Attraction

I recently ran across (thanks to a mention by HookerAddict [*]) a report of an interesting new study to be published in Psychological Science about attraction.  Specifically, the study identified some typical errors in judgment about how attractive we are to others.  You could probably predict even before reading the study that men tend to think women are interested in them even when the women really aren’t interested.  But the study refined some of the conventional wisdom a bit.  The authors determined that for men seeking a quick hook-up, there was a correlation between: (a) how attractive they considered a woman with whom they interacted; and (b) their perception of the woman’s sexual interest in them.  If you think she’s hot, you’re more likely to believe that she thinks you’re hot.  Even when you’re not.  (The authors also found that women tended to noticeably underestimate men’s sexual interest in them.)  The authors speculate that the over-estimation of how women perceive you might be a result of evolution.  If a guy is confident and just “goes for it,” he’ll be rebuffed and possibly embarrassed in a lot of cases.  But he may get a “yes” answer occasionally, and overall may increase his “reproductive success.”  Regardless of the reason for the phenomenon . . . well, as with a lot of scientific studies in psychology, you may not have thought about the question before but once you do, the answer they came up with is not tremendously surprising.

Brainy providers

I ran across a thread on ECCIE asking

Who is the brainiest, most cerebral, bookish type provider out there? Who appeals to your inner, or not so inner nerd?

An interesting question, but then, “brainy” and “intelligent” are somewhat vague and ambiguous terms.  At least, in this sort of context; I imagine none of us ask the ladies for their GMAT scores or their GPA in college.  I suspect that this type of determination may be almost as WALDT/CASG as any other characteristic.  Or more precisely, that we may mean something different when we say “brainy” and “intelligent.”

I admit, when reading that, it seems easy to come up with a list. 

Amusing and depressing, at the same time

Another one of those bizarre threads about perceived disrespect by “high range” ladies (in the Dallas market, this might be, e.g., $400+/hour) toward “mid range” ladies (in the Dallas market, this might be, e.g., $200 – $300/hour ).  *sigh*  Followed by various negative characterizations about such “high range” ladies and the clients who see them — “power trip,” “much attitude,” “snooty or stuck on herself,” “[mid range ladies provide] an all around better experience than with the 1000 lady,” “a higher percentage of assholes,” the high range client generally “sees himself as superior to the women,” etc.  Even a comment or two about “low range” ladies (in the Dallas market, this might be, e.g., $100 – $150/hour or lower) — “stay in seedy motels and rip and rob ( or beat up) clients.”

And someone commented:

For example the $1000 whore looks down on the cheaper whore to make herself feel better about even being a whore. . . . The ladies that charge marketable rates seem to be more concerned with their own business and do not seem to have to judge others as much.

Really??  After other comments in the same thread, that struck me as rather ironic.  And his observation doesn’t match what I’ve seen on SJMBs. 

Objectification and the psychology of nakedness

One particular critique of sex work — particularly by feminists — is that it objectifies women.  That is, sexual desire causes men to perceive women as a means to an end, or as an object rather than a person.  Or, perhaps, in Reese’s phrase, as robots.

But I ran across a study recently that suggests a subtle refinement of that observation.  The difference may not be between seeing someone as a person and seeing them as a mindless object, but between two different dimensions of the human mind: “agency” — self-control, planned action, morality — and “experience” — pleasure, hunger, desire, etc.  It turns out that people evaluate the capacity for “agency” and “experience” differently depending on how much flesh is visible.  For pictures of the same individuals, test subjects gave that person higher scores for “agency” if the picture showed only their face, and higher scores for “experience” if the picture showed their torso, with a bare chest (men) or in, for example, a bikini (women).   Or completely naked.

The Pygmalion Effect in P4P

Is there one??

To over-simplify, the Pygmalion effect refers to the tendency of people to live up to, or live down to, our expectations of them.  It’s a fairly intuitive phenomenon, practically to the level of conventional wisdom/common sense.  It’s been scientifically tested in the context of students and often thought to apply in other situations such as employees.  It can result from how the teacher or boss treats that person, even if the expectations are not specifically communicated.

Does it apply as well to independent contractors, such as escorts?  Or their clients, for that matter?

Not there quite yet

In a recent thread on ECCIE, a member complained about having been kicked out of chat without an explanation.  A moderator asserted, in effect, that the staff could take actions based on unwritten rules and without an obligation to explain.  To which someone else responded:

I bet Deuce and Chevalier are rolling over in their graves. This is the worst explanation I have ever seen from a moderator on SHMB.

I suppose I might if I were in a grave, but let’s not be too hasty.

Cuddling

Elisabeth had a blog entry recently about the joys of cuddling, in which she remarked:

Men are so different in that after an orgasm, they wish to jump up and go in a different direction.

Okay, tongue-in-cheek stereotype. My reaction, I guess, depends on whom I’m with. 

One of the best responses ever

In a thread about options for working during, or avoiding the drawbacks of, menstruation, this response by Reese Foster:

I think that although we appreciate the input on how to “help” our monthly cycles, the fact that we have dealt with them for most of our lives kind of makes us more, “in the know” than most of you may think.

Perfect.

Why do it?

We see threads like this pop up on SJMBs every now and then, by ladies who do not offer uncovered services (by which they mean not only BBFS but also BBBJ) and want to convince everyone else to follow along.  They never end well.  As TinMan put it later on in the thread:

From TinMan’s soon-to-be-published “Five Tips for Survival on a SHMB”:

“2. Don’t preach. The people you are trying to convert aren’t going to pay attention to you anyway.”

I wonder why people even start threads like that. 

I’ve been de-selected!!!!

Just as expected, and I’m fine with it.

As active participants in the local P4P community — or at least those who visit P4P boards often — know, there are several groups that occasionally get together for socials.  Partly