Male facial attractiveness and masculinity may provide sex- and culture-independent c

This is the paper:
http://media.wiley.com/PressRelease/111822/JEB_Semen.pdf

This is the conclusion from the body of the paper. ( I find the abstract very confusing)

"In conclusion, against the prediction of phenotype-linked fertility hypothesis, male facial masculinity was negatively associated with their semen quality. "

They seem to have defined facial masculinity primarily by facial width..i.e."Facial width has been demonstrated to be positively associated with the testosterone levels in men (Lefevre et al., 2013) and also predicted number of testosterone-linked behavioural traits, such as aggressive-ness, dominance, physical strength, status, financialsuccess and deceptiveness. "

However, it seems to me that they totally undercut their own conclusion when they state that: "when only the males with normal semen(World Health Organization, 1999) were included into analysis, the (negative) association between facial masculinity and semen quality disappeared."

Then they got on to attractivesness…"Peters et al.(2008) found no support for our earlier study (Soleret al.2003), where we demonstrated a link between male facial attractiveness and their semen quality for the first time. However, these two studies cannot be directly compared, because in Peters et al. (2008), facial attractiveness ranks were based on short-term mate preferences, whereas in Soler et al.(2003), attractiveness scores reflect long-term partner preferences. Short-term and long-term mate preferences are associated with completely different traits: women show preferences for more feminine men as long-term partners, but in short term partner, preferences are associated with the male masculinity (e.g. Conway et al., 2010). "

Also, " As a support for this finding, in our earlier study...we found that male facial attractiveness as long-term partners was negatively associated with the facial masculinity in both female and male raters (Soler et al. 2012) Together with the present results, this suggests that male facial attractiveness can signal male fertility, but only when males are evaluated as potential long term partners."

So, it seems to me they are saying that male facial attractiveness is less masculine, is more valued for long term relationships, and is a signal of better quality sperm. No? Which means the more Neanderthal looking men are not preferred, and are less likely to give you children.

But isn't that belied by the fact that such features are more highly correlated, supposedly, with success, and that women marrying successful men whatever their looks is hardly an unknown phenomenom?

Very confusing.

There's also this gem...
"Men often overestimate the sexual intent of women, and this bias may exist both in men's self-ratings and their ratings of other men." Well,duh...

It is confusing to say the least. As you mentioned there might be too many subjective elements, self reporting and loose definition of masculinity of a face, and only a face.

I have only just seen this thread and haven`t read the study attached. [Hopefully I will find time this evening]
From just reading your post Angela, I think what this study is saying ..is that when choosing a mating partner to give best chance of having strong offspring with, women will work from one set of rules .. but work off a different set when choosing those whom they feel will be better caregivers to their offspring in the long term.
Now this study seems to show that the correlation for this is not correct [ sperm does not prove this to be the case]
I probably should have waited until I read the study, my impressions may be completely bungled.
Thanks for link, looks like an interesting read

I think the only thing the results of these two studies demonstrate is that a woman will choose a tattooed doorman at her favorite nightclub to have a fling with, but will marry and have children with an accountant or computer programmer. Since I fall somewhere between those two extremes, when I was younger I often found myself with a woman who couldn't decide whether she wanted a short fling or a serious relationship with me.

Aberdeen said:

I think the only thing the results of these two studies demonstrate is that a woman will choose a tattooed doorman at her favorite nightclub to have a fling with, but will marry and have children with an accountant or computer programmer. Since I fall somewhere between those two extremes, when I was younger I often found myself with a woman who couldn't decide whether she wanted a short fling or a serious relationship with me.

Click to expand...

You mean women think with brain to select man for life, and think with vegina when time for fun.

Hope...hope you get a chance to read it...

These studies are a bit misleading because they ignore social status/wealth of the male, which are the #1 thing that make sex happen. Women don't really go for flings, that is a deception technique employed by them. When a man thinks she wants just a fling, he is being fooled, in fact she is always looking for long-term and security but in his case she is just not sure that he is best she can get. So she just strings him along, giving the bare minimum to keep him around. Now the devil is at this "bare minimum", because it is different for different types of guys. For over 50% of guys the bare minimum is just a conversation and a companion, which is just pathetic, because probably she is getting the real deal somewhere else...

