Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study Shows Males Commonly Mistake Sexual Intent

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the ask-any-woman-in-a-bar dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 825

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

From the No Duh Dept. (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910400)

Is this from the same study group that found males like beer?

"She slapped me, that means she wants my bod!"
   

Re:From the No Duh Dept. (5, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910696)

Nothing says "I Love You" like a restraining order.

wrong (5, Funny)

spoop (952477) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910402)

women have blurry behavior

Re:wrong (5, Insightful)

Meekuu (980433) | more than 6 years ago | (#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 (5, Funny)

MisterSchmoo (1262374) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910564)

Didn't you watch "When Harry Met Sally" we want to bang the ugly ones too.

Re:wrong (5, Funny)

bounty_hunter.poland (1261366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910628)

We do?! Ye gods, i didn't know!

Re:wrong (5, Funny)

AlecLyons (767385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910770)

Didn't you watch "When Harry Met Sally"

No.

Re:wrong (5, Funny)

rve (4436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910772)

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

Ug!

Re:wrong (5, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910832)

... 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 (4, Insightful)

Knutsi (959723) | more than 6 years ago | (#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

Re:wrong (1)

everslick (1232368) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910826)

I put it in a more readable form:

p w s
1 1 1
0 1 0
0 0 0
1 0 X

p=pretty, w=witty, s=sex

Twofo butthole plugged (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910634)

Twofo [twofo.co.uk] is Dying is Dying

It is official; GNAA [www.gnaa.us] confirms: Twofo is Dying is Dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured slashdot trolling community when Google confirmed that Twofo troll posts had dropped yet again, now down to less that a fraction of 1 percent of all slashdot posts. Coming hot on the heels of a recent usenet survey which plainly states that Twofo trolling frequency has fallen, this news serves only to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo trolls are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in a recent digg.com comprehensive trolling test.

You don't need to be one of the Slashdot moderators to predict Twofo Trolling's future. The writing is on the wall: Twofo trolling faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo trolls because Twofo trolling is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo trolls. As many of us are already aware, Twofo trolling continues to decline in popularity. IP bans flow like a river of firewall rules.

"Twofo is Dying" trolls are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their core posters. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time trolls Daz and xyzzy only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo trolls are dying.

Lets keep to the facts and look and the numbers.

Twofo Trolling leader Echelon states that there are about 7000 "twofo is dying" trolls. How many "Zeus sucks cock" trolls are there? Let's see. The number of "Zeus sucks cock" trolls versus "Twofo is dying" trolls on slashdot is roughly in the ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 "Zeus sucks cock" trolls. "Fuck twofo" posts on slashdot are about half the volume of "Zeus sucks cock" posts. Therefore there are about 700 trolls specialising in "Fuck twofo". A recent article put "destroy twofo" at about 80% of the twofo trolling community. Therefore there are about (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 "destroy twofo" trolls. This is consistent with the number of "destroy twofo" slashdot posts.

Due to the troubles at Twofo, abysmal sharing, ITS, lack of IP addresses and so on, "destroy twofo" trolls stopped posting altogether and were taken over by "Zeus sucks cock" trolls who specialise in another kind of slashdot posting. Now "Zeus sucks cock" trolls are also dead, their corpses turned over to yet another charnel horse.

All major surveys show that Twofo trolls have steadily declined in slashdot posting frequency. Twofo trollers are very sick and their long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo trollers are to survive at all it will be among hardcore slashdot posters, hellbent on Twofo's destruction. Twofo trolls continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo trolls from their fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo trolls are dead.

Fact: Twofo trolls are dying

Re:wrong (1)

MikeUW (999162) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910660)

women have blurry behaviour

Score: 5, Funny
Funny, sure, but I think the parent really should be modded insightful: I'm sure most /.ers had the exact same though reading the summary.

Re:wrong (4, Insightful)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910668)

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?

Re:wrong (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910814)

Or rather, men and women just use somewhat different codes. There need not to be anything blurry on either side.

To make a simplified example: Say women use "smiling and twinkling" as code for sexual intent, while men think it's "smiling and listening". Then an understanding happens if the woman either smiles, twinkles and listens (in which case the message "sexual intent" has been successfully passed), or if the woman doesn't smile or neither smiles nor twinkles (in which case the message "no sexual intent" has been successfully passed), but if the woman smiles and either twinkles of listens, but not both, there's a misunderstanding. Note that there's absolutely nothing blurry about either code, it's just a mismatch.

And a warning: The signs are completely made up, so if you take smiling and twinkling of a woman as sexual intent, and it turns out to be wrong, don't complain to me! :-)

Or, on the other hand... (5, Interesting)

ghostdoc (1235612) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910404)

The study actually just found that women are unclear about communicating their intentions to men.

Re:Or, on the other hand... (4, Interesting)

Knutsi (959723) | more than 6 years ago | (#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? ;)

Re:Or, on the other hand... (5, Interesting)

mcvos (645701) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:Or, on the other hand... (3, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910722)

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.

Also look at if the sexual orientation of the "recipient" has any effect.
There is a known condition, Asberger's syndrome, which identifies people who are bad at understanding non verbal communication. (Which is also more commonly identified in men than women). Might there also be a condition of people being poor at expressing themselves non verbally. Effective communication does require mutual understanding. Of course there will always be people who deliberatly lie and mislead (who most likely have to be amongst the best communications in the human race to do this sucessfully).

Also, how about looking into this across cultures?

When people from different cultures are communicating they may be extra careful to avoid ambiguity. Even if they were to share the same verbal language they may well assume that they have a different non-verbal language and compensate accordingly. Of course you can't test this using just photographs or videos since there is no mutual dialogue involved.

Re:Or, on the other hand... (0, Flamebait)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910858)

There is a known condition, Asberger's syndrome, which identifies people who are bad at understanding non verbal communication.

Well, it's spelled "Asperger's syndrome" but you can also just say "typical Slashdotter" :-)

Re:Or, on the other hand... (3, Funny)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910764)

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

Actually they are both from Earth, but that bit of trivia is best kept to oneself if you want to gey laid.

Re:Or, on the other hand... (1)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910486)

Agreed. I came here to say pretty much the same thing.

Re:Or, on the other hand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910624)

I agree 100%. Women play way too coy.

Re:Or, on the other hand... (4, Interesting)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910650)

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

thanks (4, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910410)

thanks for posting this info on /. we need all the education about the opposite sex that we need (never mind the mothers whose basements we hermits live in)

Re:thanks (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910416)

thanks for posting this info on /. we need all the education about the opposite sex that we need (never mind the mothers whose basements we hermits live in)

Hey, I think your mother tried to hit on me.
   

Re:thanks (4, Funny)

gomiam (587421) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910578)

Hey, I think your mother tried to hit on me.

Are you sure there was any on involved?

Oh right (2, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910420)

Nothing to do with deliberate ambiguity fostered by females then.

 

Re:Oh right (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910842)

Or the ability to lie to themselves, for both genders.

Evolution (5, Funny)

Detritus (11846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910426)

Things sure were simpler when we were monkeys.

Re:Evolution (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910444)

Things sure were simpler when we were monkeys.

Putting one in the Whitehouse certainly didn't simplify things.

-1 Political Troll

         

Re:Evolution (1)

JonathanR (852748) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910786)

Of course it simplified things. Every issue resolves to a dichotomy. A simple choice then.

Re:Evolution (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910834)

Putting one in the Whitehouse certainly didn't simplify things.

It was that, or putting one in charge of a large, monopolistic software company. Oh, wait...

Re:Evolution (1)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910552)

yep much simpler :0 [youtube.com]

Re:Evolution (1)

chawly (750383) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910608)

Don't try this at home ?

No, it was difficult back then too (1)

coren2000 (788204) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910576)

No, when I was a monkey I commonly mistook messages for grooming to be sexual advances too. Hey come on... her paws were all in my fur n' stuff.

Re:Evolution (5, Funny)

rishistar (662278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910636)

Yeah - I'm still waiting for a woman to fling her faeces at me as a clear sign of her sexual intent.

