I just remembered a really great paper that went viral many years ago and has probably been seen hundreds of millions of people.

It is made by the SIRC, an NGO that is commissioned to make scientific summaries and reports for some of the biggest corporations in the world, and an organization that has some of the best anthropologists and evo-psych people backing them.

This report summarizes most of the research on flirting and courtship, and it’s in a very accessible, applicable format.

Oh and, and in part 2 it takes potshots at feminazis… And one of the major reviewers on SIRC’s board happens to be Lionel Tiger, a guy massively hated by feminazis (so he know he’s good). He has been passionately fighting for male studies and openly calling gender studies anti male since forever.

Most people who have gone through the game crap, will now probably be read to accept this simple, common sense and science-backed guide.

Here you go:
part 1: http://www.sirc.org/publik/flirt.html

part 2: http://www.sirc.org/publik/flirt2.pdf

**UPDATE** The SIRC guide has been retold into a readable, practical form here:
http://www.seductionmyth.com/reality_check/approach-guide/

It’s basically sedmyth & mine’s retelling of the SIRC guide into more plain english.

Seriously. I don’t give a fuck anymore. The kinds of people who can be fucking duped by fucking THIS:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/study-proves-the-validity-of-game/

DO NOT DESERVE SAVING. THEY DESERVE ROISSY AND GAME.

Seriously, before, in the oldie days, to be a gamer required only gullibility and desperation. It was possible to be an intelligent desperate nerd and fall for this crap for a few years out of desperation. But to be a roissyite today requires an IQ in the single digits. I mean seriously – can anyone except a high-school drop-out not read roissy’s “science” posts and be like WTF? Did this guy even finish high-school? WTF?

While I won’t bother with this douchebag (I’m done), seductionmyth did respond here:

Oh man! The blog [roissy] you mentioned is a classic manipulation of the PUAs:

- First they take a real scientific study
- and then
- they comment it with completely unjustified statements that imply “game” was confirmed! (no such thing is claimed in the study!)

Instead of reading the (irrational) conclusions of the author of the blog, read the study itself:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.768/pdf

Can you find the word “game” in the study? In particular read the ending – outcomes:

“As expected by Hypothesis 1a, men and women who were judged (by independent raters) as facially or vocally attractive, or who were slim according to their objectively measured BMI, were chosen more often by their dating partners.”

“For men, only facial and vocal attractiveness and sociosexuality increased the frequency of matches, for women only facial attractiveness, and the predictions tended to be weaker for matches than for received choices in all four cases (see Table 3).”

How does it prove the “validity of game”? The above quotes (I could find more) deny what the PUAs teach (“all that matters are skills”).

One more thing, the study only took into account facial attractiveness, it did not take into account genotypes – like I often repeat “genes” are not the same thing as “beauty”. Anyway, in both cases it cannot be interpreted as a confirmation of the “validity of game”.

I would also add that it’s not even disputed in science any more that your facial characteristics and physical type are a huge determining factor in how easy it is for you to get laid and with how many women. Heck, some studies I’ve seen on physique alone, find it to be as much as a 200-300% factor increase in numbers of lays a guy has, and how likely women are to perceive him as a sex-toy. Now mind you, this is with all else equal.

There’s literally thousands upon thousands of studies proving beyond a doubt that the PUA marketing claim that “looks don’t matter” is a huge bag of bullshit. Your genetic shape primarily, and your physique secondarily are a huge determining factor in which chicks you will be capable to bang, and how easily you will do so. Any “skills” you might acquire can only be the “grease” that makes the process smoother, but “skills” don’t “get you” the girl. Your biology does. Your “skills” are just a matter of you not fucking up when you’ve been chosen, that’s it.

You as a man don’t get to choose, females of the species do. Get the fucking over it. You as a man can only be chosen, and then take upon the offers of the women who have chosen you. You can’t “make” women attracted on a PRIMAL biological level through your skills. Your skills are only there to grease the route to chicks who already want you.

