We know that women respond to sweaty men. Most of us probably know about the test where women were given sweaty mens shirts and were asked to rate the attractiveness of the man from the smell. I think they reacted to the male’s immunity system, and if they were too similiar they would say it smells like their brother or dad. I believe i saw this on a show called the mystery of attraction or something like that on TV. Unfortunately I cannot locate the article or tv show that I saw it in.
What if by using synthetic pheromones we accidentally create the illusion of smelling like their dad, or that our immunities are too similar to mate? Maybe someone we have been trying to attract would be a better match for us if we simply abstained from the products. Basically, is it possible that using synthetic pheromones could actually cause a disservice to us, because our natural signature was more compatible with our target? I’m not trying to disrespect the products or the company, because they are both great.
I am not sure how possible this really is, but its a thought that ran through my head and wanted to see what others feel about the subject.
You’re thinking ahead of what’s currently being marketed. The immune system differences have not yet been addressed by marketers whose focus is only on sex differences in human pheromone production/distribution.
Pheromonal signaling is part of attraction but not all of attraction. As humans we feel attraction on many different levels.
I would tend to agree that your natural mone signature will attract someone if its similar to their memory of other males in there lives they feel comfortable and secure with or even males in their lives they have had a unhealthy relationship with.
Such as women who grow up with a abusive parent tend to pheromonally attract to the same signature and end up with a abusive partner.
Or how Asian women tend to not like high anone signatures.
Just because the pheromonal signature is remembered though doesn’t make it a good match or mean your compatible. It just means its remembered and familiar.
When your wearing pheromones that are similar to the remembered signature of a particular female you will just see stronger hits with it but ultimately its all of the factors of attraction that determine if it will work for you. You may also see certain women hold back on a sexual level because of the signature. That’s why we always say its 90% you 10% pheromones. Humans are not like animals, we are much more complex. Its my opinion this is why divorce happens. People go strictly on chemical reactions and your chemical makeup changes as you age or your diet and health changes.
When using pheromones to help influence a LTR remember it just gets you in the door. Its who you are and what you do after that, that will determine if the relationship will last or if you are made for each other. Its all part of building a foundation to a lasting relationship and if you build a good foundation it will withstand the changes in chemical attraction.
Believing that pheromones are the only indicators in attraction would be like saying visual perception is the only indicator of attraction. They are both parts of it but its not the whole picture.
jvkohl pretty nailed what I was getting at thanks!
Thanks for your response too Tisha, I understand it is 90% me and 10% mones. I was thinking less pheros and more the immune system differences like jvkohl pointed out.
Humans are animals; we share most (if not all) aspects of our physiology with other mammals. The complexity you mention can be attributed to the influence of culture, but cultural complexity does not prevent us from exhibiting the animalistic behaviors associated with pheromones and behavior in other species.
Our changing chemical make-up probably has less to do with divorce than does adapting to the pheromones of our partners. The rewards associated with novelty often are of sufficient interest for people to abandon the sameness of their partner, and explore differences with someone else–like other animals typically do.
Of course there are exceptions, but there are also general rules that govern mammalian behavior. For example, the chemical appeal of food and of potential mates governs food choice and mate choice in other mammals. I’m not sure how culture makes us different in this regard. Do you think that food choice and mate choice are governed by other non-olfactory/pheromonal sensory input in humans?
I’ve never known anyone who believed that pheromones are the only indicators in attraction. Have you?
I’d like to learn more about how what we see becomes attractive, but there is nothing in animal models that suggests this happens. Thinking that it does in humans is probably due to culture. That’s also probably why other animals don’t think about mate choice. Simply put, they don’t have a culture that makes them think they need to think about it.