Slashdot Mirror
Study Shows Males Commonly Mistake Sexual Intent
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."
The study actually just found that women are unclear about communicating their intentions to men.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
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.)
Table-ized A.I.
Since humans are one of the few species that conceal ovulation I am wondering if this has a more genetic basis.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Researchers are so lazy, interviewing people on campus, just because they are there next to you, does not seem to be a very credible methodology. Students are probably not a representative sample of anything.
My little Linux and tech blog
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
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.
I've worked for a karaoke bar called the 7 Bamboo since 2001. Here's some video clips of the mayhem.
.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.)
http://uncutvideo.aol.com/users/sevenbamboovideo
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
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
... 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
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.
Your point reminds me of the flap over the book The Game , 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.
25 years ago I had the good fortune to be introduced to Psychology by a professor who was a colleague of ground-breaking folks like B.F. Skinner, John B. Watson (remember "little Albert"?), etc. and I remember he used to joke that Psychology was the study of the psychology of undergraduates.
Obviously that's not technically correct, but there's more than a kernel of truth to it since Psychology researchers rarely have much funding available but a steady supply of fresh subjects is often freely available by requiring participation in one research study as part of the Psych 101 class.
... whereas women can overlook ugly and stupid, as long as he's rich? As opposed to men? Granted, there's not that many women rich enough to be gold digging for but if you're some ugly, stupid billionaire's daughter I doubt they have problems finding men...Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
That is assuming you would for some reason want something long term. I suppose if you want to have kids, then yes, a long term relationship is required. But, if you don't want any....no need to long term interest. If I want friendship, I turn to my friends, 99% of which are guys. I like women for getting laid, but, other than that....they pretty much are foreign beings.
But really....I can't imagine being stuck with the same person to sleep with the rest of my life...after awhile I'm ready to trade for a 'newer model'....half the fun is the chase anyway.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
People from different cultures might be extra careful, or they might simply blunder forth. There was a great livejournal entry about a westerners experience in Japan:
http://supacat.livejournal.com/111072.html
but the user has since protected it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Clear communication is king/queen. My wife is Vietnamese, I'm hard of hearing. Perfect match. If she says something and I don't hear it, I say, "What?" She doesn't mind repeating herself because it's practice in a foreign language.
But she is absolutely clear about what she wants 99% of the time. That one percent requires clarification. To me, that is what makes love worth getting into.
For those of you who are still in the dark, check out an interesting book called "Getting the Love You Want", by Harville Hendrix. It is the best book I've ever read about relationships for the following reasons:
1. Gives the best description of the physiological basis for why men and women do mean things to each other in relationships.
2. Gives a clear path towards the love in a relationship by describing how to change the stimulus/response process between each partner to each other without manipulation.
Many of the other books I've read are really a set of rules for "understanding" the other person so that you can "control" the other person without letting him/her know about it. Maybe I'm not that good at selecting books, but that has been my observation.
And then there are 12-step meetings since for many people, this can be a problem that cannot be solved by the unaided will.
Take what you like from this message and leave the rest.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
A typical conversation with my wife goes something like this:
... that she was making a fresh pot of coffee.
Her: "That girl was flirting with you."
Me: "What girl?"
"The waitress, (receptionist, librarian, whatever). She was openly blatantly flirting."
"I think she was just being polite."
"No, She wasn't. She was openly blatantly flirting with you and you're too stupid to see it."
Ok, now let me recount the conversation with the waitress that led my wife to this conclusion.
Me: "Miss, could I please have some more coffee?"
Waitress: "Sure, I'm making a fresh pot. It'll be ready in just a minute."
Me: "Thank You."
Now maybe my wife is seeing something I'm not. But I think when she said she was making a fresh pot of coffee, that what she really meant was
I am beginning to think that if men were as ambiguous as women, we would go extinct as a species.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Or because any indication of interest in various places (the workplace, etc.) might be considered harassment, especially when the women don't want it, but are trying to be subtle about it (and us dense males don't pick up on that).
