« Bloggers, Embeds, and OPSEC, Oh My! | Main | Bloggers, Embeds, and OPSEC, Oh My!, Part II »

October 23, 2006

Coffee Snorter

*snort*

Now they tell me:

Call it ego, machismo or downright delusional behavior, but men are more likely than women to "oversexualize" conversations and incorrectly assume sexual interest, a new study says.

Researchers from the University of Connecticut and Elon University found that after a brief five-minute first meeting, men were more likely than woman to infer a sexual chemistry, regardless of whether it was there or not.

"Men were more likely to perceive their partner as sexy and flirtatious, but that didn't at all correspond with how she saw him or she saw herself," said Maurice Levesque, co-author of the study.

The research was unclear as to why men were more likely than women to falsely perceive this sexual dynamic.

But other research on the subject has suggested that men might be mislabeling friendliness, he said.

Looks like I owe my husband twenty bucks.

Posted by Cassandra at October 23, 2006 08:15 AM

Comments

You actually thought women would be more likely to assume interest? Whoa! You must be a pretty confident woman, haha!

But seriously, think about how self-critical women are... it seems to follow naturally that they wouldn't be quick to think a man is interested in them.

Posted by: FbL at October 23, 2006 11:48 AM

It's all that testosterone rushing through their veins!!! (the men, that is)

EVERYTHING can be interpreted as sexual. Didn't you ever read Freud? :D

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at October 23, 2006 11:55 AM

The research was unclear as to why men were more likely than women to falsely perceive this sexual dynamic.
The answer is obvious! When women think about men (in a generic way), they think about protection and relationships. When men think about women (in a generic way), they think about sex.

Therefore, in an innocent conversation between a man and a woman, the woman will analyze the conversation looking for how it affects their relationship with each other. The man will analyze the same conversation looking for how it affects his chance of having sex.

There is nothing mysterious about this. As the saying goes:

Women give sex for love and men give love for sex.

Posted by: Izzy at October 23, 2006 11:59 AM

It's not that Fbl. I was laughing because this is an old argument I have with my husband. I have a tendency to talk to men in the same way I would talk to a woman - I don't necessarily make allowances unless I think there is some reason to be careful. For years he has told me that I should be more guarded because men think every women is interested in them.

And I have said this is only true if they were attracted to her, but I thought that I was way past the age when I really needed to worry about that sort of thing. Which, I suppose, pretty much validates your last comment :p

Posted by: Cassandra at October 23, 2006 12:20 PM

So, how did the researchers know whether there actually was sexual chemistry going on between the two?

It's not like there's a Sexual Chemistry Test Kit for sale or something...

Posted by: karrde at October 23, 2006 02:22 PM

This thread reminds me of Bill Clinton.

Posted by: DRJ at October 23, 2006 03:00 PM

This thread reminds me of Bill Clinton.

Ooh, good point!

Posted by: FbL at October 23, 2006 03:16 PM

...I thought that I was way past the age when I really needed to worry about that sort of thing.

Dear God, I hope not! If so, than I'm going to start getting real desperate pretty quick... LOL!

Posted by: FbL at October 23, 2006 03:18 PM

[slips Cassie a 20]

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at October 23, 2006 03:44 PM

John of Arggggggggh!

She's not that easy. :D

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at October 23, 2006 03:47 PM

Oh boy!

Posted by: FbL at October 23, 2006 03:50 PM

You know... there was something really... sexy about how that article was presented.

A-yup! The good ol' Kevbo charm strikes again.

Posted by: Kevin L at October 23, 2006 04:23 PM

You impugn my honor, sir.

Besides, that would be price, not virtue.

I was just helping a chick out with her debts.

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at October 23, 2006 04:27 PM

Cass, are you coming on to me?

Posted by: a former european at October 23, 2006 05:30 PM

My experiences have been exactly opposite of this study. I have never been good at reading other people and I don't usually realize a woman is flirting with me until she makes it painfully obvious. Several women I have dated told me about all the times they tried to flirt with me before we went out and it went completely over my head. So, I do not recall ever perceiving that a woman was interested in me and discovered that she was just being friendly.
On the other hand, I have on several occasions had a woman interpret my general friendliness as something more than I intended. That has led to more than one very awkward moment. This has led me to be more guarded and careful not to come across as too friendly.
Now, I have friends who think every girl that smiles at him wants to sleep with him, so I know it goes both ways. Still, be very wary of the over-generalization going on in that study.

Posted by: Diego at October 23, 2006 06:12 PM

Nothing but burkas can put this aright.

Posted by: Sissy Willis at October 23, 2006 07:33 PM

You mean that wasn't a banana in his pocket? He was glad to see me?

Posted by: Joan Varga at October 23, 2006 07:48 PM

Perhaps it should instead be reported that women were less likely than men to fail to perceive this sexual dynamic.

I mean, chicks frequently dig me without even realizing it. But I know.

Posted by: Wulf at October 23, 2006 09:16 PM

And all this time, Wulf, I thought chicks dig the long ball......

*badum bum*

Posted by: Sly2017 at October 24, 2006 12:13 AM

I'm still laughing from reading all of your comments. Wulf nearly destroyed me.

You know, you all are the best tonic in the whole wide world. I don't know what I did to get so lucky, but thank you.

All of you.

And yes, afe - I *am* coming on to you... heh. You lucky devil :)

Now run!

Diego, don't worry. I put these studies up because I think they're funny, for the most part.

I think more often than not there's a kernel of truth in them, but my husband is one of those guys who fails to pick up on it when women are interested in him. Except for me, he says. But then I pretty much let him know I was interested in him, because he is a quiet man and I am not big on playing games. I definitely let him make the first move, but I tried not to leave him in too much doubt that I liked him very much. He still teases me occasionally about making big brown eyes at him, but I notice he didn't waste any time taking me up on it :)

Heh...

Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2006 05:54 AM

It has been my experience that a lot of guys are hopelessly inept in these matters, based on conversations and the responses (yes, those) of various women I have known...in all senses of the word. A little "attention to detail" can go a long way.

Oh, and just pay up, li'l sis...

Posted by: camojack at October 24, 2006 07:58 AM

I know, I know. Don't rub it in :)

Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2006 08:00 AM

Men seem to think women like guys who are smooth camo, but judging from my own experience and from talking to women I like, a little cluelessness is not a bad thing in a guy as long as he is not inconsiderate.

I hate to feel like I'm being played or sized up - that is a huge turn off. Insincerity is probably the worst thing in the world, and the feeling that I can trust or rely on a man is the biggest turn-on. I used to feel a bit bad, at first, because my husband is not big with compliments. In fact, he does not talk a whole lot at all sometimes. Over the years, because he is genuinely a kind man and because he loves me, he has learned that I need to hear the words. That is a major difference between men and women.

And so he makes an effort to tell me now. I cannot tell you what that means to me, because I don't think it comes naturally to him. But when we dated he was not the type to hand out compliments. On the one hand I liked that, because on the rare occasions when he did say something nice I knew he meant it. And I'm fairly self-confident, so I don't need some guy always telling me, "you're beautiful", or "I love you".

Actually, that's not true. I guess I do want to hear, "I love you." I am very affectionate by nature, not with everyone, but with the few people I truly care about.

Life is so short, and I grew up in a loving family. Too short not to let people know you care. Men think women somehow know because they are still around, but we don't unless we are told. Women, I think, believe men will somehow be happy being told they are loved, but they need to be shown (physically, I mean) or something inside of them dies.

We are different.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2006 08:15 AM

We are different.
Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2006 08:15 AM

Which sums it up quite succinctly...and viva la difference! Believe it or not, I nearly bought my girl some flowers last night on a whim when I was at the supermarket, but I was out on the Harley just picking up a very few items I was out of. I know y'all womenfolk "cotton to" that kinda thang... :-)

Posted by: camojack at October 24, 2006 09:00 AM

as karrdo? alluded. What is the standard?

As reported they seem to assume the women's answer was correct and the man was mistaken if he did not match that.

Thus the conclusion is a truism. Men had to be mistaken more often.

Since details are not given it is hard to say what was learned. But the phrasing of the researcher being quoted pretty clearly indicated that in any disagreement the women was right.

Crappy science or poor reporting?

Posted by: K at October 24, 2006 03:46 PM

Well of *course* the woman is right.

Sheesh. If a man says something in a forest and there is no woman around to gently point out the error of his ways, is he not still wrong?

Men :D

Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2006 03:52 PM

Heh. You and SWWBO have more in common than you realize...

I *hate* doing all that talky stuff.

*Hate*Hate*Hate*

I do it, but, as SWWBO will attest, with ill-grace.

The Unit is a better man than I.

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at October 24, 2006 04:02 PM

The Unit, God love him, has been married for a *very* long time.

And he is has the patience of a saint. But then you knew that, John. He is, after all, married to Moi. Twenty seven years in Hell, and two before that. What was he thinking?

Pray for him.

There are, however, compensations. Like if you keep the old battle axe happy, other things tend to be done for you, as you well know :) No one has ever accused the Unit of being a stupid man.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2006 05:39 PM

...other things tend to be done for you, as you well know :)

*Giggles like a girl*

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at October 24, 2006 06:02 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)