The BBC’s website has recently posted some interesting information about Oral sex, from their Relationships counsellor Suzie Hayman:
The fact that this form of pleasure is still seen by some as forbidden, and even a bit dirty, adds excitement. When your partner chooses to be in such intimate contact, it’s like being told that, far from being unattractive, you’re good enough and special enough to eat. It can feel like the ultimate expression of acceptance.
There’s something irresistible about being treated in this way. Even though you can do it to each other at the same time, it’s usually a case of one person lying back and having all their desires and needs attended to.
The mouth, lips and tongue have a dynamite combination of flexibility and softness that can’t help but please. You can kiss, lick, suck or nibble. Some people prefer gentle movements; others prefer firmer attention. It’s up to you to discover your particular preferences together.
Talk about it
Discussing your concerns with your partner can really help. For example, if one person is happy to perform oral sex but refuses to receive it, the other might end up feeling guilty, because he’s unable to return the pleasure he experiences to his partner, as well as rejected and un-trusted.
Of course, it could be that the first partner is afraid to let him see, taste, smell and touch her, and perhaps simply needs to hear in no uncertain terms, “I love your body. I’d give anything to taste you.”
The rest of the article is here:
Posted by Jonathan as Sociology at 3:42 PM EDT
No Comments »
One of the more irritating things that I keep hearing people saying about sex and seduction is that there is some kind of biological imperative to reproduce. That our genes compel us have children, and that everything can be blamed on evolution.
Whilst there might have been some truth to this idea 50,000 years ago, people have moved on since then, and this rather quaint old fashioned idea is no longer true; as this intriguing article from The LA Times goes on to demonstrate.
Since Professor Barash does a better job of explaining this idea than I could, I’ll just quote it here:
Why are 30% of German women choosing to go childless?
The German public was recently shocked to learn that 30% of “their” women are childless - the highest proportion of any country in the world. And this is not a result of infertility; it’s intentional childlessness. Demographers are intrigued. German nationalists, aghast. Religious fundamentalists, distressed at the indication that large numbers of women are using birth control.
And evolutionary biologists are asked, “How can this be?” If reproduction is perhaps the fundamental imperative of natural selection, of our genetic heritage, isn’t it curious - indeed, counterintuitive - that people choose, and in such large numbers, to refrain from participating in life’s most pressing event?
The answer is that intentional childlessness is indeed curious - but in no way surprising. It is also illuminating, because it sheds light on what is perhaps the most notable hallmark of the human species: the ability to say no - not just to a bad idea, an illegal order or a wayward pet but to our own genes.
When it comes to human behaviour, there are actually very few genetic dictates. Our hearts insist on beating, our lungs breathing, our kidneys filtering and so forth, but these internal-organ functions are hardly “behaviour” in a meaningful sense. As for more complex activities, evolution whispers within us. It does not shout orders.
People are inclined to eat when hungry, sleep when tired and have sex when aroused. But in most cases, we remain capable of declining, endowed as we are with that old bugaboo, free will. Moreover, when people indulge their biologically based inclinations, nearly always it is to satisfy an immediate itch, whose existence is itself an evolved strategy leading to some naturally selected payoff. A person doesn’t typically eat, for example, with the goal of meeting her metabolic needs but to satisfy her hunger, which is a benevolent evolutionary trick that induces the food-deprived to help out their metabolism.
For more than 99.99% of their evolutionary history, humans haven’t had the luxury of deciding whether to reproduce: simply engaging in sex took care of that, just as eating solved the problem of nutrition. But then something quite wonderful arrived on the scene: birth control. Because of it, women (and men) can exercise choice and, if they wish, save themselves the pain, risk and inconvenience of childbearing and child-rearing, indulging themselves rather than their genetic posterity.
Add to this another important observation from nature. Behavioural ecologists distinguish between what are known as “r” and “K” strategies among living things. Thus, “r” strategists - such as mice and rabbits - breed early and often, producing large numbers of offspring that suffer high mortality. “K” types - such as elephants and whales - breed later and relatively rarely, producing fewer offspring (with lower mortality) and investing more in each. Neither elephants nor whales send their children to college, although they indulge in the animal equivalent.
Pre-technological human beings are comparatively “r” in their reproductive style. But with improved socioeconomic conditions - especially, better educational and vocational opportunities for women - comes the demographic transition, whereby “r” gives way to “K” and infant mortality plummets along with birthrate. There also arises a tendency to take especially good care of the fewer children one produces, as well as a greater inclination to look out for No. 1, sometimes - horror of horrors! - By producing no children at all.
It happens over and over, from Nigeria to Nicaragua. Even the already low birthrates in developed countries become lower still when each child is expected to be outfitted with an iPod and yoga lessons, not to mention a personal trainer. It is notable that child-wariness is not only characteristic of highly developed Germany (and northern Europe as a whole), but that it rises from 30% to more than 40% among German women who are college graduates.
When it comes to our behaviour, evolution is clearly influential. Of this there can be no doubt. But only rarely is it determinative, even when something as deeply biological as reproduction is concerned. Indeed, the trend toward childlessness is neither particularly German nor strangely “un-biological” but profoundly human.
Posted by Jonathan as Sociobiology, Sociology at 11:32 PM EDT
No Comments »
Cockblocking is a male-to-male behaviour. The term ‘cockblocking‘ is used to describe behaviour by men who physically intrude themselves between another man and a woman he is ‘bonding‘ with. Almost always, the woman is also of interest to the blocker, but she either is not interested in him, or at least less so. Cockblocking is most often used in places like bars, where the forum is very ‘open‘ and neither of the men in question are on ‘home turf‘. But it can also occur in more subtle forms in almost all social interactions.
Imagine a get together after work for happy hour at a local bar. Some of your group know each other from work. Others are friends of theirs, or friends of friends. A small group of five or six of you are standing around talking and drinking, and one of them is a very sexy girl who appears to frequently direct her conversation at you. She is standing across from you in the group, so it is easy for you to direct your conversation at each other without being obvious or excluding others. Although there is another guy on your left who is clearly also interested in her, you feel like you are establishing a good connection.
You begin to notice that the guy on your left has slowly shifted his body posture by turning his right shoulder towards the centre of the group, and towards the woman. His body now physically obscures your view of each other and makes conversations between the two of you more strained and unnatural. In spite of your desire to interact, the only way for you to re-engage involves physical actions that are a) very obvious, and b) probably require some form of confrontation with the blocker. Either one of these actions would ruin the ambiance and contaminate further ‘bonding‘. Furthermore, the only interactions that are interfered with are those between you and the sexy girl. All others in the group are unaffected by this manoeuvre, and it is unlikely any of them are even aware of it.
Gradually, the woman’s attention has become ‘involved‘ in other conversation in a perfectly normal way. On the few occasions when you catch her eye you are unable to discern the previous ‘connection‘. After even a few short minutes of interference, the connection has weakened and quickly withers without further nurturing. You have just been subtly, and quite successfully, cockblocked!
In this particular scenario, the interactions described, the physical movements by the blocker and his final ‘block‘ position are all quite subtle. Nothing overt has occurred that even looks deliberate, never mind cause for objecting. The blocker nevertheless knows quite well what he is doing. Actually the girl may or may not, become more responsive to him. But even if he elicits annoyance, that just ruins her mood and thereby her inclination and ability to further bond with anyone. In other scenarios, cockblocking is quite overt. At that point it changes functionally to become male ‘Rutting‘ behaviour.
In my observation, cockblocking behaviour does not typically enhance the blockers chances for ‘bonding‘ (although it might be possible). Thus the tactic is not as effective in getting the prize for the ‘blocker‘ as it is in wrecking chances for others. It is typically a disruptive, destructive tactic engaged in by macho men with few other tools, and a chip on their shoulder. The annoying thing is that it can be effective! So you had better learn to identify it.
Posted by Scott as Psychology, Sociology at 12:40 AM EDT
No Comments »
Browsing through some fairly old research, I was fascinated to discover a psychological experiment carried out in 1978, and again in 1982. It was then published in 1989, in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality.
Clark, R. D., III & Hatfield, E. (1989), Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers, Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55*.
*A PDF copy of the complete review and experiment is available from the link above. But I have reproduced the experimental portion of the study below, because I thought it was so interesting (and the PDF copy isn’t especially clear).
Mysteriously, the paper doesn’t explain exactly why the research was conducted in the first place; although I do believe that this could be the first time that Scientists have taken a serious interest in the craft of ‘picking up’ members of the opposite sex.
To summarise the experiment, five women and four men were sent, one at a time, onto a college campus. Each approached strangers of the opposite sex, and said: “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive.” They then invited the strangers either to go on a date, or to come over to their apartment, or to have sex with them.
This experiment was performed twice, and the results produced were very similar on both occasions (which indicates that the data is reliable). The report concludes: “The great majority of men were willing to have a sexual liaison with the women who approached them. Not one woman agreed to a sexual liaison.”
METHODConfederates. Study #1 was conducted in 1978 and Study #2 was conducted in 1982. In both studies, five college women and four college men from an experimental social psychology class served as experimenters. All had volunteered to approach subjects who were alone at five different locations on campus. The confederates were approximately 22 years of age and were neatly dressed in casual attire. The physical attractiveness of both the female and male confederates varied from slightly unattractive to moderately attractive. Ratings of the confederates’ attractiveness were found to have no effect on the results and thus we will not discuss this variable further.Subjects. In both Study #1 and Study #2, subjects were 48 men and 48 women who were on the campus of Florida State University. Sixteen subjects were randomly assigned to each of the six conditions.Procedure. The confederates stood on one of five college quadrangles, and approached members of the opposite sex, who were total strangers. Only one requestor made a request in each area at any one time. The requestors were instructed to approach only subjects who were attractive enough that they would be willing to actually sleep with them, if given the opportunity (assuming, of course, that they were appropriate on other grounds as well). On a scale of 1 to 9 (1 = “Very unattractive”; 9 = “Very attractive”), female confederates rated the subjects M = 7.30. Male confederates rated the subjects M = 7.70. (These ratings were not significantly different; t < 1.00.) The confederates’ ratings made it clear that they only selected “moderately” to “very attractive” male and female subjects.Once a subject was selected, the requestor approached him/her and said: “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive.” The confederate then asked subjects one of three questions: “Would you go out with me tonight?” or “Would you come over to my apartment tonight?” or “Would you go to bed with me tonight?” Thus, this procedure resulted in a 2 x 3 factorial design [Sex of requestor (2 levels) x Type of request (3 levels)].
The requestor carried a notebook which had one of the three requests written on a separate page. The type of request was randomly determined for each requestor. After the selection of a subject, each requestor flipped a page in the notebook to see what type of request was to be made.
The requests were made during weekdays to decrease the probability of subjects refusing because they had dates or other social obligations. Subjects were not approached between class periods or during rainy weather.
Subjects were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A 2 x 3 x 2 multidimensional chi-square analysis was used to analyse the data (Winer, 1971). In Study #1, conducted in 1978, the results indicated that men were more likely to say yes to each type of invitation than were women (65% versus 21%, Χ² (1) = 18.78, p < .001). However, as can be clearly seen in Table 1, Sex of requestor/Sex of subject interacted with the type of invitation, Χ² (2) = 29.33, p < .001. Whereas, both males and females were willing to go out on a date, it was only the males who agreed to go to the females apartment and go to bed with her, Χ² (1) = 9.30, p < .01 and Χ² 12.52, p < .001, respectively.
Table 1: Study #1, 1978
Percentage of Compliance With Each Request
| |
Type of Request |
| Sex of Requestor |
Date |
Apartment |
Bed |
| Male |
56% |
6% |
0% |
| Female |
50% |
69% |
75% |
In Study #2, conducted in 1982, we secured results that were almost identical with those described above. Once again, men were more likely to respond positively to each type of request than were women (63% versus 17%, Χ² (1) = 21.08, p < .001). However, once again, as can be seen in Table 2, Sex of requestor/Sex of subject interacted with the type of request, Χ² (2) = 23.65, p < .001. Whereas, both males and females were equally willing to accept a date, Χ² (1) = 0, n. s., it was only males who agreed to go to a female’s apartment (Χ² (1) = 16.76, p < .001) or to go to bed with her (Χ² (1) = 16.76, p < .001).
