November 05, 2004

The Coolidge Effect .
posted by wtfwjd? 20 years ago
  • hmmm...so who wants to be the first (female) monkey to report on the seeming veracity of this theory amongst...um, higher primates?? not that I have anything to contribute (don't tell my husband!!)
  • I love how they take the sexual habits of a rat and then try to apply them to homo sapiens. On another note, maybe the rat was in dire need of some viagra ... heh
  • I don't know how much data went into that graph, but it was interesting how the "boredom curve" ramped up after the 2nd encounter rather than the 1st.
  • I'm still trying to figure out where that graph came from. Is this the rats, the sheep or just something he made up? I smell bad science.
  • An intriguing introduction to this excerpt: The book has the distinction of being one of the items impounded by Dutch police when they raided my home in the centre of Amsterdam in August 1995.
  • Ah there it is. Nevermind. The issue still stands of trying to apply what is known about sheep and rats to human beings among other things.
  • It's also mentioned in the book I'm currently reading, The Evolution of Desire - Strategies of Human Mating by David M. Buss. Actually, beeza, in Buss' book the data came from a large study of interviews and questionaires encompassing some 10,000 people in many countries and from various walks of life, worldwide. The male and female responses were pretty consistent (with regards to this) with the common theme for male fantasies being the number of accessable females (one respondent in the book, male, of the question of his fantasy: "being the mayor of a small town filled with nude girls from 20 to 24. I like to take walks, and pick out the best-looking one that day, and she engages in intercourse with me. All the women have sex with me any time I want.") Whereas, the women "emphasize tenderness, romance, and personal involvement in their sexual fantasies..." with a monagamous partner. Also interesting to note (from the study), was that "...fifty-nine percent of American women fantasized about their existing partners, but only 28 percent of American men report that their sexual fantasies focus on someone with whom they are already romantically and sexually involved..." These hairless monkeys, they have some interesting mating strategies, indeed.
  • In my fantasy, I run for mayor of the small town filled with nude girls from 20 to 24, but end up losing on the issue of sanitation reform. Go figure.
  • Aw, rats! They don't eat, don't sleep They don't feed, they don't seethe Bare their gums when they moan and squeak Lick the dirt off a larger one's feet They don't push, don't crowd Congregate until they're much too loud Fuck to procreate till they are dead Drink the blood if it's upon this bread They don't scurry when something bigger comes their way Don't pack themselves together and run as one Don't shit where they're not supposed to Don't take what's not theirs, they don't compare They don't scam, don't fight Don't oppress an equal given their rights Starve the poor so they can be well fed Line their holes with the dead ones' bread They don't scurry when something bigger comes their way Don't pack themselves together and run as one Don't shit where they're not supposed to Don't take what's not theirs, they don't compare...
  • Problem for me is that anytime you come up with a study using animals to back up your hypothesis is it is invariable wrong. We are not rats, rats are not humans - it is a strawman argument that doesn't prove anything other than proving the behaviour of a rat and when introduced as part of a larger argument I tend to discount it. As for statistics, I view it this way; There are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics. They don't mean much and can be (and often are) manipulated to prove a particular point of view or theory. I fall outside that 'statistical norm' for that study and am sure there are other women out there who do as well, same with men. Saying 10,000 people out of a possible 6,398,00,000 proves the point seems a little outlandish to me. On the other hand he may have proved 10,000 people think this way.
  • One of me is enough for all of you.
  • No blame attaches to the Greek god Zeus, for always stepping into other men's shoes, always coming on as a shower of gold or a swan or a white bull inviting the girls to climb on. The amazing thing was the way girls kept falling for it, until you realize if they didn't they'd be turned into something horrid.
  • No blame attaches to the Greek god Zeus, for always stepping into other men's shoes, always coming on as a shower of gold or a swan or a white bull inviting the girls to climb on. The amazing thing was the way girls kept falling for it, until you realize if they didn't they'd be turned into something horrid.
  • Redundant! Thought I only posted this once. Sorry.
  • The dubious statistics, the studies 'cited' and methodology of the piece is rather irrelevant to me, considering it's age and the source. I was more enchanted by this "Coolidge Effect" to bother with the rest as a cause for mental, activity. It seems that, to my recall, this could be held as valid for a lot of individuals and population groups, I have encountered in my decades of dealing with many people. I thought it would apply quite naturally to any relationship, in some variance and form. I can recall far too many encounters that left me without interest, within minutes.
  • So can we then extrapolate from this and assume marriage is a rat trap?
  • Quick observation: most articles in scientific journals I've read do not have graphics of a cheerleader lifting one leg to suggestively show her panties. Just sayin'. That said, a majority of the gay men I know seem to go after sex with many different partners. Monogamy or "commitment" seems more of a trait among the lesbians I know, even through what is termed in the community "bed death". Same-sex relationships might be a good pointer to gender-based behavior analysis.
  • finally! a motto for our upcoming t-shirts! MonkeyFilter: Attempts to disguise an old partner by covering her face and body or masking her vaginal odours with other smells are usually unsuccessful.
  • Men want sexual variety? Ok, I buy that. More than women do? Not very compelling evidence presented, but it doesn't seem unreasonable. Women only want monogamy and men only want variety? Nope, that's pretty far-fetched. There's quite a bit of social pressure on women to say they want monogamy, and not nearly as much pressure on men to say the same. So, I think their data is skewed by social constraints.
  • Women only want monogamy and men only want variety? Nope, that's pretty far-fetched. From the standpoint of the genetic constituency of the offspring, it can make sense, in context. When clearly some of human behavior is programmed by our genes, it makes sense to explore this question.
  • Evidently partner variety is of greater interest to men than to women, and this difference is reliable and enduring. Keeps me in business - and, it being the world's oldest profession, I think the theory is dead-on. You know what? Nobody has ever said, "You know, the wife just doesn't understand me", but I have been told innumerable times, "Thank God there's girls like you; otherwise I'd be getting a divorce, and I don't want one. I love my wife, but we just don't have sex anymore/she's the only woman I've ever slept with." In other words, sex and love are different, and, I feel, it's easier for men to separate the two.
  • I think moneyjane nailed it.