“Vabbing addiction” goes mainstream again, but the science still isn’t there—and the health questions are real

“Vabbing” has bounced between internet shock-trend and late-night punchline for years, but it’s back in the spotlight after a new reality-TV segment framed it as an “addiction.” That reframing matters because it blurs two different conversations: a sexualized social-media fad built on pheromone mythology, and the real-world risks of repeatedly touching genital fluids and then applying them to skin in public settings. The result is a fresh wave of curiosity, confusion, and unsafe assumptions—especially among viewers who take reality-TV storylines as practical advice.

The uncertainty problem: attraction claims travel faster than evidence

Vabbing is often presented as a “natural perfume” idea: dab vaginal secretions on pulse points (wrists, neck, behind ears) with the belief it boosts attraction through pheromones. The trouble is that the pheromone claim is the engine of the trend—and it’s also the least supported part. Human attraction is complicated, and the notion of a reliable, detectable “mating signal” that works like cologne isn’t established in solid, repeatable research.

That doesn’t mean people won’t swear it “works.” Confidence effects are powerful: if someone feels bolder, flirts more, makes eye contact, and moves through a room like they expect to be noticed, their outcomes can change. The trend’s perceived “success” can come from behavior shifts rather than biology.

The risk is that the viral framing encourages escalation: more frequent “applications,” more extreme claims, and less attention to basic hygiene and sexual health—exactly the conditions where minor irritation can become a bigger problem.

What “vabbing addiction” means on My Strange Addiction—and what it doesn’t

The phrase “vabbing addiction” is tied to a recent episode of My Strange Addiction featuring a woman named Cassy who says she vabs repeatedly—around 50 times a day—in the hope that people will “smell her pheromones” and be drawn to her. The segment leans into the show’s familiar formula: a provocative personal habit, a social reaction, and expert commentary that challenges the logic.

It’s important to separate the TV label from clinical reality. Calling something an “addiction” on a reality show is not the same as a medical diagnosis. Compulsive behavior can be serious, but the word “addiction” is often used on TV as a storytelling device—especially when the behavior is unusual, intimate, or easy to sensationalize.

What the segment does highlight, intentionally or not, is how quickly a trend can mutate:

• from “one-time experiment” to “daily ritual,”

• from private behavior to social identity,

• from curiosity to compulsion—or at least to a routine that’s hard to stop.

A quick reality check for viewers (not advice, just risk clarity)

• No proven ‘human pheromone perfume’ effect. Attraction outcomes are more plausibly explained by confidence and social behavior changes.

• Skin irritation is a predictable risk. Frequent rubbing and transferring fluids can inflame sensitive areas (both genital skin and pulse points).

• Hand hygiene matters. Repeated contact increases the chance of transferring bacteria to eyes, mouth, or small cuts.

• Infections change the equation. If someone has symptoms like unusual odor, itching, burning, or discharge changes, copying the trend is a bad idea.

• Consent and social context still apply. “Natural scent” experiments can cross boundaries in shared spaces if others are unknowingly exposed to bodily fluids.

Vabbing will keep returning because it sits at the perfect intersection of internet novelty and dating anxiety. But the current moment—where a viral fad is being repackaged as compulsive behavior on reality TV—adds a sharper edge: it encourages people to treat an unproven idea like a strategy, and then treat escalation like commitment.

If you’re hearing “vabbing” for the first time because of My Strange Addiction, the most accurate takeaway is this: the claims are louder than the evidence, and the safest interpretation is that any “results” are more likely social than chemical.