Dear Lexi,

I will admit my last post was submitted with a little twinkle in the eye and I was unsure if it was going to get a response.

But it is an interesting aspect.

Women have been shown to have a much keener sense of smell than men, especially through ovulation. 

Other studies have shown the further away genetically an odour producing individual is, the more pleasant their scent is judged to be by a smelling person.

For instance a mother finds the odour of her children noticeably less attractive that that of a 'control' child.

It is thought this is an evolutionary response to the disasters of incest.

"being specially repelled by the malodorous fumes of our biological kin functions to promote incest avoidance." (see link below).

Remember in the final scene in Perfume, where Grandfathers were laying down with their grand-daughters etc. Grenouille's scent overcame those olfactory gatekeepers. 

Anyway back to the armpits;

"As recent findings tell us, other people’s apocrine glands—that is to say, their armpits—are routinely piping out a lot of important social information. These armpit odor molecules are sucked up into our sinuses, processed by our brains, and translated into some rather interesting psychological and behavioral reactions."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=armpit-psychology-body-odor

Just on knowing everything.

The alpha maleness of the arm raising, armpit exposing action found its peak in the infamous Hitler Salute.

It is said Hitler himself voted against a party salute at the Nazis first convention in 1920. Even in 1923 he stated "I do not wish to become a cheerleader for the nation.".

Research was of Dr Klara Motz was brought to his attention. She had found that the jerking motion produced by quickly raising the arms caused mini shocks to the brain and given time reduced mental capacity. Hitler was skeptical so the research was shown to Goebbels who was keen for compliant minds for his propaganda. He quickly forced its adoption and refined the rigid snapping motion that was even more effective in achieving the desired effect. This was called the People's Hitler Salute or PHS.

He sent instructions to Hitler that he should perform a far less rigid version which involved keeping the arm bent and languidly flicking the wrist. This was also related to the top brass and was known as the HHS or Hitler Hitler Salute.

It prove extremely valuable in allowing the Nazis to effect their policies on a dumbed down nation.

Kudos to Peter Milner for his research on the topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSx5iMnm4r8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

From Lexi: "The smell of the young women is the distilled essence of desire (in excess), although few of us would be drawn into the urge to eat the person wearing it."
What do witty, intelligent, people think the townsfolk response would have been, if a stinking, young, rag-clad, mad woman had distilled the essence of youths and drenched herself in it?

Dear ybgirp,

This is obviously an issue for you as you have raised it twice now.

I would normally be saying anyone who had only seen the film would have a distorted view of the author's intent and they should go and read the book, but I'm not sure it would be all that helpful here.

Suskind does draw our attention to, and dissects, the fixation we have with virginity. We have dressed the male biological urge to procreate with females who are free from another's genetic material into notions of purity and morality.

In the book he highlights how the fears the murders of the young virgins understandably elicit in the townsfolk are much heightened by the fact they were not sexually molested.

Yet on the face of it that is an absurd position to take. If they are to be murdered isn't it better they do not have to suffer the trauma of rape.

So why does the reader empathize with the heightened horror of the townsfolk? It is because we instinctively know the base motives of our species and when they are not realized in these crimes it is deeply discomforting.

Suskind forces us to reflect on the unsavory aspects of being human and it is often only through those reflection can we rise above the hand our biology has dealt us. That is what we call, for want of a better term,  civilization.

I accept that our religions can be a standard bearer for our civilizations, the notion of a higher calling etc, but to have such base biological instincts reflected in the sanctity of virginity by our major faiths needs exposure and examination, and Suskind shines that light.

Dear csteele,

You've raised some interesting points.
I must apologise however as I simply don't have
the time to respond. We have a family emergency
to deal with and I'm about to leave for the week-end.

I'd like to Thank Poirot for this interesting thread -
and you (and others) for contributing so beautifully
to it.

See you on another thread.

Dear csteele, thanks.
You have explained it beautifully. I don’t really have an issue with it, I was born with a wooden spoon in my hand. I am not, however, convinced that civilization has modified the unsavoury aspects of human behaviour, indeed, it would seem to have exacerbated them when you consider the wars that rage unceasingly and the increasing misery and starvation of billions.
Anthropological studies of pre-civilization human societies suggest they were less ‘base’ than today’s humans. Research into the few remaining hunter-gatherer Amazonian tribes, South African Bushmen and isolated Inuit families of a few decades ago, indicate they practised the ‘virtues’ of kindness, generosity, consideration, affection, honesty, hospitality, compassion, charity, humour, gentleness, equality, listening, egalitarianism, respect for the elderly, love of children, diligent respect for the land, plants and animals, ['virtues' too often missing in the 'developed' world], because to act otherwise was to put the family group in peril.
As our civilisations developed while under the yolk of theocracies, it is not surprising that Organised Religions remain their standard bearers, and this, in part, explains their dysfunctional nature. I understand Suskind’s aim, but don’t share his jaundiced view of human nature.