attraction is not a science...

[**DONOTDELETE**]

It\'s an art.

Before anybody involved in the pheromone community goes of their rocker on this, let me explain. I have been studying the art of attraction or seduction for about four years now. I have studied all different kinds of materials, some excellent, some a waste of time. The most important studying I have done is out in the real world, interacting with women and men in all different kinds of situations.

There is so much information I could share, but it would take up 10 pages, and Im not going to go into detail here(as I normally love to do!). Instead I will mention a few quick things.

After reading alot of the posts here on the list it occured to me that some of us need a reality check.

Pheromones are a tool. It is like the icing on the cake. If you dont have a solid foundation of the skills and attitudes that are needed to be an attractive person, then it\'s like making a cake without eggs. You can put all the frosting you want on it, and it will still fall flat.

Go out there and invest some time and energy into developing the social skills and attitudes necessary to create an opportunity for romance, and then add in the pheromone and I think you have a killer combination that adds up to success.

Here are a few specific pointers. Just like some other people have suggested, learn how to maintain eye contact, long enough to build curiosity but short enough to keep from creating fear. There is a very thin line between attraction and fear in women, learn how to spot it. Go to the mall and ask a woman working there, something about their product. Hold your gaze as she is talking to you, focusing on her left eye. Notice how long you can hold it before she becomes uncomfortable. She will look dow fellahs, and if you have the kind of gaze I have, she will have to look away quite often because it is intense and most people arent used to it. But dont take that as a sign of disinterest. Take it as a sign of submissiveness.

Practice looking at a woman across a crowded room. SMILE, but practice your smile in the mirror. Have you ever seen a creepy smile? Well unfortunately if you are uncomfortable with yourself and smile it comes out very nervous looking, and a nervous looking smile is almost exactly like a creepy smile.

Also learn this very important lesson. Think back to the last time you got a mesmerizing look from a woman. Or perhaps a woman just walked up to you and started a conversation. How did it make you feel? Did you want to act on it, or run away. Ask yourself and answer seriously.

The best girlfriend I ever had was so attracted to me she said in her own words,\"All I could think about was running away.\" I tried to dance with her the first time I saw her, and she walked off on me on the dance floor, leaving me standing there. I didnt let that stop me and introduced myself to her later. I asked her later on what happened, and she said she never danced with anyone before and didnt know what to do, she was scared.

So it is not only possible but very likely that a woman who is attracted to you could feel the urge to run away rather than run into your arms. Learn the skills necessary to make her feel comfortable getting closer to you.

That\'s all I\'ll say for now, except I bought primal and just got it in the mail and will be giving it a fair shot. We\'ll see...

discohornet

[Bruce]

Nice post. I hope a lot of members get to read it. One thing that popped into my mind when you were talking about practicing your smile is how much I have found spending time in my local health club wt room helpful in this regard. Not for practicing my smile exactly, but my whole physical presentation. I guess, you could call it \"posture,\" but it is more than that. It is body language maybe. There are floor to ceiling mirrors everywhere and it is easy to catch a look at yourself, not just moving weights but walking around, talking to people or just sitting resting. I study myself and make changes until I like what I see.
Bruce

[PHP 87]

Yep. Pheromones are just one of many tools in the toolbox.

Anyone who thinks \'mones alone will get them action or use \'mones as a crutch in place of Social Skills etc... is going to be disappointed.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

According to NLP if a woman looks down after having \"allowed\" you to maintain eye-contact it is a sign of attraction(shy,not daring to look at you) if she on the other hand looks up and to the side she is not interested(contemptfull, snobby)

Think about it when you roll you your eyes(the \"yea right\" reaction) do you roll them at the top of your eyes or at the bottom)

Then again you maye be so good-looking/cary your self in such an way(right attitude) that you have never gotten the \"up and to the side\" reaction.

Satan

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Pheromones, are like muscles, or a nice car...

chicks dig it, and it gives you confidence. If you already score loads of women without pheros, you will dynamite with them. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Watcher]

I love my muscles they are great for chicks and i got the pheros and nice dress but i still need a good car and ill be set.

[PHP 87]

The right attitude and self-confidence will take you a lot further than good looks, muscles, money, a cool car or just about anything else.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

The right attitude and self-confidence will take you a lot further than good looks, muscles, money, a cool car or just about anything else.\"

I don\'t think you understood what i mean\'t.

