O.C. use doesn't effect the affect of pheromones

[jvkohl]

Another thread/discussion on oral contraceptive use makes this article, which became available today, even more
pertinent. Some of you may recall that B. Fink (listed as co-author on this article) also co-authored with me for an award winning Neuroendocrinology Letters article last October.

http://www.nel.edu/pdf_w/23_4/NEL230402R03_Thorne_rw.pdf

In any case, this article is a must read for all Forum members, but especially those who are concerned over whether or not human pheromones work.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I get an error processing the pdf and can\'t read it...

[upsidedown]

Same here. It won\'t open up on my computer.

[jvkohl]

I\'m not having any problems; do you have a fairly current version of Adobe Acrobat Reader installed; if not try access via http://www.nel.edu/23_4/NEL230402R03_Thorne.htm for the abstract text

[Watcher]

I got it straight and clear it is a very good article thanks again jkohl. Youre a good source for interviews and the other aspects of pheromone communications. etc

http://www.anitadoth.myby.co.uk/anita%20doth_2%20u%20downloads.htm

[SonnyBlack]

(taken from the prementioned article)\"several studies have shown that when exposed to androstenol (often described as a pleasant ‘sandlewood\' smell when detected), female ratings of male attractiveness are enhanced higher...However, other authors have reported that exposure to androstenone (often described as ‘urine-like\' or ‘musky\') induces negative perceptions of males ...Grammer [12] has argued that there are two different olfactory signals – androstenol, which induces female attraction to males, and androstenone, which induces negative responses in females.

WHATS UP WIH THIS???WHY DO WE USE NONE IF IT SAYS IT CAUSES BAD REACTIONS FROM FEMALES...SO IS NOL THE ONLY VALUABLE MONE TO HELP US ATTRACT GIRLS???SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN BECAUSE IM CONFUSED NOW.

[MaxiMog]

Perhaps you can say that androstenol, unlike androstenone, can ALWAYS be used as a pheromone to be more attractive to women, whereas androstenone is only useful at certain times, i.e. when a women is near the fertile state.

[Whitehall]

Just how do the researchers collect the \"ratings?\" They ask!

I\'ve argued that verbalizations of the effects of pheromones differ, sometimes greatly, from the behavioral response - \"Her lips say \"Stinky\" while her vagina says \"Hunky!\"

There are two different pieces of the brain involved and often they don\'t communicate very well and get out-of-sync. Just like a woman will SAY she wants a nice boy but spreads for a bad boy.

A wise man knows that women\'s actions and their words are seldom consistent - too bad researchers can\'t see that too. Don\'t give up on \'none - it works on the sexual centers of a woman\'s brain - who cares what she\'s babbling about if she\'s turned on?

[CptKipling]

And also, how do they test? Strait out of the bottle? Hmm...

Not saying they do but to get the \"cat piss\" smell they cant be using a cover, so they are ODing on quantity and scent, its meant to be subliminal.

[BassMan]

<blockquote><font class=\"small\">In reply to:</font><hr>

I\'ve argued that verbalizations of the effects of pheromones differ, sometimes greatly, from the behavioral response - \"Her lips say \"Stinky\" while her vagina says \"Hunky!\"

<hr></blockquote>I have to agree with you. I used lots of -none heavy stuff in my last relationship (AE, Andro 4.2, and AFA), and I never saw any difference in my mate\'s response during her period. If anything, she was hotter.

[jvkohl]

-none and -rone have not yet been studied to see whether a woman responds hormonally, which I think is a key concern. -nol elicits changes in luteinizing hormone; a good sign that it effects things positively. -rone will predictably have the same effect, as in concentrations similar to those used when testing -nol, (1mg/ml) it was almost invariably reported to smell masculine and clean. In contrast, we have reports that -none stinks, yet it has positive effects on women. The biological logic of this escapes me (though Karl Grammer has a good idea), but I don\'t think reports of -none\'s effectiveness are in error; I just can\'t figure out what\'s going on. As others have indicated, is it any wonder that we have yet to figure women out: what they want, when they want it, or why they don\'t.... who nose?

[drchaos]

Excellent science information, as I expect.

Everybody should note though that the testers used \"male axillary pheromones\", i.e. underarm sweat, not the artificial -mones we\'re trying here.

The natural system may have many more -mones than we\'re using.

The title of the paper doesn\'t completely mesh with the contents though.

The paper describes what sounds like a *VERY* well controlled experiment, and they showed \'vignettes\' of guys with some made-up but plausible history, and then asked the women who
either were, or were not, exposed to pheromones (diffused in the room), to answer on a 1-6 scale various questions.

On the overall analysis of variance, there was a p=0.005 effect from pheromone exposure, but no effect from contraceptive use or from menstrual cycle use. But, on individual subgroups there were differences.

Question 1: \"X is good looking\": a significant effect of pheromone exposure, phero mean 3.56+/-0.32, non-phero mean 2.81+/-0.31, significant at p&lt;0.001. But on this subgroup there was an effect from oral contraceptive, mean rating of
pheromone+contraceptive = 3.84 +- 0.28 pheromone-contraceptive= 3.28 +- 0.35

And contraceptive+pheromone=3.84; contraceptive-pheromone 2.62

Question 2: \"X has an attractive body\". A significant effect of pheromone exposure was revealed, p=0.002. +pheromone=3.84 (omitting sd\'s from now on) -pheromone=3.38

Question 3: \"X is sexually attractive\". +pheromone=3.52,-pheromone=2.788.

Question 6: \"X is popular and likable\": a significant interaction between oral contraceptive and menstrual cycle phase was observed.

Qusetion 7: \"X is self assured\". A significant effect of pheromones was revelaed, with +pheromones=4.05, -pheromones=3.67

Question 14: \"I would like to have a long-term steady relationship with X\". A signifiacnt effect of contraception was revealed as participants NOT using oral contraception were higher mean 2.67 than participants using not using oral contraception 1.94. No main effect of pheromone exposure (not significnant), a significant interaction between pheromone exposure and cycle phase revaled that at Phase II, exposure to pheromones produced a significantly higher rating 2.66 than no pheromones 2.09 (p&lt;0.002). Furthermore those with +pheromone, participants in Phase II gave significant higher ratings 2.66 than those at menses 2.18 (p=0.007)

Question 15: \"I would like to have a short term relationship with X\": a significant effect of pheromone exposure was revealed as ratings with pheromone (mean=2.26) were significantly higher than those without pheromone (mean=1.81), a significant main effect of cycle phase was revealed as ratings in Phase II 2.23 were higher than in phase I 1.84.
---------------------------------------------------

Facial attraction: 3 way AnOVA

A significant main effect of pheromone
+pheromone:3.80 -pheromone:2.13 p&lt;0.001
{ed: WOW THAT IS HUGE}

No significant effect of oral contraceptive nor menstral cycle phase, no interaction effects, contraceptive use and cycle phase,.... et cetera.

[Elana]

When studies are done on the effectiveness of woman\'s pheromones to attract men, are the pheromones that are being studied nol or none?

[DrSmellThis]

Wow -- someone else who likes statistics and research methodology! [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]