moral question

[Wolfe]

why?. some use dildos or vibs cause they wern\'t created =

[belgareth]

Somebody is always going to be saying \'Its not fair!\' about something. You do what you believe is right and ethical and let them do the same. Most of them are just noisemakers without a purpose, anyway. If they weren\'t crying about mones, they would be crying about something else.

In short, ignore them.

[Irish]

Yeah, I get a kick out of folks saying it\'s not fair that they are unattractivr, can\'t get women, have deficient pheros - as if it was a right to to do well in the mating game, and they have been \'unfairly\' deprived.

It\'s a *competition*, not a legal case!! There\'s no fairness about the sexual jungle - only winners and losers. And sexually attractive people actually *are* superior mates from the physical standpoint, several studies have shown (better genes, better immune systems, etc). Natural pheros are what\'s known as an \'honest signal\' - they accurately report the condition and reproductive value of the individual. Same with physical \'good looks\' (symmetry). Attractive people look good, smell good, and have more sex because they *are* better sexual specimens than those that lack these traits! They look better because they ARE better (in the reproductive sense).

Synthetic phero use is a way to send a false signal, a better signal than our bodies can naturally - we are hiding our deficiencies, trying to appear more desirable than our genetics justify. Same with plastic surgery. Nothing wrong with that either IMHO - as someone noted that\'s using our mind to overcome natural deficiencies. If it\'s successful long enough natural selection will begin to shift towrds smart sneaky people that can hide their physical faults, or mimic their physical superiors.

Anyway, my point was the fairness issue - fairness is valid when you discuss people\'s worth as human beings, the right to decent humane treatment. Fairness applies there. But there is no right to sexual success - that\'s an arena for competition. And just as clumsy oafs cannot say it\'s unfair they aren\'t football stars, neither can the sexually inept complain it\'s unfair that they don\'t get the same action as natural-born \'sexual athletes\'.

We\'re stuck with the genetic hand nature dealt us - ingenuity will help us overcome deficiencies, but none of that has anything to do with \'fairness\'. That\'s why it\'s important to separate your value as a human being from your sexual attractiveness. It makes for a healthier outlook.

[franki]

I like that post.
You can say the same things 10 times more eloquent than me. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Franki

[Irish]

Not 10x more eloquent - just 10x longer!

[bivonic]

I can sum that post up in 6 words.

\"All\'s fair in love and war.\"

[Wolfe]

that\'s 7 [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
ones a contraction [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[CptKipling]

The bottom line of this issue is that pheromones are not as powerful as some people have made out. Despite constant ravings about the new \"magic bullet\", there simply is no such thing.

The whole concept of pheromones is that they target primal instincts (no pun intended) and subliminal areas of the brain. These are areas that are used much less than they used to, because the development of civilised society has made them (theoretically) redundant. This is not to say that they do not influence people, because that would be nonsense, but social conformities (i.e. bathing rituals) greatly reduce the capacity of pheromones to function.

Something that needs to be understood; the pheromones currently in use in pheromone products are just bulk attractant pheromones; -none to induce fear, sexual tension, and respect; -nol to induce friendliness, mood elevation, relaxation and comfort; -rone to give an aura of masculinity (and the follow on effects that this brings)…etc. There is further evidence which suggests the existence of a very specific pheromone profile, but it will be made up of other compounds, probably relating to the immune system and other genetic qualities. It would therefore be possible to tailor a phero mix specifically for an individual, in essence creating the impression of an ideal partner, but at the moment this is beyond current technology.

As has been mentioned by other posts, the race to reproduce is a competition with no rules, there is no concept of fair, there is only people using there good points to their advantage. Is this cheating? No and no. Is it morally wrong for women to apply makeup around their eyes, making them seem bigger and doll-like? No, even though big “doe” eyes are a major trigger for male attraction. There is falsification of attractive features going on all over the place, breast implants (and this IS a phero related topic, ask JVK), dyeing of hair, even working out could be called cheating by some, but they will always be the ones watching TV and not reproducing.

Something which I don’t think has been mentioned before, is acting like you have a good natural signature. Most “players” do it, and is their favourite trick for getting laid. It can be described in one word, confidence. Confidence is the most important thing regarding psychological attraction, if you act like you “get it” and are going to get it, no matter what, then women find you more attractive. In fact, this applies to more than just attraction; male stand offs, business situations, the list goes on… But is the morality of these situations considered even once? Again, no.

Pheros do not enter into moral consideration, in every case, its the morality of the user that is in question.

[upsidedown]

Some thoughts for the sake of discussion. Let\'s just assume that pheromones DO cause actual changes of some sort in the mindset of the target. Let\'s assume that it\'s not just a matter of making you seem more attractive, but that it also causes the target to get more aroused than they otherwise would become without pheromones. My contention is that any arousal caused by mones is nowhere near as powerful in lowering the inhibitions to follow through on the arousal in the target as drinking alcohol is.

