Except she crossed a few off (I assume as “completed”) and one of them went down on her…
And it was “Awesome!”
Proof that a single hasty act can cause a lifetime of regret and shame.
Would want to go through life knowing you’d done this thing?
Well, this just shows you how far MY filthy mind is in the gutter. I assumed that she was narrowing down her options on sending Valentines Day cards.
:o
Well, the two do go hand-in-hand when you’re in high school.
I would hope Facebook has closed Chris’s account by now. What a vindictive little shit.
Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers, 10.1300/J056v02n01_04, Published in: Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, Volume 2, Issue 1 August 1989, pages 39 - 55.
The abstract:
A 2005 study, “Clark and Hatfield’s Evidence of Women’s Low Receptivity to Male Strangers’ Sexual Offers Revisited,” M. Voracek, A. Hofhansl and M.L. Fisher, Psychological Reports, vol. 97, 2005, pp. 1120, reports on an Austrian journalism project which repeated the anonymous offers approach and got 6% positive female response to a highly-attractive male offering immediate anonymous sexual involvement.
I suppose 6% is not negligible, but it’s a far cry from the 77% of men that indicated acceptance in that same study.
Perhaps attitudes have changed in the past four years? I can try to dig up a 2009 study, if you’d like.
You might be interested in this book - “The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement.” I worry too that it’s going to get worse.
I don’t know why you’re so butthurt by my wondering whether a thirty year old study about such cultural phenomena as gender rôles and sexual offers might be f limited value today. I can think of a number of fronts on which attitudes have almost certainly changed, and significantly so—acceptance of homosexuality, women in the workforce, interracial romantic relationships, etc.
I think it was a perfectly reasonable reservation, and undoubtedly the motivation for the scholarly “revisit” you cite.
Try not to take everything so personally, please.
But you’ve made a rhetorical slide here from “sexist,” which was Freudian Slit’s assertion, to your own terminology of “internally inconsistent.” They are not the same thing.
If people’s views on the “proper roles for men and women” results in condemning a woman for exactly the same behavior that they would ignore or applaud in a man, then they are sexist. Their opinion may be rooted in a particular set of beliefs about male and female roles, and those beliefs themselves may be completely internally consistent, but that does not change the fact that they are sexist. As a matter of fact, many of the sexists i have met were incredibly consistent in their sexism.
I mean, your paragraph about beliefs regarding social roles for men and women, and discriminating based on those beliefs, is pretty much the dictionary definition of the word “sexism.” One example:
If someone believes that a woman should be condemned or ridiculed for the same behavior that would be ignored or applauded in a man, then the only question, really, is not whether they are sexist, but whether they have sufficient courage of their convictions to actually admit that this is what they are.
No. The whole point of casting this as a thought experiment in the first place was to avoid having to dig up a cite for a phenomenon of human behavior in Western society that’s blindingly obvious.
It’s unfathomable how it wasn’t equally obvious to you.
Still, I’m pleased that I have been able to offer you grounding, in a recent study, in a peer-reviewed publication, that confirms this aspect of human behavior. I know you’ll treasure this insight.
ooh! Yeah, that one, and I saw another one by Dr. Drew (Stop laughing at me! He’s smart! I like him! Stop it!) in the bookstore that I wanted.
Shit I hope not…if accounts were closed for being an arsehole, that would be damnably awful…
Did you look at what you cited? It was titled “Blah Blah Blah That 1978 Stranger Fucking Study Revisited.” When I said “and undoubtedly the motivation for the ‘revisit’ you cite,” I was referring to motivation of the researchers for conducting the 2005 study, not you and your posts to the SDMB.
As to the latter half of the quote above, I’ll note that this study was conducted at least three times, so people much more acquainted with human sexuality on a macro scale than either you or I thought that doing this study was warranted.
I dunno, I have never thought of myself as a prude or anything like that, but I do find promiscuous to be disturbing. Letting some guy stick his dick into you shouldn’t be done at the drop of a hat well then I don’t have much to say.
I don’t know if I can explain this very well, but I wonder if the relative differences in attitude have anything to do with “innies” vs “outies”… How many here would be willing to stick your finger into a cup of something gross? Now how many would be willing to have that same gross stuff somehow “put inside”?
Bolding mine. Apparently you can’t.
The very fact that you equate sex with “something gross” says a lot, in and of itself.
Yes, that was clear. When I said “The whole point of casting this as a thought experiment in the first place was to avoid having to dig up a cite…” I was referring to your initial request for a cite, in a MPSIMS thread no less, on a matter that is intuitively obvious to the casual observer.
Of course. People who study this in detail can achieve greater and more detailed insights than a blanket, “Women don’t do that nearly as often as men.” But it’s that latter, basic, statement that I was making.
In any event, your voracious hunger for peer-reviewed research to back up the remarkable idea that men are vastly more eager to engage in anonymous stranger sex with attractive women than are women with attractive men has presumably been satiated.
How many people would be willing to hold a running blender in their hand? Now how many would be willing to put their hand into the running blender? You see, it all depends on how you form the hypothetical. But you should note that up to now we were discussing being hit on by an attractive, hygienic stranger, not a gross one.
Wow, can we please set this argument aside?