Women sense qualities in a man
May. 10th, 2006 04:46 pmWomen 'sense qualities in a man'
Women can spot subtle signs of interest in children in a man's face, and accurately assess his level of the sex hormone testosterone, it claims.
Child-friendly men were rated as good long-term bets, masculine men as ideal for a more short-term fling.
Details feature in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
Evolution has made them very good at using every piece of information at their disposal when making decisions about mating and relationships
Dr Dario Maestripieri
The study was carried out by researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Researcher Dr Dario Maestripieri said: "Our results show that women are surprisingly accurate in judging a man's masculinity and his interest in infants by looking at his face.
"Our results also show that women value masculinity as a desirable trait for short-term relationships and interest in infants as a desirable trait for more stable long-term relationships."
Lots of information
Dr Maestripieri said the results suggested there was more information in the face about the potential value of a man as a mating partner than previously thought.
"I don't think that evolution has given women a second sense in this area but has made them very good at using every piece of information at their disposal when making decisions about mating and relationships."
The researchers recruited male undergraduate students, who underwent saliva tests to determine their testosterone levels.
They were also shown a series of pictures of adults and babies, and asked which they preferred.
Pictures of the volunteers were then shown to 29 female undergraduates, who were asked to rate the men according to whether they thought they liked children, appeared masculine, physically attractive, or kind.
The women were then asked to determine men's attractiveness as short-term romantic partners or as long-term partners for relationships such as marriage.
The men women chose as being most interested in children were the same men who had expressed the most interest in children in the photo test.
The women also accurately rated the men with the highest testosterone levels as being the most masculine.
Most women said they were attracted to the men who tested high for testosterone.
However, the results also showed that they tended to opt for men with a greater affinity for children when considering who had the greatest potential as a long-term partner.
Dr James Roney, who also worked on the study, said: "The research suggests that men's interest in children may be a relatively underappreciated influence on men's long-term mate attractiveness."
from here
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 09:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 09:41 pm (UTC)http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/66795671.html
no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 12:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 12:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 12:07 am (UTC)But all the same, the one you picked seems to have done alright with the kidlets. The proof is in the puddin' after all.
:-)
no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 12:12 am (UTC)And I guess in any relationship there's aspects of the other you'd like to change to make them (i.e. your life) perfect. Never happen.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 12:46 am (UTC)he's nerdy w/ PP and geeky smart, seems to love kids and yet is highly athletic and hot. best of both worlds, minus of course the control/reliability stuff.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 09:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 11:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 12:07 am (UTC)I'm sure. Consider all the bad boys Viggo has played. What if we were talking geek (think that goofy Albino Alligator look):
Oh bad example. He looks half decent in that pic. Anyway. If he looked like that in all his movies, played characters like that. Would he have been remotely considered for the role of my picture spams of the last few days? No way.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 12:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 12:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 12:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 01:45 am (UTC)