2011 August 23 Tuesday
Men And Women Find Like Opposites In Mating Dance

The "one night stand" women respond to "one night stand" men.

Men with a preference for 'one-night stands' and negative sexist attitudes towards women are more likely to use aggressive courtship strategies. They compete with other men who are also interested in the woman, tease the woman, and isolate her away from her friends. In response, women with a preference for 'no strings attached' sex and negative attitudes towards other women are more likely to respond to men's aggressive strategies. These findings by Jeffrey Hall and Melanie Canterberry, from the University of Kansas in the US, are published online in Springer's journal Sex Roles.

So more masculinized men and women find each other. I bet both the men and women hooking up this way have higher ring-to-index finger ratios. The "negative attitudes toward other women" is an important clue. I bet these women also have a lower desire to gossip, are taller, and have stronger career ambitions. Do they have less baby fever?

Update: Zebra finch females also flock to like-minded zebra finch males.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2011 August 23 08:39 AM  Human Nature Attraction

spindizzy said at August 23, 2011 3:13 PM:

Based on the summary, it seems that what the researchers are referring to as "negative sexist attitudes" are what is more normally known as "speed seduction techniques" or "game".

I don't have any investment in that community and I can't comment on the validity of the techniques, but I do know that emotive language and moral preconceptions do not generally lead to good science.

chris said at August 24, 2011 5:09 AM:

I had a read through the abstract and it appears that they are attempting to pathologise normal courtship between men and women, one which places men as aggressors and women as "gatekeepers", even though this is the manner of courtship in most mammals and a bevy of evidence suggests that females are (on average) hardwired to desire sexually dominant men and desire to sexually submit to such sexually dominant men (see for instance http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/billion-wicked-thoughts/201104/why-gender-equality-does-not-always-work-in-the-bedroom or anything in evolutionary psychology or biology or even yet see any best-selling harlequin novel).

"The results showed that men who were keen on 'one-night stands' were more likely to use ag-gressive strategies when flirting with women, and women who were also open to casual sex were more likely to respond to this type of aggressive courtship. In addition, men with negative, sexist attitudes towards women, justifying male privilege, were more likely to use assertive strategies, which may serve to 'put women in their place' in a submissive or yielding role during courtship. Women with sexist attitudes towards members of their own gender were more likely to be res-ponsive to men's assertive strategies. This suggests that they find men who treat them in a dominant way during courtship more desirable, because it is consistent with their sexist ideology.
Hall and Canterberry conclude: "Our results suggest that assertive courtship strategies are a form of mutual identification of similarly sexist attitudes shared between courtship partners. Women who adopt sexist attitudes are more likely to prefer men who adopt similar attitudes. Not only do sexist men and women prefer partners who are like them, they prefer courtship strategies where men are the aggressors and women are the gatekeepers.""

This seems like a feminist attempt to castigate normal sexuality in men and women in the same category as those that society would probably deem as deviant, (that is, those who specifically pursue one-night stands.) That is, they are engaging in the association fallacy, also known as guilt by association, where they associate normal sexuality and the science confirming it, with a sexuality that most people would consider deviant and hence hope to persuade people away from the truth of the science justifying the first. But then again, being feminists, this most likely isn't a 'fallacy' in the logical sense of the word, that is erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound, but is instead an attempt by feminists/marxist propagandists to intentionally mislead, deceive, lie and basically act like the corrupt false wicked evil fucks that they are.

Anything which uses the terms 'male privilege' and 'put women in their place', as well as using the word sexist 8 times in just the abstract , clearly is an article motivated more by ideological vitriol and hatred than an objective and scientific pursuit of truth.

In short, this article is a piece of feminist propaganda attempting to stem the flood of evolutionary biological, evolutionary psychological, neurobiological, human ethological and behavioral genetics research that is rendering
their tired, anachronistic and false narrative, false.

I look forward to the day when feminists are openly ridiculed and reviled not only by the average person (which tends to happen quite a bit behind closed doors), but by the culture as well. Their 'Soviet Empire' is crumbling. I look forward to our Perestroika.

solaris said at August 24, 2011 11:07 AM:

>"So more masculinized men and women find each other."

