Post: #11

Quote:it was largely no problem because that culture was accustomed to raunchy musky smells (many women there would not shave their underarm hair), whereas in other places like the US where personal hygiene has become almost being sanitized/sterile/frequent showers no doubt influenced by political correctness i.e., so as not to offend ....the frag would consistently offend. God forbid if you didn't shower at least ONCE per day! IF you skipped one day...forget it, buddy...you have BO!?!?

I'm just going to provide a piece of information here that you may not be aware of. Americans have had regular bathing as part of the culture since before the revolution. If you read accounts from the period of colonial Americans visiting England, their English hosts often comment on how frequently they bathed. It seems completely baked into the culture and has little or nothing to do with modern PC crap.

Post: #12

(10-30-2017 4:41 PM)aceva Wrote:  I'm just going to provide a piece of information here that you may not be aware of. Americans have had regular bathing as part of the culture since before the revolution. If you read accounts from the period of colonial Americans

Please provide a reference to this....reliable statistic, anecdotal accounts.

I would like to read this specific info which would serve as a particular differentiating factor for Americans. Interesting considering that the English city of Bath (appropriately named because of the Roman occupation during ancient times) were the Roman baths facilitated bathing, even for the poor predates America by centuries. One would think that the Europeans would have had a penchant for bathing because of this very fact. Moreover, with the exception of the native Amerindians most of the early settlers to America were Europeans (mostly British) one would think that these same transplanted Europeans would have brought the custom with them.

I gather that it would not have been easy back in the day as indoor plumbing was virtually nonexistent at that time (colonial America)....meant hauling buckets of water which first had to be warmed over fire...mostly for the affluent would be my guess...while destitute folk probably had to settle for a dip in a river...soap was a luxury, never mind any fragrances.

Post: #13

One factor that people on here don't bring up is the women's cycle. When she is at the peak of her cycle she is going to be looking for a alpha type mate. When she is at the end of her cycle she is going to be looking for a guy to take care of her kids. So if you go out and she is at the start of her cycle the pheromones are not going to hit as hard. Basically she is less horny because her testosterone is low. I would say 80% of women go out to dance, drink, and to be social 20% go out to get laid or have sex. So I would say it isn't that pheromones don't work on all women I believe they do it just that 80% of them are not that interested. Your job is to work out who are 20% of women and pheromones makes your that job a lot easier!

I would look into androstadienone or p96 it has the effect of lowering women's bitch shields because don't forget that 20% of women are around 80% of women who don't want them to get laid.


I would have to agree that pheromones hit blonds hard. Reason for this is because of the ice age! 11,000 years ago there was less sun light making it hard to make vitamin D hence the blond hair people have a easier time making vitamin D in colder climates. In colder climates you are going to sweat less so the female nose of a blond women must be better at picking up pheromones. If she picked a mate who was wrong for her back 11,000 years ago it would be certain death for her and her children. I've notice the same effect in redheads.

That just my theory.

Post: #14

(10-30-2017 5:30 PM)TheManInTheFedora Wrote:  Please provide a reference to this....reliable statistic, anecdotal accounts.

I would like to read this specific info which would serve as a particular differentiating factor for Americans. Interesting considering that the English city of Bath (appropriately named because of the Roman occupation during ancient times) were the Roman baths facilitated bathing, even for the poor predates America by centuries. One would think that the Europeans would have had a penchant for bathing because of this very fact. Moreover, with the exception of the native Amerindians most of the early settlers to America were Europeans (mostly British) one would think that these same transplanted Europeans would have brought the custom with them.

I gather that it would not have been easy back in the day as indoor plumbing was virtually nonexistent at that time (colonial America)....meant hauling buckets of water which first had to be warmed over fire...mostly for the affluent would be my guess...while destitute folk probably had to settle for a dip in a river...soap was a luxury, never mind any fragrances.

That's a big part of what surprised me. I'll try to find the article I read, though it was months ago. Some things just stick in my head, and this was exactly the kind of thing that lodges there.

Post: #15

(10-30-2017 5:42 PM)mdw Wrote:  One factor that people on here don't bring up is the women's cycle. When she is at the peak of her cycle she is going to be looking for a alpha type mate. When she is at the end of her cycle she is going to be looking for a guy to take care of her kids.

