Warum nicht wir betrunken erhalten (und schraube)

May 9, 2008 2:39 PM

Europeans Get Drunk to Have Sex.The UK has one of the worst reputations for binge drinking and underage sex but there are striking similarities between countries, a study found. A third of 16 to 35-year-old men and 23% of women questioned said they drank to increase their chance of sex. The study - of 1,341 young people in nine countries including the UK - is published in BMC Public Health. PDF available here.

Have a great weekend, everyone.

posted by psmealey (130 comments total)

I'd comment on that, but I'm going to a bar.
posted by ersatz at 2:44 PM on May 9, 2008

I'm no anthropoligist, but getting drunk and trolling for sex on a Saturday night seems like a more or less universal human trait. I wish I was better at it.
posted by ornate insect at 2:45 PM on May 9, 2008

Will wonders never cease!
posted by Krrrlson at 2:50 PM on May 9, 2008

Oddly enough, more guys have successfully picked me up over coffee.

Historically, the ratio of how much alcohol a man has drank is often directly related to how unlikely it is that he's getting into my pants.
posted by miss lynnster at 2:50 PM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Getting drunk to increase one's chances of obtaining sex seems to imply one of two things:

1. That being drunk makes you more attractive.
2. That being drunk makes you less selective.

I'd put a heck of a lot more money on two. Drunk people often end up shagging bus stop signs though, so I don't know if that actually counts as sex.
posted by illiad at 2:51 PM on May 9, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

not to digress too far from the focus of this thread, but I do believe that this bit of news deserves to be read alongside the other wonderful title currently in the "most emailed" list on BBC news: Great tits cope well with warming
posted by jrb223 at 2:54 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Are the only options wasted and sober? I definitely do better at the bar when I'm drinking, but once you cross the line into 'drunk', the success rate (for lack of a better term) drops dramatically. However, I would argue that during the first 5-10 drinks my personability (is that a word?) steadily increases.
posted by rooftop secrets at 2:55 PM on May 9, 2008

Historically, the ratio of how much alcohol a man has drank is often directly related to how unlikely it is that he's getting into my pants.

Coincidentally, the less a woman knows about ratios and the past tense, the greater her chance of getting into my pants.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 2:56 PM on May 9, 2008 [21 favorites has favorites]

rooftop secrets--you're not ripped after 10 drinks? What the hell are you drinking, lemonade?
posted by ornate insect at 3:01 PM on May 9, 2008

Alcohol: helping ugly people have sex since 5,000 BC.

Isn't the UK where mingers come from? Who can blame them for drinking? They have to reproduce somehow.
posted by mullingitover at 3:15 PM on May 9, 2008

For the UK, it should really be "Brits too drunk to have sex."
posted by carter at 3:18 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Getting drunk to increase one's chances of obtaining sex seems to imply one of two things:

1. That being drunk makes you more attractive.
2. That being drunk makes you less selective.

It's actually "being drunk lowers your inhibitions, which increases the chance you'll actually approach someone." Talking to people is a key step in getting laid to those of us who do not rape, but you need confidence to do that, whether natural or chemically induced.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:19 PM on May 9, 2008

I was thinking about this the other day when I was messing with my kids, inciting them to flirt with a waitress or something.

My wife: "WTF?"

Me: "Would you rather them be comfortable talking with girls, or for them to have to be buzzed before making a move?" (Like their Dad when he was a kid/young teen.)
posted by snsranch at 3:21 PM on May 9, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Hurrah for European union! Back in the days when I was a miserable singleton, alcohol never seemed to increase my chances of success with the ladies. Perhaps I was hanging around with the right sort of women.
posted by athenian at 3:24 PM on May 9, 2008

For the UK, it should really be "Brits too drunk to have sex."

Nonsense. MANY of the bodies one steps over while crossing Piccadilly Circus on a Friday night look quite capable.
posted by rokusan at 3:30 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

It was funny when I was in England when I took my LTR girlfriend out for a date and I actually took her to dinner and a movie. She was amazed! It just does not happen that way in Britain at all.
posted by parmanparman at 3:35 PM on May 9, 2008

A third of 16 to 35-year-old men and 23% of women questioned said they drank to increase their chance of sex.

I can understand this of men, but of women? Women can get laid anytime they want. Most men -- drunk or sober -- will shag virtually anything.
posted by Chasuk at 3:38 PM on May 9, 2008

being drunk lowers your inhibitions, which increases the chance you'll actually approach someone.

Exactly. They don't call it liquid courage for nothing.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:40 PM on May 9, 2008

You'd be so wrong about that Chasuk. A woman can get laid, yes, if she's willing to lay anything that moves. Most of us have higher standards than that.
posted by R343L at 3:41 PM on May 9, 2008

Europeans Get Drunk to Have Sex.

In other news, it appears that the Pope is Catholic, and that bears are inclined to use woodland for defecatory purposes.
posted by Grangousier at 3:41 PM on May 9, 2008

Yes, another study came out recently showing that-- surprise, surprise-- alcohol reduces your ability to detect threats. The spin on this was "OMG! danger,"-- but for anxious people who see threat in all social situations, this obviously would increase your chance of finding a sex partner because you aren't too busy imagining rejection where it is not occurring.

Of course, this can lead to serious problems where people ignore real threat and where anxious people become alcoholics because they don't have other means of reducing anxiety. But in moderation, these issues do not arise.
posted by Maias at 3:46 PM on May 9, 2008

Blah blah, film at 11, blah blah. As ever , it's a double-edged sword. Here's the Dead Kennedys.
posted by Jakey at 4:05 PM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Whereas I rely on LSD and DVDs of the Teletubbies. Works. every. time.
posted by not_on_display at 4:05 PM on May 9, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]

Hmm. I remember being particularly puzzled, and wondering if I should be a bit worried, when many years ago I was making out with a rather fine lass, and she paused for a moment to exclaim "And I haven't even been drinking!"

... I'm still not sure how to take that.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:11 PM on May 9, 2008

[Drink] provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance...

William Shakespeare
Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 2

There is no free lunch.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 4:19 PM on May 9, 2008

A woman can get laid, yes, if she's willing to lay anything that moves. Most of us have higher standards than that.

