1. Thou shall not rent the movie Chocolate.

2. If you’ve known a guy for more than 24 hours, his sister is off limits forever! Unless you actually marry her.

3. When questioned by a buddy’s wife, girlfriend, mother, father, priest, shrink, dentist, accountant, or dog walker, you need not and should not provide any useful information as to his whereabouts. You are even permitted to deny his very existence.

4. Unless he murdered someone in your immediate family, you must bail a friend out of jail within 24 hours.

5. You may exaggerate any anecdote told in a bar by 50% without recrimination; beyond that, anyone within earshot is allowed to yell out “BULLSHIT!” (Exception: When trying to pick up a girl, the allowable exaggeration is 400%)

6. Under no circumstances may two men share an umbrella.

7. The minimum amount of time you have to wait for another guy is 5 minutes. The maximum is 6 minutes. For a girl, you are required to wait 10 minutes for every point of hotness she scores on the classic 1-10 babe scale.

8. Complaining about the brand of free beverages in a buddy’s refrigerator is forbidden. But you may gripe if the temperature is unsuitable.

9. A friend must be permitted to borrow anything you own – grill, car, firstborn child – within 12 hr notice. Women or anything considered “lucky” are not applicable in this case.

10. Agreeing to distract the skanky friend of a hot babe that your buddy is trying to hook up with is your legal duty. Should you get carried away with your good deed and end up having sex with the beast, your pal is forbidden to ever speak of it.

11. On a road trip, the strongest bladder determines pit stops, not the weakest.

12. Before dating a buddy’s ex you are required to ask his permission and he in return is required to grant it. He is however allowed to say, “man, you’re gonna love the way she licks your balls”.

13. Women who claim they “love to watch sports” must be treated as spies until they demonstrate knowledge of the game and the ability to pick a Buffalo wing clean.

14. If a man’s zipper is down, that’s his problem – You didn’t see nothin’.

15. No man is ever required to buy a birthday present for another man. In fact, even remembering a best friend’s birthday is strictly optional, and slightly gay.

16. You must offer heartfelt condolences over the death of a girlfriend’s cat, even if it was you who secretly set it on fire, and threw it into a ceiling fan.

17. While your girlfriend must bond with your buddy’s girlfriends within 30 minutes of meeting them, you are not required to make nice with her gal pal’s boyfriends – Low level sports bonding is all the law requires.

18. Unless you have a lucrative endorsement contract, never appear in public wearing more than one Nike swoosh.

19. When stumbling upon other guys watching a sporting event, you may always ask the score of the game in progress, but you may never ask who is playing.

20. When your girlfriend/wife expresses a desire to fix her ugly, whiny friend up with your pal, you must grant permission, but only if you have ample time to warn your friend to prepare his excuse about joining the priesthood.

21. Only in a situation of mortal danger or ass peril are you permitted to kick another member of the male species in the testicles.

22. Unless you’re in prison, never fight naked.

23. If your buddy is outnumbered outmanned, or too drunk to defend himself, you must jump into the fight. Exception: If within the past 24 hours his actions have caused you to think “What this guy needs is a good ass whuppin’, then you may sit back and enjoy.

24. A man in the company of a hot, suggestively dressed woman must remain sober enough to fight.

25. When picking players for sports teams it is permissible to skip over your buddy in favour of better athletes – as long as you don’t let him be the last sorry son of a bitch standing on the sideline.

26. If you compliment a guy on his six-pack, you better be referring to his beer.

27. Never join your girlfriend/wife in ragging on a buddy of yours, unless she is withholding sex, pending your response.

28. Phrases that may NOT be uttered to another man while weight lifting:
“Yeah, baby, push it!”
“C’mon, give me one more! Harder!”
“Another set and we can hit the showers”
“Nice ass, are you a Sagittarius?”

29. Never hesitate to reach for the last beer or the last slice of pizza, but not both. That’s just mean.

30. Never talk to another man in the bathroom unless you’re on equal footing: either both urinating or both waiting in line. In all other situations, a nod will do just fine.

31. Never allow a telephone conversation with a woman to go on longer than you are able to have sex with her.

32. You can not rat out a friend who show’s up to work or class with a massive hangover, however you may: hide the aspirin, smear his chair with limburger cheese, turn the brightness on his computer way up so he thinks its broken, or have him paged every seven minutes.

33. If your buddy is trying to hook up with a girl, you may sabotage him only in a manner that gives you no chances of getting any either.

34. Before allowing a drunken friend to cheat on his girl, you must attempt one intervention. If he can get up on his feet, look you in the eye, and deliver a “Fuck off!” then you are absolved from all responsibility. Later on it is ok that you have no idea what his girlfriend is talking about.

35. The morning after you and a babe, who was formerly “just a friend”, go at it, the fact that you’re feeling weird and guilty is no reason not to jump on her again before there is a discussion about what a big mistake it was.

36. When using a urinal in a public restroom, a buffer zone of at least one urinal will exist at all times. If the only empty urinal is directly next to an occupied on, then you are still required to wait.

