Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Demographics of inceldom: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Females decide over celibacy rates
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
====Females decide over celibacy rates==== | ====Females decide over celibacy rates==== | ||
Cohen and Shotland (1996) found a correlation between when people thought sex should start in a given relationship and when they actually began having sex, which was low for men (r = .19, n.s.), but very high for women (r = .88, p < .01), meaning only women decide when sex occurs.<ref>https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499609551846</ref> | |||
Further, in a 1989 peer-reviewed study that took place at Florida State University, 75% of men accepted random sex-invitations from random real-life women, whereas 0% of women accepted such offers.<ref>https://www.sciencefriday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/gender-differences-in-receptivity-to-sexual-offers.pdf.</ref> This combats the notion that men have choice in casual sex matters when they are not high-status, due to 0% of women accepting random-sex no-strings offers in a setting high in casual sex. That men have no choice in casual sex matters also makes overall celibacy rates seem to be mostly a product of women's choices than mens. The Florida study also showed both genders accept dates at a similar rate. That more women accept dates rather than direct-sex invitations suggest they use dates as a vetting mechanism, whereas men less so. | |||
There have been attempts to replicate this study in practice or theory, however all appear to have been non-naturalistic studies, unlike Hatfield and Clark, making them ultimately not interesting. They also vary in conclusions. There is agreement with Hatfield and Clark,<ref>https://interpersona.psychopen.eu/article/view/121/html</ref> while others point out the original study was about low-information sex invitations, or invitations where the man only disclosed they were human, or, "children of God", so to speak. IE they also hypothesize women will only accept casual sex invitations after vetting the social status or "sexual skill" of men, whereas men accept regardless, making women ultimately the [[sexual selector|sexual selectors]]. | There have been attempts to replicate this study in practice or theory, however all appear to have been non-naturalistic studies, unlike Hatfield and Clark, making them ultimately not interesting. They also vary in conclusions. There is agreement with Hatfield and Clark,<ref>https://interpersona.psychopen.eu/article/view/121/html</ref> while others point out the original study was about low-information sex invitations, or invitations where the man only disclosed they were human, or, "children of God", so to speak. IE they also hypothesize women will only accept casual sex invitations after vetting the social status or "sexual skill" of men, whereas men accept regardless, making women ultimately the [[sexual selector|sexual selectors]]. | ||
Baumeister summarized on the sex difference in sex drive: "Given the mismatch between men's and women's desires, most men are doomed to experience chronic sexual frustration. […] They are doomed to be horny."<ref>Baumeister & Tice, 2001</ref> | |||
These results ''strongly'' imply women are the gatekeepers of sex<ref>https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf</ref> and hence decide over celibacy rates. | |||
==Other countries== | ==Other countries== | ||