Angela said:

Hope...hope you get a chance to read it...

Click to expand...

Perhaps an indication that I have misread and bungled it after all. I knew I should have read it first, Angela.
Oh no,that means.........please don`t tell me those two boys have gone and gotten it right?..

I'm still confused about it...of course, I blame my confusion about their findings on the fact that they can't write clearly, rather than on any intellectual short coming of mine.

Seriously, it's clear that some women marry men who they think can provide for them and their children (even in this day and age!) regardless of "appearance". (I, on the other hand, have been a romantic all my life and someone who goes by instinct and emotion in matters like these, not to mention the fact that I'm a very "traditional" Italian woman in many ways...I was hit by un 'colpo di fulmine' and was a goner, for good or ill...oh, and he didn't have the proverbial "pot" when we married....but enough personal stuff!)

One of the things that I don't understand is how the study is defining attractiveness...the way that I understood it is that regularity of feature signals genetic health, so theoretically women should be attracted to "good-looking' men to "make" babies, whether or not that man is "successful".

I don't know where "masculinity" of feature factors into all this. Are they saying that more "masculine" faces are more attractive? I don't think so. Not if we go by this... " As a support for this finding, in our earlier study...we found that male facial attractiveness as long-term partners was negatively associated with the facial masculinity in both female and male raters (Soler et al. 2012) Together with the present results, this suggests that male facial attractiveness can signal male fertility, but only when males are evaluated as potential long term partners."

Then, I don't get the whole "masculine" faces equal success thing...not now anyway. I mean, does anyone really think Bill Gates is uber masculine looking? I mean his face is wide certainly, but...
http://www.artdepot.cn/images/news/images/bill-gatesB.jpg

In my experience, it's men that think uber masculine looking men are attractive, not women...

As I've been listening to a lot of Italian music recently, this is what I consider uber masculine looking...
http://static.fanpage.it/musicfanpage/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Luciano_Ligabue_in_concerto.jpg

This is handsome...
http://data3.whicdn.com/images/73812633/original.jpg

This is beautiful...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vh3atZwWeH4/UVjCsaoE9EI/AAAAAAAAAo8/LAzpRT0rif8/s640/2.jpg

Which brings up the fact that I always thought these kinds of judgments were culture specific, yet the study says that they're not.

Studies like this should be required to post lots of pictures so we know what they're talking about...

Then there's the whole face versus body thing. Some muscles are lovely, but again only men really like that muscle bound look in my experience.

Oh, and tatoos...Aberdeen, you devil...you've just defined the perfect man!

Im not sure how these studies are conducted but it seems that there must be a variety of attributes of what one perceives as attractiveness. In my life I have seen girls falling in love with men of all shapes, size, colours and backgrounds. I like to stick to the old saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

LeBrok said:

You mean women think with brain to select man for life, and think with vegina when time for fun.

Click to expand...

Sure, just the same as most men think with their little head when they want fun, but think with their big head when choosing a wife. But women are usually more discreet about who they party with, because of societal expectations.

Angela said:

(I, on the other hand, have been a romantic all my life and someone who goes by instinct and emotion in matters like these, not to mention the fact that I'm a very "traditional" Italian woman in many ways...I was hit by un 'colpo di fulmine' and was a goner, for good or ill...oh, and he didn't have the proverbial "pot" when we married....)

Click to expand...

You don't have to answer but, would you have continued with him if he said upfront that it was going to last only a couple of months (and was serious about it)?

kamani said:

You don't have to answer but, would you have continued with him if he said upfront that it was going to last only a couple of months (and was serious about it)?

Click to expand...

For you, I'll answer, since I opened the door. Plus, it seems that genetically Kosovars are my long lost brothers. (It used to be Spaniards, but lately you guys are always either my first or my second match after all the northern and central Italians)

The answer is NEVER...

My point was just that not every woman makes a mercenary calculation when choosing whom to love or marry. There's also a great deal to be said for working together for a better future.

Okay,well I was right, I should have read the study before first posting.

I have looked through it, not in depth, but I will do again just to be sure regarding it.
So, what I gather they are saying..Angela let me know if we are in agreement, is;
Men with those things which make then seem more attractive to women [ deep voice, physical strength, masculine features..?] thus influencing women to choose them as partners, are in fact the same things that may be the reason they should not be chosen when selecting a partner as these characteristics come at the cost of poor sperm quality.
In other words pretty face gets lady but lady might not get baby....
No, that not`s quite it either. Oh, I give up...it`s a bit of a nonsense study IMO

Yes, they do seem to connect wide head as one of those features that women may see as masculine..but these men may also be successful men..I think that might be the real reason for choice.
Personally, if I have not got the gist of this by now, I`m giving up because I don`t really agree with it..the statement is too bold for my liking.
However just to add to the mix here is a study [ again I only partly read when I downloaded it, as I forgot to go back to it...] about how masculinity might be measured.

Sorry , having trouble with the link but I will do best to get it on.

Just disregard that link. I apologise Angela, I was just set to post link when my soppy dog jumped onto my knee and I pressed wrong link...sorry, I think I`ve been drinking from the silly well to-day..lol

This is one of those studies that I feel they just want money to do something i.e. keep busy. Sperm quality is related to diet, life style and health awareness. It was found that Americans used to wear tight pants thus their testicles were too warm after doctors began studying the matter as many men were infertile. Now men's trousers are roomier in the groin area and less "sexy". Sexy is okay for women wear but deadly for men.

Angela said:

For you, I'll answer, since I opened the door. Plus, it seems that genetically Kosovars are my long lost brothers.

(It used to be Spaniards, but lately you guys are always either my first or my second match after all the northern and central Italians)

Click to expand...

Thanks, it's nice to hear some acceptance after fighting all the animals here...

Hope, I think the only take-away may just be that uber-masculinity in men surprisingly doesn't correlate with high sperm quality. That makes some sense given the studies they site about how very high levels of testosterone negatively affect sperm quality. However, as they admit themselves, if they remove the outliers the correlation or negative correlation with sperm quality disappears. So, at the end of the day, in most situations it doesn't matter.
..
The rest is just too badly written, and based on too many poorly defined terms and subjective assumptions...sorry I wasted your time on it.

I often walk away from psychological and sociological studies for the same reasons...

(No apologies necessary...my cat sort of lives on my lap when I'm online...when she's not sleeping, she paws the keys and tries to "type". I think it's just so I'll pay attention to her instead! )

Angela said:

The rest is just too badly written, and based on too many poorly defined terms and subjective assumptions...sorry I wasted your time on it.
)

Click to expand...

You nailed it.
Don't apologize, to recognize bad science it takes skills, practice and time. Was fun.

Angela said:

Hope, I think the only take-away may just be that uber-masculinity in men surprisingly doesn't correlate with high sperm quality. That makes some sense given the studies they site about how very high levels of testosterone negatively affect sperm quality.

Click to expand...

Well at least we know it did say that much...:grin:
No disrespect to the study or those involved, but I think we learned more just posting in this thread than we could have learned from the study itself.
Such as, we are both owners of attention seeking and I think perhaps, slightly spoiled pets.......also that I may be terrible at uploading and I`m even worse at it when my dog gets involved...LeBrok had fun.......and Aberdeen may have tatoos...
All in all I`d say it was a great success, Angela.

hope said:

Well at least we know it did say that much...:grin:
No disrespect to the study or those involved, but I think we learned more just posting in this thread than we could have learned from the study itself.
Such as, we are both owners of attention seeking and I think perhaps, slightly spoiled pets.......also that I may be terrible at uploading and I`m even worse at it when my dog gets involved...LeBrok had fun.......and Aberdeen may have tatoos...
All in all I`d say it was a great success, Angela.

Click to expand...

I only have two tattoos, and I got both of them for spiritual reasons. And neither tattoo is normally visible, since one is usually covered by a ring and the other by clothing. But yes, we may have learned more about each other than we learned from the paper (since we presumably all knew already that some academics can't write a coherent paper).