Table 2: Study #2, 1982
Percentage of Compliance With Each Request
| |
Type of Request |
| Sex of Requestor |
Date |
Apartment |
Bed |
| Male |
50% |
0% |
0% |
| Female |
50% |
69% |
69% |
In both studies, we found then that men and women responded as traditionalists would expect them to. Men readily accepted a sexual invitation. Women were extremely reluctant to do so.
We now know that this is so. We are not quite sure why this is so. It may be that, as sociobiologists suggest, women are eager for love and commitment. Men are eager for sexual activity. Such theorizing is consistent with the data. Both men and women were willing to date a total stranger. (When one goes on a date, one has the opportunity to asses the probability that a loving relationship could occur.) Women were unwilling to go to a man’s apartment or to have sexual relations. Men, on the other hand, were surprisingly willing to go to a strange woman’s apartment or to bed. (In fact, they were less willing to accept an invitation to date than to have sexual relations!)
Consistent with this interpretation were the subject’s reactions to the requests. In general, the female experimenters reported that men were at ease with the request. They would say “Why do we have to wait until tonight?” or “I cannot tonight, but tomorrow would be fine.” The men that said “No” even gave apologies, i.e., “I’m married” or “I’m going with someone.” In contrast, the woman’s response to the intimate requests from males was “You’ve got to be kidding,” or “What is wrong with you? Leave me alone.”
Of course the sociological interpretation - that women are interested in love while men are interested in sex - is not the only possible interpretation of these data. It may be, or course, that both men and women were equally interested in sex, but the men associated fewer risks with accepting a sexual invitation than did women. Men may be more confident of their ability to fight back a physical assault than are women. Also, the remnants of the double standard may make women afraid to accept the man’s invitation.
Regardless of why we secured these data, however, the existence of these pronounced gender differences is interesting.
Researchers may well choose to replicate this study sometime in the next five years to ascertain what impact the AIDS epidemic has on the preceding pattern of results. There is some anecdotal evidence that in such major cities as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. both men and women have become extremely wary of casual sex (see Baum, 1987). This should, of course, markedly alter the preceding pattern of results. On the other hand, some researchers (Weinstein, 1980 and 1984) have found that young people still underestimate the riskiness of their “unsafe” sexual practises and that most young people tend to see themselves as invulnerable to negative events. In that case, the preceding pattern of results might be expected to continue into the future.
REFERENCES
Baum, A. (Ed.) (March 1987), Special issue on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(3), 189-350.
Weinstein, N. D. (1980), Unrealistic optimism about future life events, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.
Weinstein, N. D. (1984), Why it won’t happen to me: Perception of risk factors and susceptibility, Health Psychology, 3, 431-457.
Winer, B. J. (1971), Statistical principles in experimental designs, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Posted by Jonathan as History, Psychology at 10:44 PM EDT
No Comments »
I recently read in the paper about a man in Pakistan who gouged out the eyes of his wife and cut off her nose on suspicion of her being unfaithful. The most shocking part of this story is that in Pakistan such behaviour is not uncommon. Indeed, crimes such as killing ones wife for being unfaithful (or on suspicion of being unfaithful) are called ‘honour crimes‘ and are rarely prosecuted. In many parts of the world, female infidelity or promiscuity still ranks as a heinous crime. In many cases draconian punishments are meted out by the woman’s own family.
When we are quite finished being self-righteous about the more ‘civilized‘ morals of the western world, it is good to remember that there have been times when western cultures entertained similar attitudes particularly with respect to female infidelity, sometimes even with similar brutal consequences. Aside from the issue of the asymmetrical nature of such attitudes, an interesting question is how do we reconcile such behaviours with what we think of as ‘Love‘?
From Webster’s dictionary I take the following definition of love which describes our normal use of the word and is consistent with a very altruistic and generous state of mind:
Love; a deep and tender feeling of affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or persons…
This does not exactly explain an ‘OJ’ who is supposed to have cut the throat of the woman who had been his wife, and was the mother of his children. The woman he loved so much he could not let her go. OJ is quoted as having said;
If I was guilty of this crime, it could only have been because I ‘loved her’ too much.
How do we explain the Pakistani man who cut his wife’s eyes out? Was that ‘for love‘?
What about the millions of people who get insanely jealous to the point of being destructive to the person they ‘love‘, rather than let another have them? In fact, what about people who deliberately provoke their partners because they view the subsequent jealousy as ‘a sign of love‘? And what about stalkers, is that ‘love‘? What about unrequited or jilted love? How does that ‘turn’ into hate, in the bat of an eye? How does a ‘lover‘ suddenly become a ‘hater‘ immediately after being dumped?
In case I left the impression that I think horrible behaviours towards the object of ones love is primarily a male phenomenon, I don’t. Women may tend to be less physically violent, but divorce courts, abuse shelters, every day relationships, and graveyards are full of men and women who treat each other in ways that are in no way reconcilable with the way we commonly think of ‘love‘. It is so common that we are not surprised when we see these behaviours in associated with people who love, or have loved, each other.
If we believe that love is so altruistic, generous, and beautiful, how should we explain how it also often inspires our most ‘horrific‘ behaviour? Are the behaviours we observe in the real world consistent with our understanding of love as a ‘deep and tender feeling of affection‘, or an ‘attachment or devotion‘? Or, is our understanding of love conceptually flawed, sentimental Bullshit!?
Yes, I believe it is.
Posted by Scott as Philosophy, Psychology at 11:14 PM EDT
No Comments »
Back in 2001, it was pointed out that men should wash up and take a bath before meeting women. To some guys, this was like finding the Holy Grail of pick-up, and so along with a bit of over-sensationalized sociobiology, and the revelation that guys should be confident and humorous around girls (which somehow nobody had ever worked out before then). A whole new system of meeting women was born!
Fast forward to the present day, and ‘The Times’ newspaper has got its resident Doctor, and some self-proclaimed Sex expert to come up with some equally mind-numbing ideas to Multiply your Romance (minus the pop-Psychology). I’ve repeated them here to save you the five easy monthly payments of $67. And I’m sure guys will be just as eager to study them.
- Men aren’t irresistible and not all women are desperate for sex. Good lovemaking starts long before you reach the bedroom, so before any date, have a bath. Everyone smells: some women like the smell of male sweat, others don’t, but no one likes the smell of stale sweat.
- Teeth are as important as the groin and armpits. Don’t forget to brush them after your bath. When kissing a girl, or even sitting close to her, she won’t want to smell your bad breath or notice salad between your teeth any more than she’ll want to smell yesterday’s sweat.
- Avoid a heavy meal before sex. Oysters and asparagus are assumed to be aphrodisiacs, but this is only because of visual or olfactory associations. Champagne is a better bet, but choose a less acidic one, lest exotic Kama Sutra-style acts cause indigestion.
- Be careful with drink. We all know drinking increases a man’s desire but decreases his ability, but not everyone realises it also affects a woman’s sexual response. More than two or three drinks and some women may be loving but physiologically limited.
- Any penile discharge or sore, however apparently trivial, means that sex is out. Chlamydia in the male may be almost symptom-free. It may show only as a mild inflammation of the end of the penis, so that the lips are stuck together in the morning.
- Always use a condom with a new partner, even if she seems as innocent as a nun. Regular partners should still have Chlamydia and blood tests.
- Men fear judgment, whether by colleagues in the office, team mates in the changing room or, above all, by a new girlfriend. Penis size can worry some men. Remember that someone’s penis always looks smaller to the owner than to an onlooker. Women may prefer a medium-size but thick penis but, if a lover is attentive, even if offering a button rather than a baton, it won’t matter.
- Don’t rush into sex and focus attention immediately on the genitalia. Take it slowly. Learn to massage. This can easily shade into great foreplay, especially if your partner is tired or stressed. Use plenty of lubrication.
- Make certain that your partner knows how attractive you find her by paying as much attention to kissing her, complimenting her and generally spoiling her. Don’t neglect the breasts and other erogenous zones.
- Both sexes have off days. Most men occasionally have poor or tardy erections and even fit, athletic, overenthusiastic men, as well as the inexperienced and anxious, may suffer premature ejaculation.
- There’s no substitute for excitement. The range of lubricants on the market can add slip and slide, but should never be used as a short cut.
