From SOE, my first test: Visual input?

[jvkohl]

The SOE thread is so long, and this is another subject--so I moved my comments to a new thread.-----------------------

Whitehall: \" There are indeed genetically imprinted visual templates used in sexual attraction!!!\"

James: If you are so certain of this, please try to find any literature that attests to the biological pathway in which these genetically imprinted visual templates are functional.

Whitehall: \"I hope you\'re not saying otherwise since it flies in the face of much research and common experience.\"

James: What I\'ve repeatedly said is that there is neither a mammalian model, nor any biological pathway from visual or other non-olfactory sensory input to sexual attraction. This does not fly in the face of any research I know about, since there is no research on mammals that suggests sexual behavior is driven by anything other than pheromones. Those who believe the common experience arguments for visual input have been conned into thinking that humans somehow developed a completely different means by which to promote sexual behavior. We didn\'t!

Whitehall: \"Why a universal waist to hip ratio? Why do rounded parts of the female form act as secondary sexual attractors (soft shoulders, for example?)\"

James: All secondary sex characteristics (like those above) develop due to sex differences in levels of hormones that metabolize into--yes, you guessed it--pheromones. Tall, dark, and handsome are simply visual descriptions of a scent signature driven by testosterone. Also, in the October issue of Neuroendocrinology Letters, the waist-to-hip ratio was an example I used of how we\'ve been conned into thinking that this is a visually based aspect of physical attraction. Included was facial/bodily symmetry, genetically determined odor choice, and one other feature--though there are many more-since sex differences are genetically and hormonally determined.

Whitehall: \"The human mind is has to practice sensor integration in real time - scent, sight, voice, tactile. It\'s all a balance and a blending - a neural network in action.\"

James: Of course integration is the key, but without pheromones there is no basis for any balance. Pheromones drive the neural network that links the social environment to the development of sexual behavior via the hormone/neurotransmitter: gonadotropin releasing hormone. If there is no sex difference in the processing of sensory input, it\'s not possible to get to sex differences in behavior. Our olfactory system is sexually dimorphic at birth. Other senses are the same in both sexes--so how does one develop a preference for the opposite sex? Or, same sex for that matter--try to explain homosexuality with anything other than a mammalian biological model based on olfaction. It can\'t be done--at least by any behavioral development specialist I know--and I know most of the top specialists is the various disciplines.

Whitehall: \"Smell (pheromones ) has gotten short-shift over the years and needs tremendous catch-up but one needn\'t diss the other senses. That offers big market opportunities.\"

James: Typically, as soon as I get to the point where I ask what biological model a particular specialist is using to develop their visually based approach to sexual attraction, the conversation/debate ends. Most of these folks get quite perturbed when they find out they\'ve spent their entire career studying visually based attraction, without realizing that visually based attraction originates with sex differences in olfaction.

Whitehall: But I ask you, will pheromones ever replace silicon breast implants?

James: Great example of olfactory conditioning. Please try to use a visual model to tell us why men prefer large-breasted women. My explanation is based on olfactory conditioning of the visual response based on the pheromone-hormone connection that begins at birth. Every breast is large to an infant male--so the males imprint on the breast as they do on any other reward system. But this imprinting is driven by pheromones.

Later in life--according to the visual model--most boys/men all of a sudden decide large breast are neat. Gee, isn\'t it interesting that mammals incapable of thought neither develop pendulous breasts, nor attribute any sensual appeal to such visual characteristics. If she smells right, the male copulates with her, if she doesn\'t, he doesn\'t--that\'s animal nature. Makes you wonder how boys/men develop the visual preference--doesn\'t it?

Whitehall: \"HA! Supplement, yes, replace? Not in a million.\"

James: Where did you get the idea that I\'m saying that pheromones replace visual input? Obviously the pheromones must be there for conditioning of other sensory input to occur. But, the other sensory input is unnecessary to reproduction--a functional olfactory system is all that\'s required. From what you\'ve said, it seems like you believe that reproduction would occur if based solely or collectively on visual or other non-olfactory sensory input. All research points to a lack of olfactory ability and lack of reproductive behavior. Also, alter olfactory ability and you get differences in reproductive sexual, and non-reproductive sexual behavior--like asexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality, all of which can be explained by my olfactory model--but not by any visual model. Simply put, Whitehall--you have no evidence for visual templates--you just think they are important because someone said they are, not because any non-olfactory biological-based research offers any explanation of how or why these visual templates develop. You\'ve been conned into \"thinking\" that thinking about what we see is important to the development of sexual behavior. Though our thoughts enter the picture in mate choice, they have nothing to do with the development of sexual behavior--neither does visual input.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Oops, sorry James K. I read and replied to the other one first.

[Whitehall]

OK, I see where you\'re coming from now.

Let\'s throw out some more \"facts\" to be included in the Grand Theory. Some are supportive and some need more explaining.

1) Guys blind from birth are still horndogs. (I\'ve known these kinda guys)

2) Guys with no sense of smell are not (so I\'m told.) Even for \"normal\" men and women, sex with a head cold is blah.

3) Have yet to get close to a post-menopausal woman who turned me on sexually. (maybe with exogenous copulins?)

4) Visual sexual dimorphism - Color - women seem to have greater discriminative abilities to color - seems to be estrogen dependent - I still can\'t internally picture or verbally describe \"mauve\", \"straw\", \"cornflower\", etc.

5) Hip-to-waist desirablity ranges seem universal across cultures

6) Tactile clues - even with the lights out, soft shoulders, size dimorphism, and good waist-to-hips ratios are rewarding and stimulating - I doubt that\'s conditioned.

7) As to breast conditioning, what about the billions of bottle-feed men who still like substantial breasts?

Here\'s a gedanken experiment:

Take a sexually mature male who has never smelled a sexually mature female, hence could not be \"conditioned.\" Show him a porn movie or Playboy or Penthouse. Would he become excited? In general, porn doesn\'t have to be \"scratch-and-sniff\" to be effective.

When I think about your theory based on neural pathways and brain layers, I\'m seeing where you\'re on to something. The nose (and VMO?) connect to the limbic directly while visual processing volumes are much less direct.

Still, the portion of brain volume devoted to visual senses is huge and we know that certain universal (even cross-species) images provoke emotional responses. An example - a severed head scares even chimps the first time they see it. (Of course, that\'s not a sexual turnon.)

While I\'m coming around to your thinking, I\'d warn about taking a good idea and making it do too much. And don\'t slight evolutionary biology, please! As Shakespeare said \"Past is prologue.\"

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Something to add sound based sexual clues also touch and \"taste\" i guess we gotta include all of these also we need to include previous memories and experiences are also to be considered. makes good reading though.

[Whitehall]

Yes indeed! Some women have voices that just tickle your balls from the inside of your head! (But I did mention voice in my original post.)

Now taste is one I left out - two points for the Duckman! Of course, some would say that taste is a subdivision of smell - they are closely linked. However, the taste of a kiss is special.

Ever hear that old Pat Boone song, \"She Had Kisses Sweeter Than Wine.\" A good one can be electricity and it doesn\'t work through the VNO! Nor is it a conditioned response.

But to support James\' hypothesis, taste works at the roughly the same neurological level as pheromones.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I think James\'s theory that visual perception of beauty is conditioned by pheromones is good. However, even if it\'s true, these conditioned responses are important to mate selection regardless of how they arose. I think James has been careful not to imply that these conditioned responses are not important.
My biggest question is whether supplemental pheromones can exert their full effect when
conditioned visual preferences are very strong. This relates also to the issue of
androstadienone -- it may be the true pheromone driving the conditioned response to -none, -nol, and -rone, but the latter compounds eventually become strong drivers of behavior as well (as do silicon breast implants!).

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Uh, is it just me, or am I seeing a glaring inconsistency here?

Nearly all the examples are of men attracted to women as proof of visual selection. Yet the discussion about women\'s attraction to men centers on pheromones. Two separate issues, me thinks.

I was (and am) somewhat skeptical of some of James\' assertions. (Along the lines of Maslow\'s saying \"when the only tool a man has a hammer, everything looks like a nail...\" However --

There have been quite a few studies of women\'s attraction to men that place appearance as significantly subordinate to other factors. Evolutionary psychologist David Buss mentions quite a few in his work, which he summarized the top two as \"resources and committment.\" I prefer Marilyn Monroe\'s quote of \"a man being rich is like a girl being pretty.\"

So, given that women (maybe not men) have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to set aside appearance for selection -- couldn\'t it be possible that subconciously pheromones could be a factor here, more so that appearance?

I\'m beginning to wonder. Here I am at 35, and it\'s beginning to dawn on me that women just don\'t think the way we do, guys.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Well, maybe James would say that women are attracted to rich men because being rich is associated with having good pheromones. Another conditioned response... Haha.

[jvkohl]

Gentlemen, before we get into this further, you should know that I am well-armed due to an almost infinite number of past debates with laypersons and other researchers. So, I\'ve seen everyone of your comments/criticisms of what is no longer theory; it is confirmed fact. The phermone-luteinizing hormone connection establishes the conditioned response as fact. There still is absolutely no biological support for any other means involved in the development of sex differences in behavior. That said, I\'ll try to address some of your comments, tactfully, I hope.

Whitehall: you offer some good examples of the pheromone connection; asexuality in people anosmic from birth et al. Then you go way off tract. What difference does a woman\'s ability to describe colors in greater detail make to reproduction. In any case, this ability is hardly innate (i.e., inborn). It\'s a pretty bad example of a counter to pheromonal conditioning. If you have doubts about the involvement of conditioning in waist-to-hip ratio preferences or preferences for softer tactile cues, at least try and come up with some kind of idea that would explain the development of such preferences from a biological perspective. The bottle-fed male infants is another example of an attempt to get people thinking the the preference for large breasts is based on visual input--tell us how that happens (biologically). Have you forgotten that large breasts are unnecessary in other mammals. Or that pheromones are distributed from the breasts, which means larger breasts emit more pheromones, or that the females breasts are simply modified scent-producing (apocrine) glands that somewhat make up for the loss of hair in females? Your experiment is not possible in human subjects, but it has repeatedly shown that pheromones are the key to the development of sexual behavior in other animals. Still, some people seem to think that every animal study must be repeated in humans or there\'s no proof. Yet if you ask them to detail the studies of vision in other animals--anything that would support visual primacy, they have nothing to show. The entire visual approach is what\'s commonly called a Just-so story. In other words, everyone buys into it, because everyone else does. Also, I don\'t slight evolutionary biology--I depend upon it. What I do is disregard any evolutionary psychology that says visual input is most important to the development of sexual behavior. For example, Desmond Morris hypothesized that female breast development was due to some need to mimic the \"fleshy buttocks\" when we began to walk upright. That\'s the biggest non-biologically based \"crock\" I\'ve ever heard, and I\'ve heard it repeatedly. After all, \"we all know that breasts are visual releasers,\" right? Gee, why don\'t gay males find large breasts to be releasers.

Dducks and (again) Whitehall: If you want me to discuss other sensory input, first tell me why it\'s more important than olfaction/pheromones--or provide some indication that the response to other sensory input is not conditioned to pheromones.

truth: Congratulations for restating my perspective correctly. Supplemental pheromones will not override conditioning to other sensory input. For example, a female rape victim will be unlikely to show a positive response to anyone\'s pheromones--or any supplemental pheromones. She is most likely to experience natural male odor as a trigger for reliving the rape event--or at least a trigger for anxiety. So, she\'s likely to have sexual difficulties even in her primary loving relationship. The shrinks counsel such patients, but most of them don\'t have a clue about the odor imprinting and negative conditioning that can occur in a single trauma associated event. How does a woman get past the rape trauma? By repeated re-conditioning to natural male odor in a typical manner (through her lover).