37. When coming to a room which you know is occupied by your friend and possibly another girl, you must knock and wait for an adequate response. If no response occurs, and the door is locked, a 10 minute period is required before knocking again.

38. If you accidentally touch or brush against any part of another man below the waist, it is an understood accident, and NO apologies or any reference to the occurrence is necessary.

39. Any dispute lasting any longer than 3 minutes must be settled by rock, paper, scissors. There is no argument too important for this determining method.

40. Only acceptable time when a man is allowed to cry:
When a heroic dog dies to save his master.
After being struck in the testicles with anything moving faster than 7 mph.
When your date is using her teeth.
The day Anna Kornikova chooses a husband.

41. If a hot girl shall happen to pass by while you are in an arms reach of your buddy, you must, tap him on the shoulder to make him aware of the babe.

42. A man’s shoes may not intentionally match any other article of clothing on his body.

43. No man shall ever allow anyone to speak ill of The Simpsons or any Rocky movie. (Exception: Rocky V)

44. Any object thrown with reasonable speed and accuracy, MUST be caught.

45. No man shall ever keep track of, or count, the amount of beers he has drunk in a night.

46. It is permissible to consume a fruity chick drink only when you’re sunning on a tropical beach, and it’s delivered by a topless supermodel, and it’s free.

47. Under no circumstances may two non-related men share a bed or anything which could be perceived as a mattress.

48. If you jiggle more than twice, you’re playing with it.

49. A man shall never help another man apply sun tan oil.

50. It is the God given duty of every man to assist any other man that may be in need of assistance in obtaining a threesome with two girls.

Posted by Jonathan as humour at 1:57 AM GMT

14 Comments »

Research conducted at the Indiana University School of Medicine may help resolve an age-old dilemma between the sexes. Men listen with only one side of their brains, while women use both, according to information on brain imaging presented at the 86th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).

The study may add fuel to the females’ argument, but researchers say the findings don’t address whether women are better listeners than men.

Joseph T. Lurito, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of radiology at IU School of Medicine said:

Our research suggests language processing is different between men and women, but it doesn’t necessarily mean performance is going to be different, we don’t know if the difference is because of the way we’re raised, or if it’s hard-wired in the brain.

In the study, 20 men and 20 women underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while listening to a passage from The Partner, a John Grisham novel. A majority of the men showed exclusive activity on the left side of the brain, in the temporal lobe, which is classically associated with listening and speech. The majority of women showed activity in the temporal lobe on both sides of the brain, although predominantly on the left. The right temporal lobe traditionally is associated with non-language auditory functions.

“As scientists, we’re figuring out what normal is, and more and more often it seems we’re finding that normal for men may be different than normal for women,” said Michael Phillips, M.D., assistant professor of radiology and co-author of the study. “That doesn’t mean one is better or more capable than the other.”

The finding may help with research regarding how men and women recover from stroke and brain tumours, said Dr. Lurito. It also may help guide brain surgeons in avoiding certain areas of the brain, depending on whether they’re operating on men or women, he said.

Posted by Jonathan as Anthropology, Biology at 2:00 AM GMT

No Comments »

Psychologists from Edinburgh University have been studying chat-up lines, and they’ve recently published their results in the Journal Personality and Individual Differences.

205 undergraduates (142 female, 63 male) rated 40 vignettes (compiled from books, websites and films); in each vignette, a man approached a woman and the subjects judged whether she would continue the conversation or not.

The researchers anticipated that pickup lines could serve for humans much as tail-feather displays serve for peacocks (a display of male fitness for reproduction, and the ability to protect the female (in this case, with human intelligence being analogous to the peacock’s tail)); a theory that was originally advocated by Geoffrey Miller, in his book The Mating Mind.

The chat-up lines used by the men fell into four broad categories. Culture related, Compliments, Sexual references and Humorous lines.

The survey then revealed that whilst women were more likely to favour lines suggesting that a man was a ‘nice guy’, or at least fun to be with, men were consistently over-optimistic that they would succeed, if their opening line was sexually explicit.

Unsurprisingly, the study found that women rated the chat-up lines depending on their personalities, with extroverted women preferring more humorous approaches and tough-minded women finding ‘nice guy’ pick-up lines a turn-off.

Dr Peter Caryl, one of the psychologists conducting the study said:

The interesting difference appeared when we compared the sexes. Despite being deeply unpopular with women, men are unreasonably optimistic about how well their sexually explicit lines will go down.

While the woman’s attractiveness will be known in a face-to-face encounter, the man may need to make a rapid assessment of her personality, and he could potentially achieve this through his opening remark.

Some may be used by men to identify sociosexually unrestricted women who may be sexually available. Some may just signal to the woman that the man is interested, at which point his looks or voice may actually determine the outcome.

The study suggests that men’s chat-up lines helped to pigeon-hole them into one of four categories: the friendly and considerate ‘nice guy’; the industrious and enterprising ‘provider’; the confident and strong ‘leader’, and the fickle and conceited ‘bad mate’.