In fact, most of game is based on fancy tricks that work on the principle of false positives, and heck, Roissy likes to even quote studies on these false-positives. What do I mean by a false positive? You go and do game trick A and technique B when you approach a chick, and she gets all giggly and smiley and responsive.

The idiotic pua disciple (being the inexperienced nerd that he is), believes that this is the same as “increasing attraction”. No you dork. She’s no more or less attracted on a BIOLOGICAL level than she was before you did that. You just increased her attraction to you as a person, NOT as a biological, sexual being.

Want to falsify this statement? Go and take SeductionMyth’s challenge… Take out an excel, and go meet 100 women using game tricks and escalate to the end (until either rejected or laid). Then go and do everything opposite of game, as long as you’re positive, and socially normal, and meet a 100 women that way, and escalate them till either a bang or rejected. You’ll find the exact same success ratio.

Your cute little game tricks might get you a ton more false-positives, but the actual end result will be the exact same. Do SeductionMyth’s challenge, go ahead. I dare you. Everyone who has left game (and everyone does given enough time) has left game precisely because they started tracking the numbers and seeing that it’s all bullshit. None of it makes an actual BOTTOM-LINE difference.

Now about looks, don’t missunderstand, science isn’t saying you need to be male model…

Like seductionmyth keeps pointing out – people often mistake the scientific findings of how important looks are – to mean that you need to be “pretty” or handsome to get laid.

No, that’s not it at all. In fact, it has more to do with “factors” and “types”. There are certain physical and facial traits that make a guy more attractive. All else equal, he will need to do less work to get laid with more women than a guy who has less of these factors (v-tapers, masculine chin, chest proportions, height, etc). That doesn’t mean you can’t get laid being not-handsome. It just means you have a smaller percentage of hot women whom you can lay, and a smaller window of opportunity to do so.

And then there’s the “types”. Women simply have types. Just deal with it. To give you a simple famous example. Chicks who like Brad Pitt, don’t like Johnny Depp… Chicks who like Johnny Depp, don’t like Brad Pitt. And there’s nothing one of them can do to be liked by the fans of the other, no sentence, no way of walking or talking or moving. It’s a deep, gut-level biological GENETIC differentiation.

So looks (science generally finds) is a huge factor in two ways “your looks determine who’s type you are”, and types have nothing to do with being handsome. You can be not-handsome and her type, and be handsome and not her-type. This is the first huge factor in how looks determine which women you can get.

Here’s several thousand studies for you:

GoogleScholar: The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology

Google Scholar: Masculine Somatotype and Hirsutness as Determinants of Sexual Attractivness to Women

The arrogance of this illiterate roissy bufoon is only exceeded by the low-levels of IQ that his audience plummets to. I mean, his fucking whole fucking persona is fucking based on knowing that his disciples don’t even fact-check his claims. He knows that most people won’t even fucking look at the studies he points to, and that most of his readers are even more illiterate than he is.

Probably one of the more confusing things for men about how women show interest is when women appear to be sending “mixed messages” – when they do something that makes it seem they’re interested, then do something that makes it seem like they’re being challenging or aloof. It’s important to understand why this happens. Remember that for women, saving face is extremely important, no matter where in the world you are. A woman’s social reputation is tied to her desirability to men and her choosiness; there is little more damaging to a woman’s reputation than for her to be seen throwing herself at a man who won’t take her. Because of this, women’s efforts to show men they’re interested are often couched within efforts to seem aloof or disinterested. For instance, a girl may tell a guy, “Wow, we’re so similar,” then proceed to act distracted or look away. The guy may scratch his head, wondering if that means

There is a secret to understanding these scrambled messages women send though – it’s like a secret decoder ring for woman-speak. Here it is:

If a woman implies she is interested in you, you should accept the statement as a sign of interest and ignore sarcasm, aloofness, or feigned distraction as simply her efforts to protect her reputation in the event you do not feel the same or do not take action to lead her to a satisfactory conclusion.

In other words, it’s her insurance policy. By not throwing all her chips in by being completely overt about her interest, she allows herself some wiggle room to later say, “Oh, I wasn’t really interested in him, I was just kidding,” if things don’t work out.

Which means, of course, that your ears should perk up the instant you hear something that implies a girl is interested in you – then, pick up the pace and start moving things forward as quickly as possible (but, needless to say, wait a moment before springing to action – you must always have your actions seem your own, as opposed to being reactions to something the girl has done. Even a small pause of three or four seconds can sometimes be enough – just give yourself a little time and be very casual, nonchalant, and natural about things).

The article above explains why the mixed-messages happen in a short-term interaction, where she goes from hot to cold and back. But this also happens on a more long-term basis. Sometimes a woman will act like she’s all in love with you one day, and then the next day she acts like you are a mortal enemy of hers and have wronged her somehow.

This ussually happens because from her perspective you have “rejected her”. I know it seems retarded, but if a woman is showing you signs of interest and you don’t make a move, she in her head can label that rejection. I know, its stupid and makes no sense, but many women call it rejection if a guy doesn’t make a MOVE on them.

This is why on many debates online you will see women constantly claiming that they “get rejected all the time”. You’re reading that and you’re scratching your head “huh!? Women get rejected? huh?”. You never see women even making a move in the real world, so how can they get rejected, you think to yourself? Well, turns out, like for many other things women define rejection differently.

This PUA dude even came up with a very appropriate term for it. He calls it auto-rejection. It refers to how women will often develop resentment, coldness and aloofness toward you if you seem unattainable.

From: http://www.girlschase.com/content/secrets-getting-girls-staying-out-auto-rejection

Attainability. Attainability is the measure of how readily a woman feels she’s able to get what she wants with you – if she thinks it’s in the bag with you and she’s got you hook, line, and sinker, your attainability is too high; that’s called being no challenge. Being no challenge is what happens when a guy makes it too easy for a girl, doesn’t challenge her, or comes across needy or low value.

If, on the other hand, a girl feels your attainability is too low, and that she can’t get you, that one’s called being unattainable. Being unattainable is what leads to women going into something called auto-rejection; in other words, she gives up on you, goes cold, shuts down, and her heart fills with resentment and dislike for you.

Auto-rejection is the term for what a woman enters into with a man whose attainability has dropped too low. If a woman seems very cold and aloof with you, chances are it’s auto-rejection. This is her shutting down to protect herself from a guy she thinks isn’t going to give her what she wants and needs.

You cannot ask women about this, same as you can’t ask a man who’s huffing and puffing about how some girl is no good and not worth his time if he thinks she’s unattainable to him. A person in auto-rejection is not going to tell you she’s in auto-rejection; she’s going to say the person who put her there is a detestable human being. She’s rejecting him to protect her ego and prevent herself from wasting time and emotions on a man who’ll hurt her one way or another.

There are as many potential causes of auto-rejection as there are grains of sand on the beach, but they more or less all roll up into a few catch-all categories. Those include the following:

• Being too much of an asshole. Being a little bit of an asshole is generally okay; it can be funny when done right. Overdo it though, and you’ll seem out-of-reach and like you’re trying to rub it into a girl’s face. Even very beautiful, confident women are prone to auto-rejection if you push it hard enough, though tolerance will vary tremendously by the individual.

• Being too aloof. This one plagued me forever, and it’s one of the most common things I see other men doing too. The reason that I did this and the reason that other men do this (I suspect) is twofold: 1) they don’t want to seem overeager in pursuit of a woman, and 2) they want to protect themselves and their status (more on this later) in the event things fall apart.But in trying too hard to protect themselves and seem cool, men quite often communicate a lack of interest to women, which causes those women to wall themselves off defensively and grow cold.

• Showing too much value. Note it isn’t having too much value – it’s showing it. The more value you show, the higher must your attainability be as well to avoid auto-rejection. Most guys in seduction though just focus on pumping their value up and up and up, and then wonder why their results with women aren’t improving as much as they’d expect, or maybe even go into a slide. An imbalance of value and attainability is why.

• Moving too slow. Yep, moving slow with a girl will send you into auto-rejection, more often than you’d expect. As noted in “Social Circle vs. Cold Approach,” the less well you know a woman, the less time she gives you to close things out. Contrary to how most men view attraction, it tends to drop rather precipitously after the initial meet the vast majority of the time. When you’re a social beginner, you might be able to use a little more time to generate more interest; but once you’re at even an intermediate level and your fundamentals are getting tight, you already have most or all of the attraction you’re going to get the moment you say hello to her, and everything else you’ll be doing is really just getting her comfortable with the idea of intimacy with you. Wait too long to get intimate with her and she’ll give up on you or come to resent you for not giving her what she wanted, and at that point it’s done.

Those are really the Big Four of auto-rejection. Plenty of other smaller ones, but most of them fall under one of those categories or tie in in one way or another. For instance, too much teasing or over-bantering with a girl will blow her out and send her into auto-rejection, but that falls under being too much of an asshole. Texting and calling a girl only intermittently and being lax about pushing to meet her will often make her feel like you’re wasting her time send and her into auto-rejection, but that falls under the umbrella of moving too slow.

 

Here are the tools you need to get attainability running smoothly and keep yourself away from auto-rejection:

• Become a Genuine Man. The genuine man is the one who is neither needy nor busy posturing or being aloof. He teases women lightly, but he’s skilled enough with his voice tone and facial expressions that he very quickly sets their minds at ease that it’s all in good fun; he uses expert eye contact andwarm, sexy smiles, and he recognizes that his nonverbal communication here is absolutely key to getting the right message across.

• Master the Ability to Connect with People. I recently spent a few days training a friend of mine up in deep diving, and he proceeded to sleep with a few new girls in a hurry and credits deep diving with having turned around his interactions with women and people in general in a snap. He went from him being too aloof and people reacting in kind to him, to him now being warm and open and them now being warm and open toward him. Getting down the ability to connect with people deeply and rapidly has a way of making attainability problems simply melt away.

• Become a Humble Man. Humility is underrated these days, but if you pay close attention you’ll notice just about all of the absolute coolest, most powerful, most successful men are humble. George Clooney is humble. Warren Buffet is humble. The most revered statesmen and leaders almost always tend to be humble. Humility is the powerful man’s way of charming and connecting with others who might otherwise be blown away and swept into auto-rejection by his status. The higher in value you become, the more extreme the effect you have on others, and the more you must implement humbleness to remain relatable and attainable and make sure that extreme effect is a positive one. It becomes vital attainability technology for you to master as you improve.

• Move Faster. Finally, I probably sound like a broken record on this blog by this point, but yeah, move faster. If you’re not routinely sleeping with women the day you meet them or on the first date, you have room to move faster. If you’re not sleeping with women in under three or four hours of face time on average, you need to be moving faster. You don’t have to do it all at once – you can certainly build up to it gradually – but you should be steadily moving faster and faster as you upgrade your abilities with women. The speed with which you move should be one of the key places you look to level up. Sorry for the video game terminology… too many years of Daggerfalland other TES games (just found out Skyrim is coming out later this year… I’m going to have to push to hit my quota of girls for the year before then, because once November 11th hits I’m going to be in front of my computer, eyes glued to the screen all day every day for at least a few weeks)

Research shows that others see you as 20 per cent more attractive than you think you are. That’s because, when you look in the mirror, you’re simply judging yourself on looks. All you can see is your reflection — but none of the personality.

I don’t have time to research and find the original claim right now – but it sounds like it’s wrong. I think most people see themselves as a 7. So, if this claim is true “other see you 20% higher than you see yourself” – that means most people are 9s?

It doesn’t quite add up.

Dating Conversation for Long-Term Plans or One-Night Stands | Psychology Today

Epstude and Förster (2011) assert that love and sex are independent in the mind. They exist at different levels of thinking (called “construal levels”). Love is thought about on a more abstract level and in a longer-term, future timeline. Sex, in contrast, is considered on a more concrete level, in the here-and-now.

Dating Conversation for Long-Term Plans or One-Night Stands | Psychology Today

You can change your dating partner’s “construal level” as well – with the right conversation. Talk about the right topics on a first date and they might be planning lifelong adventures by dessert. Discuss other topics and a single steamy night of passion might be more likely. Let’s review a few examples of discussions that will get your date thinking along the lines of “love” or “lust”…

Cognitions (thoughts) of Love take place in the abstract and the future. So, to call upon that construal level, get your dating partners to discuss some of the following:

• Their long-term future life plans, goals, aspirations.
• The deeper meaning of their actions. “Why” they do what they do.
• How they describe and categorize themselves (and others).
• Their thoughts or philosophies about topics, events, and life.
• Anything else that is deep, thoughtful, future-oriented, and positive.

In contrast, cognitions of Lust take place in the specific and present. To elicit that construal level, get your partners talking about:

• Their recent or past activities, feelings, and experiences (e.g. you swam with sharks, what did that feel like?).
• What excites them right there and then (e.g. the food is great, the music is exciting, etc.).
• How things taste, feel, sound, smell, and look.
• How concrete behaviors are performed (bonus if you can get them to show you how to shoot pool, cook, dance, etc.).
• Anything else that is concrete, in the moment, exciting, and visceral.

Conclusion

The mind is flexible, but it also has set “tracks” of thinking. Discuss long-term and positive generalities, and put your date on track to daydream about “happily ever after”. Get them thinking about their current feelings, experiences, and body sensations, and put them on track for daydreams that are a bit more naughty. Either way, you take a bit of ambiguity out of the date. The direction you go in, however, is your choice.

 

In June 2009 a number of research assistants (confederates) were told to approach somebody who they could imagine they would go on a date with/invite home/go to bed with. The research assistants would approach the stranger of the opposite gender using the following standard introduction; “Hi, my name is ‘name of the confederate’. I am sorry to disturb you like this, but I have been noticing you around and find you very attractive”. The research assistant would then ask one of the following questions: “Would you go on a date with me tonight or during the week/weekend?”, “Would you come over to my place tonight or during the week/weekend?”, or “Would you go to bed with me tonight or during the week/weekend?”

In total, 389 respondents from the four largest cities of Denmark (Copenhagen, Aarhus, Aalborg, and Odense) were included in the experiment. 

New Danish study on mating strategies of women and men

Men more willing to accept sex with strangers
Men tend to agree to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender more readily than women do. In particular, men more often accept the two explicit requests to have sex; a significantly larger number of men than women accepted an invitation to ”come to my place” and ”go to bed with me”. No distinct differences were found between the two sexes in regard to replies to the request to ”go on a date with me”.

New Danish study on mating strategies of women and men

Looks are more important to women
Hald and Høgh-Olesen investigated whether looks seem to matter for acceptance of sex with a stranger. As hypothesized, the study confirms that looks seem to have some importance for women in choice of partner – even for just a short-term partner. ”We were not surprised to find that looks are more important to women than to men. In particular, women tend to find looks more important for ‘random sex’ than men. This is probably related to reproduction”, says Henrik Høgh-Olesen. 

New Danish study on mating strategies of women and men

Singles more willing to accept sex with stranger
The study showed that respondents who were not in a relationship were more willing to consent to have sex with a stranger than respondents with a partner. This result was found for both men and women. Male subjects who were not in a relationship were 20 times more likely to consent to one of the sexual invitations compared with male subjects in a relationship. Single women were more than 8 times more likely to consent to a sexual invitation, compared with women in a relationship. 

New Danish study on mating strategies of women and men

Unknown factors
One of the reasons for womens’ rejection of sex with a stranger could be fear of crime. ”If the woman was allowed to take measure of the guy in a safe environment before being alone with him, the success rate for men may have been higher”, says Gert Martin Hald.

Here’s some further analysis:

Sexual Receptivity Invitations from the Strangers of the Opposite Gender

Researchers conducted the experiment twice, in 1978 and 1982, with the help of students of Florida State University. In both cases, five students and four students aged around 22 years on the campus of the University addressed a total of 48 men and 48 women.The conversation looked like this: “Several times I saw you here / a. You seem very attractive / ý.” Then researchers put unsuspecting respondents randomly selected question from these three options: “Do you want me to go out tonight?” - “Do you want the evening to come to my apartment?” - “Want to go to bed with me?”

Clark and Hatfield formulated before the start of the experiment two hypotheses. The first, traditional, they agree to offer men more than women. The second, androgynous, not the behavior of both sexes differ fundamentally. The results support the assumption dramatically gender differences in affection undergo random sexual adventure. Men willing to approach to any type of menu in the first study of 65% to 21% in the second and 63% to 17%. Expressed in detail the research fell as follows:

It is almost inconceivable that men were more likely to go with a foreign woman on a date, or home to bed with increasing levels of intimacy. While in case of an invitation to the meeting were gender differences at all, or nearly significant, in other instances dramatically began to show and offer anonymous sex has not even approached one of 96 women! The study results therefore confirm the stereotypical images of males and indiscriminate vybíravých female, although this finding can be interpreted by two opposing theories. According to biological determinism contemporary sociobiology is interested in sexual activities designed genetics, anatomy and sexual dimorphic hormones. In contrast, contemporary social determinism of Social Sciences argued that patterns of sexual behavior are primarily influenced by culture, social conditioning and enrolled roles. The authors say that the explanation is likely, although admit to liking sociobiologickému (see Clark & ​​Hatfield 2003).

Mentioned research initially came to the misunderstanding, criticism and rejection of the methodology of the Gender Studies. Yet over time become a classic, as witnessed by the still continuing interest in him. Danish researchers Hald and Høgh-Olesen published the November issue of the journal Evolution and Human Behavior article that confirms the original findings and expands. The experiment was conducted on a sample of this time 173 men and 216 women, a volunteer interviewers were also more than that – 10 men and 11 women. The results are so compelling as ever, for which perhaps the increasing liberalization of female sexual behavior or increased vigilance associated with the expansion of AIDS.

Hald and Høgh-Olesen asked respondents additional questions and found that men – unlike women – played a role too attractive tazatelek. In addition, confirm the hypothesis that both sexes have been affected by the momentary state of the partner, because the participants in respect of more refusing all kinds of offers. Even among men there was a significantly higher willingness to cheat on their partners with anonymous women, as is evident from the last table:

Danish researchers this time no qualms about applying for an explanation of gender differences and evolutionary psychology as their main reason for identifying the theory of parental investment . Women are evolutionarily adapted to be cautious when choosing a partner because of their potential investment in pregnancy and parenthood is much higher than for a random partner. If the offer proceeds, only if exceptionally attractive men, strictly in accordance with the theory of good genes . In men’s motivation is completely different, because almost anonymous sex risk nothing and conversely increasing their potential reproductive success. It seems that even fifty years since the discovery of hormonal contraception have not eliminated these differences, even if it leads to its gradual weakening.

Jeremy I agree with most of your article, but like the ahole I am, I will comment about the part I disagree with So here goes.

I also encourage women to both honor their need for comfort and learn to discern the difference between “creepy” and “geeky”. Meeting somewhere in the middle is the only true “win win” for both women and men.

Here’s the problem. Creepy is as real as Santa Clause. To say that women need to discern between geeky and creepy, is to validate the “creepy” label as being external and a property of the object its projected on, but its not.

Creepy is a SUBJECTIVE feeling had by the woman. The exact same guy can approach two women in the exact same location, in the exact same way, at the exact same angle, at the exact same tonality and body-language…

One will find him charming and bold, the other will find him creepy. In fact, creepy is nothing but a term invented so that women have an excuse to be brutally mean to men that don’t happen to their type. That’s all it is.

To say that women should start distinguishing between creepy men from non-creepy men is to validate the idea that “creepy” is a property of said men – when its not. The man is nothing but a canvas, and the “creepy” property comes from the projector, that being the woman projecting the quality onto said man.

Basically… If women want to stop the current string of men growing bitter and dropping out of the dating game, they need to start recognizing that the “feeling of creepy” is not a valid excuse to treat men like cr*p.

Until, and only if a man performs an objectively wrong action, he does not deserve to be treated as less-than-human or be publically mocked as being pathetic or undeserving of basic human respect.

If they are facing financial problems, women tend to favour fine-featured feminine men over strong silent types, a study has found.

It is thought that gentler men are seen as good providers and so a better bet for riding out the economic storm.

Robert Pattinson and Zac Efron: When the going’s tough women go for wimps | Mail Online

 

The women were then presented with a list of character traits and asked to choose those that would belong to their ideal man.

Some, such as intelligence, muscularity and confidence, were linked to men regarded as having good genetic material.

Robert Pattinson and Zac Efron: When the going’s tough women go for wimps | Mail Online

This, according to the Australian researchers, suggests that when money is short women are attracted to gentler types, who are seen as good providers and more likely to stick around when times are tough.

The macho men, however, were most attractive to the women made to worry about their health.

This may be because masculinity can be a sign of good genes – and a man who will give a woman strong and healthy children.

The researchers concluded there are evolutionary advantages in a woman’s taste in men being flexible.

 

Robert Pattinson and Zac Efron: When the going’s tough women go for wimps | Mail Online

But it is not only women whose tastes are influenced by the economic climate.

A study of the vital statistics of Playboy centrefolds revealed that when times are prosperous, men set their sights on younger, girlish- looking women, with big eyes and softer features.

But when the economy is in decline and social conditions are threatening, men seek solace in curvaceous women with more comforting maternal figures.

Women who preferred men with more feminine facial features spoke in a higher pitched voice to these men (as compared to the voices used when addressing men with more masculinized facial features). Similarly, women who preferred men with more masculine facial features spoke in a higher pitched voice to these men (as compared to the voices used when addressing men with more feminized facial features). The bottom line is that voice pitch serves as a sexual signal, and not surprisingly it is differentially modulated depending on whether the male target is to a woman’s liking. (Source.)

I find it funny as I’m guilty of this behaviour half-consciously; I know I’m speaking in a higher than usual pitch, but I didn’t trigger it intentionally. Alternatively, and what the study didn’t address, is that in a serious situation or towards a man I don’t want to appeal to or just when I want to be taken seriously, I de-sexualize myself, and thus have a deeper and more assertive pitch.

Other behavioural cues that indicate interest also indicate submission (for women): superfluous laughter, cocking her head towards on one side, touching her hair more often (in a self-conscious manner as well) and more deferential wording.

Women’s Voice Pitch Changes Depending on Their Attraction To a Man | Psychology Today

Forty-five women were asked to leave the following message subsequent to seeing either a masculinized or feminized face of a man: “Hi, we met at the bar last night. I was just calling you to see if you wanted to go out sometime. Call me back.” The researchers also conducted a separate task to gauge the participants’ preference for men’s faces on the masculinized-feminized continuum. The objective here was to show that a woman’s attraction to a particular face (irrespective of whether it is more masculine or feminine) drives the modulation of her voice pitch.

Using an acoustic tool to analyze changes in voice pitch, the researchers found support for their hypothesis. Women who preferred men with more feminine facial features spoke in a higher pitched voice to these men (as compared to the voices used when addressing men with more masculinized facial features). Similarly, women who preferred men with more masculine facial features spoke in a higher pitched voice to these men (as compared to the voices used when addressing men with more feminized facial features). The bottom line is that voice pitch serves as a sexual signal, and not surprisingly it is differentially modulated depending on whether the male target is to a woman’s liking.

If a woman speaks to you in the extraordinarily rare whistle register (as per Minnie Riperton’s Loving You , or as most recently associated with Mariah Carey), she is utterly in love with you!