The Manosphere: How To Never, Ever Get Laid
post
This is, once again, an instance of some women having a fetish and then the manosphere trying to project this onto all women.
They are not capable of understanding that different women are different, they really believe that all women are the same and that if they have the right cheat codes they can make women do whatever they want. Women are not people to them.
Yeah being into post workout or "hasn't showered yet today" smell is honestly kinda common, especially on someone you already are into and like the smell of. Not showering at all or letting it keep going is however a rare variant, and even the common version is by no means universal.
And speaking as someone repulsed by testosteronized bo, please keep the post workout smell to those who've requested it
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.
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.
differently balanced pheromones
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.
You don't need a specific organ to have a reaction to chemical signals.
Yes..... you do? That would be like saying you don't need a nose to smell, or taste buds to taste.
pheromone is just a chemical the body creates, and an external body responds to
No. Pheromones are chemical messages that trigger specific behaviour or developmental changes in an external body.
That response can be due to smell, taste or even touch. No special organ is needed for any of those.
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.
a chemical substance that is usually produced by an animal and serves especially as a stimulus to other individuals of the same species for one or more behavioral responses
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]:
Among studies that use microanatomical methods, there is no reported evidence that human beings have active sensory neurons like those in working vomeronasal systems of other animals. Furthermore, there is no evidence to date that suggests there are nerve and axon connections between any existing sensory receptor cells that may be in the adult human VNO and the brain. Likewise, there is no evidence for any accessory olfactory bulb in adult human beings, and the key genes involved in VNO function in other mammals have pseudogenized in human beings.
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.
They may create a chemical signal that other men do not, due to their genetics.
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.
You can't assume uniformity in biology.
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.
Any supporting evidence to this claim?
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"
19.3. CONCLUSIONS In this chapter I have provided a snapshot of the history of the pheromone concept and examples of its common applications to humans. As described in detail elsewhere (Doty 2010), there is a lack of consensus as to what defines a pheromone, making it difficult to tie down as an objective scientific entity. Most definitions imply that a pheromone (a) is comprised of one or only a few chemicals, (b) is species-specific, (c) has well-defined behavioral or endocrine effects, and (d) is little influenced by learning. To date, no chemicals have been isolated in humans that meet such criteria.
Apparently you did not choose to read your own source?
And no, you can't assume uniformity. That's like saying that cilantro tastes the same to everyone (it doesn't).
Ahh yes, a matter of subjectivity is exactly like claiming an objective fact......
Everyone is different. That's the effect of genetics.
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.
Species-specific means they aren't inter-species, not that they're uniform across a species.
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.
uniform intra-species pheromone, which is the point you've been trying to make in this thread,
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 can't assume uniformity in biology.
You responded with:
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.
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.
simply presented you with "the evidence that begs to differ".
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.
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.
It can be different when you know someone. But acquaintances and strangers? Nah that shit gross
The organ that processes pheromones in most mammals isn’t functional in humans
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.
Another example of how the manosphere is actually a way to confuse young men without dating experience into making themselves less attractive, so their resentment toward women who dont accept them despite "doing all the rigjt things" can be politically weaponized to reorient these men into fascist social reality
When my son was in college i told him, "Girls don't kiss boys who don't shower."
His response- "The girls I like do."
Ewwww.
How is he now?
I can tell you from first hand knowledge, that does not work, not one bit.
Once you stop wiping your ass and start drinking your own piss, you should start stinking in no time. The women will be smelling you for miles. 👃
It doesn't attract women but it does isolate men, which is what the manosphere is about. Because why would anyone look for women in a place called "the manosphere"?
I don't know about the "manosphere," but I wouldn't be interested in a man, or woman, who smelled. I work in an outside hard-working job, it isn't that hard to shower and clean clothes. Except on overnight jobs, but then we all smell. Most folks are not looking for dates then. Nobody I am around would be, but maybe i am too old or just fortunate.
Ah yes, nothing gets girls wet like the smell of crusted shit stains and sweaty balls
consult the graph

Please do this. I might actually have a shot if i'm the only good smelling guy around.
I'm pretty sure the person who started this rumor knows it's bs.
probably they just want the other dudes to be more unattractive to increase their own odds of getting laid
I am so tired of this shit. Last year it was women in the gym rubbing vagina juices on their necks to attract mates in the gym, and now this? I have a sensitive sense of smell and this is an affront on me.
Please. As if women need to do anything other than exist to attract attention at the gym.
Women want attention in a gym?
Yeah I thought the general school of thought on this was to completely act like they don't exist at the gym, because they don't want to meet people there.
Rule 30 leaked into IRL
I would assume most are not wiping their juices on their neck either in the same way only some men are stinkmaxxing
Oh I'm sure this will be a highly credible and well-sourced video that doesn't either not exist at all or lumps the action of one person in with all persons of an entire gender
This was pretty common with women when I was in university. They said deodorant causes breast cancer so that's why they don't shower or shave.
You don't understand: It doesn't matter what you think, it's out of your control. Once you get get a deep whiff if pure American masculine stank, you won't be able to stop yourself. Don't say you wasn't warned.
also they dont WIPE after pooping. the current one for young people is looksmaxxing people.
what's the logic for the lack of wiping now? please tell me it's because of bidets ...?
God, as if we men didn't have enough trouble without these morons. Guys, shower and wipe your fucking ass. You're an idiot if you think stinking like sweat and shit is going to get you a girlfriend. It's going to get you avoided.
oh I know the next one coming: pre-pepper spray yourself!
it will show her that you are capable of taking some hits and will enchant her with the pique aroma!
Why am I seeing this everywhere. This has been a thing for years now. I don't care about the manosphere and I think that name is fucking stupid anyway.
They're misogynists. That's all. Probably very racist too.






top 78 comments