Ace of Spades HQ

« Fiddy Cent Slams Kanye West's Bush-Bashing | Main | Question: Why Didn't Libby Anonymously Post Plame-Tip... On a Blog? »

November 02, 2005

Suckers For A Pretty Face - Updated

Why should men lose their heads for a pretty face? It’s all hormonal, baby. And the hormone in question is estrogen:

The female sex hormone oestrogen was thought to be the mediator of beauty, which advertises health and fecundity. Now researchers at the University of St Andrews have shown for the first time that women with higher levels of oestrogen do indeed have more attractive faces. …

[During Puberty,] [t]he female sex hormone oestrogen prevents the growth of facial bone, reduces the size of the nose and chin, and leads to large eyes, increased thickness of lips and fat deposition in the cheek area, along with hips and buttocks, features that announce that a woman is fertile. …

Ms Law Smith said: "Women are effectively advertising their general fertility with their faces. Our findings could explain why men universally seem to prefer feminine women's faces. In evolutionary terms, it makes sense for men to favour feminine fertile women, those that did would have had more babies."

The hormone/fertility link recalls my favorite evolutionary “So, *that’s* the reason” article from last year: The Economist’s report on why men prefer larger breasts.

Behind their wall but reproduced here.

Dr. Jasienska measured the vital statistics of 119 women aged between 24 and 37. She also took saliva samples from them over a whole menstrual cycle.

She then divided her sample into four categories - a combination of narrow or broad waist-to-hip ratio with small or large breast-size - and looked for statistically significant differences between them in the levels of progesterone and 17-b-estrodiol, two hormones whose concentrations are known to be related to a woman's fertility. …

In the case of progesterone, both groups of narrow-wasted women had high hormone levels.

In that of 17-b-estrodiol, those with narrow waists and large breasts had elevated levels - and that level was particularly high at the time of ovulation.

Indeed, it was so high that Dr. Jasienska estimates such women are three times as likely as the others to become pregnant on any given occasion. In evolutionary terms that makes them very desirable mates indeed.

So, to review, the estrogen gets you the pretty, feminine facial features (also the nice hips and azz), progesterone and 17-b-estradiol gets you the big boobies relative to waist size. And both of them, it appears, equal more babies. And that is why man likes what he likes.

Now you know.

(And here, while we’re talkin mammal attraction: The ultrasonic mating songs of the lonely male mouse. Pitch shifted audio here. Via Slashdot)

Update: A picture is worth...

Facial composites of the 10 women in the study with the highest estrogen levels (left) and 10 lowest (right):

Similarly attractive, men?

posted by Dr. Reo Symes at 12:21 AM

Comments

Men, follow this link for a demonstration of biological evolution in action:
http://sportsbybrooks.com/SBBgirls40a.html

Posted by: schroedinger's cat© on November 2, 2005 12:28 AM

And that is why man likes what he likes.

Hmm. And that is why a woman likes guys with large hands.

Posted by: on November 2, 2005 05:08 AM

Yeah, yeah, whatever-- I want to know what feminine features indicate a proclivity for anal.

Tell me THAT, and I'll be a happy rump-camper.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on November 2, 2005 06:44 AM

Yeah, uh huh. When I look at a woman, the first thing I think is, "My, her face and boobies make her an attractive mate for producing offspring."

Actually, the best quotation I have ever read on the subject is:

"According to a recent survey, men say the first thing they notice about women are their eyes. And women say the first thing they notice about men is they're a bunch of liars."

Posted by: Steve L. on November 2, 2005 08:19 AM

Note that Symes has helpfully included an example for us, in the form of a T-shirt advertisement. Thank you.

Steve- Was that supposed to be sarcastic? Are you telling me that when you see a woman, you are NOT thinking about reproduction-related activities? I know I am.

Posted by: Carl on November 2, 2005 08:48 AM

Good going, scientists and politicians. You can't cure the common cold, cancer, or come up with a fuel better and cheaper than gasoline, but you can spend money to tell us men don't like women with ugly faces.

Give me some grant money. I'll become the next Madame Curie by studying water and concluding that it's wet.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim on November 2, 2005 09:11 AM

Sue, I like the cut of your jib.
That sounded like something someone with common sense would say.

Posted by: lauraw on November 2, 2005 09:46 AM

It's not that men find baby-making attractive conciously or subconciously. A better interpretation is that male ancestors who did NOT find pretty faces and shapely figures attractive (or didn’t care) had fewer descendents to pass their preferences on to than male ancestors who did, because women with pretty faces shapely figures were more successful having children.

Posted by: boris on November 2, 2005 09:56 AM

In a related study, researchers at the University of Miami determined that almost 96% of adolescent males between the ages of 11 and 14 are amused by the sounds they can make with their bodies.

Posted by: Dave in Texas on November 2, 2005 10:10 AM

96% of adolescent males between the ages of 11 and 14 are amused by the sounds they can make with their bodies.

Wait a minute -- are you telling me those sounds are not supposed to be hilarious any more?

Posted by: Michael on November 2, 2005 11:29 AM

Wait a minute -- are you telling me those sounds are not supposed to be hilarious any more?

No way to know. Researchers lost their grant after the first phase trials.

Posted by: Dave in Texas on November 2, 2005 11:44 AM

leads to large eyes, increased thickness of lips and fat deposition in the cheek area, along with hips and buttocks, features that announce that a woman is fertile. …

Well, that explains my four kids.

Soo... with the eyes thing, you guys were always lying??

All that mascara for nothing.

Posted by: on November 2, 2005 12:09 PM

That was me.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle on November 2, 2005 12:10 PM

Noooo. I think you have lovely eyes. ;^)

Posted by: Scot on November 2, 2005 03:31 PM

I have never lied to you Sparkle.

As far as you know.

Posted by: Dave in Texas on November 2, 2005 10:29 PM

Those interested in how sex hormones subtly shape physical appearance can find some detailed information here. Also, I have reproduced the main data from the paper by Jasienska et al. here; scroll down for the data on the page linked to.

Posted by: Erik Holland on November 3, 2005 08:11 PM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

This is the dumbest AI bullslop I've seen in a while: the CIA can use "quantum magnetometry" to track an individual man's heartbeat from twelve miles away
I wouldn't click on it, it's not interesting, it's just stupid clickslop. I just want to share my annoyance with you.

Oil prices plunge on bizarre realization that Eric Swalwell may actually be straight. A rapey molester, allegedly, but a straight one.

Artemis II Crew releases clearest images of the Far Side yet recorded

Classic Rock Mystery Click
This is super-obscure and I only barely remember it. Given that, I'll give you the hint that it's by the Red Rocker.
And I guess you think you've got it made
Oh, but then, you never were afraid
Of anything that you've left behind
Oh, but it's alright with me now
'Cause I'll get back up somehow
And with a little luck, yes, I'm bound to win
Now twenty people will tell me it's not obscure, it was huge in their hometown and played at their prom. That's how it usually goes. When I linked Donnie Iris's "Love is Like a Rock," everyone said they knew that one and that his other song (which I didn't know at all) Ah Leah! was huge in their area.

Sarah Longwell spotting

Tuq'r's makeover is 100!

Alfred Hitchcock learns to talk with TJM

Ryan Long goes to the No Kings rally to pick up young liberal hotties and is greatly disappointed in the quality of the mish
thanks to stevey

You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.

TJM definitively ranks the films of John Boorman.

Kid punks CNN chump by speaking truth to retard

Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!

In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.

In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.

Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.

TJM talks John Boorman, director of Excalibur

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]