Dr Caryl said:

I can’t imagine anyone being turned on by this ‘bad mate’ kind of guy, but some women seem to be less put off than others. If you look like George Clooney, you may be able to get away with a whole range of things

In contrast, the top-rated pickup lines weren’t lines at all, but scenarios in which a man gave help to a woman at a bus stop, sought her advice in buying a watch or commented on a painting at an art gallery.

As anticipated, opening gambits which revealed wealth, and those demonstrating personal qualities such as generosity, the ability to take charge, and physical fitness, were judged likely to appeal to women. In line with the mating mind hypothesis, gambits displaying a cultured background or artistic talent were also judged likely to be effective.

However, there are a number of problems with this research that the authors seem to have failed to take into account:

We are not told whether the object of the exercise is to establish a sexual or platonic relationship with the woman. Any seductionist worth their salt would be aware that women are often keen to keep men around, in order to increase their sense of self worth and attractiveness. In that case, sex would most likely only happen if she was drunk, wanted to make her existing boyfriend jealous or felt that her biological clock was ticking – and there was nobody better available.

Next, the scenarios seem to be a mix of warm and cold walk-ups. So, where two people know each other already, there is obviously a very much greater likelihood that they will continue the conversation, after the vignette has ended, than if the woman was approached cold.

Also, the initial emotional state of the man or woman is often disclosed in the vignettes; this may lead the experiment volunteers to make a judgement before they have digested the whole scenario. And in real life, these emotions would also cloud the approach, and would need to be dealt with, to increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. For example (bold type added):

A woman wanders past a man in a bar. The man taps her on the shoulder, smiles and says:

M: I’ve got a riddle for you, wanna hear?
W: (sigh) maybe… go on then.
M: What has 148 teeth and can hold back the incredible hulk?
W: I give up.
M: My fly.

Or

A man, looking more than slightly nervous, approaches a woman in a club and says:

M: Hi… my name’s John, uh how do you like me so far?

Thus, the experiment is reduced to merely “Can the public predict the outcome of media constructed dating scenarios?” which is a shame, because I suspect that with a little more thought, the experiment could have been extremely useful and informative.

Posted by Jonathan as Psychology, Sociology at 7:15 PM GMT

No Comments »

One of the big repeating news stories of the past few months has been that of Lydia Playfoot, a sixteen year old girl who went to the High Court, in a campaign to wear a chastity ring to school, and who won the support of many people concerned about underage sex and teenage pregnancies.

The ring, in case you haven’t followed the news, refers to the Biblical quote from 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4.

For it is God’s will that you be sanctified: You must abstain from sexual immorality; each of you must know how to control his own body in holiness and honour.

This quote is also used by Evangelical Christians, as a claim that God prohibited homosexuality, although religious scholars seem to be undecided about the exact translation and meaning.

Anyway, regardless of how you translate and interpret the quote, it seems that Lydia may have been a part of a publicity campaign orchestrated by her parents.

Lydia is the daughter of Phil and Heather Playfoot, who it turns out are the founders and Directors of the UK branch of the same chastity ring organisation, called ‘Silver Ring Thing’.

Further, even more surprising details can be found at the Ministry of Truth blog, including the fact that Denise Pfeiffer, a senior member of the Silver Ring Thing, and described variously as “Media consultant” or “Assistant national director” is in fact a Lingerie model.

A quick Google even turns up further stories that Denise Pfeiffer is an ex-convict, who lives with Clive Potter, who turns out to be the president of the British National Party’s trade union Solidarity.

Finally, it should be mentioned that Lydia only brought this case to court, after she had completed her exams (she is sixteen after all), so the whole event does seem to be something of a non-issue.

Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature, Sociology at 12:17 PM GMT

No Comments »

I have heard it said that most men know within about seven seconds whether they are attracted to a woman or not. In any case, it is well-accepted that men (in general) are more visually oriented then women in the mate selection process.

To say that this just shows that men are shallower is just useless gender stereotyping. The question is: if they are more visual, why? Or equally relevant why are women less visual? And if the female selection criteria does not appear to weight physical/visual appeal so heavily, then what other criteria are they using?

First the obvious merit of using visual criteria is that physical attributes have been quite important for most of human evolution. Strength, agility, foot speed, youth, and energy are all obviously valuable attributes that have made both males and females genetically desirable and clearly made sense as mate selection criteria. For the most part these attributes were discerned using visual evaluation. Even the typical male infatuation with large breasts is obviously based on the fact that they promise excellent nutrition for her offspring.

Men are more visually oriented because given the males best ‘impregnate and leave’ reproductive strategy, the best criteria for selecting genetically desirable females were primarily visually observable physical attributes. For a male who engaged in a typical ‘impregnate and move on‘ strategy only young, strong, fast, and healthy, females had a chance of surviving pregnancy and protecting the offspring without him.

The male impregnate and leave strategy, however, leaves relatively little time and energy for complex evaluation of potential mates. A quick visual evaluation is sometimes all that is possible, and usually, all that is necessary. The consequences of looser evaluation are not serious. When in doubt, impregnate and move on.

Actually, one might initially think that easily observed physical attributes would have been more important in a male. The specialized male tasks such as protection and hunting are readily visible and therefore ought to be important for women as a mate selection criterion. To some extent this is true in the sense that many women are strongly attracted to such visible physical attributes. However, because so many males developed a reproduction strategy based on impregnating as many females as possible and moving on, the visible male attributes were not the most important criteria for a woman. It would not matter much that the baby had great physical genes, because if the father did not stick around for long the child would probably not live long enough to benefit from them. This may be the reason why male persistence works as a seduction strategy. It demonstrates ‘the tendency to stick around‘ which is not readily visible but is a male trait that is very important to female reproductive success, and only becomes apparent over time. Hence these visible attributes became less critical.

So an even more critical determinant of a female’s genetic reproductive success was whether males would remain present long enough to protect children instead of going off in search of another receptive female. Thus a genetically mediocre male who stuck around would enhance the female’s reproductive success rate substantially. It therefore became critical that the female could assess the degree of likelihood that a male will not disappear after impregnating her. In other words, how devoted and faithful would this one be? This type of criteria could not be determined visually and would take time to assess. In fact, it is easy to see why some women assess ‘devotedness’ partially by abstaining from sexual activity until significant assessment and bonding occurs. “No sex before love” epitomizes what is a sound female reproductive strategy. It is evident in many other mammals besides humans and has probably been common for a million years.

Although in recent human history the physical presence of the father has significantly diminished as a critical factor for survival of offspring, ‘devotedness’ survives in the minds of women as an important criteria in mate selection. It has always been more important than the mere physical attributes for her genetic success rate. Women are less visually oriented and more personality oriented in using mate selection criteria because, given male reproductive strategies, male personality traits such as ‘devotedness’ (how much do you love me?) were more critical factors in determining female reproductive success. No wonder women ask; “Do you ‘really’ love me”. And no wonder men always say yes.

Once again, men are the way they are and women are the way they are, because it has been in their (respective) interests to be that way.

Posted by Scott as Sociobiology, Sociology at 1:58 AM GMT

1 Comment »

Psychologists have finally found something very much worthwhile to study.

Cindy Meston and David Buss, of the University of Texas, write in the August 2007 issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior that most scientists assume that the reasons for having sex are simple: “to reproduce, to experience sexual pleasure, or to relieve sexual tension.”

However, nobody else has bothered to look much further; so they have investigated, and after studying more than 2,000 men and women, they discovered 237 reasons why people have sex.

In a further experiment, participants (N=1,549) were then asked to evaluate the degree to which each of the 237 reasons had led them to have sexual intercourse, and the Psychologists were thus able to group the reasons into four main factors, and thirteen sub-factors: I’ve summarised these in the table below, for ease of reference.

Several reasons seemed quite similar, and there was no rating as to which items could be most useful to a Seducer, or how to exploit these reasons. Neither was there an indication as to whether the reasons given originated from men or women.

However, for the curious, here are the reasons they published in their study:

