Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

The Science of One-Night Stands

Page 2 of 7 [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

18 May 2012, 5:35 am

MXH wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
The costs of mating with less than perfect (whatever the hell that means in evolutionary psychology this week) mates are much higher for women. That explains everything from pre-menstrual emotional hypersensitivity to variation between sex drives in men and women to comparative "universal willingness" in men.



I don't think one-night standers operate in an evolutionary-conscious way.



Oh? They're some magical exception to millions of years of sexual-selection programming that we see evidenced in every other type of human reproductive strategy?

Oookay.

Yes there is
http://www.psmag.com/culture/casual-sex ... all-28451/
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... ickier_men
And ive also read one that indicated the reason for women being pickier is because they are the "gatekeepers", the study made two groups of people (men/women) and first made men approach women. The men were less picky about who to approach and women more picky about who approached them. They then made women approach and men be the gatekeepers and then the women were less picky over who they approached and men more picky over who approached them.

So yes, there is a magical exception to reproductive strategy, because casual sex is not a reproductive strategy but an emotional one


Neither of the studies you cited evidences the rather laughable claim that one type of mating behavior is magically-exempt from the same adaptive mechanisms which produce the others (did you think the studies having findings contrary to those of the thread's topic would somehow evidence this?) and your last statement is outright non-sensical, since ALL human behavior involves an emotional component.

Moving on to the substance of the thread,
The first study is fundamentally-outdated (it was first published in 1989), in a way that the article explains best:
"If that’s our driving impulse, women need to be choosy about their sexual partners; they’re looking for men who are likely to stick around and provide support during their child-rearing years."

Nope. The men whom women choose to mate with during ovulation are NOT the same men they choose to mate with at other times. The traits of men which women due to evolutionary-driven strategies, choose as reproductively-virile are not the ones they choose as the best parents, hence why women choose so-called "bad-boys" (snort) during ovulation, and men of a different profile otherwise, and the strategy of cuckoldry.

The second study had essentially the same findings as the original one cited.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 18 May 2012, 5:48 am, edited 4 times in total.

MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

18 May 2012, 5:38 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:
Neither of the studies you cited evidences the rather laughable claim that one type of mating behavior is magically-exempt from the same adaptive mechanisms which produce the others, and your last statement is outright non-sensical, since ALL human behavior involves an emotional component.


did you even read them? Like the whole thing and not just the tittle? Because they did explain it



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

18 May 2012, 5:46 am

MXH wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Neither of the studies you cited evidences the rather laughable claim that one type of mating behavior is magically-exempt from the same adaptive mechanisms which produce the others, and your last statement is outright non-sensical, since ALL human behavior involves an emotional component.


did you even read them? Like the whole thing and not just the tittle? Because they did explain it


They explained that the dynamics governing one night stands are ENTIRELY new, non-adaptive phenomena?
I don't see that anywhere, in either.

The claim of Boo's isn't concerning a behavior (as are the studies you cited), but of the underlying origins of it. Focus, please.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

18 May 2012, 5:47 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:
MXH wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Neither of the studies you cited evidences the rather laughable claim that one type of mating behavior is magically-exempt from the same adaptive mechanisms which produce the others, and your last statement is outright non-sensical, since ALL human behavior involves an emotional component.


did you even read them? Like the whole thing and not just the tittle? Because they did explain it


They explained that the dynamics governing one night stands are ENTIRELY new, non-adaptive phenomena?
I don't see that anywhere, in either.

The claim of Boo's isn't concerning a behavior (as are the studies you cited), but of the underlying origins of it. Focus, please.


how do you find the origin of something? By studying the behavior. Cause->effect



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,534

18 May 2012, 5:51 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:
your last statement is outright non-sensical, since ALL human behavior involves an emotional component.

I think that's a tad harsh.......

"casual sex is not a reproductive strategy but an emotional one"

Can't deny that casual sex isn't for reproduction, or that it has an emotional dimension. But I'd say that desire for sex is practically always down to the reproductive instinct, even though consciously when you fancy somebody, you don't usually think much about half of your DNA getting the chance to survive a bit longer. I would say that it's not a case of either reproductive urge or emotion, as reproductive urges are mediated through the emotions.



Last edited by ToughDiamond on 18 May 2012, 5:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

18 May 2012, 5:53 am

MXH wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
MXH wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Neither of the studies you cited evidences the rather laughable claim that one type of mating behavior is magically-exempt from the same adaptive mechanisms which produce the others, and your last statement is outright non-sensical, since ALL human behavior involves an emotional component.


did you even read them? Like the whole thing and not just the tittle? Because they did explain it


They explained that the dynamics governing one night stands are ENTIRELY new, non-adaptive phenomena?
I don't see that anywhere, in either.