It goes both ways too, certainly. Usually girls are rather frustrated when they find out I've liked them for a while, because we were both giving off ambiguous signals neither had picked up on. It's happened at least three times to me that we were both ambiguous and didn't realize it (and that's only the girls I've actually managed to get past that stage with and then talk about it with).
Personally, I don't find her physically attractive, much less attractive overall. Different guys have different taste in attractiveness. If there were a universal definition of beauty, we'd all be going after one particular subset of the women in the population and the species would die off pretty quickly from lack of genetic diversity. In fact, I rather suspect our definition of attractiveness depends largely on maximizing genetic diversity. That's why many people are interested in other people who look as different as possible. Sometimes society constrains this along racial or geopolitical bounds, but we still tend to push the boundaries as much as is possible/practical.
For example, I can't think of any supermodels that I find attractive. Their features tend to be too severe, they tend to be too tall, etc. I find them relatively boring. Give me someone who looks more like Jewel Staite or Jennifer Garner any day. Others will disagree with me on all counts. And that's the fundamental design of the system.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I would say men's blurry vision is a result of women's blurry behavior. If we didn't have to just keep guessing, we'd be able to react to situations better. Fact of the matter is, we are expected to pick up on strange signals and look for clues where there shouldn't be. That is what women expect of us. So excuse us for doing our best trying to figure out women, but don't blame us when we misinterperate. If women wanted to be more direct and less ambiguous, men could stop trying to "read into" things, and fsck everything up.
In other words, I blame women.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
This reminds me of a joke that I think was in the movie "Colors" - A young bull and an old bull crest the top of a hill and see a valley of cows grazing below them. The young bull says to the other, "let's run down there and fuck one of them cows!" The old bull replies, "no... let's walk down there and fuck them all."
This very simple concept to me perfectly illustrates the situation: At the most basic level, males bond nearly without emotion and certainly without empathy for the females. Females group together for protection in the wild, sensitive to one another's needs. Males have no intention for friendship or relationships with the females and desire only to spread their seed. They are distinctly separate social groups with polar opposite perceptions of the world.
We (humanity) are not programmed for signals, responsiveness, reciprocation or charm. Take it all the way back to cave dwellers - it's survival of the fittest: males impregnate as often and widely as possible, and females do their best to attract the most capable male to them.
I don't think it's any more women's fault that they don't communicate clearly than it is men's fault that they don't understand: men and women weren't designed to be friends; it's society's fault for brain washing us all into thinking that is the case. Now men want to train women to think like them, and women want to train men conversely. It will never work. Ever. The battle of the sexes is doomed to eternal conflict.
As an aside, if you ever find yourself wondering why the younger generations seem to be a directionless, lazy mob - maybe it's because we have confused the crap out them trying to reprogram their basic instincts into being more appreciative, sensitive, caring, emotive, respectful, and yadda, yadda - new-fangled, confusing ideas that conflict with, if not "instinct", their basic behavioral programming.
You can't take the sky from me...
I think you underestimate the subtlety of your signals. If someone brushes against me, I usually assume it was accidental and say, "excuse me." Smiles are useless; too many possible meanings. Like I have this ridiculous beard (its a "work in progress"), so lots of people smile when they look at me. (Some even point and laugh. Children are scared. But I digress ;)
;)
;)
Whispering something in my ear is a pretty good one, depending on what you say. "Hey, wanna go make out?" would certainly get my attention, and I probably wouldn't misinterpret it. Though for clarification I might respond, "Maybe. Who with?"
Blatant is certainly better. No chick has every gotten me by being subtle. I'm way too clueless for that. I don't think it has so much to do with a lack of confidence, but rather a lack of socialization. I spent way too much of my adolescence in front of a computer screen instead of outside flirting with girls. Now 20 years later, I barely talk to people. I have the confidence to walk up and introduce myself; I just don't know how to have conversations. For me everything boils down to problem solving, so if someone asks me a question my answers tend toward closure. My "goal" is to solve the conversation (ie. find its ending).
I suppose I could just change my goal to trying to see how long I can just keep talking on and on about nothing. You know, like women.
