Gee, I don't think its even possible to debate anything concerning spirits properly, since you can't base this on any physical evidence (since it deals with metaphysical area, duh) and it usually depends on perception and cultural upbringing of an individual. But I'm sure it was still fun.

Did she get mad?

Well, your theory would prove correct if the scent potency correlated with visual pleasantness, since people we find beautiful still get a lot more laid than average ones. Scent still remains secondary, since we can feel arousal through lifeless images which portray only visual qualities.If scent was so important we couldn't get hard simply on photo of a butt.

Now, that is an argument over how potent the effects of smell are in conjunction to the strength of appearance. I imagine it takes several still images (or several minutes of active imagination) to actually get aroused without any other visual stimulation or movement, but even still, scent has a more profound effect in 'turning people on' than visual imagery. It is, however, very uncommon to come across ONLY a scent without any other stimulation, so this isn't commonly recognized by people who aren't consciously seeking out such an environment to test it.

Also, not just 'cock stench' but stench in general.

Maybe you should read the words around the words 'conscious' and 'sub-conscious' and you'll see a very clear, concise argument presented.

I don't feel you're an idiot so I don't think I need to put this in simple words, but I will reiterate.

Cultural factors cause us to view certain visual effects as particularly attractive or unattractive, but this is subject to change based upon the culture. Visuals appeal to the conscious mind's decision process in mating.

Scent is a cultural universal in attraction. It appeals to the sub-conscious mind's decision process in mating.

From a comparative stand-point, scent is the stronger of the two.

HOWEVER.

In this culture, due to a heavy importance placed on visual aesthetics of a particular kind, it is often misconstrued that visual appeal would be clearly more important. That is not the case.

In general, I get the feeling that you rule out looks as purely cultural influence, however, in truth, it's just as universal as scent. Good condition of hair, skin, teeth is a universal attractor, which never falls under influence of cultural fads and applies to all, as it confirms that an individual is healthy and will provide offsprings with a higher chance of survival.

However, we may assume that good health condition means good scent, can we not?

Except certain things aren't. For example, it was customary that men did not wash themselves of battle upon returning until after they were attended to by their wives, and it became a cultural factor that bloody, wild, hair was attractive, the very opposite of what you'd call 'good condition', yet it was seen by those women as attractive because it meant your man was a powerful warrior.

In france, the stereotype that they all have bad teeth is not due to the fact that there are simply no dentists and that french people are filthy, it is because crooked teeth aren't considered unattractive, and I've even met women who claim they find straight teeth odd-looking!

Good condition is not a universal factor. What is considered 'good' is influenced by culture.

However, I would agree that good health condition probably leads to a better scent.

"good condition" as in healthy condition.

By "good condition" I meant fullness and look of hair, not how it's kept. For example, when a mammal is sick it's coat loses it's shine and starts falling out, same with our hair. It changes as our health, age, sexual potency change too. Don't forget that hair folicles produce oil which has a scent. So hair is one of those universal indicators which fall both under visual and olfactory category.

When it comes to teeth I wasn't talking about their shape but rather the amount left in the mouth and how damaged they are. Damaged teeth produce unpleasant smells.

Fair enough, I'll agree that having a full head of hair and all of your teeth is a major factor, but I feel that is less a manner of visual preference and more a manner of bodily dysfunction, and it would only make sense that we adapt to find these things unattractive.

Finally! The way you summed it up was exactly the point I was trying to make all along.

Lack of hair, teeth, disease- ridden skin points to bad health, that is why we consider the opposite attractive.

I'll agree to that! I was looking at it from a much less extreme view in terms of hygiene.

But I don't think you should isolate looks solely as a cultural factor. Many many species depend on looks when picking a mate, and I'm pretty sure they don't have any cultural bias when it comes to it, heh.

Looks play a major part in picking a mate for us, too. For example, male brain in under a second "scans" all individuals around him and can tell if they are viable mates just by looking at their faces. It is the act of subconscious mind too (at least my biology book said so). Male and female brain seeks visual attraction at all times, wether we realise it or not. I think scent plays a larger part in the act of mating and pairing itself and primary attraction comes from looks.

True, those species, at least as far as I know however, aren't as smell-oriented and have a much less complex system of deciding in their mate.


And, I think that is where the disconnection comes from. We're talking about two different types of attraction.

