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
9444 readers
452 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
Nah, the key word is "my". If she was actually sensitive to pheromones she would be attracted to the smell of all sweating men.
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 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.
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]: