The reason for the sticky: men don't wear fragrance for themselves but to catch gurls

I think guys wayyy over-estimate the benefits of wearing a fragrance when it comes to meeting and attracting women. Sure, there are some scents that really impress some women, but in the end, most women don't care what you wear or at least don't put a big emphasis on it. In fact, she could hate what you're wearing (especially if it's too daring) and if you spray too much, you can become that cologne guy.

If you are collecting fragrances just to impress women, you will be in for a rude awakening of the cold reality that she will like your Acqua Di Gio and Le Male better than your niche fragrances that you spent hundreds of dollars and hours studying and trying to pick out.

Think about it. When you date a women, or at least when I do, what fragrance she wears isn't even in the top 10 or 20 qualities I care about. There are many more important factors:

- Facial Features
- Physique
- Hair
- Hygeine
- How you dress
- Your body language
- Intelligence
- Smiling, be optimistic
- A sense of humor
- Capable of engaging conversation
- Respect
- Manners
- Humility and Confidence
- Independence, Financially Responsible
- Overall Attractive Personality

What perfume she wears and what cologne you wear, is way at the bottom of the list. Before you try to find the cologne that is going to seduce that woman you like, work on all of the above.

i mostly wear feminine fragrances as of late fragrances has nothing to do with how you get women my smile does that

Ah Primrose, I don't need a website to tell me this. The SA's at the counter are more than happy to inform me about this

Learn how to make a woman laugh. That's the real Spanish Fly. You ever see those packs of 12-15 "bros" on Fri and Sat nights, those huge groups of dudes all wearing their polos or Affliction or whatever musclehead/fratboy gear, all smelling like they're doused in 20 sprays of A*Men or 1 Million? Ever notice how there's never a woman in the bunch? Don't be those guys. Nobody likes those guys.

I admit I cringe often reading BN where I see folks doing 5-10 sprays. I know how that comes across in the real world and it's always uncomfortable, like a desperate cry for attention, a mating call.. no, a mating siren.. no, a mating broadcast played through a Marshall stack with the volume knob set to 11. It does nobody any favors. This is partially why I laugh off all the Aventus hype.... its biggest selling point seems to be that it gets compliments. I know 3 guys who wear Aventus as their daily scent and all 3 are single. Most women aren't as shallow as guys think they are. If you can't make them laugh, feel safe and feel like they can trust you then it doesn't matter how many vats of Aventus you bathe in.

Hmmm. And to think, I've been doing this all wrong. I wear a fragrance to please MYSELF. Whoops.
I'm not even going to read all that BS.

Amusing reading to say the least.

I'm sure it will get better as the days progress.

Where did you find that terrible website. I think that article was written by a computer.

Exactly. It's about how you make a woman feel. Make her excited, laugh and full of curiosity about you and you are in. Try too hard and you will appear desperate, and trying too hard includes wearing too much cologne.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, the article made no mention of going to strip club and wearing 8 sprays of kouros. That's how you get women.

...wearing Musc Ravageur - yehhhh, bursting out my seams.

Treat them like crap and they come back for more.

Fragrances just "add on." The same way you won't get compliments just by wearing a fragrance, you're not going to attract someone with a fragrance alone.

Reduced list for added realism. Possibly even just the second point for many men. Physique just meaning that the person is female, really.

Being attractive to women is really a lot easier than most guys realize.

- Get properly fitting clothes that look good on you.
- Be the most fun version of yourself.
- Let your personality shine.
- Be genuine.

That last one is a biggie.

As for choosing fragrance, I'm a huge believer in the idea of choosing something that fits ME and fits the occasion. If I have a date, I wear the one I think she is most likely to enjoy on me. It's no different than how I wear clothes that evening that I think make me look my best for my date.

Too many guys make the mistake of thinking there's a "panty-dropper" scent. That's dumb. It's demeaning to women and presents the guy as a sexist pig. There are hundreds upon hundreds of excellent scent choices, each of which is magic in its own way. Find one that fits your personality and has enough of a people-pleaser appeal to at the very least not be a turn off. Go easy on the trigger.

Someone here on basenotes described scent as the icing on the cake, and I think that's totally true.