Some chicks dig muscles, nice cars, ... whatever, but what they really dig is the confidence that you attain from owning those things. One you have the confidence, all is yours.

When you lift weights and get muscular, you get confident, and you score chicks. You don\'t score them necessarily because of your pecs, but because of the confidence you exude, because of your happiness about your body. Same goes with a nice car..

You can be confident without a nice body, or a nice car; but a confidence boost from an outside source has never hurt anyone.

[PHP 87]

Yes, but true self confidence comes from within, not from material possessions.

I\'ve met girls while driving my Corvette Convertible as well as when driving my Station Wagon.

What if you suffer an injury and which prohibits you from exercising?

What happens if you fall upon hard times and lose those material possessions?

Do you lose your self-confidence?

What if you are not yet in a position to have those things?

In my experience, self-confidence comes from personal achievement.
Not the type of achievement that comes from aquiring material possessions either, although that doesn\'t hurt.

Knowing you can do something based on your track record is far more powerful than artificial self confidence boosts that come from material possessions.

I do agree that exercise helps the mind which helps with self-confidence - a healthy body equals a healthy mind which boosts self esteem and self confidence and a general sense of well being.

But too many people fall into the trap of saying things like \"If only I had a nice Car/Job/Apartment/Physique I would get more women\" but when many of those people get those things, they find that those things may attract women, but without true self-confidence or self-esteem, they have trouble holding on to those women.

I have a friend who just dropped over 100K on a Turbo Porsche and is still pretty much dateless.

OTOH, I\'ve known guys who were complete losers, but never had a problem scoring hot women.

Material possessions are nice additions, but they shouldn\'t define who a person is.

Because that type of self-confidence is usually pretty fragile.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: PHP 87 ]

[jvkohl]

Initially, I was tempted to agree that attraction is not a science--it\'s an art. But I don\'t look at such a statement as involving a strict dichotomy. Besides, I\'ve studied the science of attraction for many years (as well as been very socially active as part of my learning process). I\'ve also explained nearly every aspect of behavioral development using a mammalian model: pheromones acting on hormones to affect behavior. My conclusion, shared by many respected behavioral development specialists, is that pheromone science is the science of attraction. Still, using pheromones to attract is an art. And, in the \"big (artistic) picture\" everything about the art of attraction counts: cars, clothes, body type, intellect, whatever. However, what matters most is chemistry, which means pheromones matter most. That\'s why enhancing your pheromone output helps--and sometimes it helps more than other times, for example, when a woman is ovulating.

You\'ve seen me mention this before: tall, dark, and handsome (i.e., symmetrical features) are all linked via testosterone to masculine pheromone production. Or, simply put: tall, dark and handsome is a visual description of a pheromone signature that ovulatory women find very attractive. Want to improve your signature? The use of pheromones is scientifically sound; their application is an art (as we\'ve all seen in other Forum discussions). But, courtship is the art of pheromone production/ distribution/ application. From the first time you put your arm around a woman\'s shoulder, you\'re conditioning her to respond to axillary pheromones; from the first time you kiss her, you\'re conditioning her to respond to pheromones on the breath; from the first time she lays her head on your shoulder or chest, she is conditioned to respond to additional masculine odor production. And, if --at any point -- you don\'t smell good to her (even at an unconscious level) the potential for any relationship is limited/ended. That has nothing to do with art; it\'s pure pheromone science: the science of sexual behavior in other animals, and in humans.

The real reality check is: biology is a science that includes the science of pheromones. Sociology is an art that includes many other aspects of attraction: cars, clothes, etc. Both biology and sociology are tools that can be used to better understand attraction, but if the biologically-based pheromone attraction is missing; you\'ll be missing the most important thing: chemistry. That\'s why not every Mercedes owner gets laid as often as the tall, dark, and handsome guy with no money, and no prospects--just great pheromones.

---a short, fair skinned, somewhat asymetrical, former Mercedes owner and biologically based/biased pheromone (e.g., SoE) advocate.

[Naughtymonkey]

Disco

I agree completely and don\'t think that anyone with half a brain can honesty say that pheromones are the answer for inadequate social skills.

Personally I view them as an enabler. I enjoy the reaction that I can get by wearing them when interacting with the ladies. I also hope the \"affected\" female is enjoying herself, regardless of final outcome.

If you are looking for solutions to meeting and getting on with the fairer sex then \'mones are not the answer, only a tool.

NM

[Nutt]

good post, and very true!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

boomshankah - I totally agree.

