It's sad when people ignore the fact that we are basically bald apes. This is like the PETA folks who bitch when researchers measure Bonobo penis size.
Could women that are ovulating be more attractive than non-ovulating women? Sure. Why not? Doesn't seem like unreasonable research.
so should riding the red tide come with a discount?
Hmmm. I can see the scientific implications - that in fact, one's ovulation status sends biochemical signals to nearby men - OR that it induces behavioral changes in women that cause them to behave differently to men.
But one wonders if this is the best research method.
jesus, there are so many uncontrollable variables at play here - not the least of which is the fact that it might be a little more difficult/uncomfortable for a woman to swing from a stripper pole when she's retaining 5 extra pounds of water and has a cotton ball shoved up her snatch. it's a bit of a stretch to say this is "direct evidence" for human estrus.
That's some fine researchin' there, boys.
What, who doesn't get a red rump at estrus? Are you with me, ladies?
yay for estrus!
i think we need more research like this - if only to counter the prudes who think you can control biology with jesus.
You leave me out of this.
If anyone wants to read the actual article, it's linked here. I read it -- it's interesting but definitely just an initial study (eg, only 11 participants who weren't on birth control pills).
The discussion section in the article is ridiculously sexist and unsupported, though. Their theory is that women evolved to extract wealth from men when they weren't fertile, but men outsmarted them during evolution and now can secretly detect when women are ovulating and thus pay them more money for lap dances during that time. Basically, women evolved to be whores and men evolved to outsmart them. Guess what sex every single one of the authors is.
The book The Myth of Monogamy goes into the question of secret ovulation from a games theory standpoint.
11 people is not a study.
Interesting. I love the "animal" aspects of human social dynamics and communication.
- from the East Carolina U. Website: "Pheromones come from skin glands, kidneys, reproductive accessory glands, the vagina, intestines, urethras, and probably other glands as well. Many are produced by the anaerobic fermentation of pouched substances."
I remember being fascinated as a kid on hearing a story that packed stands at soccer stadiums had men urinating in the stands out of (in)convience and that there was an attribution of increased fighting among men to an androgen-dependent urinary pheromone.
It'd be dumb to deny biology and behavior are intertwined, but strippers earn more money on payday, probably in the middle of the month between bills. If that loosely coincides with the cycles of 11 women, chances are...
Obvious explanation: Strippers who aren't PMSing are happier, or at least less irritable, and thus more capable of laying on the charm and parting fools from their money.
@9 Jamier...you are an idiot. You did not read the article or did not understand it. Which is worse? Deal with your own gender issues.
From the discussion:
"As in so many coevolutionary arms races between the sexes (Arnqvist & Rowe, 2005), this outcome is not a clear victory for either sex."
There are wonderful critiques of sexism in science and in particular, evolutionary psychology/sociobiology. Due your fucking homework, instead of spouting some ignorant bullshit that says more about your own issues.
"Do" not Due..
“Basically, women evolved to be whores and men evolved to outsmart them.”
They needed to conduct research to determine this? I’d figured this out by my sophomore year in high school… (It’s as indisputable and obvious as global warming.)
cw @15, your angry response suggests that you've got your own issues.
The language the researchers use to situate this study--no "clear victory" in the "coevolutionary arms races between the sexes"--definitely deserves to be critiqued.
If you can't see that, then you've got some homework to do, too.
Irena, I guess I do have some issues. I don't like it when someone willfully attacks an article without reading it.
"clear victory" and "co-evolutionary arms races between the sexes" are accepted terms for understanding behavioral research in an evolutionary context. Does that language have a clear gender bias? We could go on and on discussing definitions, but it would be hard to do so via e-mail...so I will stop. It's a complicated issue and warrants thoughtful reading of the article which I would maintain Jamier failed to do.
Check out this book or more recent works if you want to know where I stand on the issue of gender bias in research.
Gowaty, Patricia A. 1997. (ed.) Feminism and Evolutionary Biology.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).