Very, very true!
My friend's 9 cm secret weapon gets more action like no other. Lucky bastard and his centurion card

Primroses sig-"There is no accessory greater, nor more intimate, than scent." --Tim Gunn
The cake is what attracts them, the icing is what keeps them.
Women are human beings, just like men. As human beings we fashion things with our hands, use computers, just have a higher level of thinking than other animals, but we're still animals, and similar laws of attraction remain. Some of our most prized, naughty, sexy scent notes such as musk, civet, castoreum come from mammals that use them as scent territory markers and for sexual attraction. If we are discussing attracting females, than I would venture to say that scent along with power, money, nice clothes/material goods, good looks and shape are very important variables. How many times have you seen a woman you were attracted to and initially begin to think, I wonder if she has a nice personality or if she's intelligent or funny? Likely never, the only thing your thinking is that honey child is fine/pretty/fit and she excites me, and if she smells good too, wow. So you shoot the gift, and if you find out those other things like intelligence/humor/personality are intact, then that's the icing on the cake. Same thing happens when women see us. Trust me, when a women sees you and is initially attracted, she's not thinking about whether you're funny, intelligent or have a pleasant personality. Now if after that initial contact she finds out that you are indeed funny and the rest of them, that's the icing on the cake. However, if she finds out your a jerk loser in a well presented package, that's not my fault, go read a book or something.
Do I sit in pure solitude, spray on a fragrance or two, and marvel in my scent journey? Yes without a doubt, I like scents for me. Do I also sit in pure solitude, spray on a fragrance or two, and think to myself "yes self, this scent does indeed make me feel confident and sexy, I can't wait to put some of this on and go around some young ladies". Yes I do, and those scents absolutely do produce my desired effect, not necessarily because of the scent, but how the scent effects the way I interact with the world that day. I feel good in my mind, project that good vibe into the world, and women tend to respond. It's natural.

Actually, not at all. All a man needs is a stable job that makes enough money for him to live independently, and money isn't a factor. Either a woman is attracted to you, or she isn't. If she is, whether you drive a Honda or Corvette doesn't matter. You know, there are plenty of rich guys who think that just because they have money, that they can get women. They buy tons of gifts for the woman only to realize that she doesn't really care for him and was only staying with him for a little longer because he introduced money into it.


Only desperate guys would date someone just because they are female. Also, yeah those are the top two factors. But the other 12 are still above cologne-wearing.


Yeah, once you get the other 20 important things right, a fragrance will add a little more to you, but it's not necessary for dating. I'm willing to bet a less attractive guy wearing Millesime Imperial would get less compliments on what he is wearing than a super-hot guy wearing Axe.

- - - Updated - - -


Basenoter Logic: If I wear a really musky, dirty, strong scent, it will bring out the evolutionary traits of a woman who likes their man to be animalic.

Real Women Logic: Eww... That stuff you are wearing is gross.

Good points, to which I'd ad some extras for the introverts.

Another biggie for a lot of guys is not to be worried about rejection. Adopting a "Big deal - Who cares if I'm rejected" type attitude (and really meaning it internally) actually enables them to be either genuine or more genuine than they otherwise would be.
Yet another biggie is to speak nicely to one's self, treat yourself as you would others, never internally call yourself an idiot or a moron where you would never dream of saying the same thing to someone else - if you do talk nasty to yourself, it shows, you won't seem that genuine.
Cheers,
Renato

A guy will never use a fragrance that he dislikes to seduce a girl. There's no problem in using a fragrance to please other person. Everyone like feedbacks.

Personality so much > than scent and all other attributes listed by Noirdrakkar..

Speak for yourself. Intelligence and humor are sexy as hell attributes for a woman. The first thing after I see a beautiful girl is I observe her general demeanor. If she's walking out of the store behind an older couple, for example, and she gets all huffy puffy and annoyed then I instantly find that behavior a turn-off. But if I see her smile at someone who smiles her way, or act in a way that shows genuine goodheartedness it's the sexiest thing ever. Especially if she has a good sense of humor. I've dated women with piss poor personalities for no other reason than their looks. It was nothing more than an ego stroke for myself. Deep down those are the most miserable relationships I've had, pretty girls with a big fat ZERO for personality/humor/intelligence.

I have to say that, when it comes to attracting the attention of females, my dog beats any fragrance ever made by a huge margin.

