Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Study Shows Males Commonly Mistake Sexual Intent

Posted by kdawson on Sun Mar 30, 2008 04:50 AM
from the ask-any-woman-in-a-bar dept.
seattle-pk writes "Males are apparently clueless when it comes to interpreting sexual intent from females, according to a recent study (PDF) from Indiana University's Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. Men were found commonly to perceive more sexual intent in women's behavior than women were intending to convey. (A campus survey showed that 68% of college females had an experience where a male mistook signs of friendliness for affection.) However, the study also shows that men were quite likely to misperceive sexual interest as friendliness. 'Rather than seeing the world through sex-colored glasses, men seemed just to have blurry vision of sorts, overall,' according to the article. If you're a male who ever mistook the meaning of a barista's smile, looks like you're not alone."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Tablizer (95088) on Sunday March 30 2008, @04:52AM (#22910400) Homepage Journal
    Is this from the same study group that found males like beer?

    "She slapped me, that means she wants my bod!"
       
  • wrong (Score:5, Funny)

    by spoop (952477) on Sunday March 30 2008, @04:53AM (#22910402)
    women have blurry behavior
    • Re:wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Meekuu (980433) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:24AM (#22910522)
      ... and men are simple beigns. It doesn't matter if the woman sends any signals. If she's pretty and witty he's intersted. If she's ugly and witty he ONLY wants to be her friend. If she's ugly and stupid he doesn't know her.
      • Re:wrong (Score:5, Funny)

        by MisterSchmoo (1262374) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:36AM (#22910564)
        Didn't you watch "When Harry Met Sally" we want to bang the ugly ones too.
      • Re:wrong (Score:5, Funny)

        by rve (4436) on Sunday March 30 2008, @06:27AM (#22910772)
        ... whereas women can overlook ugly and stupid, as long as he's rich?

        Ug!
        • Re:wrong (Score:5, Interesting)

          by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Sunday March 30 2008, @06:38AM (#22910832) Homepage

          ... whereas women can overlook ugly and stupid, as long as he's rich?

          Your point reminds me of the flap over the book The Game [amazon.com] , where journalist Neil Strauss uncovered a secret world of men who make picking up women a science. Just take a look at the war in the Amazon reviews and in their attached comments. Women attack users of The Game for only going after beautiful (and unthreateningly dumb) women, and men respond that women do the same thing in only going after men with superficial qualities or large checkbooks. But if you actually read The Game as a chronicle of investigation instead of as a manual for picking up women, you realize that both are wrong. Meeting someone you are going to be interested in for the long-term, as opposed to one night of sex, means seeking out those qualities that might initially turn you off.

        • Re:wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Knutsi (959723) on Sunday March 30 2008, @06:44AM (#22910866)
          Street wisdom: Ugly girls wants nice boys. Pretty girls want rich boys.

          Those in the middle swing both ways. This is also called "land of possibilities" ;p
        • FORM (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dcrockerjr (1107773) on Sunday March 30 2008, @07:56AM (#22911122)
          FORM: Family, Occupation, Recreation, Money. When ladies talk to you they are only trying to assess your worth. Wealth of an individual can sometimes change with time and circumstance. So ladies put those they believe might become wealthy in the "friends" category, if they do become wealthy they simply pretend they were interested all along.
      • Re:wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday March 30 2008, @08:15AM (#22911206)
        Nonono. When she's pretty and witty, he wants to fuck her and go steady. When she is ugly and witty, he wants to fuck her and stay her friend. When she is ugly and stupid, he wants to fuck her and then move on. Unless she gives good head.
      • by Bayoudegradeable (1003768) on Sunday March 30 2008, @08:18AM (#22911228)
        Always marry an ugly girl, that's the only kind. She'll never ever leave you, and if she does you won't mind. Let's not forget, ugly girls need lovin', too! But then again, discussing sex with women on slashdot is like discussing Ubuntu with your grandmother... neither party knows what the hell is going on...
    • Wait . . .

      Are you saying that the cute bartender, the one who laughs at all my horrible jokes and cleans up after me after I get really drunk and spill my beer everywhere, the one that I constantly tip very well . . . are you trying to tell me that she might not actually be into me?
  • by ghostdoc (1235612) on Sunday March 30 2008, @04:53AM (#22910404)
    The study actually just found that women are unclear about communicating their intentions to men.
    • by Knutsi (959723) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:05AM (#22910456)

      An interesting follow up would be to look at men and womens abilities to communicate their emotional states to others of the same sex, and also broaden the range of "intents" studied towards the opposite sex. It's that men from Mars, women from Venus thingy.

