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)
Wow! Henry Cavill? Is that your best medical opinion? What about the Old Spice guy Isaiah Mustafa? <http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1983221504/nm2248149> LOL Glad you felt inclined to provide empirical data to make your point.
So I get it that dudes prefer women with the .7WTH ratio and the hard wiring (no pun intended) behind the preference. Going back to one of your previous articles, if women do indeed smell a good genetic match, and if it follows that those from a more divergent ancestry are likely to build more hardy offspring, why is it that dating/mating within one's own race is still the norm? In the aggregate, is culture stronger that genetics?
Ben, if this weren't a family column, I would say: LMAO! Oh, wait...
You win. Old Spice Guy is hotter than Cavill.
As for the rest of your query...it turns out that there is great enough genetic diversity within all studied groups (even the Hutterites!) for women to sniff out a good match without having to leave their culture. Indeed, one study of Hutterite women showed that they chose mates whose genes were optimally different from their own--giving their kids the best shot at having good immune systems. (You can see the Smell article and a link to Carole Ober's research here: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/when-love-stinks-smell-the-pill-marriage-and-online-dating.html)
The Question Behind The Question--and the example behind your Old Spice example--may be this:
Why do people prefer to mate permanently with those from their own tribe/clan/culture?
The answer comes down to Ease and Please.
First, it's just plain Easier to be with those who are most similar to us. As former LS articles have shown, opposites may attract briefly--but long-term, it's the stuff where we're opposite our partners that tends to *de*tract. Having a similar race/ethnicity/culture often comes with a package of expectations and views that ease the path of a relationship (and of parenting kids that can emerge or join that relationship).
Second, though, beauty that is familiar Pleases. Yes, beauty is objective--but just because someone is universally acknowledged to be beautiful does not mean that everyone personally *wants* them for their very own. People --male and female-- tend to be most attracted to the beautiful people from their own background/backyard.
So, studies here and abroad, in developed, developing and undeveloped nations, have consistently found that folks prefer the sort of beauty that makes the grade in their culture.
To wit: Persons of European ancestry tend to find others of that ancestry most attractive; Asians tend to like the specific features of their own group *better* than the features of anglos or blacks; black and hispanic men tend to prefer women's beauty in their own groups--and to prefer heavier women than those preferred by white men in the USA, even though the desired WHR is invariant.
So it's interesting that I immediately thought of Henry Cavill as The Incredible Hunk--rather than Isaiah Mustafa. And it's probably even predictable.
Wow and triple wow.
I read the "Facebook Exchange with great interest. I lend my one guy-vote fully to the concept that men do stay ever aware of physical beauty, apart from our recognition of the beautiful heart 'n' soul of a person. Aye.
But this exchange is so far off base that I despair for womankind.
"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."
_________________________________________
Okay . . . where to begin. Maybe here:
Men do NOT "just fall for looks" either. It is comforting fiction for some women to believe this, but, no. What men do is **compartmentalize** the physical attraction and the "pleasant company" attraction in different mind spaces. That's the best that I can describe it. Examples: Jessica Alba and Eva Mendes . . . crazy hot, awesome hearts and souls (apparently). Lindsay Lohan . . . nice rack, needs to eat a sandwich and lay off the drugs, and has real big personality problems so even sleeping with her is risky (she'd trash your car and stalk you, potentially). Women with plastic surgery . . . often weird and creepy (Meg Ryan was once cute and shoulda let herself age gracefully because she would have).
Second observation: there are literally thousands of *beautiful women* all around us, every single day, everywhere we go. As physically stunning as any celebrity, and there they are on our campus or in our mall or on our beach. NO SHORTAGE whatsoever. And there are thousands of average looking women and thousands of frankly unattractive women . . . which does not surprise us because the same is true for men. This is not our problem. Our problem is in relating satisfactorily with the people with whom we come into contact. There is *no* practical way for us to experience sex with every visually desirable person.
But we do use looks as a screen, and we take completely separate notes on a woman's pleasing nature. This does not make men's calculation *shallow* . . . that is a comforting judgmental artifice by someone who has been rejected. (Guys say that "gold-diggers are shallow" . . . same same). MONEY? That is way, way, way low in priority unless we ourselves are in trouble. It may be true that the primordial driver of relationships is still "mutual using of the other's resources" . . . but it has, thankfully, become a pleasure to offer oneself to the right person(s).
The science, as presented by Dr. Duana, has been predominantly dead-on as regarding men's responses. **Where I differ** here has always been in the various interpretations made. Men are not stupid, not automatons, and I know that one or more women will now say "There, there, we did not CALL you stupid or automatons." That's okay . . . you don't have to. We watch your actions, you know.
And that reminds me of a story . . .
I remember moving away from home and settling in Pittsburgh, PA. A city with a rich diversity of ethnic groups, starting with UK original settlers, followed by Irish, Italians and other Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans, then Africans and Asians.
Most beautiful women I ever saw in my life . . . the children of mixtures of these groups. And so it still is.
Men are adept at making their own calculations of benefit. Those calculations have such different objectives from the calculation women make, and I know that Dr. D recognizes this. I will only post here to the extent that I can represent what I know of my own gender, and have it at least pondered, if not acknowledged. It's been fun so far ;-)
Tom,
I, personally, love men. I didn't initially set out to learn more about relationship science so I could discover more about women --I already inhabit that headspace (although as science has often shown me, that does not make me an expert on the topic, not by a looooong way). Men fascinate me, and always have, and I think always will, even long after I cease to hold any appeal for them :).
I also, personally, do not believe one gender superior to the other. (Hence the comment all the way at the bottom of that Facebook exchange.) The sexes both have their finer and lesser points...both have their capacity to hurt...both their capacity to love.
I also think I have one way or the other offended you in very many of my comments and posts, historically and especially in this particular thread.
Although that may be so, know that your feedback, comments and observations are a big part of what makes LS compelling reading, at least for me. I ask you to tread lighly with the Snark Factor, and to read carefully to give your fellow contributors the benefit of the doubt when you respond.
But I do acknowledge that *every* contributor here spends time not only reading LS--but thinking of, authoring, and publishing their own insights. All are giving a gift in this way. And I am appreciative of that.
Summing Up:
Let's All Be Friends. Come back now, y'hear?
From a gay man (sent privately):
"I always find your topics interesting . . . but for the life of me, I can't understand why a white boy like me only likes da brothas. And although my preference is a minority even within my community, it is not an incredibly small minority, or perhaps it is and I just am in an area that contains a disproportionately high amount of interracial couples.
"Further, I wonder how the research that has been done in the hetero world (smell, WTH ratio, attraction, etc.) if conducted in the gay male and lesbian world would show some type of correlation. I mean does hard wired species perpetuation even enter into the attractiveness equation for gay males? What about lesbians? This is some interesting sh*t!
"I think I will call a halt to my career path and begin to do research so I can answer these questions. Wait! You are smarter than me, do you mind doing it? Okay, thanks. Love ya, mean it!"
Dear Anonymous (and humorous) Friend:
There are so many guys who have sexual attractions to *feet*, there are special magz catering only to them (the guys, not the feet).
How could that relate to you?
Well, it doesn't, really, except inasmuch as it shows that there is The Normative Pattern--and then there are many exceptions. Most people don't find feet sexxxy--but reliably, a few do. Most people don't find themselves more attracted to other races/cultures than they do to their own--but a substantial minority does. You're There--preferring black men to men of your own European ancestry. And you've got company. (And if you're in a community where races encounter one another very often, sharing a lot of values and cultural commonalities, then it's predicted that you'd see more and more couples like the guys you're attracted to.)
Because the mating mind is inherited from our ancestors (all of whom procreated or else they would be part of history, but not of ancestry), the mating mind is found in gay and lesbian people and not only in the straight population. So men everywhere--gay and straight--prefer young, beautiful partners. And women everywhere--lesbian and straight--prefer partners with resources (but see note to Ben, above, regarding the distinctions research has found between the more butch and femme lesbians).
It's kinda like me and meat --steaks, I mean. When I smell sizzling steak, my mouth waters and I just want one--now! Nevermind that I don't eat meat often, or that I feel better on a mostly-veg diet--I still *want* meat. It's part of human inheritance, and even the staunchest vegetarians often say they still feel a pull when they smell a steak. Our ancestors who wanted meat had more survivors--who are Us, Everywhere, Now.
And so we all--gay and straight, carnivorous and vegetarian--carry those preferences forward.