So, I would just ask anybody who thinks pheromone usage is wrong just how they feel about making any kind of move on a woman who has been drinking? Do you have any problems making any kinds of moves, even just asking for a telephone number, from a woman who has had anything to drink? If not, why not? If you have no problem with hitting up on a woman who has been loosened up by alcohol, why would you have a problem with using mones on a totally sober woman who still has full use of her judgement?

If you do have a problem with hitting on women who have been drinking, then just how many drinks do they have to have before you cross the line from moral to immoral? To what extent does her judgement have to be impaired before it\'s wrong?

I\'m no scientiest, but my guess is that any woman who has been drinking is much less inhibited than she would be under the influence of even the most powerful of pheromones while sober. When she has been drinking, thre is some lowering of her inhibitions and judgement. With pheromones, she may find you more attractive AND might even be more sexually aroused around you. BUT, assuming she hasn\'t been drinking she will still have control of herself and can make a rational decision on how she wants to act on her feelings of attraction and arousal that she feels for you and your pheromones.

[Irish]

Again, the key difference is one of target awareness/control. The target in your example put the drinks in her own system, could presumably refuse to drink, etc. - she was in control of her own soberness or lack thereof. A phero user imposes the \'intoxicant\' (pheros) without the target having anything to say about it.

A more exact version of your analogy would be \"how many drug tablets could you slip into that woman\'s drink before it is morally wrong? Is it ok if the drug tablets are mild in effect?\"

Don\'t get me wrong - I\'m personally not opposed to using a little trickery in a seduction. I just think we should be honest with ourselves about it. and not rationalize away what we are up to.

[Whitehall]

One twist on the \"How many drinks?\" question is that at some point, the woman can claim that she was unconscious. Then, it is no longer moral but a legal question. You can be charged with rape for that or lose your job and career. Of course, too often, she will conveniently \"forget\" that she said yes or even instigated intercourse.

Recent, the Dean of the University of California law school had to resign because a female student claimed that he had driven her home after a party and had intercourse with her after she had lost consciousness. This was several years after the fact too.

Let me restate the worst intepretation of pheromone use again. The pheromone user releases a volatile steroid, already a controlled substance in the US albeit at higher concentrations, into the air around an unsuspecting victim. She inhales this steroid and it affects her central nervous system and her own hormone levels. This causes her to behave in ways that she would not otherwise behave sexually. The intent is sexual intercourse where it would not have taken place otherwise without the chemicals being inhaled.

The basic problem is our philosophical concept of consent and free will. Science is showing us that here is another area where the bright line between free will and coercion is fudged.

My personal opinion is that the practical line we need to draw for public policy is between childhood and adulthood. That can be 18 years of age - below that age, the sale should be prohibited (sorry Bruce) and most certainly, no person should be targeted and sexually closed with using pheromones under that age. That way we protect children while adults get to take their chances.

[Wolfe]

that would apply rather -mones where involved or not

[Watcher]

Could be written into existing laws but those laws get ignored 70% of under 18s here in australia have already have sex by 18. The age of consent is 16 out here just to note. What about those with naturally high pheromone production would it be made legal for them to scrub them off once daily and they would have an *advantage* over those that werent able to get their hands on synthetics anyway.
WHat about a genetically enhanced individual designed to produce a high amount of pheros.
But u are right whitehall there needs to be at least discussion, maybe avoiding closing (sex) on someone under 18 should at the very least enter the moral thoughts of synthetic pheromone usage. At the moment nillthisim rules therefore the tangent maths says whatever goes, goes.

[marv14yag]

When you say, altering another\'s hormones...Yes, a steriod such as pheromones will do this HOWEVER, the thing is, so will a VISUAL response too, so,would you say anything that a girl likes that raises her hormone levels is immoral?

And, hey, I\'m 17 now, but was using pheromones at 16...

Like it\'s been stated, and I have known and SAID this like a million times on this board...

Even if you look attractive, have the pheormones, work out, girls don\'t always want to screw you...In fact, at my age, it\'s 19 out of 20 times it is like that.

Alchohol not ONLY would let her do something she normally wouldn\'t but it would ALSO make YOU look better (ie, beer goggles.)...But, alcohol would probably be a MILLION times better because it would let them do something they NORMALLY wouldn\'t do... If there was SOMEONE somehow made to be the PERFECT male, immune system, pheromones, etc....He probably STILL wouldn\'t necessarily get laid. The key to it is more letting DOWN her inhibitions (through NLP, etc, alcohol) than the way you look.

I don\'t know, but I\'d say it\'s equal....Personally, I find probably 8 out of every 10 girls, if not 9 out of 10 attractive. Attractive to the point where, yeah, given the change I definately would do them....

