I just read an interesting article about different studies on pheromones I thought might interest people.
In a study by the University of Berne, Switzerland, female students were asked to smell unwashed T-shirts of unknown males and to classify them in the smell that pleased them the most. The results showed that the smell women found most pleasing had pheromones different to their own. The curious thing was that women who were on the pill preferred the smell of those which had a similar pheromones to their own.
Other investigations by the Institute Ludwig Boltzeman of Viena, Austria showed that when men were given female pheromones to smell and although the men were NOT aware that the woman was ovulating, they showed an increase in testosterone levels_ the male was more attracted to a woman who was ovulating rather than any other time of her menstrual cycle. A group of men were told to smell the fatty acids which were present in vaginal secretions at different stages of the menstrual cycle: ovulation, menstruation and other times. The results showed that the levels of men´s testosterone were DOUBLE for men who smelled the fatty acids during the ovulation than at any other time.
Also the results showed that when a heterosexual male was given female pheromones to smell, there were changes to the brain cells.
2007 most impressive screensaversmyscreensavers.info
very interesting … so i’ve always thought that women on the pill are more prone to be “bi-curious” .. it’s been my experience that straight girls on the pill are more acceptable of a girl-girl encounters .. ..
I apologize if this caveat has been posted elsewhere (I’m sure it has been), but please take studies with a grain of salt. Even in highly-researched fields and among highly-respected researchers, bias is far too common. I’m not saying that this particular study isn’t valid, or that its conclusions aren’t 100 percent accurate, but there is always a chance that someone has something to gain by releasing certain results of a study.
Hehheh, if I had followed certain medical studies, I could very easily be dead right now. No fibbin’.
100 Wedekind C, Seebeck T, Bettens F, Paepke AJ. MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proc R Soc Lond B 1995; 260:245-9. 101 Wedekind C, Furi S. Body odor preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1997; 264:1471-9.
And of course we cited the study that showed the testosterone increase, which was reported in my friend Astrid’s thesis, but unfortunately never replicated.
43 Juette A. Weibliche Pheromone - Wirkung und Rolle von synthetischen “Kopulinen” bei der versteckten Ovulation des Menschen. Diplomarbeit an der Universität Wien; 1995.
To my knowledge, none of the researchers have ever directly profited from their study results, and I don’t know of any patents that were filed. They may have gained some additional funding for similar studies, but even that is not typical for researchers who report on human sexuality issues.
My post was intended to be a very general warning that not all scientific studies are to be taken as law. I acknowledged that this particular study may be completely accurate and unbiased, but I still encourage people to read the study and understand its methods and conclusions.
About two years ago I was diagnosed with a brain tumor. The treatment options were divided into three categories, surgery, radiosurgery (highly focused radiation), and inaction (do nothing and hope for the best). While I was doing research on which treatment to choose, I came across scientific studies that ranged from credible to criminal. One study in particular, conducted by neurosurgeons and presented at a prestigious conference of Florida neurosurgeons, concluded that there was no difference in tumor control rates between having radiosurgery and taking no action. Only by reading the study did I discover that the definition of “control” that the study used was “the typical growth rate of this particular tumor or slower growth.” By thus defining “control,” the neurosurgeons could come to their conclusion because, even if radiosurgery stops the growth or shrinks the tumor, it falls into the same definition as a typical, unhindered, growing tumor.
There are basically two reasons that the study would be set up this way:
Every patient that has radiosurgery is one less patient having microsurgery, and this affects neurosurgeons’ income. The neurosurgeons were intentionally trying to discredit radiation to their own benefit; or
The study was poorly defined and sloppy and the neurosurgeons are morons.
Personally, I don’t think surgeons are stupid, so I choose to believe the former.
The truly deplorable part of this study is that patients’ lives are at stake, and these certain doctors were attempting to deprive the world of relevant information that can save lives. How much more likely is it that researchers would falsify results in a field as relatively unimportant as pheromones?
To be honest, I hate medicine and science. The only reason I researched those studies was that my life depended on it. I have neither the time nor the interest to do similar research in order to increase my chances of “getting laid.” I draw no conclusions on how anyone profits from the sale of Scent of Eros, or whether or not pheromone researchers in this forum are presenting all current, relevant and authoritative information.
All I know is that I’m trying the chemicals, giving them a fair chance, and asking honest, good faith questions and making honest, good faith (if bad) jokes, while people on the forum give me negative reviews and write me nasty comments. It makes me think that my Instant Shine isn’t working as advertised.
Your advise/warning is good, but you implicated a particular group with an impecable reputation. Had it been research performed by others whom I don’t know as well, I might well have questioned the findings a bit more myself. Since most people are not likely to read the research papers, but are going to form opinions, anyway–I may tend to try to level the playing field from time to time by posting comments on the research papers I have read–along with the findings I think are significant. Even this does not validate the study design or findings. But at least I can hope to convey some consistency with what research is showing, and perhaps even predict what it will show–since I often see presentations of data several months to years before it is published.
