https://www.livescience.com/8779-fertile-women-manly-men.html
>A new study reveals that heterosexual women whose partners have less-masculine faces report more attraction to other men during ovulation. Women with masculine-looking partners said their eyes wander less, perhaps because the traits women tend to find sexy when they're fertile are already present in their partners.
>A number of studies have found a peak in women's preferences for masculine, muscular men during fertile times, but many of those studies are lab-based, Gangestad said. He and his colleagues wanted to see how preferences shift in real couples.
[...]
>"What we found was that, indeed, women who are with less facially masculine men — so more feminine men — they're the ones showing a shift toward men other than their partner," Gangestad said. For instance, while ovulating, women were more likely to have sexual fantasies about a non-partner.
>The findings fit with the theory that men who are more masculine would have produced fitter offspring in the ancestral period when reproductive hormones first evolved.
>A man's intelligence, on the other hand, made no difference in his woman's wandering eye. Those findings are surprising in that evolutionary psychology theory would predict that women would want their offspring to have genes for intelligence, Gangestad said.
chads are called genetically superior FOR A REASON. when a woman is most fertile, she wants chads strong, masculine genetics. from an evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense, and to think these ancient instincts still aren't present in humans is honestly laughable.
I like this article because it's not a deranged theory made up by some autistic neet virgin in his mom's basement and posted on incels.is; it's a brutal biologypill based on actual science.
>Haselton said the hypothesis that humans are at least partially driven by evolutionary forces makes many people feel uncomfortable.
of course, normies will dismiss this anyways. lol @ retards who want to deny that humans are animals and are still very much driven by instinct. they ironically also pedestalise women when they dismiss this, as if they are above biology.
it's also why I don't really buy into the personality meme for ugly subhumans; it's just a form of settling.
> The findings, reported in the November issue of the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, apply only to women's ratings of men as short-term partners, not as lifelong mates.
of course they'd want the tall, masculine alpha Chad for life if they could, but they can't (in most cases), so they settle for the next best thing. classic AFBB in action, nothing new here. men are also the same and want the best looking partner they can get, however the meme that women are "less visual" is still perpetuated by society. men admit that looks matter, while it is insisted that women don't, which is of course only a stupid meme. lol @ anyone wanting to argue against biology.
I don't think any of this is controversial or sexist. again, it applies to both genders, and it makes sense from a biological and evolutionary perspective. just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't make it stupid or untrue.
normies who unironically say looks don't matter are DELUSIONAL.
>A new study reveals that heterosexual women whose partners have less-masculine faces report more attraction to other men during ovulation. Women with masculine-looking partners said their eyes wander less, perhaps because the traits women tend to find sexy when they're fertile are already present in their partners.
>A number of studies have found a peak in women's preferences for masculine, muscular men during fertile times, but many of those studies are lab-based, Gangestad said. He and his colleagues wanted to see how preferences shift in real couples.
[...]
>"What we found was that, indeed, women who are with less facially masculine men — so more feminine men — they're the ones showing a shift toward men other than their partner," Gangestad said. For instance, while ovulating, women were more likely to have sexual fantasies about a non-partner.
>The findings fit with the theory that men who are more masculine would have produced fitter offspring in the ancestral period when reproductive hormones first evolved.
>A man's intelligence, on the other hand, made no difference in his woman's wandering eye. Those findings are surprising in that evolutionary psychology theory would predict that women would want their offspring to have genes for intelligence, Gangestad said.
chads are called genetically superior FOR A REASON. when a woman is most fertile, she wants chads strong, masculine genetics. from an evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense, and to think these ancient instincts still aren't present in humans is honestly laughable.
I like this article because it's not a deranged theory made up by some autistic neet virgin in his mom's basement and posted on incels.is; it's a brutal biologypill based on actual science.
>Haselton said the hypothesis that humans are at least partially driven by evolutionary forces makes many people feel uncomfortable.
of course, normies will dismiss this anyways. lol @ retards who want to deny that humans are animals and are still very much driven by instinct. they ironically also pedestalise women when they dismiss this, as if they are above biology.
it's also why I don't really buy into the personality meme for ugly subhumans; it's just a form of settling.
> The findings, reported in the November issue of the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, apply only to women's ratings of men as short-term partners, not as lifelong mates.
of course they'd want the tall, masculine alpha Chad for life if they could, but they can't (in most cases), so they settle for the next best thing. classic AFBB in action, nothing new here. men are also the same and want the best looking partner they can get, however the meme that women are "less visual" is still perpetuated by society. men admit that looks matter, while it is insisted that women don't, which is of course only a stupid meme. lol @ anyone wanting to argue against biology.
I don't think any of this is controversial or sexist. again, it applies to both genders, and it makes sense from a biological and evolutionary perspective. just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't make it stupid or untrue.
normies who unironically say looks don't matter are DELUSIONAL.