Actually, it has been brought up by several listmates. Though it is good that you have reiterated this important point. Moreover, you're right as studies show that during peak ovulation women will tend to look for the hyper-masculine men (Sy Stallone faces) while at other phases they will pay more attention to the 'boyish' fellows (Leo DiCaprio face) who have a better chance of sticking around/making a commitment. I know that Doc Chocolate brought the menstrual cycle up several months ago on many of his forays with him also taking into consideration the moon phases so as to filter out the chicks who are at their peak. This latter point has historical validity as women's cycles have been compared to the cycle of the moon i.e., 28 - 30 days. Also, women who tend to live together whether in housing or workplace will tend to synchronize their cycles. Useful if you can find out the start and duration of one, then you may be able to estimate the peaks of the whole pack.

Another useful tip if you can get under their 'hood' would be to palpate their cervical/vaginal mucous...at peak it will be clear...with a texture like egg white, slippery, more fluid to almost watery..smell fruity, pleasant. In contrast, at low points it will be like less volume ...glue, sticky and opaque...with less pleasant onion smell.


Yes, good point that you reiterated...Androstadienone /p96 on the lowpoints of cycle while heavy sexual/alpha mones at peak when they are DTF.

Quote:I would have to agree that pheromones hit blonds hard. Reason for this is because of the ice age! 11,000 years ago there was less sun light making it hard to make vitamin D hence the blond hair people have a easier time making vitamin D in colder climates. In colder climates you are going to sweat less so the female nose of a blond women must be better at picking up pheromones.....
That just my theory.

Intriguing thoughts. However, ya lost me a little...what does vitamin D synthesis (skin tone playing a role) have in common with olfactory sensing of pheromones and/or body odors? Seems like 2 different unrelated topics.

I get how you are trying to emphasize that blonde haired women have evolved to be particularly sensitive to UV rays (sunlight being scarce/weak in Northern climates). However, is their sense of smell sharper or VNO more sensitive as well?

Post: #16

(10-30-2017 6:00 PM)aceva Wrote:  That's a big part of what surprised me. I'll try to find the article I read, though it was months ago. Some things just stick in my head, and this was exactly the kind of thing that lodges there.

No problem, you got me intrigued by this so I decided to take the initiative. Got me thinking about even other aspects of hygiene like the days when people didn't readily have toilet paper!

How about this one :

Looks like the hyper emphasis on 'ultra' clean didn't really take hold until relatively recently...i.e., mid 19th century as opposed to pre-Revolution days. The ancients did take cleanliness seriously i.e., Roman public baths, but the dark ages and fear of the bubonic plague changed the mentality for hundreds of years. Why? People during the middle ages thought that immersing oneself in water would open pores up and thus, make one more susceptible to disease...so people would avoid frequent bathing...up until the 19th century. So, while you may have read that some US individuals visiting England may have impressed their hosts by unusual bathing frequency, it could have been an individual thing, rather than a widespread national habit.


From my childhood, I still remember having met older folks who actually did this even before WWII. I remember that it was even joked around with in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons where Bugs jokes that he only takes baths on Saturday.


Rather than pre-Revolutionary times, the article seems to suggest that the American custom of frequent bathing only really got started somewhere in the 19th century....facilitated by indoor plumbing and an increased awareness that cleanliness reduces disease.

As for PC influence (also marketing/media conditioning perhaps even more so than PC notions) on hypercleanliness, it appears that the article supports this notion:


The article stresses the point that in Western nations (particularly US), the practice of 'hyper cleanliness' has gotten so out of hand that people have forgotten what 'normal' smells are. When they come across those smells, it registers as something abnormal. The sense of smell can be conditioned by external stimuli. Past generations would probably not be fazed by someone smelling a tad 'ripe' after a hard day's work, but the last couple of generations have become overly sensitive to even the slightest musky scent. Thus, encouraging an exaggerated standard of cleanliness almost on par with a sterile lab condition. The implications could be negative as the article suggests that immune systems begin to weaken setting the stage for a 'superbug' epidemic, since everyone has gotten obsessed with antibacterial soaps. People may want to reconsider their obsession with hyper cleanliness. I don't mean that people should just let it all hang out and take a bath once every 2 weeks. Rather, I think that people should simply not be too paranoid if they didn't take their daily shower. Exceptions being for example, if I did take a shower in the morning...then, worked on my car on a 90 degree day..sweated like a pig....I would think that another shower is necessary, indeed. Like many aspects of life, common sense should help. Interestingly, I had a friend who used to do a lot of fishing and having been also conditioned by the notion of hyper clean felt embarrassed by the slightest of 'ripe' smells. Much to his chagrin, he noted that he would get the most IOIs/hits from women after his fishing trips...being less than fresh, looking disheveled, like a bum; in other words he wasn't dressed to impress nor was he spiffed up. Back then a couple of decades ago, he and I couldn't really figure this....knowing more today about pheromones, we may be able to attribute this to the mones in his sweat...which he didn't have a chance to wash off or negate with excessive deodorant/antiperspirant use. He noted that this repeated itself too many times to be a coincidence.

