Three Interesting and related articles about scent

[koolking1]

"Their are four important

traits that naturals do."

Chicago, what are those traits? TIA

[idesign]

Have to weigh in with Belgareth

and DrSmellTHIS. Scientific research is all about controlling variables and finding out what really happens.

Anecdotal evidence is important, but is based on what can best be described as rumor.

One can find, at any

given time, someone to "prove from experience" any theory of behavior. Its valuable in a way, but not proof of

cause, unless you want to include pattern as proof. Don't want of offend any "soft" scientists here, but I think

the burden of proof is much higher when experience is proof rather than hard evidence. I do believe that all study

in this kind of thing is valuable. In our case at hand, anecdotal evidence is probably more

important.

Personally I tend to blend the scientific with the anecdotal when it come to pheromones. The

variables in behavior among adult humans coupled with the sketchy science of pheromones leads to no other path of

understanding of what happens when we wear this stuff.

PUAs will point to behavior management, thinking that

all you have to do is control the environment. Pheromone scientists will throw weight to chemical stimulus of

whatever parts of the brain which manage social and/or sexual functions.

I'm not a scientist or a PUA, but do

observe and kind of study the whole aspect of the matter. There's no question of scent effecting behavior on some

level, and certainly deep inside the part of the grey matter of choice among scientists. That's been known since

the millenia started being themselves. Even Jesus got Frankincense and Myrrh, how valuable is that? How scent

effects behavior has been studied and argued about for probably half that duration.

The PUA community is

pop-psychology mixed with a kind of playground approach to humanity. Anecdotal evidence from such an approach is

best viewed with the proper lens. Results are evident within their scope, however limited by their goals.



Pheromone science leaves much to be desired, but in its infancy has proven, both scientifically and anecdotally,

to be something that's to be taken seriously.

Dos Pesos

[belgareth]

One professor I knew in college

was fond of noting that all mass murderers drank water on the days they committed the murders. Using the same kind

of logic the PUA community does, you could assert that drinking water is a condition required to commit mass murder.

You can substitute almost anything for 'drinking water' and it will still mean nothing.

All that said, there

is ample empirical evidence indicating that behavoir does impact results in seduction. But before you can conclude

anything you have to look at the target's mindset and a host of other factors. As with the PUA, the woman is an

active, thinking participant in this and is not numb to what is happening. To assume otherwise is foolish. So,

before the PUA can do anything he is working with a willing or at least open-minded participant. Why is that person

a willing or open-minded participant? We need to look at the base of the situation to determine what is really

happening. That is where attraction must start, long before the PUA opens his mouth to start his game. Even before

that, we have the precondition that the female is interested in sex, otherwise all bets are off. Was she interested

is sex before the chemical or visual attraction? In most cases I'd say yes because women are at least as sexual as

men are and often far more so. In short, what the PUA is claiming as success is mostly manipulating preconditions

correctly. If it were not for the preconditions of desire for sex and attraction the PUA would essentially be trying

to fly without the use of wings.

[chicago]

Bel,

Humans are more complex than insects and animals. Denise Chen in the past, she study insects and

animals.
Bel, If you break it all down to a genetic level, We are all

here to reproduce offspring. If you agree with that, than you agree with all or almost all humans want to have

sex.
The naturals have the genetic code that women want in their

offspring. Thats why they get sex from women. Because when a women finds or feel a man has the genentic code she

wants in her offspring. Women get turn on and want sex from that man.
Its

all about survival of the offspring. Thats why women don't fuck losers. Because they don't want their kids having

the same loser genes.
Take women or a man who has the right mones

signature, but has cancer. Nobody want to have sex with those people, because bad genes.
Women cheat on their husband, not because they are sluts. Its because she wants better genes in her

offspring.
________
Penny Stock Picks

[tounge]

Chicago, the world is full of

losers who are the offspring of losers. Women and men make horrible mating decisions all the freaking time. You are

trying to explain the complex with simplicity and at the same time contradict your own posting. It would take me a

book to explain the dimensions of human relationships. And at that, you would still continue on the same path that

you are on.

[chicago]

Tounge, That is one of the Funniest comment i every heard " the world is full of losers who are

the offspring of losers".
________
Expert insurance

[belgareth]

First comment is regarding the

cancer. I had cancer and know for a fact that it did nothing to reduce my results with women. I was 21 at the time,

in college and getting sex whenever I wanted it, both before and after I found out. Don't believe everything you

read. And tounge is absolutley right about losers having children, it happens every day. Hell, why do you think

there are so many abused women whose husbands are drunken losers?

Are we more complex in our mating than other

animals? I could argue against that. Looked at from an anthropologists point of view, you and your friends in a bar

are doing nothing more complicated than the mating dance of a bunch of peacocks and peahens and roughly for the same

reasons.

[Rbt]

If I recall from my psychology

courses according to such things as Maslow's Needs Theory sex and reproduction are pretty far down the list after

air, food, and other elements of basic *personal* survival.

There are also theories about that say women seek

men who make good babies only during a certain time of their reproductive life (eg puberty to about age 25ish), then

change and start looking for good providers (about after age 25ish) to support them and the kids. Supposedly also a

built-in genetic tendency. I know based on my own observation that a number of early marriages have a tendency to

break up at about age 25 or so which seems to agree with this idea.


The key however to much of this is that

it is still pretty much all theory and opinion. And those opinions can change over time.

Just some quick

thoughts during break time...