Experiment #10: "Would You Go To Bed With Me Tonight?”

[Lorrie]

#10: “Would You Go To Bed With Me Tonight?”
If you were a man walking across the campus of Florida State University in 1978, an attractive young woman might have approached you and said these exact words: "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?"

If you were that man, you probably would have thought that you had just gotten incredibly lucky. But not really. You were actually an unwitting subject in an experiment designed by the psychologist Russell Clark.

Clark had persuaded the students of his social psychology class to help him find out which gender, in a real-life situation, would be more receptive to a sexual offer from a stranger. The only way to find out, he figured, was to actually get out there and see what would happen. So young men and women from his class fanned out across campus and began propositioning strangers.

The results weren't very surprising. Seventy-five percent of guys were happy to oblige an attractive female stranger (and those who said no typically offered an excuse such as, "I'm married"). But not a single woman accepted the identical offer of an attractive male. In fact, most of them demanded the guy leave her alone.

At first the psychological community dismissed Clark's experiment as a trivial stunt, but gradually his experiment gained first acceptance, and then praise for how dramatically it revealed the differing sexual attitudes of men and women. Today it's considered a classic. But why men and women display such different attitudes remains as hotly debated as ever.

[Braggi]

I would wait for the person who returns my look of interest before beginning the conversation that might end up with such a question.

I don't like getting turned down so I usually only ask someone who's very likely to say yes. It requires paying attention.

Yes?

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

I also heard that waitresses get larger tips when they are ovulating, and that women are after dependable guys except when they dropping their eggs: then they go for the hunks.

From what you wrote and these trivia I figured that hunks have more $$ to spend while dependable types have no inlet for their seeds.

[David MySky]

heh heh
I was a psych student at FSU in 1978, but don't remember that class. Then again, I don't recall a whole lot from that era.

D~

#10: “Would You Go To Bed With Me Tonight?”
If you were a man walking across the campus of Florida State University in 1978, an attractive young woman might have approached you and said these exact words: "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?"

[mykil]

I say no all the time on a daily basis, just to get some sleep on my own, what was the point again? Oh and Lorrie NO MEANS NO!!!!

[Lorrie]

OHGSH!~!!

This made me laugh out loud and that's hard to do!!!

heh heh
I was a psych student at FSU in 1978, but don't remember that class. Then again, I don't recall a whole lot from that era.

D~

#10: “Would You Go To Bed With Me Tonight?”
If you were a man walking across the campus of Florida State University in 1978, an attractive young woman might have approached you and said these exact words: "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?"

[Lorrie]

THIS IS A TOTAL LIE!!!!
What does NO mean again?

I say no all the time on a daily basis, just to get some sleep on my own, what was the point again? Oh and Lorrie NO MEANS NO!!!!

[shellebelle]

That's ON backwards - its just his dyslexia coming into play. Compensate!!

THIS IS A TOTAL LIE!!!!
What does NO mean again?

[mykil]

THIS IS A TOTAL LIE!!!!
What does NO mean again?

To you lovly Lorrie, No means I have to try harder!!!!

[Lorrie]

Yeah, but if you were doing it as and experiment and were not invested in the out come, would you be able to be rejected okay then?

I would wait for the person who returns my look of interest before beginning the conversation that might end up with such a question.

I don't like getting turned down so I usually only ask someone who's very likely to say yes. It requires paying attention.

Yes?

-Jeff

[Willie Lumplump]

But why men and women display such different attitudes remains as hotly debated as ever.

Not hotly debated by anyone who has ever studied sociobiology or read a book by Helen Fisher. All of us, without exception, are descended from a long line of women who took care of their kids, and men can be very handy in helping a woman raise her kids past the high-risk first years of life. Handy, that is, if the woman can get the man to stick around. How does a woman get a man who will stick around? Put him through some tests beforehand to evaluate his sincerity and willingness to help. This caution has become hard-wired in female humans. From a biological point of view, men are best off pusuing a double strategy: Stay with a woman close enough and long enough to make sure that the kids really are yours and that they survive to pass along their genes--which are the genes that you gave them. At the same time, spread around your sperm as opportunity permits in the hope that you can impregnate another woman who will pass your genes along to the next generation without requiring that you invest your time and effort. And this behavior too is hard-wired in the human male. But, of course, there are many cultural overlays that can complicate the picture and create many exceptions to the typical pattern.