That's how this relates to pheromones. Many of us have seen the debate of whether or not excessive washing is killing our natural pheromone signatures. Some argue that pheromones will persevere regardless of how much we wash i.e., some argue that a bitch dog in heat will still be sensed by all the male dogs on the block regardless of multiple baths.

Post: #17

(10-31-2017 4:49 AM)TheManInTheFedora Wrote:  No problem, you got me intrigued by this so I decided to take the initiative. Got me thinking about even other aspects of hygiene like the days when people didn't readily have toilet paper!

How about this one :

Looks like the hyper emphasis on 'ultra' clean didn't really take hold until relatively recently...i.e., mid 19th century as opposed to pre-Revolution days. The ancients did take cleanliness seriously i.e., Roman public baths, but the dark ages and fear of the bubonic plague changed the mentality for hundreds of years. Why? People during the middle ages thought that immersing oneself in water would open pores up and thus, make one more susceptible to disease...so people would avoid frequent bathing...up until the 19th century. So, while you may have read that some US individuals visiting England may have impressed their hosts by unusual bathing frequency, it could have been an individual thing, rather than a widespread national habit.

Code:

By about the 1840s in America, architects who made pattern books -- books that everybody could buy and then build according to the patterns in the book -- added a little room that was called a "bath-room" for the first time, which meant that, eventually, there would be fixed plumbing in that room. But for a very long time, until well into the 1920s in rural places, you would just move your tin tub into the kitchen on Saturday night and fill it with warm water, and then everybody in the family, one by one, would get into the same water, starting with probably the father, who was the most important, and going down to the daughter-in-law, who was the least important.

From my childhood, I still remember having met older folks who actually did this even before WWII. I remember that it was even joked around with in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons where Bugs jokes that he only takes baths on Saturday.

Code:

[b]From teeth-whitening strips to hand sanitizer, why are Americans so obsessed with cleanliness today?[/b]
I think it's a continuation of something that started with the Civil War, when the Americans had surprising success with this thing called the Sanitation Commission, which was headed by Frederick Law Olmsted, the architect of Central Park. It achieved an enormous success in limiting deaths just by washing the patients, their linen, the walls of their rooms. It drastically cut into the deaths by disease and infection.

Before the war Americans had been just as dirty as Europeans, and they came out of the war thinking cleanliness is democratic because it doesn't cost much money.........They quickly thought this is yet another way in which life in the New World is so much better than life in the Old World. The invention of modern sophisticated advertising, which began in America at the end of the 19th century,.....advertising things like toilet soap and deodorant."

Rather than pre-Revolutionary times, the article seems to suggest that the American custom of frequent bathing only really got started somewhere in the 19th century....facilitated by indoor plumbing and an increased awareness that cleanliness reduces disease.

As for PC influence (also marketing/media conditioning perhaps even more so than PC notions) on hypercleanliness, it appears that the article supports this notion:

Code:

Advertisers want to find more parts of our bodies that we can clean and sanitize, and we've gotten less and less comfortable with ever smelling like a human body or having maybe ivory-colored teeth, or even cream-colored teeth -- normal teeth colors. Our teeth were not meant to be paper white at all, as any dentist will tell you, but we're kind of constantly upping the ante. We've gotten so far away from naturalness that it's really over the top now......So much of our current interest in cleanliness is really about appearance and not ever smelling like a human being. If we smell like mangoes or vanilla and our face looks clean and our teeth are paper white, that's good enough.