      Also, how about looking into this across cultures? Maybe the portrait of women as sexual predators that tend to flourish in the media conditions falsely and desensitizes to the subtelties in non-verbal communication on this, and other, subjects. Anyone remember the episode of Friends where they got free porn? ;)

      • by mcvos (645701) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:53AM (#22910626)

        An interesting follow up would be to look at men and womens abilities to communicate their emotional states to others of the same sex, and also broaden the range of "intents" studied towards the opposite sex.

        That's exactly what I was thinking. If men understand the sexual intentions of other men, and women don't understand the sexual intentions of other women, then it's clearly the women who don't communicate clearly. If women understand each other but men don't, then it's men who are obvlivious. If men understand each other and women understand each other, but men don't understand women and vice versa, then it's the "women from Venus, men from Mars" thing". And if everybody has trouble understanding other people's sexual intentions, then people in general are unclear or oblivious about sexual intentions.

        It's that men from Mars, women from Venus thingy.

        That depends on the findings of the follow-up study.

        • by VoidCrow (836595) on Sunday March 30 2008, @07:39AM (#22911060)
          Speaking entirely subjectively, my own sexual intent, as a woman, is like a ratchet with a very large reset button, with a mischievous monkey in attendance. The monkey keeps on pressing the reset button at random intervals. A man can interest me, and things can go very well right up until he says or does entirely the wrong thing (and don't ask me to define 'the wrong thing'). At this point, I completely lose interest and go back to being a nun. This is essentially why the man needs to spank the monkey.
      • Okay let me try. Situation, and how the communication works.

        Situation 1: There's a real interest in a friendship, although there is no kind of physical attraction. The other person seems genuinely fun to be around

        Female: Smiles at him, looks straight into his eyes so that he knows that she is not at all afraid of scaring him off and is therefore NOT looking for a serious relationship. However, she picks up conversation to learn about his interests to be able to propose things they can do together for fun.
        Male: Asks "Wanna get drunk and play Smash Bros?"

        Situation 2: There's a strong physical attraction and interest in pursuing a serious relationship.

        Female: Gazes deeply into his eyes to give the impression that she is lost in him. This will provide an excellent "how-we-met" story for their kids. She tries to act interested in his interests because she wants to also be interesting to him.
        Male: Asks "Wanna get drunk and play Smash Bros?" with an ulterior motive.

        In conclusion, we're all idiots.
      • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Sunday March 30 2008, @08:12AM (#22911194) Homepage
        No. The message should definitely be to women, "Be more clear about your intentions." Because even if men are naturally oblivious, we're not going to become any more insightful, but women can change their behavior. So women, if you don't want to send a message that your interested, quit flirting. If you are interested, go ahead and be forward.
    • by mikael_j (106439) <slashdot@@@pantburk...info> on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:59AM (#22910650) Homepage

      Exactly, and what's even more interesting is that if a man decides to be slightly more subtle than "UGH! ME MAN! YOU WOMAN!" but still way more obvious than women generally are then most women seem to completely miss that the man was hitting on them and I've heard women complain about how a guy should've been "more clear about it" yet they themselves think a smile and twirling their hair between their fingers while looking at a guy for two seconds from across the room somehow is enough effort to be considered "taking the first step".

      And then they can't understand why the guys they like never understand that they're attracted to them...

      /Mikael

    • by Knuckles (8964) <knuckles.dantian@org> on Sunday March 30 2008, @07:10AM (#22910946)
      The study actually just found that women are unclear about communicating their intentions to men.

      Or that still images are poor communicators of intentions. From the study pdf:

      Identification Task
      Seated in a private computer room, participants categorized each of a series of photo images of women into one of four categories: friendly, sexually interested, sad, or rejecting. Each participant was randomly assigned to view the images for 500 ms or 3,000 ms. The 500-ms presentation time was sufficiently short to make it challenging to decode all relevant information thoroughly; the 3,000-ms presentation time provided ample opportunity for thorough processing.
      Participants viewed the images in four blocks of 70 randomly ordered images, with a 30-s pause separating successive blocks.

      This seems to have very little to tell us about actual real-life interaction between women and men, which tend to have much more going on than a frozen look. What's with smells, mimic, body language or, you know, the actual content of the conversation? Maybe the study authors have more experience with online sex, or they want to sell their method to webcam pr0n providers.

