Butterface
Wise Readers,
Lately, I’ve encountered a lot of what’s called Butterface—as in, when a man’s date has “a fantastic body…but her face…”
And it’s genuinely surprised me. Because I’ve always assumed that The Face trumps The Body.
After all, our beloved’s face is what we are presented with continually—so we’d better like what we see, yes? When men share snapshots of their wives and fiance’s, they’re usually headshots, not bikini pix, right? And when lovers fall in love, the length of their future relationship and the depth of their love can be measured and predicted by how much time the women *and men* spend gazing into one another’s eyes—not at one another’s bodies—, right? Not only that, but facial beauty showcases health (past and future) and fertility *plus* expressions of commitment and love—right?
Right. Empirically, emphatically, right.
Yet a recent spate of Butterface Sightings—wherein wealthy men displayed their Body-By-Barbie/Face-By-Flicka (the horse, not the website) squeezes—has me questioning my long-held assumptions.
Is The Body As Important As The Face?
Clearly, most of us, whatever our sex or orientation, would rather not choose. Given the option for a face *and* body that are lovely to behold, who wouldn’t want both?
Research concurs. For instance, pretty much everyone, male and female, recognizes when we’re in the presence of an over-all “10”. And pretty much everyone expresses attraction to that winning combo, although most sagely choose a partner both immediately (as on dating sites) and for the long-term who *matches* rather than excels our own physical beauty.
Men in particular care that their mate is generally pleasing to behold. Even blind men who will *never* see their partners are known to enquire of others as to their date’s appearance. Beauty is not only a sexual attractant and health/fertility sign, after all; it’s also a marker of Status—status which puts men one-up or one-down compared to other men. And Men Seek Status in all things—most definitely including their partners. (Trophy wife, anyone?)
Sexy images that cater to The Male Ideal underscore the masculine preference for total beauty. Whoever saw a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model or Playboy centerfold with a perfect body and a fug mug? Call it airbrushing, call it what you will, these publications cater to their readers’ tastes. And their readers are mainly men whose tastes run to fantasizing over The Total Package. No trade-offs.
Yet I always assumed that if a trade-off *had* to be made, men would sacrifice the Fair Form for the Fair Face.
When Is The Body More Important Than The Face?
Trouble is, my assumption arises from predictable female—but not necessarily male— biases towards The Face and the Long-Term. I’m assuming men value Faces in the short- and long-term because *I* do. I’m assuming through my examples at the article’s start that we’re all aiming for long-term relationships, because that’s what *I’ve* aimed for.
Most women share my biases. New research shows that women tend to value The Face of a prospective partner —short-or long-term—more than The Body. And extensive evolutionary science has found that women tend to think of Flings and Affairs mostly when ongoing mateships are either not an option (Johnny doesn’t come marching home), or when our long-term objectives have already been met (we’ve got the husband and might now chance a Spare Rib).
Yet I’m committing mating-centrism by assuming men think like women. Indeed, as many Love Science articles have detailed (see beneath my signature), men’s Ms. Right and Ms. Right Now mating strategies run in tandem; both operate at the same time, nearly all the time, to various degrees in various men. And men use *different* markers for Which Woman Fits Which Category.
So, whether men value The Body over The Face should depend on whether they are in Short- or Long-Term Mating Mode…
And according to two articles—one so new, it’s not yet published,— that is indeed the case.
As Jaime Confer, Carin Perilloux, and David Buss found, men seeking long-term love –like women in general— value The Face first. But men anticipating Sex For Tonight are somewhat more swayed by The Body.
Specifically, men were told to assume they were either seeking a one-night stand *or* long-term love—and were then forced to choose whether to see *only* the prospective Miss’ Body or Face. One-night-standers elected to view The Body twice as often as long-termers (51% vs. 25%). Mr. Right Now also gave The Body substantially higher priority ratings.
Who The Man Is matters, too. Men who say they habitually pursue short-term relationships in real life place greater importance on The Body than men who think of themselves as more long-term kinda guys.
Evolutionarily, this makes sense: Men in short-term mode are operating from a Sex-Now/Progeny-Now inherited mating mentality where they are valuing signs of women’s *immediate fertility*, and these signs are readily conveyed by the woman’s hourglass shape. Is she already pregnant—however gorgeous her face? No go. Can she get pregnant right now? Let’s go.