The article stresses the point that in Western nations (particularly US), the practice of 'hyper cleanliness' has gotten so out of hand that people have forgotten what 'normal' smells are. When they come across those smells, it registers as something abnormal. The sense of smell can be conditioned by external stimuli. Past generations would probably not be fazed by someone smelling a tad 'ripe' after a hard day's work, but the last couple of generations have become overly sensitive to even the slightest musky scent. Thus, encouraging an exaggerated standard of cleanliness almost on par with a sterile lab condition. The implications could be negative as the article suggests that immune systems begin to weaken setting the stage for a 'superbug' epidemic, since everyone has gotten obsessed with antibacterial soaps. People may want to reconsider their obsession with hyper cleanliness. I don't mean that people should just let it all hang out and take a bath once every 2 weeks. Rather, I think that people should simply not be too paranoid if they didn't take their daily shower. Exceptions being for example, if I did take a shower in the morning...then, worked on my car on a 90 degree day..sweated like a pig....I would think that another shower is necessary, indeed. Like many aspects of life, common sense should help. Interestingly, I had a friend who used to do a lot of fishing and having been also conditioned by the notion of hyper clean felt embarrassed by the slightest of 'ripe' smells. Much to his chagrin, he noted that he would get the most IOIs/hits from women after his fishing trips...being less than fresh, looking disheveled, like a bum; in other words he wasn't dressed to impress nor was he spiffed up. Back then a couple of decades ago, he and I couldn't really figure this....knowing more today about pheromones, we may be able to attribute this to the mones in his sweat...which he didn't have a chance to wash off or negate with excessive deodorant/antiperspirant use. He noted that this repeated itself too many times to be a coincidence.

That's how this relates to pheromones. Many of us have seen the debate of whether or not excessive washing is killing our natural pheromone signatures. Some argue that pheromones will persevere regardless of how much we wash i.e., some argue that a bitch dog in heat will still be sensed by all the male dogs on the block regardless of multiple baths.

Thanks for sharing those info, i will keep on looking further regarding the diffrence in between ppl who smell nones and those who don't, what I noticed there are 3 diffrent type:

1-Extra sensitive who can smell.it meters away
2-People who can smell nones
3-those who can't smell it at all like me

---

(10-31-2017 4:49 AM)TheManInTheFedora Wrote:  No problem, you got me intrigued by this so I decided to take the initiative. Got me thinking about even other aspects of hygiene like the days when people didn't readily have toilet paper!

How about this one :

Looks like the hyper emphasis on 'ultra' clean didn't really take hold until relatively recently...i.e., mid 19th century as opposed to pre-Revolution days. The ancients did take cleanliness seriously i.e., Roman public baths, but the dark ages and fear of the bubonic plague changed the mentality for hundreds of years. Why? People during the middle ages thought that immersing oneself in water would open pores up and thus, make one more susceptible to disease...so people would avoid frequent bathing...up until the 19th century. So, while you may have read that some US individuals visiting England may have impressed their hosts by unusual bathing frequency, it could have been an individual thing, rather than a widespread national habit.

Code:

By about the 1840s in America, architects who made pattern books -- books that everybody could buy and then build according to the patterns in the book -- added a little room that was called a "bath-room" for the first time, which meant that, eventually, there would be fixed plumbing in that room. But for a very long time, until well into the 1920s in rural places, you would just move your tin tub into the kitchen on Saturday night and fill it with warm water, and then everybody in the family, one by one, would get into the same water, starting with probably the father, who was the most important, and going down to the daughter-in-law, who was the least important.

From my childhood, I still remember having met older folks who actually did this even before WWII. I remember that it was even joked around with in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons where Bugs jokes that he only takes baths on Saturday.

Code:

[b]From teeth-whitening strips to hand sanitizer, why are Americans so obsessed with cleanliness today?[/b]
I think it's a continuation of something that started with the Civil War, when the Americans had surprising success with this thing called the Sanitation Commission, which was headed by Frederick Law Olmsted, the architect of Central Park. It achieved an enormous success in limiting deaths just by washing the patients, their linen, the walls of their rooms. It drastically cut into the deaths by disease and infection.

Before the war Americans had been just as dirty as Europeans, and they came out of the war thinking cleanliness is democratic because it doesn't cost much money.........They quickly thought this is yet another way in which life in the New World is so much better than life in the Old World. The invention of modern sophisticated advertising, which began in America at the end of the 19th century,.....advertising things like toilet soap and deodorant."

Rather than pre-Revolutionary times, the article seems to suggest that the American custom of frequent bathing only really got started somewhere in the 19th century....facilitated by indoor plumbing and an increased awareness that cleanliness reduces disease.