Re:Evolution (5, Funny)

JohnSearle (923936) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910810)

Yeah - I'm still waiting for a woman to fling her faeces at me as a clear sign of her sexual intent.
That's what it means! Damn... All those missed opportunities.

- John

Re:Evolution (1)

Digestromath (1190577) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910820)

Here I was thinking those types of web sites were just for perverts. Instead, I now realize that they just harken back to the more innocent, wholesome days of our unevolved youth.

Re:Evolution (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910806)

Yeah, I want to come back as a Bonobo [geocities.com] .

And (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910430)

Beeing a geek doesn't make things any better, now does it...

The other way around (2, Insightful)

boombasticman (1232962) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910450)

Oh contraire! The girls should be more clear about what they intend to do. They normally say they just wanted to be friendly and are completly taken aback, when some guy understands their cryptic signs as encuragement to get together.

Humor? (5, Funny)

carpe_noctem (457178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910452)

Why's this story in the "Humor" section? What's so funny about a 30-year old virgin?

Oh, wait..... HAW, HAW!

Re:Humor? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910546)

It's always good when a man can laugh at himself! ;-)

Re:Humor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910594)

but maybe you can use this study to lose your virginity after 30 years!

Hogwash... (5, Insightful)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910454)

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.

Re:Hogwash... (5, Funny)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:Hogwash... (5, Funny)

bounty_hunter.poland (1261366) | more than 6 years ago | (#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... (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910792)

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.

Are you saying that if you wanted to choose a forum which would get the maximum amount of exposure to the female audience, you'd chose Slashdot? I'd be going for something like facebook, or the mothers club site that i've become a widower to. Who'd have thought i'd be the one telling my wife to get off the computer and get some sleep :)

Re:Hogwash... (5, Interesting)

mcvos (645701) | more than 6 years ago | (#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... (5, Interesting)

norton_I (64015) | more than 6 years ago | (#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... (4, Insightful)

Miseph (979059) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910816)

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? (5, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910460)

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? (4, Insightful)

Knutsi (959723) | more than 6 years ago | (#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? (5, Insightful)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910512)

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).

Great... (1, Funny)

baboo_jackal (1021741) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910468)

What a wonderful example of our tax dollars at work.

Genetic link? (5, Interesting)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910470)

Since humans are one of the few species that conceal ovulation [findarticles.com] I am wondering if this has a more genetic basis.

Re:Genetic link? (3, Funny)

spasticfraggle (670632) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910600)

Never been married?

The main reason I had a third child with my wife was the prospect of 18 months without PMS!

Re:Genetic link? (1)

mbius (890083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910808)

Great, great article. Reminds me of when science journalism was both.

New? (1)

eggman9713 (714915) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910490)

Men are clueless about womens' signals about sex. In other news, water is wet and fire is hot. Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:New? (1)

ArAgost (853804) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910584)

OMG, really? Too bad I missed the 11 news.

Evolutionarily... (4, Insightful)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910494)

Ambiguity is probably in women's interest. Just like ovulation being hidden from men, unusually in the animal world (which makes men compete sexually for women constantly, and not just at particular times).

Probably gives women greater power (or rather, it increases the statistical chance of the genes of a particular woman being successfully passed on, which is all natural cares about).

Research on Campus (2, Interesting)

Marcion (876801) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910516)

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.

This is the story of my life (1)

leereyno (32197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910520)

I've had women practically throwing themselves at me, and I don't realize it until later.

I don't seem to have any problem giving off "the vibes" myself, but I'm blind and deaf to them when I'm on the receiving end it seems.

Re:This is the story of my life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910758)

I've had women practically throwing themselves at me, and I don't realize it until later.

When you wake up, amirite?

Blurry study (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910528)

The students viewed images of women on a computer screen and had to categorize each as friendly, sexually interested, sad or rejecting. Each student reported on 280 photographs, which had been sorted previously into one of the categories based on surveys completed by different groups of students.

Wow, that's the most stupid piece of research I ever saw. Not only are they generalizing from a bunch of 20 year olds to "all guys", but the scientific measurement involves trying to derive clues from static photos. Given how much body language is related to motion, timing and so on I'm not really surprised that they found it hard. I'd be interested to know how strong this guys

Re:Blurry study (1, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910548)

I love HTML. Let's try that again.

The students viewed images of women on a computer screen and had to categorize each as friendly, sexually interested, sad or rejecting. Each student reported on 280 photographs, which had been sorted previously into one of the categories based on surveys completed by different groups of students.

Wow, that's the most stupid piece of research I ever saw. Not only are they generalizing from a bunch of 20 year olds to "all guys", but the scientific measurement involves trying to derive clues from static photos. Given how much body language is related to motion, timing and so on I'm not really surprised that they found it hard. I'd be interested to know how strong this guys < girls finding really is. Also, if the results change when the photos are replaced with short films ... or even actors :)

Re:Blurry study (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910672)

posting anon to protect mod status...

it is unfortunately very very common for the media to report on gender in a mars vs venus format with lots of shoddy science. many thanks for taking the time to actually read the article and debunk this one :)

and this one is particular bad. my favorite one though was a nytimes article about how gayness was possibly biological cause gay men responded to smells of men differently. ahahaha. shoddy science writing for the win.

oh and a key way to know it's shoddy is if it's done on a student population. usually means some grad student or professor that couldnt get a grant decided to come up with research that would be able to avoid lengthy authorization or ethics review.

--bored mpa

I wish I were gay (1)

Guillaume Castel (1002740) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910530)

If you're a male who ever mistook the meaning of a barista's smile, looks like you're not alone.

Damn it, I thought she was just being polite :-(

I wonder (1)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910532)

I RTFA and it didn't test married couples, actually it looks like it just used pictures. I would like to see the test done with married couples in a real world environment, I for one know what my wife wants and when she wants it. Then again I don't think we're normal the whole married five years, two kids, still act like rutting teenagers most of the time.

Doesn't count (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910706)

What exactly is subtle about showing up all dressed in white and telling you in front of witnesses "I do"?

Get your wife on here and let her tell how well you read her subtle hints early on, or did she have to knock you out and drag you back to her cave before you caught on that maybe this girl liked you.

Oh, and since you had sex, hand in your slashdot account on the way out. Traitor!

Re:Doesn't count (1)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910742)

Heh, I didn't read the subtle hints that well early on being a pasty nerd and all. Then I joined the Army and learned a thing or two. Oh, and my computer is still in the basement. Does that count enough to keep my UID?

Re:I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910724)

"I for one know what my wife wants and when she wants it."

Write a book/blog and you will be a millionaire.

Women often conflate the two themselves (2, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910536)

Anyone who's dated or flirted has dealt with women (I'm sure it works both ways) who feign sexual interest to achieve another outcome, or feigned disinterested friendliness when the opposite is true. I consider myself an expert as I've misread women in just about any way possible.

In other news... (0, Redundant)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910540)

Mostly dark this morning turning brightly sunny then partly cloudy during the day with a slight threat of rain showers tonight. Temps will go from bitter cold early this morning to somewhat tolerable for about 5 minutes this afternoon before heading back to bitter cold again tonight.

Next week will see warming temperatures during the day, continued cold temperatures at night, and continued varying cycles of dark and light throughout the day.

That's the weather; I'm not Chevy Chase, but maybe you are.

Or, another possible interpretation (5, Interesting)

Torodung (31985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910544)

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

Re:Or, another possible interpretation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910610)

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


I jerk it with my left hand you insensitive clod!

Right hand is on the mouse.

When did universities become churches? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910550)

Unfortunately, the only thing this study proves is that the researchers had a very poor education.

The correct conclusion is not that "males mistake social cues", it's "males mistake females' social cues" .. and more specifically, "Young males taken exclusively from a highly mating oriented environment mistake social cues from young females taken exclusively from the same environment"

There are no tests to see how well males understand cues from other males, therefore no statement can be made about men alone.. Similarly, no tests to see how well women understand cues from other women, and thus the same problem.

Absolutely no information can be derived from this research in relation the researchers' stated aims.

most women are just plain crazy (1, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910558)

they want the cock, they don't want the cock. i seriously think most of them just don't know themselves, and just randomly pick moments to be a slut or a virgin.