And Mr. Right uses a beautiful face to gauge women’s *ongoing reproductive value*: Can she get pregnant many times in the future, over the course of a long mateship? Let’s marry. (Some restrictions apply, see offer for details.)
Applying this to the real world, men—especially those in the One-Nighter habit— should be ready to pursue women with fantastic Bods (albeit usually with matching Faces) for short-term liaisons, and women with a pretty Face (with or without the corresponding Bod) for their long-term Choice. Right?
Maybe. This is just one study—one of the few of its kind, and important, but far from answering All The Questions. Even it shows that far more men value The Face than The Body, unless we’re talking very casual sex and Players. Even then, The Face tends to be always quite important.
So, if science shows that men in Ms.-Right-Now mode have only a slight to moderate preference for The Body above The Face, what’s with the Butterface Sightings? Are they exceptions that surprise *because* of their exceptional quality—or is something more going on? And how large can the Face-Body mismatch be, in general, before the mismatch is just too great?
So far, it seems no Body knows.
Cheers,
Duana
Related Love Science articles:
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/when-men-wait-for-sex-dumb-like-a-fox.html
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/sex-the-happily-single-girl.html
The author wishes to acknowledge the following scientists and sources:
David M. Buss, for his assistance with this article, and for his riveting presentation of what men (versus women) want—what happens when mates mismatch—and why, in The Evolution Of Desire - Revised Edition 4 .
Jaime Confer, Carin Perilloux, and David M. Buss, for their in-press article titled, “More than just a pretty face: men’s priority shifts toward bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating contexts”. Soon to be published in the journal of EvolutionAnd Human Behavior.
Tom Currie and Anthony Little, for recent research showing men’s preference for Body over Face in short-term mating. The full article is here.
Leonard Lee and others, for online daters’ hesitation to approach those who are Out Of Their League—even though they fully appreciate the physical beauty therein. The full article is here.
If this article intrigued, surprised or enlightened you, please click “Share Article” below to link it with your favorite social media website.
All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D. and Love Science Media, 2010
Do you have a question for Duana? Contact her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com
Share Article Print Article Permalink tagged Affairs, Dating, Evolutionary Psychology, Male Female Differences, Sexuality
Reader Comments (32)
Sooo...
What, exactly, are men looking for aside from a low waist-to-hip ratio? Are they looking for a baseline of fitness? Or softness? Cultural perfection? I recognize that men will prefer a body with the most possible health markers, but those of us imperfect ladies out here are inevitably wondering what really is the standard. What constitutes a perfect figure? A fabulous hourglass shape can be totally marred by a skin condition, or even something completely benign like a peeling sunburn. What about Ms. Fitness USA with a boyish shape but rock-hard abs? What about the sultry girl with the right proportions and beautiful skin who is slightly above the size considered by her culture to be truly hot?
Although it's good to know the truth about this type of thing, I think most of us women fall short of what we think is even ADEQUATE, so how are we to ever not worry what the men think?
OK, I saw this exact thing happen in law school. Many, many years ago. To a gal in my class. She had the body of a Greek Goddess. Legs up the there, and boobs out to .... where?? And all natural. The guys would literally stop and stare when "Bella" walked by, drop their jaws (and sometimes their books) and undress her with their eyes.
Bella's face was the trouble. She had dark lustrous hair, but a face that was all angles, a tiny hook nose, and squinty eyes that no makeup could make bright. The disparity between her body-beauty and her "fug face" was so great that people remarked about it with regularity. Poor Bella.
Nevertheless, Bella had her pick of any guy on campus. She dated alot of them, but married none. Bella left school after her first year, never became a lawyer, and I often wondered what happened to her. One day I literally gasped when I punched up the remote and saw Bella on TV. There she was, choosing among 3 houses, and featured (alone), searching for a home, on the cable show, "House Hunters"!!! And still looking fab-body at 40, I might add. But alone. Poor Bella.