• An erotic movie had me turned on.
• Because of a bet.
• Everyone else was having sex.
• I’m addicted to sex.
• I am a sex addict.
• I could brag to other people about my sexual experience.
• I desired emotional closeness (i.e. intimacy).
• I didn’t know how to say “no.”
• I didn’t want to “lose” the person.
• I didn’t want to disappoint the person.
• I felt guilty.
• I felt insecure.
• I felt jealous.
• I felt like it was my duty.
• I felt obligated to.
• I felt rebellious.
• I felt sorry for the person.
• I got “carried away.”
• I had no self-control.
• I had not had sex in a long time.
• I hadn’t had sex for a while.
• I knew the person was usually “out of my league.”
• I needed another “notch on my belt.”
• I realized I was in love.
• I saw the person naked and could not resist.
• I thought it would boost my social status.
• I thought it would help “trap” a new partner.
• I thought it would help me to fall asleep.
• I thought it would make me feel healthy.
• I thought it would relax me.
• I wanted a “spiritual” experience.
• I wanted my partner to notice me.
• I wanted the adventure/excitement.
• I wanted the attention.
• I wanted the experience.
• I wanted the person to feel good about himself/herself.
• I wanted the person to love me.
• I wanted the pure pleasure.
• I wanted to “gain control” of the person.
• I wanted to “possess” the person.
• I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
• I wanted to act out a fantasy.
• I wanted to avoid hurting someone else’s feelings.
• I wanted to be nice.
• I wanted to be popular.
• I wanted to be used or degraded.
• I wanted to become more focused on work (sexual thoughts are distracting.)
• I wanted to become one with another person.
• I wanted to boost my self-esteem.
• I wanted to brag to my friends about my conquests.
• I wanted to break-up another’s relationship.
• I wanted to break-up my relationship
• I wanted to break up a rival’s relationship by having sex with his/her partner.
• I wanted to burn calories.
• I wanted to celebrate a birthday or anniversary or special occasion.
• I wanted to celebrate something.
• I wanted to change the topic of conversation.
• I wanted to communicate at a deeper level
• I wanted to decrease my partner’s desire to have sex with someone else.
• I wanted to defy my parents.
• I wanted to display submission.
• I wanted to dominate the other person.
• I wanted to end the relationship.
• I wanted to enhance my reputation.
• I wanted to ensure the relationship was “committed.”
• I wanted to even the score with a cheating partner.
• I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
• I wanted to experiment with new experiences.
• I wanted to express my love for the person.
• I wanted to feel attractive.
• I wanted to feel closer to God.
• I wanted to feel connected to the person.
• I wanted to feel feminine.
• I wanted to feel loved.
• I wanted to feel masculine.
• I wanted to feel older.
• I wanted to feel young.
• I wanted to forget about my problems.
• I wanted to fulfil a previous promise to my partner.
• I wanted to gain acceptance from my friends.
• I wanted to gain access to that person’s friend.
• I wanted to get a favour from someone.
• I wanted to get a job.
• I wanted to get a partner to express love.
• I wanted to get a promotion.
• I wanted to get a raise.
• I wanted to get a special favour from someone.
• I wanted to get back at my partner for having cheated on me.
• I wanted to get even with someone (i.e. revenge).
• I wanted to get my partner to stay with me.
• I wanted to get out of doing something.
• I wanted to get rid of a headache.
• I wanted to get rid of aggression.
• I wanted to get the most out of life.
• I wanted to give someone a sexually transmitted disease (e.g. Herpes, AIDS).
• I wanted to have a child.
• I wanted to have more sex than my friends.
• I wanted to have something to tell my friends.
• I wanted to help my partner forget about his/her problems.
• I wanted to hurt an enemy.
• I wanted to hurt/humiliate the person.
• I wanted to impress friends.
• I wanted to improve my sexual skills.
• I wanted to increase my emotional bond by having sex.
• I wanted to increase the number of sex partners I had experienced.
• I wanted to intensify my relationship.
• I wanted to keep my partner from straying.
• I wanted to keep my partner happy.
• I wanted to keep my partner satisfied.
• I wanted to keep warm.
• I wanted to lift my partner’s spirits.
• I wanted to lose my inhibitions.
• I wanted to make a conquest.
• I wanted to make money.
• I wanted to make my partner feel powerful.
• I wanted to make someone else jealous.
• I wanted to make the person feel batter about himself/herself.
• I wanted to make up after a fight.
• I wanted to manipulate him/her into doing something for me.
• I wanted to please my partner.
• I wanted to prevent a break-up.
• I wanted to punish myself.
• I wanted to put the passion back into my relationship.
• I wanted to raise my self-esteem.
• I wanted to reaffirm my sexual orientation.
• I wanted to release anxiety/stress.
• I wanted to release tension.
• I wanted to relieve “blue balls.”
• I wanted to relieve me menstrual cramps.
• I wanted to reproduce.
• I wanted to return a favour.
• I wanted to satisfy a compulsion.
• I wanted to say “goodbye.”
• I wanted to say “I’m sorry.”
• I wanted to say “I’ve missed you.”
• I wanted to say “Thank you.”
• I wanted to see if I could get the other person into bed.
• I wanted to see what all the fuss is about.
• I wanted to see what it would be like to have sex while stoned (e.g. on marijuana or some other drug).
• I wanted to see what it would be like to have sex with another person.
• I wanted to see whether sex with a different partner would feel different or better.
• I wanted to show my affection to the person.
• I wanted to stop my partner’s nagging.
• I wanted to submit to my partner.
• I wanted to test my compatibility with a new partner.
• I wanted to try out new sexual techniques or positions.
• I wanted to welcome someone home.
• I was “horny.”
• I was “in the heat of the moment.”
• I was afraid my partner would have an affair if I didn’t have sex with him/her.
• I was afraid to say “no” due to the possibility of physical harm.
• I was attracted to the person.
• I was bored.
• I was competing with someone to “get the person.”
• I was curious about my sexual abilities.
• I was curious about sex.
• I was curious about what the person was like in bed.
• I was drunk.
• I was easier to “go all the way” than to stop.
• I was frustrated and needed relief.
• I was mad at my partner, so I had sex with someone else.
• I was married and you’re supposed to.
• I was on the “rebound” from another relationship.
• I was physically forced to.
• I was pressured into doing it.
• I was seduced.
• I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
• I was slumming.
• I was tired of being a virgin.
• I was trying to “get over” and earlier person/relationship.
• I was turned on by the sexual conversation.
• I was under the influence of drugs.
• I was verbally coerced into doing it.
• It’s considered “taboo” by society.
• It’s exciting, adventurous.
• It’s fun.
• It became a habit.
• It feels good.
• It just happened.
• It just seemed like the think to do.
• It seemed like good exercise.
• It seemed like the natural next step.
• It was a favour to someone.
• It was a romantic setting.
• It was a special occasion.
• It was an initiation rite to a club or organization.
• It was expected of me.
• It was part of the relationship “routine.”
• It was the only way my partner would spend time with me.
• It would allow me to “get sex out of my system” so that I could focus on other things.
• It would damage my reputation if I said “no.”
• It would get me gifts.
• My friends pressured me into it.
• My friends were having sex and I wanted to fit in.
• My hormones were out of control.
• My partner kept insisting.
• My regular partner is boring, so I had sex with someone else.
• Someone dared me.
• Someone had told me that this person was good in bed.
• Someone offered me money to do it.
• The opportunity presented itself.
• The person’s physical appearance turned me on.
• The person caressed me.
• The person demanded that I have sex with him/her.
• The person flattered me.
• The person had a desirable body.
• The person had a great sense of humour.
• The person had a lot of money.
• The person had an attractive face.
• The person had beautiful eyes.
• The person had bought me jewellery.
• The person had taken me out for an expensive dinner.
• The person had too much to drink and I was about to take advantage of them.
• The person made me feel sexy.
• The person offered to give me drugs for doing it.
• The person really desired me.
• The person seemed self-confident.
• The person smelled nice.
• The person was “available.”
• The person was a good dancer.
• The person was a good kisser.
• The person was famous and I wanted to be able to say I had sex with him/her.
• The person was intelligent.
• The person was mysterious.
• The person was really desired by others.
• The person was too “hot” to resist.
• The person was too physically attractive to resist.
• The person wore revealing clothes.

Posted by Jonathan as Philosophy, Psychology at 2:24 AM GMT

No Comments »

Recently, we have heard quite a number of people eulogizing about their chosen Seduction panjandrum.

Whilst it has been shown that sometimes it can be useful to have a role model, oftentimes these persons sound much more like they have been brainwashed into worshipping some oddball idol, than simply having learning something, and then being grateful for it.

We know that many of these Seduction gurus are simply flimflam artists who are exploiting the gullible and lonely for commercial benefit, in exchange for doling out bizarre interpretations of Evolutionary theory, or other wacky schemes.

Many of these fellows have rather dubious histories; and I suspect that running commercial seminars for the socially inept, on a subject whose information should be freely available to everyone, is the only way that these dropouts can make any money.

Particularly amusing are the Loons that claim to be ‘The alpha male’, along with their presumption that they must be completely right about absolutely everything. Meanwhile, the rest of the world knows that all knowledge progresses, when old ideas are shown to be incorrect, and are replaced with new ideas.

Because it would be take rather too long to list every commercial charlatan, and all their respective nonsense. And, we’d much rather teach people to think for themselves: here is a short cut out and keep checklist, based on the excellent work of Dr. Michael Shermer, and his study of cults.

So, next time someone starts telling you how spending $$$$$ studying under some Seduction panjandrum changed their life, and that everyone should pay homage etc. Simply pull out your checklist, courtesy of Seduction Labs, and you can start ticking off the appropriate boxes, whilst the Chela tries to convince you that their Seduction Guru has the one and only true way.

Posted by Jonathan as humour, Psychology at 9:33 PM GMT

No Comments »

Attitude is essential
Approach a woman with the following attitude: I am very interested in getting to know you better. This indicates to a woman that you find her attractive and will take your time with her, instead of signalling that you view her as an object, and that you are not really taking who she is into account (i.e. that you have made up your mind based on how she looks, or some other superficial thing). The difference is subtle.

Avoiding rejection is foolish
Remember, only if it is OK for a woman to say no to you will it be OK to say yes. It is much better to approach a woman openly and honestly about your intent (as long as it is not purely sex), and to let her reject you a few times. I am not talking about being persistent with a woman when she is clearly uninterested (i.e. it’s NOT ok to stalk her until she capitulates). But I am suggesting that persistence is important with a woman who shows some interest but also some reluctance. Vary the invitations, in terms of timing and activity. Be OK with her saying no, and don’t take it too personally. Finally, if the varied approaches and a bit of time do not reduce her reluctance (or increase it), get over it and move on without making too big a deal out of it.

Timing
To be successful in the dating process, I believe a man must understand what issues a woman faces, so that you can avoid situations that raise the risk of rejection (by making her more uncomfortable). For example, dates on Friday and Saturday night are naturally more opened ended (for those with normal work schedules) and therefore create more anxiety for a woman early in the dating process. Dates with natural and defined ‘outs’, therefore should be encouraged, not avoided early on. For example: Dinner or lunch during the week is one way to go. The other is to define an end to the date when you ask her out. For example: “Why don’t we get together for dinner and drinks on Friday. But, I can’t make it too late a night because I have to get up early on Saturday to do…” Dates during the day, especially on weekends, have no pre-set endings and can handled in a similar way. (Why don’t we meet for brunch? go to a movie? go to the zoo? and then I’ll drop you home about such-and-such a time, because I have to meet friends, go to the dentist, etc.).

The choice of an open-ended time where you set the time-limit is, in some cases, the best choice because it clearly and openly demonstrates to a woman that you can be reasonable and are in control of yourself. That often allows her to let down her guard a bit, since she won’t always have to be the one to set the limits in the interactions.

