Man thinks: "Woah!" Woman thinks: "Ew!" Science gives up the ghost.

I'm going to start a new scientific journal, along the lines of the Journal of Irreproducible Results, I'll call it "The Annals of Really Pathetic Research". To qualify for publication in the ARPR, a work will have to be declared as:

• no surprise to anyone,
• motivated by a poorly hidden agenda,
• clearly pandering to prejudice,
• fawning for funds,
• deliberately ignorant of well-known results,
• trying to stir up a hurricane in a teacup,
• so politically correct as to make your ears bleed
• a total waste of everyone's time
• or any combination thereof.

Take, for example, Professor Maurice J. Levesque's discovery that men like women more than women like men. Is anyone surprised, especially in this day and age?

Agenda? Apparently this "research" is motivated by a desire to "stop sexual harassment on the job and date rape", I think that covers agenda, pandering to prejudice and fawning for funds. He set out looking for men who tend to "over-sexualize" women. Now that has got to be a trait that is pretty much in the eye of the beholder, but no matter, he decided that this was the measure by which he was going to find the overly macho type whom he felt "was the only one who did this". "This" not being defined and we're left to wonder if he means "over-sexualize" women, harrass them, or date rape them. In the end, he found that being "macho" doesn't make a difference, apparently we're all leering, obnoxious fools.

His sample was a whole 43 men and 43 women (18 to 22 yrs). From this clearly representative sample of the entire human race, particularly us men, he learned that men were more likely to find the women sexy than were the women to find the men. I think that this may be what he means by "over-sexualize" But isn't there a logical alternative? Couldn't it be that women "under-sexualize" men? Or somewhere between the two? Of course not, that wouldn't be politically correct.

Professor-of-the-bleeding-obvious Levesque's investigations lead him to conclude: "If he found her to be physically attractive, he would tend to rate her as sexier." Somebody give the man a cigar.

He "doesn't know why all the men in the study seemed to over-sexualize women, but he speculated that 'it's got to be something about socialization, that men are being taught in some way to view women as sexual objects.'" Of course, it must be something about socialization, it couldn't be just that 18-22 yr old men are hornier than their female co-eds, could it? Some other professor isn't surprised (!), but waffles something about testosterone and oxytocin and something touchy-feely about how women's rating of sexiness has to do with emotions as well as acttractiveness.

Oh, this is hilarious.

Continuing in the obvious-to-any-sentient-being vein, Levesque recommends to men: "Don't think every women you meet is attracted to you." No? Really? And here was me thinking that anyone without a Y chromosone must be just about orgasmic at the idea of merely setting eyes upon me. Gosh, I've got some serious rethinking to do. Apparently, those who think they're the greatest stud to walk this earth should especially take note because, get this, you won't believe it, you'll be amazed, positively astounded: such men are even more likely to think the opposite sex drool over them as soon as look at them. And "That may not be the case, however." Naw! Really?!

Women, on the other hand, should keep in mind that some strange male they just spent 2 minutes talking to on the street is probably sizing them up for a bit of hot sweaty grunty rumpy-pumpy in the alley even as you think he's just moving on to the next pert piece of tail to whom he'll sell another newspaper. You can never be too careful, girls, you never know what a man can do...

Puh-lease.



Technorati Tags: science, gender differences, obvious