I know of a case back home where a known whore bag went home with 2 guys to have lots of drunken sex, bragged about it to everyone and when it was ill received the story turned into rape.

Re:most women are just plain crazy (2, Insightful)

msormune (808119) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910812)

Isn't it a wee bit jaded to call the girl a whore and the guys just 'guys'...? I mean, they probably would have had sex with just about every girl imaginable. Makes them at least just as big whores in my book...

Re:most women are just plain crazy (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910864)

i'll admit to being jaded, but i won't change until humanity does something to restore my faith on this matter. frankly women need to take a breath between talking about their vagina's and their feelings and realize they are part of the problem.

So what it's saying is ... (1, Insightful)

Tim Ward (514198) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910560)

... that women are useless at communicating non-verbally with men, as they persist in using signals that are in fact only understood by women.

(Just like women dress up and put on makeup to impress each other, not to communicate with men.)

Hey girls, if you want to tell a man something you need to use a language he can understand, not some incomprehensible private girlie language!

Re:So what it's saying is ... (5, Funny)

Digestromath (1190577) | more than 6 years ago | (#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!

Re:So what it's saying is ... (3, Funny)

bounty_hunter.poland (1261366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910662)

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

Re:So what it's saying is ... (3, Funny)

laejoh (648921) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910798)

You forgot: let me put on my robe and wizard hat!

Re:So what it's saying is ... (5, Interesting)

Torodung (31985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910682)

... 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

Question for the love experts (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910590)

Does a restraining order mean she's playing hard to get?

FTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910596)

#If you're a male who ever mistook the meaning of a barista's smile, looks like you're not alone.
Did I understand this correctly?
Smiles have meanings? Why was I not informed of this? Someone is going to pay...

A Scientific Approach (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910598)

I'm surprised you people don't know your basic science. This is known as Dave's Law of Perpetual Male Sexual Optimism.

The law has been understood in general terms since the dawn of time, but did not gain wide acceptance in the scientific community until I provided the specific units and measuring system that allowed it to be quantified and reported.

The unit, known in research circles as the Beer Glass, allows for easy measurement and rigorous scientific analysis of the soon-to-be-disappointed male's iron-clad belief that he's going to get lucky at some point within the next three encounters with a particular female. It ranges from, "Hey, man, she likes me" at the low end of the spectrum to, "I am SO gonna get laid tonight" at the eight or nine BG level. The basic assumption is that unless a female actually drops puking to her knees at the sight of the male in question, he will assume that there is some level of interest. The question then becomes, "Would I do her?" That's where the measurement system kicks in and allows the male's level of optimism to be counted, charted and evaluated.

Significantly, no similar system has been developed for females, though some research in the "Girlfriend's Hot Boyfriend" area seems promising.

I hope this helps to put things in the proper perspective.

Just Look at Womens' Personals Ads (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910638)

With most of them, you'd need the Star Trek Universal Translator to make any sense of it. I refuse to correspond with any woman whose profile is longer than the US Constitution.

I work in a bar (5, Interesting)

t0qer (230538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910658)

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 allow themselves to be sucked so far into pop culture that they assume the gender role (and sexual messaging) that is implied. Thank god hardly anyone remembers Andrew, and hopefully Cho is heading the same way because nobody should follow thier idiotic advice on how to relate to the opposite sex.

Wrapping this up, I guess I wanted to say I wrote the above couple of paragraphs for a reason. It's all perspective and where you get your influence from. My wife would agree with everything i've written. When I met her, I was ignorantly blissful and never really thought about how girls acted around me. My wife was the first to point it out to me. So according to my own in house survey (me and my wife) we both misread the sexual cues women give off. Wait, I thought men misread them, my wife misreads them too? Study debunked.

What is a barista smile? (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910710)

Well, I think barista's smile is not defined in many cultures (even in many european cultures, I didn't know such thing exists). So these studies may not be applicable to all cultures.

Re:What is a barista smile? (2, Informative)

GamerCowboy (954246) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910794)

A barista is the person who makes coffee at a coffee shop. Merriam-Webster defines it [merriam-webster.com] .