  • Evolution (Score:5, Funny)

    by Detritus (11846) on Sunday March 30 2008, @04:59AM (#22910426) Homepage
    Things sure were simpler when we were monkeys.
  • Humor? (Score:5, Funny)

    by carpe_noctem (457178) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:03AM (#22910452) Homepage Journal
    Why's this story in the "Humor" section? What's so funny about a 30-year old virgin?

    Oh, wait..... HAW, HAW!
  • Hogwash... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KGIII (973947) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:04AM (#22910454) Homepage Journal
    While the results are likely true the reality is, in my opinion, that women don't make any sense. *nods* "Guys are clueless." The author, of the article at least, is female and many of today's men are so effeminate that we can't tell the difference. It is not that men haven't a clue, it is that women aren't willing (read able but I'm trying to be PC) to send clear signals.

    We're MEN... We need CLEAR signals. We've only got enough blood to fill any one of the two organs at a time and most of the time it isn't the brain. Give us a CLEAR yes. You want us to fully comprehend then wear a damned sign - until then? Well... *shrugs*

    Bah... Screw it... Until then remember that we've got too many people on the planet already.

    • by donscarletti (569232) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:54AM (#22910632)

      We're MEN... We need CLEAR signals.
      If you're trying to address the world's female population right now then I am afraid that you have your soapbox parked in the wrong forum.
      • by bounty_hunter.poland (1261366) on Sunday March 30 2008, @06:11AM (#22910708)

        If you're trying to address the world's female population right now then I am afraid that you have your soapbox parked in the wrong forum.
        The are women on the internet! There are women on Slashdot! They just use manly nicknames, so we won't try to flirt with them all the time.

        ~amanda99: I'm really pissed with Microsoft pushing OOXML standarization!
        ~The-Man: Oh, you're so pretty when you're angry.
    • Re:Hogwash... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mcvos (645701) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:59AM (#22910648)

      We're MEN... We need CLEAR signals.

      We don't just need clear signals, be need explicitly stated intentions. Say "I want sex". Then we understand you.

      Fortunately my wife is aware of this and doesn't expect me to pick up on subtle clues. When she wants something from me, she tells me so. I love her very much.

    • Re:Hogwash... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by norton_I (64015) <hobbes@utrek.dhs.org> on Sunday March 30 2008, @06:12AM (#22910712)
      I don't know. Are you better at telling when some girl is coming on to your friend? That would indicate that men can damn well read the signs fine, they just corrupt the reading with their own emotions when it is directed at themselves.
    • Re:Hogwash... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Miseph (979059) on Sunday March 30 2008, @06:36AM (#22910816) Journal
      On the contrary, many men have plenty of blood to run both, and are nice enough to think with the superior one even when the inferior one is standing up to make its own announcements. These men are also, however, not generally willing to just hit on anything with boobs, and have learned the hard way that sometimes when girls are nice to them that it means they just want to be friends.

      Apparently, 60% of women need to realize that, frustrating as men's behavior might be, they solve plenty of problems by just thinking. If you really like your friend Todd because he's such a sweet guy and he never lechs out or anything, but he constantly seems to ignore your attempts to sleep with him, then you can safely assume that Todd is either totally gay or is simply being nice and not pervy to the point that he may well be dismissing the hints rather than risk creeping you out. I suggest talking to him about it, and not being so damned obtuse.
  • Evolution? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:06AM (#22910460) Homepage Journal
    There may be some evolutionary advantage in over-interpreting signals. Even though you may be wrong most of the time, the few times you are right still gets you some bootie. (Although it barely offsets the broken leg from one of the error's boyfriends.)
       
    • Re:Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Knutsi (959723) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:12AM (#22910488)
      Or, if you are a true alpha male, the error's boyfriend would be the one left behind in the dust. Now that's natural selection for you. Sad principle upon to build a stable, peaceful society thought, so let's raise above that ;) Me being a spindly nerd has nothing to do with this view of course.
    • Re:Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BiggerIsBetter (682164) <`richard' `at' `vems.co.nz'> on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:21AM (#22910512) Homepage
      Don't forget the evolutionary advantage in "mis-communicating" by the females. More or less, guys who like you do stuff for you. You can sleep with whoever you want (eg, the alpha male) and the other guys (beta males) will still bust a nut trying to score by being nice / doing your bidding. Sending misleading signals is absolutely full of win for the girls (until you meet a psycho).
  • Genetic link? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lobiusmoop (305328) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:09AM (#22910470) Homepage
    Since humans are one of the few species that conceal ovulation [findarticles.com] I am wondering if this has a more genetic basis.
  • by Torodung (31985) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:30AM (#22910544) Journal
    Wow. Talk about interpreting the data to fit ones prejudices, instead of exploring all possibilities.

