🧬 The famous “strip-club study” found a striking cycle-linked tip pattern, but it did not prove that men can consciously detect ovulation.

In 2007, 18 dancers logged 296 shifts. Naturally cycling dancers averaged about $335 in tips during the estimated fertile window, $260 in the luteal phase, and $185 during menstruation. Dancers using the pill showed no midcycle peak.

The limits matter: only 11 participants were naturally cycling, cycle phase was inferred from self-reported period timing, the data came from one club, and the study did not measure which cues affected customers.

Later evidence is mixed. A 2022 study found near-ovulation scents were rated more attractive on average, but raters were very poor at identifying fertile timing. A 2024 study using ovulation tests, hormone data, and chemical analysis found no compelling evidence for an axillary-odor fertility cue. A 2022 diary study of 384 couples found men were not aware of or responsive to their partners’ fertility status.

Best conclusion: The original result is real as published, but it is evidence of a context-specific association, not proof of a human ovulation detector. Any fertility cues appear subtle, inconsistent, and difficult to identify reliably.

Sources:
doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav…
doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.0026
doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.2712
doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2022.1…

#science #womenshealth #psychology #research

OK, the meme is really funny but hear me out: I lived it. Sort of. I did not fuck any buildings but (#story coming)

About 15 years ago I developed, with some excellent undergrad research assistants, a method of (we hoped) assessing sexual aggressiveness potential in straight men for future research studies. This isn't super special; there are many of these. I study sexual aggression (mostly).

Well, we needed a method of knowing how good the assessment system was. Our response: if we make a randomly-selected group of participants horny, they should have higher scores on our assessment compared to the non-horny group. Thus, I spent many nights hunting the web for public-domain or CC images of hot ladies in skimpy bathing suits. I found 20 or so photos, vetted by half a dozen undergrad men who agreed they were arousing.

Of course it's much more convincing if you have a control condition that is similar to the experimental condition in every way except the factor you're manipulating (i.e., horniness). Thus I spent many other nights hunting for public domain or CC-licensed photos of interesting architecture. Buildings. The experimental group would spend a few minutes looking at attractive women (and we hoped getting sexually aroused, at least a little), and the control group would do the same thing, but with interesting buildings.

We ran the study. We found fuck all for this manipulation check: there was no statistically significant difference in our sexual aggressiveness measure between the men who looked at boobs and those who looked at buildings.

I really should publish this someday.

i was feeling dejected about the lack of results one evening. My wife at the time heard my story and said,

"There's your problem. Those are some sexy buildings."

(edited for typos etc.)

#research #architecture #psychology #meme