Part of the DNA of the PUA scene are the idea of the “bitch shields” and “shit tests” – that women are continually trying to weed out “the unworthy” by being dismissive, rude or trying to make men jump through their hoops.
Because these are “tests”, PUAs are encouraged to ignore them or fire back with something suitably “alpha” in order to pass; by doing so he is supposedly showing his social value is higher than hers and thus increasing her interest in him.
but hey, why let facts get in the way of closely held beliefs?
) However, a new study published in the journal Like Dr.
So let’s talk a little about what happens in a social situation.
The most significant find in Baranowski and Hecht’s study is how much their findings correspond with Terri Conley’s pleasure principle: women were less likely to be receptive to offers of casual sex because most of the time the sex wasn’t seen as being enjoyable enough to overcome the potential risks.
But despite its flaws and mistaken conclusions, it hangs in as part of the accepted wisdom of gender relations.
Of course, this is in a laboratory setting, which by its nature is going to affect the answers.A woman’s response of “I have a boyfriend”, for example is taken as a challenge rather than as as soft no; PUAs are supposed to assume that this boyfriend is a fake and will mysteriously disappear when he’s demonstrated his higher value.In practice what happens is that you end up getting men who are demonstrating that they are poorly socially calibrated and uncomfortably aggressive – suggesting that not only are they going to be shit in bed, but they’re potentially dangerous.Why put yourself through the joy of being mocked by someone who’s shaming you for the things they want you to do to But what if you could take the risk of social opprobrium, judgement and risk out of the mix?How much would women’s responses to offers of casual sex change if their safety were guaranteed and nobody would find out?Interestingly, the results were almost women were refusing casual sex.