It’s been so long since there was a really good (and by good I mean silly) scientific study to chew on. And then there was a doozie. Science has discovered that women’s tears may send chemical signals that influence the behavior of men.
As usual, they’re delighted to prove something that was obvious to the rest of us. The difference is, of course, their conclusion. Which is that the chemical signals of our tears is “no,” or at least “now now,” which they interpret as “not tonight, dear.”
You know… when I was in school the science nerds used to be the smart kids. People cry for a lot of reasons: grief, fear, empathy, joy, relief, gratitude. Yet according to Evolution, all of those tears are merely intended to let guys know we’re not in the mood for sex.
“Initial experiments found that sniffing women’s tears did not affect men’s mood or empathy, but ‘had a pronounced influence on sexual arousal, a surprise,’ Dr. Sobel said.”
They discovered this “pronounced influence” by having men sniff tears after showing them the explicit, European version of the movie 9-1/2 Weeks. (I love that Dr. Sobel was compelled to mention that the film had “been validated as being particularly arousing.”)
But wait, there’s more.
“Evolution may favor less sexual assertiveness toward a crying mate, [Dr. Frey] said, but if a woman’s tears are brought on by an attacker, ‘is a husband with less testosterone going to be more or less aggressive in defending his family?'”
So… based on these scientific findings, they think a husband who loves his wife would be less aggressive defending her in an attack because he’s “turned off” by her tears. Who are these guys? I know they’re not married. Plus, it completely contradicts Evolution’s survival of the fittest theory, in which fear inspires an adrenalin surge in the male to defend his family and perpetuate the species or whatever. I don’t even believe in Evolution – do I have to keep track of everything?
I’m pretty sure the Stiftung Foundation, which financed the study, got stiffted.