Us chicks are suckers for animals and animal lovers! Lol..

Bring the happily married guy that I am I have no need to catch girls. I wear fragrance mostly for myself with respect for the sensibilities of others (inoffensive fragrances, moderate application). But I must admit that I would never wear a scent disliked by my wife.

lol that's the truth right there. Anytime I walk past one of the many dog parks in my city it just looks like a bad dating show, a bunch of singles clearly putting themselves out there.

My friend had one of the stupidest dogs on the planet - a red setter. He could never take a walk with it without some girl talking to him and hugging his dog.
Regards,
Renato

The scent isn't nearly as important as the memory you teach her to associate with that scent.

Hardly ever thought of fragrances as a an "attraction aid". However, it happens to me far more to enjoy whenever the respective person shows a certain liking for my scent choices, but even more when I like what she wears.

I created a thread with some articles that might just shake up this conversation a bit more and maybe even take it to the next level


http://www.basenotes.net/threads/310...ortant-Factors


ENJOY !

BOYS don't wear fragrance for themselves, but to "catch"?! girls. MEN do wear fragrances for themselves.

^^^^ this!!!

This article has been brainwashed by the Axe ads over the year.

You've contradicted yourself there!

Wow. That hasn't been my experience at all.

One thing I've learned is that you get what you give. If you show a woman all you care about is her body, she;ll treat you like a guy who only cares about her body. On the other hand, if you show you have depth of character, you will be more likely to be shown her depth of character, and that's where the real magic happens. Hey, I love sex as much as the next guy, but nothing compares to connecting mentally as well as physically.



This is 100% true. And it's why I think guys don't need to worry about finding a scent that will blow a woman away. All we really need to find is a scent that fits us that she might also enjoy. If you connect, she'll remember your smell just as you will remember hers.

Years ago, I dated a woman who had a little garden in front of her apartment. Every time I went over to her place, I could smell her flowers. It's not that I was crazy about the smell of the flowers. They were ok, I guess, but not amazing. BUT, that smell meant spending time with her and I LOVED IT. Again, it wasn't my favorite smell, but the smell really made me happy.

This is why I try to avoid extremely popular scents. Popular offline, I mean. Not popular here. Acqua Di Gio is a proven compliment getter, but it's also very common which means if you're on a date, you may smell like her brother, or ex boyfriend, or father, cousin, a-hole neighbor, etc. AdG is a great scent - there's a reason it's been an international best seller for over a decade. But I think you're better off finding something less common. A scent that will make her think of you.

The one thing that will make me really fall for a guy is eye contact. When he looks into my eyes as if he's really seeing me ........ swooooooon

^ Truth.

A nasty personality can make anyone ugly (or stinky!) in 0.2 seconds flat. I've smelled fragrances that I previously liked on people with crap personalities and because of it I can no longer stand the frags. I've also met people I initially found attractive only to be completely turned off them when they prove to be really unpleasant people to be around. And then I can't understand why I ever found them attractive in the first place.

I don't think anyone that has common sense believes a perfume or scent is the magic key to seducing women. But much like many facets about you, the scent certainly does factor into a first impression just the same as your clothes, language and mannerisms will.

Beyond that though I believe in intimate settings the perfume/scent can enhance the situation, probably what got me fascinated in scents were two events; the first one being pure malt use to drive my partner at the time wild and the second was one day coming into work wearing ViW, my colleague said he was having a lousy morning but smelling that stuff on me when I came in cheered him up (reminded him of his upcoming holidays and I guess what he imagined they would be like).

So in conclusion are scents magic keys? of course not but in there own way like many things they can play a part, at least in my experience.

Yep, e.g. guys who want to drop panties, using perfume, and perhaps drunk guys. I reckon that's 95% of unmarried men on any given weekend.

I take it you're American as you seem to speak of dating. Over here we just get drunk and then straight to dropping panties. Hence we value longevity in fragrances as we never can know when we get home and wish to still be able to drop panties on the train home the next morning.

If a man feels good because he feels like he smells good, then his confidence will be higher. Assuming it isn't already so huge (the confidence) that it is off-putting.

Be yourself - that would attract the right partner for you. If wearing scent is you then partnering someone who cares nothing for scent won't last long.

Have fun and be fun - no-one wants a misery guts to play with.

"Men don't wear fragrance for themselves but to catch gurls", while being prick-teased at least 90% of the time...

After some bad recent experiences with dating, I've become somewhat ambivalent about the dating scene.

And since I live in a town where wearing scent is rare, if not frowned upon, quite honestly I've worn some nice stuff recently, purposely as a way to see if it will drive the woman away.

If they are broad-minded enough for it not to run them off....I see that as a positive sign.

OMG I'm laughing so hard, you guys, these are gems:

Fragrance won't attract me to a man (other than his own scent) but it might repel me if I don't like it.

Less is more when you are meeting a new woman, IMO.

The love you make is the love you take...doesn't the song go something like that?

I loved these two as well Still laughing now!

Ok, catching the OS with a niff then....

BO is certainly not the scent to sport. Lots of fragrance does not mask BO. If you cannot wash, and are going out straight after work, then keep baby wipes or the like at work for the pits. Even a spare shirt there all the time. Clean body and washed shirt is first before all, and if in doubt, choose a classic style frag rather than sickly sweet, then just not too much of anything. Nothing is worse than a huge perfume blast on either sex, no matter how lovely the frag.

If in doubt on what quantity to use. For a splash bottle, one dab on each pulse point and behind the ears, possibly one on the tummy if you're feeling hopeful and/or a dab near the front of the armpits if you are nightclubbing or going to get hot later. A spray, any more than four/five tiny little sprays in said places and you are bound to be minging. Also, the one you desire won't need to come any nearer to smell you, and you need gentle silage so OS has to get near enough to smell behind your ears!

but the article isn't written by a AskMen writer, so I'm failing to understand how your criticism of the site in general is directly relevant to this particular information that's presented through it. This is the person who wrote the article :


and here's some more info



she seems pretty credible to me , but who am I right ?? just a regular Basenoter sharing his untested opinion.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but being an 'expert in psychology' is akin to being an 'expert in leeching' or an 'expert in flat-earth theory' - absolutely the softest of soft 'science', which is to say, breathlessly intellectually bankrupt.

In any event, reducing attraction to scent is ludicrous. It isn't rocket science - care about how you look, shower and groom, then smile, make eye contact, make her laugh, engage her intellectually, offer to pay, and there you go! Easy peasy. Don't be a jerk. Be engaging, polite, funny, and interesting. Viola, no fragrance involved.

Pinning attraction on scent makes as much sense as pinning it on a necktie. Nonsense, in other words.

It doesn't hurt, though, and if it makes the wearer more confident, it has done its job well. Same with the aforementioned necktie.

But giving credibility to a psychologist is like trusting a dousing rod expert. Might work in some circles, but not with me.

Again, I apologize if this offends anyone. Simply an opinion here.

No offense taken, even though I'm not in any way formally associated with the field of psychology.

First off , As far as the “ reducing attraction to scent is ludicrous “ statement. I don’t think anybody here (including the article) is “reducing” attraction to scent. Nobody is saying scent is the ONLY thing that attracts people.

Now on to the rest of your statement, in regards to psychology


I think saying it’s similar to being an expert in “leeching “ or “ flat earth theory “ is an extremely fallacious exaggeration. I’ll be one of the first to agree that many aspects in Psychology are greatly susceptible to subjective interpretation without a means of definitive testing but that doesn’t automatically invalidate everything under its umbrella. You’re talking about it like it’s astrology or something. If Psychology was as “breathlessly and intellectually bankrupt” as you make it seem, there’s no way it would be a course of study at almost every major academic institution in the world. There also wouldn’t be so many other institutions, sciences, industries and entities outside of Psychology itself that acknowledge, consult, and borrow from it.

but once again, just like those before you, you’re attempting to discredit the forum through which the research is being delivered instead of directly engaging the research itself. I think you’re going quite a bit too far in discrediting psychology in general in order to discredit the professional in question without actually evaluating her research.

Dr. Herz is also more than your average psychologist engaging in a discourse of untestable psychological theories. She’s a psychobiologist which means her work is in behaviorial neuroscience which is one of the more credible branches shared between psychology and biology. Her research on the subject of scent and attraction is based on a theory that has been ran through actual scientific experimentation with large representative sample groups. I think anyone who was genuinely skeptical about the credibility of her work would actually review her research in full for fallacious execution instead of conveniently writing her off due to the criticism of relatively impertinent associations. The latter makes it appear that someone is too personally invested in the bias of their own opinion to be willing to directly examine the research themselves.

As far as Dr. Herz’s research itself, her work has to exceptionally done in the least if it has been recognized and acclaimed by prestigious organizations such as the American Association of the Advancement of the sciences which is not an exclusively psychology association at all.

but aside from that, a question that I really want to know is that do you recognize that what you guys are doing right now in debating and giving your own personal opinion on the original subject of scent and attraction being discussed in here is nothing more than your observation of Psychology ?? by nature you guys are being "casual" psychologists as well. You guys do understand this right ???

We're acting as casual/amateur/pseudo psychologists presenting a theory like Dr. Herz did. Our opinions and perspectives exist in that same field of psychology because this discussion by nature exists there. So isn’t it kind of ironic that you’re attempting to discredit the only professional opinion presented in here because it’s associated with psychology when in reality everything on this subject (including your own opinion) is related to psychology or psychobiology ?? while at the same time trying to present your own contrasting opinion on the matter with such a tone of certainty ?? That doesn’t strike you as hypocritical or contradictory ??

Once again, I’m not fully agreeing or disagreeing with Dr. Herz’s conclusion, All I’m saying is that I find it’s kinda funny that people who are giving a hypothesis in here on the matter at hand just like she once did are swiftly and conveniently dismissing the credibility of her conclusion when it’s the only one in here that’s been formally and thoroughly researched and ran through scientific testing, and instead of taking the research to task itself, they're discrediting everything from the site utilized to post the article to the field of study associated with it to conveniently disclaim the research without having to directly engage it.

Well, not to get too far afield here, but do you honestly think there was not a point in history in which leeching was also not a course of study at all major institutions? Or astrology? If acceptance is our test of validity, the historical record demands a need for skepticism, to say the least.

This is an 'expert' that takes homeopathy seriously. I realize that with pseudoscience we are on shaky ground, since it provides so many people comfort and entertainment, but if you are making a statement that this expert should be taken seriously because of her title - that's a little odd.

Why would anyone care to review the full studies of a quack? I wouldn't delve into the papers of a doctor of Tarot Readings either, although admittedly it might be my loss not to do so. There just is not enough time to devote our energy into such pursuits. By all means, if spending hours poring over the studies of someone professing the import of aromatherapy and homeopathy makes emotional sense to you, do it - but don't expect others to be required to follow.

There is no hypocrisy in such an attitude. Once again, if the master Astrologist (who has studied around the world, published papers, and has a Doctorate from Astrology University) has published that all people - whether they know it or not - are susceptible to the wiles of astral vapors - and they have papers and books behind them - there is nothing hypocritical in knowing such practice is junk in the first place, so all expositions are likewise worthless. Again, I might be missing some bit of enlightenment in the process, but I will take my chances.

And if you think that being well presented, polite, engaging and funny is all worth as much as a spritz of cologne - if you think that is just a theory - well, to each their own, I guess. But I'll take a woman who is funny, bright, great to talk to and has a great smile without noticing whether or not she was wearing fragrance. Of course that is a false dichotomy (imagine what a knockout the person with all of those things and a bottle of perfume would be!). But that's the point - your article reinforces that false dichotomy. Junk, and certainly not respectable or worth much consideration. As I said, meeting people is not rocket science... despite the 'expert' trying to claim it very well may be.

Fragrance has more potential to reduce than enhance attraction (IMO of course). In most cases I think it just doesn't make a difference. It's like wearing a nice pocket square with hand-rolled edges. On the off chance that she actually notices, it's unlikely to affect your chances.

If you think dogs get women's attention, try going out with an adorable toddler. I should rent out my 3 year old kid to guys looking for miss right.

Psychology - I think there's a big difference between the modern clinical practice of it, where many formerly normal behaviors are classified as disorders and thus considered medicable, and the scientific study of behavior through experiments, MRI, controlled studies, etc.

Having said that, I haven't read the Dr's work on the subject of scent and attraction, but I'll stand by my "it doesn't really matter" position based on my experience. At least it's in the noise compared to adorable 3 year olds, in my experience.