[alanora]

Uh oh, lumpy and I are in agreement in this little bit of the universe of data. The question remains as to why, beyond the perpetuation of the species, in terms of soul growth, this is so. How does it cause us to grow to be desirous of a relationship with one who is hard-wired oppositely? We get to recognize quickly that there are those who feel very differently than ourselves fer sure..........seems uniting the masculine and feminine within our selves is key to peace on the planet some how. Tantra could be "the way".........LOL

Not hotly debated by anyone who has ever studied sociobiology or read a book by Helen Fisher. All of us, without exception, are descended from a long line of women who took care of their kids, and men can be very handy in helping a woman raise her kids past the high-risk first years of life. Handy, that is, if the woman can get the man to stick around. How does a woman get a man who will stick around? Put him through some tests beforehand to evaluate his sincerity and willingness to help. This caution has become hard-wired in female humans. From a biological point of view, men are best off pusuing a double strategy: Stay with a woman close enough and long enough to make sure that the kids really are yours and that they survive to pass along their genes--which are the genes that you gave them. At the same time, spread around your sperm as opportunity permits in the hope that you can impregnate another woman who will pass your genes along to the next generation without requiring that you invest your time and effort. And this behavior too is hard-wired in the human male. But, of course, there are many cultural overlays that can complicate the picture and create many exceptions to the typical pattern.

[Willie Lumplump]

The question remains as to why, beyond the perpetuation of the species, in terms of soul growth, this is so. How does it cause us to grow to be desirous of a relationship with one who is hard-wired oppositely?

People who are attracted to people who are "hard-wired oppositely" we call "heterosexuals." People who are attracted to people with the same wiring we call "homosexuals."

Evolution is a blind process, it has no motivation or goals, so it is meaningless to ask, "Why, beyond the perpetuation of the species, in terms of soul growth [should] this [be] so." Things are the way they are because they evolved that way through random variation acted upon by natural selection. The only test of biological fitness is the number and quality of offspring. We are the way we are now because we resemble (i.e., we carry the genes of) our ancestors who survived because they were the way they were. End of story.

[alanora]

I was referring to the female inbred desire to nest and have stability and the male inbred desire to spread those sperm far and wide as being "hard-wired" oppositely. It seems to immediately set us up for discord. I have wondered for some time what that is about, in my world view of course which includes souls and their growth as well as layers of meaning.

People who are attracted to people who are "hard-wired oppositely" we call "heterosexuals." People who are attracted to people with the same wiring we call "homosexuals."

Evolution is a blind process, it has no motivation or goals, so it is meaningless to ask, "Why, beyond the perpetuation of the species, in terms of soul growth [should] this [be] so." Things are the way they are because they evolved that way through random variation acted upon by natural selection. The only test of biological fitness is the number and quality of offspring. We are the way we are now because we resemble (i.e., we carry the genes of) our ancestors who survived because they were the way they were. End of story.

[alanora]

I was referring to the female inbred desire to nest and have stability and the male inbred desire to spread those sperm far and wide as being "hard-wired" oppositely. ( I know it is all on a continuum and not as simple as I am making it.)

It seems to immediately set us up for discord. I have wondered for some time what that is about, in my world view of course which includes souls and their growth as well as layers of meaning.

[Hummingbear]

Well, I actually was asked that question once, and I said "yes." Wait, now that I'm thinking about it, it's been two or three times, at least. Or maybe four times-- and my answer was "yes" 75% of the time. So the experiment has been replicated here, with success.

So, any women who have answered "yes" to such a proposition?

I had a friend once who told me how he picked up girls: he and a buddy would cruise the boardwalk (I'm not sure where, now) and every time they saw a pair of girls, he'd say, "do you wanna fuck?" -- and keep doing this until someone said "yes." He only got about a 1% positive response, but it still saved time compared to the usual rituals!

Hummingbear

[mykil]

Ive said no three times today if this helps any! LMAO! Oh but on the other hand I was rejected twice! But just becuase they were busy!

[Zeno Swijtink]

Ive said no three times today if this helps any! LMAO! Oh but on the other hand I was rejected twice! But just becuase they were busy!

Mykill, what street are you parked? Here where I am only a dead horse and an old truck with two chain smoking guys came by. Zeno

[Braggi]

Yeah, but if you were doing it as and experiment and were not invested in the out come, would you be able to be rejected okay then?

You know, Lorrie, I'm adventurous and playful (usually), but when I read about one of these studies and try to put myself in the shoes of the researchers, I have difficulty imagining I'd want to do them (the studies, that is). It all seems so dishonest. You're dealing with real people and their very real feelings.

I don't think you should ask another person for sex unless you're going to come through for them should they say yes. Can we agree to that before the experiment begins?

-Jeff

[Lorrie]

Well, Jeff,
since the "#10 Experiment" has already been done and results explained you won't have to do the studies. So don't ask anyone for sex because, we already know what the results are...especially since you don't want to be dishonest. Or get hurt from rejection....

Don't worry Braggi I didn't post it so everyone on WaccoBB could "test the results". I just thought it was an interesting experiment.
Then, when I post such stuff, my pea brain doesn't expect the results from such a very intelligent community... You would think I would know better by now...
But its always fun to post and see where you guys take it. In context, out of context, the context, other contexts...
lmao

You know, Lorrie, I'm adventurous and playful (usually), but when I read about one of these studies and try to put myself in the shoes of the researchers, I have difficulty imagining I'd want to do them (the studies, that is). It all seems so dishonest. You're dealing with real people and their very real feelings.

