Wise Readers,
Our recent review of Body Versus Face in men’s mating mindset raised many issues (and the most input from male readers we’ve ever had): What should real-life Butterfaced-women do? How can women ever stop worrying about their looks? What’s ‘Good Enough’—for women and for men? And how does all of this relate to the decline of dating on college campuses?
Read on!
Cheers, Duana
—What About The Real-Life Butterfaces? What Should They Do?
From No Name Please:
“….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….”
Duana’s Response:
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—and see response to Monica, below, regarding Hook-ups 101.)
—How Important Is Body Beauty Versus Facial Beauty?
—How Can Women Ever Quit Worrying About It?
—And What’s ‘Good Enough’?
From Monica:
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?
From Tom:
….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.
Duana’s Response:
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. Instead, most people pick a date and 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.
—Whom Would Most Guys Kick Out Of Bed?
—How Important Is Beauty Short- and Long-Term To Men?
From Vincent:
…. 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.
From Tom:
….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.
Duana’s Response:
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 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…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 in the world 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.
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 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.
—College Hook-ups 101
From Miss Traditional:
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?
|
|
|
|
From Tom:
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.
Duana’s Response:
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.
—(How) Do Men Accidentally Shift From Short- To Long-Term Mating Mode?
From Monica:
…. How many guys are doing dedicated spouse hunting as opposed to accidentally finding their partner through an extension of the short-plan?
Duana’s Response:
Hi, Monica,
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.
Indeed, 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 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. Indeed, 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.
Several Love Science articles have addressed how women can become high-status—as well as how they can become more beautiful—and they are here:
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
MISCELLANEOUS:
—How Tough Is College Dating For *Men*?
From Tom:
“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.
Duana’s Response:
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.”
—The WHR, Men, Women, Men & Men, Women & Women, Interracial Dating, & Sexual Orientation:
From Ben:
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!
Duana’s Response:
Dear Ben,
WOW—great (and abundant) questions! Here, in order, are the answers as they currently stand:
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.
(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.
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.)
Next item: When considered as a group, lesbian women rarely embody the .7 WHR
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.
Next item: 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.
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—tall, with 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! ;)
PS: Ben, 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…
From Grover:
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. ???
Duana’s Response:
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.
From Ben:
Wow! Henry Cavill? Is that your best medical opinion? What about the Old Spice guy Isaiah Mustafa? 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?
Duana’s Response:
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.)
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 from or join that relationship).
Second, 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.
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!”
Duana’s Response:
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.
—Why Women Want, But Do Not Get, Angel’s Wings (And More On Mating-Centrism):
From Duana:
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 & irresistible 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… (and women seeking affairs act just like Shallow Hal’s) :)
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.
From Tom:
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…..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).
….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)…..
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.
Duana’s Response:
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?
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