What last few posters referred to is known as MHC, that is Major Histocompatibility Complex and which is somewhat controversial. Anyway, let me quote from a research paper:
"MHC-correlated odour preferences have also been demonstrated in humans. In a remarkable study, Wedekind et al. (1995) presented male axillary odours, collected on t-shirts worn overnight, to female sniffers. Normally cycling women tested during the follicular phase of their menstrual cycles rated odours of MHC-dissimilar men as more pleasant than odours of MHC-similar men (see also Wedekind & Füri 1997). Additionally, odours of MHC-dissimilar men more often reminded women of current or previous partners, indicating that odour plays a role in partner choice." Source: MHC-correlated odour preferences in humans and the use of oral contraceptives. There are quite a few papers relating to this concept on the internet, for the keen.
I see that quite a few posters came to a conclusion that there is a clear causal link, such that 'if I apply scent S, then I get compliment that I smell nice', thereby aritifical scents enahnce girl's attraction, thereby invalidating my claim. Analogically, you can wear a christmas jumper with a reindeer and get compliments that you look nice wearing it. But her telling you you look nice in it, doesn't mean that you have increased her sexual attraction towards you. Her verbal approval of you smelling nice or wearing a nice jumper with embroidered reindeer is just that - a verbal expression. You can interpret it as her signalling to you something more (e.g., she is sexually attracted) but it will be all in your head to treat it as a causal factor. Artificial scents to be applied to the body are a very recent invention in comparison to million years of evolution selecting for human pheromones as signalling desirable mating opportunities.
Whereas I did not provide empirical evidence that artificial scents do mask pheromones, the contrary needs to be empirically proven as well. Enigma correcty pointed out that the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim but by not having provided an empirical evidence for that proof (I'll try to find it but if I fail, I'll be first to acknowledge it), it doesn't mean that that the contrary is necessarily true.
In my view, the jury is still out.
"MHC-correlated odour preferences have also been demonstrated in humans. In a remarkable study, Wedekind et al. (1995) presented male axillary odours, collected on t-shirts worn overnight, to female sniffers. Normally cycling women tested during the follicular phase of their menstrual cycles rated odours of MHC-dissimilar men as more pleasant than odours of MHC-similar men (see also Wedekind & Füri 1997). Additionally, odours of MHC-dissimilar men more often reminded women of current or previous partners, indicating that odour plays a role in partner choice." Source: MHC-correlated odour preferences in humans and the use of oral contraceptives. There are quite a few papers relating to this concept on the internet, for the keen.
I see that quite a few posters came to a conclusion that there is a clear causal link, such that 'if I apply scent S, then I get compliment that I smell nice', thereby aritifical scents enahnce girl's attraction, thereby invalidating my claim. Analogically, you can wear a christmas jumper with a reindeer and get compliments that you look nice wearing it. But her telling you you look nice in it, doesn't mean that you have increased her sexual attraction towards you. Her verbal approval of you smelling nice or wearing a nice jumper with embroidered reindeer is just that - a verbal expression. You can interpret it as her signalling to you something more (e.g., she is sexually attracted) but it will be all in your head to treat it as a causal factor. Artificial scents to be applied to the body are a very recent invention in comparison to million years of evolution selecting for human pheromones as signalling desirable mating opportunities.
Whereas I did not provide empirical evidence that artificial scents do mask pheromones, the contrary needs to be empirically proven as well. Enigma correcty pointed out that the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim but by not having provided an empirical evidence for that proof (I'll try to find it but if I fail, I'll be first to acknowledge it), it doesn't mean that that the contrary is necessarily true.
In my view, the jury is still out.
____________________
My Adventures in Game updates on the go: twits by Max Detrick
Unbowed. Unbent. Unbroken.
I don’t ever give up. I mean, I’d have to be dead or completely incapacitated.
-- Elon Musk