87
The manosphere has a new dating hack: stop showering and let yourself stink
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2026
87 points (96.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
9449 readers
422 users here now
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Seems like good advice.
It lets women know which men are listening to these influencers.
Also: pheromones? Why does that continue to get airtime each generation? The organ that processes pheromones in most mammals isn’t functional in humans, and most people cover the inside of their noses with so much artificial scent that they can’t smell anything subtle anyway. So all you get from that is the stink of bacterial byproducts.
My wife says my sweaty body is attractive to her. I dunno, there may be some truth to this.
Old stale sweat is a no go of course.
Nah, the key word is "my". If she was actually sensitive to pheromones she would be attracted to the smell of all sweating men.
I am certainly attracted to the smell of sweaty (clean) women, and even myself since transitioning. Women sweat is like ooof.
You can like a smell without pheromones being involved, more than likely it's just associative.
That's not true. They may create a chemical signal that other men do not, due to their genetics. You can't assume uniformity in biology.
Any supporting evidence to this claim? I could just as easily claim that I have telekinetic powers that others do not because of my genetics.
Yeah..... You can. If there is an established norm, then there is no reason to assume extraordinary uniqueness unless presented with evidence that begs to differ.
Yes, plenty.
Here's a good read for you
And no, you can't assume uniformity. That's like saying that cilantro tastes the same to everyone (it doesn't). Or that everyone can smell when someone has eaten asparagus from their urine (some can, and can't). Everyone is different. That's the effect of genetics.
"Here's a good read for you"
Apparently you did not choose to read your own source?
Ahh yes, a matter of subjectivity is exactly like claiming an objective fact......
Everyone has a range of expression that is influenced by their genes. Someone being able to attract all women with their specific smell would not be something we have previously observed in any human. Meaning it's safe to assume that it is not something someone's genes can express.
Ah yes, a study consisting of 25 people...... with no behavioural controls. Brilliant.
Species-specific means they aren't inter-species, not that they're uniform across a species.
Intra-species variations of pheromone production has certainly been studied, the question isn't really whether it occurs, but rather why intra-species pheromone variations occur.
When did I make that assumption.....?
You didn't. It was an assumption based on you quoting the other commenters source asking had they even read it. I don't see how anything else in that conclusion could be confused for confirmation of a uniform intra-species pheromone, which is the point you've been trying to make in this thread, and asked for sources that contradict your assertion.
Did you check out the source I posted? Curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.
I don't see how you made that assumption. My point in this whole thread was that there wasn't any solid evidence that humans emit or receive pheromones.
The uniform thing was an assertion made by the other person, claiming that there was no uniformity in biology.
You responded with:
I simply presented you with "the evidence that begs to differ". Whether or not it applies to humans was never the point I was making. I simply asked for your thoughts on uniformity regarding intra-species pheromones.
I think you are interpreting uniformity differently than the original claim. When he said uniformity he was saying that there's a chance that one man could have something like pheromones when others did not, because genes make us all different.
My response was that a certain level of uniformity is expected in biology, and that we shouldn't assume otherwise without evidence to support doing so.
I don't really see anything in the article you linked that would really conflict with my rebuttal. Variables caused by something like environmental factors doenst imply an unexpected uniqueness within the species itself. No one is claiming that all members of a certain species are completely alike in every way.
It would stand to reason that different men emit differently balanced pheromones. Why would they all be the same?
My personal combination is attractive to her specifically. It's possible she would find some other men's sweat attractive as well, but I haven't asked.
There is no scientific evidence to support that humans emit any pheromones, let alone a multitude of pheromones. Even if we did, we do not possess the vomeronasal organ that other animals have that allows them to detect them.
You don't need a specific organ to have a reaction to chemical signals. A pheromone is just a chemical the body creates, and an external body responds to. That response can be due to smell, taste or even touch. No special organ is needed for any of those.
Yes..... you do? That would be like saying you don't need a nose to smell, or taste buds to taste.
No. Pheromones are chemical messages that trigger specific behaviour or developmental changes in an external body.
Smells and associations attached to smell are not the same thing as pheromones. In certain mammals and reptiles pheromones are received by the vomeronasal organ.
You're trying to make pheromones out to be something not supported by the definition. Pheromones are chemicals created in one body, that have an effect in someone else's body.
Dictionary definition:
Lol, the merriam Webster dictionary is not an appropriate source to define the scientific understanding of a word or term.
The biggest difference between a pheromone and an odorus compound is that pheromones have an Innate purpose and odors have responses learned through association.
By your understanding of the word pheromone the sulphuric odor in fart could be defined as a pheromone..
It looks like the receptor of pheromones is present, but doesn't work. From [wiki]:
Your wife tells me that too.
Yeah, she loves her spouse so much she can't help but repeatedly bring up details about her spouse which she appreciates in attempt to make the strange creep who's hitting on her get a fucking clue.
But i don't have any compunction to be subtle like her.
Bro she doesn't like you. Stop bothering her and figure out literally anything else to do with your day other than hounding a married woman. You're making her extremely uncomfortable.
If you still don't get it, that's your skill issue.
Dafuq?
It can be different when you know someone. But acquaintances and strangers? Nah that shit gross
I think the main issue is that there's no such thing as human pheromones... so whether we might be able to perceive them if they existed is entirely academic.
We are however capable of smelling body odours, and some of them are linked to sexual attraction or mate suitability and only appear after puberty.
Pheromones are chemical signals that living organisms release outside their bodies to communicate with other members of the same species. If you think humans don't release chemical signals, you're mistaken. We don't have them mapped out because their creation and their reaction are both highly dependent on genetics of the creator and the receiver, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
However, yes, the smells created by bacteria will very likely overpower any positive benefit your pheromones could possibly impart. Fresh pheromone creation is where it's at.