Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Demographics of inceldom: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Women decide over celibacy rates
| Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
{{see_also|[[Briffault's law]] and [[Hypergamy]]}} | {{see_also|[[Briffault's law]] and [[Hypergamy]]}} | ||
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> | 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 [[sexual selector|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. | 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. | ||