Activities
It is always best to engage in activities that both people are interested in. That cuts in favour of ‘buddy’ activities that both people enjoy. And, activities that you both like, where the guy is better, and she wants to learn more. This gives the guy a chance to be a patient and gentle teacher. It is not a stretch for a woman to suppose that you will be that way in other areas as well, or to want to return the favour in areas where she may have more skill or experience. On the other hand, if she is better at the activity and wants to teach you, the more comfortable and gracious you can be about taking advice and learning, the better off you will be.

That being said, it is always good if a guy can introduce a woman to an activity that she hasn’t done that she will come to like. And the reverse is true as well. Again, comfort and graciousness when you are learning or uncertain is the key.

Posted by JSterling as Psychology, Sociology at 10:04 PM GMT

No Comments »

Most women, have well-developed automatic defensive postures for use when men ‘come on’ to them. Many women assume an automatic defensive posture (ADP) around specific men or even certain types of men. Others go into ADP around men in general under a blanket ‘presumption of guilt’. ADP will in any case frequently be triggered if you show indications of sexual interest or attention that a woman does not specifically ask for.

Triggering the automatic defensive posture (ADP) much of the time eliminates your chances of positive interactions at all, never mind getting laid! These defensive postures involve a great deal of resistance to any interactions with you, and even hostility towards you, based on the assumption (which may or may not, be true) that you ‘just want to get into her pants’. The trouble is that everything you do from this point on is viewed in a certain light. Even if your attention was actually just curiosity, being sociable, or desire to ‘get to know her’, you looked like an invader so she has pulled up the drawbridge and the castle is in defensive posture. You can try to storm the castle, but that can be painful; far better to come back when the queen does not feel threatened and has lowered the drawbridge. On a different day she may even invite you in for tea.

Recognizing ADP:
Train yourself to sense when a woman has gone into ADP mode. If your instincts are really that bad, and sensitivity and intuition are not your strong points, if you cannot tell by the inflection in her voice, then at least associate it specifically with some of these signs.

• Arms crossed.
• Legs crossed.
• Fingers crossed.
• Face looks cross!
• Evasive eye contact.

Eye contact, above all things, eye contact. A woman may cross her arms or legs to hold off your sexual overtures, but if she still looks in your eyes she is still interested in you. Early detection of ADP can also help you avoid much suffering. Avoid pushing social interactions with these women unless you have a high tolerance for pain, or the technical skills for disarming ADP.

Avoiding ADP:
To avoid triggering a woman’s ADP come in from a different perspective. The key is to give women the perception that you are not ‘hitting on them’. This means literally changing the reason why you are talking to her. If you are a good actor you may be able to fake it for a while, but the best way I know to do that is at first, simply not to hit on her sexually, at all.

In terms of introduction:

• Get someone else to introduce you.
• Find a good excuse to talk to another member of her group.
• Get introduced to her in a social context.
• Avoid approaching her one-on-one.
• Get introduced to her by mutual friends or at least a third party.
• Accidentally knock her drink over and offer to replace it.

In terms of initial psychology:

• Avoid appearing too interested sexually.
• Make early interactions group-oriented.
• Talk to others in the group equally.
• Listen more than you talk.
• Find some real reason why you would be interacting together.
• Become knowledgeable in something she finds interesting.
• Remember that you are evaluating her as well as the other way around.
• Allow your interest in her to ‘evolve’ slowly; it’s far less likely to trigger ADP.
• Stop imagining her naked.
• Stop looking at her breasts.
• Think about something else.

Luckily for you, most women have a well-developed sense of ‘social and community bonding’. Approaching women from this standpoint or in this context will significantly enhance your interactions. In this circumstance, women very easily cycle into an automatic ‘social’ posture that is quite the opposite of ADP. In this posture, not only are women more open to interactions with men (i.e. you), but this role even causes them to be pro-actively social. In this posture you can interact without having to be perceived as chasing them or pushing for sex. In fact, if you are skilful enough, it will even allow you to reverse the normal psychology and have her ‘chase’ you for more interaction. The key is to avoid interactions that allow her to cycle back into the ‘classical’ psychological posture that men immediately want sex and women have to play ‘hard to get’ for long enough to ensure that they have earned it. This is ADP.

In fact, as part of the propensity for ‘social bonding’ the typical female psyche involves a desire to be seen as ‘nice’ or ‘good’. This is a typical female ‘blind spot’, although it has been getting less common over time (Who knew that emancipation also meant: ‘the right to be bitchy’). In fact, if you find the right woman you can actually use a seduction technique referred to as the “nice trap”.

Posted by Scott as Psychology, Sociology at 9:36 PM GMT

4 Comments »

Last year, a friend informed me that he had obtained some degree of success in meeting members of the opposite sex, using an internet ‘dating’ site. I therefore resolved that this might be an avenue worth pursuing, since the idea of having matches selected, and presented to me, in the comfort of my home, seemed rather appealing.

He had cautioned me that many of the members were rather too desirous to enter into matrimony, or to obtain children, but that this did not represent the bulk of the membership, and that there were a number of extremely nice people to be found.

