Human pheromones: another attempt to change the concept

Extension to people of the molecular biology common to all species explains how cerebral activation of hormone-secreting neurons and processes commonly attributed to individual components of the model, like genes or hormones, results in genetically predisposed phenotypic expression

Human Pheromones and Common Scents: Plants and Perfume

The common molecular mechanisms place the human pheromone-deniers in a catagory that could only be reserved for those who think that plant odors (as in food odors) do not have the same epigenetic effects on intracellular signaling as pheromones do in species from microbes to man.

Men and women who stare at goats…

…these authors know male morphology is not used by female goats for mate choice (e.g., they cite their own initial study in this regard). They also cite works that show female mammals are able to distinguish between and show preference for particular males using chemical cues alone.

Cosmetics: are they useful or do they just make us feel good?

“…the Darwinist approach to attraction – beautiful faces and well-formed bodies are important biological indicators of a person’s value as a sexual partner.”
A Darwinist approach would be biologically based and modeled in other species. In other species, mate preferences develop via associations with social odors: olfactory/pheromonal cues of reproductive fitness. Food odors and social odors activate the same evolved neurophysiological mechanisms in all mammals. How might we have come to prefer beautiful faces and well-formed bodies if not via their association with human scent signatures?

Scents of Adolescence: Are you blind?

A flying mammal that relies on acoustic signaling for food acquisition helps make my case for the importance of olfactory/pheromonal input during the development of sexual preferences.

The Emperor of Scent (revisited)

It takes many years to gain acceptance — even of the most obvious of new concepts. No matter the logic, the concept could still be wrong. And who is willing to risk their academic reputation by siding with someone who might be wrong? If he’s right, however, there’s always time to begin support — when others do so.