to the evolutionary psychologists out there for this little gem of a study:
To see whether estrus was really “lost” during human evolution (as researchers often claim), we examined ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by professional lap dancers working in gentlemen’s clubs. Eighteen dancers recorded their menstrual periods, work shifts, and tip earnings for 60 days on a study web site. A mixed-model analysis of 296 work shifts (representing about 5300 lap dances) showed an interaction between cycle phase and hormonal contraception use. Normally cycling participants earned about US$335 per 5-h shift during estrus, US$260 per shift during the luteal phase, and US$185 per shift during menstruation. By contrast, participants using contraceptive pills showed no estrous earnings peak. These results constitute the first direct economic evidence for the existence and importance of estrus in contemporary human females, in a real-world work setting. These results have clear implications for human evolution, sexuality, and economics.
These results have clear implications for human evolution, sexuality, and economics.
Um, no.
by JH—Nov 14, 09:22 AM
Did I not write about this already? I sure meant to…
by greg—Nov 14, 09:36 AM
We’ve bashed on evopsych quite a bit here. As for this specific study, the commentariat at Unfogged gave it a good, sound horse-whipping a few weeks back; you may be thinking about that.
by JH—Nov 14, 09:47 AM
there is evidence across several studies suggesting that men (in the aggregate) can detect women’s (in the aggregate) ovulatory phases and that women and men subtly (and not so subtly alter) their mating-related behavior without attributing these alterations to changes in their partner’s (or their own) ovulatory cycling. If you really care, see here and scroll down for some typical examples, especially in terms of changes in women’s behavior as a function of ovulatory cycle.
one might not like this particular study, but the basic finding is not that novel. interpretations and implications of this study’s (or any other study’s) results are obviously a different issue.
have a wonderful day, as i return to deep cover for the rest of the week.
by chris—Nov 14, 11:37 AM
I was thinking about this post at MindHacks, which previewed the study a month ago. Anyway, I don’t think it’s really an argument from evolutionary psychology, not in the sense that it’s trying to explain a behavior based upon behavioral suppositions about the veldt. Rather, it’s charting a real phenomenon (with relatively straightforward statistical data to support it) in human sexual behavior—one that was thought to be evolutionarily absent but which is in fact just less obvious than in other animals.
by greg—Nov 14, 11:41 AM
Or: What chris said.
by greg—Nov 14, 11:54 AM
i’m just glad that the turtle poked his head out of his shell.
by Balthasar Gracián—Nov 14, 12:58 PM
How long do you think it will be before a right-winger uses this to argue that a woman’s place is on the pole?
by JH—Nov 14, 02:08 PM
Nevermind.
by JH—Nov 14, 02:13 PM
for reals?
At such a sleazy place, I was actually at peace with myself for the first time in six years.
by Balthasar Gracián—Nov 14, 02:15 PM
Oh, damn. I skimmed part of the post linked to in 9 sometime last week, but I… I didn’t actually read it, you know? OMG that’s creepy!
by greg—Nov 14, 02:24 PM
He is no longer blogging, unfortunately.
by JH—Nov 14, 02:26 PM
Here’s my favorite:
So for six long years I tried to get used to being a male person and tried to become comfortable with the idea that there would only be no women around, only female persons. And for six years the only women in my life were encoded in JPEG.
lol. And he has to come up with this whole theory why he never gets any love. I think women can just smell men like this and know to stay away.
by JH—Nov 14, 02:40 PM
yes, i think that there is a companion study to this one that proves your hypothesis…
by Balthasar Gracián—Nov 14, 02:42 PM