And by drinking, one lowers one's standards sufficiently to be willing to lay anything that moves?
posted by Forktine at 4:22 PM on May 9, 2008

ornate insect's typo makes me think of anthrapologist (anthro-apologist) and arthropologist.
posted by snofoam at 4:23 PM on May 9, 2008

Brits get drunk to have sex? Sixty percent of the time, it works every time.
posted by djgh at 4:25 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
posted by sfts2 at 4:29 PM on May 9, 2008

My personal problem with using alcohol to get laid is that the other person needs to have the beer goggles on in order for them to agree to have sex with me. Something about both people wearing them seems to counteract the effect.
posted by Eekacat at 4:31 PM on May 9, 2008

Oddly enough, more guys have successfully picked me up over coffee.

More guys that you remember, anyway.
posted by Aquaman at 4:34 PM on May 9, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Most of us have higher standards than that.

What standards would those be? Not to have sex with drunk people or not have sex with guys who will shag anything?
Because that's ruling out 90%+ of guys at any point in time.
posted by P.o.B. at 4:41 PM on May 9, 2008

rooftop secrets: " However, I would argue that during the first 5-10 drinks my personability (is that a word?) steadily increases."

The first 5 - 10 drinks? Color me impressed. 5 drinks and I'd be nodding off, 10 and I'd be in a coma or locked in the bathroom.
posted by octothorpe at 4:49 PM on May 9, 2008

I had ten drinks once. I woke up in a tree after having a dream about a guy ejaculating on my leg. So, swings and roundabouts.
posted by turgid dahlia at 5:07 PM on May 9, 2008

Women can get laid anytime they want.

Why do men always say this? And why do some of them believe it? It's a mystery.
posted by jokeefe at 5:08 PM on May 9, 2008 [8 favorites has favorites]

What's really silly is that they should be getting stoned and having sex. Drunk and fucking? Impotence, incompetence, and other ugliness. Stoned and fucking? Complete opposite.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:12 PM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

I think this is a great, great idea and I will definitely try it, again.
posted by Free word order! at 5:13 PM on May 9, 2008

"Why do men always say this? And why do some of them believe it? It's a mystery."

Misunderstanding of supply and demand?
posted by klangklangston at 5:25 PM on May 9, 2008

Why do men always say this? And why do some of them believe it? It's a mystery.

If a woman dosen't succeed at getting laid, generally she's either decided that none of the men present meet some minnimum standard or she simply wasn't making her desires obvious enough. Most unattached men do not turn down sex when offered in my experience.

As to the post, alcohol lowers inhibitions, so guys feel less shy about approaching women. And alcohol distorts perception which makes people more attractive, which I'm sure has helped me a few times.
posted by jonmc at 5:26 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

The spin on this was "OMG! danger"

I didn't see that at all. I thought point was to demonstrate a relatively unexpected causal relationship. Conventional wisdom dictates that alcohol reduces one's inhibitions, and as a result, intoxicated people are more susceptible to sexual advances of others. What this research indicates it that a significant number of people first get intoxicated with the specific intention of making and/or welcoming such advances.

Common sense or obvious, yes, but at least somewhat novel.
posted by psmealey at 5:32 PM on May 9, 2008

Well, I've always had a tolerance for the stuff. As long as it's whisky, vodka or beer I can drink like a fish, but switch me over to tequila and watch me drool after 3 drinks.

(also I might be a functioning alcoholic)
posted by rooftop secrets at 5:33 PM on May 9, 2008

If a woman dosen't succeed at getting laid, generally she's either decided that none of the men present meet some minnimum standard or she simply wasn't making her desires obvious enough. Most unattached men do not turn down sex when offered in my experience.

As a woman I can say that is categorically untrue.
posted by fshgrl at 5:38 PM on May 9, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]

Here's how it all works.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:38 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

As a woman I can say that is categorically untrue.

This is one of those unprovable points, but I can say that when I was single, I never rejected any woman's advances and just about every guy I know was the same way. So either the woman didn't want to get laid that bad or she didn't want to just get laid, she wanted to get laid by a guy who met some set of specifications.
posted by jonmc at 5:41 PM on May 9, 2008

Most unattached men do not turn down sex when offered in my experience.

As a man I can say that is categorically untrue.

(and as a masculist I can say that is an offensive stereotype)
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:41 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

5 drinks and I'd be nodding off, 10 and I'd be in a coma or locked in the bathroom.

Lightwieght.
posted by jonmc at 5:45 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Sure, alcohol lowers inhibitions for women too, but even so, I don't get so drunk I'll go to bed with a stranger, which kind of limits the drunken hookup / lay anything that moves aspect. So that leaves flirting with guys, getting their number, etc. And it turns out if you want something slightly more formal than "get drunk, have bad sex" (even if it's just friends + occasionally have sex), there is a bit more choosiness involved .. and I think men are choosy in this regard too. I think it's unfairly stereotyping to say men will bed anything that moves just as it is to say a woman can get laid at any time. It just isn't so.

But, the benefit of alcohol is that it makes it easier (for most people) to talk and flirt .. which increases immediate as well as future chances. You can't get their number if you're not confident enough to ask.

P.o.B -- those standards .. um, I suppose there have been times where if I had responded to the fat, balding man who's making incredibly creepy jokes and is twice my age I could have gotten laid. Does that count as standards? I'm not likely to care if a guy is drinking (since I would be!) .. and unlikely to know if he goes home with anyone. But frankly, there are a lot of guys who just aren't attractive to me. Or are, but are clearly with someone.
posted by R343L at 5:46 PM on May 9, 2008

P.o.B -- those standards .. um, I suppose there have been times where if I had responded to the fat, balding man who's making incredibly creepy jokes and is twice my age I could have gotten laid. Does that count as standards?

Well, yes. You wanted to get laid by someone attractive and unattached (and for all I know, your standards of attractiveness are quite stringent). That's different from just wanting to get laid by anyone who'll have you.
posted by jonmc at 5:48 PM on May 9, 2008

Most unattached men do not turn down sex when offered in my experience.

(to make this a little more clear, it's rarely a matter of turning down a direct proposition, because it doesn't actually get that far. the proposition is nipped in the bud whenever you don't flirt back at somebody you're not interested in. of course, flirting doesn't inevitably lead to sex, but without it, nothing is likely to happen)
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:49 PM on May 9, 2008

Women can get laid anytime they want.