Yes , leeching , flat-earth theory, and many other inaccurate “scientific” concepts were accepted at one point in history. The point you failed to notice is that upon their initial acceptance there were no definitive scientific methods available at that time to conclusively test their validity. Later they were discovered to be factually invalid. The point being is that even someone with the smallest amount of intelligence can deem something that has been discovered to be completely and definitively false as “quackery” in hindsight.

This is why it’s ridiculous to compare the complete validity of Psychology with that of leeching or flat earth theory since it’s skeptics and critics haven’t even remotely been able to factually disprove it’s validity as a whole nor will they probably ever will, especially to the extent of the two theories mentioned above. Therefore it’s an extremely fallacious comparison, as is comparing it to astrology. When astrology is being taught at the majority of academic institutions as a course of study then maybe your comparison will have a point.

Like I said, everything is clear in hind sight, I’m pretty sure if you existed and lived prior to the third century B.C. the concept of a “spherical earth” would have definitely seemed like quackery to you as well since there was a lack of adequately accustomed scientific methods to sufficiently examine the validity of this claim. You probably would’ve laughed at Heliocentrism as well.

As I stated in my previous post, the susceptible nature to untestable subjective interpretation of Psychology in SOME aspects makes certain theories inconclusive. Though inconclusiveness does not solely signify invalidity. That’s like someone calling the existence of God “quackery” since the credibility of such a claim is inconclusive.

I don’t expect anyone to be “required” to delve into Dr. Herz’s research nor accept the validity of it in it’s entirety ( I certainly haven’t). Though if you’re going to conveniently generalize it as “quackery” in such a definitive tone of certainty ESPECIALLY when you’re trying to basically offer your own contrasting but confident opinion on the same subject which by default means you’re doing the exact same thing as her ( just without the research) then yes, I’m going to need you “delve” into the research and directly engage it before you attempt to conclusively write it off as inaccurate. That in itself would be the credible thing to do. Otherwise from an objective standpoint, your own opinion is even more “quackery” than hers.

If you STILL haven’t understood the point I’m trying to make, then let me simplify it for you. It’s not what side of the fence you're on in this argument nor your opinion or stance you’re taking on the matter that I’m criticizing. It’s how you’re taking it and how you’re discrediting the opposing argument.

When I read the article and some of her research I said “ You know what ??? I don’t completely agree with this….. YET….. it doesn’t seem to automatically sell me, BUT this woman has done substantial research and has been working on this for decades so there really is no way for me to reasonably discredit her work without either directly engaging it to examine it for inaccurate methods or fallacious premises or doing the same level of comprehensive research myself “. Isn’t that the sensible , rational , logical and ultimately more credible method of discrediting something you don’t agree with ?? ESPECIALLY when you’re trying give your own opinion on the matter ??

I also find it extremely ironic that you’re trying to present an opinion on what fosters attraction strictly from your own personal experience of what attracts YOU and apply it to everyone else when I think almost everyone in here can agree that what attracts individuals varies greatly within a large group. We all know someone who is mostly attracted off of looks, someone who is mostly attracted off of personality and someone who is mostly attracted off of stability (money). That’s why it’s ironic that someone who is offering a theory of attraction strictly from mostly their own perspective of what attracts solely them is discrediting someone who objectively researched and examined what attracted OTHERS through a large sample group.

Like I said, I’m not even really taking a solid stance on this argument of scent and attraction , I’m just finding it hilarious that you’re so easily discrediting someone (Dr. Herz) who is essentially doing the exact same thing you’re attempting to do in offering such a confident and definitive opinion on the subject when she’s the one who actually did formalized research, and by research I don’t mean sitting behind a computer screen theorizing or reading tarot cards. I’m talking consolidating and examining behavioral neuroscientific literature, constructing scientific experiments, testing large sample groups and executing field studies amongst many more things. If her conclusion is "quackery" then by default, everyone's opinion on the same subject in here is even less credible "quackery" because we're all essentially doing the same thing.

Just a minor point if I may.

This rubbishing of the attraction powers of scent alone, are presumably assuming that we are talking modern scents with mostly synthetics and not the old fashioned or niche ones containing real pheromone style and/or animalics, supposedly having a direct attraction effect on many recipients.