IBERCOM

Pencil

� The No Such Couple Paradox by Joseph Danrock, first edition, 2011

Licence

All copyrights to this work are held by the publisher.

You are granted a limited non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use and distribute this free ebook sample. No alternations to the content of this ebook sample are allowed. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this license except as described by the license itself. You are allowed to copy and distribute this ebook for non-profit purposes exclusively, and only to users who comply with the requirements of this license.

This ebook is protected by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886, and local copyright acts, and as such it cannot be reproduced in any form or by any means without the publisher�s consent.

For more information visit the ebook's official website: nosuchcouple.comor e-mail us: info [at] nosuchcouple.com

Preface

I would like to thank every author whose work is mentioned in this ebook for

providing me information and inspiration. All commented articles were found online

– every reader can compare my point of view with the original text of the quoted

articles.

Please excuse my direct criticism of some of the quoted articles. I like to speak

openly and bluntly. I encourage every author, researcher, and reader to review this

ebook.

Chapter 1 Clueless society

Chapter 2 The exercise

Chapter 3 The Hormonal Law of Attraction

Chapter 4 Exceptions to the HLA

Chapter 5 The “No Such Couple Paradox” and other evidence

Chapter 6 Suzi Malin and Helen Fisher were close

Chapter 7 Sex appeal versus beauty

Chapter 8 Babyfaceness

Chapter 9 Femininity

Chapter 10 Results of the exercise

Chapter 11 Phases of the mating process

Chapter 12 The HLA pickup guide

Chapter 13 Other conclusions of the HLA

Chapter 14 Overview of recent studies regarding facial attractiveness

Chapter 15 So what do women want after all?

Chapter 1CLUELESS SOCIETY

Countless theories try to explain why certain people are attracted to each other. In the beginning ofthe twenty-first century we are still unable to present a precise pattern of sexual attraction. Why is agiven woman attracted to one man, while rejecting his best friend who is similar in every respect?What is considered sexy? What do women want?

Numerous factors may have an impact on human preferences in choice of partner. The corporateworld knows how to profit from this situation. Consumers will spend large amounts of money ifthey believe some product will help them to become more attractive to the opposite sex. It’s easierto sell products when people don’t know exactly what sexual attraction is all about. “I have no ideawhy this girl fell for that guy, and why she has no interest in me. What does he have that I don’t?The guy is not better looking than I am… maybe it’s his scent? I better buy this new fragrance… ormaybe his sports car caught her attention? Wait, she couldn’t have seen his car in the bar. I’d betterbuy this new fragrance. Or maybe it was the pickup line he used – an ‘opener’ followed by somepowerful ‘seduction pattern.’ I’d better get this new book on seduction.”

The fact that the fair sex perceives sexual attraction differently from men is beyond dispute. Oneglimpse at the covers of men’s magazines tells us that what men crave physically is rather obvious.However, in this book I will show that men notice something more than just a pretty face and curvybody. This mysterious factor can be observed when we take account of women’s choices. Abeautiful woman is able to go to bed with almost any single man she meets. Men, however – eventhose who are handsome, rich, or famous – cannot simply conquer ANY single beautiful woman.

What do beautiful women want? Do they perceive men in a different way than do other women? Itis safer to examine the choices of beautiful women rather than the choices of “ordinary” women,and – let’s face it – this is more interesting for men. Yes, safer. A woman’s physical attractiveness isa cardinal component of her mate value. Stunning women are always surrounded by men. We canbe certain that if a beautiful woman settles with someone, she truly desires him.

At first glance, the simplest theory is about beauty. The prettier you are, the prettier the partners youattract. Most of us noticed that in early childhood. Things get a lot more complicated when we enteradult life. We realize it’s not always about beauty. Attraction can be viewed from many angles.Some people say it’s about character and personality type. Others, especially men, say it’s a simplecontract: the woman offers her physical attributes in exchange for financial security. This last notionis particularly popular throughout the masculine part of our modern materialistic society.Nevertheless, it is one of the biggest oversimplifications of this subject. Not to mention such factorsas social background, culture, race, education... The so-called “seduction community” bets on theconfidence that a man displays, as well as his social skills, and his sense of humor. Pickup artists(PUAs) and their students believe that men are able to manipulate women and “create attraction.”My findings show that nothing could be further from the truth. There are also those (usuallywomen) who prefer to leave this aspect of human nature cloaked in mystery, by using such vagueterms as “chemistry,” “magnetism,” or “magic.” Most of the above theories have one thing in common: they all claim it’s about competition. Theyall insist that we are concerned with a direct ratio. The wealthier, more confident, more intelligent,or more good-looking a given individual is, the more attractive he or she is to the opposite sex. Butwhat about the feeling that many of us have that certain people are just made for each other? Are wereally dealing with a simple analysis of profits, even one that is happening subconsciously, like this

1

one:

“Mr. A is definitely more handsome and better off than Mr. B, so he is boyfriend material.”

The fact that Mr. A got her number, and Mr. B got rejected, does not mean that Mr. A is “superior”to Mr. B in any way. It simply means Mr. B is not her type. But I bet you hear women using theabove clichéd phrase a lot.

Why, then, does society insist on formulating mating theories that are essentially based on oneindividual having more of something than his or her competition, and therefore being more sexuallyappealing? In my opinion, it is because we are raised in a culture where competition plays animportant role from early childhood. Society fails to recognize that some areas of human life are notentirely about competing with others. Beauty does indeed lie in the eye of the beholder.

2

Chapter 2THE EXERCISE

Before I present my theory on the subconscious pairing of two people, and the evidence supportingit, I would like you to do the following exercise.

The exercise is about rating celebrities, so you can easily find the appropriate images online. Try tofind pictures that show the faces from the same angle. The best would be those presenting a personlooking straight at the camera. In most cases I will ask you for front-view photos. Of course thefaces shouldn’t be covered – no sunglasses or hats. In case of men, try to avoid images in which thecelebrity has facial hair.

It is about choosing one picture from each of the two groups:

Group I: famous women

Group II: famous men

In the first group your task is to pick the woman who possesses a more feminine face. Note that by“more feminine” I don’t mean “prettier” or “sexier,” just more female-like, more delicate. It isimportant not to stare at the photos for a long time; just pick the one that exudes “femininity.” Don’tminutely analyze the facial appearance of each woman: “Hmm, the girl in Photo A has a more ovalface, and I heard that this is a very feminine characteristic…”

I want a spontaneous choice based on your first impression. Bear in mind that we are evaluating thewhole face. Otherwise, it is easy to get things out of perspective. One or two characteristic featuresmay be misleading. Hollywood socialite Kim Kardashian has high cheekbones and a low forehead.But her overall facial appearance exudes femininity (all other features are definitely feminine). Inparticular, her nose and chin are small when compared to the length of the whole face. Obviously,her face is less feminine than “all woman” faces, like Marilyn Monroe’s. Luckily, you don’t have todistinguish such nuances to conceive the theory introduced in this book. The work reported herewill rely on extreme examples.

Last but not least – we are judging the face solely, so do not take into account the bodilyattractiveness of the rated person (a girl with a masculinized body may have substantially feminineface traits).

With the second group the task is to indicate the more masculine of the given men’s faces. Theprevious instructions apply here respectively. When rating men’s faces please do not confusefineness of facial features or boyish looks with femininity. A good example of fine (symmetrical),boyish, but still masculine features is the face of former teen idol Leonardo DiCaprio. Notice hisdeep-set and closely set-together eyes, low-placed eyebrows, quite strong chin and jawline (incomparison to his whole face length), and small lips that altogether contribute to an overall mannishimage. However, this image is not as extremely masculine as half of the faces featured in theexercise below in Group II.

The photos are set together in such a way that one photo shows a man or woman with verymasculine/feminine face traits, while in the other there is a barely masculine/feminine face. So in

3

each set I have put together “extremes,” so to say. This should facilitate the choice. The last set ineach group consists of three pictures. One of them is the most respectively manlike/womanlike, thenthere is the least manlike/womanlike, and the third lies somewhere in between these two extremes.

GROUP I

Set 1 a) Meagan Good b) Pauletta Washington

Set 2 a) Laura Bush b) Hillary Clinton

Set 3 a) Katie Holmes b) Jada Pinkett Smith

Set 4 a) Angelina Jolie b) Sarah Jessica Parker

Set 5 a) Pam Grier b) Salma Hayek c) Monica Bellucci

GROUP II

Set 1 a) Denzel Washington b) Jamie Foxx

Set 2 a) Bill Clinton b) George Bush

Set 3 a) Tom Cruise b) Will Smith

Set 4 a) Brad Pitt b) Matthew Broderick

Set 5 a) Richard Pryor b) Edward Norton c) Vincent Cassel

Answers available in Chapter 10.

Note that age is a relatively important component while gauging sexual dimorphism. Both men’sand women’s faces tend to look more masculine as they get older. I used the word “relatively,” sincea very feminine older woman will still have softer facial features than a masculinized youngerwoman. In addition, by choosing photos of actresses taken when they were young, you decrease thepossibility of a misjudgment caused by plastic surgery. Most celebrities decide to get plastic surgerywhen they are older.

4

Chapter 3THE HORMONAL LAW OF ATTRACTION

The Hormonal Law of Attraction (HLA) states that the mating of human beings is essentially basedon attraction toward certain facial features. We subconsciously find attractive those faces thatdisplay a level of sexual dimorphism similar to ours. For instance, a woman with very femininefacial features will feel a strong pull toward very masculine faces. Her friend whose face is barelyfeminine will be drawn to very effeminate men’s faces. Such men will also find her appealing, justas men with very masculine faces will fancy her friend.

This is the supreme rule that governs human love life. “Objective” beauty, money, personality, etc.,are taken into consideration only once this first condition is met. What is the heart of sexualattraction? The answer is literally written in our faces.

OBJECTIVE BEAUTYBy objective beauty, I mean fineness of facial features (an elaborated definition may be found inChapter 7, “Sex Appeal Versus Beauty”). Even a substantially masculinized woman’s face may bebeautiful; American actress and sex symbol of the ’70s Pam Grier serves as a great example. I amaware that her fans are probably going to lambast me. People often find it hard to understand, sincemost sought-after women have an above-average degree of facial femininity. Studies quoted inChapter 14 confirm this. Imagine a quite feminine but at the same time average or even ugly face,being compared to the gorgeous – and very masculine (detailed analysis in Chapter 5) – facialfeatures of Pam Grier. The majority would point at Pam’s face as being the more feminine. Why?The overwhelming power of beauty. Subconsciously it is very hard for most people to accept averdict that contradicts the meaning ascribed to the word “beauty” by the culture we are raised in. Inour society, beauty – female beauty – almost always equals femininity. Most of us don’t realizethese are two totally independent categories.

In the case of men it gets even more complicated. Very often feminized men’s faces are handsomeat the same time. The feminine element carries beauty. Men like Denzel Washington haveunquestionably attractive facial features, although very little about them is masculine. As withgorgeous women, for most people it is difficult to conceive that a male sex symbol may haveeffeminate facial features. Generalization is responsible for most of our false beliefs, in variousareas of life. Many celebrities are not as handsome as Denzel; however, they are perceived as being absolutelyvery manlike – consider Jack Nicholson’s rugged face. “Hunks” often have very pronouncedmasculine features. Male sex symbols usually fall into this category – for example: Brad Pitt, JudeLaw, Tom Cruise, Robert Redford. There are some exceptions as mentioned before, such as DenzelWashington or Will Smith. These two components appear in every possible configuration, so thereare also those who are objectively handsome and little masculine in terms of facial features (againDenzel Washington or Will Smith), and those who are not exceptionally handsome and have softface traits (George W. Bush or Richard Pryor). The female population may also be divided into theabove four categories. Naturally, female sex symbols are “objectively” very beautiful. At the sametime most of them are distinguished by gracile, feminine, neotenous facial features – MarilynMonroe, Brigitte Bardot, Kim Basinger, Monica Bellucci, Angelina Jolie, and Megan Fox, just tomention a few.

As I mentioned in Chapter 2, masculinity or femininity as discussed in this book dependsexclusively on facial features and not on body build. How do people recognize facial masculinity or

5

femininity? It takes just one look at a person’s face for us to “read” the level of facial sexualdimorphism. This has been established by experiments quoted in Chapter 14.

LAW OF ATTRACTIONThe popular – especially around “life coaches” – law of attraction claims that “like attracts like.”The HLA is based on the same principle, hence the name of the rule. People whose faces developedunder a high level of sex hormones are attracted to each other. The same pattern applies to mediumand small levels. Like attracts like – it is as simple as that. Sometimes this process is blocked bysecondary factors. This happens especially in case of men, who often won’t find attractive, forexample, an overweight or simply objectively ugly woman, although she perfectly matches thempursuant to the HLA. Likewise, a woman may reject a man who perfectly matches her, just becausethere is another man around. This other gentleman is also “her type” and also happens to be, forinstance, rich.

SCIENTIFIC BASISThe expression “sexual dimorphism” in general relates to the differences in appearance betweenmales and females of the same species. In this book I use the phrase “facial dimorphism” todescribe certain human facial features that are characteristic of each sex.

Our face traits depend on our genes. They are shaped by sex hormones, which act on the fetus:

“Men develop under higher androgen levels than women. Women develop under higher estrogenlevels than men. Both androgens and estrogens affect various skeletal structures and soft tissues indifferent ways. Therefore, an examination of overall physical appearance allows one to comparethe ratios of testosterone (a major androgen) to estradiol (a major estrogen) that people of the sameethnic group have developed under.”http://www.femininebeauty.info/feminine-vs-masculine

Hormone markers:

“In many species, including humans, sex steroid production and metabolism mobilize resources forthe effort to attract and compete for mates (Ellison, 1998). Testosterone (T) and Estrogen (E) affect a number of facial and bodily features. In the human face the basic proportionsare sexually dimorphic; male traits develop under the influence of T and female traits develop under the influence of E. For example, in pubertal males, facilitated by a high T/E ratio, the cheekbones, mandibles and chin grow laterally, the bones of the eyebrow ridges growforward, and the lower facial bone lengthens (Farkas, 1981; Symons, 1995). In females, the signal-ing value of many body features is linked to age and reproductive condition, both of which corres-pond to a woman’s E/T ratio (Symons, 1995; Thornhill & Grammer, 1999).”Schaefer K., Fink B., Grammer K., Mitteroecker P., Gunz P., Bookstein F.L.,“Female appearance:facial and bodily attractiveness as shape,” Psychology Science, Volume 48, 2006 (2), p. 187 – 204

John T. Manning explains in the beginning of his book Digit Ratio: A Pointer to Fertility, Behavior,and Health (Rutgers University Press, 2002):

“Evolutionary biologists are fascinated by the differences between males and females. Some of usare also enthusiastic about the potential for sexual selection theory to say something about humanbehavior and human illness. In pursuit of this many, including myself, have focused our work onsexually dimorphic traits which acquire their sex difference at puberty. This is a pragmatic decisionbecause sexual differentiation is profoundly influenced by prenatal events. When we remember this,

6

we pay lip service to the effects of testosterone, which acts on the fetus from as early as week eightof pregnancy.”

Manning provides an excellent review of human dimorphism. He concentrates on the issue ofrelative lengths of the index (2D) and ring (4D) fingers (read more in the section “Second to FourthDigit Ratio” in Chapter 6).

Contrary to most authors, he relied on prenatal events rather than puberty. Prenatal development offacial features seems more significant than the processes that take place during puberty. There is anotion that patterns of sexual dimorphism can be observed throughout puberty at the earliest. In thecase of facial appearance, this is not true. Take a look at photos of any two faces of individuals ofthe same gender, who significantly vary in terms of facial dimorphism. Then compare theirchildhood photos. I bet you dollars to donuts the difference in facial features remains unchanged.Mutual proportions of the bone structure of the human skull are formed prenatally.

My hypothesis is that, since sex hormones shape our faces, the amount of sex hormones affectingthe fetus will determine whom that person will attract in adult life. Thus, the “Hormonal Law ofAttraction.”

In this book, “amount of sex hormones” should be understood as the amount of sex hormones thatshaped the facial features of a given subject prenatally, and not the current amount of sex hormones(which can be measured by doing a blood or salivary test). The question of whether facial traitssomehow mirror a person’s current level of sex hormones is still controversial (read more inChapter 14). We should keep in mind that the current amount of sex hormones may be influencedby various factors, particularly in the case of women.

VAGUE WORDSThe visual trigger of attraction described in this book is present any time two people connect.Otherwise, there is no “chemistry,” no “magnetism,” no “sparking”; in other words, there is noattraction. This explains why women have their “types.” We hear women saying that a given manhas got “that something.” She has just seen him for the first time, but she already feels “butterfliesin her stomach” before she even speaks to him. Some people say that this is merely the beautyfactor at work. If so, why do women use the word “type” when they could say “handsome”? Formen, it is very difficult to understand such behavior. We appreciate mainly the objective beauty of awoman: the fineness of her facial features and the proportions of her body type.

LONG AND SHORT-TERM RELATIONSHIPSWhy did I emphasize long-term relationships? It is difficult to define this term precisely. If twopeople get married (and it is a “real” marriage – one of them did not marry the other just for money,for instance), then I am sure the level of their sex hormones is proportional and their facialappearances “match.” In the case of casual relationships, such as one-night stands, the only virtuethat will matter is most likely objective beauty.

ATTRACTIVE WOMENSought-after women may choose other strategies. Highly attractive women with very feminine faceswill choose only HLA-matching partners for short-term and long-term relationships. Alluringwomen always have a choice. Even in the case of short-term relationships, most of them will choosemen who are their “types.” After all, there are plenty of fish in the sea. Why not choose someoneattractive who also has “that something”?

7

Even though I am sure you will be able to find some exceptions to my theory (more in the followingchapter), there is still a scope of human relationships, where the HLA always works. Strictlyspeaking, with physically attractive, exceptionally feminine women, they ALWAYS choose partnerswith masculine faces. This is the basic premise of what I call the “No Such Couple Paradox.”

The bottom line is that women will decide whether someone is “boyfriend material” within the firstfew seconds of seeing his face. But the polls quoted in the following article show it is three minutes,not seconds, that are decisive:

“Speed dating: A man has just three minutes to impress a woman before she makes up her mindabout him based on looks and manners. It also emerged most women believe 180 seconds is longenough to gauge whether or not he is Mr Right, or Mr Wrong. The study also found women rarelychange their mind about a man after their initial reaction – and believe they are ‘always right’ intheir assumptions and judgments. The report…was commissioned among 3,000 adults to mark therelease of Instinct, a new book by Ben Kay.

Kay said: ‘I think a lot of people believe in trusting their instincts when dating. It makes it seemmore magical, like it’s coming from somewhere deeper.

But it’s surprising how quickly women make a decision. That’s barely enough time to finish a drinktogether.

It’s interesting that so many women trust their instincts and yet still give men the opportunity tochange their minds. Some men might think this is leading them on but I would imagine most womenjust want to give every bloke a fair shot.’”

“Basic instinct: Women take just three minutes to make up their mind about Mr Right” by Daily Mail Reporterhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1340868/Basic-instinct-Women-just-minutes-make-mind-Mr-Right.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#

Yet remember, the article did not exclusively study physical appeal. In terms of physical attraction, Ibelieve the whole rating process happens within seconds in a woman’s mind. I particularly agreewith the author’s last remark. A man thinks that because a woman is still talking to him, he has achance with her, while in reality she only wants to give everyone a fair shot. She is just being nice.There is nothing a man can do to change a woman’s mind in this respect. It means that the majorityof the ideas created by the so-called “seduction community” have nothing to do with reality; theyare “love life science fiction.”

There is a positive side to this aspect of feminine nature: if a man matches a given woman, shegives him credit no matter what her family, friends, or society says. He may do something dumbthat will make her change her mind, or she may have second thoughts. This last risk usuallyinvolves competition from another compatible masculine face. If that other man is more handsome,rich, or funny (depending what her priorities are), then a “hostile takeover” is possible. The HLAalso explains why we often hear women commenting on the romantic choices of their femalefriends with the phrase: “What does she see in that guy?”

MEN’S CHOICESMen are biologically inclined to find physically attractive partners. Women also look for objectivephysical attractiveness in their love partners, but not to the extent men do. Does this mean the HLAhas no application to men’s choices? No, men also follow the HLA. They will most likely choose awoman whose face matches their own, provided her female competitors are not significantly prettierthan she is. Consequently, for long-term relationships men will choose their partners in accordance

8

with the HLA. This conclusion is also in line with the hypothesis described in the section “MatingStrategies” in Chapter 15.

MADE FOR EACH OTHERMy theory states what many people feel subconsciously: some people are truly made for each other,and some are not. There is nothing on this earth you can do to win the heart of someone whosefacial features do not correspond to your own. It is not about having more money, intelligence, self-confidence, humor, or beauty. It is all about the “chemistry.” Call it whatever you want; the point is,you cannot create it. So is it written in the stars that two people will be together no matter what? No. Some people aremade for each other in the sense that they have the chance to connect. Others do not even have achance with this single person. Doesn’t sound very optimistic, does it? This merely confirms thepopular belief that dating is a numbers game – a very difficult one, where the odds are against us.

Matching individuals are not guaranteed to form a couple. After she gets to know the man, thewoman may find out that this physically appealing man is simply rude and dull. The woman mayhave facial features that match the man’s, but he may not consider her sufficiently attractive interms of objective beauty. This is the second phase of the love game, where secondary factors arejudged.

DO LOOKS MATTER?Yes, facial appearance is the main attraction trigger; however, it’s not in the way most people wouldpredict. It is NOT about the objective physical beauty of a given human being, which explains the“Shrek and the princess” couples.

Beauty itself may (depending of the values held by someone) be only one of the previouslymentioned secondary factors. Men place significantly higher value on objective physical appearancein a partner than women do.

The married actors Kerry Washington and David Moscow could serve as an example of a “Shrekand the princess couple” (sorry, David). Both extremely masculine/feminine faces match perfectly.Can you see any feminine features in David’s face? Almost none – strong chin and jaw, little mouth,small set-together and deep-set eyes, low eyebrows. Only a high forehead and not-that-big nose addmarginal femininity to this face. Kerry Washington is all woman – her face seems to be composedof only highly dimorphic elements. If I had to put to fine a point on it, I would say her jaw is wellshaped. Still, just as in the case of David’s nose, you have to compare it in proportion to the wholeface.

At the same time, they are very different in terms of “objective beauty.” Kerry Washington is nodoubt a divine woman, whereas David is not a rather exceptionally handsome man. It is this samelevel of facial dimorphism that makes his face so attractive to Kerry. Otherwise, why would shepick him from the probably thousands of men she has met during her acting career? Lots of menwould reply, “David Moscow is a famous actor; I bet he is well off.” He is not a major movie star,though he is recognized by some people. He probably is in a good financial situation. But so is she!Has she never been approached by another actor objectively better looking than David Moscow?Like Will Smith or Denzel Washington?

LOVE IS NOT BLINDMany women would respond to the above raised question about Kerry Washington’s romantic

9

choices by pointing at the unconditional power of the feelings that bind her and David Moscow.I am not questioning their love. I am just not sure whether it is completely unconditional. Is it purecoincidence that their faces happen to reflect the same amount of sex hormones? That they perfectlymatch as far as facial dimorphism is concerned?

