Letters to the Editor
-
video
honestly, if you're just going to read off text that mechanically, why don't you just post the text? much more efficient.
-
Tracy
Before the wisecracks start pouring in, let me say: the only word for your own eyes is "pretty".
-
apparently I can
even when I am trying REALLY HARD not to.
-
A study isn't science
until it's been independently reproduced by someone else.
-
actually it can be if enough means of objectively evaluating what was done
is available.
-
Terrible background music
Did you intentionally pick the soundtrack from a bad porn movie for the background music?
Why does a news story need background music anyway?
-
Why...
...are Broadsheet contributors so moronic?
Seriously. Why are they? Why are they self-obsessed and incapable of thinking 30 seconds beyond their own self-obsessive selves?
-
Eyes
eyes project women's sexual promiscuity
Damn. Now everybody's going to know.
Seriously now. Rather than see the phenomenon as 'promiscuity' per se, it may be more accurate to perceive it to simply be a manifestation of physical attraction and sexual receptivity which sometimes, but not usually, leads to promiscuous relations.
You also have to get lucky, you see.
Women communicate their attraction and relative receptivity in a number of ways, and eyes are only one aspect: if you're interested, she may not let you see her eyes unless she's also attracted, and maybe not even then. Mood, attitude, body language, proximity, and inclination to touch are more important signals.
Certainly it seems a mistake to ascribe an exceptional significance to the eyes when other signals which are at least as important are also in play. And it seems a mistake to ascribe the phenomenon largely to the promiscuous: these signals are more or less to common to most unattached or weakly attached women in the company of the attractive, and not just to the promiscuous. These signals can also be mostly involuntary, particularly in younger women, regardless of whether they actually intend to flirt.
A woman can also become resentful if there's no response to her signals from her target, if she has one. She'll call you a fool and run off to her room and lock the door, and when you politely knock she'll sob bitterly and tell you to go away, fumbling through the drawers for that old standby. Meanwhile your gonads are saying to your hypothalamus, "What do you mean, give it up!!" and you're about to get really sick of yourself. You're probably wondering how I know all this.
So pay attention. Don't you know anything about women?
-
Silenced
A study isn't science until it's been independently reproduced by someone else.
How about a little red book and a collection of ad hoc case studies? Dress it up a bit as supporting documentation and it could pass for science.
It's what I go by. Those women can be rough:
I just got out my little red book the minute you said goodbye
And I knew from your name in my little red book I wasn't going to see you cry.
So I went from A to Z.
I took out every pretty girl in town.
They smiled at me, and as I held them
All I did was talk and talk about you.
Hear your name and I start to cry.
There's just no getting over you.Oh no.
-
No. I do not understand women.
Sometimes you just know she's going to take you to bed, and it doesn't happen. I mean, you were expecting it. After all, she took you to the X-rated theater.
And then, sometimes, it just happens, it's completely automatic, without doing anything you'd say was romantic or somehow special. She just wanted to, that's all. With you, strangely enough. End of story.
If somebody could explain this to me, I'd really appreciate it, because I don't get it.
-
Tracy!
Put on some sunglasses. You're making me uncomfortable.
-
You can't hide your slutty eyes
If you're a slut, you aren't trying to hide your slutty eyes...that's what being a slut is all about. So if this study was valid, it would be good news for sluts everywhere.
-
72% is not slightly more than half
Your analysis is far worse than the Daily Mail's, unless you misspoke, which is unlikely, as simply 72 out of 153 is less than half. So, I would have to say that your attempt to render this coverage of the study absurd is a quite radical distortion of mathematics, and the instinctive abilities of young adults to perceive sexual interest, even from photographs. Tracy, one may be able to remain a committed feminist and at the same time acknowledge the frequently overwhelming impulse in both males and females to elicit and convey sexual interest.
-
Percentages
72% means that nearly three quarters of the time the sexual promiscuity of the person was determined, not half. Also saying that half of the time is almost no better than a blind guess is making the assumption that exactly half of the pictures shown were of sexually promiscuous women.
-
not sluts
god, are we still at the time when we talk about stuts and promiscuity. I know we haven't moved on as a society, but from the feminists side of the shouting match?
-
RE: 72% is not slightly more than half
I should clarify. It isn't that the participants were correct 72 percent of the time; it's that 72 percent of the participants were correct more than half of the time. I wasn't referring to the 72 percent figure as being slightly more than half, but the fact that just over half of those participants' guesses were correct.
-
Sorry to get all statistical and everything...
The 72%, 50% statistics don't actually tell us anything without more information. For instance, what fraction of the mug shots show women who are open to casual sex? If 50% of the pictured women have this attitude, then identifying half of them is just random guessing. If only 5% of the women have this attitude, then it's very, very impressive if anyone can find them half the time.
And the study doesn't address the important question for most people. What I really wanted to know (back in my single days) was who was open to having casual sex WITH ME.
By the way, I just have to point out that all of the posts so far are from men. What does that tell us?
-
Eyes
...windows to the soul, baby; windows to the soul.
-
the reason all the posts are from men is because women can get casual sex anytime they want from anyone
so the subject doesn't hold much interest. TCF was really talking about how women are perceived while the men commenting are taking the issue more literally as in "how can I improve my ability to detect openness to casual sex" although of course as has been pointed out the concept of "casual sex" in the abstract is fairly meaningless. What all men, and probably all women, REALLY want is for the right people (this is a far larger group for most men than for most women) to be immediately (and not particularly casually) interested in sex with THEM (not other people) until THEY want to dial it back for whatever reason.