Post: #51

(04-26-2012 8:59 AM)kentdave Wrote:  i don't understand, i thought younger girls were more easily intimidated by none, while cougars are easily attracted by none?

i also remember chris saying somewhere that -Androsterone gets the younger girls...

Intimidation doesnt necessary means it doesnt work. There can be many personal reason for feeling intimidated when you suddently feel attracted to a person. And younger women might in general get more intimidated compared to elder women, as they often are less experienced to certan situations.

As i have read at this forum, it looks to be a common tought that elder men should use 'none, and especially if they want to attract women younger than themself.
I have also seen some reports where elder men tells about only attraction from younger women when using AV. While younger men talks about getting attractions from elder women when using AV. anyone noticed that?

Post: #52

(04-26-2012 10:34 AM)paradigmshift Wrote:  Thanks for your insight. Its great to hear a womans perspective.


I would look more at your family dynamics growing up. Women who grew up without fathers hit puberty earlier and are more likely to be sexually active at a younger age.

A strong father presence could establish an association with Androsterone but the age of the father and his natural phero signature would also be a factor in a girls preference.

I would guess that your father was either not around much when you were growing up. He might have been a father at a younger age as well. These are guesses and i could be completely wrong.

I am curious what your family background was and if it would support my guesses.

Well, my dad and I are best friends. I grew up in a perfectly typical upper middle class home in the suburbs. Full of love and very secure. Showered in affection from the parents, played all day long, had three dogs, etc. My dad knew every name for my dolls and then thought it was just as cool when I transitioned over into being a Huge Nerd. We watched Star Trek together when I was a wee thing, and he taught me how to do the Vulcan hand sign. We both played online computer games when I was teenager, and he was the one who took me to buy my first homecoming gown... and then my first suit.

My Dad and I have always been close, and we're absolutely identical in terms of personality. It's almost eerie how identical we are. (Paternal Grandfather was the same way. The three of us were peas in a pod!)

Adrenaline junkies, cheerful, esoteric, eager for knowledge, assertive, and ingrained with a "Captain America" switch. Truth, Justice, and the American away, with a dollop of Adrenaline, please! Lots of military in this family.

I personally am a workaholic - always have been (and so is dad!) - and my fear of commitment stems from an irrational fear of either having to change that, or that I won't be good enough to pursue both in the extremes that I'd want to. Its not based on unprocessed emotional angst. It's much more of a cold practicality, in reality, than anything else. I haven't met any man who makes me WANT to change my focus from my professional career to a personal one. But I'm open to the option!

Oh! And my dad was 40 when they had me. I was a surprise baby! They had *just* given up after years of trying and were going abroad on a "we don't need no more babies!" vacation.

Came home pregnant. 9 months after me, I had a baby brother!

Interesting insights, but I'm not sure they hold up with my family history. Any thoughts?

Post: #53

Lol thanks. I love how i was completely wrong. There are so many variables that while one can make general statements, they are not applicable to everyone.

The only thing that i can see is the adrenaline junkie comment. Ill add more incorrect thoughts later.

Post: #54

(04-26-2012 2:55 PM)paradigmshift Wrote:  Ill add more incorrect thoughts later.

Uh paradigmshift, I think we'd actually prefer correct thoughts.

Too funny!

Well actually, I think most of us would probably prefer something else entirely, but we'll settle for whatever we get I guess.

Post: #55

(04-26-2012 2:55 PM)paradigmshift Wrote:  Lol thanks. I love how i was completely wrong. There are so many variables that while one can make general statements, they are not applicable to everyone.

The only thing that i can see is the adrenaline junkie comment. Ill add more incorrect thoughts later.

It's okay. I really liked what you were trying to do! It's a great area to look into, for sure - what makes us attracted to the things/mones/general stuff that we are attracted to.

I suspect it has something to do with my family's raging adrenaline seeking. My dad likes strong and confident types of women, btw. Just giving you more to think on!

Looking forward to your thoughts!

Post: #56

The basic premise that i believe is that were attracted to what we know and what we associate that with.

It sounds like the men in your family were pumped up with testosterone. High levels of testosterone are associated with increased risk taking (adrenaline junkie). If this is what you knew and you had many happy memories then its not surprising that youre comfortable
with none.

Im intrigued by how you described your responses with Androsterone.

Lol trying to figure out why people prefer a particular signature is like trying to find a unifying theory.

Post: #57

Pardon my absence and the bump, but I'd definitely like to hear more input on this, particularly from the women.

Post: #58

It's my belief that a person has to be in the proper frame of mind/mood/experience level(life) and age.

Keep this in mind when you look for reactions to different mones. Your not always in the mood for rock and roll.