I just read a bullshit article which said that women care only about the scent ( then they advertised AXE) and don't pay attention to looks and then claimed that men don't care for smell at all. I don't think you'd want to date a chick, no matter how pretty, if she reeks of old sweat and dead bacteria. I think that olfactory attraction goes both for men and women.

I DEFINITELY do not agree with that. NEVER believe articles from product companies. They grossly exaggerate the truth. Just because Scent is the most defining factor DOES NOT mean that you can be absolute shit in everything else and still be successful in the mating pool. As I said, the information I'm giving is supported by the APA.

I also agree, a woman that smelled like dead bacteria probably wouldn't make me that attracted to her. I agree that olfactory attraction does affect men and women both, though I don't know whether or not it is equally so. I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm just saying I don't know. I've never seen any testing on it.

"absolute shit in everything else and still be successful in the mating pool" that's exactly what it said. It was some "manly" webpage, but probably they advertise products here too.
It basically said this: "weight, height, money don't matter, just put on some cologne and any girl is yours". and I'm not lying. Made me rage.

Would make me rage too. That is absolutely ridiculous and a complete misuse of science. It reminds me of a woman who wrote a book about relationships, and advertised her book claiming that 98% of all women were unhappy with their current relationships, and that 74% were cheating on their husbands.


She got her results from a magazine ad she posted that explicitly said "IF YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE IN YOUR RELATIONSHIP, SEND A LETTER TO ME. "

Yeah. Our official "news" websites are full of bogus articles like that and people actually buy them. They should fine these authors for misleading information.

The eyes of science were not upon subconsciousness up until begining of 20th century and rise of psychology field, so I wouldn't call it one of the first things researched.

I was discussing in the world of psychology, not in all of science, since this deals within the psychological field.

That sounds pretty silly.

It is, but it was fun.

Gee, I don't think its even possible to debate anything concerning spirits properly, since you can't base this on any physical evidence (since it deals with metaphysical area, duh) and it usually depends on perception and cultural upbringing of an individual. But I'm sure it was still fun.

Did she get mad?

Could you believe that we are debating over attractiveness of cock stench?

Believe me, you're talking to the guy who debated for three hours last week with his wife over what the spirit probably does during reproduction.

That sounds pretty silly.

It is, but it was fun.

Gee, I don't think its even possible to debate anything concerning spirits properly, since you can't base this on any physical evidence (since it deals with metaphysical area, duh) and it usually depends on perception and cultural upbringing of an individual. But I'm sure it was still fun.

Did she get mad?

Subconciousness is still not well researched or documented and remains an area for interpretation, so I wouldn't go as far as to continuously bring it up as proof. When it comes to removing cultural bias the undeniable sexual attractors are: symmetry, hair,skin,teeth condition, as these are pretty much universal strong health indicators and remained unchanged through course of recorded history, unlike prefered body shapes which changed as the decades passed and cultural context changed.

In addition, those are all definitely what appeal to the eyes, but as I've mentioned before, scent is a much larger factor.

Now what you need to ask is if people who have nice teeth, hair, and hygiene probably smell better or not. I'd say probably so.

Well, your theory would prove correct if the scent potency correlated with visual pleasantness, since people we find beautiful still get a lot more laid than average ones. Scent still remains secondary, since we can feel arousal through lifeless images which portray only visual qualities.If scent was so important we couldn't get hard simply on photo of a butt.

Now, that is an argument over how potent the effects of smell are in conjunction to the strength of appearance. I imagine it takes several still images (or several minutes of active imagination) to actually get aroused without any other visual stimulation or movement, but even still, scent has a more profound effect in 'turning people on' than visual imagery. It is, however, very uncommon to come across ONLY a scent without any other stimulation, so this isn't commonly recognized by people who aren't consciously seeking out such an environment to test it.

Also, not just 'cock stench' but stench in general.

Maybe you should read the words around the words 'conscious' and 'sub-conscious' and you'll see a very clear, concise argument presented.

I don't feel you're an idiot so I don't think I need to put this in simple words, but I will reiterate.

Cultural factors cause us to view certain visual effects as particularly attractive or unattractive, but this is subject to change based upon the culture. Visuals appeal to the conscious mind's decision process in mating.

