It’s true! Science says so.
“Pickup” lines based on humor tend to fall flat-but they do get the speakers rated as relatively funny and sociable, and aren’t disfavored by women seeking brief liaisons, a new study suggests.
Corwin Senko and Viviana Fyffe of the State University of New York-New Paltz conducted the research to assess why women respond differently to different types of “pickup” lines and to help answer that question so common from young women: why do men use dumb pickup lines?
The pair studied the effects of “flippant” lines such as “can I get a picture of you so I can show Santa what I want for Christmas?” Women rated men who used such opening gambits, as opposed to other types, as relatively high on humorousness and sociability, but low on trustworthiness and intelligence.
“Women rate the latter qualities more essential than the former ones in a long-term mate,” the researchers wrote. Humor might not ordinarily signal low intelligence, they added, but the type of canned humor usually found in pickup lines could.
So if you want a same night lay with a horny, ovulating stripper, hit her up with the corniest pickup line you can muster. She’ll swoon. If you want to maximize your success with women at all phases of their cycles, your best bet is a pickup line that is honed to demonstrate humor *and* smarts. That isn’t easy to do, which is why most men fall back on goofiness, which seems to be a default male state. Paradoxically, acting goofy may help men maintain some semblance of dignity and composure when talking to an attractive girl.
Two types of non-“flippant” pickup lines were also used in the survey for comparison. One type was the “direct” line, such as “I saw you across the room and knew I had to meet you. What’s your name?” The other was the “innocuous” sort that conceals romantic intent, thus making rejection more bearable. An example: “You look really familiar. Have we taken a class together?”
The survey results saw the “flippant” lines scorned by women who were asked to imagine themselves seeking a long-term mate. But for women asked to think of themselves seeking a short-term mate, the type of pickup line didn’t matter, the researchers found: instead, the man’s perceived attractiveness was the key factor in the woman’s receptivity.
“Direct” pickup lines gave the best results on average, but the outcome differences between them and the “innocuous” lines weren’t statistically significant, Senko and Fyffe reported.
Direct game has its advocates, but this study suggests that the Lance Mason-esque “movie moment” type of direct opening is not much better at picking up women than standard, indirect openers.
By the way, a lot of these sociological studies suffer from the experimental flaw known as “don’t expect a straight answer from women” bias. This study asked women to imagine themselves seeking either a long-or short-term mate before making their decisions. Since when has asking women about their feelings ever gotten anyone honest feedback? These studies would be more convincing if instead of asking women about their sexual attraction mechanisms, they went IN THE FIELD to actually observe women reacting to different types of pickup lines.
A lot of scientists could learn a thing or two about the experimental method from PUAs.

Many of the so called scientific studies don’t really meet the high standards of scientific research. I can engineer you a ‘scientific study’ that will reach any conclusion you want. You gotta know what studies to learn from and what studies to ignore.
LikeLike
The problem also depends on the man using the line.
My alpha male buddies can use just about anything, and it sounds good.
When I do it, I’m just another dweeb.
LikeLike
“But for women asked to think of themselves seeking a short-term mate, the type of pickup line didn’t matter, the researchers found: instead, the man’s perceived attractiveness was the key factor in the woman’s receptivity.”
This finally confirms my observation, looks are important in the very short term and short term.
LikeLike
This is easy: Flippant lines always work for me, but only if I run Leonardo DiCaprio, 6pack or roosh game.
LikeLike
Eduard has it right on the unscientific nature of most science. In 299 I read every single study I could find on Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccines -over 120 studies. After reading the first fifty or so it got so that I could predict the study results by the country and or journal that it was published in. Not comforting.
Hans Conser
LikeLike
I guess the answers females give depends absolutely more on the atractiveness of the scientist who asks them and other factors that surround and inhibit the woman at that moment the question is asked.
Threfore two different researchers will come to two different results about nature of women. Just like the same woman is a controlling bitch for a beta and a sweet canary for an alfa.
So you can apply Einsteins theory of relativity to women – the oserved phenomena depends on the observer.
LikeLike
unrelated good blog i just discovered:
http://unamusementpark.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
It’s assumed that what women say is honest. It’s assumed they they’ll honestly tell researchers what they’re thinking.
Alas, women can’t be honest with themselves. Upshot: the research s likely valueless.
I’d say field research is the only research of any usefulness.
Goes for all research.
(Psychology study-culture is addicted to the virtually useless “college student questionnaires” method, because it’s cheap and it’s the least anyone can actually do).
LikeLike
My SO sees all kinds of research like this. Her opinion of its value is that it’s more or less valueless. There are literally millions of these studies, using these methods, and they all prove whatever you set out to prove.
Only if your hypothesis is completely off the mark will you get surprising results.
LikeLike
My infield research tells me that it doesn’t matter squat shit what you say. Just open with a situation opener and don’t telegraph interest like Mystery tells you and that’s pretty much the best you can do.
You play the hand your dealt and then move on. Hopefully she wants to fuck, but if not, you fold and wait for new cards.
LikeLike
Concur with Gorbachev, mostly. Field research is all that matters. Any approach can work, depending on a lot of variables. Important thing to always remember is that the vag-capture rate when you never approach is zero.
My favorite opener: smile, make solid eye-contact, extend my hand, and say dead-pan, “Hi, I’m Mr Wrong.” Works a lot better than you expect: it’s humorous and, let’s be honest, truthful. Later on when it ends, in hours, days, weeks, or months, you can reminder her that she was warned at the get-go.
LikeLike
Calling this stuff “science” is tongue in cheek on the author’s part, but it does point up the fatal error of the seduction community’s conceit, the crack in the foundation of Le Chateau, the idea that “Biomechanics is God.”
Human behavior is too volitional to be studied by scientific method: experiment, control, repeat. Men are not an interplay of gravity and rocks, sliding predictably down the mountain. Much of the evolutionary didacticism used to explain female behavior around here is tautological, retrofitting to the point of absurdity. “We subconsciously like tits because cleavage looks like an ass-crack out on the savanna,” etc.
“It’s true! Science says so” will only get a player so far. What’s wrong with saying a behavior is true because it’s true and observed — induction rather than deduction — rather than because some frigid, spinsterish monkey voyeur observed it in the Congo? We’re not trying to split the atom here. We’re trying to split quim.
Here is the ne plus ultra of your way of thinking:
Wading through scientific reports meant for pop consumption to justify the secret truths you have uncovered trivializes your noble project. Go a level deeper. You appear smart enough.
For the most part, it doesn’t matter why something is true. It only matters that it’s true. But the more you rely on other people’s explanations to justify your status as a truthteller, the more you will be manipulated by their modish, capricious, and half-queer point of view. Consider: do scientists seem Alpha to you? They are entirely different species, not even beta, nerdy to the point of pain, dedicating themselves to the purity of information that can be manipulated at will. In other words, they have an entirely different agenda than yours.
You can play the game refereed by nebbishy Stephen Hawking types, or you can write the rules yourselves.
http://takimag.com/article/stephen_hawking_the_gimp_who_would_be_god
LikeLike
Would this work:
You look familiar, have I spanked you before?
Assuming no more than 2pt diff in SMV, and a dead earnest delivery.
Are you sure, perhaps I’d recall if you turned around and bent over?
LikeLike
The tone is totally off on this post. Starting off with an exclamation point? Who is writing this shit.
LikeLike
Human behavior is too volitional to be studied by scientific method
Dumb
For the most part, it doesn’t matter why something is true.
And Dumber
LikeLike
For the truely cheesy ones, search piropos…guess you guys all speak Spanish by now!
LikeLike
Evil Alpha:
You chopped off the context. Your quote should have read:
“For the most part, it doesn’t matter why something is true…. But….”
I like big buts. They indicate a qualified rejection of what precedes them. The whole point of the comment was to emphasize how superficially the Chateau goes about demonstrating “why” what they believe is true.
If you’re not into buts, you can go with hands and pretend I wrote: “On the one hand…. On the other hand….” Whatever kink helps your clarity.
LikeLike
Agree with Eduard here. Often I see studies saying things like ‘80% of [insert intended demographic] love our product/agree our product does this’, and then you read the required-by-law small print and you find the survey was out of about 33 people.
That’s a very unrealistic representation of the general public, but unfortunately people pay more attention to the 80 PERCENT!!! than anything else.
In this case, the study may have just stumbled upon women who have a certain preference for approaches, so it’s not a true sample for accuracy.
LikeLike
Hold on a minute. are we basing pick-up theory here on what women say they like and want? Also, you can’t trust peoples’ reactions to be actually congruent to what they say in a survey
this isn’t science ; this is cheap sociology
LikeLike
My face is leaving at Nine, be on it! 🙂
LikeLike
“It is common for Blank Slaters to follow Stephen Jay Gould in scoffing at evolutionary explanations for human nature as “just-so stories”—narratively appealing, but untestable, unverifiable, and unfalsifiable.
This line of attack is not entirely unfair. There are indeed knotty questions to be tackled in applying biology to behavior and mind. Knottiest of all, as Dutton explains very patiently, is distinguishing between a true adaptation—“an inherited physiological, affective, or behavioral characteristic that reliably develops in an organism, increasing its chances of survival and reproduction”—and by-products of the evolutionary process with no survival value. As biology lecturers tell their freshman classes: Not every trait is an adaptation. Our bones are white, but that is an accident of their composition. They would serve just as well, with no evolutionary downside, if they were chartreuse. As well as being knotty, these issues are politically fraught. Is the female orgasm an adaptation or a by-product? Best not ask.
Still, so long as care is taken with such distinctions—and I think Gould can fairly be charged, as Dutton does charge him, with deplorable carelessness here—the construction of hypotheses about the origin of traits is legitimate science. The evidence is at present largely circumstantial, to be sure, but as Thoreau noted, circumstantial evidence can be very persuasive, “as when you find a trout in the milk.” It is easy to think of modest advances in our understanding of biology that would bring some of these “just-so stories” into the testable zone. There is nothing unscientific about putting hypotheses out there to await the happy day.”
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Make-way-for-bio-aesthetics-3989
LikeLike
Here’s one I use every so often that usually gets a good laugh outta the girl, but then again if she doesn’t who cares 😛
Me: “Are you related to Jean Claude Van-Damme”
Her: “No” or “I don’t know who that is” (usually “No”)
Me: “Because Jean Claude Van-DAMME you’re fine!!!”
LikeLike
humor’s the main thing. if you can make her laugh right off the bat, she will like you right off the bat and that will frame the rest of the interaction. also, not to get too deep into the pop-psychology of humor, but laughter is disarming and a form of submission, a surrender to a sort of transgressive frame. (groan. i can’t believe I just wrote that. but something like it is true.) keep it toned down enough not to be a dancing monkey as the interaction wears on, though.
LikeLike
We just did a whole a report on this and the author is pretty much on the nail. I have to agree, “”flippant” works. Some men found that it was easier to meet girls in class, at a book store, retail store or coffee house than it was in the bar. We found that women were more off guard in these types of establishments and were more receptive. Most women prepare for the worse when going out at night, so I would recommend shooting off some of these lines when picking out vegetables on our next shopping trip, “Don’t you find cucumbers to be sensual?”
Here was our huge report on “How to pick up exotic women”:
Enjoy!!!
http://gentlemensclubamerica.com/how-to-pick-up-strippers/
LikeLike
@Eduard: “Many of the so called scientific studies don’t really meet the high standards of scientific research.”
Indeed. I see the same three systemic problems in these studies:
1. The women are told the nature of the study
In more useful studies, the subjects are lied to. For example, they might be told that we’re studying positive reinforcement as an aid to learning, but in reality we’re seeing if they’ll administer electric shocks (the Milgram experiment). If the subjects were told, “hey we’re trying to find out if you’re a sadistic bastard” then they wouldn’t have administered the shocks.
You must keep the nature of the study a secret.
2. they are asked to give a verbal response to a fundamentally nonverbal quantity.
They asked women if the pickup lines worked? Really? As a reader of Citizen Renegade, we know that negs work. What if I did a study where I read insulting statements to women and then asked them if they would be attracted to a guy who said that. Such a study would find that negs do not work.
Instead, they should have measured physiological changes, or put the women in f-MRIs. But a simple questionnaire absolutely will not work.
3. I’m not seeing any control group. Sure, their attempt at a control group is asking the “non-flippant” lines, but that’s not a proper control. If you’re really measuring the lines, then the control group should have seen the men but not talked to them.
A useful version of this story would be to fit various sensors to women and use cameras to monitor their pupils – whatever you can come up with to rate arousal. But tell the women that the purpose of the study is to gauge women’s anxiety in male-dominate social situations (they would eat that PC language up). Then some of the women are never talked to. Some of the women get pickup lines. And you repeat the experiment with several sets of women and rotate the pickup lines to different guys.
Women are going to come out of the experiment righteously indignant, saying, “oh I was so offended when he said that to me!” but the data will show that they were aroused.
LikeLike
Thank you, social psychology, for confirming the completely bloody obvious. Guys who say funny yet canned things to strangers are funny and outgoing, yet they have an agenda of getting laid (untrustworthy) and they’re not smart enough to think up their own lines (unintelligent).
