TikTokers Claim ‘Vabbing’ Will Help Dating, Here Are The Issues

Forbes - Mar 29th, 2025

The latest TikTok trend, 'vabbing,' involves using vaginal secretions as a form of perfume, claimed to attract men due to pheromones. This practice, promoted by various TikTok users, suggests dabbing these secretions onto pulse points like wrists and neck. However, scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of vabbing is lacking. Research databases show no studies confirming the presence of pheromones in vaginal fluids or their impact on human attraction. The trend's popularity largely stems from anecdotal evidence and personal success stories shared on social media, but these are difficult to verify.

The implications of vabbing are multifaceted, including questions about its potential risks and the psychological effects of believing in its efficacy. While vabbing might not pose significant physical risks, improper hygiene could lead to infections. Furthermore, the placebo effect, confidence boosts, and selection bias in shared success stories could skew perceptions of its success. The debate about human pheromones remains unresolved, rendering the trend more of a cultural curiosity than a scientifically supported practice. Ultimately, the effectiveness of vabbing is subjective and may vary based on individual perceptions and context.

Tik Tok Social Media Trends Vabbing Pheromones Human Attraction

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a detailed exploration of the social media trend known as 'vabbing,' examining the claims associated with the practice and the lack of scientific evidence supporting them. It effectively communicates the topic in an engaging and accessible manner, using clear language and a logical structure. While the article presents a balanced view by discussing both the claims and the criticisms, it could benefit from incorporating expert opinions to enhance credibility. The topic is timely and relevant to ongoing discussions about social media's impact on behavior, but its broader public interest and impact are limited by the niche nature of the trend. Overall, the article succeeds in raising awareness and encouraging critical thinking about social media trends, though its influence is likely confined to informing and engaging readers rather than driving significant societal change.

Accuracy

The story presents a detailed description of the practice of 'vabbing' and outlines the claims associated with it, such as the belief that vaginal secretions contain pheromones that can attract partners. The article accurately describes the lack of scientific evidence supporting these claims, citing the absence of results in PubMed for 'vabbing' and the ongoing debate about human pheromones. However, the article could be more precise in distinguishing between anecdotal evidence and scientifically verified data. It accurately notes that most claims about vabbing's effectiveness are based on personal anecdotes rather than scientific studies, which is consistent with the current understanding of pheromones in humans.

Balance

The article attempts to present a balanced view by discussing both the claims made by TikTok users and the lack of scientific evidence supporting those claims. It highlights the potential placebo effect and selection bias, providing a critical perspective on the anecdotal evidence shared on social media. However, it could enhance balance by including expert opinions or perspectives from scientists who study pheromones and human attraction. This would provide a more comprehensive view of the topic and help readers understand the broader scientific context.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and engaging manner, making a complex topic accessible to a general audience. It uses straightforward language and provides explanations of key terms, such as pheromones and hormones, to ensure readers understand the concepts discussed. The structure of the article is logical, with a clear progression from the description of vabbing to the discussion of scientific evidence and potential risks. The tone is neutral, allowing readers to form their own opinions based on the information presented.

Source quality

The article primarily relies on anecdotal evidence from TikTok and references to scientific literature to discuss the concept of vabbing. While it correctly identifies the lack of scientific studies on vabbing, it does not cite specific experts or studies directly, which would strengthen the credibility of its claims. Including direct quotes or insights from researchers in the field would enhance the article's authority and provide readers with a clearer understanding of the scientific consensus on pheromones and human attraction.

Transparency

The article is transparent about the lack of scientific evidence supporting the practice of vabbing and acknowledges the anecdotal nature of the claims made by TikTok users. It clearly explains the basis for these claims and the limitations of the evidence. However, it could improve transparency by providing more context on how the information was gathered, such as the specific sources or studies consulted. Additionally, disclosing any potential biases or conflicts of interest among the TikTok users promoting vabbing would enhance transparency.