BERIGAN Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 An interesting theory...but I am sure we have all dated, and liked someone who others no doubt did not find that attractive B-) Why Men Prefer Pretty Faces So you think beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Think again. According to new research from the University of Exeter in Great Britain, the preference for pretty faces over ugly ones is embedded in our brains from the moment of birth and possibly prior to birth. Newborn babies come fully equipped with built-in preferences, including a preference for an attractive face, that help them make sense of their new environment, report the BBC News Online and Newsweek magazine. The Exeter researchers showed more than 100 infants two images that were placed side by side. One was of an attractive face, while the other was a less attractive face. The babies, ranging in age from five hours old to two days old, spent about 80 percent of the time looking at the attractive face, while barely glancing at the unattractive face. "You can show them pair after pair of faces that are matched for everything other than attractiveness. This leads to the conclusion that babies are born with a very detailed representation of the human face," Dr. Alan Slater, a psychologist at Exeter, explained to the BBC News. Why would infants have this capability? "It helps them to recognize familiar faces--particularly that of the mother--and it helps them in learning about the social world. Attractiveness is not simply in the eye of the beholder, it is in the brain of the newborn infant right from the moment of birth and possibly prior to birth," he added. When those babies grow up, the preference for pretty faces doesn't change. And it crosses all cultures and geography as well. When an insular European is shown the faces of two Africans, the one he chooses as most attractive is also the same one an African chooses. And it works the other way around when an African is shown the faces of two Europeans. "Although we think that standards of facial beauty vary over time and culture, they don't actually change that much," Slater explained to Newsweek. The evidence indicates that there is a biological and universal standard." So don't blame a man when he can't help but look at a pretty face! He's biologically programmed that way. http://channels.netscape.com/ns/men/packag...ces/prettyfaces Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 (edited) OK, among other discussion on this topic, this is now "officially" the new "Babe" thread, BUT, specifically for ONLY showing pictures that feature the FACES of women we really think are beautiful. In other words, any pictures people link to in this thread, need to be conservative in terms of the clothing of the subject. THIS THREAD MUST NOT DEVOLVE INTO SOMETHING THAT WE COULDN'T ALL SHOW OUR WIVES, OR OUR MOTHERS, OR OUR GRANDMOTHERS. That said, I have always thought Kim Deal (of The Pixies, and The Breaders), was really pretty -- and in an unconventional way. Kim has a twin sister, Kelley, and they were both in The Breeders... Here's a nice pic of Kim I found, but couldn't link to... Edited October 3, 2004 by Rooster_Ties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 Hm. New research that brings us old news. What will they think of next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeway Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 "Pretty" is good; "pretty" and "intelligent" is even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robviti Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 (edited) i can't be sure without seeing the actual pictures used in the experiment, but my guess is that the infants might have been reacting to something more specific than what we consider attractiveness. previous studies have shown that infants are drawn to primitive pictures that have two dots for eyes and a curve that resembles a smile, more so than facial pictures that do not contain these important features. that makes sense from a survival/attachment viewpoint. a smiling face is more likely to belong to someone who is friendly to the helpless infant and more interested in taking care of its needs. a face that isn't smiling is apt to be less hospitable, i.e., someone who might be less invested in caring for the infant. now here's my logic: we tend to judge smiling faces as being more attractive than faces that don't feature a smile. this has been proven in studies of job interviews, judicial decisions, etc. in conclusion, the infants (and the rest of us) might be drawn to a person's smile, more so than a cute button nose, high cheekbones, long eyelashes, hair color, and other so-called attractive features, again based on perceptions related to need-satisfaction and survival. at least that's my take on it. Edited October 3, 2004 by jazzshrink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTMX Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 What about Small Faces? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rat Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 An interesting theory...but I am sure we have all dated, and liked someone who others no doubt did not find that attractive B-) Why Men Prefer Pretty Faces So you think beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Think again. According to new research from the University of Exeter in Great Britain, the preference for pretty faces over ugly ones is embedded in our brains from the moment of birth and possibly prior to birth. Newborn babies come fully equipped with built-in preferences, including a preference for an attractive face, that help them make sense of their new environment, report the BBC News Online and Newsweek magazine. The Exeter researchers showed more than 100 infants two images that were placed side by side. One was of an attractive face, while the other was a less attractive face. The babies, ranging in age from five hours old to two days old, spent about 80 percent of the time looking at the attractive face, while barely glancing at the unattractive face. "You can show them pair after pair of faces that are matched for everything other than attractiveness. This leads to the conclusion that babies are born with a very detailed representation of the human face," Dr. Alan Slater, a psychologist at Exeter, explained to the BBC News. Why would infants