are intrinsic factors involved, well, crap then those of us with the ace in the hole will have much better luck. But please, natural vs synthetic, as far as the individual molecule is concerned, is a moot point.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Walter Mitty ]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

OK, I won\'t argue that -none is -none and -nol is -nol, whether it\'s artificial or natural. What I\'m refering to are the differences between a natural pheromone mix and an artificial mix. The artificial mix contains supposedly the key ingredients, but we don\'t know for sure.

It\'s just like food. It took them many years to figure out what the key vitamins and minerals are, and we still may not have uncovered all of them! Needless to say, there isn\'t as much money devoted to pheromone research to isolate all the compounds.

[Whitehall]

A better terminology would be \"exogenous\" for applied pheromones from a bottle vs. \"endogeous\" for coming from your own body.

[jvkohl]

truth asked:
\"Is the female nose so attuned that it can discern that the articificial
pheros are coming from my shirt and not my skin?!\"

I think I mentioned before that the female nose can detect genetically determined components of one\'s pheromone signature; compare it to her own; and choose for genetic diversity--the best \"tissue type.\" That degree of sensitivity suggests to me that it is best to wear exogenous pheromones on the skin, rather than on clothing. Who knows what underlying (subconscious) scent your clothing might have. Was it dry-cleaned, so it maintains a subtle chemical smell, or does it carry the scent of your laundry detergent. Get the picture? There simply is no reason I can think of to wear pheromones on your clothing.

Also: \"Since science has not identified all active components of sweat, we\'d be taking a big risk by eliminating our natural pheromones and relying primarily on artificial.\"

We cannot eliminate our natural pheromone production; the best we can do is keep natural body odor from building up to the point of becoming aversive.

\"Does a dedoderent simply mask my natural pheros without eliminatng them?\"

Yes!

\"Would an anti-persperent reduce sweating and phero output?\"

It would reduce pheromone output from the axillary area, which contains the human scent organ.

And, yes... synthetic chemicals are exactly the same as those which are naturally produced.

Finally, we don\'t need to know all of the pheromone components to find one that is effective. An example from other species makes this clear: an insect pheromone is found in other species up to and including elephants (Betts Rassmussen reported this interesting finding several years ago). That\'s why there has been so much focus on NONE and OL in the pig literature. At least with RONE we begin to take on a somewhat more uniquely human perspective.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

\"That degree of sensitivity suggests to me that it is best to wear exogenous pheromones on the skin, rather than on clothing. Who knows what underlying (subconscious) scent your clothing might have.\"

But wouldn\'t the smell of my clothing reach the recipient\'s nose, even if I apply the pheros to skin. My overall scent will still be a combination of my endogenous and exogenous pheros and the smell of my clothing regardless of where I apply the pheros.

If location is the issue, shouldn\'t we apply the exogenous pheros to our armpit and genital ares only since this is where the pheros are emmitted normally?

I think some of us apply the pheros to clothing because they last longer on clothing.

So, what\'s the phero common to insects up to elephants? :-).

[jvkohl]

Most humans tend to avoid any direct contact with areas of the body that produce large amounts of pheromones; at least until intimacy is achieved. So, if you want to enhance your \"chance meeting\" pheromonal appeal, it\'s best to get the pheromones on areas that are commonly exposed and non-offensive. Of course, that means the neck is a prime place to put them, and a role-on is the best applicator (especially for the neck). You could put them on your chest and then leave a few buttons unbuttoned (and add a large gold medalion), but I wouldn\'t. You could put them in your armpit, and hope that you get to put your arm around her, but I wouldn\'t. And I would never be crazy enough to put them on my genitals, thinking that exposure would reach her nose during a chance meeting. No, that kind of pheromonal stimulation is reserved for the ultimate in animalistic pheromone seeking: oral-genital sex, which is sometimes considered to be the ultimate human intimacy. Odd how we can consciously turn something so animalistic into something so intimate.

Sorry, no time to look up the name of the compound Betts (LE Rasmussen) found. Here\'s the citation.

Rasmussen LE, Lee TD, Roelofs WL, Zhang A, Daves GD Jr. Insect pheromone in elephants.
Nature. 1996 Feb 22;379(6567):684.

[marv14yag]

What about the fact that mones rub off into our clothes as the day\'s\' go by......It\'s a fact lol.....wouldn\'t the mones mix with these?

Bart

[jvkohl]

Bart,
Yes, the mones on the clothes and mones on the skin will mingle. But the mones that have the most staying power, and best chemistry, will be those from the skin. That\'s why I recommend you put SOE on the skin and not on clothes. Besides, I\'ve smelled some nasty odors from some freshly washed fabrics. This is probably due to chemicals used in processing non-natural fibers. I can\'t help but wonder, if you put pheromones on the clothing, whether you might be bringing out some of the nasty odors. No sense taking the chance so far as I\'m concerned--even though others dissagree.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

\"but the mones that havethe most staying power, and best chemistry, will be those from the skin.\"

So, how long do you think mones stay on the skin, assuming you don\'t exercise and sweat a lot?