I guess I've been doing it wrong. :(
posted by youarenothere at 5:50 PM on May 9, 2008

to the fat, balding man who's making incredibly creepy jokes and is twice my age

On behalf of aging, fat, balding men everywhere who enjoy the occasional off color joke and mostly just want to be held, I find this to be an offensive stereotype.
posted by psmealey at 5:52 PM on May 9, 2008 [11 favorites has favorites]

that's really nice. i was recently listening to a lot of cluster, including cluster and eno and it's pretty great stuff. also, there are psychedelic narcotics? me, please!
posted by snofoam at 5:54 PM on May 9, 2008

Drunk and fucking? Impotence, incompetence, and other ugliness. Stoned and fucking? Complete opposite.

Completely disagree: and I say this as someone who drank for about two years between the ages of 18 and 20, and smoked most of his life.

Drunk and fucking: disinhibition, lack of self-consciousness, preparedness to take risks resulting in hot, hot, sex.

Stoned and fucking: depending on the ratio of THC to CBD either overly anxious, obsessing about trivial minutae ("do my balls smell funny?", "is my dick small?", "why is this woman even here anyway?") , or so wasted I just fall asleep.

Give me the booze every time. If it wasn't such a horrible drug in every other regard, that is.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:55 PM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

*hold psmealy*

feel better?
posted by jonmc at 5:55 PM on May 9, 2008

And then there's the next morning's Walk of Shame [supposedly alleviated by an AMP Energy power drink!].
posted by ericb at 5:55 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

You had me at hello, big guy.
posted by psmealey at 5:56 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

oops. sorry, wrong thread.
posted by snofoam at 5:56 PM on May 9, 2008

You had me at hello, big guy.

Nah, I had to get you drunk first.

*puts on rubber glove*

hold still...
posted by jonmc at 5:57 PM on May 9, 2008

Hm. The bonus plan?
posted by psmealey at 6:04 PM on May 9, 2008

The spin on this was "OMG! danger"

I didn't see that at all. I thought point was to demonstrate a relatively unexpected causal relationship. Conventional wisdom dictates that alcohol reduces one's inhibitions, and as a result, intoxicated people are more susceptible to sexual advances of others. What this research indicates it that a significant number of people first get intoxicated with the specific intention of making and/or welcoming such advances.

Common sense or obvious, yes, but at least somewhat novel.

PSmealey, you didn't read my post. I wasn't saying that the spin on the study cited in the link was that-- I said that the spin on the "alcohol reduces perception of threat" study was.

And people getting drunk to "get courage" rather than getting drunk and unintentionally doing stuff is not an especially novel finding either-- there's been stuff on this in the AIDS literature and in criminology for a while, for example, not to mention the popular conception of it.
posted by Maias at 6:21 PM on May 9, 2008

anytime? no
easier than guys? oh my, yes
posted by caddis at 6:25 PM on May 9, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Agreed that this isn't novel at all. For anyone who didn't read the paper, they included ectsasy, cocaine, and cannabis as "common" substances. They also include stats about unprotected sex and STDs. Some neat little charts are included.

As for the side thread about a womens ability to get laid as compared with men. I would have to agree with jonmc. Take an average man and women put them in a room full of all sorts of possible suitors. Have both of them approach in a manner that is straight forward as possible, such as "Hey, let's have sex." The man will probably have close to 0% chance of getting laid. In the womans case, it would most likely be close to 100% chance that she would get laid.

Thus men must do the ritualistic dance of courtship, whilst women play the puppeteer.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:40 PM on May 9, 2008

whilst women play the puppeteer.

This was meant as a joke, by the way.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:43 PM on May 9, 2008

I would have to agree with jonmc.

I want somebody to compile a list of how often some variation of this phrase (such as 'I can' believe I'm agreeing with/For once I agree with/I gotta go with jonmc') It would run into the hundreds.
posted by jonmc at 6:44 PM on May 9, 2008

Wow. That is *completely* different from my experience, PeterMcD. But then I've never had the paranoia effect from smoking up, not once. For me, sex while stoned is cosmically great: I become the universal, timeless creator of all energy and matter.

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. That said, I wouldn't trade my experience for anything in the world. Nothing in my life has ever topped that feeling.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:47 PM on May 9, 2008

I would have to agree with jonmc.

I want somebody to compile a list of how often some variation of this phrase (such as 'I can' believe I'm agreeing with/For once I agree with/I gotta go with jonmc') It would run into the hundreds.

For the second time, I agree with jonmc
posted by P.o.B. at 6:54 PM on May 9, 2008

I've had great experiences w/ sex while high and sex while drunk, and not so awesome times with each, too. . .results may vary, I suppose.

One thing that's happened several times is that women who have gotten a little *too* drunk have gotten into this wildly confusing rapid alternation between "Men are bad" and "I want you". . .as if the alcohol has thrown some delicate balance of mistrust and attraction all higgledy piggledy.

I can't remember my own drunken nonsense. I hope it was hilarious.
posted by flotson at 7:04 PM on May 9, 2008

Swedish vs. British drunken nonsense. (nsfw-ish)
posted by YoBananaBoy at 7:33 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Act Now to Take Advantage of My Lowered Standards
posted by lukemeister at 7:39 PM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

I always thought bears were Catholic and the Pope could be seen wandering the woodlands for defecatory purposes.
posted by Sailormom at 7:58 PM on May 9, 2008

Damn, apparently I didn't go to the right clubs in the UK.


Guess I gotta go back. Research. . . yeaaaaaaah, that's it.
posted by Inversehelix at 8:17 PM on May 9, 2008

duh.
posted by valentinepig at 8:51 PM on May 9, 2008

*hold psmealy*

Hang on there, johnmc, with all due respect, this is my boy (straight, 275 lbs, not balding) and I'm holding him already, in a very manly, noncommital way. You go off with yer nancy-boys there, and leave the manly men to ourselves, got eet?
posted by Turtles all the way down at 9:10 PM on May 9, 2008

I always thought ^nsfwbears were Catholic.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:19 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Young people were also more at risk of unsafe sex while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the study found.

