Molly Hooper and the Science of Attraction 

 (Sherlock meta by notagarroter)

There is great variety in sexual behavior and response throughout the mammalian class, and particularly among human animals. Males of the human species are generally considered, in the existing literature, to have a heightened perception of and reception to sexual advances by females, but there exist, of course, many exceptions to this norm. One outlier of particular interest to the Experimenter is the subject of this experimental trial. The Experimenter has designed a series of experiments to investigate the sexual awareness and responsiveness of this male human subject (referred to henceforth as the Subject). Results and conclusions will be reported.

Experiment 1: Lipstick.

Method: The Experimentor left the room to apply some lipstick, then returned to observe the Subject’s response, if any.

Results: The Subject explicitly commented on the lipstick, therefore it can be concluded that it did have some effect on him. However, he does not seem to have interpreted it as a sexual advance.

Conclusion: While the Subject is aware of typical female body-modifications, his response to them is decidely negative.

Follow up to Experiment 1:

At the conclusion of the experiment, the Experimentor removed the lipstick. The Subject responded to this action negatively, and insisted that the Experimentor’s appearance was improved by it. Initial conclusion may need to be revised. Further data to be gathered at a later date.

Experiment 2: Denial of favors. 

Method: In the past, the Experimenter has generally been accommodating of the Subject’s requests. For the purposes of this experiment, the Experimenter denies a request and observes the result.

Results: Subject compliments Experimenter on her physical appearance.

Conclusion: Subject understands common human mate-attraction behaviors (“flirting”) and can mimic these behaviors in appropriate circumstances. The sincerity of the sentiment underlying the behavior remains in question, however. Further study required.

Experiment 3: Jealousy. 

Method: Experimenter seeks to incite jealousy in Subject by introducing him to a sexual rival.

Results: Subject is largely unperturbed by the rival. Unforeseen flaw in experimental design: the chosen rival seems more sexually interested in the Subject than the Experimenter, skewing the results.

Conclusion: Despite some experimental error, jealousy does not appear to be a useful motivator for the Subject.

Experiment 4: Glamour.

Method: Seeking clarification from the mixed results of the Lipstick experiment, the Experimenter uses the excuse of a Christmas party to test the effects of sexually provocative clothing on subject.

Result: While other males in the area responded to the display, the subject did not. In fact, subject reacted aggressively to the display. Further observation: Unexpectedly, the Subject reacted positively to being challenged and scolded by the Experimenter.

Conclusion: Visual displays of sexuality are not effective on subject. Surprising, given the subject’s tendency to dress in sexually provocative clothing himself. The Subject’s response to extra-experimental stimulus, however, warrants further study.

Research note: 

Subject appears to have intimate familiarity with the naked body of another woman. This information is unaccountable, based on what the Experimenter knows of the Subject. Further research definitely warranted.

Experiment 5: Bonding and Sympathy

Method: Experimenter initiates intimate conversation, including sharing personal history and offering friendly support.

Result: Subject seems at turns offended and baffled by overtures.

Conclusion: Total failure. No need for further research on this approach.

Edited conclusion: 

Experimenter may have been hasty with initial conclusions. Subject appears to have experienced a delayed reaction to the experiment. Subject returned later with an altogether different response to stimulus.

Experimenter has decided to discontinue experimental trial. Due to the shifting nature of her relationship with the Subject, the Experimenter can no longer maintain adequate objectivity for this study. The trial is on indefinite hiatus.