Women more discriminating
andyrandyr
A Scientific study of PL:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11895…
"Psychology and human behavior students are taught early on about the famous 1978 study conducted on the Florida State University campus in which volunteer male and female subjects approached other students of the opposite sex and recited a carefully scripted proposition: “I have been noticing you around campus and I find you to be very attractive,” they said. “Would you go to bed with me tonight?”
The subjects were neither particularly unattractive nor extremely attractive—which is to say they were pretty much the kinds of partners most people do wind up going to bed with. The women’s success rate when they made this pitch was a remarkable 75 percent, though no subsequent rolls in the hay actually took place—at least not under the aegis of the study. The male volunteers succeeded with this approach precisely zero percent of the time. Remarkably, the psychologists repeated the study three more times throughout the 1980s—when the AIDS epidemic made casual sex seem like mortal folly—and about 50 percent of the men were still completely receptive to an anonymous hookup.
In the real world, this pattern holds even when the woman is manifestly bad news—narcissistically or otherwise—someone with volatile moods or a turbulent romantic or personal history."
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11895…
"Psychology and human behavior students are taught early on about the famous 1978 study conducted on the Florida State University campus in which volunteer male and female subjects approached other students of the opposite sex and recited a carefully scripted proposition: “I have been noticing you around campus and I find you to be very attractive,” they said. “Would you go to bed with me tonight?”
The subjects were neither particularly unattractive nor extremely attractive—which is to say they were pretty much the kinds of partners most people do wind up going to bed with. The women’s success rate when they made this pitch was a remarkable 75 percent, though no subsequent rolls in the hay actually took place—at least not under the aegis of the study. The male volunteers succeeded with this approach precisely zero percent of the time. Remarkably, the psychologists repeated the study three more times throughout the 1980s—when the AIDS epidemic made casual sex seem like mortal folly—and about 50 percent of the men were still completely receptive to an anonymous hookup.
In the real world, this pattern holds even when the woman is manifestly bad news—narcissistically or otherwise—someone with volatile moods or a turbulent romantic or personal history."
13 comments
1. What was wrong with the 25% of guys who weren't interested?
2. Couldn't the 75% who got no sex sue for breach of contract since the girl implied agreed to the deal?
3. Why would anyone waste time studying the obvious. Its like doing a study to determine whether the sky is blue. They could have just asked guys on this site for their reaction and we would all have said yes to the offer ( except of course Jerikson who would have found some way to claim that men don't want random sex with strangers).
LOL! I'm with the others. Only thing surprising is that only 75% of the men agreed to it. And I bet the percentages would go way for women if they only asked ones who had been drinking.
Given how long these things have have been around, and evidence that the numbers are changing, it is surely a net-zero: evolutionary advantages balance evolutionary disadvantages for families where these traits are common. If it wasn't that way they would have either taken over or vanished.
If you want more chicks, the key to success is to be narcissistic, thrill seeking, manipulative, and a bad boy....
Oh, wait....
Okay, maybe try for 2 out of 3...