    How about this take?: Women can't effectively communicate sexual intent (or lack) to men.

    Or maybe we'll decide not to bow to such specious sexist chauvinism?: Study shows people are confused about sexuality. Women don't know how to ask for it, and the men don't know when they're asking. NAAAH!

    It may seem trite, but communication is a two way street. Both the speaker and the listener are equally to blame for a failed communication, usually for not setting a clear set of assumptions upon which to base it. You know, language.

    I would say that what this shows is that the language of sexual intent, especially primary (non-verbal) language, is sorely lacking. Have you seen the current youth "sexy dance?" They are seriously just out there having fun. Not a thing wrong with it. But if I did that with my wife, she'd know I want to "get down" later.

    Don't get me wrong, they're hooking up too, but they're out there grinding like a bunch of feckless bunnies, and it doesn't necessarily mean anyone wants to have sex.

    How could anyone not be confused? The only societal basis in the sexual dialogue we have any more is that misinterpretation is the only crime, and that only men misinterpret, because they're so bad at communication.

    That's not a basis for relations between the sexes, that's absurd chauvinistic prejudice that makes your right hand seem considerably less risky.

    So, in the age of sexy dancing, well past overtly sexualized clothing, trivialized sexual language, and a general dissolving of the entire courting process, how does one communicate, "Hey sailor, wanna fuck?" in a subtle and socially acceptable fashion?

    That's not a question worth answering when you can just blame the man for being clueless.

    Retitle: Study shows common prejudice that communications problems are always the man's fault. New study sets out to prove that the trivialization of sexual content in American society has left all parties thoroughly rudderless.

    --
    Toro
  • I work in a bar (Score:5, Interesting)

    by t0qer (230538) on Sunday March 30 2008, @06:01AM (#22910658) Homepage Journal
    I've worked for a karaoke bar called the 7 Bamboo since 2001. Here's some video clips of the mayhem.

    http://uncutvideo.aol.com/users/sevenbamboovideo [aol.com]

    Here's a statement from a guy that deals with both sexes at the core of thier honest drunkness when it comes to getting what they want. In this case, it mostly happens when our playlist is so full we cannot take anymore requests.

    Guys will typically flash cash, or they'll do a intimidation display (beating thier chest) to get what they want. Girls on the other hand will flirt, pout, or use some other form of sexual display.

    So when a slobbering drunk girl is pouting at me, bent over the booth, cleavage showing, saying "PLEASE MR KARAOKE MAN! LET ME HAVE ONE MORE SONG!" You mean to tell me as a male i'm misreading what she's trying to communicate?

    She's trying to tell me "I'll fuck your brains out of this world if you let me sing." 99% of the women will pretend this is thier offer, but never deliver. (Yes, there's a small maybe even less than 1% that would deliver. (Cue up the "TOQER PLZ INTRO ME jokes now)

    Just because a woman has no intent on fullfilling the message she's projecting, it doesn't diminish the fact that she *IS* trying to get that message across. It could be cleavage, it could me smiling and acting all cute, it could be putting thier arm around you, women have a lot of body language things they can do to convey it.

    Not all men can tell the difference either. In fact, I'd say the majority can't. It's not fair to lump all us men together as one chauvenist mass though because women are trying to decieve us. Who's worse? The dumb man that can't tell the difference, or the salacious seductructress using her false (read lying) sexual messages?

    And maybe I just don't know WTF i'm talking about because I have a skewed view of the world based on where I work, but I did work in desktop support in corporate enviroments for many years prior (think netware, early .com, NT3.51 days) I used to see women use the very same techniques at work to size new hires up, or get guys to help them on projects, or whatever. I think this is pre-programmed into us from our primate ancestors (ever see female chimps in heat with the swollen red asses? How about the bonobo chimps trading sex for food, etc.)

    My wife is a very paranoid lady when it comes to other women. I think deep down inside all women know that all other women use sexual body cues in the same way. I used to think my wife was nuts when she would be all jealous of other girls standing around me, but after 14 years of her giving me cues I can sort of spot what's going on now too.

