<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://therationalmale.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Rollo Tomassi]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://therationalmale.com/author/counterflow1/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Male Sexual Response]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p><span class='embed-youtube' style='text-align:center; display: block;'><iframe class='youtube-player' type='text/html' width='640' height='390' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/TJ72xve1JBk?version=3&#038;rel=1&#038;fs=1&#038;showsearch=0&#038;showinfo=1&#038;iv_load_policy=1&#038;wmode=transparent' frameborder='0' allowfullscreen='true'></iframe></span></p>
<p>This now cancelled show was the brainchild of the creators of <a href="http://www.matecheckpi.com/index.html">Mate Check</a>.</p>
<p>The short version of this is basically this is a &#8220;service&#8221; that tests (attorneys call this entrapment) a man&#8217;s fidelity by setting up an encounter with an attractive woman who approaches them in an effort to see if the man will &#8216;bite&#8217; and seek out more intimate contact with her. Generally this service is paid for by insecure women involved in LTRs. I should also add that 100% of men so tested fail the test and pursue the attractive woman.</p>
<p>Salacious, stupid, and basically everything you&#8217;d expect from a FOX reality show, but also a very interesting social experiment. This is <a title="Social Matching Theory" href="https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/social-matching-theory/">Social Matching Theory</a> in practice. If you&#8217;re approached by a woman obviously not in (what you believe) is your &#8220;league&#8221; and she&#8217;s expressing blatant IOIs and approaches you, it&#8217;s much the same as the &#8216;<a title="Strippers" href="https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/strippers/">Stripper Effect</a>.&#8217; Men are so accustomed to having to be the initiators and dealing with rejection (and potential rejection) that they&#8217;ll willingly pay for the attentions of an attractive woman giving them a $20 lap dance and this becomes physically and psychologically gratifying.</p>
<p>In this scenario, the element of plausibility is introduced (as a bait). You can say that these guys took the bait because they were already predisposed to do so because of their foundering relationships, but I&#8217;d argue that few men (if any according to the stats on this site) would turn down an exceptionally attractive and visibly sexually available woman if she were inclined to be as forward as to actively seek out a man and pursue him.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve read psych experiments where attractive college age women approached men they&#8217;d never met on campus and proposed having sex with them after 20 minutes of converstaion. Close to 100% of the men accepted the offer (much like this service), but when an attractive college age man performed a similar experiment with women the acceptance rate was around 60%. I think that this service is playing to this very dynamic.</p>
<p>Now here&#8217;s a thought, do you suppose the &#8216;investigators&#8217; at Mate Check get a picture of their mark and match him up with a girl they think he will believe he could get? I would think they&#8217;d have to have a variety of women &#8220;investigators&#8221; of varying levels of attractivness in order to allay suspicion. For instance, a hugely overweight guy (unless he&#8217;s very stupid, despreate or both) would be skeptical (at first) to believe that a stripper grade woman would thorw herself at him voluntarily. So I wonder if Mate Check matches like for like in attractiveness when running their scam?</p>
<p><strong>Disinfecting Sunshine</strong></p>
<p>Sunshine Mary think&#8217;s she&#8217;s busted some <a href="http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/manosphere-mythbusters-do-men-only-cheat-on-wives-who-are-fat-and-frig">manosphere myth</a> today in asserting (with entirely anecdotal points) that men don&#8217;t necessarily have to be hitched to a frigid or obese woman to be moved to cheat. I&#8217;m inclined to agree, however, those factors <em>are</em> what behavioral psychologists term Establishing Operations:</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivating_operation"><span style="text-decoration:underline;">Establishing operations</span></a> work by changing the reinforcement properties of a reinforcer. If a reinforcer is made to be more reinforcing, the consequence will be more desirable which should have a greater effect on eliciting the target behavior. Establishing operations for reinforcers make us want something more that we might have.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ergo, hunger, thirst, and yes, sexual deprivation can be considered establishing operations, thus making satisfaction of those operation much more potent reinforcers.</p>
<p>For her part, I&#8217;m afraid that Mary&#8217;s isn&#8217;t going to like what crawls out from under the rock she&#8217;s just turned over. What she&#8217;s digging at here is the nature of the male sexual response, and as with most women, she expects that response to align with a feminine-centric interpretation of it. Women&#8217;s solipsistic nature predisposes them to define the male sexual response in ways that make sense to what their own response is.</p>
<p>As I stated in <a title="Women &amp; Sex" href="https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/women-sex/">Women &amp; Sex</a>, until a woman lives in 12.5 to 17 times her present testosterone levels 24/7 she cannot ever understand male sexuality. And since she lives in a fem-centric reality (both personally and socially) her awareness and expectations of male sexuality is defined by the only terms she has a frame of reference for – female sexuality.</p>
<p>So it should come as no shock that women are bewildered (and disgusted) by a male sexual response that is incongruent with their own. They want to force fit it. In the <a href="https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/the-feminine-reality/">Feminine Reality</a> I stated:</p>
<blockquote><p>For one gender to realize their sexual imperative the other must sacrifice their own. This is the root source of power the feminine imperative uses to establish its own reality as the normative one.</p></blockquote>
<p>One of the reasons I repeatedly assert that women lack a fundamental appreciation for the sacrifices men make to facilitate their reality finds its roots in women&#8217;s lacking a male frame of reference. In general, Men are far more self-controlled than any woman can realistically understand. When we analyze the realities of the male sex response and the underlying biology that contributes to it, the control men exert over it is actually a triumph of evolved psychology and social directive.</p>
<p>As Men we take this control for granted because (for most) it&#8217;s a living state for us – even we don&#8217;t apprciate how controlled we really are over our sexual impulse. We live in a condition of controlling this drive, but the drive still motivates us.</p>
<p>Women are shocked that men are literally, neurologically wired to see them as <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-19/health/women.bikinis.objects_1_bikini-strip-clubs-sexism?_s=PM:HEALTH">sex objects</a>. The parts of our brains that are attuned to using tools is stimulated when we see scantily dressed women. Women may be horrified by this, but one thing you will never hear them utter is a word of how astounding it is that men (largely) have such psychological self-control over it.</p>
]]></html></oembed>