Scientist; do we know each other? Your counter approach is simply to assert the just-so story. (I\'ve been through this too many times) Hey, since we find women to be visually attractive, that must mean that visual input is most important to sex differences in behavior. That\'s ridiculous! And talk about skepticism; first let\'s hear why visual input takes center stage. Also forget the cultural garbage, obviously women can learn to prefer men with money. This has nothing to do with how they were conditioned to respond to men (rather than to other women) in the first place. You seem to be straddling the fence. Let\'s take a look at your \"hammer.\" Try to drive any \"nail\" with a theory based on visual input, for example. No innate sexual dimorphism is the first problem; no social environmental activation of genes (by visual input) in cells of tissue in the brain that drives all other organ systems to coordinate sexual behavior. Pheromones, on the other hand, activate genes in gonadotropin releasing hormone cells of tissue in the brain (particularly in the hypothalamus) that drive all other activities involved in reproductive sexual behavior. The reason men don\'t understand the sexual behavior of women is because their behavior is cyclical. Three weeks out of every month, they can take it or leave it. One week out of every month they want the best they can find, i.e., the best pheromones they can find. So, here we have women who can pick and choose for three weeks of each month, then act in their best reproductive interests during one week of each month, while us guys are always trying to act in our best reproductive interests by copulating with just about any female we can. Women are more selective because they are not as driven by testosterone month after month, instead they are driven by testosterone for one week of each month. But, again, that\'s the biological basis for behavior--very animalistic. If you want to \"think\" that humans have risen above this animalistic behavior, that\'s fine. But there are still no biological facts that indicate this rise above--instead, once again, Martha McClintock has just shown that women can sniff out the difference in odors of men that is determined by a single gene. This ability is amazing--and roughly the same ability as found in blood-hounds trained to distinguish by smell, the difference in tissue type that allows them to be trained as trackers. I\'m not deliberately picking on you, Scientist, but bringing in the sociological/evolutionary psychology approach is exactly the problem I try to avoid. By offerring what most people think to be universal truths, you influence people like \"truth\" to contribute worthless comments about the rich and their pheromones. Accordingly, the biological perspective again gets lost in culturally determined garbage that lends itself to ridiculous theories about behavioral development that have absolutely no basis in biological fact.

Damn, I\'m opinionated, aren\'t I? Hope some of you will consider readings from page 2 of my website. \"Primacy of Olfaction\" shouldn\'t be too difficult to digest. Wish someone would do \"Primacy of Vision\" for contrast--but realistically, it can\'t be done, since there\'s no biological basis for visual primacy.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Wow. My monitor started smoking after that one. [img]images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

BTW, you don\'t know me. I just annoy you in the same way as people you know. [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

I will concede the point about primacy, however. Given how deeply and at how low a level the sense of smell is processed in the brain, this much seems certain to me. I do think there are some fundamental sex differences at play here as well, and given women\'s more acute sense of smell and the variance in this ability based on where they are in their cycle, I am far more inclined to believe that the degree of influence of pheromones is different for men v. women, and that women have likely evolved a much greater sensitivity.

I am a fence-sitter on this, simply because it\'s a very complex issue to deal with.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Scientist ]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Im with you james just saying that pheromones are actually linked to everything else we do being the instinct part of the brain that kicks in first it fits perfectly that everything else has evolved to work from that. Phermones are the setting off and everyones reactions are different based on different perspectives experiences memorys genetics etc. So im agreeing visual imput seems to be more important in men being attracted to women than the opposite we know now that women are attracted to men based primaryily on pheromone signature being an indicator to genetic structure and womens need for diversity and all other discussions on that front. (the idea of pairing off in human nature is almost there because women cant always have the best man so they settle for less) hence the evolution of rone being more of a mans \"stable\" and trustworthy nature.

[jvkohl]

Scientist; glad you weren\'t offended, and also to see some swaying towards my decidedly olfactory perspective. Actually, it was about time somebody got me into more of a detailed explanation--so I could show I\'m not just fooling around with this concept--or with product development.

It may interest you and others to know that when I first presented to all the behavioral development heavyweights in 1995, I got mostly skeptical looks/questions. In 2000, at the next get together of the heavyweights (all biologically based by the way) there was only one skeptic, everyone else knew that the data was in from human studies, and there could no longer be any dispute/debate. But the trickle down of information takes years. I\'m starting to see it in the college textbooks (edited two chapters for friends in the past year that focussed on pheromones). With the additional data that\'s coming soon, at least students will get a more balanced perspective on the basics of sexual attraction and behavior. Still, I expect to have a very difficult time extending all the olfactory/hormone link to sexual orientation--at least for the next few years. Then the last bastion of the visually focussed will fall by the wayside, since there is no way to explain homosexuality via a visually based model.

Dducks; I can\'t recall whether I mentioned that men find the scent of women who are ovulating to be most attractive--thus linking women\'s pheromone output to attraction and behavior. But the reason men are not so focussed on olfactory input is because they don\'t need to be. There\'s plenty of sperm to spread around, which explains what is known as r/K strategies, which basically say that men will do anything to reproduce, while women will focus on quality, not quantity, in their reproductive efforts. The other side of the coin is that males imprint stronger and earlier than do females on odors. For example, an LH surge at birth is typical only of males, which means it\'s driven by opposite sex pheromones (those of the mother). And this LH surge corresponds with increased testosterone levels lasting plenty long enough to wire the male brain in a more masculine direction. Since we get a large dose of opposite sex pheromones at birth, we don\'t need to be as in-tune with natural body chemistry as women do. And, in the broader scheme of things, this helps to also explain the cyclical changes in women\'s behavior that correspond with receptivity to the natural body odor of men. It\'s testosterone that destroys the cyclic hormone changes, and makes men horny almost constantly, while the cyclic hormone changes make women horny only when they are most likely to get pregnant. Still, the entire spectrum of reproductive sexual behavior in all mammals, including humans, is driven by odor, whether we realize that odor is what has made us the horny devils that we are, and whether or not women realize that our scent makes them horny. Sometimes I really wish I\'d spent more time getting my book re-released in paperback, so you could all read the entire story. Meanwhile, I\'ll try to keep up with this Forum, and state my case in brief--if ever I can be brief.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hmm... Women are only strongly receptive to pheromones one week out of the month. So, are they not receptive at all the other three weeks, or weakly so?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I remember Mr. Kohl once saying that pheromones are best to use to turn women on in their non-fertile period, since you wouldnt need to use it in their fertile days, because they are already seeking for a partner in that period. But why is that?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Well I already got some answer to my question, read in the one in seven post. Pheromones will drive women´s cycle. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Whitehall]

Like Kahn\'s \"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions\" made clear, science is a social construct. So think of the art of persuasion as a scientific tool. That certainly includes patience with us not-yet-Believers.

When you use the word \"conditioning\" I immediately see liberal pyschology professors driving green Volvo station wagons raising their kids to Skinnerian principles. What you\'re really talking about is how the mallable, developing, morphing brain tissues (and they\'re always morphing, if you\'re lucky) change with exogenous hormone/pheromone/stress/learning/etc factors. Just as in utero hormones shape the fetal brain in the womb, our brains are contnually being shaped - a living neural net. So when you discuss \"conditioning\", you\'re also talking \"imprinting\" of mallable minds at the structural/neural connection level.

On your rebuttal on the issue of females preferring males with resources (rich guys), you\'re saying that they would be more interested in bucks when not ovulating versus preferring better pheromones/genes during ovulating. Women should only be gold diggers during part of their cycle.

A problem I have with any theory of pheromones is that the data sets certainly don\'t cover all the compounds that give us sexual stimulation. For example, sexually mature female breasts don\'t smell like copulins or any of the andro compounds - no one has isolated it yet, so far as I know, but is it is different. What we really need is a real-time vapor chromatogaph sensitive as a nose or VNO.

Personally, I\'m a Pragmatist - the value of a theory is in the results it delivers. SoE is a great product but of lesser utility relative to aNONE products in me getting into the pants of fertile females, given our current techiques. (Others may differ, especially heavy aNONE producers.) I\'ll keep using SoE for it\'s defense-lowering effects but I think your theory will have to deliver an even better tool(s) to be completely persuasive. A true test will be an ugly, poor, asymmetrical, anti-social man getting laid by a hot, fertile female just because he doused himself with the fruit of your research. I\'m a good subject.

So what\'s on the drawing board?

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Whitehall ]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Shit well that will have to be tried wont it

[jvkohl]

truth:
Women are receptive to pheromones all month long, but one study reported that olfactory acuity and specificity for musky (male typical) odors increased by up to 100,000 percent at ovulation.

Franki\'s mostly right, pheromones will boost you appeal when women are not ovulating, but as long as you don\'t OD, ovulating women will get a more potent signal.

Franki: Women play a more active role in sexual initiation (proceptive behaviours) when they\'re ovulating because the chemistry is precisely timed to drive them. Estrogen levels must rise for 2-3 days before ovulation and reach over 200 pg/dl to prompt a luteinizing hormone surge that is accompanied by \"dropping\" an egg, and peak testosterone levels. The rising estradiol levels give women increased olfactory abilities, the increased testosterone puts women in a search mode.

Whitehall: again you do a good job restating- the ethologists helped with this in the Neuroendocrinology letters paper. But two of the co-authors dropped out from the sexual orientation paper--and worked with other for a stand alone paper, sans pheromones. This is the type of thing I have no patience for. First we do a paper linking pheromones and neuroendocrinology, but plans to explain male homosexuality via pheromones and neuroendocrinology fall through--not because the explanation is off base, but because people don\'t want to accept the explanation.