Confucious he say \"look in eyes first, admire breasts later\" !

have a happy day gents

[jvkohl]

Watcher,
Nice to read you can see it my way. For others, I read a research report today that says when a man\'s testosterone level falls, he tends to get irritable. I want to put this in a biological context. For example, another report said that the partner of a pregnant woman experiences a decline in testosterone production throughout the term of her pregnancy, and the testosterone level is lowest as she comes to term. This effect must be from pheromones; there\'s no other explanation. So, looking at the behavior of men with pregnant partners, we can at least speculate that some men become abusive to their pregnant partners, because their testosterone levels are dropping. Here we have what is most likely to be pheromonal cause and effect, but very few people would readily accept the link from pheromones to behavior. Biologists are much more likely to accept the link than are sociologists, who would probably want to explore the link to death and forget the biology. Biologists who commented on the link might help others to understand that chemical communication during pregnancy can have adverse effects. By helping with this understanding, maybe others would find ways to cope with the pregnancy, and not be so quick to become abusive. Sociologists practicing an \"artsy\" approach to conflict during pregnancy, have no chance of being effective in limiting bad behavior. Biologists, minimally, have a tremendous opportunity to explain the problem and put it in its proper perspective.

That\'s why I think it\'s important to somehow distinguish the topic matter of this forum; it\'s not sociology--it\'s biology! The more you learn about pheromones and biology, the more you will understand about human behavior. As for sociology, let\'s let it die a well-deserved death (many universities already have limited or ended sociological studies). A colleague who is a very biologically informed sociologist, has organized two very prestigious conferences
on the biology of sexual behavior, and it is he who gets the credit for advocating the death of sociology. Long live biology! (Without it, we don\'t live--but I\'m fairly certain most of us can live without sociology.)

[Watcher]

Thanks james for a while i thought the board was about to be overrun with people without enough knowledge of pheromones but once you put it into a behavioural context and start to explain various aspects uisng the model. Then it starts to make a hell of a lot of sense. WHy do you think women like to be close to a guy, they lack a lot of rational thinking when it comes to explaining why they have been attracted to a guy. (Chick logic).
Kissing foreplay its all the same. But until it becomes established then we will continue to get this kickback as people start to get interested in it, they lack the information base its that simple. Different worldviews etc.

[Watcher]

It is so heavily engrained in our psyche because it has been the way to explain behaviour for a long time (without the new information on pheromonal commuinication in humans) Once it takes hold and once you get the idea and experience then you start to put pieces together james is right (but will continued to be attacked by those wishing to cover up or deny pheromoneal influences) but it is the soundest model available.

[Whitehall]

Let\'s not rejoice too heartily at the death of sociology, gentlemen. From my days in college, when a girl told me she was majoring in sociology, she was really telling me \"I\'m easy.\" Same with anthropology. Abolish the sociology departments in universities and what will non-academically-inclined females do with their minimal class room hours requirements?

[Watcher]

Biology instead.

[jvkohl]

Even non-academically inclined females who don\'t do biology should know enough to _do_ biologists. Who better can punch the right buttons than the biologist who knows where and what the buttons are? [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

hehe ah man maybe I should change departments [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

[a.k.a.]

Maybe someday in the future, after we’re long dead, science will have figured all the ins and outs of sexual attraction.

I don’t think it’s a question of biology vs. sociology. I think it’s a question of using your creative, aesthetic, and intuitive faculties after you’ve come to the point where measurements and theories can’t take you any farther.

A guy can go nuts trying to figure out how many drops of what mixture to put on which part of his body to attract a girl in whichever day of her cycle when the wind is coming from whatever direction and she’s standing who knows how many meters away. (And then there will be that ever present anxiety over some particular pheromone that might just be missing from the mix.)

Great post, discohornet.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Hey Guys, thanks for the replies to my post. I will, from time to time, share some information I find valuable, seeing as how I am hoping to learn some valuable information about a subject I know little about. My knowledge of hormones and neurotransmitters is fairly extensive even considering the fact that I never went to school for it. But pheromones, Im a bit low on.

