Just seeing if stats on this forum back up something I read elsewhere. The hypothetical scenario is this: "An attractive stranger offers to have sex with you for one night, with no strings attached. Would you take up his or her offer?" For clarity, by "no strings", I mean there would be no adverse consequences apart from any possible moral or other misgivings you might personally have. In other words, in this hypothetical situation, if you have a partner already, assume they would not be upset if you took up the offer. Also assume nobody would criticise you for taking it up if you chose. Finally, assume that this is a one-off offer, after which your life would go on as normal, with no obligation arising to the offeror. Assume also that the stranger is of the sex you are normally attracted to. You might like to speculate on what you think the outcome of the poll will be, and, more importantly, why. This is posted in the "Human Science" forum. The science part will follow a little later.
With a partner already at hand - No Without - Your place or mine baby? Ofcourse this situation only exists in dreams as there are always strings attached one way or another.
hypertheticly speaking i think the response will be 50-50 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! in reality the response would be hard to derive as it seems women lie more about sex than men in such situations and men tend to over state their enthusiasim as is the stereotypical sociatal frame of the situations... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I've had it happen! I was doing a bet that a men would fuck anyone that asked and that a girl would not, so she asked me and sat on my lap… I was very embarrassed, I don’t think I would have done it if I was not trying to prove my point, sadly though she back down, oh that and we were in a high school class room don't think it would have worked Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
in reality if your freinds were going to find out.. then the numbers of answers would be swayed by gender quite alot i think men claim to women claim not to publicly i have often wondered if the number of women claiming to have not had sex with a 'greater number' of men is equal to the amount of men who claim they have had sex with women that they actualy have not had sex with Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Fetus Something similar happened to me once. I reacted basically the same way, and the results were pretty much the same as yours. The girl's a friend of mine, was then and is now, she's pretty flirtatious but she never went as far with me as she did then, so I wasn't exactly sure that she was serious. Hypothetically I'd say yes but I don't think I can really know unless it really happens. In our civilization this type of thing, that is, an attractive person just asking you for sex out of the blue, is not a common [enough] occurence.
women get aproached by men they do not know and asked to have sex with them (in bars) homosexual men are also approached by other homosexual men and asked to have sex (in gay bars) what does not realy happen is a women approaching a man who she does not know and asking to have sex with him the all important aspect that most overlook is that it is posed as a question from someone you do not know! and when that comes to women making the first move LOL not likely long way to go before society gets that evolved (note it is for a one off casual sexual encounter.. not a gold digging enterprise) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hmm... not too many responses so far, but... Evolutionary psychology (that's the "EP" part of the thread title) predicts that men will tend to accept this type of offer, while women are more likely to decline. The reason is that the best reproductive strategy for males is to mate with as many females as possible, thus distributing their sperm widely. However, females need to be picky in choosing their mates, due to the time and energy required to gestate and raise their children. Hence, for males, an offer of no-strings sex is attractive, whereas for females it is pretty much always available and so no big deal. This is a generalisation, and obviously does not apply to every individual.
James R Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! what women were you trying to not offend ? quote whereas for females it is pretty much always available and so no big deal. --- to stay inline with your hypothesis it should be... women will refuse an offer of no strings attached sex because they must have protection and support during the gestation and raising process of the reproductive cycle however it is obviousely very true that in this age women have in genral the availible resources to support themselfs without the requirement of the male to support them it just does not sit well with some who act in a hypocritical manner and and play both sides of the evolutionary concept aside from the obviouse widespread distribution of those who seek money or social status in its place as a stage in their own evolutionary process as all things go through such things are in both genders Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ripleofdeath: If I have offended anybody, I apologise; any offence is unintended. <i>to stay inline with your hypothesis it should be... women will refuse an offer of no strings attached sex because they must have protection and support during the gestation and raising process of the reproductive cycle</i> That's part of what I was talking about. <i>however it is obviousely very true that in this age women have in genral the availible resources to support themselfs without the requirement of the male to support them</i> Single parenting tends to be more of a struggle than dual parenting, I think. Also, what you have said only really applies in first-world countries. However, even if what you have said is totally true, it doesn't affect the basic argument above. <i>it just does not sit well with some who act in a hypocritical manner and and play both sides of the evolutionary concept aside from the obviouse widespread distribution of those who seek money or social status in its place as a stage in their own evolutionary process as all things go through such things are in both genders</i> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you please explain in more detail what you find hypocritical about the position taken by the evolutionary psychologists?
I'm not intelligent enough to get too deep into the EP facet of this conversation, but I'll just say that I'll decline that offer. I'm male...and sex with a complete stranger just doesn't seem desirable to me... But maybe I'm just picky. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Really hard to answer james. I dont really see how a complete stranger could be attractive. You gotta get to know someone a bit to want to have sex with them dont you? Or even to know they attract u? I suppose if there was such a thing as love at first sight and immediate chemistry bewtyeen people and i could imagine myself unmarried then i might say yes. Instinct is very powerful. But even so i think i might well feel negative repercussions because i would be unlikely to want just once with someone i found attractive. So that could make me say no. Mayeb it might depend on the strength of the attractiona nd the likelihood i placed on him being still around in the morning. And if he talked to me like he liked me as a person. I'm female. I think what i said probably supports your theory stuff.
