Symmetrical people

Field Reports & Anecdotal Experience Men's Pheromone Advice & Field Reports
1

This topic has been oft discussed in other threads at other places. I am not sure to what capacity it has been discussed here, but I have seen it mentioned a few times. Anyway here it goes…

Symmetrical males and females have been found in some studies to have the most attractive odor (attractive to opposite sex).

Symmetrical people are also more attractive visually also proved in some studies.

May I dare say that people who are attractive visually do also have attractive odors (attractive pheromone combination on their skin).

I guess, that pheromone combination is what we are trying to simulate when we are looking for a mix of pheromones which will make us attractive to the opposite sex.

Now, two other pheromones researchers Cutler and Dodd have created pheromone formulas to mimic the pheromone output of a young and attractive person (randy romans in the case of Dodd), in their pheromone products.

Maybe not necessarily the best approach, unless we also say that attractive people in general get by better in their social and professional dealings as well (which I think they do).

Smartmones obviously has a different approach, what is called social mix n’ match so you choose your pheromone mix based on your desired effect.

So if the desired effect is to be attractive to the opposite sex, then instead of trial and error, is it possible to get an idea of the pheromone combination of naturally very attractive people and try to replicate that with smartmones products? Considering its already been done by two researchers I am sure it can be done here.

Thoughts?

2

My .02 : Too many f*ing variables.

I think that the pheromone output of “beautiful people” probably reflects their apparent “good genes”. I don’t see how it could be possible to precisely replicate what amounts to a specific type of persons unique biochemical/DNA signature without knowing exactly what your own signature is and how it needs to be altered in order to match the other persons profile.

You’d also have to tailor your pheromone mix to only contain what is missing, and I think that all of these things are dependent on too many other variables that change constantly. Just of the top of my head, without writing too much , I can rattle off several variables that change constantly: diet, disease, weather, age, stress levels, receptiveness/preferences of your target audience, time of day (for male hormonal fluctuations) and status of the menstruation cycle for women - and lets not forget that that the pheromones themself begin to change their intensity and chemical structure as soon as they begin to react with your skin and the environment.

This is why I now think people are better off with a generalized approach to pheromone use in order to reliably manipulate their own feelings, unless they are pursuing someone specifically and have the time and expertise needed to adjust their pheromone output precisely for their goals.

3

And it just ocurred to me, what if something in your own pheromone scent/DNA signature has some kind of a cue that turns off certain kinds of people? If I understand it correctly, using pheromones won’t take that repulsive cue away from your scent-signature, it might only add to it.

4

If this was true, then it also means that we should stop hunting for magic mixes as they don’t exist, even for the same person.

The reason I raised this topic is because two reputed people in this field have adopted that approach as mentioned in my post.

Also I think the concentration of pheromone mixes that we are putting on our skin are much higher compared to naturally occuring levels.

Also many users have reported here and elsewhere that when they hit a jackpot in terms of their magic mix the world suddenly seems a different place and everything falls in order. The reason sometimes they are not able to replicate that magic again is because they didn’t note down the correct mix or didn’t measure properly or the products themselves were different from batch to batch or were not dosed. But most of the experinced users have been able to get the desired response fairly consistently.

So as you mentioned the factors “diet, disease, weather, age, stress levels, receptiveness/preferences of your target audience, time of day etc. etc…” just somehow don’t seem to matter as much when you get a good mix going for you. What do you think?

5

what do I think? I want to know why these “good mixes” aren’t sold pre-mixed.

6

There really are a number of variables that can significantly affect how well a particularly dosed mix would work. Given the the amount of diversity in even just the participants here, it would be next to impossible to develop a complex mix that is universally effective for all people. The ones that have tried (Chikara, Perception) seem to be a bust for most people, while working extremely well for others. Its more or less a hit or miss trial. Maybe the mix will suit you well, maybe it won’t, and the effects of the mix are largely out of your hands.

One thing to consider is that people have individually unique, natural pheromone signiatures - a natural basis which we complement with synthetic pheromones to create an overall more attractive ‘image’. Some people are closer to having the ideal pheromone signiature than others, and its a bit iffy to say that a universal magic mix could ever exist. Pheromone output tends to dimish with age, for example, and what works for a 25 year old, won’t necessarily work as well for a 45 year old (and vice versa). For that reason, I think an overly generalized approach to pheromones is inherently faulted. Personal mixes are necessarily tailored to the individual’s body chemistry, as well as his or her goals with pheromones, because no two people are exactly alike.