I was rather shocked by the excessive subscription fees that these sites charge, and the devious way that they’re hidden in the small print, clarifying that it’s only free to sign up, but anything else needs a subscription. This is clearly something that only benefits the site owners, building a user base, and is quite irritating to the users of the service, especially as the sites rely on the members to do all the searching and contacting. So, what does one get over and above simply going to a bar or some other social function, and meeting people there? It seems to be a case of – the price of a few drinks, versus several hundred pounds in membership fees – and then still having to put in effort to meet people. If I was minded to spend that sort of money, I’m sure it would be better invested buying membership of some exclusive nightclub, or similar venue.

However, various people had pointed me to a certain fish related internet site, pointing out that the service claimed to be free. And, although the service doesn’t charge your credit card, it’s actually covered in AdTurds, rather poorly laid out and remarkably slow, so I can’t really say that was a particularly fun experience.

I suspect that the word ‘free’ tends to attract every man and his dog. So, unfortunately, the service seems to be little more than a web based version of soc.singles instead of being a place to meet people for romance. During my time there, someone had planned to organise a party for members (which, all criticism aside, seemed like an excellent idea) unfortunately, they picked a bar chain with a reputation for poorly behaved customers, in rather a dodgy area of London. I pointed this much out to the organiser, who seemed rather more interested in making a reputation for themselves with their ‘fan base’, than accepting help from outsiders.

The result was that one of the attendees ended up getting attacked by someone (who, I should add, was unconnected with either the event or the website). I then made the mistake of reminded the people concerned that they could have done better, and even made some suggestions of better quality places, in less rough areas.

The reward for my effort was that my account disappeared without explanation, and after creating another, so that I could enquire as to what had happened to the first account, that account mysteriously vanished too, and the same result with a third account. I later discovered that the ‘party organiser’ had spent a long while brown-nosing one of the high ups in the management structure, and could thus recommend who they felt was desirable to have on the service (or not).

I am therefore unconvinced that internet dating has any advantage over meeting people in the real world. The main fault as far as I can see is that when one is presented with a bunch of statistics and a list of interests, there is no room for any personal flair, and so the whole effect becomes rather like looking at someone’s curriculum vitae.

Anyone that has experience hiring people will know that very often people are nothing like their CV’s. Some people exaggerate or lie about their experiences and qualifications, while some people just don’t present themselves as well as they could on paper, but in real life they really stand out. Hence in relationship terms, the internet dating sites are completely unable to match real life experience.

Anyway, of more interest to me was the fact that after signing up with the paid-for site, they insisted upon sending me much of their client base’s anthropometric data; presumably to try to lure me to pay their excessive fees.

Now, many people had told me anecdotally, that men tended to be rather more flexible in their criteria for finding a match on internet dating sites, whereas women tended to establish absolute limits. Thus, a man would consider meeting a woman a little older, younger, taller or shorter etc. than he’d specified if he felt she had other redeeming characteristics, whereas a woman would tend take the view that once the criteria are set, they can’t be changed for any reason.

With this information in mind, I was able to tabulate the data sent to me, compute some values, compare aspects of the information with data from a health study, and thus establish whether or not (on balance) the information people had submitted to the website was accurate. The summary results make interesting reading.

As you can see from the table above, every woman wanted a man at least one year older than herself, and there were considerable differences amongst all the other sought after variables. Especially interesting is the range of height variances, clearly some women weren’t fussy about height, but a significant proportion wanted a man at least a few cm taller than themselves.

Continuing, I was able to use data from a recent NHS health survey to compare with my results, and establish whether women tended to be accurate about the information they submitted about them selves. The NHS survey gave mean heights for 16-24 year old women as 163.1cm, and 25-34 year old women as 162.8cm. Since these results are very close, and the 16-24 year olds were on average taller than the 25-34 year olds, I felt that the data would not be skewed, if I took the average value for my comparison.

Data from my summary results shows a mean height of 166.15cm and a modal height of 170.00cm, which both seem significantly taller than the NHS data, but it might be possible that my sample size wasn’t big enough. Luckily, the NHS data included Standard error data, so I was able to conduct a t-test with my data (t = 20.98).

Based on my sample size, the results, using the information I tallied have a <1% chance of occurring at random, so women submitting height data to the internet dating site were either measuring their height with their shoes on, or simply exaggerating. Unfortunately, no data on weight was sent to me, so I was unable to conduct further analysis to see if there was a tendency towards over-quoting of height and under-quoting of weight, as one might expect to find if people were attempting to give a statistically better impression of their

The analysis and testing I was able to conduct with this data was limited, but I can see potential with a much larger and expanded dataset to determine the optimum age range that people of various ages should be trying to meet in order to maximize their chances of arranging some romantic activity. Furthermore, additional data would be extremely useful to test the theory that people have a tendency to submit flattering data to the internet dating websites; and the extent to which they over or under exaggerate.

Should anybody reading this have access to such data (made anonymous, of course) then I should be delighted to hear from you.

Posted by Jonathan as Analysis, Reviews at 11:05 PM GMT

1 Comment »