So here's my question. Basically it's the same as Monica's above. What do the long-term guys want? I'd say my body is average to below, and my face is average to above. My waist is smaller than my hips, but I can't bear to handle a tape measure. Overall, average, average, average. Of course, there are other factors (e.g., my charming personality) but that is not seen .... at first.
Love this article.
Well, and doesn't long-term start with short-term? How many guys are doing dedicated spouse hunting as opposed to accidentally finding their partner through an extension of the short-plan?
Wow. "Assuming men think like women" is right.
You all are wanting a formula, and I know that you won't believe me when I tell you that there *isn't* any formula.
Okay, Tom. But these studies are showing that the body is more important in short-term mating. If you're saying there is no formula, that means it is extremely subjective and may even defy logic. Whereas facial beauty is consistent across cultures and time, bod-beauty is never going to be (if this is the case). How can these two really be compared?
And I will ask something I have asked before, which is whether we are talking about good body/unattractive face vs. unattractive body/good face OR good body/average face vs. average body/good face. This makes a huge difference in my mind.
Obviously we will (even subconsciously) steer away from unattractiveness, but what about mediocrity? Since most people are average, and the research says we generally do not select someone who is substantially more attractive than we, then it seems the standards of hotness would not score at the airbrushed model level for most.
Hmmm. I puzzle over how women think.
If you want *another* type of test in your effort to understand men's preferences, try this one:
Show a man twenty (or more) different photographs of women, with any combination of body type and facial features, and tell him "These women all said that they would sleep with you. Your job is to *eliminate* only the ones that you will not agree to sleep with."
I predict that the fraction of eliminated individuals will be very VARIABLE (i.e. subject to individual preferences). I also predict that a small minority of men would eliminate more than 50 pct of the candidate women (this is pure speculation on my part, btw).
Most men would *not* eliminate more than 50 pct of the candidates . . . why? because for a man, being accepted is the first priority and there are a wide spectrum of completely attractive combinations of body type and facial qualities.
Now, perform the same experiment: show men pictures of 20+ women, and this time say "All these women agreed to marry you. Your job is to eliminate only those candidates that you would not even *consider* marrying."
I predict, again, a highly subjective response from the male subjects . . . a higher percentage of rejected female candidates . . . and maybe, just maybe, a trend toward candidates who appear "more pleasant company" as opposed to hotter/risky/negative-personality or other screening traits.
Women simply must relax their grip on the whole "appearance drives attraction" model. NO it does not. Not even in Sports Illustrated. Appearance drives curiosity.
For me I know that proportion is very important. A beautiful face on an ugly body, or a beautiful body with an ugly face would most likely stop me from approaching someone. However, I have dated women with "okay" faces and "okay" bodies. What the ratio of Face to Body is, I could not tell you. It is very subjective, and may be somewhat determined by the time of night/morning I am asking (But, that's another scenario altogether)
So, if I find someone who meets the subjective criteria, then the next step is what is their personality like. Are they smart, hold interesting conversation, show interest in me as a person versus just themselves, then I would almost definitely continue pursuing her. I have dated some very beautiful women who after the first few sentences, I was ready to run (forget coyote ugly; this is roadrunner time) Ok, maybe I would stick around for the first night. I am a guy after all.
I guess my point is that the appearance is the admission ticket. The personality is if I stay for the entire show.
Wise & Loyal Readers,
I am reading your many comments with avid interest. As this is the first week of the new teaching semester, I have as yet been unable to respond in kind...but I will do so very soon! Thanks for your patience and input.
Cheers,
Duana
I like "appearance drives curiosity" from Tom. It's been interesting for me to see my daughter go through high school and college dating. My daughter is extremely beautiful and has a strong, athletic figure that is pretty muscle-y. Around here the "hot" girls are blonde, skinny, and wear a lot a makeup and fashionable clothes. My daughter has her own style. She's brunette and loves it, wears classic clothing, and looks great without makeup during the day but cleans up like a movie star at night and on those day occasions when makeup is required. She knows how to walk, speak like an intelligent person, and she's a lady. But she had a very hard time getting dates until recently, and the big change (I think) is that she has finally become somewhat removed from the school context and is around guys who are not just looking for hookups.