    I believe a lot of this behavior is going to end at my generation. We didn't have this tharn intarnet in the 70's when I was born. I believe that the net, womens sufferage, and globalization has lead to a balancing out of the genders (at least here in the US) We are really on the verge of having a woman president, and that says a lot for how much gender roles have changed in this country. A lot of men (like me) had to take what jobs they could in 2001 between the layoffs and 9/11. I'm not the breadwinner in my household anymore, and i'm OK with that.

    I look forward to it. It's got to be better than the message tradition beliefs and pop culture has tried to teach us. Western Christianity has typically conveyed that the man is in a dominant role, and the woman is a sexual toy/servant/baby launcher. I think the best balance is a true partnership, but so many women, men are running around ignorantly trying to assert thier gender role that they don't learn that till many years down the road.

    There's also another side to this and that's the pop culture aspect. How many of you have watch Margeret Cho and Andrew Dice Clay?

    I've known girls that follow Cho like she's Jesus, and guys follow ADC like he's uhh I dunno, Jesus? I'm sure other folks have seen the same. People a
    • Re:I work in a bar (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2008, @07:17AM (#22910970)

      She's trying to tell me "I'll fuck your brains out of this world if you let me sing." 99% of the women will pretend this is thier offer, but never deliver. {...} I think this is pre-programmed into us from our primate ancestors (ever see female chimps in heat with the swollen red asses? How about the bonobo chimps trading sex for food, etc.)

      Posting AC for obvious reasons, I'd just like to say that you're more right than you may even know here. The only correction I might make is in your phrasing when you say that a woman is "trying" to convey something, since, in my experience, it's frequently quite involuntary. It's also not necessarily a direct proferring of sex, but a way of fitting into a role that looks vulnerable and inspires a hopefully sympathetic reaction. I had a jarring experience with my own evolutionary throwback a year or two ago in Japan. I was alone in Japan for a little over a week, not knowing much Japanese, but trying to be independent as possible anyway. Each time I had to communicate with people (hostel clerks, train station receptionists, etc.), male or female, I could feel my eyes involuntarily became wider, my lower lip protrude, my brow knit in an innocently perplexed manner. It went entirely against my usual modus operandi of being strong and solitary, but as soon as I needed someone's help, really needed it just to get by, here was this automatic mechanism to make me look younger and more harmless and, frankly, dumber and in greater need than I may really have been. And it worked. Damn near every time I asked for help in an uncertain, wavery manner, people treated me more kindly and patiently than they usually do ever. I suppose I could have felt empowered by this, but I was mostly balking at my sudden inability to control what the hell my face did, and feeling guilty for manipulating people, even if it was harmless and I didn't mean to.

      I don't doubt that there are women who know exactly what they're doing when they pout at you, but you might be surprised by how many more don't

  • by ElGanzoLoco (642888) on Sunday March 30 2008, @06:33AM (#22910802) Homepage
    I quote the Live Science article: "More often than not, guys interpret even friendly cues, such as a subtle smile from a gal, as a sexual come-on" .
    Well, actually the study (see findings table, last page of the PDF) shows that 79.9 percent of guys correctly identified friendliness and only 12.1pct mistook it for sexual interest. Sadness and rejection were also correctly interpreted most of the times (and almost never mistaken for sexual interest).

    And now I quote the /. summary: Men were found commonly to perceive more sexual intent in women's behavior than women were intending to convey.
    Wrong again: sexual interest is the only intent that just less than half of the male sample correctly interpreted, with almost 40% of them mistaking it for friendliness.

    So it seems that we don't do too bad after all. Of course, this doesn't fly too well with the typical "horny males think all girls 'want some' " stereotypes.

    Now, I'd be willing to see the results of the same research, applied to girls. My anecdotal evidence indicates that girls fare even worse than guys at interpreting "sexual interest" signals. My "sexual interest" signals consistently get ignored (maybe I'm just too shy) or, even worse, mistaken for an invitation to be friends and tell me their ex-boyfriend stories (when this happens: run!). I also find that a non-trivial number of girls mistakes friendliness for sexual interest (usually the same ones who think of themselves as hot and intersting).

  • by master_p (608214) on Sunday March 30 2008, @06:41AM (#22910850)
    Not the programming language, of course! Smalltalk with a girl you like, and if she really likes you, the conversation will go on without any embarrassing pauses. Smalltalk allows us to relax and let ourselves be, and any underlying feelings usually surface.