Scent is a cultural universal in attraction. It appeals to the sub-conscious mind's decision process in mating.

From a comparative stand-point, scent is the stronger of the two.

HOWEVER.

In this culture, due to a heavy importance placed on visual aesthetics of a particular kind, it is often misconstrued that visual appeal would be clearly more important. That is not the case.

In general, I get the feeling that you rule out looks as purely cultural influence, however, in truth, it's just as universal as scent. Good condition of hair, skin, teeth is a universal attractor, which never falls under influence of cultural fads and applies to all, as it confirms that an individual is healthy and will provide offsprings with a higher chance of survival.

However, we may assume that good health condition means good scent, can we not?

Except certain things aren't. For example, it was customary that men did not wash themselves of battle upon returning until after they were attended to by their wives, and it became a cultural factor that bloody, wild, hair was attractive, the very opposite of what you'd call 'good condition', yet it was seen by those women as attractive because it meant your man was a powerful warrior.

In france, the stereotype that they all have bad teeth is not due to the fact that there are simply no dentists and that french people are filthy, it is because crooked teeth aren't considered unattractive, and I've even met women who claim they find straight teeth odd-looking!

Good condition is not a universal factor. What is considered 'good' is influenced by culture.

However, I would agree that good health condition probably leads to a better scent.

"good condition" as in healthy condition.

By "good condition" I meant fullness and look of hair, not how it's kept. For example, when a mammal is sick it's coat loses it's shine and starts falling out, same with our hair. It changes as our health, age, sexual potency change too. Don't forget that hair folicles produce oil which has a scent. So hair is one of those universal indicators which fall both under visual and olfactory category.

When it comes to teeth I wasn't talking about their shape but rather the amount left in the mouth and how damaged they are. Damaged teeth produce unpleasant smells.

Fair enough, I'll agree that having a full head of hair and all of your teeth is a major factor, but I feel that is less a manner of visual preference and more a manner of bodily dysfunction, and it would only make sense that we adapt to find these things unattractive.

Finally! The way you summed it up was exactly the point I was trying to make all along.

Lack of hair, teeth, disease- ridden skin points to bad health, that is why we consider the opposite attractive.

I'll agree to that! I was looking at it from a much less extreme view in terms of hygiene.

But I don't think you should isolate looks solely as a cultural factor. Many many species depend on looks when picking a mate, and I'm pretty sure they don't have any cultural bias when it comes to it, heh.

Looks play a major part in picking a mate for us, too. For example, male brain in under a second "scans" all individuals around him and can tell if they are viable mates just by looking at their faces. It is the act of subconscious mind too (at least my biology book said so). Male and female brain seeks visual attraction at all times, wether we realise it or not. I think scent plays a larger part in the act of mating and pairing itself and primary attraction comes from looks.

True, those species, at least as far as I know however, aren't as smell-oriented and have a much less complex system of deciding in their mate.


And, I think that is where the disconnection comes from. We're talking about two different types of attraction.

I just read a bullshit article which said that women care only about the scent ( then they advertised AXE) and don't pay attention to looks and then claimed that men don't care for smell at all. I don't think you'd want to date a chick, no matter how pretty, if she reeks of old sweat and dead bacteria. I think that olfactory attraction goes both for men and women.

I DEFINITELY do not agree with that. NEVER believe articles from product companies. They grossly exaggerate the truth. Just because Scent is the most defining factor DOES NOT mean that you can be absolute shit in everything else and still be successful in the mating pool. As I said, the information I'm giving is supported by the APA.

I also agree, a woman that smelled like dead bacteria probably wouldn't make me that attracted to her. I agree that olfactory attraction does affect men and women both, though I don't know whether or not it is equally so. I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm just saying I don't know. I've never seen any testing on it.

"absolute shit in everything else and still be successful in the mating pool" that's exactly what it said. It was some "manly" webpage, but probably they advertise products here too.
It basically said this: "weight, height, money don't matter, just put on some cologne and any girl is yours". and I'm not lying. Made me rage.

Would make me rage too. That is absolutely ridiculous and a complete misuse of science. It reminds me of a woman who wrote a book about relationships, and advertised her book claiming that 98% of all women were unhappy with their current relationships, and that 74% were cheating on their husbands.


She got her results from a magazine ad she posted that explicitly said "IF YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE IN YOUR RELATIONSHIP, SEND A LETTER TO ME. "

Yeah. Our official "news" websites are full of bogus articles like that and people actually buy them. They should fine these authors for misleading information.

Actually, the sub-conscious was not only among the first things researched, it is one of the most extensively looked in to. The issue is that every person has a different sub-conscious, so there are no rules that concretely apply to EVERYONE.

The eyes of science were not upon subconsciousness up until begining of 20th century and rise of psychology field, so I wouldn't call it one of the first things researched.

I was discussing in the world of psychology, not in all of science, since this deals within the psychological field.

I do not doubt that some pheromones exist, however, they would go bothways. It is suggested that they may exist both in male and female genetalia, and also feet and armpits.

I never said they wouldn't, in theory.

Could you believe that we are debating over attractiveness of cock stench?

Believe me, you're talking to the guy who debated for three hours last week with his wife over what the spirit probably does during reproduction.

That sounds pretty silly.

It is, but it was fun.

Gee, I don't think its even possible to debate anything concerning spirits properly, since you can't base this on any physical evidence (since it deals with metaphysical area, duh) and it usually depends on perception and cultural upbringing of an individual. But I'm sure it was still fun.

Did she get mad?

Lets put men in three groups: handsome, average, and unattractive. All of them are sexually viable, however the handsome group will end up getting more mates. the average one a lower number and unattractive ones will have the hardest time finding a mate. If your smell theory was true all three groups would get an equal amount of mates, however, in reality, that is not the case. As primates we are very dependant on visual attraction, because it's the most recognisable indicator of health and genetic condition, as our sense of smell was pretty much discarded in course of evolution. Most species can tell apart which individuals are healthy just by sense of smell, however, with humans that is not the case.

No, because women today have, as I've stated time and time again, a CULTURAL LENS over what they CONSCIOUSLY want as opposed to what they SUB-CONSCIOUSLY want. IF it were a group of men and women ENTIRELY REMOVED from modern society, you'd see a very different result.

Subconciousness is still not well researched or documented and remains an area for interpretation, so I wouldn't go as far as to continuously bring it up as proof. When it comes to removing cultural bias the undeniable sexual attractors are: symmetry, hair,skin,teeth condition, as these are pretty much universal strong health indicators and remained unchanged through course of recorded history, unlike prefered body shapes which changed as the decades passed and cultural context changed.

In addition, those are all definitely what appeal to the eyes, but as I've mentioned before, scent is a much larger factor.

Now what you need to ask is if people who have nice teeth, hair, and hygiene probably smell better or not. I'd say probably so.

Well, your theory would prove correct if the scent potency correlated with visual pleasantness, since people we find beautiful still get a lot more laid than average ones. Scent still remains secondary, since we can feel arousal through lifeless images which portray only visual qualities.If scent was so important we couldn't get hard simply on photo of a butt.

Now, that is an argument over how potent the effects of smell are in conjunction to the strength of appearance. I imagine it takes several still images (or several minutes of active imagination) to actually get aroused without any other visual stimulation or movement, but even still, scent has a more profound effect in 'turning people on' than visual imagery. It is, however, very uncommon to come across ONLY a scent without any other stimulation, so this isn't commonly recognized by people who aren't consciously seeking out such an environment to test it.

Also, not just 'cock stench' but stench in general.

Maybe you should read the words around the words 'conscious' and 'sub-conscious' and you'll see a very clear, concise argument presented.

I don't feel you're an idiot so I don't think I need to put this in simple words, but I will reiterate.

Cultural factors cause us to view certain visual effects as particularly attractive or unattractive, but this is subject to change based upon the culture. Visuals appeal to the conscious mind's decision process in mating.

Scent is a cultural universal in attraction. It appeals to the sub-conscious mind's decision process in mating.

From a comparative stand-point, scent is the stronger of the two.

HOWEVER.

In this culture, due to a heavy importance placed on visual aesthetics of a particular kind, it is often misconstrued that visual appeal would be clearly more important. That is not the case.

In general, I get the feeling that you rule out looks as purely cultural influence, however, in truth, it's just as universal as scent. Good condition of hair, skin, teeth is a universal attractor, which never falls under influence of cultural fads and applies to all, as it confirms that an individual is healthy and will provide offsprings with a higher chance of survival.

