1) My husband has a very "masculine" face with a strong jaw, large nose, etc., but he has a pretty tame libido compared to previous boyfriends;
2) I have small lips and a larger nose, which could mean I was exposed to more testosterone, or it could mean that I look exactly like my mother, who looks exactly like her grandmother, so I'm pretty sure my facial features were passed down.
I think Elyse said something about this before she was eliminated on ANTM. Meaning that if your appearance and feminine poise can be chalked up to chemicals in the womb, then modeling is pretty BS. (And she's the only one with any success!)
so, does that mean those of us with "round baby faces," puffy lips, big eyes, and a small nose should watch our for breast cancer? isn't that related to estrogen? now i'm concerned.
on the other hand, i'm apparently a better bet for a long term relationship! oh good, the husband can drive me to the doctor. joy.
Unnh, two Helen Fisher stories in one week? Why is this woman the hot new go-to pop-scientist for all things relational? Yeah, snap judgments and vast generalizations ~ we need more of *those*.
It took me 4 years to figure out my ex was an abusive jerk.
Also, is this study essentially saying that men who are more handsome and "manly" are more likely to have one night stands? And women who are more "childlike" are a "better bet" for long term relationship? Because that sounds strangely like the conclusions of an old fashioned double standard to me.
@oh.geez.: You're right! That's kind of interesting. The more "masculine" men don't mess around in long term relationships, while more effeminate men (round face, puffy lips) are more likely to stay. So why do we find the more masculine features more attractive- I guess the point of that sort of attraction is short term mating and not a long term bond.
you know when you're out somewhere, and you make eye contact with a guy, and theres that moment where you just KNOW some shit is going down between you and him. Its the strangest most fleeting moment, but every relationship i've had, whether its been just sexual (usually, especially in this context) or something more serious, has started with that look.
so i do believe that in an instant you can look at someone and know a lot of what you need to know, but i think it goes way more for lust than love. which i guess would support this study's finding that "it may be possible to identify men who are more likely to indulge in short-term flings from facial features alone".
@ausdenbergen: and after that look, the tingle when your skin touches. That's because your skin is having a flight or fight reaction to new flesh. It lasts 2 years, then your body registers safe. This is long enough to get preg, have baby grow to decent size. Many people mistake loss of "zing" for loss of love.
@anonymiss: that look is BEYOND delicious. I am in a happy relationship, but I still get wistful when i see it happen in a movie or whatever because it is SO FUN.
@bloodflower: Ooo, congrats to a Jezzie lucky in love (and lust!). So far so good here--just got a cute text & I'm giddy as a school girl. God, chemistry is awesome.
Apparently, you can sense the RESULT of this in facial configurations. You may not know why, but evidently gals can pick out one-night studs via phsiognomy.
@e.varden: I did read the article, thank you. And actually, I'm a brunette. And there's no need to be rude.
Perhaps I should have phrased my question this way: how did she decide that these particular facial characteristics meant that men had been exposed to extra pre-natal testosterone? Is there any way of verifying this?
I'm sorry for not phrasing my question in a more specific manner.
01/30/09
1) My husband has a very "masculine" face with a strong jaw, large nose, etc., but he has a pretty tame libido compared to previous boyfriends;
2) I have small lips and a larger nose, which could mean I was exposed to more testosterone, or it could mean that I look exactly like my mother, who looks exactly like her grandmother, so I'm pretty sure my facial features were passed down.
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
on the other hand, i'm apparently a better bet for a long term relationship! oh good, the husband can drive me to the doctor. joy.
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
Also, is this study essentially saying that men who are more handsome and "manly" are more likely to have one night stands? And women who are more "childlike" are a "better bet" for long term relationship? Because that sounds strangely like the conclusions of an old fashioned double standard to me.
01/29/09
01/30/09
01/29/09
Silly me.
01/29/09
01/29/09
you know when you're out somewhere, and you make eye contact with a guy, and theres that moment where you just KNOW some shit is going down between you and him. Its the strangest most fleeting moment, but every relationship i've had, whether its been just sexual (usually, especially in this context) or something more serious, has started with that look.
so i do believe that in an instant you can look at someone and know a lot of what you need to know, but i think it goes way more for lust than love. which i guess would support this study's finding that "it may be possible to identify men who are more likely to indulge in short-term flings from facial features alone".
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/30/09
01/29/09
01/29/09
01/30/09
RTFA.
Apparently, you can sense the RESULT of this in facial configurations. You may not know why, but evidently gals can pick out one-night studs via phsiognomy.
How they can do this is the prof's article.
Read for content (are you a blonde?).
Tch.
01/31/09
Perhaps I should have phrased my question this way: how did she decide that these particular facial characteristics meant that men had been exposed to extra pre-natal testosterone? Is there any way of verifying this?
I'm sorry for not phrasing my question in a more specific manner.