Case in point.
posted by netbros at 9:20 PM on May 9, 2008

The first 5 - 10 drinks? Color me impressed. 5 drinks and I'd be nodding off, 10 and I'd be in a coma or locked in the bathroom.

Practice, practice, practice.

I've had great experiences w/ sex while high and sex while drunk, and not so awesome times with each, too. . .results may vary, I suppose.

Drunk+high is the best.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 9:24 PM on May 9, 2008

Yeah, I gotta say that the "chicks can sleep with anybody" thing is a) totally overstated, and b) sets up all sorts of weird social awkwardness by eagerly affirming.

And part of women's high relative perceived success rate may be because there are a lot of guys with weird ideas about sex who are rather aggressive in seeking it, so get shot down a lot.
posted by klangklangston at 10:21 PM on May 9, 2008

In other news, "Study: Nearly 80 Percent Of Roommates Got So Drunk Last Night".
posted by msaleem at 12:12 AM on May 10, 2008

I dunno, when I was in school in London, I went for Italians. Brits were lovely for clubbing, but as a rule, by the end of the night, they were "drag them to the cowboy cab" loaded. Italians...those were some smooth boys, I tell you what. Held their liquor, had cabs on speed dial and could charm the nuns at the boarding school. Me...I'll always have a place in my heart for a tall dark Italian boy. (That our Matteo is one is just a bonus. Smoochies!)


When I lived in Holland, Germany and Belgium, I found those men capable of holding their drink, but not being terribly charming or erudite when influenced. German men were forever trying to get me to drink an apple liquor, which frankly, I cannot believe anyone over the age of 14 is willing to drink willingly. That said, a drunk German can still drive in a straight line...so...that's a plus. Belgium, bless it, makes the best beer in the world. You all hate it, and should not buy it, so there is always Peach Lambic for me to import.

Then again, I've had a bottle of wine and 3 cognacs, so it's quite possible that I'm not to be trusted....

Oh and for the record: rumor has it that American chicks are easy when drunk. Twas the Irish what spilled the beans. ;)
posted by dejah420 at 1:17 AM on May 10, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

The man will probably have close to 0% chance of getting laid. In the womans case, it would most likely be close to 100% chance that she would get laid.

This exact experiment has already been done and your numbers are pretty much spot on. Women approached by attractive strangers offering them sex rejected the proposal 100% of the time, and almost all of them were angry, disgusted, or offended. Men approached by attractive women offering sex obliged 75% of the time, and almost all of them who did not were apologetic or disappointed (i.e. Aw sorry, I have a girlfriend).

Why do men always say this? And why do some of them believe it? It's a mystery.

See above. The sex difference in both choosiness and preference for uncommitted sex are enormous. Differences when combined, that distinguish almost all men from all women.

Chances are you are seriously misinterpreting the belief you find so amazing. Almost no women want insta-sex from strangers, so it is doubtful you are realizing that is the issue (and, if not, entirely dubious women can't easily get such sex).

It is true that women can't get commitment or any sort of respect from men anytime. It is also true that women can't get insta-sex from the men they want anytime. The men they want for such a thing must meet a far higher number of standards than the women men want for such a thing.
posted by dgaicun at 2:32 AM on May 10, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Well, I think Boris' plans to cut back on public drunkenness are long overdue.

We live in London's East End, and Fridays seem to be the start of three days of alcohol fueled near rioting.

Every Friday from midday on they start hooting and hollering in the beer gardens, working themselves up into a frenzy. Now that part doesn't bug me at all, just close the flats windows or turn up the sound and we're fine (although last night was the first time this year they've gone off, and Mrs Mutant, from Amsterdam no less, was a little startled at the amount of noise a dozen or so drunks, dedicated to their cause, can make). I can even sleep through it.

What does bug me is the public fornication. Down in The East End there are still lots of secluded alleys and doorways. I've learned to avoid them at night not because of the chance I'd get mugged (I rock n'roll and am not at all afraid of that), no it seems there is almost always somefolks back in there, either snogging or shagging or gearing up to do some snogging or shagging.

And the debris field in the morning! Look I'm not talking just condoms and beer / wine / liquor bottles, no we've run across actual people either sleeping it off, or busily regretting what they'd done the night before (i.e., vomiting, sitting on their ass holding their head in hands, wandering aimlessly talking to themselves, etc). I got half a mind to start a flickr group as a warning to folks to what they're in for.

We actually like some of the action down here - for example, we sometimes hit up the afterparty's on Sundays mornings, those East End dance clubs that open at 6AM ourselves - it's just some of the behaviour is way, way over the top.
posted by Mutant at 4:05 AM on May 10, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

The sex difference in both choosiness and preference for uncommitted sex are enormous. Differences when combined, that distinguish almost all men from all women.

Notwithstanding the significant sociological influences here, there are some very powerful biological factors at work. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, sperm competition. In broad strokes, if the goal of sex (prime directive, if you will) is to propagate the species, the male will seek to spread his seed as far and wide as he can, whilst the female will be selective in order to ensure maximum viability of the offspring.
posted by psmealey at 4:11 AM on May 10, 2008

This has been a very entertaining thread!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:24 AM on May 10, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I feel like I keep hearing about the problem drinking is over in Britain, but I had no idea that London was like a college town here in the US. Is it really like that? It sounds like the London of the 1600s, except for the fact that the women are allowed to drink like that legally now.
posted by frecklefaerie at 6:05 AM on May 10, 2008

This was on Reddit : Swedish versus British Nightclubs - Can you tell the difference?
posted by plexi at 7:33 AM on May 10, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

newsflash: americans get drunk to have sex, too.
case in oint: hoboken, nj.
posted by krautland at 8:36 AM on May 10, 2008

As a student who lived in the UK for 4 years, I can honestly say that, sex or no, Brits drink significantly more than any other country where I've lived. Although it might just be Scottish people...

There are places I haven't been to that I understand have more destructive drinking cultures; nooks and crannies of eastern Europe that are not catered to by Easyjet and change their names more frequently than is convenient for map makers. I've read about vodka drinking competitions in Russia where the winner dies after drinking 4 or 5 liters of shots in an hour and is spoken of in hushed and reverent Cyrillic whispers from the tundra to the Kremlin.

As a guy, I don't mind the drunken fumbling in the dark but I'm willing to wager that young people in relationships copulate more often than those that are drunk and just looking for some play. I don't know if it's the same for people outside of a tiny student community and age group. If I have a feeling I'm getting lucky I try to stay sober enough to keep things enjoyable.
posted by christhelongtimelurker at 9:08 AM on May 10, 2008

ICH DOLMETSCHE GOOGLE
posted by oaf at 9:11 AM on May 10, 2008

I am for this.

Also, for oaf:

Ich liebe die Vögel,
die Vögel lieben mich.
Doch ohne Wodka,
man vögelt nicht.
posted by moonbiter at 9:28 AM on May 10, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Now, see, that works. Even if vodka isn't the best way.
posted by oaf at 9:46 AM on May 10, 2008

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, sperm competition. In broad strokes...

No, what you just described is parental investment theory, not sperm competition.
posted by dgaicun at 11:33 AM on May 10, 2008

The day I start drinking 'strategically' is the day I hand in my alcohol-badge.

This single line made me laugh as well: "Almost half of participants in Vienna, Austria had drunk alcohol and had sex by the time they were 16 compared with 36% in Venice, Italy, 37% in Palma, Spain and 30% in Liverpool." This is the probably the only time Liverpool gets to be in the same sentence as Palma and Venice.
posted by slimepuppy at 1:07 PM on May 10, 2008

In broad strokes, if the goal of sex (prime directive, if you will) is to propagate the species, the male will seek to spread his seed as far and wide as he can, whilst the female will be selective in order to ensure maximum viability of the offspring.

Yeah, if you're an insect. Human beings have culture and stuff, which tends to obscure the happy simplicity of this model. For example, in the overwhelming majority of human societies over history, women had to deal with constant social contraints over their fertility and sexual behaviour, which doesn't allow the luxury of being selective about the fathers of their children.

Women approached by attractive strangers offering them sex rejected the proposal 100% of the time, and almost all of them were angry, disgusted, or offended. Men approached by attractive women offering sex obliged 75% of the time, and almost all of them who did not were apologetic or disappointed

What does this possibly prove about sex, except that women are likely to feel threatened by men who display public aggression towards them, and that men feel obligated to live up to certain masculine stereotypes? And who calls this, with a straight face, an "experiment"? If I take off my clothes and walk down the street naked, 10 our of 10 people will respond with WTF, but this says nothing about whether I need clothing to survive as a biological necessity or the evolution of the hominid species.
posted by jokeefe at 1:51 PM on May 10, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

What does this possibly prove about sex, except that women are likely to feel threatened by men who display public aggression towards them, and that men feel obligated to live up to certain masculine stereotypes?

Unbelievable. It disproves YOUR exact assertion! Women can easily get sex just by asking for it, while men cannot.

In fact when men ask a strange woman if they want to have sex it is perceived by women as "public aggression", while men do not interpret such requests from women that way.

So there you go. Men always say " Women can get laid anytime they want" because it is true. The "mystery" of this belief is solved. You're welcome.
posted by dgaicun at 2:51 PM on May 10, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

"Unbelievable. It disproves YOUR exact assertion! Women can easily get sex just by asking for it, while men cannot."

That's bullshit. It proves that men are more likely to assent when an attractive woman asks them to have sex. This does not mean that a woman can have sex any time she wants.

"In fact when men ask a strange woman if they want to have sex it is perceived by women as "public aggression", while men do not interpret such requests from women that way."

Gee, Wally, why would that be?

"So there you go. Men always say " Women can get laid anytime they want" because it is true. The "mystery" of this belief is solved. You're welcome."

Just repeating something doesn't make it true.
posted by klangklangston at 2:58 PM on May 10, 2008

Or, to put it another way, you might as well say that men can have sex any time they want, because they can always go to a bathhouse. That's just as moronic.
posted by klangklangston at 2:59 PM on May 10, 2008

That's bullshit. It proves that men are more likely to assent when an attractive woman asks them to have sex. This does not mean that a woman can have sex any time she wants.

When average women asked random men in the experiment if they would like to have sex the men said 'yes' 75% of the time. If that does not mean - in the crystal clearest possible way - that women can have sex any time they want, you tell me what it means. It's a 3 out 4 try success rate! 0% of the women said 'yes' to the same question.

Either jokeefe's comment was falsifiable or it was not.
posted by dgaicun at 3:16 PM on May 10, 2008

By the way, the 'OMG Scary Male Aggressor' explanation for the results was tested, and it isn't true:

In the naturalistic studies of Clark (1990) and Clark and Hatfield (1989), a large sex difference was found in willingness to have sex with a stranger. Although some commentators have suggested that this sex difference originates in women's fears for their safety in encounters with male strangers, four types of data argue against this interpretation. First, debriefing interviews conducted by Clark (1990) suggested that fears about safety were unrelated to female participants' refusals to have sex with a stranger. As Buss (2000) pointed out, not a single woman expressed fears for her safety in explaining why she refused. Second, about 50% of the women expressed willingness to date the man, potentially placing them in a physically vulnerable position. Third, in a separate study, Clark (1990) arranged for close friends of participants to contact the participants regarding a person who wanted to have sex with them, and to personally verify the safety of this person-and yet the results were identical. Women were uninterested in sex with the man, although they were willing to date him. Finally, lesbians, who do not run risks of male-perpetrated violence in sexual situations, display as little proclivity for casual sex as do heterosexual women (e.g., Bailey et al., 1994; Symons, 1979)

posted by dgaicun at 4:03 PM on May 10, 2008

Yeah, if you're an insect.

Well, the biological drives are still there, regardless of the well ingrained social constructs. But mostly, I was just being glib, not really trying to make an important point... just trying to avoid the battle of the sexes that these threads often devolve into.
posted by psmealey at 4:11 PM on May 10, 2008

Yeah, if you're an insect. Human beings have culture and stuff, which tends to obscure the happy simplicity of this model.

Culture, most of the time, is window dressing for our primal urges: eating sleeping shitting and fucking. We are still just animals when all is said and done.
posted by jonmc at 4:26 PM on May 10, 2008

Yeah, if you're an insect.

Wrong thread. Go here.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:26 PM on May 10, 2008

"When average women asked random men in the experiment if they would like to have sex the men said 'yes' 75% of the time. If that does not mean - in the crystal clearest possible way - that women can have sex any time they want, you tell me what it means."

It means that 24 men said that they would have sex to the woman who approached them (in 1978). Did they have sex? No. Further, the study requires a woman of "average attractiveness," which does not support your argument that "any" woman can have sex at any time she desires. It further ignores demographic concerns—the age and social setting tends toward promiscuity, and that's further reinforced by social pressures.

And it does not mean that men cannot have sex with women at any time, though it does not suggest that either. But the study suffers from heteronormativism, in that it's easy to make the argument that in the proper setting a man could have sex with other men at the same rate of conversion, so long as we're eliding the thorny problem of, you know, actually wanting to have sex.

Which is why seeing this over-blown pseudo-science bullshit is problematic—it implies that the only thing keeping guys from getting what they want, which is to have sex, is women, thus putting the onus of restraint and the resentment thereof onto women.

That's why it's a stupid thing to mindlessly parrot.
posted by klangklangston at 4:34 PM on May 10, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

"Culture, most of the time, is window dressing for our primal urges: eating sleeping shitting and fucking. We are still just animals when all is said and done."

Yeah, but I tend to find my enjoyment of life diminished when people are stealing, raping and murdering, so arguments from biological essentialism always strike me as kinda dumb.
posted by klangklangston at 4:37 PM on May 10, 2008

I tend to find my enjoyment of life diminished when people are stealing, raping and murdering

klangklangston--you are such a prude. ; )
posted by ornate insect at 4:54 PM on May 10, 2008

Yeah, but I tend to find my enjoyment of life diminished when people are stealing, raping and murdering, so arguments from biological essentialism always strike me as kinda dumb.

Well, you could make the argument that in functioning humans the instinct not to do unnecessary harm also exists, although whether I'm right or wrong on that I have no idea. But I'm just generally incredibly skeptical when people claim higher motives for things.

So now I'm going to go out and drink beer on my porch (because I like getting drunk) and listen to loud music (because I like noise and excitement) and eat some candy (because I like sweet tastes).
posted by jonmc at 5:00 PM on May 10, 2008

Look, female prostitutes (many of whom are far from gorgeous) pretty much dominate the sex-for-sale market and the male prostitutes in that market overwhelmingly service *men* not women-- this is a pretty strong point (aside from the actual study) suggesting that the average woman can have no-strings sex pretty much whenever she wants whilst the average man will often have to pay if he wants it now and without attachment.

The market speaks pretty clearly on this-- and there isn't a human culture known where the reverse is true.
posted by Maias at 5:14 PM on May 10, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

"Look, female prostitutes (many of whom are far from gorgeous) pretty much dominate the sex-for-sale market and the male prostitutes in that market overwhelmingly service *men* not women-- this is a pretty strong point (aside from the actual study) suggesting that the average woman can have no-strings sex pretty much whenever she wants whilst the average man will often have to pay if he wants it now and without attachment.
"

No, it's not, that's fallacious thinking (argument from absence of evidence). Further, you're adapting the language to move the goal by introducing the word "average" into your argument, and supposing a definition for "no-strings."
posted by klangklangston at 5:30 PM on May 10, 2008

...which does not support your argument that "any" woman can have sex at any time she desires

Average represents most people. While it is doubtful that below average women would be equally successful (75%), the acceptance base rates are so high for average women, it is unlikely to even be closer to male rates. Unattractive women can get sex easily enough as well, which we know from related kinds of studies. In fact unattractive women have more casual sex partners than attractive women, because they have a harder time securing investment, and are willing to do more sexually to try to get it. There are plenty of men who find this willingness rare and valuable enough in itself to compensate for the attractiveness (see the waitress scene in Sideways).


And it does not mean that men cannot have sex with women at any time, though it does not suggest that either.


Well, yes, 0% does mean that. Even a small % of women greater than 0 saying 'yes' would suggest that it is very, very difficult. Men could stand outside for a week, asking every woman they pass and maybe get arrested or maced for their "aggression" before a 'yes'. Women could ask a handful of men in a bar in 10 minutes before that 'yes'. Perhaps suffering a 'sorry, I'm married' or two in the process.


it's easy to make the argument that in the proper setting a man could have sex with other men at the same rate of conversion

Gay men behave like hetero men in this respect, and gay women like hetero women. This underscores the generality of the sex difference. There is nothing to argue with here, I hardly disagree that the only way men could have the same potential sex on demand as women would be to change their sexual orientation. And we all know from those fundamentalist Christian groups how easy such a thing is to change.



Which is why seeing this over-blown pseudo-science bullshit is problematic

'Pseudoscience' is typically the MetaFilter buzzword for 'science that offends my ideologies'. The published studies routinely called pseudoscience here are science by the accepted, conventional definition of science.

it implies that the only thing keeping guys from getting what they want, which is to have sex, is women, thus putting the onus of restraint and the resentment thereof onto women.

No, it is keeping them from anonymous, requested sex with women. Men can often have casual sex by a process of courtship. And yes, women are the gatekeepers of their own bodies, as are men theirs, but that does not justify "resentment" by anybody.

There are illogical reasons to resent women for their sexual preferences no matter what those preferences, but there are no logical reasons to resent women for their sexual preferences. So investigating and discussing those preferences isn't the problem.
posted by dgaicun at 6:47 PM on May 10, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

"Well, yes, 0% does mean that."

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your comment because this is the moronic crux of it—this was a fairly small survey, where 96 men were approached and a third of them asked if they wanted to go to bed. That means that you're looking at 32 men who were asked, of which 24 said yes. Given the US population at that time (ignoring the obvious confounding of the demographics I mentioned above), that's a confidence interval of 15—meaning that both the 75% and the 0% have a margin of error of 15%. That's retarded huge. And to try to put that on my "ideology" or whatever the fuck else is both wrong and missing the fucking point.

When you understand that, maybe then we can try to have a discussion on all the other fallacies in your argument.
posted by klangklangston at 7:03 PM on May 10, 2008

That study is impressively stupid, and does not prove what it is being claimed to prove.

If you go up to a strange woman and ask her directly for sex, you are (correctly) labeled as a creep. Whether that is from socialization or evolution doesn't really matter. However, if you go up to a strange woman and say "hey, I've noticed you around campus, would you like to go on a date?" or even better, "hey, do you want to go back to my dorm room and get righteously stoned?", your chances of some casual sex are a lot more than 0%.

