Remember that unfunnygirl who performed a social science experiment up to the rigorous standards set by academic feminists everywhere, an experiment in which her results were presented as evidence men don’t want casual sex any more than women want it? Femcunts rejoiced, because femcunts will rejoice at whatever slender reed of feels gives succor to their pretty lies.
Dr. Jeremy, from Psychology Today, responded, vindicating the original Clark and Hatfield study finding that men are fantastically more agreeable to the prospect of casual, NSA sex than are women.
The difference between actual social science research and these pseudo-experiments is that, with real research, there are experimental controls put in place to reduce bias and alternative explanations for the findings. For example, the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) study standardized what was said by the experimental assistants to ask for sex, so that each participant received exactly the same believable message. Specifically they said, “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?”
Additionally, Clark and Hatfield (1989) used multiple experimental assistants to control for differences in attractiveness. Also, the assistants were asked to only request sex from believable partners (college students, relatively the same age, and attractive to them). Finally, participants were approached during times when they were most likely to have free time for sex (weekdays and not between class periods).
We see none of these experimental controls in the pseudo-experiment video. The woman is inconsistent with her approach and how she asks for sex. Sometimes she is laughing, uncomfortable, and clearly not serious in her request. She also approaches many men who are not plausible sex partners for her, who are busy with their day, or who are otherwise unavailable for immediate sex.
Nevertheless, when she does approach men that she finds sexually attractive, who are plausible sex partners, who are available, and her request to them is more complementary and believable, then she more often gets a yes (for example, see video at 1:54 with guy in blue shirt). In fact, simply taking the men out of the analysis who are clearly considerably older than her (10), state they are too busy to go with her immediately (9), say they have a girlfriend and cannot have sex with her (12), or tell her they are gay (3), begins to increase her probability of getting a yes to sex (28/66 = 42%). If she only approached men that she actually found sexually attractive, used a standardized and believable request for sex, and hid the camera too, then it is quite possible that her rate of success would be even higher and better match those of actual studies that used such experimental controls. In fact, more recent experimental studies, following those controls and protocols, have indeed found similar results as the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) experiments (for more, see Hald & Høgh-Olesen, 2010).
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39-54.
Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behaviior, 31, 453-458.
Feminists — ah, fuck it, let’s just say all women — will never be convinced by logic or reason to accept that there are deep, abiding differences in the psychology of the sexes. Women are built by evolution to fool themselves as much as fool men to their true natures, because complete enlightenment and the pained introspection that would follow could sabotage the Darwinian prime directive to attract and monopolize the top alpha sperm and resources.
Every woman with whom I associate would agree with this post. Yes, I know the women who wouldn’t, but we don’t chat much.
LikeLike
In other news, water is wet.
LikeLike
a couple points, firstly, as I recall, the video of the man asking women for sex had 0 yes answers, so 0/100 positive replies to his request for casual sex. the pseudo-experiment still had significantly more positive replies from men than women, but it was less than the study showed so apparently that means men don’t want casual sex because feminist logic. Second, I absolutely hate it when lefties try to use science as a wedge for political gain, especially when they aren’t even remotely close to being a scientist.
LikeLike
[…] Clark And Hatfield Study: Men Are Far More Open To Casual Sex Than Are Women […]
LikeLike
Does anybody have any good links [real talk, or at least real-ish talk] about oxytocin bonding in women post-forn!cat!on? Thanks.
LikeLike
Oxytocin has a stronger impact on men. Women can handle addiction to oxytocin much betterer. Ok, so my blogging is ethanol-fueled.
LikeLike
Women actually do a Catch-22 about the kind of men that they like so that only dishonest approaches actually cause them to spread their legs.
LikeLike
I always felt that I did this as well – I was always much more at ease banging a Bar Ho than getting involved with a Nice Girl. Nice Girls always used to scare the bejeebus outta me, on account of how I couldn’t live with myself if I broke their hearts. On the other hand, now that I’m officially a Natalist, I’ll plow the Nice Girls with abandon. But no pump-n-dump. You never P-n-D a Nice Girl.
LikeLike
The onlyest Nice Goil ™ is a dead Goil ™.
LikeLike
…Dr. Ron Jeremy?
[CH: the spearhead of science.]
LikeLike
I wonder when they will do a study on whether bears shit in the woods or not.
LikeLike
Exactly… I’m thinking the study should be credited to Mssrs. Clark, Howard, and Captain Obvious.
LikeLike
This implies that there is something in nature that expects this. Deep down women know this and adore this behavior in men. Do not apologize for it.
LikeLike
[…] Clark And Hatfield Study: Men Are Far More Open To Casual Sex Than Are Women […]
LikeLike
Well, girls are open to it if they’re gamed right– isn’t that what YaReally would say?
[CH: correct. but a direct sidewalk solicitation of women minus the seduction component is not the way to go about it.]
LikeLike
“girls are open to it if they’re gamed right”
check out the stats on ONS turning into LTR. it seems whatever it is about a guy that makes a girl willing to have casual sex immediately is related to something that makes her want a relationship with him too.
alpha fux beta bux isn’t the first choice. alpha fux alpha bux is.
LikeLike
There are no alpha bux. The alpha is the male lion in the pride. Females provide the food.
[CH: recall the prized CH maxim: betas pay, alphas split, super alphas profit.]
LikeLike
“Super-alphas profit.” I like that, especially having considered myself omega all my life. My wimmenz always took care of me and I was always super picky about my wimmenz. I probably need a larger pride.
LikeLike
Lol, I did anti-seduction recently. I openly invited a broad to my place (we didn’t go there) to generate tingles, then teased her about stuff we did that would shock her friends. Her ASD took hold as I saw from her body language (legs crossed away from me and arms crossed, yet leaning towards me), yet she continued to desire my attention (hand-holding and walking and spending time together). She was in mixed-alpha-beta response. The broad was very corfuzed. It was fun observing it.
LikeLike
“Seduction component” is the wrong way to think about it. Better is “normal sexual engagement” or “Chase”. It’s playful, engaging, and sexual, all at the same time.
[CH: there is a time and place for the apocalypse opener, but it’s probably not in broad daylight on the sidewalk.]
LikeLike
Maybe at the end of an evening dancing together?
LikeLike
Shoutout to Maitre d’Chateau on the menstrual cycle-related female responsiveness to specific opening/treatments. With chilluns out for summer vacation, the variability in what got positive/negative was appreciable.
The hamster has to be seen to be believed!
LikeLike
“Sometimes she is laughing, uncomfortable, and clearly not serious in her request.”
My prediction is that in the not too distant future we’ll see To-Catch-A Predator-type shows where women make casual requests to strange guys on the street, but do so “unenthusiastically.” When the guy accepts and goes back to her place, he’s greeted by a television crew and a Hansenesque host who sanctimoniously calls him a rapist and lectures him about “enthusiastic consent.”
“Why don’t you have a seat over there and tell me why you agreed to come back to her place. Couldn’t you tell she wasn’t serious? Do you feel ashamed at all for wanting to rape this woman?”
LikeLike
He should then rape the host and rape him hard. Shammed rape!
LikeLike
[…] Source: Heartiste […]
LikeLike
heartistez, distress call, need some serious help here
Its regarding the orbits, my orbit count has rapidly dropped. I went from 4 to f/cking one…sh1t, its tough to keep frame now. In the same fashion the count was exponentially rising, now it is plummeting …
Whats going on? Cases for explanation
One of them (27yo) is settling down for a total beta , she even says sh1t about marrying, and that beta guy does everything opposed to teachings at CH. For instance, he sends message like : “I cant imagine living without someone else than you :)), my mama said she is going to pay a flat renovation for US :))” – literally
another (21yo) is going to take eurotrip with guy (Im not sure about his game but doesnt look very representative of it)
WTF Im doing wrong? picking up is working nice , but after 6 months its fading..how to set a balanced multipleLTR? Is it possible without supplicating? all of sudden chicks will settle and I get even outcompeted by betas? wtf is this
…maybe whiteknightin , but Im pi55ed off, cant stop competition and just let it swim…
LikeLike
Also, a lot of men might be dissuaded from a casual fuck because they fear the woman might make fun of their little dicks. Others men might refuse because it violates the teachings of Jesus Chroost of whom they are believers.
If these 2 factors were somehow omitted the number of men willing to engage in a random fuck with an 8+ would be about 85%.
LikeLike
femcunts will rejoice at whatever slender reed of feels gives succor to their pretty lies
Why does it matter? Look, feminists have pulled the biggest scam in history off, and sold it to the group of women that men most want to have sex with – the 15-25 year olds. Who cares where the old slags get their pleasure? They have made it possible for me to get my pleasure from the group I enjoy the most – yes, those young ones.
Heck, I can’t tell you how many barely 18 year olds I’ve enjoyed on the matra of “live experience”. They want to have sex with more than one man – no worries, I’ll plumb her then pass her on to a group who will enjoy everything I have, but she’s used up – time for a new one. No worries, I’m not going back for sloppy seconds, I’m done with her – she’s some other slobs problem. Women are disposable these days – the ultimate disposable sex-toy. Use, them, fill, them, throw them away and get a newer one… There’s an unending supply…
So why worry – let the Feminists say what they want, as long as they keep brain-washing the young pretty ones that they need to spread their legs, I’m not complaining. You shouldn’t either…
LikeLike
I don’t think there is anything remarkable about a girl having a 30% success rate with random men when propositioning them for sex. 30% is a totally believable rate. Like the article says, many men are out of the running because they are too old, not single, etc. Many men are going to weirded out by a stranger asking for sex and worried that this might be a weird set up. I was once propositioned by a beautiful but anorexic chick who was with some way older guy who was her roommate and the whole situation was so weird that I turned it down. With that guy around I was afraid of getting murdered or dragged into some really weird sexual kinks or something.
LikeLike
Besides, 30% success rate vs 0% for the college women studies is still a huge difference. Guys aren’t as sex crazy as typically portrayed in society. Women are less sex crazy than portrayed in society.
LikeLike