Outside of a biological perspective, another problem with overly generalized mixes is the fact that certain pheromones suit certain personality types better than others. Ideally you want to wear pheromones that complement your personality; enhancing your own positive characterstics, while buffing against some of the negatives. Pheromones will not create a false perception of you having certain characteristics - there has to be some congruency with how you carry yourself, and false fronts don’t ever work either. (ie wearing A314, while assuming a passive role can be disasterous) If there’s a miscongruency in the way a person carries him or herself while wearing a certain mix, or if its worn in the wrong social context, people tend to react somewhat negatively. Pheromones won’t make you be what you’re not, but they will make you better at what you are.

Trial and error is a necessary process to determine which pheromones complement your natural physical, and personality characteristics well. Results come more consistently with experience not only because you get more experienced with accurately dosing, but also because with experience, you gain a better understanding how to use pheromones to complement your natural characterstics, and how to account for the countless variables that can affect your mix. You gain a better understanding of which pheromones work best for you, in what doses, and in which social contexts.

7

Thanks Sigma! I totally understand what you are saying.
You mentioned A314, but isn’t that also a premixed complex product, which is supposed to give you the mone signature of a certain kind of person (successful alpha male). I don’t think conceptually it’s any different from what Dodd and Cutler tried to do with their products which was to give the wearer a mone signature of young attractive person.

Dodd has approximately 50 pheromones extracted and with that he tried to replicate the mone signature of such a person. Also as mentioned by Harris in one of his posts about Cutler she may be using what could very well be human primer pheromones. I was wondering, given the fact that here at smartmones we have so many experimones and putatives I am sure a combination of these products could very well lead to a product like that. I am not saying that will be the be all and end all, but just another product “Instant young and attractive” or something.

Also as Harris mentioned before, Cutler and Dodd are conservative in their approach and don’t like unleashed male sexuality which might reflect in their toned down approach towards creating the product. Thankfully, I don’t think we have that problem here :smiley: .

8

[quote=nbully79]
Thanks Sigma! I totally understand what you are saying.
You mentioned A314, but isn’t that also a premixed complex product, which is supposed to give you the mone signature of a certain kind of person (successful alpha male). I don’t think conceptually it’s any different from what Dodd and Cutler tried to do with their products which was to give the wearer a mone signature of young attractive person.

Dodd has approximately 50 pheromones extracted and with that he tried to replicate the mone signature of such a person. Also as mentioned by Harris in one of his posts about Cutler she may be using what could very well be human primer pheromones. I was wondering, given the fact that here at smartmones we have so many experimones and putatives I am sure a combination of these products could very well lead to a product like that. I am not saying that will be the be all and end all, but just another product “Instant young and attractive” or something.

A314 does a very good job at what its supposed to do…so good in fact, that I have to be extra careful when using this product. It creates a powerful, sophisticated, ‘leader’ type vibe, giving the wearer a an elevated sense of value (as described by others). Because I’m relatively young though, projecting this kind of image can be counter-productive in more casual, carefree settings. It works really well for me when I’m at work or other professional settings, and in more intimate settings it works really well sexually, however in casual social outings (ie going out to the club) its kind of alienating. Some might do well with A314 in these settings, but it certainly isn’t for me. Perfect example of the variability in the effects people might see IMO.

The Instant Line is much easier to manage, since the make-up of the individual products is simple enough to really hone in on the effects I want. If Harris were to release an “Instant Young and Attractive” mix, I’d be all over it though.

I suppose given the sheer amount of pheromones being released here recently, a universal product might be more practical in the future…who knows. I will say that I’ll probably always prefer a more customizable approach to using pheromones - I think you can achieve better results if you have more control of the ingredients in the mixes. Some prefer a streamlined approach, but what can I say, I’d rather drive a stick-shift.

Sexual pheromones (androstenone) carry some pretty heavy side effects, which vary greatly from person to person. I think that any universally marketed product would have to be neutered. But again, who knows what Harris, or the others might come up with next