Oh, the sacrifices scientists will do for science! University of New Mexico psychologist Geoffrey Miller "tapped the talent" at local gentleman's club (read: strip club) to find out what factor fertility plays in the showgirls' income.
Here's what he found out:
Over two-months, the dancers recorded their menstrual phase, whether they were taking the Pill, and how much they made.
First, the bad news: Birth control pills are a bummer for business. Pill-taking lap dancers, whose fertility is always suppressed, made substantially less money across the board.
Miller can't say for sure that pheromones make the difference, but the results were interesting. During the most fertile days of their cycle, NON pill-popping lap dancers pulled in nearly twice as much as they made when they were menstruating.
Links: The Loh Down on Science (by Sandra Tsing Loh) | Psychology Today (Photo: rileyroxx [Flickr])
Anyway, no, it does say that non-menstruating > menstruating. "NON pill-popping lap dancers pulled in nearly twice as much as they made when they were menstruating."
Also, could someone explain to me why Golly's rant was relevant?
This article states that the women make double the money when the ARE menstruating. As someone who formerly working in a club for 5 years and dated a dancer, I can tell you its true. We all made more money when we had our periods. Considerably more. We felt crappy, but did better. Thats what the article was trying to convey.
That's about as scientific as when they found traffic jams are a result of too many cars on the road.
You know if there was some lingering biological whatever operating that was signaling the fertile fitness of particular woman wouldn't we then expect to find that human mating all along was organized around women stripping. All those tens of thousands of year of cultural organization is just so much hogwash concealing the true, hidden, unspeakable reality of the human sex drive.
We know it's true because we're doing science at the strip club.