Hi! You need to Login or Create an Account to see all the article content on this page

Some men are naturals - the rest of us need to work at it!

Some men are naturals – the rest of us need to work at it!

Research conducted in 2008 by Dr. Coreen Farris of Indiana University shows that men just don’t get it when it comes to sexual signals. Her study had an initial group of both males and females rate images based on four categories (called affect groupings): friendly, sexually interested, sad, or rejecting. From that sample they chose an additional set of eighty men and eighty women to rate the final images into affect groupings once again. A photo was kept if the majority of men and women categorized the picture into the same affect group. The results showed some interesting findings. Men not only mistook non-sexual cues for sexual cues, but they also mistook the sexual cues as non-sexual.

The confusion men have when rating women’s nonverbal sexual signals probably has everything to do with the fact that men have twenty times more testosterone than women and so their perception of the world is viewed through ‘sex-coloured-glasses’. In terms of evolution and efficacy of spreading their seed, this makes sense, even though at times it can lead to unwanted or embarrassing confusion. Because of men’s inability to read cues properly, this chapter is heavily aimed identifying cues that will help men read the signals more precisely. The subtext of the chapter though, is aimed squarely on women to turn them into better deliverers of their true intent so as to avoid unwanted solicitation. In other words, women carry a clear fifty percent share of the fault when it comes to poor courtship cues, as are men in reading them. If women can improve the clearness of their signals, men can, and will respond more appropriately. When it comes to men, a precise, direct signal is best.