However, we may assume that good health condition means good scent, can we not?

Except certain things aren't. For example, it was customary that men did not wash themselves of battle upon returning until after they were attended to by their wives, and it became a cultural factor that bloody, wild, hair was attractive, the very opposite of what you'd call 'good condition', yet it was seen by those women as attractive because it meant your man was a powerful warrior.

In france, the stereotype that they all have bad teeth is not due to the fact that there are simply no dentists and that french people are filthy, it is because crooked teeth aren't considered unattractive, and I've even met women who claim they find straight teeth odd-looking!

Good condition is not a universal factor. What is considered 'good' is influenced by culture.

However, I would agree that good health condition probably leads to a better scent.

"good condition" as in healthy condition.

By "good condition" I meant fullness and look of hair, not how it's kept. For example, when a mammal is sick it's coat loses it's shine and starts falling out, same with our hair. It changes as our health, age, sexual potency change too. Don't forget that hair folicles produce oil which has a scent. So hair is one of those universal indicators which fall both under visual and olfactory category.

When it comes to teeth I wasn't talking about their shape but rather the amount left in the mouth and how damaged they are. Damaged teeth produce unpleasant smells.

Fair enough, I'll agree that having a full head of hair and all of your teeth is a major factor, but I feel that is less a manner of visual preference and more a manner of bodily dysfunction, and it would only make sense that we adapt to find these things unattractive.

Finally! The way you summed it up was exactly the point I was trying to make all along.

Lack of hair, teeth, disease- ridden skin points to bad health, that is why we consider the opposite attractive.

I'll agree to that! I was looking at it from a much less extreme view in terms of hygiene.

But I don't think you should isolate looks solely as a cultural factor. Many many species depend on looks when picking a mate, and I'm pretty sure they don't have any cultural bias when it comes to it, heh.

Looks play a major part in picking a mate for us, too. For example, male brain in under a second "scans" all individuals around him and can tell if they are viable mates just by looking at their faces. It is the act of subconscious mind too (at least my biology book said so). Male and female brain seeks visual attraction at all times, wether we realise it or not. I think scent plays a larger part in the act of mating and pairing itself and primary attraction comes from looks.

True, those species, at least as far as I know however, aren't as smell-oriented and have a much less complex system of deciding in their mate.


And, I think that is where the disconnection comes from. We're talking about two different types of attraction.

I just read a bullshit article which said that women care only about the scent ( then they advertised AXE) and don't pay attention to looks and then claimed that men don't care for smell at all. I don't think you'd want to date a chick, no matter how pretty, if she reeks of old sweat and dead bacteria. I think that olfactory attraction goes both for men and women.

I DEFINITELY do not agree with that. NEVER believe articles from product companies. They grossly exaggerate the truth. Just because Scent is the most defining factor DOES NOT mean that you can be absolute shit in everything else and still be successful in the mating pool. As I said, the information I'm giving is supported by the APA.

I also agree, a woman that smelled like dead bacteria probably wouldn't make me that attracted to her. I agree that olfactory attraction does affect men and women both, though I don't know whether or not it is equally so. I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm just saying I don't know. I've never seen any testing on it.

"absolute shit in everything else and still be successful in the mating pool" that's exactly what it said. It was some "manly" webpage, but probably they advertise products here too.
It basically said this: "weight, height, money don't matter, just put on some cologne and any girl is yours". and I'm not lying. Made me rage.

Would make me rage too. That is absolutely ridiculous and a complete misuse of science. It reminds me of a woman who wrote a book about relationships, and advertised her book claiming that 98% of all women were unhappy with their current relationships, and that 74% were cheating on their husbands.


She got her results from a magazine ad she posted that explicitly said "IF YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE IN YOUR RELATIONSHIP, SEND A LETTER TO ME. "

Yeah. Our official "news" websites are full of bogus articles like that and people actually buy them. They should fine these authors for misleading information.

Actually, the sub-conscious was not only among the first things researched, it is one of the most extensively looked in to. The issue is that every person has a different sub-conscious, so there are no rules that concretely apply to EVERYONE.

The eyes of science were not upon subconsciousness up until begining of 20th century and rise of psychology field, so I wouldn't call it one of the first things researched.

I was discussing in the world of psychology, not in all of science, since this deals within the psychological field.