- There’s more to sex than pushing the right button. Men have discovered that the key to female orgasm is clitoral stimulation, and many now rub the lamp rather than poking around inside it. The upside is that women are climaxing more often but the increase in emphasis on genital manipulation has made for some very mechanical sex. Going straight to the erogenous zones is the equivalent of fast forward. Men who focus on left breast, right breast, genitals, reduce their partner to a set of body parts.
- Though clitoral orgasm is easy to achieve, most women want to experience penetrative orgasm. Intercourse is the ultimate connection between man and woman and the sensation of fullness that it creates is intensely pleasurable.
- Women are slow burners. They take longer to become aroused and get as much pleasure, if not more, out of tenderness, kissing and cuddling. Though quickie sex has its place, for women on the whole, the longer sex takes, the better it feels. If arousal is allowed to build gradually, it floods the whole body rather than being confined to the genital area and a delayed orgasm is infinitely more powerful than an orgasm induced by five minutes of digital manipulation.
- Sexual gymnastics are often distracting. Chopping and changing positions and techniques can make a woman’s sexual excitement plummet.
- Thrusting for hours without climaxing doesn’t make you a stud muffin. It does make the vagina numb and sore.
- Don’t assume your partner is comfortable in her own skin. A survey of 3,500 British women, by the bathroom equipment company SHUC, found that one woman in ten feels so embarrassed about her body that she turns the lights out before taking off her clothes. The average woman still spends a lot of time every day beating herself up about her weight and looks. Nakedness increases that vulnerability, so be sensitive to her insecurities and, if you think that your partner looks great, for God’s sake tell her.
- Be polite. Never nudge your partner’s head towards your nether regions. During fellatio don’t thrust into your partner’s mouth, don’t hold the side of her head – and definitely warn her when you think you are going to come. With regard to orgasm, always operate a ladies-first policy.
- Put a little X in your sex. Watching steamy movies with your partner will increase the chance that you will have sex.
- Remember to take your socks off.
Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature, Biology at 1:25 AM EDT
No Comments »
A recent mention of sex drive and libido made me curious; so I browsed the web and stumbled across this article from BBC News:
Apparently Coffee could help boost a woman’s sex drive, according to Scientists from Southwestern University, who found that caffeine increased the female libido in experiments on rats.
The Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behaviour journal study said the effect was caused by it stimulating the part of the brain regulating arousal.
But researchers said a similar effect was only likely to be repeated in humans who do not drink coffee regularly.
In the latest research, scientists gave 108 female rats a moderate dose of caffeine before a mating test to determine if the caffeine had any effect on female behaviour.
They found that administration of caffeine shortened the amount of time it took the females to return to the males after sex for another mating session.
The study said the effects appeared to go beyond a simple boost of energy for socialising, but researchers said the effect may not be repeated in all humans.
Posted by Jonathan as Biochemistry, Sociology at 11:58 PM EDT
No Comments »
TheCheers magazine claims that these things are (in reverse order):
10) Chesthairman wants to “go Dutch”, but still expects sex!
9) This would-be lover actually notches his bedpost…before!
8) This Boy Wonder doesn’t know that most women don’t appreciate cartoon underwear. (Slogans actually spoil her mood!)
7) Batman here wants to wear a costume and play his favourite Mariachi CD (Run! Run quickly!)
6) Tell him you are specific: “That’s no to request #2, #6 & 7, and no, God no, no never ever no, no for request #9!”
5) This lothario, he’s moving way-way-way too fast! (“Put down your video camera, Big Fella…I’m not Paris Hilton!”)
4) This Romeo wants to talk restraints, but not birth control! (He’ll use one…but not the other!)
3) This “gift to womanhood” insists that you talk to it!
2) IX-NAY on the ARZAN-TAY ELL-YAY!!!
And finally number one thing men do trying to get, or during sex:
1) This moron wants his pets to watch! (Ladies, yours should be the ONLY p***y in the room!)
Posted by Jonathan as Humour at 3:40 AM EDT
No Comments »
A recent article from Psychology Today goes and busts a number of sexual myths - For example:
The idea that men think about sex every seven seconds, like the claim that we only use 10 percent of our brains, is often repeated but rarely sourced. The number doesn’t bear up against scrutiny. According to the Kinsey Report (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male), 54 percent of men think about sex every day or several times a day, 43 percent a few times a week or a few times a month, and 4 percent less than once a month. Even though the Kinsey Report relies on men to self-report on how often they think about sex, it’s still eye opening to find that just under half of men aren’t even thinking about sex once a day. Clearly, the seven-second rule may be a tad hyperbolic.
Posted by Jonathan as Psychology at 1:31 AM EDT
No Comments »
Several times we’ve seen people selling training courses that claim to teach you rapport skills. And, I’m sure these very same people would just love to charge you for every moment that you use a wonderful free resource like the internet.
Rapport is an extremely simple skill that can be of use in certain limited situations, but paying 100s of pounds for someone to spend time teaching you how to establish and build rapport seems downright dishonest to me, so I’ll tell you how to do it for free! Now, the marvellous thing is that you don’t need to join a group to practise this; you can simply choose any person as a partner (family member, friend, co-worker, even a complete stranger) and practise with them. They don’t even need to be told what you’re doing.
One of the most powerful ways to build rapport is to match your partner’s use of predicates (process words that people use to represent their experiences) and the representational system (visual, auditory or kinaesthetic) that they are favouring at the time you’re interacting with them. This system will tend to be reflected in your partner’s choice of predicates. People who are currently using a visual sensory modality might be heard using phrases such as “looks good to me”, “that’s clear” and “get perspective” etc. as a way of illustrating their experiences to you; whilst people using an auditory sensory modality might “hear where you’re coming from”, have an experience that “rings a bell” or perhaps they’ll “be in harmony”, in their manner of speaking. Similarly, using a kinaesthetic modality, you might hear that someone “grasped your point”, “smoothed things out” or maybe they were “all washed up”. Just keep cool, calm and collected and you’ll pick this stuff up very quickly.
If you match your own predicates (visual, auditory or kinaesthetic) to those which your partner uses most frequently, then the result will be that your partner experiences you as someone who quite literally speaks their language, understands their model of the world and is therefore trustworthy.
Another way to establish rapport is by mirroring your partner’s body posture, movements, facial expression, breathing rate and tonality etc. (basically almost everything other than the words they use). Put very simply, you copy their analogue behaviour as best you can; so as an example, if they speak quickly and tilt their head then you also (respectfully) speak quickly and tilt your head. The result of this mirroring is that your behaviour unconsciously becomes very closely identified with that of your partner, and forms a feedback loop for them.
A more advanced form of mirroring is ‘cross-over mirroring‘. To do this, you mirror an analogue behaviour, using a different part of your body than that which your partner is using. As an example, you could mirror someone’s breathing rate by tapping your foot at the same tempo they are breathing at. Milton Erickson used cross-over mirroring extensively for leading people into trance to accomplish his hypnotic and therapeutic work, and it is said that he had the ability to notice small muscle changes, pulse rates and skin colour changes etc. He would then use this form of mirroring by adapting his own body movements; voice tonality and tempo to a characteristic of his client that he wished to utilise, in order to gain rapport.
In the event that you choose to establish rapport, it is then a good idea to build on the rapport you have gained, and demonstrate (either through words or actions) to the person you are communicating with that you understand their model of the world and their situation. Showing that you understand (rather than giving sympathy) is fundamental to the changework that therapists such as Milton Erickson carried out. And as a consequence, of this demonstration, the person you are communicating with will know that anything they learn from you comes from someone who understands the context in which it should be utilized.
Most likely you would want to convince the person you are talking with that you are a loving person that is not going to abuse or hurt them in some way. And, at that point, your work establishing and building rapport has ended.
This is all remarkably simple stuff, but unless you’re trained as a Therapist or Counsellor then further intervention should be unnecessary. Dealing with extreme situations or personality disorders is a special situation, and when you really think about it, a ‘Fatal Attraction‘ style of relationship wouldn’t be too much fun. If people really don’t want to talk to you, or seem unbalanced, just leave them be, and move on.
Posted by Jonathan as Psychology, Sociology at 11:31 PM EDT
No Comments »
