Women are choosier for sex, but men are choosier for commitment. There is more demand of female casual sex than supply. There is more demand of elegible bachelors than supply. So the sex with the more scarcity calls the shots by the law of supply and demand.

it doesn't prove that women are less choosy than men. Yes, the difference in this case (judged by do you like them/would you date them again) could APPARENTLY all be attributed to the difference in asker/askee roles but I am sure that if you did a REAL test such as "will you have sex with this person" the women would, as always, be choosier.

how, exactly, does the experience of approaching lots of people and being rejected make you MORE CONFIDENT than the person who sits there doing the rejecting?

Women have, historically speaking, been *told* to be choosy. Or at least, to keep all would-be lotharios at bay except the one the pre-approved by mom and dad. To transgress - to be indiscriminate in where she gives affection - meant to risk banishment, poverty, or death.

But, as the strict codes of modesty have been relaxed in the west in recent decades, women have proven themselves to be as willing as men to simply have a good time.

Years ago I had a friend who had what seemed to be very high expectations of the men she dated, but very low standards. She had a very clear idea of what she wanted (basically, the moon), but she was willing to put up with what seemed to me to be an incredible amount of bullshit and bad, bordering on abusive, behavior once she was in a relationship with someone.

What I took from this is that "choosiness" depends a lot on what point in the relationship you're talking about. And a lot of the research on "choosing" revolves around the first encounter, rather than the longterm.

smooth or crunchy, it doesn't really matter.

Neither here nor in the link is it clear whether or not the women actually chose more partners than the men. It seems to have been purposely left vague: the guys were "more selective" and the women were "less picky." In relation to WHAT? Their previous level of selectivity/pickiness? Or in relation to each other?

Without more clarity, this doesn't really say anything at all. It's possible that women were still more (even much more) picky in absolute terms than men, simply with some level of variation when the roles are switched. We're not given any idea how much change actually occurs in the results.

I'm tired of poorly written results like these. It seems possible nothing interesting actually happened, and these people are just sensationalizing the results to generate interest/$$$.

there are many flavors of 'choosy'.

many women certainly seem to not want to fuck anything that moves. which would imply choosy compared to men.

but many women end up choosing what to many men seems to be based on arbitrary and incorrect criteria. making the women seem less choosy.

of course, the reality is that women refuse to acknowledge their criteria for selection of men because they know the criteria are typically politically incorrect. usually many women choose men for reasons such as access to narcotics, ability to inspire irrational death defying fear occasionally, natural predisposition to be a fuck up so that she can control him, how many other girlfriends he currently has, and other weird factors, which by contrast make many men actually seem MORE choosy than most women.

considering that it is NOT most men but most women these days who are not so secretly pining for a spouse, men in this regard are also more choosy than women, and getting choosier every year.

That as far as picking a good parent for your children, a man has just as much interest in making sure a woman is going to do a good job of raising his kids as a woman does finding a provider (if that's the implication). I think the level of trust on both counts is equal. And if it's all about physical qualities, as some will say, well, that's equal too!

but unfortunately it's a complex cultural dynamic with multidimensional vesting.

Yes, but who does most of the "rotating" in a non-controlled environment (i.e., a bar or club)...the men do. And let's be honest, when a woman does the approaching, it's usually for some mundane thing like asking for the time, directions, or something else that 10 out of 10 times will NOT result in copulation. That, or it's some tart with a boyfriend on a night out with the girls who still wants to be flirty, save money and have guys buy them drinks, maybe do a little grinding, then, grinding or no grinding mention they have a boyfriend when things start to get a bit more intense. It's win-win for women when it comes to sex, except for the pregnancy bit.

Women have it made in the dating game: free drinks, free food, an all-your-vagina-can-eat penis buffet, etc. You see it on any ladies night, especially when there is only ONE single lady at the bar, the rest being single guys, and couples. That single gal must have felt her holiest of holies was extra holy in that bar; she had a grin on her that would make the devil blush. I was smart, didn't even bother to buy her a drink, she went around talking to some guys, maybe 2 bought her a drink, and maybe she "hooked up" with one of them.

There's like only a select few species like pipefishes and seahorses where the males get the luxury of being "choosier." http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/2/150

The males are essentially the pregnant ones, with a pouch the female deposits the eggs and henceforth are fertilized. This reversal in sexual selection is due largely from vast changes in morphology as in the case of the seahorse, I doubt it can result from social engineering.