
Male Facial Attractiveness and Female Receptivity - bumbledraven
http://www.jsecjournal.com/fishercoxproof.pdf
======
oakenshield
> Furthermore, Voracek, Hofhansl and Fisher (2005) found 6% of women were
> receptive to offers of casual sex with a strange man

Anyone know which strange man they're talking about and what his MO is?

~~~
noelchurchill
I'd assume Kramer

------
winter_blue
"It has also been established that women’s preference for attractiveness
increases when they seek brief, sexual relationships compared to longer forms
of relationship."

It's kinda obvious, but women lie about it all the time.

I wish they would stop lying about it. I have yet to meet a lady who had been
honest of her true desires.

If there any girls reading this or any of you who understand girls really
well, let me ask straight out, why do girls lie about their true
intentions/desires always?

~~~
ricosroughnecks
I'm no master of women psychology; however, I have spoken to many about what
they desire. From what I gather, when they tell you this "lie", they actually
believe those words. As far as why the lie exists to begin with, well it all
boils down to saving face. Women have to keep up their social status, lest
they fall victim to the double standard of being labeled a "slut", while a men
who is true about his desires (and acts on them successfully) is called a
"playboy" -- with obvious differences in the connotation. I won't say too much
here, but message me, and I can go more in depth.

------
egutman
The basic hypothesis: Women are attracted to good-looking men.

Well, duh.

~~~
dreyfiz
There's always someone who leaves a comment like this.

~~~
akamaka
And for good reason. This type of research routinely sets out to prove
something that is already obvious. When was the last time you saw an
evolutionary psychology paper that provided a surprising new insight?

~~~
dreyfiz
How is it "already obvious"? We're told that men are visually oriented, but
women are not. There are websites like "hot chicks with douchebags", and there
are drop-dead gorgeous women married to complete toads who happen to be
wealthy or powerful. Both of your comments are nihilistic dismissals of useful
and interesting science on the specious grounds that "we already knew that".
No we didn't, and even if we did, it's useful to _prove_ it. Just because we
had a hunch something was true doesn't mean it's so, and looking into the
seemingly obvious can surprise us when it turns out that what we thought we
knew was wrong.

~~~
mtts
It's "already obvious" because women do, in fact, go for attractive men
(witness the swooning your wife or girlfriend does whenever there's a picture
of George Clooney, Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp around). They find them sexually
attractive, just like men find pretty women sexually attractive.

What confuses your argument is that women also tend to go for _long term
relationships_ with men that are high status and in such cases seem to place
less importance on looks.

This leads to situations where the wife of a scrawny and unnatractive alpha
male (the emperor of Rome, say) will bear children who bear a suspicious
resemblance to a particularly hunky albeit lower status male from her
surroundings (a beefy member of the Praetorian guard, say).

Which is exactly what this paper is saying: women differentiate between sexual
attractiveness and desirability for marriage, but when it comes to judging
sexual attractiveness, looks win out.