It gets even worse on the flip side (2, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910748)

Years later I realized that a couple of women were hitting on me and being the idiot nerd that I am, I didn't "get it." DOH!!!

Why is this on slashdot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22910760)

This is not fucking digg

Self-confidence, subtleties, experience and stress (1)

Knutsi (959723) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910762)

Interesting this. I'd recommend reading the paper, it's just 21 pages long, and the discussion / results section is pretty easily read.

The findings are basically that men have problems catching the subtle signs that distinguish sexual intent from plain friendly intent, in both directions. I assume then, that men capable of reading the sign better will be more successful (as seen by our current ideals), both in making more friends and getting sex.

I think from personal experience in other situations that if you are relaxed, not stressed and feel comfortable, you are capable of catching on to a wider spectrum of subtleties and details. Experience also matters a great deal. Translating this into socializing, it underlines the importance of experience, feeling secure, comfortable and stress-less on social occasions. My friends who are nice people in combination with honestly and deeply having no social inhibitions, posses all these qualities. Subsequently, they tend to both make new friends and get laid at a high rate.

What I find interesting (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910766)

Is that the author, repeatedly uses her own writings through hotlinks,
to bolster her story.

I find this self aggrandizing and flawed.

Because I wrote THIS article, and I link to it to provide evidence,
therefore I am an expert. Psychobabble at it's finest.

Wrong summary, wrong accompanying article (5, Informative)

ElGanzoLoco (642888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910802)

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).

Men And Women (1)

AssPurger (1264566) | more than 6 years ago | (#22910830)

Men have a tendency to solve problems & women have a tendency to relate their feelings. When a woman relates her being 'sad' to a man, the man will attempt to solve the 'problem' so that the woman does not feel 'sad'. But the woman did not want to solve the problem, because it was not a problem to begin with. She was merely expressing her feelings. If the woman told the man that she is happy, it will usually provoke a shallow response of 'that's nice' etc. Because men do not communicate their feelings much. On the other hand, when a man tells a woman that he has solved a problem, the woman will try to be happy for the man and encourage him, much like it is done with children. If the man tells the woman he did not solve the problem, she will once again apply sympathy/empathy to the matter. Both scenarios are over simplistic, but they do hold some truth. Men need/want technical help or appreciation for not solving or solving a problem, that gives them a sense of achievement or failure. Once a woman applies sympathy/empathy she compound's the man's dilemma. If he cannot solve a problem, he feels belittled by the sympathy shown. If he can solve the problem, he feels his achievement is not appreciated by the emotional approach of encouragement. Women need men to listen & relate to their feelings. A man might feel as though a woman is discussing trivialities with him, as the subject holds not importance or problems to solve. But the importance is listening and by way of listening, communicating with the woman. Women will get frustrated by this reaction as they are simply puzzled by why men are not listening to them. This of course being due to men's natural tendency to solve problems. Of course women can solve problems as good as any man, and men can be sympathetic and empathic as emotionally as any woman. But out natural tendencies are based on averages. The average man is not sympathetic or empathic to a refined degree as a woman, simply put, in cave man times (and we still carry those genes) men hunted, fought, killed. It is hard to be very sympathetic and empathic when you must kill or be ruthless. Times have changed though. Mass communication in the form of the internet has now put communication at a higher priority. Many men feel lost with all this social networking going around. Because their brains are not meant for such intensive communication. After all, men interpret female voices with their musical centers in the brain rather than centers designed for speech! As there are more females than males, the number of men raised by women is higher, this is also because of court rulings favoring the mother in early ages. (and rightly so) In fact I recall an article in scientific american by a female psychiatrist that has deduced that women are unrealistically expecting men to essentially behave in a more female friendly fashion. Men are not women, they never will be, nor will women be men...it is simply unreasonable to expect them to behave in a 100% compatible way. Men and women do not have any defects in their brains, they are simply different. Perhaps men and women were never meant to live together for extended periods of time. Perhaps the reason we have so many problems is that our approach is completely wrong. Maybe men and women should meet briefly when needed & generally stay the f*** away from each other.

Smalltalk is the answer. (5, Informative)

master_p (608214) | more than 6 years ago | (#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!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?