Learn · Marketing claims translated
Secret desires
Invented example
Decode what she really wants tonight. She'll never say it.
Ideas it might be pointing at
A short claim can stand for several different ideas. Each is set out here with how well it is supported, and whether that support goes toward the advert's promise.
| Idea | What it is | Evidence | Does this support the advert? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fantasy and wishes | The difference between imagining something and wanting to act on it. | Evidence: Plausible12 | No. Fantasies that many people assume are unusual are common in adult surveys, and in one study whether a fantasy was also a wish to act on it depended on the fantasy. A fantasy is never agreement to anything. |
| Stated ideals and real attraction | What people say they want in a partner, compared with who they feel drawn to. | Evidence: Supported with caveats3 | Partly. Several studies find that what people say they want in an ideal partner predicts poorly who they feel drawn to after meeting in person. That fits the idea that what people say is not the whole story, but it gives no hidden answer shared by everyone. |
| People differ | Differences in what one person prefers compared with another. | Evidence: Plausible4 | No. In one sample of heterosexual US women, following a traditional passive script in sex went with more dissatisfaction only for the women who did not enjoy that script. The women differed in what they preferred, so no single answer covers them. |
| Reading minds | How well people read what others think and feel. | Evidence: Plausible5 | No. In two studies, people overrated how well they read others, and the least accurate overestimated most; self-rated mind-reading ability tracked actual accuracy only weakly or not at all. |
| Wishes color the reading | One's own wishes shaping what one sees in others. | Evidence: Supported with caveats6 | No. Several studies find that people who want more sexual involvement themselves tend to see more sexual interest in others, so one's own wishes can color how friendliness is read. |
| Saying and asking | Talking openly about preferences. | Evidence: Well supported7 | No. Studies find that couples who communicate more openly and well about sex tend to report higher sexual satisfaction and higher relationship satisfaction. That is about talking and listening, not about decoding what is left unsaid. |
What would make it testable
As stated, it cannot be tested. A claim about what people leave unsaid is unusually hard to falsify, so it needs more evidence, not less, and 'she' assumes one answer for everyone.
A testable version Among adults on a first date, does asking an open question about what the other person enjoys, compared with guessing, change each person's rated feeling of being understood, measured by a short questionnaire afterward?
The useful question underneath
Not knowing what one particular person likes, and feeling awkward asking. The aim 'I want to know what she likes' becomes: ask an open question, listen, notice what she suggests herself, and accept the answer.
Lessons that use this
Sources
Each numbered mark above opens the evidence behind that idea: the label, what it does not show and where it comes from.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsSexual fantasies that many people assume are unusual, including fantasies of submission or domination, are common in survey samples of adults.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A 1,516-person survey found only two of 55 fantasies statistically rare, and a review reports that roughly a third to over half of women in studies report fantasies about being forced, so presence of a fantasy is a weak sign of anything unusual.
What it does not show
- Joyal et al. is one internet survey of adults; Critelli et al. reviews studies of forced-sex fantasy in women only, and the abstract does not say why the range is wide (31-57%).
- Shows what people report fantasising about, not what they want to do or would accept.
- Fantasy prevalence differs by gender and by how it is measured.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Joyal, C. C., Cossette, A., Lapierre, V. (2015). What Exactly Is an Unusual Sexual Fantasy?, The Journal of Sexual Medicine.
- Critelli, J. W., Bivona, J. M. (2008). Women's Erotic Rape Fantasies: An Evaluation of Theory and Research, Journal of Sex Research.
Evidence: PlausibleWhether a fantasy is also a wish to act on it depends on the fantasy: among people in monogamous relationships whose favourite fantasy involved an open relationship, most said they wanted to act on it.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. This shows that some fantasies are experienced as wishes and others are not, which is why a partner's fantasy cannot be assumed to be either, and why the only way to find out is to talk about it.
What it does not show
- One large online sample of 822 people already in monogamous relationships.
- Concerns one fantasy theme (consensual non-monogamy) and says nothing about fantasies of dominance or being pursued.
- Intentions ('want to act') are not behaviour.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Lehmiller, J. J. (2020). Fantasies About Consensual Nonmonogamy Among Persons in Monogamous Romantic Relationships, Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsWhat people say they want in an ideal partner does a poor job of predicting who they actually feel drawn to after meeting someone in person.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Ideals reported before a speed-dating event did not predict real desire at the event, and in lab experiments, matching a written profile to someone's ideals raised interest, but the effect vanished after a live interaction. The traits that are decisive on paper are reinterpreted when you meet the person.
What it does not show
- Mainly speed-dating and lab samples (largely students, plus one middle-aged adult longitudinal sample), largely from one research group, so independence is limited.
- Ideals can predict outcomes in other stages, such as evaluating a current partner, per the review and the longitudinal study.
- Self-report of preferences and desire; people may lack introspective access, which is the authors' interpretation, not directly tested here.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Eagly, A. H. (2011). When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the process of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin.
Evidence: PlausibleAmong a sample of heterosexual US women, following the traditional passive or submissive sexual script was linked to more sexual dissatisfaction only for women who did not enjoy submissiveness, which suggests that women differ in what they prefer.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The study found no effect of benevolent sexism on dissatisfaction, and a script-by-preference interaction instead, so a lesson should avoid describing one preference as typical of women.
What it does not show
- Single study of 308 women (mean age about 38).
- Correlational, self-report; did not test partner behaviour or men's preferences.
- Heterosexual women with past sex with a man; US only.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Bonell, S., Lee, H., Pearson, S., Harris, E., Barlow, F. K. (2022). Benevolent Sexism and the Traditional Sexual Script as Predictors of Sexual Dissatisfaction in Heterosexual Women from the U.S., Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Evidence: PlausiblePeople overrate how well they read others, and the least accurate overestimate most; self-rated mind-reading ability tracked actual accuracy only weakly or not at all.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Supports calibration drills with feedback instead of trusting a feeling of insight. Plausible rather than supported because it rests on one paper (two studies); the authors state that earlier work also found a weak or non-existent link, which was not checked here.
What it does not show
- Two studies: a video-based accuracy test and a negotiation exercise with MBA students (Study 2: 164).
- Self-estimates were relative-ability (percentile) judgments; not tested in dating or flirting.
- Narcissism result is correlational.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Ames, D. R., Kammrath, L. K. (2004). Mind-Reading and Metacognition: Narcissism, not Actual Competence, Predicts Self-Estimated Ability, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsPeople who want more sexual involvement themselves tend to see more sexual interest in others, so one's own wishes can colour how friendliness is read.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Lenton and colleagues found projection of one's own casual-sex desire onto others, stronger when the target's motive was ambiguous. Lee and colleagues found that sex differences in misperception shrank once such projection and sociosexual orientation were accounted for.
What it does not show
- Two papers using study-setting ratings (scenario or speed dating)
- Self-report measures
- Associations, not proof of a causal mechanism
- Does not say who is right in a particular encounter; checking directly and kindly is what resolves it
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Lenton, A. P., Bryan, A., Hastie, R., Fischer, O. (2007). We Want the Same Thing: Projection in Judgments of Sexual Intent, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
- Lee, A. J., Sidari, M. J., Murphy, S. C., Sherlock, J. M., Zietsch, B. P. (2020). Sex Differences in Misperceptions of Sexual Interest Can Be Explained by Sociosexual Orientation and Men Projecting Their Own Interest Onto Women, Psychological Science.
Evidence: Well supportedCouples who communicate more openly and well about sex tend to report higher sexual satisfaction and higher relationship satisfaction.
Why this label
A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate. A multilevel meta-analysis of 93 studies finds moderate positive associations, and a large national survey and several couple studies point the same way.
What it does not show
- Almost all studies are correlational and cross-sectional, so direction is unknown: satisfied couples may also talk more easily.
- Mostly self-report and heterosexual couples in individualistic countries; the meta-analysis finds stronger links where individualism is higher and gender inequality lower.
- The association is moderate, so many satisfied couples talk little and many talkers are unsatisfied.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Mallory, A. B. (2022). Dimensions of couples’ sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction: A meta-analysis., Journal of Family Psychology.
- Frederick, D. A., Lever, J., Gillespie, B. J., Garcia, J. R. (2016). What Keeps Passion Alive? Sexual Satisfaction Is Associated With Sexual Communication, Mood Setting, Sexual Variety, Oral Sex, Orgasm, and Sex Frequency in a National U.S. Study, The Journal of Sex Research.
- Jones, A. C., Robinson, W. D., Seedall, R. B. (2018). The Role of Sexual Communication in Couples’ Sexual Outcomes: A Dyadic Path Analysis, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy.