This rather neatly puts a stake in the heart of many of the evo-psych arguments about who’s biologically programmed to want sex; as soon as the social and safety factors are eliminated, the difference in interest for casual sex is negligible.Of course, this is in a laboratory setting, which by its nature is going to affect the answers.
Many PUAs who practice day game – that is, making cold approaches during the day in public venues instead of at night in a bar or club – will physically impose themselves in front of a woman in order to make her stop to talk to them and do a little dance to keep her from walking away.
Others will consciously ignore soft no’s and refusals in the name of getting a woman’s number.
Baranowski and Hecht repeated the study with a minor change – adjusting the location from a college campus to the more socially correct nightclub.
By all reasonable measurements, this should have affected the results – after all, nightclubs and bars are locations where the social contract encourages approaching strangers and looking to hook up for the night.
To give an example, let’s look at the Pick-Up community.
Many – if not most – schools of pick-up teach an intimidatingly aggressive approach to getting sex, one that’s almost specifically designed to turn women off.To test this idea, Baranowski and Hecht concocted a new study.In this version, the subjects – men and women both – were invited into the lab under the pretense that they would be taking part in a study to help a popular dating site adjust and calibrate its compatibility matrix.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?