As for PC influence (also marketing/media conditioning perhaps even more so than PC notions) on hypercleanliness, it appears that the article supports this notion:

Code:

Advertisers want to find more parts of our bodies that we can clean and sanitize, and we've gotten less and less comfortable with ever smelling like a human body or having maybe ivory-colored teeth, or even cream-colored teeth -- normal teeth colors. Our teeth were not meant to be paper white at all, as any dentist will tell you, but we're kind of constantly upping the ante. We've gotten so far away from naturalness that it's really over the top now......So much of our current interest in cleanliness is really about appearance and not ever smelling like a human being. If we smell like mangoes or vanilla and our face looks clean and our teeth are paper white, that's good enough.

The article stresses the point that in Western nations (particularly US), the practice of 'hyper cleanliness' has gotten so out of hand that people have forgotten what 'normal' smells are. When they come across those smells, it registers as something abnormal. The sense of smell can be conditioned by external stimuli. Past generations would probably not be fazed by someone smelling a tad 'ripe' after a hard day's work, but the last couple of generations have become overly sensitive to even the slightest musky scent. Thus, encouraging an exaggerated standard of cleanliness almost on par with a sterile lab condition. The implications could be negative as the article suggests that immune systems begin to weaken setting the stage for a 'superbug' epidemic, since everyone has gotten obsessed with antibacterial soaps. People may want to reconsider their obsession with hyper cleanliness. I don't mean that people should just let it all hang out and take a bath once every 2 weeks. Rather, I think that people should simply not be too paranoid if they didn't take their daily shower. Exceptions being for example, if I did take a shower in the morning...then, worked on my car on a 90 degree day..sweated like a pig....I would think that another shower is necessary, indeed. Like many aspects of life, common sense should help. Interestingly, I had a friend who used to do a lot of fishing and having been also conditioned by the notion of hyper clean felt embarrassed by the slightest of 'ripe' smells. Much to his chagrin, he noted that he would get the most IOIs/hits from women after his fishing trips...being less than fresh, looking disheveled, like a bum; in other words he wasn't dressed to impress nor was he spiffed up. Back then a couple of decades ago, he and I couldn't really figure this....knowing more today about pheromones, we may be able to attribute this to the mones in his sweat...which he didn't have a chance to wash off or negate with excessive deodorant/antiperspirant use. He noted that this repeated itself too many times to be a coincidence.

That's how this relates to pheromones. Many of us have seen the debate of whether or not excessive washing is killing our natural pheromone signatures. Some argue that pheromones will persevere regardless of how much we wash i.e., some argue that a bitch dog in heat will still be sensed by all the male dogs on the block regardless of multiple baths.

Thanks for sharing those info, i will keep on looking further regarding the diffrence in between ppl who smell nones and those who don't, what I noticed there are 3 diffrent type:

1-Extra sensitive who can smell.it meters away
2-People who can smell nones
3-those who can't smell it at all like me

Post: #18

Wow, that was hard work

Post: #19

To answer your first question.

Nearly half the adult human population does not perceive an odor when sniffing androstenone (5 alpha-androst-16-en-3-one), a volatile steroid found in human perspiration, boar saliva, some pork products (e.g., bacon), truffles, and celery. This variation in ability to perceive androstenone has a significant heritable component, suggesting that androstenone insensitivity is in part determined genetically. We now report that the ability to perceive androstenone was induced in 10 of 20 initially insensitive subjects who were systematically exposed to androstenone. Since olfactory neurons of the olfactory epithelium undergo periodic replacement from differentiating basal cells, and assuming the induction of sensitivity to be peripheral, we propose that a portion of the apparently anosmic human population does in fact possess olfactory neurons with specific receptors for androstenone. Such neurons may undergo clonal expansion, or selection of lineages with more receptors or receptors of higher affinity, in response to androstenone stimulation, much in the manner of lymphocytes responding to antigenic stimulation, thus raising odor stimulation to the level of conscious perception. As a guide to further study of the genetics and mechanism of variation of androstenone perception, we provisionally envisage three categories of human subjects, the truly anosmic, the inducible, and those subjects who either are constitutionally sensitive or have already experienced incidental induction.

This is rather interesting because it seem after sometime everyone can start to smell androstenone. People are pointing to you saying you smell like piss you might need a stronger cover scent.

This might be the reason I read in people reports after a month or so things start to happen. Might be because women are turning on those androstenone neurons.