It depends how attractive the woman was. Which gives me a thought.... If you are a ("alpha") guy, a male who's genes are rated highly by females, would you have sex with an obese, fat women of poor genetic stock if she propositioned you on the street, "no strings attached"? I would say "no". I would suggest common sense says "no". I might propose that the statistics would say "no". Brad Pitt wouldn't shag Oprah (yes Oprah is attractive. no he wouldn't have sex with her, would he?). Most "hot-rated" men would prefer to wait for a better model of female to come along than fire of a round of genetic bullets into the womb of any hedge-bedraggled female. Where no better models are available EVER, one might imagine a good proportion of those alpha males would still refuse the offer for a good while, if for ever. This suggests some males are willing to voluntarially withdraw from mating - will withhold their genes - in order not to "dilute" their genes in a mix with an inferior set of chromosomes. Just like females do, and which leads to the EP prediction that they would respond, on average negatively to the above question. Given the time/energy/health (sex-traded diseases) saved from abstaining from sex, why is the "men bang everything on offer" model so frequently cited? Men might be shown to have instincts against going "too low" if it were shown men can be significantly less turned on by some females compared to others that they are physically unable, or have difficulty, mating with them. Has such a study been done? What is known about female mating standards? What is known about male mating standards? We all assume nature has given women standards. Has nature given men standards too?
ele: I think your response would indeed be very common among women. Candide: You've made some very good points. Of course, my basic scenario here is simplistic. It asks a simple question, stripped of many real-world complexities which affect people's decisions. In reality, it is impossible to separate many other factors in the decision process. So, I guess this thread aims mainly to get a feel for whether the EPers are on the right track or not. Disclaimer: I'm not a die-hard EP proponent myself, and I'm in no way claiming that a decision either way here would be "right" or "wrong" for any person, male or female, whatever they decided. I occasionally start these kinds of threads just to see what grows out of the discussion - maybe because I haven't considered the matter in too much depth myself, and I want to get a few other points of view. It is always interesting to hear other points of view.
James R i was making a joke in regard to, "you trying to 'not' offend any females" ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! i get the impresion you did not follow my line of theory as a correllative prerequesit to the conceptualisation of such thought processes being enganged to answer a question like this regardless of the reality of the situation anywho... what is sex is, a fairly rellevant question to pose as a base for the interpretation of the data as is often the case the quality of the data is of little importance if the interpretation is flawed or the interpreter is biggotted/pre-disposed to an inferance without self analysis skills Candide you raise a good point Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! however it is not one that is welcomed by popular opinion, so unlikely to be identified easily and more likely to be placed in the realms of mental illness rather than any form of correlation to the similar trait in females in females it is part of nurture STRONGLY reinforced from an early age prior to sexual activety with a heavy leaning on ability to produce money and hold social status girls start playing with dolls that represent the best mating styreo types prior to puberty with reinforcement from the parents of the importance of these factors in males it is only part of nature and is reinforced by superficial/fashionable looks rather than any concept of quality genes a couple of things would need to be added that would include making it immpossible for the female to get pregnant and including that the person was a look alike to who the questionee was most attracted to although i guess things like that are often outside the ability to think of in real terms becuase it is soo incredibly unlikely to happen so people have no experience of how they would act and what potential choices they may make in that specific situation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
JamesJ, "Disclaimer: I'm not a die-hard EP proponent myself" EP reveals human nature and we shouldn't be ashamed to admit what it says about ourselves. Sure, turning the microscope on ourselves will never explain all human behaviour, every minute of the day, but explanation of human behaviour would not exist without it - EP's an invisible scaffolding that holds up - perhaps back - human culture. ripleofdeath, "however it is not one that is welcomed by popular opinion, so unlikely to be identified easily and more likely to be placed in the realms of mental illness rather than any form of correlation to the similar trait in females" when you get the video of Oprah bouncing over Brad Pitt like a student riding drunk on a spacehopper post us the news here. we could do with the insight (but not the video... thanks) as it might provide some evidence for the claim alpha males would daisycut any old bearded lady that might beckon them into a back alley. Yeah, right, and pigs fly. Like women, men go for the attractive model first and are prepared to decline short term offers for a better long term pay off. It is true women see attractiveness through the glasses of status as a guide to resources, men through the glasses of physical beauty as a guide to fertility. However, vice versa is also true. A male would be highly interested in one-off "screwing" a Chelsea Clinton type with her OWN status and resources (to bring up his "silver spoon" gene-machine at no expense to himself) and a women of means would be interested in one-off "screwing" a Governator lookalike down a back alley (on the logic without need for resources or status, a women will accept beautiful-genes if handed on a plate, to complete the package). Men and women can play the same mating game at different times. Although, on average, I would agree men are more likely to accept "lower standards", and short term offers over nothing at all. Oh, it is not "mental illness" that causes a female/male to turn down a another's affections (although it might be to turn down you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! i don't know), it happens all the time in the real world, and it's explanation is that the other's biological/social make-up doesn't stimulate the female/male's sexual mechanisms sufficiently. Those peripatetic information-lumps who can't do that are silently eliminated from the gene-pool, over evolutionary time. Unless, of course, they resort to physical aggression - but the evolutionary basis of rape's far too controversial a subject for this thread.
Present Alcohol consumption and the general ongoings of the day lend a big hand in the final decision. Some of us are quite lusid and accepting under the influence.