I don't think you should ask another person for sex unless you're going to come through for them should they say yes. Can we agree to that before the experiment begins?

-Jeff

[Lorrie]

What was your latest playful adventure Braggi?

You know, Lorrie, I'm adventurous and playful (usually), but when I read about one of these studies and try to put myself in the shoes of the researchers, I have difficulty imagining I'd want to do them (the studies, that is). It all seems so dishonest. You're dealing with real people and their very real feelings.

I don't think you should ask another person for sex unless you're going to come through for them should they say yes. Can we agree to that before the experiment begins?

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

#10: “Would You Go To Bed With Me Tonight?”
If you were a man walking across the campus of Florida State University in 1978, an attractive young woman might have approached you and said these exact words: "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?"

Why tonight? Why not right now? Some academic prudery left in this "experiment"?

And where is the control condition? Smells like an urban myth!

[mykil]

Why on earth would you even conceder stopping there. Do you have a friend? Is she willing to make it a three some? LOL

[Melodymama]

Why on earth would you even conceder stopping there. Do you have a friend? Is she willing to make it a three some? LOL

Creative imagination and fantasy are great and safe. Keep dreaming, Mykil.

And, as for the experiment, I think the wording of the question a bit crass and sounds straight out of a taudry sex novel. But then again, I have not even dated for 29 years. I have been asked to go to bed with a stranger, but his wife was there also. And, Mykil, I said "no", but went home with my imagination titillated. Laura

[Braggi]

What was your latest playful adventure Braggi?

Lorrie, I'm sure.

I don't kiss and tell.

-Jeff

[mykil]

Laura; just out of mild curiosity, are you still wet baby?

Creative imagination and fantasy are great and safe. Keep dreaming, Mykil.

And, as for the experiment, I think the wording of the question a bit crass and sounds straight out of a taudry sex novel. But then again, I have not even dated for 29 years. I have been asked to go to bed with a stranger, but his wife was there also. And, Mykil, I said "no", but went home with my imagination titillated. Laura

[Willie Lumplump]

I was referring to the female inbred desire to nest and have stability and the male inbred desire to spread those sperm far and wide as being "hard-wired" oppositely. ( I know it is all on a continuum and not as simple as I am making it.)

Yes, I know what you were referring to. I was referring to the same thing. As you point out, there is a continuum, but these average differences between men and women are very real.

It seems to immediately set us up for discord. I have wondered for some time what that is about, in my world view of course which includes souls and their growth as well as layers of meaning.

No doubt about it. You're right. It does set us up for discord, and there is no permanent solution to the problem because we can't change the wiring in our brains. Both men and women have the same ultimate interest--to pass along as many of their genes as possible. But because men and women have different reproductive biologies, their strategies for passing along their genes must be different, and it is this difference that's the basis for discord. Of course, cultural overlays add many complexities and even contradictions to underlying biological patterns. As for souls, I can only quote LaPlace's words to Napoleon, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

[Lorrie]

As frustrating as it is for us modern women in a modern world, the truth is that most men still like to be the pursuer at the beginning of a new relationship.

We women have made unbelievable strides in the past 50
years in terms of gaining equality in society and shattering
the glass ceiling in the workplace. Men, for the most part,
have embraced this liberation and accepted women as their
equals in the boardroom.

Unfortunately, the same does not go for the dating world.

Even though men's attitudes toward women have changed, their biological makeup has not. And it's extremely important for us to understand men's biology if we want to decode their behavior. (It's not nearly as confusing once you're familiar with what drives them to do what they do.)

Men love the chase - plain and simple.

Maybe it's the whole 'hunter' thing - anthropologists, psychologists and biologists have been arguing that point forever - but for whatever reason, it's true. They want a challenge and they need to win, which is why they are much more comfortable in the role of pursuer.

When a woman pursues them, they are either instantly turned off, or are momentarily flattered and intrigued but then lose interest very quickly, no matter how attractive she may be.

I got this info from Paige Parker and "Dating without Drama" book...

So if this is the case why would a man say yes to sex on first asking?

Oh, this is for relationship building... the question I asked at the end has to do with sperm spraying...

[Zeno Swijtink]

I was referring to the female inbred desire to nest and have stability and the male inbred desire to spread those sperm far and wide as being "hard-wired" oppositely.

On the other hand, there is a marsupial in Australia in which the male dies after copulation while the female stays alive and reproductive.

Through some clever inbreeding we must we able to acquire this feature here in West County.

Or maybe cheating more works: apparently, 85% of men who die here of heart attacks during intercourse, are found to have been cheating on their wives.

[Willie Lumplump]

On the other hand, there is a marsupial in Australia in which the male dies after copulation while the female stays alive and reproductive.

How interesting! This phenomenon is fairly common among insects, but I've never heard of it before among mammals. I'd guess that this female marsupial mates only once per year and that she's receptive to mating only during a brief period. In such circumstances the male would maximize his chances of mating by making profligate use of his energy resources in searching for a female. Is anything known about the mating habits of this species?