Men are still clueless, study shows

Usually, you can count on the more idiotic news sources to prattle on about this kind of garbage, but this morning brings us the following from the CBC:

Researchers in Britain tested a series of scenarios in a model courtship game. They aimed to find the best way to impress a female mate.

Because, apparently, women are the limiting factor in all sexual relations, and damn if science can't figure out some neato efficient way to make us spread our legs just a little more often. 

And guess what the study showed?

Wining and dining a woman is the best way to win her hand, according to a mathematical model that defines what makes an effective gift during courtship.

Among humans, offers of expensive gifts show a man is committed but he risks being exploited by gold-diggers, the team said. Another factor to consider is females won't be impressed by cheap gifts.

No.  We like expensive gifts, like silver platters with men's heads on them, or penises dipped in chocolate and served with Dom Perignon.  Oh, and being called gold-diggers.  That really gets us a-breedin'. 

"By offering expensive but worthless gifts, such as dinner and theatre trips, the male pays no cost if the invitation isn't accepted," said Peter Sozou of University College London's Centre for Mathematics and Physics in Life Science.

Women who aren't interested will likely turn down the invitation.

Good call, Mr. Science!  Does this have something to do with the male entitlement complex that views "dinner = sex", do you figure?

Females are generally drawn to attractive males who will help raise the children. An unattractive male who literally leaves her holding the baby alone is the worst-case scenario, the researchers noted.

Actually, I'd say the worst-case scenario would be systemic belittlement of our gender's sexual, emotional and evolutionary needs by bad science determined to enforce patriarchal values. 

The team also modeled courtship in species where the males do not help with raising young.

In that case, the main factor for a female is whether she's in a sexually receptive state and the male looks healthy. Gifts are one way the male can signal this condition, according to the researchers.

So let me get this straight: there is a correlative factor between men not sticking around and women who are "sexually receptive" and accept gifts.  "She made me leave, your honour!  After I slept with her, I offered her a cigarette, and SHE TOOK IT!  Everybody knows what that means!"

Thank you ever so much, The Royal Society.   Perhaps now you can do a study on how to enable men to better succeed at autofellatio.

Comments

[Chameleon]

What a brilliant post! Your comments on the fatuous nonsense public money has been squandered on hit the proverbial nail on the head and brought a smile to my face, particularly the parting shot. Imagine the Royal Society lending its reputation to this tripe.

[lazlo pink]

i'm not sure what makes me more sad, that women are reduced to commodity points or that we poor hapless men are still eternally dumb enough to imagine that we can understand women by offering them presents. what i have learned is that humans require food in order to keep bothering me with advertising and studies sponsored by royal societies, thus will likely accept free food. i have also learned that humans are related to crows and enjoy shiny things, covet shiny things and will even steal shiny things given an opportunity. thus, many humans will accept gifts of shiny things. i can also intuit that seeking dating advice from royal societies is a sure bet for a lonely and prolonged adolescent slump. as a single, celibate and profeminist male, i have learned that "women" constitute a large and diverse group of humans with wildly varying needs, interests and desires. of all the things i have learned, perhaps most important is that in order to get along, romantically or otherwise, humans fare much better by engaging in communications that ascertain common interests. like will meet like, if you like. however neither misogyny nor misandry (if i have the correct term) are attractive traits. while we still, as a class, may be clueless, there is little in the way of a positive clue supply to remedy that sad state. while there is no shortage of literature detailing what is wrong with we poor bepenised fools, there are few voices raised to bring us into the fold of new social paradigms. there is a tangible sense among many men, that we have been left behind. that is, we've accepted that we need to change but we are now looking for help in realizing that change. there will always be stupid men, angry men, greedy men, abusive men and other kinds of men but for those of us that are eager to see positive shifts in our world toward inclusion and equality, well, no one is really addressing us. after all, men as reduced to a singlular mass of stupid grunts, drunk on testosterone, is as incorrect as viewing women as a mass of potentially receptive sexual gift recipients. perhaps such sage advice exists, i just don't know quite where to find it. imagine that, a man asking directions.

[Jeannie]

Thank you! I read that article on CBC today too, and your reply was fantastic!!

(Coming out of a short time of lurking to say hi! I like your blog!)

[Buridan]

Oh come on. Can't you see the humor in this? We're talking about mathematician and physicist geeks trying to figure out how to pick up women through mathematical modeling. That's too easy of mark.

[Dave in CA]

Hey, wait 'til the biochemists come out with their new pheromone cologne! There won't be any wining and dining or gift-giveing. Just hot orgies everywhere.

[Nuclear Beaver]

I love you. You are brilliant.