To James v Kohl: I recognize what it is you\'re saying and I certainly agree with you on all parts. I would like to make a distinction to further aid my understanding of all of this. Attraction is a science, in the sense you shared it with us. Biology plays a huge role, and if you\'re biologically lacking, then it would be of great benefit to do the things necessary to get up to speed. But sociology, rather psychology, becomes a very strong element at a critical point in attraction.
I think my biggest initial advice and insight was the fact that attraction doesnt always equal success with the opposite sex. You may have pheromones coming out the wazoo, you may look extra sharp, you may be tanned, toned, and have in place all the factors necessary to attract, but that doesnt guarantee anything. For a quick example, let\'s think for just a moment about a woman(why would any of us be thinking about women?). Alot of the women I know seem to have this fight or flight reaction to attraction. When they really feel it in their gut, or vso, or where ever, they will quite often come up with all kinds of reasons not to react to the feeling they\'re having. For instance, if they\'re out in a big group of women, there is a dynamic there that could easily prevent the person you\'re interested in from stepping out of that crowd long enough for something great to happen. That\'s just one example of how a well rounded approach to attraction is essential to understanding what is happening and how to act on what feedback you\'re getting.

Just to keep it short, I will say that I agree attraction is a science. But with one major disclaimer. There are a sh*tload of random variables between your attraction level and the realistic accumulation of the rewards for being attractive.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Well, would you say that attraction is more of a science for men being attracted by women?

[Watcher]

Men are easy we find something that looks feels tastes and smells (not so much vice versa) and go after it or we spread oursevles around trying to find as many as possible to improve our chances. Women need to ration but they are in equal numbers and need men around so a balance nearly is acheived (49% men to 51% women) chances in conception which is slightly out of whack for some reason - probably to ensure the survival of the species and also to counter for contraception problems for females later on.

[jvkohl]

Before beginning the study of pheromones and how they might influence human behavior, I had read most of the pop-psychology and lots of the literature from sociologists, as well as a book: \"Sex Signals, The Biology of Love\" by Tim Perper (who took a decidedly visual approach). Despite gaining some valuable insight, the explanatory power of such readings was minimal. I\'ve since become involved in many debates/discussions with many researchers/authors from different disciplines (including Tim Perper, a biologist). My conclusion is (as noted by other researchers) that all of human behavior is directed towards individual survival through food choice (a function of chemisty / olfaction), and towards species survial through mate choice (also a function of chemistry / olfaction). Accordingly, if we are ever to understand behavior, we must first understand chemistry/olfaction. The importance of this fact seems to escape many people, although I have managed to make converts of many other researchers. I think there would be even more converts if more people started reading this Forum--especially the success reports. I also believe that these success reports attest both to the complexity of factors involved in sexual behavior, and to the fact that despite this complexity, pheromones can have tremendous (and probably the most powerful) impact. For this reason I advocate the primacy of olfaction/pheromones in human behavior. That my position is sometimes not well-received by others, attests either to their lack of understanding of mammalian behavior, or to their thoughts that humans are so superior that our behavior cannot possibly be compared so closely to the behavior of other mammals. The debate that ensues ends when I ask anyone to provide a non-olfactory mammalian model for human sexual behavior. Of course there is no such model. Despite repeated publications that focus on how important visual input is supposed to be, no researcher ever has responded with an mammalian model that suggests visual input is most important--and this is because there is no mammalian model of sexual attraction that is based on visual input (and quite frankly, avian visual models e.g., the peacock\'s tail, are \"for the birds\"). Nonetheless, I venture to guess that even many of the people who read this forum, are not aware that there is no visual model. This simply attests to the fact that if you tell someone enough times that human sexuality is based on visual input--and no one tells them differently--they will believe that visual input is most important. Similarly, if you tell (or show) someone that expensive cars, clothes, toys, etc., are most important, they will focus on attaining such items to improve their chances of sexual success. Discohornet and others are correct; these things make a difference- -sociological aspects of behavior run rampant in humans, since we are social creatures. But we can also take examples of attraction / aversion (running away) as examples of the broad based principles that govern our lives. In this regard, everything from the Big Bang on is a function of the overiding attract/repel concept: simple physics. We can extend physics to chemistry and chemistry to biology. When we do, we come back to pheromones that attract or repel to ensure properly timed reproductive sexual behavior. It is the timing that we are unsure of, and that we cannot control. Similarly, we cannot control any of the factors involved in the socialization of others, who typically have their own unique societally influenced backgrounds that help to influence their behavior. What we can control, at least now more than at any other time in history, is pheromone production / enhancement / distribution. I am reminded of \"The Serenity Prayer\" in this regard. \"Grant me the wisdom to change the things I can; to accept the things I can\'t change; and to know the difference.\" --or something like that. Since there are so few things that we can change when it comes to sexual attraction, I think the best bet is to attempt to change pheromone production / distribution to enhance your chances either for properly timed reproductive behavior -- or for our ever developing and increasing capacity for recreational sex.

