Typically Page - entertaining, light-hearted, and humourously dry slant on the barmy world we live in!
Keep it up!
In today's pseudoscience news, the quality press is alive with the findings by UK psych researchers that people can fairly reliably tell how slutty someone is merely by looking at a picture of their face. Psychologists at several UK universities teamed up on the research, which will plainly lead in short order to the betterment …
Typically Page - entertaining, light-hearted, and humourously dry slant on the barmy world we live in!
Keep it up!
It's always been this way with some girls. You just look at 'em and you can tell she's a goer. There's nothing new here.
Paris, 'cause you can tell, just by looking.
PS. I can just here the new favourite defence in harrasment cases: She was asking for it your honour, JUST LOOK AT HER!!
<<<This is what I look like. who wants my phone number ? ?
This a far better report than the Grauniad had of the same story.
Lewis Page, I salute you, sir!
So the guys who get lots of sex are in fact not getting lots of sex because women are not attracted to them, but the guys who don't get any sex actually get lots of sex because women find that more alluring.
Or is it the other way around.
My head hurts.
Paris doesn't mind either way.
is some kind of facebook add-in thing which will automatically guage and make available ALL individuals 'sluttiness' ratings, list them all in order of sluttiness, then proximity to whoever is searching, and perhaps an instant map print out with directions to their house, providing they've clicked a button and accepted your request for a bit of a beasting. Maybe you could also be matched by the STDs you share too
thank you el reg, and its not even friday...
I think that the 'real' issue is the lack of diversification between 'would you have a shag with this person' and 'would you wish to have this person as a life partner. Then again as this appears to be a UK specific piece of 'research' we may look at other sex related research. Honest responses - fun... This needs a culturally grounded analysis which would require the researchers to go far beyond reasoning about questionaires... UK is not exactly world famous for being inhabited by people who have a straight forward and open relationship to their own personal sexuality. Selfdelusional would be quite appropriate I think For example according to research presented by Durex UK partners speak less with each other about sex than partners in many other countries. I live in the UK and while we may not be good at sex education, or sex talk, or even being honest to ourselves about our sexuality - we are quite good at being excentric....
"Comfort, then, for any chaps out there who don't look very studly and don't get much action - it seems women are much more attracted to your type. Even if they sometimes have an odd way of showing it."
That was good indeed!
They are so attracted by such types that they don't want to spoil their attractiveness...
Is this the future of British education then ?
A PhD in Slapper-spotting ?
"women don't fancy studs who get lots of sex"
Good news for me then!
...and I reckon she might.
Typical answer = Every female face means SEX!
...is the slut scanner going to be available? Preferably in unobtrusive, disguised as sunglasses form?
...and somehow it's good to know, despite empirical evidence, that I am more attractive than than guy whose getting some.
Oh, so that is where I went wrong.
he who's a stud doesn't screw around
he who doesn't screw around doesn't sin
he who doesn't sin goes to heaven
so let us all be studly and go to heaven.
Err, make that, let us all be ugly and be in heaven.
Bill: because I bet he's in heaven as we speak.
Unfortunately, this kind of research often ends up in waffle - eg : women prefer men who look after their children, because that's adaptive. We actually have no idea.
Maybe women prefer to sleep with men who look 'manly' (and thus likely to sleep around) but settle down with men that are nurturing. Maybe men say they like 'easy' women, but when it comes to the crunch, they don't.
As the Reg points out - what this proves is the correlation between faces and what people will admit on a questionnaire, nothing more.
Dr Boothroyd looks pretty filthy herself.
I looked as well.
I reckon the words "Barn Door" and "Hurricane" would appear in the same sentence.
Considering that a similar study was carried out 2 or so years back. Go ahead, check the Discover archives, I get that as my nightly read along with the usual every month. (Although astrology bores the heck outta me, to be truthful.)
Mind you, if they did comparisons of geeks and Average Joes, where you controlled how much info of the individuals you give to the choosy contestants... now that'd be groundbreaking.
72% guessed which women were sluts? Surely it's just that 72% realised which wouldn't get any as they'd been liberally beaten with the ugly stick?
One would have thought that the logical conclusion about this is:
1) People who have lots of sex, probably do so because lots of people want to have sex with them.
2) People who have little sex, probably do so because most people don't want to have sex with them.
Taking that as a starting point, I would have thought that much more appropriate sets of conclusions could either be:
1) Men lie more than women about how much they have sex.
2) Women lie more than men about who they want to sleep with.
Personally I would probably argue that both are true. Men who aren't getting it are quite likely (especially students) to lie about getting it. And women won't admit to liking the slutty ones because it will increase their chance of being labeled as being easy/slutty themselves.
Yup, James has the right of it - it simply doesn't add up.
Take me, for instance - I'm an old geeezer, I look like shit, I dress like a tramp, I leer and drool, I'm a lousy lay and I'm hung like a dormouse yet seemingly-sane middle-aged women are falling over themselves to get my trousers off (except the wife, of course). My handsome young neighbour, by contrast, lives on hand-jobs. There's no justice!
Lewis, congratulations on your witty take on what is no more than meretricious quasi-psychology.
As for the photo of Dr Lynda Boothroyd (linked to from the story), it tells me that the woman is obviously a sex-mad nympho with a penchant for the most disgusting practices. Or a priggish prim sexually abstinent pillar of virtue. Or somewhere in between.
Hmm, a bit more research to determine the features which indicate sluttiness, some modified facial recognition software and a bit of CURL programming to write a simple MySpace/Facebook spider and I'd up my chances by at least 54%!
Of course, I could always just talk to a girl. In real life.
The previous media science study showed women sleep with the studs and then look for the nice guy to take care of the kids as they & kids get older.
Something reflected in todays society as the old style marrige has been removed, a more natural approach than the one in this article.
Is there any other kind?
Genetically, men and women are programmed with different attitudes to sex.
Manly men will sleep with as many women as possible to produce the greatest number of children, and don't care what happens after that. The less manly men will settle down with a women to raise a few children very well.
Women are much more single minded. They want to sleep with the manly men, to get the best survival (and reproductive) genes. But they will only have a relationship with the less manly men, because they are much more likely to stick around and raise the kids (although they might not be his). This was first observed in other primates, but also found to be true with humans. Modern human society trains people to be more socially responsible so it is less common amongst those who are brought up as well functioning members of society, but it is pretty obvious amongst chavs who can't give a stuff about anybody.
Dr. B seems to be the shy retiring type as her photo cannot be found.
BTW. I vaguely remember from years ago there was some research that suggested that a small number of super slutty women slept with vast numbers of moderately slutty blokes; said blokes doing nothing much above the average whereas the stakhonovite heroines were well out of the long tail of the distribution.
Anyhow, anyone got any good chat up lines for a ageing nerd?
An anonymous questionnaire. With your photo on it. Is it just me or does that not quite add up?
Those researchers need to bone up on ladder theory:
Paris seems to be missing a ladder (can you guess which?)
Just a slight clarification, humans are primates.
Quote: "Dr. B seems to be the shy retiring type as her photo cannot be found."
Still works for me at the URL below - go and enjoy a leer, Nick ;)
I haven't laughed so hard in all my life. What a way to start Thursday. Cheers El Reg. Just what we need.
Paris, because it's bleedin obvious.
It all depends when during the month the women were asked.
We're only interested a few days, any other time we prefer chocolate,
hence why we prefer caring men for a relationship, they buy us chocolate, but manly men for sex, though another woman is better.
What I have I been doing wrong all these years, getting laid regularly and keeping a steady partner inbetween, I must be hidious looking and throw/run like a girl.
It's fine, it's filtered through Phorm technology, the photo is replaced by a numerical value.....
The research assumes that the sexual behaviour of students is mirrored across the rest of the population.
Bit of an assumption that.......fortunately for us more mature yet studly types
Paris.....because 99% of students would crawl over broken glass just to look up her skirt....while the more discerning bloke knows trouble when he sees it.
Can you tell how many partners they've had by counting their warts?
> BTW. I vaguely remember from years ago there was some research that suggested that a small number of super slutty women slept with vast numbers of moderately slutty blokes;
And so sexism was perpetuated for another generation. It was never true. Both sexes were liars. The objective proof started coming in the mid 80s when preliminary DNA studies indicated that 27% of UK children could not be genetically related to their official fathers. The boffins have since reduced that number to the 10-15% level, but the pilot results were so shocking that Thatcher killed further research. Not sure why - can't image 15 million Britons marching on 10 Downing St for her head on a plate over this. As she was fecking the miners at the time I suppose she didn't want the miners wives declaring war on her as well.
On a point of pedantry, DNA studies indicate that all living things on Earth are genetically related as they use the same genetic code.
As for children's biological fathers not being the same as their "official fathers", I'm not sure what "official father" means here. Perhaps it means the name on the birth certificate. If I recall correctly, that field is optional and no attempt is made to verify the information given, so you could write "Mickey Mouse" or "Julius Caesar" on the form, if you like. In the past, it was quite common to write "J. Smith". As I understand it, if you are a man in a relationship with the woman then it's not a bad idea to put your own name down as father even if you're not. That way you get the rights of a father, and if you ever decide you don't want the duties, you just claim you were deceived. And it's easier for the child, too, if it thinks it has a real father.
I'll look at the social networking sites like facebook and http://socialbang.com more closely from now on
The first is one thing.
the second is the opposite.
Glad to see the current state of research is up on this.
Yes !! Have a look at the ex-Aeroflot Air hostesses !! Or, better yet, DON'T !!
...until the CSA (Child Support Agency) brigade gets on to you. They'll take you to the cleaners and THEN wring out what's left for any excuse at all !!