Whitehall: \"What you\'re really talking about is how the mallable, developing, morphing brain tissues (and they\'re always morphing, if you\'re lucky) change with exogenous hormone/pheromone/stress/learning/etc factors. Just as in utero hormones shape the
fetal brain in the womb, our brains are contnually being shaped - a living neural net. So when you discuss \"conditioning\", you\'re also talking \"imprinting\" of mallable minds at the structural/neural connection level.

James: great synopsis. I will add that the GnRH neuronal system controld development in utero, and via the effects on the GnRH neuronal system, pheromones alter development beggining at birth.

Whitehall: \"Women should only be gold diggers
during part of their cycle.\"

James: A gold digger is a gold digger; she\'s just much more likely to go for the best genetically determined (or pheromonally enhanced) scent signature (for sex) when she\'s ovulating.

Whitehall: \"A problem I have with any theory of pheromones is that the data sets certainly don\'t cover all the compounds that give us sexual stimulation. For example, sexually mature female breasts don\'t smell like copulins...

James: the pheromone connection with the breast is established long before we begin to pick up on other exciting areas of pheromone production. In time, we develop our preferences according to exposure in complex circumstances. You might just as well say that breasts don\'t smell like rubber or leather--since these two odors are associated with imprinting in fetishes. It would be hard to predict who\'s going to imprint on what, or when. Still, we know it happens. And what happens with SOE is somewhat predictable. Wearing it, you signal masculinity--and masculinity is almost always desirable to women. So, you can expect that most women will respond positively to SOE. That\'s not what\'s going to get you laid, however. No pheromone product is going to act as an aphrodisiac, so the ugly, poor, asymmetrical, anti-social man still ain\'t gettin\' any. Still, if he wears SOE, we can expect that he will push a woman\'s hormones in the right direction, so that when a better prospect comes along she\'s already primed for action. As I mentioned in another thread, I just can\'t see how aNONE can be helpful, but will keep looking at reports of its effectiveness until someone does a pheromone-hormone study with aNONE. With aOL the data\'s in; it alters LH levels. I can\'t imagine what aNONE does to move women in the right direction.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

James wrote: ... one study reported that olfactory acuity and specificity for musky (male typical) odors increased by up to 100,000 percent at ovulation.

But this describes the female\'s ability to consciously detect these odors, not their response to them.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Isn\'t -none a powerful pheromone in pigs (along with -nol)? Since there are so much commonality between species, it shouldn\'t be surprising, right?

I\'d like someone to test androstadienone on pigs too! If it works on pigs, it would make interesting Realm\'s claim that androstadienone is the human pheromone while -none and -nol are animal pheromones.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

\"No pheromone product is going to act as an aphrodisiac, so the ugly, poor, asymmetrical, anti-social man still ain\'t gettin\' any. Still, if he wears SOE, we can expect that he will push a woman\'s hormones in the right direction, so that when a better prospect comes along she\'s already primed for action. \"

You set \'em up and I\'ll knock \'em down! [img]images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

So, wearing SOE may help other men in the room more than yourself. =P.

[jvkohl]

An increase in olfactory acuity and specificity at ovulation has less to do with conscious perception that with a marked ability to bring subliminal scents into the realm of conscious awareness. That way, you get conditioned responses to consciously perceived odors, because they are paired with the effect of pheromones on hormones. Women know what men smell like, and vice versa--so pheromones do play a role in conscious perception. But women respond to the scent of a man, whether or not they are consciously aware of what they are responding to.

Commonality among species is a good indicator for the role of pheromones, but species differences enter the picture. This begs the question of why, with such commonly important pheromonal communication, most people still think that visual input is most important to human behavior. But also, it makes cross-species comparisons difficult. What if -dienone does change the VNO response in pigs. If it does, where\'s the behavioral correlate. Lots more studies to be done--or we can simply accept that pheromones play the primary role in all mammalian sexual behavior.

I seriously doubt that wearing SOE would help any specific \"other\" man in the room. At least no more than the mixed pheromones in any crowd would help any particular man. SOE will help the wearer; my point was that in some cases, no matter how much pheromones help--other factors (especially culturally determined factors) play their role.