I\'d say it\'s the same with girls too....Unless you are ugly, a girl won\'t NOT do it with you (unless they are that way and want only the best, HOWEVER, that isn\'t usually the case) It\'s the fact that a lot of the times they have been programmed by SOCIETY NOT TO!

Back in cave man\'s days it was the OPPOSITE...

Now, it\'s starting to get back to the way it was in cave men\'s days...I think that is PRIMARILY because, yeah, society says don\'t f** people, etc...However, girls like sex....They have learned if you want sex, you have to be more sexually aggresive, forget what society says...In fact, someone I recently read has proved girls to be much more sexualy aggressive than previous years...I don\'t know from when that was, but it is changing...Girls from like the age of 16-18 speed more than guys driving too, etc....

Either way, if it\'s not FORCING someone to do something and they do it because they WANT to, it\'s not immoral...Personally, I don\'t think anything is IMMORAL or WRONG, however, I don\'t HAVE definition for it, but if you\'re not forcing someone to do something, you\'re not forcing someone to do something, plain and simple...I think that NLP would be more immoral than pheromones....Alcohol would be worse than pheromones....

But, there really is no WORSE because it\'s not FORCING anyone to do ANYTHING.

Oh yeah, who wrote about the makeup around the eyes....I didn\'t know bigger eyes was attributed to sexual attraction, I just knew that the eye make up looked good (perhaps the colors make it appear as though bigger doe eyes, or is COLOR involved, I know that darker hair contributes to stronger characteristics v.s. blonde hair (however, many times submissiveness is a good thing (for a girl...ie, blondes, etc.)

Bart

[Walter_Mitty]

This is kind of fun to debate. Back to the Devils advocate (since no one else seems to want to be that) I would like comment on a few things I have read. One, the post about scrubbing off the natural pheros. No, those are there anyways, you are not manipulating the playing field. The Movie Line about feeling good, Well, most of us are in a fair mental state when going to movies, and know what to expect. I think the reason we go to movies is to be entertained. The Glasses quote was kinda funny, I fail to see how better vision is immoral (unless you were using it for something immoral in the first place...) There is some fun stuff to mull over in the archives, and some good questions to think about. I just wanted to make the point that pheros do effect people (to a greater or lesser extent) and there is no way that anyone but you could know this without telling the crowd. By adding synthetic pheros, you can tip the tables in your favor in a way that is not natural. I don\'t think the arguement that make-up and perfume is unnatural fits, cause civilizations have been using these two things for eons. The ability to synthesize and purify pheros is only decades old, and honestly, the way some of these things smell, would you put them on if you didn\'t know that they were pheros? So knowing that these pheros do effect behaviour, and using them on an unsuspecting crowd might have some issues of morality.

Personally, I ain\'t quitting using them, but it is fun to think about these things.

[Watcher]

Oooh devils adovate this is fun. We keep this secret inside our heads and dare not mention, the few times i have all sorts of fun commotion has broken out amoung friends etc. Ok so using them on an unsuspecting crowds raises issues of morality right, so ok any extra comments welcome.

Do we ban their use, bury their knowledge and existance for all time, bring in the UFOs to disperse massive amounts of pheros over unsuspecting cities to make the human populace so horny it will be to busy bonking to mount any effective resistance to an invasion from space.
Perhaps laws and measuring devices to measure the presence of synthetic pheromones (big business opportunties there) give every man woman and child access to synthetic pheromones (big business oppourtunity there also) which would be one answer to places like australia where the population is aging and the birth rate falling putting huge pressures on the economic support sturcture to care for the aged. Spread phero usage around women might get pregnant more often and more children booms come hence balancing everything out.

Ok ive gone overboard again but some points to add to it.

[Wolfe]

ROFLMAO

[belgareth]

There is no real answer. The puritans will insist that they be made illegal. The liberals will want them made freely available and the science community will want to run endless experiments with them.

You are not going to put the genie back in the bottle, never have been able to with other things either. Think about the drug war, its a failure and drugs are bulky by comparison and also have a more noticable effect on the user.

Mone use is here to stay, how do we control the use? Should we? Do we need to? Over time, as the science develops, won\'t they become more common and therefore have a reduced impact because they will be all around us?

[Watcher]

What has got u so worked up wolfe lol, didnt think my post where that funny, but now that i have gone back over it i guess some would get a chuckle out of it he he.

Sorry just got a economic education in my background so some of my posts tend to concentrate on those implications of pheromone usage on a widescale thinking ahead about UFOs etc.

[Watcher]

Maybe some sort of pheromone counter compound that the user can apply on the inside of the nose to remove the effects of breathing in super pheromones coming from other people.

Lots of business oppourtunities there. I agree that they will never go back into the bottle either, genies are by far to useful anyway (anyone here brittany spears to play samatha in the bewitched movie version)

[Wolfe]

was the alien part [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Watcher]

I wonder what the morals of an alien invasion would be.