Although of course anecdotes are not data and I am rather unlike the sort of women you guys hit on, the successful lines that have been tried on me are “hi,” “I just want to say that you’re very pretty,” “I don’t know how I’m going to survive this midterm,” and “I know it’s kind of weird for me to come over, but I heard you rolling Wits plus Composure and I have a Pavlovian reaction to World of Darkness.”
eric– the problem with your proposed study is that the most common method of analyzing female arousal, a photoplethysmograph, which senses blood flow to the vagina, is notoriously inaccurate. In addition, women tend to have physical sexual responses to everything remotely sexual, including bonobos fucking; the theory is that lubricating the vagina reduces damage when a woman is raped. Unless you’re going to propose that women are biomechanically attracted to bonobos…?
LikeLike
It used to be that a post like this would lead to the sharing of a bunch of funny and/or effective openers. Now, 3/4 of it is just a bunch of rhetorical beating off about scientific method. Very telling.
LikeLike
@BDS
good point
mout
LikeLike
YEP. This is the same as those movies with black female judges In Charge, or TV shows/commercials with black dads sitting down to eat with their family.
LikeLike
Roissy come back! this is garbage
LikeLike
@BDS,
I, too, liked the original roissy and the original roissy commentors. I can’t believe they were all replaced by a collective of sock-puppets. /sarcasm
OT:
http://9gag.com/gag/23897/
LikeLike
cobragirl: “blood flow to the vagina, is notoriously inaccurate”
What makes you think that? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, I’d just like to know why you think it’s inaccurate.
Alternately, there are lots of studies that are carried out on unsuspecting subjects. So an alternative to what I suggested is to simply wire a bunch of guys with microphones and send them into bars and other social situations. Half of them have instructions to use cheesy lines. The other half are just supposed to say, “hi.” Success or failure could be measured any number of ways, from acuisition of phone numbers, to leaving the bar with the girl.
If you do that enough times (admittedly, this would be tedious) you’d have good data.
BDS: “It used to be that a post like this would lead to the sharing of a bunch of funny and/or effective openers”
Used to be that people didn’t whine when something didn’t go their way.
I don’t know if this counts as a canned line, but last week I was meeting a buddy in a bar and a couple of hotties were sitting at the table next to him. The place was packed so I went up to them and said, “excuse me, can I take this chair?” They said yeah, so I sat down and motioned for my buddy to join us. Didn’t go anywhere after that though.
You happy now? Want to hear some more stories?
LikeLike
cobragirl said: “Guys who say funny yet canned things to strangers are funny and outgoing, yet they have an agenda of getting laid (untrustworthy) and they’re not smart enough to think up their own lines (unintelligent).”
But that’s exactly what about douchebags gets ‘gina tingle going and keeps insecure girls comin’ back for less. (He’s “a lot of fun” and I’ll be the one to make him change!)
LikeLike
BDS wrote:
It used to be that a post like this would lead to the sharing of a bunch of funny and/or effective openers. Now, 3/4 of it is just a bunch of rhetorical beating off about scientific method. Very telling.
So in addition to half-bullshit war stories you get intelligent discussion about the methodology of pick-up … the whole reason you come to this website. You can find material more your speed on other venues, I’m sure.
The need to verbalize your accomplishments (anonymously!) for approval is a feminine trait shared by weak men. The whining about a general lack of estrogen-infused chatty chat — without providing your own example of your desired quality — is the way of the bitchboy.
“It used to be…” Sigh. Oh bother! What to do, what to do?
Where is your “funny” contribution, your example of “effective openers”? Men demonstrate. Women complain. If you wanted otherwise, you would have attempted a shift in conversation by leading the way. You don’t want to change a situation, you want to nag.
LikeLike
eric– IIRC (and this is based on conversations with drunk sexology grad students, so take it with all necessary grains of salt), the variance is EXTREMELY high, even for the same woman, because they wiggle, which fucks with the very delicate machinery.
Anonymous– Perhaps I have a very selective friends group, but the number of unintelligent, untrustworthy guys women I know dated in long-term relationships (not one-night-stands or fuckbuddies) is approximately zero.
LikeLike
When it comes to human mating habits, scientists are way behind the magicians and alchemists.
LikeLike
Men only say shit like that when standing toe to toe with someone. If we were, you wouldn’t be.
LikeLike
Welcome to the internet, BDS. Try not to take anonymous comments personally.
We’re not hiding behind aliases and keyboards because we otherwise couldn’t back ourselves up. It’s just the nature of the medium. (cf. “Roissy”) Common error.
I’d tell you the same thing to your face. Rather than going “toe to toe,” you’d probably buy me a beer. That has been my experience anyway.
You know who loses online pissing contests? Everyone who participates.
LikeLike
Sex is meant to be absurd fun. Don’t fuck it up and get married.
LikeLike
[…] Roissy: Found! Useful Relationship Advice From A Woman, Chicks Dig Cheesy Pickup Lines […]
LikeLike