Printable View
Androstenone is the active ingredient in BoarTaint, a commercial product sold to pig farmers to test sows for
timing of artifical insemination. Apparently, when sniffed by a female pig in heat, she immediately assumes the
mating stance (I wish it were that simple with human females!). It must be some killer sh!t. But, if you wear it,
stay clear of pig farms and areas known for wild boar. I wonder if it smells as good as deer musk (deer ass)?
I would imagine it smells just
like.... androstenone! What else would be in it?
And if smelling NONE made human females freeze in a mating
stace, can you imagine how it would affect males? We'd fight to the death in the presence of it.
Gegogi,Quote:
Originally Posted by Gegogi
Searching "BoarTaint" I was a little confused when the search result
included the quote you posted above, but the Wikipedia Androstenone
page didn't mention it. I did however find it in
the
cached version of the page.
It's likely it was edited out because the actual product being referenced is
probably Boarmate, a marvelously entertaining aerosol can
of Androstenone used for the purpose mentioned above, and discussed quite a bit over the years here on the forum.
"Boar Taint" on the other hand is a condition
affecting the meat of uncastrated boars where high levels of Skatole and Androstenone render their meat unsuitable
for consumption (sans processing.)
See:
The "Pork Roll" thread. ;)
Oscar :)
What really is odd is the Wiki
has two slightly different entries for the same pheromone. This one mentions BoarTaint as a product but I guess
it's a mistake!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androstenone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gegogi
Gegogi,
Just goes to show you that a reference source where any Tom, Dick, or Harry can post erroneous stuff
as "fact" ain't much of a reference source.
Oscar :)
Wiki isn't bad as a starting
point. A lot of good people post there but a lot of fruitcakes do as well. Anything you read there whould be
verified through some other resource before considering it correct.
But...But...But!
It's on the
internet...so it must be true!!:hammer:
The print media is almost as
bad...
Almost? :frustrateQuote:
Originally Posted by Gegogi
Well, whatever else is in
Boarmate, they clearly don't want you using it to attract female humans... :run:
The
recommended application method of application
might get you slapped senseless. If not, you're in likeQuote:
Spray BOARMATE at the gilt or
sows snout for two seconds from a distance of approximately two feet( 60 cm), then apply pressure to the back of the
sow (the "back pressure" test)
Flint, especially if she passes the the "back pressure" test.
the print media is no less bad at
their job then you are at yours
The print media are very good
at writing. That doesn't in any way mean they write what should be written or that they are unbiased. The latter
being an issue with me.
I've got a substantial reputation for being good at what I do, rather my company has
but its based on my business philosophy. Some newspapers have the same reputation. However, the news frequently only
tells one side of the story and is sensationalistic because that's what sells papers. It isn't even really the
media's fault as they'd be out of business if they didn't do busiess that way. The same with me. I may not like
certain software companies but if I refused to do business with them I'd be out of business.
Of course that depends. A peer refereed scholarly journal isQuote:
the print media is no less
bad at their job then you are at yours
in a different class than a student newspaper or political pamplet. I meant print media as all printed
materials--Jehovah Witness Watch Towner, Pentecostal tracts, Advertising supplements, etc.--not merely newspapers or
monthy rags. Nevertheless, I think print media as a whole is slightly--very slightly--more reliable than the
internet. Anyone can have a blog, post on a forum or publish a website. Print media requires more toil and financial
backing, so it has a weak filter of sorts.