She used to be so intimidated by the "beauty" of certain girls. (The ones who got the dates.) My husband and I would see them and think, "THIS is what she's intimidated by?!!" Some of them were horrible! Definite butterfaces with way too much makeup. The others were average to pretty. Not one beautiful girl in the lot. BUT, they all looked "hot". It was striking for me to notice the indicators that announced her hotness because I had never focused on that before. They all imply "availability". Whether it's the boobs, the clothes, the hair, the look of intense boredom with anything other than sex or drinking...
How does this play in?
For the record, I concur completely with Vincent. Well said, man. And I empathize with miss traditional. IMO your daughter has nothing to worry about, she will be recognized for her own high value by many, many people.
Dear Monica,
There are no studies—none at all—that manipulate various levels of facial beauty *and* body beauty and then have men (or women) choose what combination they’d find most acceptable. I was searching for such to find The Formula, and it just does not exist—not in research, anyway.
But. There are many studies that show that a 10’s a 10 Around The
World. Beauty is very far from subjective. If scientists used the word “fact”, they would use it here.
For instance, there are many experiments showing exactly what constitutes a gorgeous body—male or female—and what constitutes a heavenly face—male or female. To wit, Randy Thornhill and others have found in multicultural research that perfectly beautiful faces are perfectly *average* faces—their features are symmetrical, even, regular, and represent an average of whatever the various features (noses, cheeks, eyebrows, over-all facial shape) can look like. Smooth skin, too, is valued everywhere—that plus beautiful features connote youth, health, Genes that resist disease—and hence Survival and Procreative Value.
And as you pointed out, The Waist is important. Devendra Singh’s widely replicated research shows that a female waist 30% smaller than the hips is optimally attractive in every culture in the world, at all points in history, and in all forms of porn, mags, and art that display the womanly form. There is cultural variation in what *weight* men desire; men from cultures that are historically calorie-scarce like plump women, and men from calorie-rich cultures prefer thin women. But *all* of them want that .7 WHR (waist to hip ratio).
(I attempted to contact Dr. Singh for an interview for this article, in fact, and was saddened to learn that he passed away in May of this year.)
There are even studies where people post pix of themselves online and allow many thousands of others to rate their looks—and the ratings are amazingly similar from one viewer to the next. Everyone knows who’s Hot…and who’s Not. Beauty is not nearly as much in the eye of the beholder as we’d probably all like to imagine. (For an article that you can read in full detailing this, please see the link to Leonard Lee’s research at the end of the full-length Butterface article above. To be rated and perhaps even studied yourself, you can visit HotorNot.com).
(continued)
But your deeper question is, I think, your second: What are women supposed to do about our less-than-perfect looks? How, indeed, are we not to worry continually over what men think?
One of the tough things about reading (and writing) an article like this is that it is threatening. The core message can seem to be that women must all be gorgeous in every way to establish and maintain a happy relationship.
Fortunately for you and me and every Body out there, that message is False!
You can demonstrate this for yourself by noting which of your friends is less than perfectly beautiful, yet happily wed. And by observing which gorgeous celebs are nonetheless miserably divorced or perpetually unable to work anything out, long-term.
And science has proven it as well.
In Real Life, what happens—and this is so well-established it’s now cliché in social science—is called The Matching Phenomenon.
People *know* when they’re in the presence of Hotness—yes--but they *don’t* usually choose the best-looking person available. (Not the smart ones, anyway.) Instead, most people pick a lifemate who *matches* their own level of physical attraction.
Indeed, for their own peace of mind, they must. As it happens, men who marry ‘up’—that is, partner with someone who is Too Good Looking compared to themselves—are risking being cheated on at a much greater than average level (same goes for women, btway. Oh, and for Zebra finches, too—when researchers manipulate the male finch’s status up or down, by altering his leg color, he is cheated on more if he is made to appear lower-status—less if his status is heightened.).
The *only* situation where an appearance mismatch between straight mates is reliably found is when the man is Rich (but not so good-looking)—and the woman is Gorgeous allll over (but not so rich). Then, the risk for cheating is lessened, because they’ve achieved a trade that is Equal to a Match.
Upshot? Don’t worry, be happy. If you look about as good as your mate does—or you look much better than he but he’s rich—then you look plenty good enough.
Dear Vincent and Tom:
“I guess my point is that the appearance is the admission ticket. The personality is if I stay for the entire show.” “Appearance drives curiosity”.
Well-said. We’ve all met Attractive Persons who ceased to be so the moment they opened their pretty mouths. And we’ve likewise encountered those who didn’t seem so tremendously appealing…at first…and then magically transformed their image through their Other Qualities.
Also, I like Tom’s test to tease apart how much of the Mating Mind is geared towards physicality for the hook-up versus the aisle-march. Researchers have actually put men in similar head-spaces to see what they’d say, and the results roughly match up with your hypothetical situation: Over 80% of the young fellas said they would have sex with an unattractive woman who was drunk, mentally retarded, and/or unconscious—but when asked to consider a prospective bride, their standards in many, many regards (not just looks) were stringent. (Women, on the other hand, had stringent standards for one-nighters *and* life-timers—the theory being that if a woman gets pregnant, she’s stuck with the Result/Child for a lifetime regardless of how long she was with Dad, so she’d best be careful.)
In another study done in Florida and again in the UK, 75% of men said yes (unhesitatingly—I’ve seen the footage!) to sex with a beautiful woman who approached them out of the blue at their college campus…but 0% of women said yes to an equally appealing stranger who offered one-night sex. (The technology was hidden-camera; the sex remained in all cases unconsummated. I’ll bet some of those research participants felt ripped-off!)
All of that said, appearance does indeed continue to drive initial attraction, and even long-term attraction to some extent.
For instance, the vast majority of the people who are routinely worried about and willing to work towards having a good physical appearance are people who are trying to attract MEN.
Gay men and straight women work like hell to look good…because we have to, to catch that initial glimpse that can Lead Somewhere (and we also need to keep the guy wanting More.)
Straight men…not so much; women simply don’t have the same *requirement* for physical appearance (We require resources and the willingness to Share them with Us. Caveat: women seeking affair partners do look for a hunka hunka burnin’ hunk. They’re only after One Thing, after all—sex with Superior Genes--, and they generally get it.).
In long-term mating, looks continue to matter (please see response to Monica, above). Indeed, some scientists think men’s ‘middle-age crisis’ is not caused by *his* age—but his *wife’s*. As men age and they possess more and more Resources, their stock rises—at the same time their wives’ stock of Youth and Beauty takes a dive she cannot prevent forever.
So I was depressed for days when I read an article showing that in long-term marriages, women who were better-looking (and/or who remained In Their Husband’s League, looks-wise) were treated better by their husbands and were cheated on less. Because who can be a 10 forever??? Without becoming one of the undead, I mean???
Again, the key seems to be to have a good Match with one’s mate—in looks and in other vital areas such as values, etc. No, we can’t look Young & Hot forever—just as not every man can be a trillionaire Trump (hopefully without the comb-over).
But we can try to match our mates—and for most people, most of the time, that is Good Enough.
Dear Miss Traditional,
I agree with Tom—your daughter has *nothing* to worry about. Quite the contrary.
Applying the research behind this article to Real Life, here’s what I would say: Beware the Body Snatchers. If men are constantly approaching you when you’re in H-O-T mode, it’s because you’re in H-O-T mode; it does *not* mean they want you for anything long-term. (It doesn’t mean they only want a hook-up, either—the point is, though, at first it’s Impossible To Tell.)
Also, hooking up on campuses is a real phenomenon and has largely replaced dating. And…guess what…it’s also largely tied to looking H-O-T, which can be seen to convey easy sexual access and low long-term status!
As at least one multi-year national study of USA campus life shows, most college women are confused and hurt in their dating lives. Most women continue to enter (and leave) college hoping to find yes, a degree, but even moreso to find love and marriage; yet dating on college campuses has been empirically shown to be increasingly rare—and hook-ups are increasingly common.
A hook-up can be anything from sleeping over to kissing to having intercourse to oral sex to just holding the guy’s beer while he shoots pool. The term is intentionally nebulous, to protect reputations and to prevent the expectation of a Serious Relationship. And women, more than men, are found to pay a high emotional price in terms of confusion and pain in this arrangement.
(Anyone who wants the article, email me and I’ll send you the PDF. Don’t say you weren’t warned, though…it’s Depressing.)
So, now that your daughter—beautiful, classy and conveying High Status through her lovely-yet-not-sluttish appearance and her intelligence, wit and charm—is out among Men and not Boys, she will do well. Kudos to her for avoiding the hook-ups; now she can find what and whom she’s really after, sans that particular pain.
"As at least one multi-year national study of USA campus life shows, most college women are confused and hurt in their dating lives."
____________________________
Hmmm, Men Too! Go figure. At least, if my experience and the experience of my four collegian sons is a valid sample.
Hi again, Monica :)--
In response to your excellent query regarding "how many guys are doing dedicated spouse hunting as opposed to accidentally finding their partner through an extension of the short-plan?":
Although most men simultaneously (and often unconsciously) are operating Long- and Short-Term mating strategies, there are individual differences. That is, some guys habitually want a long-term thing rather than a short-term fling; others are opposite in their over-all desire.
The research that formed the backbone of this article showed that. The men who wanted Ms. Right (and usually dated long-term) placed a huge premium on The Face…the Ms.-Right-Now types mostly elected to see The Body even though it meant they were prevented from viewing The Face.
Yet many a Player has become a Stayer…often because the woman with The Looks refused to give out any sex sans commitment. A survey conducted through Rutgers U. found that the TOP reason young college-age men gave for avoiding or delaying marriage was…easy access to sex without commitment.
So women who make themselves high-status—by delaying sex, behaving like they respect themselves and expect the same of others, being beautiful but not sluttish, not moving in before a wedding date is set, etc.—often find that, whatever category their man may have placed them in initially, they’re now in the slot marked Mrs.
A number of Love Science articles have addressed how women can convey high status and/or be more beautiful; they are here:
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/women-as-sex-objects-youth-beauty-and-beating-the-odds.html
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/men-as-success-objects-or-why-a-mans-job-is-to-have-a-good-j.html
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/when-men-wait-for-sex-dumb-like-a-fox.html
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/sex-the-happily-single-girl.html
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/hard-to-get-mating-centrism-and-other-pitfalls-of-early-dati.html
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/put-a-ring-on-it-trial-separation-versus-trial-marriage.html
Dear No Name, Please,
I feel badly for your former lawschool classmate, Bella. Since this article has posted, a number of men have contacted me about their liaisons with women similarly endowed...when I asked the guys what their intentions towards their friend had been, all said they were intending only something short-term. I have also had female friends who were in Bella's role--and had Bella's outcome (but without the TV spot).
I think if I were in the situation Bella was in, and I knew of this research, I would simply refuse to Put Out at all until someone I loved fell in love with me, declared that love, and requested exclusivity. (Future article to discuss the why's and wherefore's.)
As for your own question (and please forgive my taking so long to address it) regarding how good-looking is good enough, I hope the answers to Monica, and then to Tom and Vincent, helped clarify. If not, let me know.
Hi, Tom,
As a great friend and former boyfriend of mine likes to say, "Dating: It's a blood sport."
He's got a point. It's not an easy thing for either sex.
However, in the current hook-up environment prevailing at American universities, it seems that the female desire towards long-term commitment is particularly thwarted. Because the early stages of courtship put the sexes at odds in terms of mating psychology, the prevailing social milieu tends to favor one gender's psychology or the other at any one point in time. Right now, it's one of the better times, historically, to be a guy seeking sex and only sex.
For everyone else, repeat from my friend: "Dating: It's a blood sport."
Here, another insight from a female Love Science reader who wrote me privately:
"...it's so unfair that we're "victims" of our genes, isn't it? But really, I guess there's no sense in b*tching about how people "should" feel and what's "right": the fact of the matter is that when you Love someone, you still LOVE them even if they get fat, lose both breasts, or are in a fire, but YOU MAY NO LONGER BE PHYSICALLY ATTRACTED TO THEM.
"Just a further example of the soul/body divide. Behavior of the soul is something we CAN control (whether we like to admit that or not), but the body is another matter."
So the universally attractive women has a .7WTH ratio - Okay. What percentage of women have such a ratio? And is a ratio of .8WTH considered by most to be as appealing (unappealing) as a 1.0WTH ratio?
Are there any real universally attractive male features besides having resources or the appearance of strong genes to pass on?
Also, do most lesbians agree with straight women on the .7WTH ratio? Could there even be a universal attractiveness feature in that community when it seems the scale can range from super-butch, to androgyny, to lipstick.
How about gay men? I mean there are a ton of types in this community (twinks, bears, daddies, etc.) I wouldn't expect a universal attractiveness feature except possibly penis size.
Finally, for those men who find transsexuals appealing, does the appeal of the .7WTH ratio still apply? And does it matter if the man fawning over the transsexual self identifies as gay or straight?
BTW, your article rocks!
Dear Ben,
WOW—great (and abundant) questions! Here, in order, are the answers as they currently stand:
1. I don’t know what percentage of women possess the perfect .7 WHR—but the greatest number are young and/or healthy. In other words, most young, healthy women have that WHR, and most older or unhealthy women don’t—and the less young and healthy a woman is, the further away from .7 her WHR becomes.
Indeed, the fertility of women is highly correlated to that WHR, so it’s unconscious wisdom guiding the Mating Mind of men to attempt mateships with these women.
Unfortunately, that means men tend to avoid approaching women for anything long-term (or even short-term) as the WHR gets further away from .7.
So, to answer your question, a waist only 10% smaller than the hips is less appealing than a 30%-smaller waist—but 10% smaller is still better than 0%. And 0% beats 10% larger waist than hips—which can signify pregnancy or extreme lack of health.
2. There are indeed universally attractive physical features men can possess. A V-shaped torso where the shoulders are broad and well-muscled, and the waist is narrow, is sexy around the world (not tooo0oo muscle-y, though—women actually are usually grossed out by He Who Is As A Series Of Balloons Strung Together). A square jawline, smooth skin (not marked by disease, for instance)—both signify good Genes.
(Just for fun, here’s a photo of a man who Fits Type perfectly: Henry Cavill, who plays King Henry VIII’s best friend in the Showtime series The Tudors: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3621099008/nm0147147).
Only men with great Genes can ‘afford’ the highly masculinized face that women universally find H-O-T—the testosterone it takes to make these faces compromises the immune system during adolescence. So a man who survives to adulthood and still looks fantastic is quite the specimen.
On the other hand, women’s preferences for male physicality depends in part on the woman’s fertility. Women who are ovulating prefer He Of Great Genes (and uber-manly appearance)…women in other parts of their cycle prefer men with slightly more feminized features—still handsome, but signifying a Stayer rather than a Player.
To complicate the matter further, women have, in at least one study, indicated they’d rather choose as a long-term mate a man with the more feminized features, figuring the Uber-Male will stray (Uber-Man still gets top billing for a one-night-stand).
Female preferences may be quite protective in this way: Men who have the Great Genes tend to be Great Cads, enjoying many affairs whether or not committed otherwise; whereas men with the less testosterone-ized features tend to make Great Dads who faithfully raise their own children…and sometimes unwittingly rear other men’s children as well.
And women who do have affairs often unconsciously fit a predictable pattern: They tend to choose the Uber-Males for the flings, after getting Mr. Great Dad for their husband. Then they have the Dad *and* the Cad.
(Thought I’d throw that in there for the times when Love Science might seem to be giving out all the angel’s wings to the girls.)
3. When considered as a group, lesbian women rarely embody the .7 WHR compared to straight women, but it’s hard to categorize lesbians as effectively as other groups—because women’s sexuality is so fluid, as an earlier QNA demonstrated. And because, as you point out and research confirms: There’s more than one general type of lesbian.
It’s increasingly appearing as though there really are Butch and Femme lesbians. The Butch lesbians seem to lack the .7WHR but to like a partner who is youthful and beautiful (Femme); more feminized lesbians seem to prefer a partner who has Resources, but to care less what that partner’s appearance is.
So, however non-PC: Yes, your observation that lesbians might range from the super-butch to the lipstick does appear on-target per the latest research.
4. Gay men are not only stereotyped as being better-looking (both in Face and in Body) than straight men—they are in actuality better-looking, on average. (Exceptions apply; see Henry Cavill photo for details.)
That is, when total strangers rate photos of gay and straight men on a 1-10 scale—without knowing the study even has anything to do with sexual orientation—the gay men over-all receive sexxxier ratings than the straight men over-all.
(The criteria for male beauty seems to be universal, though—broad shoulders, tapered waist, strong, masculinized facial features…Henry Cavill, be still my heart…I digress…wait, I’ll be back in a few minutes…).
Of course, though, Love Science and the articles I rely upon are intended to describe Most Of The People, Most Of The Time, rather than focusing upon exceptional cases. So I haven’t addressed specializations/fetishes/’types’—and although I know you’re right that some folks are into pleather, some into body hair, redheads, feet, etc., I can’t address it because I’m not aware of it beyond the anecdotal.
(Ditto for your questios on transsexuality—although the scientist in me guesses that yes, men who want a woman who has a penis, still want the appearance of the .7 WHR.)
Again, great questions—btway, they rock! ;)
And your questions bring up one of my own--one that I don't know of any research on:
Since straight observers tend to find gay men best-looking--does that mean the gay men got the better genes? Are they the most Uber Men of all, on average?
I wonder...
Didn't you say that "best looking" comes from an extra surge of testosterone during puberty? I thought there was less testosterone in gay men. ???
Dear Grover,
The classic chiseled features of Uber-Man do require high testosterone beginning in adolescence. Gay men do not necessarily have less testosterone in puberty or adulthood...sometimes, they may (or may not) be exposed to less in-utero, though.
Ah, the mysteries.
Aaaand here's a series of exchanges from my Facebook announcement of this article that shows a basic distinction between what *women* think is/isn't important to men in terms of looks...and what the case probably is in reality:
From Reader Woman #1:
When a person has a beautiful soul, treats others kindly, charismatic, sincere, & are loving to others, then this person becomes sexy & irresistable on the outside.
From Duana:
...ummm...no. :)
From Reader #1: Si! A shallow personality makes a person so unsexy. I speak the truth!
From Duana:
A hideous personality can utterly ruin attraction...and a great personality can overcome an ugly exterior...but [esp. male!] people do not literally see unattractive people as gorgeous, no matter what. Eleanor Roosevelt was a beautiful person...she was an unattractive woman.
From Reader #1:
Wow! This is the 1st time I do not totally agree with your educated opinion. I find people with a beautiful heart, to be very physically attractive.
From Duana:
That may be because you're writing as a woman, and not as a man. A man can love a physically unappealing woman--but he is very aware that she is physically unappealing. Men's visual processing is much more basic and primary to their attraction than is women's.
So--if I were writing as a woman, I could agree with you. I once loved a man who was in fact muy fea (very ugly). But as a scientist who knows men's thoughts from that perspective--men do not process all this the same way women do.
From Reader #1:
So, what you're saying is that most men are very basic and visual. Keep 'em fed and in front of a t.v. for visual stimulation, then most of them are happy as clams on a beach full of bikini babes. Sounds like my husband...except being publicly seen being happy on a beach full of bikini babes.
From Duana:
Show up naked...bring beer.
From Reader #2 (also a woman):
See. That's what I was saying Duana. Glad your research proved what I already knew: Women do not JUST fall for looks. It's the personality, humor, mind...to our credit. Then we'll find the object of our affection attractive. There are far less "Shallow Hal's" among the female gender...
From Duana:
Well...lest we get too proud of ourselves...remember, almost all the gold-diggers out there have at least two XX chromosomes... :)
From Reader #2:
Lets expand on that point Duana: Income, or potential income may be a prerequisite for women, but that would not be the only requirement for most women. It's still the entire package. There is attraction maybe not just for their money but ...the type of person (work ethic, personal standards..etc) I think income helps either gender as far as attraction goes. In this modern era where women may no longer need a man to finance them it's that they are compatible; similar ambitions, priorities, beliefs. So, yes and no...as with most things; the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
From Duana:
True (regarding money being Not Everything)--but the same can be said for men (regarding beauty being Not Everything).
Beauty opens the door--it does *not* garner the marriage proposal; income/potential opens the door--it does *not* make women fall in love.