Yes, oft cited. But the father of the "7%/38%/55%" rule is Mehrabian, so his arguments about misinterpretations derived from it might shed some light. Going back to sources often does. I would hope that those who differ from Mehrabian could also do enough original work to come up with a breakdown not dependent upon him. Because doing otherwise certainly gives the appearance of misinterpreting his work.

Well, you really are a dilettante of nearly everything, aren't you? He isn't the only one who has come to similar numbers. The standard in almost all studies on nonverbal is 60-80%. Mehrabian's estimate is fairly liberal, but it applied to specific conditions. Also, I would think Mehrabian would be the first to say that because some people misinterpret his point doesn't mean you should dismiss all similar percentages out of hand. Like I said, you need to study it a little more before dismissing it all based on one statement from one guy.

You seem to be suggesting that everyone who puts out the 80% figure is just repeating the same solitary source. This is not the case. Many independent studies have arrived at roughly the same numbers. Hey, David B. Givens' Nonverbal Dictionary gets a ringing endorsement from the New Scientist. All of us would do well to research and understand these things because, heaven forbid any of us ever get arrested or questioned by cops just because of our orientation, it's good to know that detectives are looking for this stuff. For example, from the 'deception cues' category of the ND:

"FBI special agent Joe Navarro has observed that, from analysis of videotaped interrogations, deceivers are less likely than truth tellers to use "gravity defying" gestures--such as lifting the toes (while seated), raising upward on the toes (while standing, at the end of a sentence, e.g., to add emphasis), and raising the eyebrows--which demonstrate conviction and faith in one's own spoken words (personal communication, August 8, 2001; see below, O. J. Simpson's murder trial)."

No, they don't determine guilt or innocence based on nonverbal cues, but they will factor it into their assessment, and it might make the difference whether they hassle you for awhile or leave you the fuck alone.

I've never argued that nonverbal cues override expressed consent. Nor do I believe I've ever argued that consent can be judged by a photograph. And it would be absurd to suggest that consent to perform be judged from a photograph of a performer performing.

I didn't argue any of those positions either. Yes, verbal consent should be sought and valued, but I think we could all conclude that if a girl says "yes" to sex but is clearly frightened and crying, she doesn't mean it. On the other hand, if she seduces you without ever saying, "Let's fuck," we can reasonably assume she wants to fuck. Capiche? Furthermore, as I've already said, my point in all of this is not for authorities to make decisions about the legality or properness of art based on the projected body language of the actor/subject; it is for artists to understand and look for these cues while making their own art. The point is, just because the model says "yes" or seems to consent doesn't mean she really wants to do what she's doing. Pay attention to her body language. That's all I'm saying. I don't know why you're even arguing with me over this; it's almost in the 'duh' territory.