# Tell me about P102 **URL:** \ **Category:** Men's Pheromone Advice & Field Reports\ **Created:** [June 14, 2012, 8:24am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/tell-me-about-p102/55856 "2012-06-14T08:24:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 19
**Author:** ![monesmadedoit](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/monesmadedoit/32/325_2.png) [@monesmadedoit](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/monesmadedoit)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2013, 11:26am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/tell-me-about-p102/55856/19 "2013-05-23T11:26:48Z")
It’s probably not helpful to start multiple threads, so I’ll keep general P102 comments here and also solicit some **unconventional** 102 reports. After my first diffuser test of 102 (10 mcg), I noticed something new. I really lack the ability to put into words. I found myself seeking pleasing sight and sound stimuli. Looking for YouTube videos, paying attention to music that caught my interest. I had trouble detecting self effects with 20 mcg. Tests with this in public buy itself weren’t totally clear. I’m not sure focus is correct. Is this another one of these beautifying molecules? People are seeing **focus**. If Androtics thinks it’s that good, there’s got to be **more**. It would really need to give a wearer added benefits. It would need to be either a TAF alternative (help you see hits or help targets _see_ you), or it needs to make targets see you as more attractive. I think it’s the latter, but the real tests will be subjects who report how they feel blindly when you wear it. Do they see focus or otherwise? Maybe it’s time to start paying college women on Craigslist $20 to sniff my “new _fragrance_ market test.” There’s something I’m missing in the reportage on 102. I’ve just enough to retest diffusion and try to duplicate results. If I am a company–any company–I always have to think about what to restock and why. 102 is Golden13. It’s supposed to be dope, fly sh\*t (urban metaphor). OK, I’ll bite. I can read the lines and between them. I’m missing something. What am I missing? What justified(s) it’s inclusion in MX353. I should hear people singing it’s praises. Not so much. There must be a subtlety that user reports are overlooking. Therefore, if you have the stuff, why not retest again and fine tune your observations. Find a subject (if possible), dose them, and see what you feel–or vice versa. If this is boosting the senses, what does that mean, exactly. How does one get laid with this…or does she? **Update** : _“There seems to be some desire/craving associated with this one that can manifest both physically and emotionally and can be very sensual in the right context.”_ That’s it. **Sensory craving**. > [@P102 blind test vs p101, two sprays at 12.5mu: made my high way more intense](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p102/27277/7): > > Nice reports, Phya. Jeez, ya know…I keep waiting for you to bust a move. You don’t seem to have a problem if she’s got a few years on her…and can dance. stuck_out_tongue I mean it’s just lunch. You could get through lunch with Satan’s sister. Although I do understand there are days when you may feel like less social interaction. I’m like that myself sometimes. But, then again, you have to strike when the opportunity presents itself. She was hittin’ on you like Laila Ali. smiley Maybe if you… Ok. Now I know why they put it in 353. It’s an **intensifier**. It does what P79 is supposed to do. Throw in about 2.5 per spray, and it totally intensifies that much None in solution mixes. I will expand upon that in the journal. I’m guessing 102 is the “Golden” alternative to 79 and TAF. You can make your own TUTH or IJ with this, I’d bet. Make your mix with equal amounts 75, 102 and -eNone per spray. --- _[View the full topic](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/tell-me-about-p102/55856)._