New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

What's Smell Got to Do with It?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Chemicals that seem to act as sex-specific signals tickle the brains of gay men and straight women in a similar way. Using brain scans, Swedish researchers had found that women getting a whiff of the steroid derivative androstadienone, found in sweat, experience increased blood flow in a part of their hypothalamus known to release sexual hormones. Male sniffers responded instead to an estrogen derivative. Now the group has observed that in gay men the same brain location, called the peroptic area, responds to androstadienone rather than the estrogenlike steroid. Further experiments are needed to conclude that these activation patterns reflect sexual attraction, as opposed to discriminating between genders, or that the responses are innate or learned, cautions Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, co-author of the report in the May 17 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

Indeed, olfactory response may be more sensitive to sexual orientation than brain scanning can resolve. In the September Psychological Science, researchers from the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia will report how they collected armpit sweat from straight and gay men and women. The outcomes were not as simple as “prefers men” or “prefers women.” All groups except gay men preferred the scent of lesbians to that of gay men, for example. Still, the work adds evidence for sexbased differences in odor production and preference.

JR Minkel was a news reporter for Scientific American.

More by JR Minkel
Scientific American Magazine Vol 293 Issue 1This article was published with the title “What's Smell Got to Do with It?” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 293 No. 1 (), p. 27
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0705-27a

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe