I've
been reading a lot, and beginning to understand a little about what you call "analog pheromones". I think. I'm not
a scientist, so I can only write in lay terms.
People cannot help but to respond to scent, whether the response
is "hardwired" or "programmed/conditioned". From food to sex, not many of us realize its importance. As well, there
is a huge documented history of naturally occurring scents which have been used to powerful effect, from the calming
lavender to the raw dirty sex of civet or castoreum. Even plants have animalic/sex notes... indole in jasmine and
musk in ambrette, among many others, and have populated perfumes since before God published. Its my understanding
that the far drydown of King Tut's burial perfume lasted until just after his tomb was opened. How do they do that?
The fact that many of these scents (molecules) are actual pheromones which attract the birds and bees to
flowers (and civet cats to civet cats) is an interesting side note to the fact that, in the right proportions,
mixtures of these scents have a powerful effect on humans on a very deep level. Before any of the constituent
chemicals of these scents were isolated (c1870), they were used by humans to effect and modify behavior, attraction
and sex probably being foremost among those (covering unwashed body odor should be considered as purposefully
attracting in them days
).
On the other hand, if Napoleon wanted Antoinette unwashed (in all her excreting
glory), what does that say about us latter day stink mongers? It says that we are onto something that the
understanding of science has yet to fully explain, and that we are sophisticated to the point of wanting to smell
nice while doing it, even while we mix perfumes which have rutting stink among their ingredients. Deep urges meet
polite society and only a great perfume can achieve that height, offering a multitude of choices from high to low
enticement, or both.
Genetics certainly plays a role (hardwiring). From the natural human pheromones that are in
play when a baby breast feeds, to those playing mischief among uncomprehending adolescents. Its the hidden molecule,
by any name, that entices the young, and confounds the mature as they (we) try to reproduce what nature serves as a
light cockail before lunch.
I'm a moderate collector of vintage fragrances. What I smell from a pre-70s classic
perfume is heaven compared to the castrated (breast-reduced?) scents of today. Beyond composition, just the
ingredients were enough to make you mortgage the kids for just another night with its wearer, preferably your wife,
thus saving the kids.
Programming from birth is certain, and variable. There's not one of us who doesn't
have a memory tied strongly to scent, and our memory of scent is stronger than we probably realize. Subliminal
recognition I guess, but deeper and stronger than mere identification. Perfumers and scientists have written far
more on this than I can hope to approach with my limited understanding.
All that to say, Pheros contains such
ingredients that it achieves the purposes of attraction on both the "shallow" scent level (it smells nice), and on
the deeper level of "unknown" attraction (it subtly effects behavior on a deeper (subconcious) level.
A pretty
disjointed post Doc, does it make any sense vis a vis the subject?
I'll do a Mobley here, and reserve the right
to be wrong!
Originally Posted by idesign
I've
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks