Learn the person, not "women"
Lesson 6 of 8 in this module · about 7 minutes · Romantic communication
The idea
What you know about one person’s preferences comes from what she says and does, stays about her, and is never carried to anyone else. A preference is a fact about one person. In this course you learn it in three ways: she says it, she shows it by contact she starts herself, or you ask.
People differ in what they prefer. In one study of 308 heterosexual US women, following a traditional passive or submissive sexual script was linked to more dissatisfaction only among women who did not enjoy submissiveness, which suggests that women differ in what they prefer 1. It is one correlational self-report study, so it is Plausible, not settled. This course uses it narrowly: it gives no basis for calling any preference typical of women. Touch shows the same spread. In a survey of over 14,000 people in 45 countries, how often people reported affectionate touch varied with country, age, sex and conservatism, and in a study of couples some people found even a partner’s touch unpleasant 2. Those are averages, and they say nothing about any one person.
Knowing things in advance helps less than it seems. In speed-dating studies, what people reported about themselves beforehand predicted general tendencies better than desire for a specific person, and a later 7-month study found only modest compatibility effects 3. Those were four-minute dates among mostly heterosexual students and community members. What she tells you about what she would like now is different evidence: it is her saying so.
Fantasy and past behavior are not preference either. In one sample of 1,040 adults, interest in particular less common sexual practices predicted having tried them, but interest and experience matched only about half the time on average 4. In one online sample of 822 people in monogamous relationships, most of those whose favorite fantasy involved an open relationship said they wanted to act on it, and the study says nothing about other fantasy themes 5. This course reads them together as a lesson: interest, experience and wish are different things, so you find out what one partner wants now by talking with her. That reading is ours, not a finding.
Learning also goes both ways. In one study of 104 long-term couples, telling a partner your preferences was linked to greater sexual satisfaction 6. It was cross-sectional and did not cover first encounters.
In the practice scenes, a fictional woman states a preference in one scene and the next shows you what she has told you. The app keeps no notes about real people.
Why it matters
A preference carried from one person to the next treats the next person as an example instead of as herself, and she never gets to say what she prefers. A past yes or a past no belongs to the person who gave it.
What it looks like
Example
Keiko, 35, tells you she likes to be asked before a hug. On your third date you say, “Can I give you a hug goodnight?” She says, “Yes, please.” You keep it as something Keiko said, about Keiko. That week at a pottery class you sit beside Bea, 29, whom you have just met. She has said nothing about hugs, so you know nothing about her, and you talk about the lopsided bowls.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same class. Because Keiko welcomed a hug, you assume Bea will, and you go in for a hug at the door.
Bea has said nothing about hugs. What Keiko said was about Keiko.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Learn her preferences from what she tells you and does; keep them about her, and when unsure, ask.
What she tells you in words outranks your reading of what she does. A clear no stays a no on that channel, and a preference can change, but a change comes from her: new words or contact she starts herself, never from you reading the moment. Keep what you learn about her for her. It does not carry to the next person, and it does not carry to a group.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Said at dinner, still true at the door. Notice what she told you, and what a single lean does and does not change.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, think about one thing you like and one you would rather skip in how friends greet you, and how you would say each kindly.
What this doesn’t tell you
These are single studies, mostly self-reports from US samples, and none tests how to learn a partner’s preferences on early dates. They show that people differ, not what any one person prefers: only she can say.
Why do we believe this?
Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim in this course carries one of five labels.
- Well supported
- A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate.
- Supported with caveats
- Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings.
- Plausible
- One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question.
- Speculative
- An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested.
- Marketing claim
- Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence.
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: Supported with caveatsHow often people touch affectionately varies across countries, ages and sexes, and some people find even a partner's touch unpleasant, so neither touch nor comfort with it can be assumed from the relationship.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A 45-country survey found affective touch varied with country, age, sex and conservatism. In a study of couples, higher touch aversion (partner touch feeling unpleasant) was linked to lower desire and more distress, and was more common in people reporting childhood maltreatment.
What it does not show
- Sorokowska 2021 measured self-reported frequency in the past week, not comfort or consent.
- Sansoucy 2025 is cross-sectional, self-report, with small indirect effects, so causal order is unclear.
- Group differences describe averages; they say nothing about any one person.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Sorokowska, A., Saluja, S., Sorokowski, P. (2021). Affective Interpersonal Touch in Close Relationships: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
- Sansoucy, M., Kotiuga, J., Daspe, M.-E., Bigras, N. (2025). Childhood maltreatment, sexual desire and sexual distress in couples: the role of touch aversion, Child Abuse & Neglect.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsKnowing someone's traits and stated preferences in advance does not reliably predict whom they will click with: such measures predict general tendencies better than desire for a specific person.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Speed-dating models could not predict desire for specific partners from pre-date self-reports, and a preregistered 7-month study found only modest compatibility effects, with perceived partner attributes, attachment features toward that partner (such as seeking closeness) and perceived interest standing out.
What it does not show
- Speed-dating is a 4-minute, mostly heterosexual, student or community setting.
- Machine-learning null results can reflect measurement limits.
- The later study was observational and self-reported.
- Neither abstract tests attachment style as a predictor of whom someone clicks with, and the 2022 study found attachment features felt toward a specific partner among the robust predictors, so the claim says nothing about attachment style.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J. (2017). Is Romantic Desire Predictable? Machine Learning Applied to Initial Romantic Attraction, Psychological Science.
- Eastwick, P. W., Joel, S., Carswell, K. L., Molden, D. C., Finkel, E. J., Blozis, S. A. (2022). Predicting romantic interest during early relationship development: A preregistered investigation using machine learning, European Journal of Personality.
Evidence: PlausibleIn a general-population sample of adults, interest in a paraphilic practice predicted having done it, but the average rate of having both interest and experience was only about 50%, so neither a fantasy nor a past experience reliably shows what a person wants now.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Concordance was partial, and it varied by gender and by whether the practice is legal, which means a person's interest and their behaviour have to be asked about separately.
What it does not show
- One sample of 1,040 adults recruited from the general population; paraphilic-interest categories, not fantasy content generally.
- 'Interest' is not the same as fantasy, and experience does not show current consent or preference.
- Secondary analysis; self-report. The inference about what a person wants now is the lesson-level reading, not a finding.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Joyal, C. C., Carpentier, J. (2021). Concordance and Discordance between Paraphilic Interests and Behaviors: A Follow-Up Study, The 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: PlausibleTelling a partner your sexual preferences is linked to greater sexual satisfaction, in a pattern consistent with the partner then understanding what you want and sexual experiences becoming more rewarding and less costly.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. One study of long-term couples supported this instrumental pathway for both women and men. Byers' review also reports that many partners find it hard to say what pleases or displeases them.
What it does not show
- One sample of 104 long-term heterosexual couples.
- Mediation in cross-sectional data does not establish cause.
- Does not cover first encounters or casual partners.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- MacNeil, S., Byers, E. S. (2009). Role of Sexual Self-Disclosure in the Sexual Satisfaction of Long-Term Heterosexual Couples, Journal of Sex Research.
- Byers, E. S. (2011). Beyond the birds and the bees and was it good for you?: Thirty years of research on sexual communication., Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne.
More practice
The rest of the set, Learn the person: four moments and two scenes: 4 moments, about 8 minutes. Read the moment, then choose the smallest reasonable next step. Holding, pausing and asking are always among the steps. Open the exercise set.
Go further
Outside talks, videos and pages on the topics this lesson cites. Nothing from them loads until you follow a link, and a link is not an endorsement: read the note under each one.
Jean Smith: The Science of Flirting: Being a H.O.T. A.P.E. | Jean Smith | TEDxLSHTM
Smith's H.O.T. A.P.E. model of flirting signs (humour, open body language, touch, attention, proximity, eye contact), from her interviews in four cities, presented as teachable cues.
Keep in mind. Popular framework from observational interviews, not a validated model; touch is presented as a signal, never as permission.
Jason Laker: Demystifying Sexual Consent Communication | Jason Laker, Ph.D. | TEDxSJSU
A university researcher on how college students communicate and read consent, including verbal and nonverbal cues, and why assuming consent from silence or ambiguity fails.
Keep in mind. Single-researcher talk drawing on a student sample; check against the consent-communication evidence file.
Dr. Tara: Become Sexually Powerful
A communication professor summarises a large survey on sexual communication and satisfaction; supports lessons that talking openly about preferences predicts better outcomes.
Keep in mind. Self-report survey presented in talk format; non-graphic content should be confirmed before linking.