If I Said You Had a Beautiful Body, Would You Hold It Against Me?

For those of you who've not yet arranged snuggle related program activities for this evening, Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution points to an academic study of "Chat-up Lines as Male Sexual Displays."

Comments

[Jeff P.]

I raise my swollen blood-red ass into the air for all females to behold.
I also do a little dance.

[Phil]

Science proves that either women are just plain sexier or penises are ugly:

Being highly sexed changes men's and women's sexual orientation in startlingly different ways, a major academic study has concluded.

The research, conducted by Dr Richard Lippa, an internationally renowned sex expert at California State University, shows highly sexed women to be no less than 27 times more likely than men to become attracted to their own sex. The survey, of more than 3,500 people, is published in this month's Psychological Science. It showed that 0.3 per cent of men were attracted to their own sex, as opposed to 8 per cent of women.

For most women, a high sex drive increases their sexual attraction to both men and women. The opposite occurs in men, where a high sex drive simply exaggerates existing sexual orientation.

[jp]

Phil, that's not surprising. The female body is a work of art. The male body is utilitarian, it's for gettin' around, like a jeep. The hair, the lumpiness. It's simian.

[R C Dean]

Very interesting - that less than 1% of men have homosexual preferences. I could swear that various advocacy groups have circulated much higher numbers than that.

[gaijin]

Dr Richard Lippa, an internationally renowned sex expert at California State University

And what, exactly, is the curriculum of study required to become a sexpert? Is there a dissertation? Or a practicum?

[animal lover]

Using the peacock as an example, I?ve grown my hair 6 feet long and gained 300 pounds. I figure if a girl sees I can still get around and survive in today?s world with such handicaps I?m sure to score!

[downstater]

Very interesting - that less than 1% of men have homosexual preferences. I could swear that various advocacy groups have circulated much higher numbers than that.

unless the sample is from people determined to be "highly sexed" as opposed to the population in general - for which the figure could indeed be larger.

i have admittedly not looked into the details.

[Phil]

RTFA again, RC Dean. Concentrate real hard on the first sentence. I'll even help: Being highly sexed ***changes***

[Reason Pillow Girl]

"If I Said You Had a Beautiful Body, Would You Hold It Against Me?"

I fell for that line once!

[gaijin]

oh dearest RPG...will you be leaving us after today?

[Reason Pillow Girl]

Unless the Reason folks decide to keep me past my expiration date.

Or if they decide to hire me! How bout it guys?

[Captain Holly]

Or if they decide to hire me! How bout it guys?

Okay, but since April 15th is rapidly approaching you'll have to change your slogan to read "Give me a tax cut I won't forget".

[Reason Pillow Girl]

I'm so sad. I've been up there for weeks and still, no handsome man has sent me my heart's desire, a subscription to Reason.

[Rhywun]

"Sex expert"?? Oh... they mean sexpert.

[R C Dean]

I did RTFA, Phil.

The article does not say that only 0.3% of highly sexed men are gay. It does not say that the survey was limited to highly sexed people. It says that a survey of more than 3,500 people . . . showed that 0.3 per cent of men were attracted to their own sex.

Dunno about you, but to me that says that only 0.3 per cent of men are attracted to other men.

[Rhywun]

Very interesting - that less than 1% of men have homosexual preferences.

In addition to what others have pointed out, and without R'ing TFA, I'm going to guess that the entire survey group was heterosexual. Otherwise I imagine it would kind of screw up the results.

[Reason Pillow Girl]

But girls who are attracted to other girls, like me, aren't really hetero, are they?

I think gay men are the ones who are highly sexed.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Thanks Reason for reminding me that it's National Flaunt Your Sex Life In Front Of The Hopelessly Single Day.

Excuse me, I've got to go eat a bullet.

[Rhywun]

OK, I've RTFA, and I'm calling bullshit. We don't know anything about the sample of people, nor what "highly sexed" means. Oh, and the line "celebrities are once again leading the way in bringing sexual orientation out of the closet" makes me want to retch. Have they been farming their reporting to the celebrity-worshipping Sun?

[Stevo Darkly]

For most women, a high sex drive increases their sexual attraction to both men and women. The opposite occurs in men, where a high sex drive simply exaggerates existing sexual orientation.

This conforms to my personal experience. In the past five years I've known two women with extremely high sex drives (one had some kind of off-kilter hormone thingy), and they were both bisexual.

And I'm still not getting any.

Save a bullet for me, Akira.

[Stevo Darkly]

Reason Pillow Girl!

If I tried to compliment you on your bikini, do you think I could pull it off?

[Lowdog]

Jebus, most of the girls I know have at least dallied with other girls, whether they have a high sex drive or not. And yes, most of those that do have a high sex drive have seemed more apt to continue their dalliances.

And I'm not really getting any, either. :/

[Amy Alkon]

I've read that entire study, and have written about it in my column:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2006/01/funny_cant_buy.html

Here's a point from it from that column:

A study of which openers work best by UK researchers Christopher Bale and Rory Morrison distinguishes "wit (spontaneous jokes that fit the context exactly, are genuinely funny, and require intelligence) from mere humor (the pre-planned jokes and one-liners which were ineffective and do not demonstrate intelligence)."

A bit more from that study (from that same column):

...taking charge, being helpful, displaying generosity, and using mild, situationally appropriate wit -- qualities Bale and Morrison ranked high in girl appeal. The idea is trying to pick up women, but not trying too hard.

[Reason Pillow Girl]

"If I tried to compliment you on your bikini, do you think I could pull it off?"

Only if you have a good line.

Wait, was that a line? Ok, good enough. How about buying me a martini?

[emmajane]

All y'all guys who complain about not getting any--the first thing to do is move out of your parents' basement and actually learn to have a conversation with a real live female. Real Amy Alkon's columns--they'll help!

[Stevo Darkly]

emmajane -- I'm an independent adult who has never lived in his parents' basement.

And if anyone knows how to be a smooth talker with the chicks, it's me. Now -- outta the way, you crazy broad. I'm working on Reason Pillow Girl.

How about I get you five or six Jaeger shots to chase that martini, RPG?

[Phil]

If you did RTFA again, RC, than you either can't infer meaning from context or can't fucking multiply, or both. If the phrase "change their sexual orientation" wasn't a big enough clue for you to figure it out, we'll move on to paragraph two, which leaves several additional clues. Follow along!

"The research, conducted by Dr Richard Lippa, an internationally renowned sex expert at California State University, shows highly sexed women to be no less than 27 times more likely than men to become attracted to their own sex. The survey, of more than 3,500 people, is published in this month's Psychological Science. It showed that 0.3 per cent of men were attracted to their own sex, as opposed to 8 per cent of women."

Here are the clues:

1. "The research . . . shows highly sexed women to be no less than 27 times more likely than men ***to become attracted to**** their own sex."

2. "It showed that 0.3 per cent of men were attracted to their own sex, as opposed to 8 per cent of women."

3. 0.3% times 27 = 8.1%

So, yes, just as I said the number 0.3% refers to the percentage, among "highly sexed" men, who are likely to become attracted to men as well as being attracted to women. Hence the phrase, "become attracted to." As in, they aren't now, but they are later. You sometimes have to read sentences as if the ideas in one flow into the next, rather than just being all discrete parts, see.

[Reason Pillow Girl]

Oooh Stevo!

You're my kinda guy! Don't listen to that player-hatin emme.

[Stevo Darkly]

Don't hate the player ... hate the game.

[Ruthless]

The Little Woman looked me in the eye over breakfast this morning and predicted six more weeks of frigidity.

Seriously, I'm just here to surmise whether smacky is laying in wait to be poster number 69... or whether there will be that many posts.

[mediageek]

"All y'all guys who complain about not getting any--the first thing to do is move out of your parents' basement and actually learn to have a conversation with a real live female."

Oooh. Condescension. I can play this game.

Hey, sweet-tits, stuff a sock in it and get me highball glass of Scotch.

[mediageek]

I'll stop long enough to simply state that the biggest reason I have problems talking to women is that, for the longest time, I believed all of that horseshit about girls wanting a guy who's sensitive, smart, and in touch with his feelings.

[Rich Ard]

At last, I've figured out why these threads get so angry so quickly - y'all aren't getting laid!

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Media, that was really, really, funny.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

...in the grocery store

seen the frozen raccoon TV dinners? never worked for me although it did get a few smiles.

The movies parody it a lot but having a cute baby is, hands down, the best pick up device known to man. The down side is that your wife will not generally approve of you bringing home an extra chick.

And the one ironclad rule of being single is that dating is feast or famine and bears no relationship to lines. If you are in a slump, I mean when knotholes in fences are looking good, no amount of cleverly delivered snappy dialogue will get you a date.

[R C Dean]

Phil, you show a remarkable naivete in reading that article. I thought about your reading of the article before you posted it, and rejected it because it is inconsistent with the plain words of the article itself.

One sentence talks about men "becoming attracted" to other men, indicating a change in their sexual orientation. This is the part of the study you are blithering on about.

However, the finding that struck me says nothing about "becoming attracted" and appears to be drawn from a different part of the study, as it refers to a different category of men than the ones who change their sexual orientation. I focussed on the finding that only 0.3% of men "are" attracted to other men, which would appear to include those who have always been gay or bisexual and those who "become" gay or bisexual.

Of course, the article is not a model of precision. Maybe they meant what you claim they meant. If so, they should have said what you claim they said, and not something different.