The C is for Crank
Shocker of the Day: Men Aren't Turned On By Women's Tears
A small new study on men and women has been getting major play on the blogs and even at the New York Times
, despite its astonishingly flimsy premise: Women's tears apparently dampen men's sexual arousal. Or, to quote MSNBC: "Stop the waterworks, ladies. Crying chicks aren't sexy."
Men in two small studies (24 men total) who sniffed women's emotional tears became less sexually aroused afterward than when they sniffed a neutral saline solution that had been dripped down women's cheeks. This was interpreted by researchers as evidence that women who cry are really saying "not tonight, dear" (actual quote from the NYT). That article goes own to hypothesize (without citing evidence) that because women are "known" to cry more when menstruating, and that tears during menstruation may be a signal to men that it's not a very effective time to have sex from a biological (pregnancy) perspective.
This study is a perfect example of designing an experiment that produces the conclusion (women cry to ward off sex) you're looking for. The entire premise of evolutionary psychology is that women want fewer sexual partners and men want more; ergo, evolutionary psychologists designed a study that tested for that conclusion. Did they test children's tears, or men's tears, or the or the effect of any tears on women (or, for that matter, gay men)? Of course not. If they had, I expect they would have reached the obvious conclusion: Most people don't get turned on by other people's tears.
And really, wouldn't it be creepier if men did get turned on by the sight of a woman crying?
Men in two small studies (24 men total) who sniffed women's emotional tears became less sexually aroused afterward than when they sniffed a neutral saline solution that had been dripped down women's cheeks. This was interpreted by researchers as evidence that women who cry are really saying "not tonight, dear" (actual quote from the NYT). That article goes own to hypothesize (without citing evidence) that because women are "known" to cry more when menstruating, and that tears during menstruation may be a signal to men that it's not a very effective time to have sex from a biological (pregnancy) perspective.
This study is a perfect example of designing an experiment that produces the conclusion (women cry to ward off sex) you're looking for. The entire premise of evolutionary psychology is that women want fewer sexual partners and men want more; ergo, evolutionary psychologists designed a study that tested for that conclusion. Did they test children's tears, or men's tears, or the or the effect of any tears on women (or, for that matter, gay men)? Of course not. If they had, I expect they would have reached the obvious conclusion: Most people don't get turned on by other people's tears.
And really, wouldn't it be creepier if men did get turned on by the sight of a woman crying?
