House of Eratosthenes

His wry, self- deprecating humour is as important as his floppy hair and English charm at ensuring he always wins the heart of his leading lady.

Now scientists have discovered the technique used by Hugh Grant’s film characters can bring the same romantic success offscreen.

Taking the mickey out of yourself works far better than clever jokes, which might be seen as boastful and put women off.

The findings were outlined by anthropologist Gil Greengross, who conducted a two-year study into the role of humour in seduction.

He discovered that the type of humour used by Hugh Grant in the film Notting Hill – in which he attempts to charm Julia Roberts with the poor contents of his fridge – works the best.

‘Many studies show that a sense of humour is sexually attractive, especially to women,’ he said.

‘But we’ve found that self-deprecating humour is the most attractive of all.

Barf.

See, there’s a lot of truth in this. In fact, I’m pretty sure if you did a study to find out why women decided not to go out on a second date with a guy, the number one adjective that would rocket up to the top of the stack would be “cocky.” Just as self-deprecating humor is the “most attractive of all,” a cocky personality is the most repugnant of all.

Here’s the trouble. It’s the word “most”…we presume this can safely depend on numbers of women. And yeah, two-thirds of all women, or three quarters of all women, make it ninety percent, will just love that self-deprecating humor.

Ooh, it’s like when he’s around I can have a never-ending Everybody Loves Raymond episode playing wherever we go! **swoon**

More power to ya — if you want to be married to my ex-wife.

Life’s way too short to accommodate nasty women like this, women who can’t see anything redeeming about their gentlemen unless said gentlemen are puttin’ themselves down. Here’s the bottom line: Those women don’t really like men that much. Yeah maybe that’s nearly all of the available women out there. Could be. If that’s the case, fellas, what you’re finding out is these chickees are available for a reason. They are, essentially, the female version of the guy who leaves his socks and underwear on the coffee table, kicks the cat, yells at his own momma, drinks milk out of the jug and couldn’t put the toilet seat down to save his life.

Women meet a fella like that, and they begin to seriously question whether a man is something they want to have around. In that respect, women are much smarter than men. Of course, acting on those reluctant thoughts is a completely different thing, but at least they raise the question. Guys — we’re pathetic. As long as we’re available we keep asking “what Hoover Vac method will suck in the greatest share of the available women?” with nary a thought pondering what kind of substandard stuff we’re sucking in.

Well, none of my business I guess. Self-deprecate away, you studs.

Are you trying to be recursive? I would point out that men are getting married a lot less in this age then in previous ages, and they are marrying later when they do. It seems to me that what’s going on is that Women grade on a point scale, and Men on pass/fail. And Women seem to be in the fail column more then ever before. Something is going on, and I am not sure what, but it doesn’t point to Men having low standards……
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 07/29/2008 @ 22:11
Ah. Well, as you know there is a difference between coupling under the bedsheets, and coupling at the altar.
- mkfreeberg | 07/29/2008 @ 22:23
Not according to current U.S. law. And I don’t think guys are sleeping around like you think they are. I starting looking at the issue when I encountered a news store about HPV. It seems that one in four American women have this incurable social disease. Lot of free love right? But they didn’t give numbers for the number of men with HPV, which I found odd. The press is pretty good about shaking the bone: “Men are pigs!”. I looked, but could not find the numbers of men with HPV. Maybe I missed it, but if they are hiding the numbers, they must be pretty damning. It brought to mind the findings years ago, when they starting matching blood types to parents, and found that something like one in five American men had been cuckolded. I think this is a case where women are ahead of men on the bell curve, a lot, but it doesn’t get seen because they are overshadowed by the professional dirtbags, like Clinton.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 07/29/2008 @ 22:51
Many years ago when I worked very closely with computer salesmen, I went out after work to get cocktails with one of them and he said something very profound: In love, war, purchases/sales, partnerships, debts, etc. etc. etc., the most powerful among two engaged parties is the party that is most willing to walk away. And this is what I’m talking about, not who has the most actual sex.

While the differential in who-has-more-sex is arguably self-diminishing (if women are having a lot more sex than men, who are they having it with?), the differential in who is more reluctant, is not. And when’s the last time you heard of a guy telling a woman “I think we should see other people” or “I like you better as a friend,” etc. That doesn’t happen quite so much; we’re the keymasters, they’re the gatekeepers. In that sense, Mr. Clinton is not that unusual.

You see it in these egghead scientists. “…self-deprecating humour is the most attractive of all.” Perhaps to the greatest number of women; but not to the best ones.
- mkfreeberg | 07/29/2008 @ 23:22
Well, that’s what I am talking about as well. I think we have just missing the cues. The men aren’t saying anything, they are just walking away(it appears to me). Men still start the dance, as a rule. And they just don’t seem to be dancing like they did a generation ago. As to who the women are having sex with, the pigs, of course. Bill Clinton has “Known” a thousand or more women, we have reason to believe. One of the pro ball players claimed over five thousand. There was a local guy I knew who was cheating on his wife with seven other women who knew about their rivals and the wife. One guy can go through a Lot of women. The local mess was painful to watch, and the saddest part was watching this one guy, getting out of the Navy, nuke trained, going for the Masters degree, healthy and young, nice guy, get shot down by this sweet young lady, pretty, charming, polite, and an artist, because she was chasing after the married dirtbag, with bad knees, bad back, and no money. She lost, went home in shame, and we never saw her again. I never saw him try to date again, either. I’ve seen a lot of guys get hurt that way, and they never “got lucky”.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 07/29/2008 @ 23:49
True, true.

It seems to be a derivative of one’s level of self-respect. I notice people who have self-respect, you ask them about their friends and you get back this litany of what each friend CAN do…what their strengths are. People who lack self-respect, you ask them about their friends and you get back an encyclopedia of weaknesses.

That’s why I think it’s such a futile endeavor to try to pull in women, like a magnet to iron filings, with this self-deprecating humor crap. Sure, it pulls in a greater number. But these are women who find it appealing to know a fellow through his weaknesses, rather than through his strengths. They lack self-respect, and a woman who lacks self-respect will just be a black hole for any resource you have that you value — your own self-respect, your time, your money, your energy, your happiness…

…not that I have strong opinions about it or any personal experience with it, or anything.
- mkfreeberg | 07/30/2008 @ 00:28
Thanks for your thoughts, sir. We are in complete agreement about that. I just thought it was odd that you would deprecate Men in the last paragraph of a post telling Men to stop deprecating themselves. And then you implied Women were smarter then Men when it came to judging the other side. I have seen Men choose poorly, I have seen Women choose poorly. Everything I have seen points to Women having a much worse record when it comes to choosing. I think it comes back to the self-respect you brought up in your last comment. Women who lack self-respect are easy targets for the Bill Clintons out there. Men who lack self-respect don’t talk to women, let alone bad ones.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 07/30/2008 @ 01:32
Ah, well I see where you’re coming from now.

Did not mean to deprecate men. It’s more like what Clint Eastwood said…man’s gotta know his limitations. Neither sex has earned a great deal of respect out of me, in the Quality Control department. Overall, my perception is that men will select according to what’s willing, and women will select in the service of some template they themselves don’t fully understand and that statistically tends toward the dysfunctional.

But like they say, YMMV (your mileage may vary).
- mkfreeberg | 07/30/2008 @ 01:36
Self-deprecating humor always worked for me. But that tends to be my style, with everyone…not just women. And moderation, when it comes to deploying self-deprecation, is the key, as it is in all things. I don’t seem to be lacking in self-confidence, either, if ya wanna bring that up. 😉
- Buck | 07/30/2008 @ 16:56
Wow. My experience was just the opposite. Self-deprecating humor never worked for me. I was the self-depricatingest, and one of the biggest losers on campus way back when I was in college. I once even had a convertible full of chicks I didn’t know and never met before or after that proclaim it loudly to me as they drove by like I was wearing a big yellow shirt with a black zig-zag. No shit.

A good (I know, with friends like this …) female friend back in those days said, after I compared myself to Charlie Brown… “Oh, you’re not that much of a loser“.

Well, gee, thanks. Kind of nice to know you’re not on the seventh level, only on the sixth. But still squarely in the category, for sure.

And all the women I was ever after back in the day were chasing the cocky, arrogant assholes.

And I just found out recently from one of them what that’s all about when I pointed it out to her (as she was getting divorced from hers.)

“We’re attracted to the confidence.”

Wow. A guy who will confidently slap you around and treat you like dirt. What a catch!

Fortunately, I found a sane woman and got out of that game 16 years ago. Maybe things have changed since then.
- philmon | 07/30/2008 @ 17:59
Morgan, this is interesting stuff. I would point to a vein that I don’t think has been tapped yet, though philmon has come close with his lament for women who find their cocky mate turns abusive.

When I think of “self-deprecating” in the context of humor, I imagine a person who is able to laugh at themselves rather than someone who has low self-esteem. In that case, self-deprecating humor expresses just the opposite; a person who is comfortable in their own skin even with its blemishes. It indicates a deep confidence or maturity that some women find attractive.

On the other side, the “cocky” individual is actually more likely to be unsure of themselves and cops the cocky attitude to compensate for their perceived inadequacies. It can even develop into dishonesty like the salesman’s adage; “accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.” So, the cocky one is likely presenting a distorted image of themselves. It is also likely that the cocky guy is much more interested in conquest than commitment, in sex rather than marriage. Taking the title of this thread, perhaps that is inevitable. Still, if your percentages of women being attracted to guys who can laugh at themselves are accurate, I am encouraged about the future of our culture.
- BroKen | 08/01/2008 @ 10:30

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Seducing Women with Self-Deprecating HumorTuesday, July 29th, 2008

Seducing Women with Self-Deprecating Humor
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008