Let's put this another way. The study is being said to say, women don't say yes to requests for casual sex. However, a tremendous amount of evidence exists to the contrary -- women do, in fact, respond to requests for casual sex, as can be seen by the newly minted couples leaving bars and nightclubs every weekend evening. The key here is that those requests for casual sex are phrased in less creepy ways (unlike, say, you would do in a bathhouse, where direct requests are said to be the order of the day).

That study does not prove that women don't respond to requests for casual sex. It does prove that one specific approach to asking for casual sex seems to work fairly well for men, and very poorly for women. (How many of those men who said yes would have backed out by the time push came to shove is a different question, of course.)

In the real world (as compared to the funky world of small-scale psychology tests), I am pretty sure it is safe to say that men have much more access to casual sex than do women. I can show up in almost any town or city, in most countries, and can -- as a complete stranger who does not speak the language or understand local customs -- almost certainly find a prostitute with whom to have sex. Other than the risk of disease (moderated through condom use, one hopes), my risk to life and limb is pretty minimal, and the cost can be shockingly low (Spitzer notwithstanding). A woman can, in theory, find a bar and ask random men to go home with her... but with a lot more personal risk, including to her reputation in many places, as well as physical danger. So a woman's theoretical easier access to casual sex is sharply mediated by the barriers to her being able to take advantage of that access.
posted by Forktine at 9:16 PM on May 10, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

I doubt the "casual sex" of which people speak is "business sex." Even allowing for casual Fridays, there's a distinct difference between the two.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:44 PM on May 10, 2008

That study is impressively stupid, and does not prove what it is being claimed to prove.

Yes, it misrepresents the casual connections.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:04 PM on May 10, 2008

FWIW, the study in question: Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers. Unfortunately, unless you have access to an academic loan program it'll cost money to actually read it.
posted by moonbiter at 1:00 AM on May 11, 2008

However, if you go up to a strange woman and say "hey, I've noticed you around campus, would you like to go on a date?" or even better, "hey, do you want to go back to my dorm room and get righteously stoned?", your chances of some casual sex are a lot more than 0%.

The study showed men and women were equally likely to accept date invitations: 50%. But the difference for 'come over to my apartment' was similar to sex.

Let's put this another way. The study is being said to say, women don't say yes to requests for casual sex. However, a tremendous amount of evidence exists to the contrary -- women do, in fact, respond to requests for casual sex, as can be seen by the newly minted couples leaving bars and nightclubs every weekend evening. The key here is that those requests for casual sex are phrased in less creepy ways

Yes, many women consent to "casual sex" (however defined) after courtship as I stated above. But courtship is a skill, and a difficult one for most people at that. The issue was how easily females could request instant sex from opposite sex strangers. For women without use of courtship this was very, very easy (and, it turns out attractiveness of the female had no effect on the results). It also showed the strangers were even above average in attractiveness (7.3 out of 10), so we're not just talking about the "fat, balding" guys.

That study does not prove that women don't respond to requests for casual sex. It does prove that one specific approach to asking for casual sex seems to work fairly well for men, and very poorly for women.

The issue is requested sex with strangers, not "casual sex". Requesting sex from a stranger is not courtship, and requires no courtship ability. Women can easily obtain sex without courtship ability. Men cannot.
posted by dgaicun at 2:49 AM on May 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

It also showed the strangers were even above average in attractiveness (7.3 out of 10)

Is that 7.3 metric, or imperial? It's important to be specific, with objective measures like those.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:03 AM on May 11, 2008

Scratch that: 7.3 out of 9.

Here is a PDF of the study.

And some recent reflections by the authors. As I said, they were very consciously trying to factor out the complex courtship factors required by men:

"A woman," he said, "good looking or not, doesn't have to worry about timing in search for a man... All she has to do is...whisper 'Come on 'a my place,' and she's made a conquest... Men have it harder. They have to worry about strategy, timing, and 'tricks.'"
posted by dgaicun at 3:15 AM on May 11, 2008

Class members would approach attractive men & women (of the opposite sex) and ask one of three questions: (a) "would you go out with me tonight?" (etc)

ah, now we have it. they were asking attractive people. here's the rule that explains the rest of the study: attractive women are always taken, whereas attractive men are rarely taken.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:43 AM on May 11, 2008

Yes, I am entirely convinced that women do not respond well to "hey, wanna come to the party in my pants?" directness, whereas men seem to.

That does not mean that women have actual, real-life, workable access to casual sex with strangers. You have to discount for real and perceived threats of violence, social pressures, and all the other reasons why a woman may not want to actually go home with the first guy she meets and asks for sex.

This "courtship" thing you are saying is so difficult isn't, really (seeing as the human race seems to be managing to keep perpetuating itself, I'd say that a decent percentage of humans manage to find a way through the morass), and in terms of casual sex with strangers "courtship" functions mostly as a threat assessment tool. If I can manage to not be creepy while we have a drink or two at the bar, then maybe I won't be a creep back in her dormroom either. Getting naked with a stranger can be a profoundly vulnerable moment, more so for a woman. Why a minimum of "courtship" can be considered a great impediment strikes me as profoundly odd.

My point remains: men have more real-world access to casual sex with strangers than do women. Particularly when you add in possibilities like prostitution (easily available to men, not so easily available to women), anonymous gay sex in bathhouses, parks, and other venues (also not so easily available to women), and coercion (ditto), men just have more access to these possibilities. Even if you constrain the question (unrealistically, because in real life men take advantage of other options) to heterosexual, consensual sex with a stranger randomly encountered, there are structural barriers for a woman to take the same direct approach used in the study (such as being labeled a "slut," say, or being afraid of violence), that do not constrain a man from doing the same thing (but obviously using approaches that work, like "can I buy you a drink?" not "let's get kinky!").

It's a nice and elegant study; it's just not saying anything about who has more or less access to casual sex in the real world. It can't, because of what it is measuring, and how it was performed. That's ok -- the study has plenty of value without that -- but it shouldn't be taken as having much informative value about access to sex.
posted by Forktine at 6:34 AM on May 11, 2008

Warum nicht wir betrunken erhalten (und schraube)

this makes absolutely no damn sense in german. I suppose you meant to demonstrate why using google's translation page is a shitty idea.
posted by krautland at 7:05 AM on May 11, 2008

this makes absolutely no damn sense in german. I suppose you meant to demonstrate why using google's translation page is a shitty idea.

