Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
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...
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...