    There are some subtle clues to as if a girl likes you; for example, if, after a long conversation, she starts to touch you. Or if she turns her body towards you while she speaks.

    Of course none of the above guarantee 100% that a girl likes you. But it's a good start.

    Remember some general principles: be clean, be gentle and polite, show interest in your partner, be sincere.

    Also remember that one of the most important feelings for women is the feeling of security: try to make them feel relatively secure; women have a wide spectrum of feelings but they are usually reluctant to show them until they feel nice and welcomed to the person they speak to.

    Finally, also remember that for women, sex is more a psychological operation than a physical one. Sex is not the same for the two sexes. Women are mentally and emotionally aroused before physically aroused, so try to care for them!!!

  • by assertation (1255714) on Sunday March 30 2008, @07:35AM (#22911030)
    There are a lot of books out there on how to improve your dating life. A lot of those books are even written with geeks in mind, not that description ever fit me or anyone who reads slashdot......*cough* *cough* :).

    Be warned, most of these books are poorly written and the web sites where even the good books are sold are styled in a way where it looks like snake oil is being sold.

    However, there is a lot of good stuff out there that actually works.

    I highly recommend:

    1. Renting a copy of the movie "The Tao Of Steve". It is based on the true story of an obese underachiever who develops a method to get all of the dates he wants despite his disadvantages.

    2. Read "Without Embarrassment" by Mike Pilinski. Don't buy it from Amazon, it is overpriced by $30 there. Go to the author's web site. The web site is done poorly and looks like snake oil. Don't let that fool you. Pilinski was one of us, and his book is one of the good ones. You can get the book as an ebook or printed on demand. You have to look around on the site a bit to find the later option.

    If you want to read more after this I would start with the "The Game" by Neil Strauss. The author is a professional writer and it shows. Despite the size the book will read like it is only 100 pages. It is very captivating and the book is an excellent overview of the "PUA Community" ( Pickup Artist Community ). This is very valuable, because even the good authors have bogus looking web sites that make it hard to get a good idea of what their products are like.

    This wikipedia page also serves as a good overview. Most of the "literature" on this subject falls into about 4 sets of approaches with many, MANY copycats. This page will give you the bottom line -- without having to read a lot of marketing crap -- on each prominent system. I recommend watching the movie and reading "Without Embarrassment" first though:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_Community [wikipedia.org]

  • That's because (Score:5, Insightful)

    by koan (80826) on Sunday March 30 2008, @07:38AM (#22911052)
    It pays biologically for men to err on the side of trying to get laid, for women it's better to err on the side of caution.
    • by Digestromath (1190577) on Sunday March 30 2008, @05:52AM (#22910620)
      We spent significant resources developing a verbal language, and it's about damn time women started using it.

      Begin with simple statements:

      Put down the 20 sided dice and come have a drink with me.

      Your guild can raid without you for a night, lets go see a movie.

      We can make out while your program compiles.

      I know you enjoy moderating that silly Slashdot forum, but we could be having sex right now!

    • by Torodung (31985) on Sunday March 30 2008, @06:05AM (#22910682) Journal

      ... that women are useless at communicating non-verbally with men, as they persist in using signals that are in fact only understood by women.
      First off, I think women typically place a much higher value on secondary (verbal) communication than men do, and men a higher value on primary than women do, and that this probably has much to do with evolution as anything else.

      But the real kicker is that our society has taken away every subtle means of communicating such things non-verbally by trivializing and commercializing sexuality as a way of getting adults to sublimate continual titillation into their shopping. Sex sells, and as a result, primary language of that sort has become nothing more than an affectation, instead of a seductive invitation. I've heard lectures given deliberately stating that it is never an overture, even if it would make any man of moderate libido flush.

      To men, our blood pressure goes up involuntarily, and then even the slightest smile seems like a flirtation. We're supposed to somehow contain our biology and millenia of evolutionarily determined visual cues. Women downplay this effect because they're not wired that way.

      Personally, I'd like to see a study on what happens to male judgment whilst trying to contain an involuntary erection. It might have something to do with the results. Worse than "beer goggles" is the kind of wishful thinking that typically occurs when a man is aroused.

      --
      Toro
    • by Anne Thwacks (531696) on Sunday March 30 2008, @07:26AM (#22911004)
      Students are probably not a representative sample of anything.

      Au cointraire, mon frere, students are very representative of people who lie on questionares about sex

      This study is not worth the e-paper its not written on. That goes for almost all other questinaires about sex too.