[Watcher]

How important is recreational sex becoming to the human race or is it still based primary on the need to reproduct (it probably arouse out of the fact that we are constantly horny so need to statisfy ourselves even though women anyway are only fertile 1 out of every four weeks in a month on average but are still able to root themselves stupid in the other 3 - probably a primate thing anyway therefore recreational sex.

[a.k.a.]

Is there a mammalian model for how to cast your gaze, when to smile at a pretty woman, how to approach her, what to say, how close to stand, what to do with your hands, where to go on a first date, how to dance close up, when to plant the first kiss, how to suggest a more intimate environment, how to caress her and etc.?

Science discovered pheromones and now a short, big-nosed, middle aged man with scruffy clothes and an economy car can get his foot into the same doors as a tall, young, and handsome man with Italian suits and a sports car. That’s amazing. But that’s it. Biology doesn’t have much to say about where to go from there (apart from basic anatomical knowledge that doesn’t require a Ph.D. in the first place).

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I think James\'s statements are misleading because just because there\'s not primacy in visual attraction, it doesn\'t mean that it\'s not important or even dominant in sexual attraction in normal adults. For instance, which would have a stronger effect -- a potion that make us look instantly like Brad Pitt (or someone not so famous, but as handsome) or smell like him? I think most would agree to the answer on this. Visual perception of beauty may be a conditioned response, but it may be VERY strong.

[Whitehall]

In answer to Watcher:

That recreational sex is important can be inferred from the statistics. Over a lifetime, only one in 500 sexual intercourses with insemination results in a live birth. That\'s a lot of wasted energy otherwise and biology seldom wastes energy.

Why so many non-fertilizing sex acts? It allows the females to measure a male and his performance and to engage his long-term interest. For a partner couple, regular twice-a-week sex offers the male some protection against an interloper since sperm cells are stored inside the female for two or three days. Plus, female ovulation is not that easy to predict or detect, although there is some disagreement as to the later point. If neither he nor she knows the best time, the answer is to always keep her loaded.

[jvkohl]

Recreational sex is recently reported to increase odds of pregnancy carried to term, by decreasing immune system rejection. Perhaps more interesting to some of you is that fellatio with swallowing appears to have as much or more benefit than intercourse. Most likely there is also a pheromonal component at work here, since the immune system and olfactory system parallel each other in functions of self versus non-self recognition. There are also some strong links between psychoneuroendocrinology and psychoneuroimmunology for those of you who like using big words. [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

a.k.a. makes a great point about no mammalian model for socialized aspects of human sexuality, and the importance of things other than pheromones.

truth emphasizes this point with concerns over primacy. Obviously, visual input makes a difference, but what most people don\'t realize is that olfactory input \"conditions\" the visual response, not vice versa. That explains why I refer to the primacy of olfaction. Also, by repeatedly arguing for the primacy of olfaction, I hope to continue to counteract claims that \"humans are primarily visual creatures\" and other such statements that have absolutely no basis in fact. It takes a seemingly strong statement to help people understand that they\'ve been misled for so many years, and by so many \"so-called\" authorities. Still, if olfactory conditioning of what we think is a visually based sexual response was not so effective, there would be no such thing as pornographic photos and videos. Pornography is the best conceptualization of how important olfactory conditioning of the visual response can be.

Back to the issue of recreational sex: Whitehall\'s comments echo what can be read in the work of Baker and Bellis, which includes a book called \"Sperm Wars.\" There are plenty of biological reasons for sex even when pregnancy is not the immediate outcome. I suspect that\'s why sex is fun, to keep us active enough to ensure reproduction and survival of the species, which is a function of olfaction in mammals, including humans.

The reason I always come back to olfaction is because the biological argument for its importance is a circular argument. One of my presentation titles makes this somewhat more clear: \"Human pheromones: Olfactory - genetic -neuronal -hormonal -behavioral reciprocity.\"
Basically this reflects that pheromones drive behaviors that increase our likelihood of contact with more pheromones through a biological model that has no equal. For example, there will never be a title: Visual -genetic -neuronal -hormonal -behavioral reciprocity, because visual input has no direct effects on the genes, neurons, or hormones which are most important to our sexual behavior.