Comments on: The Science of a Butterface http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/10/28/the-science-of-a-butterface/ A newswire of human stupidity Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:16:44 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: <fb:name linked="false" useyou="false" uid="1">Sarah Bohr</fb:name> http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/10/28/the-science-of-a-butterface/comment-page-1/#comment-2031 Sarah Bohr Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:43:27 +0000 http://trueslant.com/ryansager/?p=7694#comment-2031 If you don't want to alienate women, you might start by not calling us "females". You're a big boy now, you can say "women" without it making you feel funny in your pants. ...hopefully. If you don’t want to alienate women, you might start by not calling us “females”. You’re a big boy now, you can say “women” without it making you feel funny in your pants.

…hopefully.

]]> By: intheagora http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/10/28/the-science-of-a-butterface/comment-page-1/#comment-1438 intheagora Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:33:38 +0000 http://trueslant.com/ryansager/?p=7694#comment-1438 I'm curious to know how race plays into this. I’m curious to know how race plays into this.

]]> By: Ryan Sager - Neuroworld – Comment of the Day - True/Slant http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/10/28/the-science-of-a-butterface/comment-page-1/#comment-1423 Ryan Sager - Neuroworld – Comment of the Day - True/Slant Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:24:54 +0000 http://trueslant.com/ryansager/?p=7694#comment-1423 [...] On: The Science of a Butterface [...] [...] On: The Science of a Butterface [...]

]]> By: sureshot32 http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/10/28/the-science-of-a-butterface/comment-page-1/#comment-1420 sureshot32 Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:11:02 +0000 http://trueslant.com/ryansager/?p=7694#comment-1420 You've got to be kidding me with some of the conclusions reached in this study (great article by the way) "Cues of immediate fertility which are more important to a man pursuing short term relationships" HUH??? Guys looking for (or talking about) short term relationships aren't interested in a woman's ability to bear children? In fact, most would probably be looking for the opposite (girls on the pill). The reason more guys would base their short term relationship seeking sights on a woman with a smoking body is because they are looking for sex - and in the bedroom, a great body is more valuable than a beautiful face (especially with the lights down low). There's a reason for the saying, "Beauty is but a light switch away" and that's because you don't normally see much of her face when you're "doin' it". (at least, not if you're doing it right) I've always been one to base (physical) beauty at about 70% face and 30% body, but if I was looking for a one night stand, it may drop down to about even. The one thing you certainly wouldn't want though, would be to have to look across at your wife's (husband, whatever) face and see that "butter-face" for the rest of your life. That is why it's weighted substantially towards the face for long-term relationships - that and the fact that you can always work out, but you're stuck with the face God gave you. You’ve got to be kidding me with some of the conclusions reached in this study (great article by the way)

“Cues of immediate fertility which are more important to a man pursuing short term relationships” HUH??? Guys looking for (or talking about) short term relationships aren’t interested in a woman’s ability to bear children? In fact, most would probably be looking for the opposite (girls on the pill). The reason more guys would base their short term relationship seeking sights on a woman with a smoking body is because they are looking for sex – and in the bedroom, a great body is more valuable than a beautiful face (especially with the lights down low).

There’s a reason for the saying, “Beauty is but a light switch away” and that’s because you don’t normally see much of her face when you’re “doin’ it”. (at least, not if you’re doing it right)

I’ve always been one to base (physical) beauty at about 70% face and 30% body, but if I was looking for a one night stand, it may drop down to about even.

The one thing you certainly wouldn’t want though, would be to have to look across at your wife’s (husband, whatever) face and see that “butter-face” for the rest of your life. That is why it’s weighted substantially towards the face for long-term relationships – that and the fact that you can always work out, but you’re stuck with the face God gave you.

]]> By: menoitios http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/10/28/the-science-of-a-butterface/comment-page-1/#comment-1419 menoitios Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:34:26 +0000 http://trueslant.com/ryansager/?p=7694#comment-1419 While it may be so that a woman's hands are now, in the age of cosmetics, more likely clues. In the past 1 million years of evolution that have shaped this behaviour in men the hands were likely no more or less useful than looking at the face. This is not conscious behaviour on the part of the men. No man consciously thinks about fertility when assessing beauty, just as many women will not admit to finding men more attractive when they are wealthier. But when speaking in general of a great number of cases the data shows that there are strong correlations. The underlying common cause, when we talk about human assessment of a mate, is reproductive capabilities and resources. The error is to apply some normative value to this data. There is nothing inherently right with choosing a mate for reproductive reasons. Likewise there is nothing wrong with choosing a mate for non-reproductive reasons. Some may say in fact that such a judgement is a triumph of reason over animal urges, and find it approbative. While it may be so that a woman’s hands are now, in the age of cosmetics, more likely clues. In the past 1 million years of evolution that have shaped this behaviour in men the hands were likely no more or less useful than looking at the face.

This is not conscious behaviour on the part of the men. No man consciously thinks about fertility when assessing beauty, just as many women will not admit to finding men more attractive when they are wealthier.

But when speaking in general of a great number of cases the data shows that there are strong correlations. The underlying common cause, when we talk about human assessment of a mate, is reproductive capabilities and resources.

The error is to apply some normative value to this data. There is nothing inherently right with choosing a mate for reproductive reasons. Likewise there is nothing wrong with choosing a mate for non-reproductive reasons. Some may say in fact that such a judgement is a triumph of reason over animal urges, and find it approbative.

]]> By: davechung http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/10/28/the-science-of-a-butterface/comment-page-1/#comment-1413 davechung Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:31:50 +0000 http://trueslant.com/ryansager/?p=7694#comment-1413 I wonder what the definition of "short-term relationship" was for the study. If "short-term" was equal to "one night," I'm guessing that the value of the face would have dropped significantly. By the way, Ryan, this has to be one of my favorite headlines I've seen on True/Slant and there have been some great ones lately. I wonder what the definition of “short-term relationship” was for the study. If “short-term” was equal to “one night,” I’m guessing that the value of the face would have dropped significantly.

By the way, Ryan, this has to be one of my favorite headlines I’ve seen on True/Slant and there have been some great ones lately.

]]> By: Ryan Sager http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/10/28/the-science-of-a-butterface/comment-page-1/#comment-1411 Ryan Sager Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:20:45 +0000 http://trueslant.com/ryansager/?p=7694#comment-1411 We're talking mating, not promotions at work (though, the studies on that...). Our mating preferences are not likely to come into alignment with any aspirational social theory any time soon. We’re talking mating, not promotions at work (though, the studies on that…). Our mating preferences are not likely to come into alignment with any aspirational social theory any time soon.

]]> By: Ryan Sager http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/10/28/the-science-of-a-butterface/comment-page-1/#comment-1410 Ryan Sager Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:19:04 +0000 http://trueslant.com/ryansager/?p=7694#comment-1410 You're welcome. You’re welcome.

]]> By: More Science to support Roissy « Seasons of Tumult and Discord http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/10/28/the-science-of-a-butterface/comment-page-1/#comment-1407 More Science to support Roissy « Seasons of Tumult and Discord Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:10:31 +0000 http://trueslant.com/ryansager/?p=7694#comment-1407 [...] 28, 2009 by Alkibiades Which is more important, body or face?  Here’s Ryan Sager’s write up, They asked 375 college students to pick whether to date someone based on either seeing just [...] [...] 28, 2009 by Alkibiades Which is more important, body or face?  Here’s Ryan Sager’s write up, They asked 375 college students to pick whether to date someone based on either seeing just [...]

]]> By: jenjen1352 http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/10/28/the-science-of-a-butterface/comment-page-1/#comment-1406 jenjen1352 Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:42:46 +0000 http://trueslant.com/ryansager/?p=7694#comment-1406 "Butterface"?? When you consider what the average bloke looks like... “Butterface”?? When you consider what the average bloke looks like…

]]>