I don't think they're saying that at all. They're saying exactly what they are saying - that women who are interested in one night stands are responsive to men who are interested in one night stands. We are all those men (or women) at certain times, and it has nothing to do with being more "masculinized". Unless "masculinized" is just another way of saying "horny".

solaris said at August 24, 2011 11:22 AM:

>"normal courtship between men and women, one which places men as aggressors and women as "gatekeepers","

There's nothing particularly normal about that model of courtship. It's a social construct, one of many which humans have come up with. The social construct you describe is currently most common (in the West, at least) in large cities. I grew up in a rural community where the girls were at least as randy and aggressive as the males. I've lived in several countries and various parts of the US, and the NYC/DC/LA model of "courtship" is the exception rather than the rule. I was dumbfounded when I first moved to one of these large urban centers - the lack of attention from women was very disconcerting compared to what I was used to.

It works the other way also. I met a beautiful Russian girl working in NYC as a lifeguard and she *hated* the constant and oppressive male attention she received, which was a hundred times more than she received back home. Every guy she met over here was trying to get into her pants, and not being very subtle about it.

It seems to be a common failing to mistake the social construct one grows up in for immutable human nature.

no i don't said at August 24, 2011 2:39 PM:

As a loyal person to this site, I'll respectfully say:

Let's get back to the real issues, shall we?

Phuc Yu said at August 24, 2011 8:22 PM:

-As a loyal person to this site, I'll respectfully say:

Let's get back to the real issues, shall we?-

Just shut the fuck up, you lame tool. For chrissakes, enjoy things a bit. Or even better start your own website with only serious discussion involving important shit. Yeah, that's the ticket. I can't wait for your first post!

no i don't said at August 25, 2011 4:42 PM:

Oh ok, phuc yu, whatever you say. Well, Phuc You.... Phuc Yu! Go do yourself and after that you can blow me.

Don't call me I'll call you, whenever you can complete a full idea in your little gremlin head, ha, ha, ha.

Gin said at August 29, 2011 4:07 PM:

What's so funny about Phuc Yu is the imaginative alias which bounces back to him.

So, Puck Yu, I mean, what do we call you? Phuc Yu! I guess

chris said at August 31, 2011 8:24 AM:


Did you even read the link I put there? It takes you to a Psychology Today article which has a review on a book/study that only came out this year covering exactly what I discussed above. Humans are animals. We have been affected by evolution and evolved certain behaviours, especially behaviours related to such an important matter as mating. Deal with it.

I noticed that when bolstering the proof of your argument you say the word 'I' alot. I hope you do realise that personal anecdotes do not a fact make? Right?

The era of social constructionism is coming to a close as real science finally takes over. This will happen whether the Left accepts it or not.

see http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005501.html for a more thorough discussion of the scientific advances in our understanding of human nature and the Left's denialism of it.

Also see;

Although, seeing as you are so ignorant I doubt you'll even bother looking at these links even though they come from the sister site of the very the one that you are commenting on.

"Origin of man now proved - Metaphysics must flourish - He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke." Charles Darwin, 1838.

Welcome to the future.

chris said at September 1, 2011 2:22 AM:

Furthermore,I had a read of their study and if you look at the inventory used to determine what a sexist is in the study, you could also interpret their definitions as sexist=non-feminist (or person who doesn't ascribe to feminist ideology) and non-sexist=feminist. So basically this is a study showing that women who hold feminist beliefs are less likely to hold non-feminist beliefs when pursuing a short-term mating strategy! Wow, who would've thought!

ali said at May 20, 2012 2:24 AM:

The actuality that somebody finds it harder to leave amber and abounding women talks about a bendable and little-disciplined person. A little burgeois to my taste; but afresh again apparently a lot of of America's populations still accept to get rid of all that weight in their lives. Times accept afflicted said Tom Hanks.
fight games

kiran said at October 20, 2013 12:04 AM:

I met a beautiful Russian girl working in NYC as a lifeguard and she *hated* the constant and oppressive male attention she received, which was a hundred times more than she received back home. Every guy she met over here was trying to get into her pants, and not being very subtle about it.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright