Male attractiveness genetic, not gym

I was shocked.

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/5/171790

Abstract only, you can read the rest.

Human mate choice is influenced by limb proportions.

So far, so obvious.

Previous work has focused on leg-to-body ratio (LBR) as a determinant of male attractiveness and found a preference for limbs that are close to, or slightly above, the average. We investigated the influence of two other key aspects of limb morphology: arm-to-body ratio (ABR) and intra-limb ratio (IR). In three studies of heterosexual women from the USA, we tested the attractiveness of male physiques that varied in LBR, ABR and IR, using figures that ranged from −3 to +3 standard deviations from the population mean.

Good method.

You win a cookie.

We replicated previous work by finding that the optimally attractive LBR is approximately 0.5 standard deviations above the baseline.

Two cookies.

Health advantage (fitness) over mean.

We also found a weak effect of IR, with evidence of a weak preference for the baseline proportions.

All the cookies.

You didn’t fake anything.

In contrast, there was no effect of ABR on attractiveness,

Gym doesn’t change your ultimate genetic value.
Bicep curls won’t save an ugly mug, sorry.
And if they did, they’d still complain and call women shallow.
Like evolution is something superficial?

and no interactions between the effects of LBR, ABR and IR.

See, this is how you science.

THIS IS HOW YOU SCIENCE.

Our results indicate that ABR is not an important determinant of human mate choice for this population,

straight women, regular straight women

if you wanna pick up lesbians, your results may vary

and that IR may exert some influence but that this is much smaller than the effects of LBR. We discuss possible reasons for these results, including the limited variability in upper limb proportions and the potentially weak fitness-signal provided by this aspect of morphology.

Thank you!

Gym also means you throw off ratios with circumference and other noise. Optical illusions tend to operate on this principle. Women adapt out of being fooled.

A peacock can’t exercise into better plumage, LBR is the human genetic equivalent.
This is a solid finding, LBR is the male version of female WHR.

It’s nice to see someone take a male study seriously. We need more data so men aren’t pointlessly chasing a marketing dream of abs and pecs. Homoerotic fantasies pushed by gay designers won’t attract women.

I want to see a study in preference for the artificial look of gym bodies (both sexes) against likelihood of personality disorders.

Male beauty predicts sperm quality

Duuuuuh?


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513803000138

It’s called fitness, smarter people are also naturally more attractive.
Who we’re told is (((smart))) in the modern world is just educated, a different variable, natural IQ correlates to beauty. It’s an established, permanent correlation. Appealing to exception doesn’t work.

Facial attractiveness has been related to health in both men and women. Certain psychological, physiological, and secondary sex characteristics have been used as accurate markers of hormonal and developmental health. The main objective of this study was to investigate the capacity of women to select males of high reproductive quality based on their facial attractiveness. A total of 66 males were included in the study. Each of them provides a semen sample, and frontal and lateral photographs were taken. Semen analysis was made according to standard WHO (1999) guidelines for morphology, motility, and concentration. Moreover, a Sperm Index (SI) was calculated as the principal component of these parameters. In Study 1, 66 women rated the attractiveness, as a possible permanent couple, of pictures of all 66 men. In Study 2, the pictures of a subset of 12 males were randomly selected from three semen quality subgroups (terciles named good, normal, and bad, according to the value of the SI). These 12 pictures were rated on attractiveness by two independent sets of women (N=88 and N=76). Facial attractiveness ratings were significantly (P<.05) and positively correlated with sperm morphology, motility, and SI, but not with concentration, for all the women sets.

Fitness and reproductive success, bound.

Darwin wins again.

And naturally, with age men are less attractive and sperm quality tanks (i.e. paternal age and miscarriage go up).

Study: Women like men (not testosterone)

TLDR: Looks count, bitch!

Chants: D.N.A., D.N.A., D.N.A., D.N.A.

Shall we?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180507074239.htm

“Data from almost 600 participants show that women’s perceptions of male attractiveness do not vary according to their hormone levels, in contrast with some previous research.”

Told. You. So.

A better question, how did I know this?

Years ahead of time.

(Apart from my own sample size of numero uno).

They aren’t controlling for male beauty!

In an ATTRACTIVENESS study.

It isn’t just something nurture, perceived, externally, it’s innate, it’s nature!

It’s BONE STRUCTURE.

HORMONE CYCLES DON’T DAMAGE THEIR EYE SIGHT!

The natural looks of a man draw the woman, it’s genetic fitness FFS!

(And no, packing on the muscle doesn’t really change your face).

“”We found no evidence that changes in hormone levels influence the type of men women find attractive,” say lead researcher Benedict C. Jones of the University of Glasgow.

You know, I know this might sound controversial, but someone told me once that, well, water is wet? Big if true.

Who might women find more attractive?

The richer ones? The weirder ones?

or

THE MORE ATTRACTIVE ONES.

[Fuck’s sake, people.]

“This study is noteworthy for its scale and scope — previous studies typically examined small samples of women using limited measures,” Jones explains. “With much larger sample sizes and direct measures of hormonal status, we weren’t able to replicate effects of hormones on women’s preferences for masculine faces.””

With a solid method, lookism is real.

Accept it.

We don’t like a higher-T lesbian compared to a low-T man, do we?

LOGICALLY.

They’re scared to offend ugly men. It’s the current year.

Your beauty is objective and the opposite sex care.

Sorry if the social construct upsets you but we can’t help evolution, cry in a safe space free of GI Joes to trigger you about your terrible stature.

Sexual dimorphism and health

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/Suppl_1/S93

“Incels” reee.

Evolutionary psychologists suggest that a preference for sexually dimorphic traits in human faces is an adaptation for mate choice, because such traits reflect health during development. For male faces, this claim rests on the immunocompetence-handicap hypothesis, which states that the increased testosterone levels needed to develop large masculine traits stress the immune system. We examined whether masculine traits in adolescent male faces are associated with health during development, and also whether feminine traits in adolescent female faces signal health. Feminine traits are attractive, but it is less clear whether they should signal health.

Being fertile = female health as a teen. More women are viable than men. Most men would die in crime, competition and war.

To be fair

Rated masculinity in adolescent male faces correlated modestly with actual health, and was perceived as healthy,

Duh.

but not as attractive.

Also obvious.

Gym rats and dudebros can’t make up for an ugly mug or low caste with bulked-up bitch tits.
Women aren’t stupid.

There are tons of Muslims gunning it down the gym, thinking they can magically interest white women.
Look at them on instagram.

This doesn’t work.

Rated femininity in adolescent female faces did not correlate with actual health, although it was perceived as healthy and attractive.

What is “attractive” now is just sexy, vis a vis quite masculine (big lips need a big jaw) and the old classic beauties with fine, smaller features in harmony were the fertile ones. Ideal:

These results support the immunocompetence-handicap hypothesis for male faces in that masculine traits signalled health during adolescence. However, they suggest that any health-related evolutionary benefits obtained from preferences for attractive facial traits may be weak.

Patriarchs don’t let their daughters marry pretty sluts, either.

Women do care about appearance, just genetic cues; not something easily faked with estrogenic wheatgrass powders and self-destructive vain exercise habits. Straight women are not attracted to men who look – sorry – gay.

The two options in modern life aren’t slob or effete but you wouldn’t know it looking.

A man is not measured by the size of his muscles or his notch counts.

Fitness is real masculinity, you earn real muscle by building something or fighting someone.

We could build orphanages and pave roads but no, that’s low status work-out, can’t do that! Might be patriotic and prosocial!

The hospitals and old manors crumble while men “slave” to look half-starved and wax their chest, history will deserve to mock your generation. The rich bastards on the Titanic had a gym.

Useful people got PAID to work out! I know! Crazy!

Many of history’s greatest men were slender virgins and they’ll matter more than any of these “Beautiful Ones” suiciding themselves out of the gene pool. Women want men, not some metrosexual who might come out as gay once they’ve pumped you for three kids. If you see a white woman, with an Asian, note he isn’t the gym type and was willing to propose and raise a family (what makes a man).

Male beauty = good genes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1690211/

Please, stop denying this. It isn’t very red pill of you.

There’s sufficient text there to see it’s a concrete connection – not limited to symmetry, not vanishing upon single-side presentation, please stop denying this. It’s getting difficult to watch.

Full paper because there’s always that one guy where you can tell what he looks like through the screen, like a fat acceptance activist.

https://scheib.faculty.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2015/05/1999_scheibetal.pdf

Just because they’re scared to use the word beauty in connection to men doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, insecure men are worse than SJWs sometimes.

These studies ain’t hard to find.

You manosphere types are just lyin’.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11487409

Symmetry is actually a misnomer, since symmetry is a feature of feminine beauty.

It was recently proposed that symmetry is not a primary cue to facial attractiveness, as symmetrical faces remain attractive even when presented as half faces (with no cues to symmetry).

This is the issue with treating the sexes as the same, especially in evo studies?!?!???

Here, we use real and computer graphic male faces in order to demonstrate that (i) symmetric faces are more attractive, but not reliably more masculine than less symmetric faces and (ii) that symmetric faces possess characteristics that are attractive independent of symmetry, but that these characteristics remain at present undefined.

I don’t see men arguing we must study this for equality’s sake. [but we should]

They seem to prefer ignorance.

Harder to lie about your alpha genes when it’s literally written on your face.*
Deep down, they know. That’s why so many ‘players’ get plastic surgery.

But women are fake, right, guys?

*again, alpha is a pair and a breeding couple, not an individual, it refers to a social rank

Male beauty correlates to right-wing position

Strong men aren’t much into helping the weaker competition, since your genetic looks are an advertisement.

(You could argue lifting weights is ‘lying’ about your natural somatoform and strength level, much like applying excess makeup to alter bone structure, fake masculinity and fake femininity, much like muscle implants or breast implants give off false cues about fertility and chemical dimorphism.)

PDF:

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30390-7/fulltext

You might disagree with my use of the term ‘male beauty’ but if we’re studying female constantly it follows there must also be a standard for men even if you prefer to call it handsomeness… it’s still beauty.

I love how the method is biased but the result came shining through.

“Both the simple and complex social bargaining models received partial support: sociopolitical egalitarianism was negatively related to bodily formidability, but unrelated to other measures of bodily/facial formidability/attractiveness; and a formidability-wealth interaction did predict variance in support for redistribution, but the nature of this interaction differed somewhat from that reported in previous research. Results of the experimental manipulation suggested that egalitarianism is unaffected by self-perceived formidability in the immediate short-term. In sum, results provided some support for both the simple and complex social bargaining models, but suggested that further research is needed to explain why male formidability/attractiveness and egalitarianism are so often negatively related.”

Now a study about the women, to make it scientific.