Mostly it was an intentionally humorous, word for word babelfish translation of the Jimmy Buffet song title "Why Don't We get Drunk (and Screw)". I thought that would have been obvious to those with a passing familiarity with babelfish, but looks like I miscalculated.
posted by psmealey at 8:03 AM on May 11, 2008

attractive women are always taken
this is as ridiculous as "all women can have sex whenever they choose", although I do think there's a sympathetic construction of the latter that acknowledges men's clearly lower bar for deciding whether or not to have sex
posted by bonaldi at 12:08 PM on May 11, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

yes, i felt like a trollish derail was in order to stop people talking about that meaningless study.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:16 PM on May 11, 2008

True conversation, overheard in the ladies' toilet in a Bristol nightclub some years back (not by me, I should add; I'm a strictly stand up and pee kind of guy)

Girl 1: So, we start snogging..
Girl 2: Yeah...
Girl 1: And then he puts his hand down moi pants and I say "Oi! You ain't felt moi tits yet"
posted by MuffinMan at 5:00 AM on May 12, 2008

posted by MuffinMan

Ok. Eponysterical.
posted by psmealey at 5:23 AM on May 12, 2008

That does not mean that women have actual, real-life, workable access to casual sex with strangers.

Yes it does. It means they can ask and get with an enormous success rate.

You have to discount for real and perceived threats of violence, social pressures, and all the other reasons why a woman may not want to actually go home with the first guy she meets and asks for sex.

She can ask as many men as she wants. I don't see why this matters. I've already responded to the "perception of threat" idea. The evidence does not support it is playing a large role in the difference.

This "courtship" thing you are saying is so difficult isn't, really (seeing as the human race seems to be managing to keep perpetuating itself...

The consequence of courtship is rarely to have sex that same night with someone you just met, and just because almost everyone has sex eventually in their lifetime doesn't say much about the relative difficulty of having it, including factors such as failure rate, effort, resource investment, time frame, and variety. There is a large difference between forming a longterm pair bond with the intent of permanency and reproduction, many times by foregoing sex entirely over a dating span of years before marriage, and having a same night sexual encounter with a stranger by building an intense rapport and sexual attraction. Both are courtship but they can't just be sloppily equated. The forbearance and patience required by the former are hardly comparable to the skill sets necessary to routinely achieve the latter. In fact most "pick-up artists" who seem to devote most of their time to it don't appear to find it easy, much less anything like what women can do simply by walking up to a stranger and requesting sex.

...and in terms of casual sex with strangers "courtship" functions mostly as a threat assessment tool.

See my link. Not true. It is an assessment tool all righty, but not for threat, for sexual value. Men just look at a woman and know her short term mate value, since it's almost all based on her physical attractiveness. But a much larger fraction of male short term mate value involves his status, creativity, social skills, dominance, etc, which requires the "genetic job interview" of courtship to screen the candidate.


My point remains: men have more real-world access to casual sex with strangers than do women

No, what you are saying is IF men behave a certain way that maximizes their ability, and IF women behave a certain way that doesn't, THEN men have more access. But in the two equal scenarios - Men and women behave as they do, and men and women both maximize their chances - women have more access to casual sex.

As to the former, studies show A) that women, on average, get just as much sex as they want (amount and partners), while men, on average, are getting far less than the amount of sex they want, and B) involuntary virgins are either completely or overwhelmingly men.

As to the latter, if men all used courtship to get casual sex and women all used the approach and request method to get casual sex (without hypothetical limits on their need to do so), men would have far more sex partners and WOMEN WOULD BE FUCKING CONSTANTLY. Perhaps many men could average a new sex partner every week like some current master pick up artists. Women could have as many men a day as they could ask and fuck.
posted by dgaicun at 3:11 PM on May 12, 2008

It's all a bit hypothetical anyway, isn't it dgaicun? I mean, elsewhere you've argued that the mode for lifetime sexual partners is actually one, and the mean or median (I forget which) is around three or four, and that once you adjust for different methodologies of counting (actuals v ballparks), men & women are thought to be pretty much similar in their tallies.

What a bunch of attractive American college students said they'd do back in 1978 is of vague interest, I guess, but far from conclusive, and not all that relevant to peoples' real life experience, as borne out by the other studies & figures that you've quoted previously.

(and out of interest, what's your dog in this fight, anyway? is it your area of research, or something?)
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:21 PM on May 12, 2008

So, UbuRoivas, instead of rolling your eyes and saying "that's meaningless" and "it's not scientific." Why don't you actually make some kind of assertion yourself. I mean, it was a basic hypothetical supposition based on personal anecodotal and empirical evidence. What is so hard to believe? That men can and will have meaningless sex on a much lower scale of standards? What is your disagreement?
posted by P.o.B. at 1:08 PM on May 14, 2008

well, in another thread recently i said that a typical 23yo guy would probably have sex with an orangutan if you smeared it with lipstick, so i'm a mass of contradictions.

it's just that dgaicun's quoted study is near irrelevant, because the experiment of going up to people at random & asking "will you go to bed with me?" is not how people in the real world operate. not men, not women, nobody. it proves absolutely fuck all, other than that people react differently to bizarre, once-in-a-lifetime approaches completely out of tune with normal reality.

maybe it's that - in seeking a model with which to evaluate the approach - men think "hey, this sounds like something out of a porno" whereas women think "hm, this never happened in a chick flick"
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:03 PM on May 14, 2008

the experiment of going up to people at random & asking "will you go to bed with me?" is not how people in the real world operate

Exactly. But the original statement "Women can get laid anytime they want." was what I think some of the people here where agreeing with. Not that women do get laid anytime they want.

Anyhoo, what people say, think, and do are often contradictory anyway...so in the end...meh.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:40 PM on May 14, 2008

Attractive American women of college age can apparently secure agreement for sex from college age guys simply by asking for it, 70% of the time. Let's not extrapolate too far from that finding. Older or less attractive women may not have it so easy.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:33 PM on May 14, 2008