casual / capable sex
or Are Women Really Better in Bed?
Today I want to talk to you about two well-known studies on casual sex, and the less-obvious conclusions about humanity that I have come to from studying these studies.
Clark and Hatfield
The first study is the famous Clark and Hatfield ‘Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers.’ At the risk of being dangerously redundant, I will quickly summarize that this study involved attractive men and women asking other attractive men and women to have casual sex with them (among other things). The casual sex condition was unanimously turned down by women and almost unanimously accepted by heterosexual, single men (71% acceptance + 67% of refusals reluctant due to relationship status).
You can see these experiments acted out in real life on Youtube here (man to women) and here (woman to men).
This study seems to indicate that men are much more into casual sex than women. But is that really what it indicates?
The second study is by University of Michigan professor Terri Conley. Using questionnaires instead of real-life encounters, she tried to get to the bottom of why women were more likely than men to turn down casual sex offers from strangers. She included point scales for the imagined likelihood that the stranger making the proposal would be 1) warm, 2) faithful, 3) generous, 4) mentally ill, 5) dangerous, 6) capable in bed, 7) of low status, or 8) have an STD. While she found that the imagined likelihood for faithfulness, mental illness, generosity, or STD risk was about equal for both genders, there were notable differences for warmth and status, and massive differences for danger and capability in bed.
In other words, most women saw most men as potentially incapable in bed and potentially dangerous, and most men did not see most women that way.
She then tried to correct for these modifiers by having the participants imagine an attractive celebrity or a close friend offering them casual sex. Women’s rates of acceptance doubled for the close friend and quadrupled for the attractive celebrity. (Men’s rates stayed about the same for the celebrity [slightly higher] and dropped considerably for the close friend.)
This study seems to indicate that women are turning down casual sex not because they don’t want it but because they assume that we men are 1) dangerous and 2) incapable in bed. But do we men really suck in bed?
Now I’m going to use the above facts to try to conclude a few things about humanity.
My first conclusion is addressed to women.
Women are probably not actually “more capable” in bed than men. Both of the genders most likely have about the same general level of skill. In fact, if men really are more promiscuous than women, according to the 10,000 hour rule (it takes roughly ten thousand hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field, and practice makes improvement) men should actually be better in bed than women.
What is probably happening here is that men don’t need women to be all that good in bed. Part of being great in bed is knowing yourself, and boy, do we men know ourselves. If I know myself, I can get off on an attractive woman no matter how incapable she is in bed.
Similarly, if a woman knows herself, she is only a few physiological steps away from being able to get off on any attractive man no matter how incapable he is in bed.
In my opinion, by being finicky pessimists, women are losing out in this category.
(If you disagree with this conclusion, I would love to talk about it with you. Leave me a skeptical comment and we’ll talk. Otherwise, my readers may assume incorrectly that I’m right.)
My next conclusion is addressed to men.
Before you even approach her, she thinks you are dangerous, low status, cold, and incapable in bed. If you can find a way to competently address these four concerns with the women in your life, my friend, you and they will be well on your way to having a great time.