(clearly I'm missing something.)
Sure, if you want to predict ovulation slightly better than chance in large samples with no systematic bias. But other factors (including, for example, what impression the person wants you to get) have a larger effect that gets averaged out in studies. Clothes will tell you whether a woman is ovulating, but they're no more likely to get you the right answer than asking her; either way, you'll only get the right answer if she doesn't have a particular answer she wants you to get, or if you average across a large number of trials.
To further prove that point, only from a different angle, here's my story. I'm married and have 2 kids and I'm only 27. None of my long time friends have kids, and most them aren't even close to being married. I feel there's a huge disconnect when I see them. We don't really share much of the same interests anymore, and don't see eachother very often.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I do actually think that geeks, and other similar (mostly male, seemingly) types have the tendency to want one woman only. I don't know, when I fall for someone I find it hard to focus on any other one. I stop "looking around" - I'm simply not interested. This might be a huge problem because when you get rejected it hurts so much more, but it might in the end (as seems to have been your case) be a very good quality. And those "false signals" can actually get a guy like me in pretty deep, even though there was nothing behind it.
I think it has something to do with focus, and that slightly obsessive mentality that is necessary to be able to do the kind of work geeks (and similar types) do. This is in opposition to those "stupid, STUPID, scatter-brained jerks that seem to get all the pretty ones and have the attention span of a housefly and the intelligence of a jellyfish" (sorry 'bout, that, I couldn't help it). Yes, they end up with having sex with a lot of women, but they also often seem to be unable to truly appreciate them.
Of course I'm a little biased here, but I hope my two cents are worth something. Also, men are stupid jerks usually. But we know that in so many things men and women are equal. After all, each make up about 50% of the poplulation. So it is actually with some satisfaction that I declare women to be stupid jerks also. It never ceases to amaze me how often they simply don't KNOW what they are doing to those poor guys they are leading on. It's not just about men reading too much into things, it's also women failing to realize what effect they can have. Or, in some cases, misusing those powers for their own gain.
Am I being too cynical? A little misanthropic even? Well, hell, at least SOME of it is justified.
You should be modded up. Your comments are on the mark.
There are many books that discuss this. Here's a favorite:
http://www.amazon.com/Sperm-Wars-Infidelity-Conflict-Bedroom/dp/1560258489/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206911964&sr=8-3
If you read that book, it will change your life. You begin to understand love, marriage and emotion around sex are related to sex and that both women and men are very cold and calculating (unconsciously) about who they have sex with, who they make babies with, and who they live with.
None of this is conscious, and all of this is necessary to produce organisms that will survive and reproduce.
Women are the most nuances and coldest in their calculations because they have to be. It's nothing personal, and it benefits us as a race.
Most people don't get it, you do.
Anyway, the book I pointed to should be required reading for every man and to a lesser extent women. It helps you understand yourself better as well as understand the opposite sex: how and why they act the way they do.
Anyway, well done.
I have no scientific data to back this up, but things like that are more common than you think.
/Soapbox
In High School, I had a similar incident where a girl in our small group of friends started to hit me at random times. I later found out that she liked me and that was her way of trying to tell me. I've been told that younger girls tend to do this as a way of 'fitting in' with the guys (since their view of guys is that they do this to one another and apparently enjoy it).
And in response to the article in the OP: In the last couple of decades, guys have had to deal with feminism - some of it pretty extreme. An example from my personal experiences, I tend to hold doors for people - guys AND gals - if they're near enough that I'm not going out of my way (golden rule). I once did this for a young woman once (I don't exactly recall where or when), but she intentionally went through another door (that she opened herself) and scolded me that she doesn't need help. The undertone there was that she wouldn't accept my gesture of courtesy because I was male. Due to that one instance, I've pretty much stopped holding doors for people (unless they're really going to need help with the door, i.e.: arms full of stuff). I will hold the door open a little longer as I go through it if I notice someone following, but that's about it.
That example was an extreme way of illustrating that men are continually getting mixed messages about what's acceptable and what's not, which may help explain why "men were quite likely to misperceive sexual interest as friendliness." In certain scenarios, a simple misinterpretation can lead to loss of employment or even a lawsuit. For that reason, I suspect, guys will tend to play it safe and interpret everything in purely platonic terms.
Personally, I'm mildly outraged that (some) women do this - my wife included. If women want men to read the signals properly, we need to know the rules and they need to be consistent. It's manipulative, sneaky, underhanded, and just plain unfair. I feel like I'm playing by a constantly-changing set of rules (Calvinball, anyone?). If that's going to be the case, I refuse the play the game. Because that's all it is - a game. I don't like playing games with people's emotions and I REALLY don't like people playing with mine.
My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
I suppose I could just change my goal to trying to see how long I can just keep talking on and on about nothing. You know, like women. ;)
I bet that you do know how to have conversations, you simply aren't comfortable having the kind of conversations that you imagine men have with women that lead to women having sex with the men they are talking to. It has been my experience that women are the hunters and men are the prey. The more attractive the woman, the more choices she has. Men have to do things to gain attention (either by dressing and behaving a certain way, or by initiating the conversation). The woman then decides how far the interaction is going to go.
You might consider a new way to consider conversations. Women aren't really interested in what you are talking about as much as they are interested in HOW you are talking and carrying yourself. Are you confident? Can you speak clearly? Are you focused on the subject at hand? Do you communicate a sense of purpose and is your conversation going anywhere? Is your conversation engaging? Are there opportunities there? Are your providing something for the person you are speaking with to become a part of?
Conversation is an art. Women like cunning linguists. Women like challenges. They like being stimulated. They will test you and put out hoops for you to jump through. Turn the tables on them. Make them prove that they are worth YOUR time. After spending a decade dealing with women, I finally figured out that focusing on women is a waste of time. Focus on what you are into. Do whatever furthers yourself and makes you a better person. Women are drawn to focus and confidence. Like attracts like.
If you look at seduction like a game, you are going to attract women who are playing games. If you realize that attracting worth while women is simply a by product of living a happy successful life, you will do much better when it comes to getting laid.
> Being a CS student and surrounded by men for the majority of my days I've
;-)
> become a little more understanding of the difficulties I can pose when
> I'm not being clear but it's kinda hard to stop doing it all together.
As a man who majored in computer science when I was in school, I think I am on safe ground saying that _on average_ (though there is a lot of variation in individuals), male CS students are going to tend to have an even harder time reading non-verbal cues than the male population in general. It's also true that the male population in at large has a harder time with it, on average, then the female population.
Many of us are *aware* of the fact that we don't really "get" non-verbal communication. But that doesn't make us any better at it. (Some of us have learned to partially compensate by asking clarifying questions. You may encounter this -- a guy asking questions that _seem_ unnecessary and the answers obvious, basically asking you to confirm aspects of what you just said. Please try not to be too annoyed. When this happens, there's an excellent chance that the guy doing this has had bad experiences in the past with people getting mad at him because he thought he understood what they said but missed some nuance he was supposed to have read between the lines.)
So yeah, if you want to be really sure we understand what you're getting at, generally the most surefire way to do that is to double-check that every part of what you're saying was actually expressed in the _words_ that you said. Use words. Words, of course, still can be misunderstood. But on the whole your chances of getting your point across successfully are better with words than with any other method, especially if you are talking to men, and extra-especially if they're also computer geeks.
I suppose it's probably annoying to have to say everything in words all the time. Then again, there's no real need to bother with it except when you actually care about being understood
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Ok, on the whole sneaky, manipulative, underhanded thing: we're all (girls) guilty of this. This is how women interact with each other as well. That doesn't make it right but I'm afraid we can't always see that we're doing it so from my whole gender: sorry.
A perfect example of this (and I am not being a pig) is women in management. Get two or more women in power positions in the same department or company and watch the fur fly...literally. Everything they do to one another is on a personal level. With men it is different. Sure the guy down the hall just backstabbed you but its business its not personal. Not so with women backstabbing women. My old boss actually moved my entire department to a different building because she couldn't get along with another female department head.