The claim of Boo's isn't concerning a behavior (as are the studies you cited), but of the underlying origins of it. Focus, please.


how do you find the origin of something? By studying the behavior. Cause->effect


Urm. If by that you mean you study the behavior in a variety of environments and draw conclusions from a cross-disciplinary approach incorporating evolutionary psychology, anthropology, and modern sociological contexts.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 18 May 2012, 6:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

18 May 2012, 6:00 am

Whoa.


I found this bit particularly interesting- I'd like to see what you guys think:


"So why did the young men and women in the 1989 study — and in a repeat of that experiment that Conley conducted — react so differently to the offer of casual sex? After conducting a series of follow-up experiments, in which she tweaked Clark and Hatfield’s sexual-invitation scenario in different ways, she came up with an answer sports-conscious men should be able to easily grasp: The playing field isn’t level.

Men, after all, can almost be guaranteed a pleasurable sexual encounter if they’re with someone they find attractive. But Conley points to new, yet-to-be published research by sociologist Elizabeth Armstrong which finds “women orgasm only 35 percent as often as men in first-time sexual encounters.”

“Women’s perception that their heterosexual casual sex partners will be unlikely to give them pleasure is not unwarranted,” Conley states.

This lack of confidence in men as pleasure-givers was indirectly supported by another of Conley’s experiments, which focused on bisexual women. They were “significantly more likely to accept an offer (of a one-night stand) from a woman than from a man,” she reports."


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

18 May 2012, 6:35 am

I'd just like to add my two cents:

Getting a one-night stand with a woman who's ovulating is much, much easier than getting a serious relationship. I don't care what the article says; many women test drive lovers before even considering a LTR with them.



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

18 May 2012, 6:44 am

Kurgan wrote:
I'd just like to add my two cents:

Getting a one-night stand with a woman who's ovulating is much, much easier than getting a serious relationship. I don't care what the article says; many women test drive lovers before even considering a LTR with them.


I think OP was making the point that for any given guy who's not 'good-looking',
it might be worth considering that women tend to value looks more in the one night stand department, all other things equal.

For people who struggle socially, I tend to agree with you- the least amount of interactive time required is best if you aren't after one over the other.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,685
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

18 May 2012, 6:56 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
The costs of mating with less than perfect (whatever the hell that means in evolutionary psychology this week) mates are much higher for women. That explains everything from pre-menstrual emotional hypersensitivity to variation between sex drives in men and women to comparative "universal willingness" in men.



I don't think one-night standers operate in an evolutionary-conscious way.



Oh? They're some magical exception to millions of years of sexual-selection programming that we see evidenced in every other type of human reproductive strategy?

Oookay.


It's not really some exception, mating availability and "best-mate"availability (demand and offer) were probably always been into the equation.

What i meant that female one-night standers don't go for best-looking men because they'd think "oh those men have better genes" - but simply because there are a lot of available male-one-nighters of all looks-categories.

If you are offered a large box of apples then you'll naturally pick the shiniest and the most tasty-looking one to eat it, let it be a box of bad apples and you're gonna pick the least bad apple.

If you are in a desert with a one rotten apple, you're gonna eat it anyways.

Logically, the human (and humanoid) sexual-selection has faced such lack-or-over of choices during millions of years.



Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 18 May 2012, 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

18 May 2012, 7:05 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
The costs of mating with less than perfect (whatever the hell that means in evolutionary psychology this week) mates are much higher for women. That explains everything from pre-menstrual emotional hypersensitivity to variation between sex drives in men and women to comparative "universal willingness" in men.



I don't think one-night standers operate in an evolutionary-conscious way.



Oh? They're some magical exception to millions of years of sexual-selection programming that we see evidenced in every other type of human reproductive strategy?

Oookay.


It's not really some exception, mating availability and "best-mate"availability (demand and offer) were probably always been into the equation.

What i meant that female one-night standers don't go for best-looking men because they'd think "oh those men have better genes" - but simply because there are a lot of available male-one-nighters of all looks-categories.

If you are offered a large box of apples then you'll naturally pick the shiniest and the most tasty-looking one to eat it, let it be a box of bad apples and you're gonna pick the least bad apple.

If you are in a desert with a one rotten apple, you're gonna eat it anyways.


"Least bad" is synonymous with "best". In the studies, both men AND women were asked if they would "go home with" a surveyor of the opposite sex, so it wasn't an instance of men being less-picky due to fewer options.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,685
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

18 May 2012, 7:13 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
The costs of mating with less than perfect (whatever the hell that means in evolutionary psychology this week) mates are much higher for women. That explains everything from pre-menstrual emotional hypersensitivity to variation between sex drives in men and women to comparative "universal willingness" in men.



I don't think one-night standers operate in an evolutionary-conscious way.



Oh? They're some magical exception to millions of years of sexual-selection programming that we see evidenced in every other type of human reproductive strategy?

Oookay.


It's not really some exception, mating availability and "best-mate"availability (demand and offer) were probably always been into the equation.

What i meant that female one-night standers don't go for best-looking men because they'd think "oh those men have better genes" - but simply because there are a lot of available male-one-nighters of all looks-categories.

If you are offered a large box of apples then you'll naturally pick the shiniest and the most tasty-looking one to eat it, let it be a box of bad apples and you're gonna pick the least bad apple.

If you are in a desert with a one rotten apple, you're gonna eat it anyways.


"Least bad" is synonymous with "best". In the studies, both men AND women were asked if they would "go home with" a surveyor of the opposite sex, so it wasn't an instance of men being less-picky due to fewer options.


Yes, it is due to fewer options, what the MOST men in this study encountered (being asked BY women to 'go home with') isn't something that happen everyday to them during their lives (it's the rarity of one-night opportunities they get that made them more willing to take them) while it happens much more frequently to most women in one-night settings.

The study doesn't take this into account.



NorthPark
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 535
Location: California

18 May 2012, 7:47 am

Quote:
Whereas no women would sleep with the investigators, and only 3% agreed to go back to their apartments, a full 75% of men agreed to sleep with the female questioners, regardless of how cute they were. (Not very, according to the study authors, who put both the male and female recruits somewhere between slightly unattractive and moderately attractive. Ouch.)


Of course men would have ONE NIGHT STANDS with almost anyone. They don't really care about hotness because it's only for one night and would never see each other again. Men who do these things just wants the business.


_________________
Life is not designed to be fair.....BUT THAT'S NOT FAIR!

MBTI- ISTP


MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

18 May 2012, 8:24 am

NorthPark wrote:
Quote:
Whereas no women would sleep with the investigators, and only 3% agreed to go back to their apartments, a full 75% of men agreed to sleep with the female questioners, regardless of how cute they were. (Not very, according to the study authors, who put both the male and female recruits somewhere between slightly unattractive and moderately attractive. Ouch.)


Of course men would have ONE NIGHT STANDS with almost anyone. They don't really care about hotness because it's only for one night and would never see each other again. Men who do these things just wants the business.


Not at all. Theres more to male sexual tendencies than just "getting some tail".



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,534

18 May 2012, 8:34 am

MXH wrote:
NorthPark wrote:
Quote:
Whereas no women would sleep with the investigators, and only 3% agreed to go back to their apartments, a full 75% of men agreed to sleep with the female questioners, regardless of how cute they were. (Not very, according to the study authors, who put both the male and female recruits somewhere between slightly unattractive and moderately attractive. Ouch.)


Of course men would have ONE NIGHT STANDS with almost anyone. They don't really care about hotness because it's only for one night and would never see each other again. Men who do these things just wants the business.


Not at all. Theres more to male sexual tendencies than just "getting some tail".


I think North Park probably meant "Of course men who want one-night stands would have them with almost any woman." I really don't know if that's true or not, but the article seems to suggest it's not so wide of the mark.



MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

18 May 2012, 8:41 am

ToughDiamond wrote:
MXH wrote:
NorthPark wrote:
Quote:
Whereas no women would sleep with the investigators, and only 3% agreed to go back to their apartments, a full 75% of men agreed to sleep with the female questioners, regardless of how cute they were. (Not very, according to the study authors, who put both the male and female recruits somewhere between slightly unattractive and moderately attractive. Ouch.)


Of course men would have ONE NIGHT STANDS with almost anyone. They don't really care about hotness because it's only for one night and would never see each other again. Men who do these things just wants the business.


Not at all. Theres more to male sexual tendencies than just "getting some tail".


I think North Park probably meant "Of course men who want one-night stands would have them with almost any woman." I really don't know if that's true or not, but the article seems to suggest it's not so wide of the mark.


Nope, the articles dont say guys would have a one nighter with almost anyone, but with a widder range than women would. Instead of just 9-10 for women men might do 7-10. Thats not an everything.