Thanks. I'm surprised that no one else has commented. I conveyed plenty of information in these two 5 minute clips, and two other 5 minute clips from the same presentation that are posted to Youtube.
Good presentation James, and I'm sure most of us agree with what you said.
Although some of us, at least on occasion, do like to visually admire Gods creation down there lol.
I'm also an admirer of God's creation down there, and everywhere else. However, the molecular biology of His Creation assures me that pheromones are the biologically relevant (more salient) stimulus, which is why we like the look of such things. Our visual response is conditioned to occur in the presence of the pheromones. Or, as I indicated in the video, what we're looking for "down there" is the pheromones.
Thanks for watching the video and commenting,
Interesting. So in the presentation you say that being attracted to certain parts of the female/male body is to some extent due to our conditioning to the body parts pheromone release. Makes sense, if you think about it.
So let's assume someone put on the pheromones, that are usually mostly released by our intimate areas. If he had a "pherocloud" of about equal quantaties, like that are naturally released in those intimate body regions, he would be perceived like walking sex? Seems to be quite what i experienced when wearing sexual pheromone mixes. I've read this quote on a sexual pheromone somewhere: "I was in a bar with a girl, wearing [pheromone product xyz]. She said, she likes my smell. So i asked her what i smell like. She replied: "You smell like sex."".
Just why didn't we evolve to release much more of these pheromones then? I guess the reason why males with higher Androstenone release didn't have much of an evolutionary advantage, is because the adverse effect on males. So males evolved to not like males with very high Androstenone output, because the high -none males got too many women. On the other hand, i read that androstenone is a testosterone metabolite. So maybe there is no possibility for the human body to release more androstenone other than raising it's testosterone level and therefore maybe reducing survival chances in other fields.
I guess it wasn't even that important to sexually arouse a female back then. Mating was largely based on male status, not on female attraction.
Female arousal has always been important to fertilization, and pheromones have always been important to arousal -- as indicated in other animals and by the progressive human courtship sequence I detailed for Mensa. But I think the connection between arousal and androstenone has been misrepresented. It's not likely to be a pheromone. If ever its urinous odor was responsible for arousal, its negative association with the odor of other animals makes it unique as a human attractant.
On the other hand, the musky odors of other animals can be positively associated with arousal, which explains their use in colognes and perfumes -- as with the musky smelling androstenol. If androstenone was an attractive odor, we could expect it -- or something like it -- to be used in colognes and perfumes. The fact that it is not used in this manner suggests it may not be a good thing to add to your scent signature. And that begs the question of why so many people think it elicits positive affects on women's behavior.
Androsterone, however, is associated with the smell of fresh sweat, something that also would be associated with arousal. A positive association with arousal would be when its production was not inhibited by fear and increased cortisol. A dominant male who was not fearful of other males could be expected to produce more androsterone than a subordinate, but not enough so that it would contribute to an 'off' odor associated with other animals. This suggests that you don't want to use too much of it in a pheromone-enhanced product, which is why I experimented with androsterone at different concentrations before incorporating it into the Scent of Eros products for men at a time when others were making their claims for androstenone (as they continue to do).
So far as I know, only one study showed an affect of androstenone that might have been considered positive. More women sat in chairs at the dentist's office. So maybe androstenone might make them want to sit next to you. On the other hand, if they sit closer and find that you smell like a pig, there's more likely to be a negative affect on their behavior.