have this capability? "It helps them to recognize familiar faces--particularly that of the mother--and it helps them in learning about the social world. Attractiveness is not simply in the eye of the beholder, it is in the brain of the newborn infant right from the moment of birth and possibly prior to birth," he added. When those babies grow up, the preference for pretty faces doesn't change. And it crosses all cultures and geography as well. When an insular European is shown the faces of two Africans, the one he chooses as most attractive is also the same one an African chooses. And it works the other way around when an African is shown the faces of two Europeans. "Although we think that standards of facial beauty vary over time and culture, they don't actually change that much," Slater explained to Newsweek. The evidence indicates that there is a biological and universal standard." So don't blame a man when he can't help but look at a pretty face! He's biologically programmed that way. http://channels.netscape.com/ns/men/packag...ces/prettyfaces OK, but what do we find in our experience as to standards of beauty. Do we find that we all think the same things are beautiful, or do we find that we all think the same faces are beautiful? Resounding no. Now if we are all programmed to think the same things are beautiful and we end up, in vivo, thinking different things are beautiful, what's happened to our biological programming? In short, so what? Will evolutionary psychology ever tire of issuing research reports like this? Perhaps there is a gene they've got that makes them make assertions which, in their modest form (there are some standards of beauty that are inherent to us) are more or less known to everyone already and in their strong form (we basically all think the same thngs are beautiful) are absurdly contrafactual. I await the latest studies. --eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j lee Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 (edited) Old hat -- pretty well explained by evolutionary psychology. I'm pretty sure there are good data which don't test mating strategies on infantile preference -- these would be the ones to look at, IMO, if they exist. Just like why most men in cross-cultural studies prefer a woman with a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio. Is good! [edited to respond to eric's post facto post: yes, of course! after all, the data are already "in" to support certain claims, such as: men prefer women who have the physical markers which are nature's way of indicating an ability to successfully reproduce, e.g., are fertile, etc. the very fact that we can have a babes thread on such a forum where we can all (mostly) agree on the attractiveness of such obvious smokin' babes as Phoebe Cates, Brooke Langton, Michelle Yeoh, seems to prove the point, even though we can all nitpick here and there about who's a dog and who's not....] Edited October 4, 2004 by j lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 In other words, any pictures people link to in this thread, need to be conservative in terms of the clothing of the subject. THIS THREAD MUST NOT DEVOLVE INTO SOMETHING THAT WE COULDN'T ALL SHOW OUR WIVES, OR OUR MOTHERS, OR OUR GRANDMOTHERS. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregK Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 In other words, any pictures people link to in this thread, need to be conservative in terms of the clothing of the subject. THIS THREAD MUST NOT DEVOLVE INTO SOMETHING THAT WE COULDN'T ALL SHOW OUR WIVES, OR OUR MOTHERS, OR OUR GRANDMOTHERS. WHY ALL THE BOLD AND CAPITALS? WE HEAR YOU JUST FINE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 Why not? Good question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 Uhhhh. Who determined which were the attractive faces? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Nah. She looks like an elf! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 "Pretty" is good; "pretty" and "intelligent" is even better. Amen to that. I couldn't agree more!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BERIGAN Posted October 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Nah. She looks like an elf! IF you saw the rest of her, you wouldn't say that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Nevertheless, she's not my type... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ngram Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 I prefer the Small Faces photo to all this chat. They were a tremendous band - in fact I still subscribe to their fanzine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Nah. She looks like an elf! She looks like Aria Giovanni! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rat Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 See what I'm saying! Biological basis or not we end up arguing! --eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Nah. She looks like an elf! She looks like Aria Giovanni! Nothing wrong with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Nah. She looks like an elf! She looks like Aria Giovanni! Nothing wrong with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricia Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Throw this into the mix. Standards of beauty change, from generation to generation. To prove that to yourself, find a copy of an old newpaper, from around a hundred years ago and take a look at the women who were considered great beauties. Heck, you don't even have to go that far back. Check out the ladies of the fifties, then the sixties and contrast them with the ladies of today. Bust, to waist to hip ratio is not always constant. One thing that has changed drastically is the fat to lean ratio of women who are considered beautiful, or even attractive. Finding a fat woman attractive is considered almost perverse, even though in times past, they would be considered maternal, therefore desirable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny E Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 I found it odd that the article didn't even bother to explain the study's parameters for "beauty". Also, why is it just men prefer the "pretty face" in the title. It seems the article says this is universal, not gender based. That being said, I find this face very attractive: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.