My theory does not contradict the idea of romantic love. I only emphasize that visual attractionmust take place in the beginning – even if someone is objectively physically unattractive. After that,people start to get to know each other, and it may lead to feelings deeper than simple visualattraction.

I just don’t believe in the concept of love between a man and a woman as a completelyunconditional feeling – “No Such Couple Paradox”!

Love at first sight? I haven’t studied this aspect of human relationships. My guess is that this phraseis used – especially by the fair sex – when the initial physical attraction is followed right away bydeeper romantic feelings. I imagine it happens when two people are compatible on many diverselevels (secondary factors).

TERMS DEFINED HEREINI would like to stress that whenever I use the terms “masculinity” or “femininity,” I am referring tocertain facial traits that are associated with these adjectives. I could use instead the terms“sharpness” and “softness” or “babyfaceness.”

Our society strongly associates the terms “masculinity” and “femininity” with certain character andpersonality types. However, this has nothing to do with the expressions “masculinity” or“femininity” as used in this book. For instance, a man with very masculine facial features may be acoward, or a woman with a masculinized face may be feminine in terms of personality.

Another example relates to sexual orientation. Not once have we heard about women’s silver screenidols, archetypes of masculine lovers, who turned out to be gay to the grief of their female fans. Asyou see, testosterone does not always equal “masculinity”:

“These data support an association between male homosexuality and high fetal testosterone,”claims John T. Manning in his book Digit Ratio: A Pointer to Fertility, Behavior, and Health,Rutgers University Press, 2002.

10

Chapter 4EXCEPTIONS TO THE HLA

As the saying goes, there is an exception to every rule. The exceptions to the Hormonal Law ofAttraction that I have managed to find never concern the choices of beautiful, exceptionallyfeminine women, as shown in the next chapter. This sole fact defends the HLA as a general rule thatgoverns sexual attraction in our species. Moreover numerous scientific studies have reported facialresemblance in romantic partners – read more in section “Facial Resemblance” of Chapter 14.

Sometimes the same woman may be drawn to men who have slightly different levels of facialdimorphism.

Sarah Jessica Parker has a barely feminine face. No wonder she is married to an actor with veryfeminized facial features – Matthew Broderick.

Broderick was once engaged to Jennifer Grey, who had almost as masculinized facial features asSarah Jessica Parker. I used the word “had” because she underwent plastic surgery in the ’90s – anose job, or rhinoplasty. Today her nose is a lot smaller compared with her image from “DirtyDancing,” for example – the surgery made her face look more feminine. The theory introduced inthis ebook is, of course, based on our natural facial features (more on plastic surgery in Chapter 13).

Jennifer Grey was also engaged to Johnny Depp, a man with not an exceptionally masculine face,but a substantially more masculine one than Matthew Broderick’s. Johnny Depp was engaged to anactress with quite feminine facial features: Winona Ryder.

Winona definitely has a more feminine face than the two previous actresses. She was in a long-termrelationship with Matt Damon, an actor with a harsh masculine facial bone structure.

We have to be careful while relying on information considering someone’s personal life availableon the Internet. Therefore, describing the above exceptions to the HLA, I used mainly faces ofpeople who got married, were engaged, or were at least in a long-term relationship. I have to admitthat I was not able to identify an exact pattern describing the exceptions to the HLA, apart from thefact that attractive very feminine women never change their preferences. Hence, barely masculinemen are never able to conquer such women. This applies even to wealthy, famous, and handsomemen with little facial masculinity (the next chapter elaborates on this finding).

This proves that acclaimed theories based on facial appearance (e.g., Suzi Malin’s findings,described in Chapter 6) are more relevant than society thinks they are. In a world where plasticsurgery has become as common as getting a haircut, this might sound counterintuitive. We indeedlive in times when visual attraction is more important than ever before. Yet it hasn’t greatlyinfluenced popular views on what actually counts in the “game of love.”Still, the most widespread concepts are those that place importance on the non-visual factors(character, intelligence, sense of humor, money, etc.). For the media this is simply the mostconvenient solution. Each issue of some men’s magazine might have a new seduction theory.Women’s magazines offer never-ending articles with tips about character/personality. It’s a never-ending story, and the best part is that you don’t have to provide any evidence. In most cases it issimply impossible to prove such concepts – take, for instance, the effectiveness of improving yoursense of humor. Sure, it’s a good thing. But how does it affect your success rate with the ladies? By10%, 35%, or perhaps even 75%? Actually, some of these theories could be verified, but it would beexpensive and burdensome. No one bothers to even ask for evidence, when you may simply quotesome “expert.” Visual appeal, meanwhile, has much less commercial potential. But here’s the truth:some people have the chance to be together and some don’t.

11

Chapter 5THE “NO SUCH COUPLE PARADOX” AND OTHER EVIDENCE

I defy anyone to point to a romantic pairing that contradicts the HLA, subject to the reservationmade in the last chapter. For this reason you have to limit your research to extreme examples – i.e.,very feminine women and barely masculine men. Furthermore, this way you diminish thepossibility of misjudging the facial traits of your “candidates” to the “No Such Couple Paradox”contest. You already know what facial features indicate exposure to higher than average amounts oftestosterone in the womb and the ones that reveal high influence of estrogen. Still, it may beburdensome to precisely evaluate a medium masculine face or a medium feminine face. You have tokeep in mind that facial masculinity or femininity does not depend exclusively on the size andproportions of certain elements of the face. The general thickness of facial bone structure is also afactor that has to be considered.

Thus, in terms of sexual dimorphism I demand extreme faces: a very effeminate man’s face and avery feminine woman’s face.

That said, I will now give you proof for the HLA. This is strong negative evidence – in the legallanguage, this means “evidence that a fact did not exist or that a thing was not done, did not takeplace, or that a witness did not hear, see, feel, touch, taste, or smell.” Namely, I will prove that inthe whole world there is no such couple as defined below. So far, in accordance with all othertheories, there are no rational reasons that would impede such people to form a couple. The HLA isthe only logical explanation, maybe except Helen Fisher’s theory in some scope (which alsosupports the premise that certain hormone levels won’t let certain individuals feel mutualattraction).

You are about to witness an experiment with not 15, not 30, or even 100 participants, but literallythousands of couples will participate. Furthermore, the person who will carry out this study willbe… you.

I defy you. I defy all scientists who have studied facial features. I defy relationship experts whohave created theories that are aimed at solving the mystery behind the human mating process. Lastbut not least, I defy all seduction community gurus, PUAs, and supporters.

I defy all of you to find at least one such couple in the whole wide world, or should I say in thewhole wide Internet.

To ensure that we are dealing with legitimate couples, let’s restrict our research to marriedcelebrities. That leaves us probably hundreds of thousands of couples around the world. As celebs,their photos and biographies certainly may be found online.

Here is your task:

Under all the predominant theories, there is no logical reason why a man with very effeminate facialfeatures would not be able to conquer a beautiful woman with very feminine facial features. All hisother characteristics are up to you. You may pick a famous, tall, and handsome millionaire, which isevidently the case with many of our experiment’s participants.

Ladies first – the soft, dazzling facial traits of Monica Bellucci could serve as a good guideline foryou. Hair color does not matter. The famous blonde actress Charlize Theron also has an

12

extraordinarily feminine face. As for Latin women, Jessica Alba’s face is exceptionally feminine.Asian actress Li Gong falls into the same category.

Every portraitist or anthropologist who studied the human skull will agree that the above areexamples of exceptionally feminine faces. Other remarkably feminine faces that come to my mindinclude: Marilyn Monroe, Brigitte Bardot, Audrey Hepburn, Annette Bening, Kim Basinger, DianeLane, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez, Katie Holmes, Bridget Moynahan, Eva Longoria, CherylCole, Megan Fox, and many, many more… Now compare any of the foregoing faces with thestrong bone structure of another Hollywood beauty: Jada Pinkett Smith.

Even though all these women are gorgeous, you must admit that, for instance, Monica Bellucci’sface contrasts with Jada’s. Maybe we should compare Jada with someone from her own ethnicgroup – like strikingly feminine Kerry Washington.

Kerry Washington, as is the case with all actresses from this group, illustrates what a purelyfeminine face looks like: overall delicate bone structure, big wide-set eyes, full lips, high-placedeyebrows, high narrow forehead, and a small nose, chin and jaw. It’s difficult to find anymasculinized features. Jada, meanwhile, has a strong facial bone structure, closely set-together eyes,big nose, strong jaw and chin, and rather small lips.

Let’s look at another black beauty: ’70s sex symbol Pam Grier, who is very attractive and at thesame time barely feminine. Notice her pronounced bone structure: high cheek bones and big – inproportion to the size of her whole face – long nose, strong jaw, and chin. Her little lips also do notadd femininity to her face. The only feminine traits are her shiny eyes and high eyebrows.

Going back to blondes, consider the complete opposite of Charlize Theron: Sarah Jessica Parker.

As for men, take a look at Jada’s husband, Will Smith. This could be a good indicator of a veryeffeminate man’s face. Another African-American Hollywood star with little facial masculinity isDenzel Washington. That’s right; People magazine’s Sexiest Man Alive of 1996 has very effeminatefacial features, mostly due to large wide-set eyes, high-placed eyebrows, little chin and jaw, and softbone structure. His quite strong nose adds only marginal masculinity to his face.

Bellucci is Caucasian, so I will give you two examples of barely masculine facial features withinthis ethnic group: British rock star Pete Doherty and American actor Matthew Broderick.

Let’s return to the boyish facial features mentioned in Chapter 2, “The exercise,” where LeonardoDiCaprio was given as an example of boyish but still masculine beauty. I hope you can now see thedifference between boyish and effeminate facial features. You could describe both Leonardo andMatthew as “boyish.” This is arguable. Nonetheless, only one of them has definitively masculinefacial features. This is an objective category, which can be measured. Most of us probably share thissense of a masculine image: the potent bone structure and sharper image that can be seen only inLeonardo DiCaprio’s face — mainly because of his deep-set, closely set-together eyes, thickereyebrows, and stronger brow ridge.

Someone could object: “Maybe Leo has more masculine eyes and eyebrows, but Matthew has astronger chin.” Wrong. This is something like an optic illusion. In fact, Leo’s chin is slightly bigger.As stressed before, you have to compare certain features in proportion to the size of the whole faceof the same person. Again, in case of Will Smith, Pete Doherty, or Matthew Broderick, everyportraitist or anthropologist will agree that we are dealing with barely masculine faces. Now,

13

confront Broderick’s soft face with Bellucci’s husband, Vincent Cassel. Can you find at least onesoft line in his whole ultra-masculine face?

Jamie Foxx is an example of a highly dimorphic face from the African ethnic group. Chinese filmdirector Yimou Zhang has a similar degree of facial masculinity as the two actors mentioned before.

Other examples of greatly masculine faces include: John Wayne, Frank Sinatra, Warren Beatty, AlecBaldwin, Bruce Willis, Josh Brolin, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Marc Anthony, and many more. Your jobis to find any celebrity couple in which the man has very effeminate facial features and the womanis distinguished by highly feminine traits.

Below are two schemes of extreme levels of facial dimorphism to sum up your task:

A very effeminate man’s face:

Read more in the section “Second to fourth digit ratio,” included in Chapter 6.

A very feminine woman’s face:

Read more in Chapter 9.

14

So your “contestants” should look more or less like these:

Why was I not able to find even one such couple in all my searches? I bet you’ve heard the saying“If it doesn’t exist on the Internet, it doesn’t exist.”

Sure, I’ve heard of theories that argue that women crave only masculine faces. But still, not evenone such couple? There is a concept that facial masculinity in males is connected with perceivedattractiveness (Scheib J.E., Gangestad S.W., Thornhill R., “Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cuesof good genes”). Some people could argue that this is the reason there is not even one such couple.As we all know, sought-after women don’t need to compromise. We analyze celebrities, womenwho are even more attractive in men’s eyes. Therefore, popular women choose partners they findmost visually appealing, who are, in conformity with the above quoted article, men with asubstantial degree of facial masculinity.

There is a big hole in such theories (for more on my objections to the methods of conducting mostof the experiments relating to facial masculinity/femininity, see “The need to examine both sides ofthe equation,” in Chapter 14):

Real world partner choice does not correlate with such theories. What about Pam Grier, Jada PinkettSmith, or Sarah Jessica Parker, to name just a few examples? They are all female celebrities. Allconsidered beautiful. Why on earth did they choose men with a marginal level of facialmasculinity? The HLA is the only rational explanation.

Men with effeminate facial features are usually handsome (Denzel Washington, Will Smith, andMatthew Broderick are good examples) or at least not ugly (Richard Pryor, for instance). Moreover,celebs on average are physically attractive people. Hence, it is widely assumed by society that theyare likely to pair up with attractive women, who on average have very feminized faces. Evidentlythe “No Such Couple” rule is a huge paradox.

THE “DENZEL WASHINGTON PARADOX”It is another paradox that Denzel Washington, the man who was pointed out by scientists as being aperfect example of masculine beauty (Geoffrey Cowley, “The biology of beauty,” Newsweek, June3, 1996, v127 n23 p60(7)) and who was called People magazine’s Sexiest Man Alive in 1996 (andwas included in numerous other similar rankings), is also the man whose facial features serve as thebest evidence of the fact that sexual attraction lies in the eye of the beholder. It all depends on theface traits of the rater. Denzel was chosen by scientists as the best example of attractive facial

15

features, and at the same time his face is ideal to prove the HLA: it is much easier to find attractivewomen who consider him sexually unattractive (not to be confused with objective beauty) than tofind attractive women who view, for instance, Brad Pitt as unattractive. Why? Simply because mostbeautiful women have feminine faces – see Smith Law M., Perrett D.I., Jones B.C., Cornwell R.E.,Moore F., Feinberg D.R., Boothroyd L.G., Durrani S., Stirrat M., Whiten S., Pitman R., Hillier S.,“Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences, 2005, quoted in the section “The need to include a large number of participantsin the experiment” of Chapter 14. Why am I limiting my speculations to attractive females exclusively? Certainly there areunattractive women whose opinions could confirm the HLA. Less attractive raters bring a big riskthat I would like to avoid. That is, attractive women don’t need to compromise; but the unattractiveones could put aside their hormonal inclinations just because they desire handsome guys likeDenzel so much.

THE “SELF SEEKING LIKE” HYPOTHESISNumerous studies have shown that romantic partners tend to resemble each other. You may find alist of such articles in Chapter 14, section “Facial resemblance.” That section also includes a reviewof some research that led to different results, and my comment on their validity.

The recent study carried out by Liliana Alvarez from Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas(Venezuela), demonstrated that people are able to match photographs in a way that corresponds toactual couples, with far larger probability than expected by random guessing in most experiments. Iwill briefly review this work, as it is relatively new, and its full text is available online with photosof the rated subjects. During the experiment 36 randomly selected couples, from a list of addresses provided by a localdoctor in the city of Mérida, Venezuela, were photographed. The couples had children and/or wereliving for at least three years together, and reported to have no known family relationship betweenthem. More than 100 volunteers at the universities in Caracas and Mérida were instructed to assigneach of the photographs of female target subjects to one of the males. The participants did not knowany of the photographed people. The test was performed double blind: neither the experimenter northe test subject knew the correspondence of the photos to the real couples.

For more details you may get acquainted with the full text of the article:Alvarez L., Jaffe K., “Narcissism guides mate selection: Humans mate assortatively, as revealed byfacial resemblance, following an algorithm of “self seeking like,” Evolutionary Psychology human-nature.com/ep – 2004. 2: 177-194, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Venezuela.

Once again we obtained evidence demonstrating that mate choice depends to a significant extent onour facial features. The bottom line is that the “self seeking like” hypothesis is an indirectconfirmation of the HLA. In this sense two faces of the opposite sex that developed as a result ofthe same amount of the respective sex hormone are similar. Surely it all depends from whichperspective we look at the question of facial resemblance. Someone may try to put this in anotherway, and say they are their exact opposites (a very mannish face would be in direct opposition to avery womanly face). But this is arguing on semantics. The fact that many experiments demonstratedimpressive similarity between facial appearance of couples, which was also observed by Suzi Malin(read more in Chapter 6) and confirmed by the “No Such Couple Paradox,” clearly establishes thatthe facial features of two people attracted to each other have much in common.

16

IT’S A SUBJECTIVE THINGThe study quoted in section “The need to analyze both sides of the equation” of Chapter 14(DeBruine L.M., Jones B.C., Little A.C., Boothroyd L.G., Perrett D.I., Penton-Voak I.S., CooperP.A., Penke L., Feinberg D.R., Tiddeman B.P., “Correlated preferences for facial masculinity andideal or actual partner’s masculinity”) supports the notion that the evaluation of attractiveness of themasculinity level of a given man’s face by women is of very subjective nature. Naturally, inaccordance with the HLA the same can be said about gauging the femininity level of women’s facesby men. In this last case, however, the objective women’s beauty makes the process less visible.Men tend to be more focused on beauty than women.

2D : 4D DIGIT RATIO CONFIRMATION The problem with the “No Such Couple Paradox” is that visual categories may be misleading formany people who are not portrait painters or have not studied the build of the human skull. Forexample, a whole generation grew up on Will Smith’s action movies. It may be difficult for some toaccept that this Hollywood “bad boy” has effeminate facial features. The majority will probablyagree that Sarah Jessica Parker and Jada Pinkett Smith are characterized by masculinized facialfeatures. But some facial features are tricky. In some cases the patterns of sexual dimorphism arenot so obvious. The inexperienced rater could consider the face Kate Moss (see Chapter 8) as quitefeminine. This is all the more likely if the rater associates her image with the label “supermodel” or“fashion icon” given by the media.

But we may confirm the “No Such Couple Paradox” using the 2nd to 4th digit ratio method, which Iwill describe in the next chapter:

There is not a single couple in which both partners have very high 2nd to 4th digit ratios, in the lightof the average ratios for each sex. All other requirements for our test remain unchanged – alegitimate celebrity couple, a long-term commitment, an objectively beautiful female.

The theories that we will examine in Chapter 6 also indirectly confirm the core idea of the HLA.

17

Chapter 6SUZI MALIN AND HELEN FISHER WERE CLOSE

Sexual attraction is an extremely popular topic in modern society. No wonder the scientific worldtries so hard to reveal the core of human mating. Thousands of experiments have been conducted,which have led to even more articles and books. The Hormonal Law of Attraction is about thepremise that women (and men to some extent) have their “types.” This idea is shared by two othertheories, both created by women.

“LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT” – TYPES OF FACIAL FEATURESWhen it comes to facial appearance, arguably the most accurate theory was formulated by someonefrom outside the scientific world: Suzi Malin, a great British portrait painter. The message of herbook is that we are attracted to people who either remind us visually of ourselves or a key figure(mother/father/nanny) from our childhood. The author distinguishes:

a) harmonism – couples whose faces are of the same proportions. The spaces and distance betweenthe key features of the faces of harmonist couples are very similar. This category covers many pairsfrom show business; “Because they tend to have regularly proportioned faces, harmonists are oftenvery attractive people.”

b) echoism – couples whose faces are of similar looking features (eye shape, mouth shape, etc.). A good example of such a couple (at least that is what some journalists claim) is Jose Maria Aznarand Rachida Dati, mentioned in Chapter 13’s section “Scandals/affairs.”

c) prima copulism – couples where one person has facial features that remind the other of his or hermother, father, nanny, etc. (Suzi Malin, Love at First Sight: Why You Love Who You Love, DorlingKindersley, 2004).

Both this theory and the HLA show that human mating is strictly connected with our facialappearance. This explains why the theory closest to the truth was laid down by a portraitist –someone who observed characteristic traits of human faces all her life, and mastered the ability totransfer them to canvas. With regard to echoism and harmonism, every anthropologist will confirmthat the examples given in Suzi Malin’s book actually present faces so similar that it cannot be purecoincidence that those people became couples. But prima copulism is not so clear to me. Some ofthe examples featured in the book make sense, yet this premise is difficult to verify. We would haveto track all relevant people from someone’s childhood to verify whether we are concerned with acase of prima copulism. In the end of her book (“Do we have it?”), Suzi Malin gives guidelines onhow to compare your face with the face of someone you fancy (or that person’s first blood – in caseof prima copulism). In the part relating to echoism matches, she writes:

“The woman’s head will be smaller than the man’s, so it will need to be scaled up.”“Disregard the noses and lights of chin and forehead” (when describing how to match twophotographs appropriately).

As you see, echoism and harmonism do not mean similarity in every aspect. The differences in thesize of the whole head, and in the lengths of the chin and forehead, are attributed to differencesbetween masculinity and femininity. Paradoxically, the more similar in terms of echoism two facesare, the more they differ in terms of lengths of those elements. If two people are veryfeminine/masculine, they bear resemblance to each other in the sense that they both were exposed toa high amount of the respective sex hormone, and at the same time it means that the differences in

18

the lengths of certain facial elements will be substantial. The HLA unveils what is sometimesdifficult to understand under Malin’s theory when you look at faces that display prima copulism. Inmost cases it is a troublesome task to trace someone’s ancestors. At the same time, I concede that incases where we are not dealing with intense facial masculinity/femininity, but rather with mediummasculine/feminine faces, “love at first sight” may be better to apply. Sometimes after merely oneglimpse at two faces you already see striking echoism. We all like to play the “look alike game.”

Nonetheless, a huge similarity cannot be observed very often. Most frequently there will be onlyharmonism. In most cases it will be impossible to take apart facial proportions in a photo.

THE CHEMISTRY OF PERSONALITY TYPES Dr. Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist, developed a theory that contributed to a verysuccessful dating website. Chemistry.com does what matchmakers did in the past. Only this timeit’s a website algorithm and scientific research instead of the matchmaker’s intuition. You can findmore about her concepts on Chemistry.com; here is a brief summary:

“Certain genes, hormones and neurotransmitters have been associated with specific personalitytraits,” she explains. “For instance, testosterone is associated with independence. All of us havethese chemicals, but some of us have more activity in one of these chemical systems than another.”

The upshot? After reviewing the data, Fisher found that based on the activity levels of four keychemicals (serotonin, estrogen, dopamine, and testosterone), people largely fall into one of four“temperaments”: Builder, Negotiator, Explorer, and Director. Here’s a rundown:

The BuilderChemical in charge: Serotonin (associated with sociability and feelings of calm)Personality: Calm, managerial, conscientious, home-oriented but socialBest match: The ExplorerWorst match: The Director

The NegotiatorChemical in charge: Estrogen (associated with intuition and creativity)Personality: Imaginative, sympathetic, socially skilled, idealisticBest match: Good with all types!Worst match: None

The ExplorerChemical in charge: dopamine (associated with curiosity and spontaneity)Personality: Risk-taking, spontaneous, curious, adaptableBest match: The BuilderWorst match: The Director

The DirectorChemical in charge: testosterone (associated with independence and rational thinking)Personality: focused, inventive, daring, logical, directBest match: The NegotiatorWorst match: The Builder

(“Are Certain Types Destined To Date?” by Kimberly Dawn Neumann, Chemistry.com)

19

As you see, the HLA shares one basic finding with Fisher’s chemistry – there are certain types thatgo well with each other, and the dominant hormones in your body have a major influence on whattype you are attracted to. This conclusion complies with Suzi Malin’s theory, although she did notgo so deep into the subject to describe chemicals that influence our love choices. But it is commonknowledge that facial features depend on prenatal hormone levels. Suzi Malin and I approached thesubject from a somewhat different perspective. We looked closely at physical appearance, while Dr.Fisher examined personality types. Helen Fisher does not guarantee that certain people will betogether, and neither do I. Both of us only indicate those who have a chance with each other.

I have to accentuate that according to Dr. Fisher the personality type associated with testosterone(The Director) matches with the one associated with estrogen (The Negotiator), which is basicallythe essence of the HLA. Chemistry.com’s matches are slightly more complicated than the simplerule laid down by the HLA. This is because Helen Fisher’s research is focused on personality, whilethe HLA deals with facial appearance.

2nd TO 4th DIGIT RATIOFisher’s findings involve the prenatal level of sex hormones. She measured testosterone levels usingmainly the 2nd to 4th digit ratio method, which states that your second to fourth finger’s lengthrelation is connected with the amount of testosterone that affected you in utero pregnancy (one ofthe questions in the Chemistry.com questionnaire is about finger length). The lower the 2D:4Dratio, the higher the concentration of prenatal testosterone.

It is an acclaimed method of measuring testosterone – you can read more about it in ProfessorManning’s article “The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length: a predictor of sperm numbers andconcentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone and oestrogen,” Manning J.T., Scutt D., WilsonJ., Lewis-Jones D.I. (1998), and in Digit Ratio: A Pointer to Fertility, Behavior, and Health, John T.Manning, Rutgers University Press, 2002. In that first article, John T. Manning and colleaguesreported that the sex difference in digit ratios was present in 2-year-old children, and furtherdeveloped the concept that the index was a marker of fetal sex hormones. Since that time researchon the topic has burgeoned worldwide. Both facial features and digit ratios are dependent on theconcentration of prenatal hormones. Hence, there must be some connection between 2nd to 4th digitratio and facial dimorphism. The following experiment’s results confirm such speculations:

“(b) Procedure(i) Data recordingWe measured the lengths of the second and fourth digits of the left and right hands from the tip ofthe finger to the ventral proximal crease from photocopies.…Colour digital images of each participant’s face were taken with a digital single-lens reflex cameraat high resolution in TIFF file format under standardized light conditions (Hedler Studio Lights,Hedler GmbH) and in frontal view.…(ii) Facial shape analysisThe shape of each face was defined by manually setting 64 predetermined feature points(‘landmarks’) on each image. While this represents no standard anthropometric scheme (indeed,there is no such point scheme for facial photographs), it seems to us to be reasonable and thorough;the nearest comparable somatometric method may be Knussmann’s (1988). From these points, 32could be unambiguously identified in every case at positions that could plausibly be claimed tocorrespond from face to face on biological or perceptual grounds....

20

Figure 1. (a) An example face with 64 predefined landmarks. The grey-filled circles indicateclassical landmarks that can be identified unambiguously, the white-filled circles are semi-landmarks that lie on a curve (see §2), and the forehead boss points (solid black) are used forvisualization only and are not included in the statistical analyses. (b) All 106 landmarkconfigurations superimposed by the Procrustes fit. These coordinates are the basis for furtherstatistical analysis.

Low 2D:4D ratio high 2D:4D ratio 0.831 0.899 0.967 1.035 1.103

–4 s.d. –2 s.d. average +2 s.d. +4 s.d.

Figure 2. Visualization of the shape regression on 2D : 4D ratio (averaged among both hands)within males. The middle face with an undeformed square grid is the average landmarkconfiguration and corresponds to the average digit ratio for males. The right grids showdeformations from the mean face to faces that are predicted for higher 2D : 4D ratios (0.068Z2 s.d.

21

and 0.136Z4 s.d., respectively, higher than the average). The left faces correspond to low 2D : 4Dratios (K2 s.d. and K4 s.d.). The G4 s.d. values are outside the data range.”Fink B., Grammer K., Mitteroecker P., Gunz P., Schaefer K., Bookstein F.L., Manning J.T.,“Second to fourth digit ratio and face shape,” Proceedings of the Royal Society

I have chosen the lowest and the highest 2D : 4D visualizations from the foregoing experiment soyou can compare them to some examples of very masculine and very effeminate men’s faces givenin this book:

lowest 2D : 4D highest 2D : 4D

22

Chapter 7SEX APPEAL VERSUS BEAUTY

These are shameless times we live in. Sexy lingerie does not make anyone blush nowadays.Contests for the sexiest car of the year are nothing new. Songs with sexual allusions are played24/7. It seems that the performer’s image has been more important than musical talent since thestart of MTV. Not to mention the whole movie industry. Sex has invaded even politics and sports, asthe media focuses repeatedly on the sexiest politicians and athletes. I wonder when refrigeratorswill be advertised as “sexy.” Thanks to the HLA, we may finally formulate a clear definition of themost popular adjective in the history of pop culture. Many researchers believe that all cultures consider symmetrical faces to be beautiful (see thesection “Symmetry as a Sign of Objective Beauty” in Chapter 14). Among the human species,judgments are quite consistent about whether a given face can be considered as an example of finefacial features – whether a face is pretty. But the question of what specific factors are responsiblefor making a face pretty is widely disputed. Some researchers suggest that averageness of facialfeatures is responsible for aesthetic appeal. I cannot agree with this last notion. Every individualdoes not share the preference for averageness. I explain my doubts in the section “The AveragenessHypothesis” in Chapter 14.

I assumed for the purposes of this book that fine facial features are a result of more than justaverage symmetry. Therefore, both sexes share the same sense of objective beauty. Our brains,independently of our sex, culture, or nationality, perceive symmetry and proportions in a similarway. People from all over the world, for instance, admire great architectural monuments. At thesame time, I am aware that facial beauty cannot be reduced to a single variable such as symmetry. Ipredict that, apart from symmetry, there are certain proportions of facial features that are perceivedas attractive to the eye, just like the golden ratio in architecture. However, this aspect is beyond thescope of this book.

We may agree that most people from both sexes share a very similar sense of facial beauty. Thiswill be referred to as “objective beauty.” Now, the question is raised: what is a sexy face? Women certainly do not share a sense of what issexually attractive in men’s faces. In this respect opinions differ, not only between several culturesbut also within several women in the same group of friends. I suppose some men would say that asexy face is simply a pretty face. Why then the different terminology? We should remember thatmen place much more emphasis on objective beauty.

Facial dimorphism is the critical determinant of sex appeal. This is my definition of a “sexy face”:objectively beautiful + indicating an appropriate level of sex hormones = sexy face

Subject to the reservation made in Chapter 3 (“Scientific Basis”), the appropriate level of sexhormones refers to the prenatal concentration of these chemicals, and not the amount of sexhormones possessed in mature life. Men with, for example, pronounced masculine facial traitsmight turn out to have correspondingly high levels of testosterone in their blood. However, thisrelationship does not always work, especially in the case of women. As we know, the level ofhormones in the female body is very unstable. In the case of men, the amount of testosterone mayalso vary during adult life. Among other factors, obesity may have a negative impact on testosteronelevels.

23

We are concerned with a very subjective category. Fine facial features on a given face will make itsexy to some observers, and to others it will be just pretty. Two women often have very differentopinions regarding the same man. One woman admires him as extremely handsome, while the otherone claims he is awful. Yes, “awful” – I have personally heard women using that word, evenreferring to male celebrities who are often considered sex symbols by the media. Men are a lot moreconsistent on this topic. Their opinions may vary, but it is difficult to find a man who would call anyMiss World finalist “awful.” Men’s magazines that include naked pictures of attractive women maybe sold around the world to consumers from different cultures, nationalities, or social backgrounds.

In most cases in this book I have chosen the point of view of a stunning woman who is beingapproached by a man. From a scientific point of view, this situation is much more interesting thanthe analysis of men’s choices. Men generally value a woman’s physique. If a man finds a womanwho is significantly prettier than her competition, he will choose her. In the long run other factorsgain importance. The true challenge begins when we try to discover the criteria that women use toselect their mates. Many of us would predict that they adopt more or less the same strategy as men –they look for the most handsome men available. But many beautiful women end up with ugly men.One could point out – rich ugly men! However, it is a fact that many stunning women chooseunexceptional-looking men of average financial status.

Let’s look a little deeper at the subject. I suppose every man has witnessed the following situation:

Two equally good-looking men try to pick up the same girl, who doesn’t know anything aboutthem. One of the men approaches her, and before he opens his mouth, you can see from theexpression on her face that she is not very receptive. Two minutes later the other man approachesher, and before he finishes saying, “Hi, how are you doing?” she is already smiling brightly.

How can we explain this? Sometimes the rejected man is objectively better-looking and wealthierthan the one who succeeded. The “defeated” man approached her smoothly, and led theconversation to something more interesting than the usual lines that go after “Hi, how are youdoing?” The answer is what most women would say when asked to comment on such a choice: thesecond man was simply “her type.” But what does that mean exactly? The word “type” refersplainly to his looks, since she had been receptive before he managed to open his mouth. Womencannot explain what it exactly means. Most of them will recall “this shine in his eyes,”“magnetism,” “chemistry,” or other mysterious terms that women use to describe the mechanismbehind the HLA. This, of course, leads to many misunderstandings; men cannot accept such vagueanswers. They try to discover the reason for such an irrational (on the surface) choice. This is wheremany popular theories regarding human mating originated. As previously mentioned, most of thesetheories provide an explanation based on competition: the more confident/funnier/charming manalways gets the girl.

24

Chapter 8BABYFACENESS

The easiest way to help you estimate the sex hormone level of a given individual (includingyourself) is to answer the question: “How much does this face resemble the face of a baby?” This iswhat I call the “Babyfaceness Test.” The trick is NOT to focus on any specific part of the face,because it may be misleading.

Take, for example, Kerry Washington. One of the most feminine faces in the film industry has twotraits that may cause confusion when judging Kerry’s facial femininity level: she has a well-shapedchin and jaw.

But when you look at her face without focusing on any specific part of it, you can see clearly that itis almost the delicate face of a little girl. This is why we have to evaluate the overall look, the firstimpression that strikes us. She has a characteristic jawline and chin. But these elements are surely ofsmall size.

This is another important tip you have to bear in mind. When rating someone’s facial dimorphism,always consider size in comparison to other facial features. What matters are proportions.Otherwise you have no point of reference, and your evaluation becomes completely subjective. Wehave to conclude that Kerry’s jaw and chin are not masculinized. They are characteristic, wellshaped. But still, in comparison to her whole face, they are small.

The same “Babyfaceness Test” can be applied to men. Look at French President Nicolas Sarkozy.Could you ever call him “baby face”?

I bet his face was not typically childlike even when the current leader of France was inkindergarten. Mr. Sarkozy has very strong, robust facial features. His new wife, former Italian topmodel, singer, and actress Carla Bruni, is characterized by delicate facial features. She is already inher forties, yet she could still play the role of a 20-year-old girl. Well, maybe after getting herwrinkles “photoshopped.” The point is her facial bone structure is delicate. Things get morecomplex when you have to judge someone who is more in the middle of the facialfemininity/masculinity axis. It is always easier to point at extreme examples, and match themappropriately.

Some scientists argue that infantlike facial features in women increase their attractiveness – the so-called “Babyfaceness theory.” In general this notion is correct. Yet in real life we can also findmasculinized beauties. An interesting experiment involving this subject was carried out byresearchers from Regensburg University:

“Research on facial attractiveness has pointed out that the presence of childlike facial featuresincreases attractiveness. These are:Large headLarge curved foreheadFacial elements (eyes, nose, mouth) located relatively low Large, round eyesSmall, short noseRound cheeksSmall chin…In order to examine the so-called ‘babyfaceness hypothesis,’ we produced several variants of

25

selected female faces. The variants all had different levels of childlike facial proportions and werejudged for attractiveness by test subjects.”

They created a scheme of childlike characteristics:

Which was based on four children aged 4 to 6-1/2 years:

“This is how we went about: we computed an ‘average child face’ using the four original images.Subsequently, we selected several attractive woman faces. By using the morphing technique wegradually warped the facial shape of the female faces into the shape of the scheme of childlikecharacteristics. Only the proportions of the faces were manipulated, not the faces itself! Weproduced six variations of each selected female face.”http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/kindchenschema/kindchenschema.htm

Below I enclose the least childlike variation (face 6: 0% child, 100% adult woman) and the mostchildlike variation (face 1: 50% child, 50% adult woman), so you can compare them with theactresses shown in Chapter 5.

26

Face 6: 0% child, 100% adult woman Face 1: 50% child, 50% adult woman

Hopefully, you can see that all the examples of feminine faces given in Chapter 5 look a lot morelike face 1 than face 6. And all examples of largely masculinized faces share a lot more similarfacial features with face 6 than with face 1. Furthermore, I am sure you have also noticed that someof the masculinized faces presented in Chapter 5 look even more masculine than variation 6. Nowonder – the researchers produced variation 6 on the basis of photographs of several attractivewomen’s faces. Attractive women’s faces tend to look juvenile on average. Scientists fromRegensburg University forgot to list one more typically childlike facial feature – a delicate jawline.For instance the overall image of British supermodel Kate Moss is masculinized. It is definitely notan example of delicate bone structure. Her face is barely feminine also due to other reasons, whichwere not mentioned in the commented paper. The authors of the experiment stated in the beginningof their report:

“The face of Kate Moss clearly shows characteristic features of babyfaces, but at the same time italso includes mature female features like high, prominent cheek bones and concave cheeks whichare accentuated evenly by using make-up.”

This face is tricky. Indeed there are some characteristic features that may be confusing. One shouldexamine the overall look, and not base the whole rating on one or two specific features.

Below I present the list of infantlike features made by the researchers from Regensburg University,and comment on the facial features of Kate Moss:

27

Large head – maybe

Large curved forehead – not in proportion to the length of her whole face

Facial elements (eyes, nose, mouth) located relatively low – true

Large, round eyes – definitely not: her eyes, although wide set, are very small

Small, short nose – agreed

Round cheeks – the contrary: prominent cheek bones

Small chin – not that small in proportion to the whole face length

As described above, many of her facial features are mature. General bone thickness has a majorinfluence on whether we perceive a face as gracile or robust. In addition, she has a broad forehead,which is a masculine trait. Kate’s look is substantially masculinized. For many people it is difficultto accept such a verdict on a face belonging to a supermodel.

After comparing Kate Moss with Charlize Theron, Jessica Alba, or Kerry Washington, to give just afew examples, we see there is no doubt who wins the “Babyfaceness Test.”

The HLA works perfectly in this case: Charlize Theron’s former boyfriend Stuart Townsend isdefinitely a lot more masculine than former Kate’s boyfriend Pete Doherty. I picked former and notactual partners of the two celebrities only because by coincidence these men look quite similar. Soyou can see what difference sexual dimorphism does to a face, what is the core of facialmasculinity. You may compare even skin tone. Pale skin is considered to be a feminine attribute.Speaking of the former Moss-Doherty couple, I found an article from a British newspapercontemplating what this beautiful supermodel saw in someone who “looked like a refugee from astudent squat”:

“What on earth does Kate Moss see in Pete Doherty? According to scientific research, whatattracts her is his baby face. Jane Gordon investigates. When Pete Doherty first lurched into thegaze of the paparazzi as the consort of Kate Moss, it was difficult to understand what she saw inhim.…With his large forehead – made more pronounced by the signature trilby – his wide eyes, chubbycheeks, full lips and ever-present sheen of sweat, he was the antithesis of accepted masculinebeauty. All the usual features that we traditionally associate with male attractiveness – a strongsquare jaw, a long, lean face, a defined nose and a firm mouth – are missing from the lead singer ofBabyshambles. Indeed, Doherty presents the facial profile of a big (his one really masculine trait ishis height) baby.” “The appeal of baby-faced men” by Jane Gordon, 24 November 2006 http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/you/article.html?in_article_id=418449&in_page_id=1908

I completely agree with the author’s description of Pete’s baby face. But the conclusions drawn inher article are inadequate:“But, strange as it may seem, there is a scientific explanation for Kate’s apparent aberration.According to Dr Anthony Little – an evolutionary psychologist and Royal Society research fellow –

28

there is good reason why contemporary women are attracted to baby-faced men such as Dohertyand why the old ideals of what makes a man appealing are changing. In fact, it could well be thatjust as Kate Moss defines the way women in the 21st century want to look, so Doherty will becomethe blueprint for what more and more females perceive to be the perfect man.”http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/you/article.html?in_article_id=418449&in_page_id=1908

Why haven’t I seen Pete Doherty with any supermodel who has very feminine facial features? Likeany of the girlfriends of such rock stars as Lenny Kravitz, Mick Jagger, or Steven Tyler? All threesingers have very robust faces. The author quotes Dr. Little, who claims that nowadays it is auniversal tendency among women to feel attraction to babyfaced men: “Kate Moss defines the waywomen in the 21st century want to look, so Doherty will become the blueprint for what more andmore females perceive to be the perfect man.” Is it really just a coincidence that Kate Moss has amasculinized face, while the girls that dated any of the three above mentioned rock stars havedefinitely feminine faces (Adriana Lima, Bianca Jagger, Brenda Cooper)? Courtney Love didn’t fallfor Kurt Cobain’s not very masculine face (yet a little more masculine than Pete’s) because that was“fashionable” during the ’90s. Is it another coincidence that Courtney’s facial features are lessfeminine than Adriana Lima’s, Bianca Jagger’s, or Brenda Cooper’s, but a little more feminine thanKate’s? Why did such a singer of the 21st century as Rihanna and such a singer and actress of the’50s as Marilyn Monroe both choose such rugged masculine faces as, respectively, Chris Brown andJohn F. Kennedy? I could list such “coincidences” for hours... Scientists would say that a babyfaced person has neotenous facial features. Sometimes theexpression “pedomorphy” is used:

“A potential correlate of beauty is pedomorphy, which is the retention in adults of child-like traits.For instance, women have facial features that are closer to those of children than men, and morefeminine women have facial features that are even closer to those of children. Thus, it may beproposed that pedomorphy is a correlate of beauty.”www.femininebeauty.info/ethnic-comparisons/beauty-elements

I quoted from Femininebeauty.info because some basic terms are well described on that website.Nevertheless, I do not fully agree with the author. For instance, the last part of the above citeddefinition (“Thus, it may be proposed that pedomorphy is a correlate of beauty”) is not adequate.Objective beauty and facial femininity or masculinity are two different independent issues, which isthe main message of the next chapter.

29

Chapter 9FEMININITY

Briefly speaking, the facial features that contribute to an overall feminine image are:- large, set wide apart eyes- oval face- full lips- small chin- round cheeks- high, narrow, curved forehead- high-placed thin eyebrows- small, short nose- delicate bone structure- facial elements (eyes, nose, mouth) located relatively low

In contrast, attributes of typically masculine facial traits include:- deep-set small and set close together eyes- low-placed tick eyebrows- low, broad forehead- pronounced brow ridge- pronounced concave cheekbones- strong chin- squared jaw- big, long nose- small lips- strong bone structure

You can find a more precise, scientific approach to facial femininity onwww.femininebeauty.info/feminine-vs-masculine:

“There are additional changes in facial features related to sex hormones; these changes areaddressed after controlling for size: the eyebrows are thicker and placed lower on the face, i.e.,closer to the eyes, in males; the face is broader in the female; the distance between the eyes isgreater in the female; and the chin is longer and squared in the male (Fig 7a).”

30

Fig 7a: Face outline variation resulting from masculinization and feminization (frontview, assessed via geometric morphometrics); f = female, m = male.(5)

You can find a more precise, scientific approach to facial masculinity on:www.femininebeauty.info/masculinization-feminization-in-men (the part relating to facial appearance)

Again, I have to add that I have some minor reservations regarding Femininebeauty.info –sometimes my judgments are less strict. For instance, the author of the website states in thebeginning of the page dedicated to facial masculinity:

“The following example is an easy contrast between an effeminate face and a masculine one”. The picture shows Leonardo DiCaprio and Burt Lancaster. Indeed Burt Lancaster has a moremasculine face. But the author exaggerated describing DiCaprio's face as effeminate. It is lessmasculine than Lancaster's, yet – in the light of the whole masculine population – it is still quite amasculine one. I think a much better contrast can be seen when comparing a very effeminate face(Pete Doherty) to a quite masculine one (Leonardo DiCaprio), and to a very masculine one (TomCruise) – with regard to Cruise's face the author of the commented website agrees with me.

Going back to the main subject of this chapter – women's faces. The four above images posted onFemininebeauty.info are taken from the already quoted in Chapter 6 article titled:

Fink B., Grammer K., Mitteroecker P., Gunz P., Schaefer K., Bookstein F.L., Manning J.T.,“Second to fourth digit ratio and face shape,” Proceedings of the Royal Society

You can compare the visualization of the shape of the average female face (m → f) and theexaggerated, very feminine face (m → f x 2) with the faces of female celebrities indicated inChapter 5 as examples of very feminine faces:

31

m → f x 2 m → f f → m f → m x 2Figure 5. Sexual dimorphism in facial shape. The two inner deformation grids are thin-plate splinevisualizations of the shape differences between the average male face (m) and the average femaleface (f ). To enhance the details these differences were exaggerated by two in the outer grids.

Often cited here, Femininebeauty.info “aims to promote feminine beauty.” The website presents avery well explained, in-depth analysis of the subject. However, as mentioned previously, I do havesome objections to the conclusions.

Please remember that the above website also covers the subject of feminine body build, while thisbook, and the theory presented herein, deals solely with facial features. Body build is merely one ofmany secondary factors in mate choice.

I believe the website is repeatedly too strict. Sometimes it describes a given model as masculinized,while she only has some masculinized elements in her face. An example of this tendency is thecritique of Elle Macpherson’s beauty. On one hand, I admit that the author’s remarks about her bodyare true. On the other hand, I must say he exaggerated somehow when criticizing her facial features.There may be some masculine elements in her face; but after judging the overall look, one sees shestill has a substantially womanish face compared to the rest of the feminine population. I have theimpression that the author himself felt that calling her “masculinized from head to toe” was anexaggeration:

“However, Elle MacPherson is masculinized from head to toe, though her face is not as masculineas in many other high-fashion models out there.”http://www.femininebeauty.info/elle-macpherson-and-monica-ftv-girls

Her face is indeed more masculinized than Monica’s (unknown model indicated by the author of thewebsite) but still a lot more feminine than the masculinized facial features of Sarah Jessica Parkerand others presented in my book as examples of very masculinized women’s faces.

“As can be seen below, Elle MacPherson has finer facial features than Monica, but this should notbe assumed to result from greater feminization; Elle’s finer facial features reflect her beinggenetically more closer to Northern Europeans than Monica is; Elle clearly has a face that is moremasculinized than Monica’s.” http://www.femininebeauty.info/elle-macpherson-and-monica-ftv-girls

With this last remark I can agree: fine facial features (what I refer to as “objective beauty”) aretotally independent of femininity level.

32

In addition, the author’s comments on Playboy Playmates seem inaccurate:

“Now we can figure out the most likely reason behind the masculinization trend among Playboycenterfolds. Hugh Hefner, the ultimate decision maker regarding who gets to be a Playmate,appears to be a bisexual and likes masculinized women. When he founded the magazine, thefeminine female form was in the limelight, and Hefner could not have gone against it while he wastrying to establish the magazine. In addition, the silicon gel breast implant was not available then,which would be required to add pseudo-femininity to the often naturally small breasts ofinsufficiently feminine nude centerfolds. Indeed, breast implants have been common amongPlaymates in recent years.”http://www.femininebeauty.info/hugh-hefner

If Playboy chose masculinized models only because of Hugh Hefner’s personal preferences, thenthe “invisible hand of the market” would verify such taste. Though Playboy is the mostrecognizable men’s magazine brand in the world, the competition is just waiting to overtakeHefner’s empire. Thus, the fact that some Playboy Playmates have somewhat masculinized facialfeatures merely reflects various tastes within the male population.

The author managed to gather a lot of scientific information on femininity, and was able to present aclear explanation of what a purely feminine face should look like. However, he forgot that a 100%feminine face is something as scarce as hen’s teeth. Most women’s faces have some masculine traits– it is normal. Otherwise we would come to extreme conclusions, such as comparing PamelaAnderson’s face to a transvestite’s: “Look at Fig 2 and ask yourself whether you are looking at awoman, man or transsexual?” (one of the remarks by the author of the website). Sure, some parts ofher face are masculinized, but what counts is the overall look. We have to remember that the samerule applies to the masculine population. It is very difficult to find a man with purely masculinefacial features.

The author of Femininebeauty.info also implies that men who find masculinized women’s facesattractive may have homosexual inclinations. But that has nothing to do with sexual preferences. Inaccordance with the HLA, a man who prefers such women’s faces over other similarly prettywomen probably has an effeminate facial appearance. Other men will also fancy a masculinizedwoman’s face, provided it is objectively beautiful. Pam Grier is a valid example. One of the biggestfemale black sex symbols of all time could not have been promoted exclusively by gays. On thecontrary, pursuant to Manning’s research quoted in the section “Terms defined herein” of Chapter 3,and taking into account my theory, men with effeminate faces are rather unlikely to behomosexuals:

“These data support an association between male homosexuality and high fetal testosterone,”claims John T. Manning in his book Digit Ratio: A Pointer to Fertility, Behavior, and Health,Rutgers University Press, 2002.

As shown in this book, the faces of heterosexual men and women include various levels of sexualdimorphism. I assume the mentioned association between male homosexuality and high fetaltestosterone simply means that those individuals are more likely than others to have such a sexualorientation. But you cannot draw the conclusion that most of them are homosexuals.

Some studies demonstrate that people are able to indicate faces of homosexuals with moreprobability than random guessing:

33

“ProcedureStudy 1A consisted of six conditions based on the presentation time of the photographs.Participants made judgments based on faces they saw for either 33 ms, 50 ms, 100 ms, 6500 ms,10,000 ms, or at their own self-paced rate (i.e., photos were presented until the participant presseda response key).…ResultsSexual orientation was judged from male faces at levels significantly greater than chance in all butthe 33 ms condition. Accuracy scores were calculated for each participant by dividing the numberof correct classifications by the total number of images.”Rule N.O., Ambady N., “Brief exposures: Male sexual orientation is accurately perceived at 50ms,” Tufts University, Department of Psychology; revised 27 November 2007, available online 25January 2008. http://ase.tufts.edu/psychology/ambady/pubs/2008RuleJESP.pdf

My guess is that there must be some still-undiscovered cue to sexual orientation in human facesother than sexual dimorphism.

34

Chapter 10RESULTS OF THE EXERCISE

I am sure you have indicated in group I the following faces as the more feminine ones:

set no 1 : Meagan Good (A)

set no 2 : Hillary Clinton (B)

set no 3 : Katie Holmes (A)

set no 4 : Angelina Jolie (A)

set no 5 : Monica Bellucci (C) as the most ladylike, Salma Hayek (B) as a little less feminine then Monica, Pam Grier (A) as having the undeniably least neotoneous image.

As for men, the more masculine faces in each set are:

set no 1 : Jamie Foxx (B)

set no 2 : Bill Clinton (A)

set no 3 : Tom Cruise (A)

set no 4 : Brad Pitt (A)

set no 5 : Vincent Cassel (C) having the most dimorphic face, Edward Norton (B) as a little less manly, Richard Pryor (A) as definitely the least masculine face.

Set no 1

The two black actors are apparently objectively good-looking guys. They knew how to benefit fromthe symmetry of their facial features, and made great careers in the movie business. Denzel’s face isalmost completely symmetrical, according to a Newsweek article titled “The biology of beauty.” Interms of facial masculinity they are in perfect contrast to each other: mind the strong, robust facetraits of Jamie Foxx, compared to Denzel’s soft facial bone structure. Denzel Washington, on thecontrary, has an overall effeminate look. The only sharper element I was able to find is his nose,which is not that big in comparison with the length of his whole face.

Facial dimorphism may be observed after comparing facial proportions. The relative distancesbetween certain elements of the face will substantially differ in case of two subjects marked by acompletely different facial dimorphism level:

Both have quite high foreheads. The interval between the mouth and eyebrow line is much shorter

35

in the case of Jamie. This means Denzel’s mouth is lower situated. It makes his whole face lookmore childlike. I am also sure most of you can see the differences regarding the shape of certainface traits: Jamie’s deep-set eyes contrast with Denzel’s big shiny eyes; his eyebrows are lowerplaced than Washington’s; his whole bone structure appears to be stronger – for instance, noticeJamie’s pronounced brow ridge.

Conversely to the masculinized facial features of Pauletta Washington (notice the potent bonestructure), Meagan Good’s face is made of almost only womanish traits. Small eyes are the onlynot-so-ladylike element I was able to find in the facial features of Jamie’s ex-girlfriend.

Do you see how compatible Mr. and Ms. Washington’s facial features are? At the same time theydiffer so much in terms of bone structure – hers is quite strong for a woman, and his is delicatecompared to the average male skull.

Set no 2This time the rather objectively more handsome man (Bill Clinton) is also the more faciallymasculine one. Try to imagine Clinton and Laura Bush as a couple. It is a rather difficult task – theirfaces do not match. Both have quite pronounced facial features.

The man who ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has very effeminate facial features. The onlydimorphic elements you can find in George W. Bush’s face are his closely set-together eyes andquite thick eyebrows. On the other hand, his shiny eyes are not an entirely masculine trait, becauseof their size. Additionally, his brow ridge does not look strong. Compare these features to the smalldeep-set eyes of former President Clinton. Accordingly, Clinton’s brow ridge also indicates his faceas the more masculine one.

W’s nose and chin are not of great size given the length of his whole face. His jawline does notappear particularly strong. The distance between the end of his chin to the mouth is quite shortgiven the length of the whole face – counted as the distance between the end of the chin to hishairline. The same distance is much longer in the case of Clinton.

Differences in facial dimorphism between these two former US presidents are better seen when wecompare the distance between mouth and eye line. At first glance one can see that the distancebetween Clinton’s eyes and mouth is much shorter. This makes the whole face look more mature.

Now Hillary, despite being called “iron lady” by many people, has a soft feminine face. This is thebest example of what I underlined before in this book: facial masculinity/femininity cannot alwaysbe considered as a direct indicator of character or personality.

Set no 3The young, innocent look of Katie Holmes is, of course, much more ladylike than Jada PinkettSmith’s pretty face – wife of Will Smith. Will has a round, handsome, but little masculine face. Thefacial features that make him so pretty to many women are precisely those that give his face asubstantially effeminate look: big, wide set, shiny eyes and high, thin eyebrows. Other similar facetraits are: small in proportion to the whole skull chin and nose, modest jawline and tiny cheekbones.Also compare his modest brow ridge to Tom Cruise’s pronounced brow ridge. In contrast to Will’ssoft facial features, the face traits of his good friend Tom Cruise seem rugged.

The characteristic long nose, as well as deep-set eyes, thick low-placed eyebrows, pronounced

36

jawline and chin contribute to the ultra masculine image of this Hollywood lover – in real lifehusband of Katie Holmes.

Set no 4Recognize the facial patterns in both couples. Here we have two celebrity beauties. The featuredfamous actresses are completely different in terms of facial appearance. The brunette is anunquestionable sex symbol, just like her husband. Can you find any little dimorphic elements intheir faces?

The only soft element that you can find in Pitt’s robust face is his full lips. This corresponds toAngelina’s only relatively masculinized face trait, namely a well-shaped jawline. Her characteristicjaw is not that big in proportion to the whole skull size. Hence, this face exudes femininity evenwith such an – at first sight – little ladylike element. Evidently, those two complete each other interms of appearance, just as Broderick’s effeminate face best suits the masculinized, beautiful,symmetrical facial features of Sarah Jessica Parker. Contrary to “Brangelina,” Broderick and Parkerhave no dimorphic features in their faces – Sarah Jessica’s facial bone structure is almost strongerthan her man’s.

Set no 5At first glance all three dark-haired beauties look quite similar. I did not choose them randomly. Theaim was to set together women who do not look that different, due to such easily visiblecharacteristics as hair color, skin tone, size of eyes and shape of eyebrows.

Having compared such looking-like hotties, the indication of masculine elements in their faces isfacilitated. Those elements make the whole difference. Bellucci is “all woman.” She has not only acurvy body. Look at her infantlike facial pattern – can you find any sharp elements at all? Her ovalface is in complete opposition to Pam Grier’s stunning sharp look.

Indicating Monica Bellucci as the most feminine actress was rather obvious. It could have beentroublesome to decide between Grier and Hayek, having only frontal view photos. In this pair thedifference in facial dimorphism comes down mainly to bone structure. That is when side facephotos come in handy. You can see Pam’s bigger nose and chin (in proportion to whole face length).Also notice her much more prominent cheekbones. In general she has thicker facial bones.

So we have Monica Bellucci as an example of a 100% feminine face. On the other end of the axisof facial femininity we find beautiful Pam. Salma Hayek is somewhere between Grier and Bellucci.Closer to Bellucci, I have to conclude – by virtue of overall femininity.

Monica’s life partner, French actor Vincent Cassel, specializes in playing roles of villains. Nowonder; with such sharp facial features, evil characters suit him best. Can you find any delicateelements in his extremely masculine face? None, just as there are no masculine elements inMonica’s face. If I had to pick the least dimorphic trait of his face, it would be his jaw. Cassel has astrong chin and other typically masculine facial features. Only his jaw is not extraordinarilymasculine. That’s good for him. With a squared jaw his whole face would look almost like acaricature.

Try to imagine Vincent Cassel and Pam Grier together. Their faces don’t match at all. There are justtoo many sharp lines. Clearly Richard Pryor is his complete opposite. Pryor’s oval effeminate facecomposes very well with Grier’s sharp beauty, even though they do not match in terms of objective

37

attractiveness. Grier was an unquestionable sex symbol in the ’70s, while Pryor achieved hiscelebrity status thanks to a great sense of humor and personality rather than physical attributes.

Choosing Cassel as the most masculine face from this set was as easy as picking Bellucci as themost feminine. Edward Norton has softer facial features than Vincent, but certainly his face traitsare a lot more masculine than Pryor’s.

The face of the king of comedy is characterized by a big long nose, certainly bigger than EdwardNorton’s. But that is his one and only masculine trait. Norton, on the other hand, has small, deep-setand closely set-together eyes, and lower eyebrows, all of which combined with a much strongerchin, jawline and smaller lips make his face look a lot more masculine than Pryor’s. Edward’s chinand jaw are indeed a lot bigger – take into account the length of his whole face, and the length ofRich’s face. Proportions matter most.

In the exercise, we gauged faces of celebrities (except for set no 2). You may have some remarksabout the chosen celebrities. Most of you probably have noticed that the people given as examplesof very masculine/feminine celebrities are well known, whereas the ones representing men orwomen with barely feminine/masculine faces are not so easily recognizable. Well, I was not able tofind many celebrities with such small level of facial dimorphism, so I had to mention less famousones. An actor must be principally expressive, characteristic. The movie world demands men tohave a very masculine and women to have a very feminine image. In Hollywood everything mustbe a little exaggerated. Apparently there are exceptions to this rule – for example, Will Smith orDenzel Washington, who are beyond doubt great movie stars. However, they catch up with theirbeauty and talent.

Another thing you may have noticed is that three of the four actors given as examples of celebritieswith barely masculine faces are African-Americans (Will Smith, Denzel Washington, RichardPryor). This is pure coincidence. The HLA is applicable to all races, nationalities and cultures.Jamie Foxx, as said, is an African-American actor with a very pronounced, robust facial appearance.In fact, studies demonstrate that African-Americans have rather higher amounts of testosterone thanwhite Americans:

“Californian black college students have been shown to have 19% higher mean testosterone levelsthan white students and 21% higher concentrations of free testosterone (Ross et al. 1986). Thedifferences were somewhat reduced by controlling for lifestyle factors, but overall they remainedhigh and significant. It is likely that African Americans also have higher exposure to prenataltestosterone than Caucasian Americans, and therefore have lower 2D:4D than Caucasians.”Manning J.T., Digit Ratio: A Pointer to Fertility, Behavior, and Health, Rutgers University Press,2002

38

Chapter 11PHASES OF THE MATING PROCESS

The mating process can be divided into three phases:A) Phase of estimation of the femininity/masculinity of a given faceB) Phase of evaluation of objective physical attractivenessC) Phase of evaluation of other factors that are not connected with the appearance of the observedperson

Both sexes evaluate a potential partner according to the above sequence. The first two phases areabout judging the physical attributes of a given individual. The assessment of other factors(character, intelligence, social background, sense of humor) takes more time. The evaluation offacial traits is a process that happens totally subconsciously, and is therefore the first stage. Anotherpoint in question is what importance each sex places on each phase. I will cover this topic later, thistime using ciphers to order the phases.

Phase A The estimation of sex hormone levels takes place within the first seconds of seeing someone’s face.Studies show that women are able to correctly “read” the level of testosterone just by looking at aphotograph of a man’s face (more in Chapter 14 in the section “The Ability to ‘Read’ the Level ofFacial Masculinity/Femininity”). The HLA claims that not only women possess this ability. Formen, the objective beauty of the rated face may interfere with this process. Facial features are a clueto hormone levels. Two men may rate two equally objectively beautiful female faces and havedifferent opinions about which face is sexier. This is, of course, a consequence of my definition of asexy face (Chapter 7). The sex hormone level evaluation does not depend on our subjectivepersuasion. It takes place according to the laws of nature. It is the most important phase. Phase B The next phase involves judging someone’s facial beauty and body build. Generally speaking, itconcerns the objective beauty of a given person. In this phase, some processes also happensubconsciously. For instance, an appropriate waist-to-hip ratio makes a woman’s body attractive.This is not a conscious choice made by the rater; this build has been shown to correlate stronglywith general health and fertility. The same can be said with regard to facial symmetry, whichprobably also correlates with general health (read more in the section “Symmetry as a Sign of‘Objective Beauty’” in Chapter 14). In the animal world, symmetrical individuals are perceived asmore attractive. I believe objective beauty assessment is also in part made consciously. To someextent, the ideal of beauty must be influenced by society.

Phase C In contrast to the first two phases, the last one does not concern physical appearance. It relates to allother factors that have any impact on mate choice. Some choices also happen subconsciously. Forexample, some people think that women choose wealthy men not only to satisfy their own desire forluxury but also in order to feel safer. In such cases women subconsciously think about the wellbeingof future offspring. Similarly, we may explicate the allure of certain character traits, such as self-confidence or courage. Men see fidelity as a very positive quality in a future spouse, since they fearinvesting time and money in someone else’s offspring. Notwithstanding the above, in this phasemost decisions are made consciously, pursuant to our subjective criteria. Sense of humor is highlysubjective. Wealth may secure the future of potential offspring. For one woman, though, a wealthyman is someone who has a good stable job, but another won’t settle for less than the CEO of a

39

Fortune 500 company. In this phase we also assess someone’s ethical values, beliefs, socialbackground, education, and manners.

Having described the criteria that we use to choose a love partner, I will list them according to theirimportance. This is where men and women differ drastically. Many of us are not aware of theseprocesses, which is why men and women do not really know what the opposite sex wants.

For men the hierarchy of importance of the aforementioned criteria is:1. The phase of assessment of objective beauty of the woman in question2. The phase of evaluation of her facial femininity3. The phase of assessment of other factors that are not connected to physical appearance

For women the hierarchy is:1. The phase of evaluation of the facial masculinity of the man in question 2. The phase of assessment of other factors that are not connected to physical appearance 3. The phase of assessment of his objective beauty

Please note that we are discussing the choices of people who are looking for a long-termrelationship. It is obvious that someone who is after a “one-night stand” will place importance juston one factor – the potential partner’s objective beauty. Sometimes the HLA is applicable even incase of people looking for casual encounters. Again, it is the case of picky sought-after women.

40

Chapter 12THE HLA PICKUP GUIDE

Now that we already know what the Hormonal Law of Attraction is all about, and we are aware ofsituations when this rule may be “interrupted” by secondary factors, I will say a few words about itspractical application. HLA is knowledge that should be possessed principally by men. Men pursueall objectively attractive women, while women have their “types.” They instinctively “feel” theHLA. I realize that for long-term relationships, men also contemplate predispositions other than asexy physique. The point is that the average man has no clue about “chemistry.” He reasons that ifhe can manage to find a woman who matches his dream profile – e.g., a beautiful, educated, andoutgoing Christian – then she will be “IT.” Therefore, I address this chapter to men.

Understanding the HLA and mastering the proper assessment of the facial femininity of the womanwe intend to conquer is an extremely helpful skill in the “game of love.” Actually, when we lackthis knowledge our attempts look more like random shots with the hope of hitting any target,instead of courting the woman of our dreams. The first thing we should do is correctly determinethe masculinity of our own facial features.

ACCENTUATE/HIDE YOUR MASCULINITYIf you have come to the conclusion that your facial features are somehow effeminate, you willprobably need to accentuate the mannish elements in your face. It won’t make you attractive tofeminine women, but it sure will improve your image. You see, women worldwide use makeup. Intheir case the rule is simple: more femininity will improve their looks. When a woman exaggeratesmakeup, the result doesn’t look good because it looks unnatural for her facial features. But if hernatural facial features were more feminine it wouldn’t make her less attractive. Women paint theireyes and lips. Large eyes and full lips are a sign of femininity. Have you ever seen in any culturewomen painting their noses? Pale skin is another sign of femininity. There is a reason why womenput powder on their faces in the past, not only in our Western culture. It’s a universal tendency –look at the traditional makeup of a Japanese geisha.

Bristle is the masculine equivalent of makeup. With men the situation is slightly more elaborate –more masculinity does not always make you look better. So if you feel your facial features may betoo masculine, you should avoid making any changes in your image that could amplify yourmannish facial traits even more. Let’s get into details:

a) lose/gain weightIf you lose weight, your facial bone structure will be more visible, which will sharpen your overallimage. Guys with naturally sharp faces, like Mick Jagger, should gain a couple pounds instead.

b) tanned skinSunbathing may be recommended for those who lack facial masculinity.

c) facial hairAny facial hair will add masculinity to your face, just like makeup will make women look onlymore feminine. A light bristle will definitely give you an overall sharper image. If you have veryeffeminate facial features, you might consider growing a beard. Your chin and jaw will look bigger.On the flip side, if your facial features are highly masculine – shave every day!

d) shorten/uncover your foreheadA high forehead adds femininity to the face. Generally, women have higher foreheads. If you lack

41

masculinity, you probably have a high forehead, so consider covering it with a fringe or a hat.

This is good news for balding men! Mother Nature thought of everything. Balding is usuallyconnected with high amounts of testosterone, so don’t be afraid to lose hair. It will only make youralready quite masculine face look warmer and more sociable... it will add a little femininity to it.The question of whether bald men are less attractive to women is controversial; there are studiessupporting both answers. My hypothesis is that it depends on the facial femininity of the femalerater. Therefore, research is inconsistent – I doubt any studies made an effort to examine the womenwhose opinions were gathered. Those very feminine raters will not discriminate against baldingmen, since lack of hair is a sign of a high testosterone level.

The fact that men are so worried about their balding heads is another example of how people predictthe other sex’s preferences from their own perspective. Apparently a balding woman is a big turnofffor most men, while women on average are far more tolerant of hairless men’s heads.

A CRUSH ON YOUR COLLEAGUEAfter the exercise from Chapter 2, after an analysis of the level of femininity of the women youdated in the past, and after examining the features of your own face, you should know more or lesswhere you stand on the “axis of facial masculinity.” We regularly hear the following story: a guymeets a girl in college or at work. He has a huge crush on her. They are quite close. He is not surewhether she considers him “boyfriend material” or if she is just being nice to him. He is afraid thatmaking any direct move will destroy their friendship or cause embarrassment, especially if mutualfriends or coworkers find out that he was rejected. In such cases the proper estimation of her facialfeatures (HLA or Suzi Malin's matches) will diminish the risk of hearing the unpleasant cliché:“Let’s just be friends.”

PICKUP LINESThere is absolutely no point in using pickup lines – they are simply a waste of time. Only men findpickup lines significant. Memorized approaches may be funny and original sometimes, but theyhave no influence whatsoever on your chances of success. If you have a great sense of humor, youwill have plenty occasions to show it. If she rejects you after you say, “Hi, how are you doing?” shewould reject you even after the funniest, most original or touching pickup line.

A NUMBERS GAMEAnother conclusion coming from the HLA is that dating is indeed a numbers game. Gentlemen,unfortunately the odds are against us, and there is nothing we can do to change it, because it issimply human nature. Luckily, we can adapt a strategy that will help us find that winning lotteryticket sooner than those who take their chances blindfolded.

My concept proves that clubs, contrary to what some critics say, are a good place to pick up women.Some PUAs advise you to forget clubs and focus on the “day game,” as they call it. According totheir theories, a club is not a very friendly environment in which to meet women, since women areconstantly being approached there and tend to develop a negative mindset. That is just anothermisunderstanding of human nature. Naturally, women realize that such venues are filled with maleswho are trying to get into their pants. Yet if they find a man with facial features matching their own,they won’t care whether they met him in a club, at the office, or even at a morgue. Unless he doessomething that will kill attraction (read more about this under the section “Showing off”).

Since dating is a numbers game, clubs are one of the best places to approach ladies. Where else inreal life (the Internet is unbeatable) will you find so many single women in one spot? Speed dating

42

is not a bad idea. But trendy clubs are regularly filled with more ladies than those dating events.Well, some of the clubbers, contrary to the speed dating participants, are not single. I guess it alldepends on the venue.

One could argue (I have admitted it myself in this book) that the HLA will not guide some women’schoices with respect to “no strings attached” relationships. Agreed – still, where do you think theyare going to look for men? Clubs and the Internet have no competition in terms of both long-termand casual relationships.

After gaining some experience you will most likely learn to recognize which lady’s type you are.Her attitude will, of course, be a valuable clue – the way she looks at you principally, bodylanguage, and other things often mentioned by pickup or seduction books. Sometimes this may bemisleading, though. A shy girl who fancies you may not give the appropriate signals. A veryoutgoing woman’s behavior may be incorrectly interpreted as a sign of romantic interest. It ishelpful to follow basic tips given by the HLA or Suzi Malin.

Otherwise, you would approach every hot girl you see, like many pickup/seduction guides adviseyou to do. That would be very absorbing and – conversely to what the neo-Casanovas claim – notvery healthy in terms of your self-confidence. As we all know, beautiful women are very choosy.

On the other hand, when you are out there with your buddies, relaxing, having some drinks, detailedexamination of facial features is the last thing you want to do before hitting on a girl. Thus, in clubsI advocate a more liberal mindset. That said, I guess I don’t have to explain why blind dates are a waste of time and should be avoided.

THE “MOVE ON” RULEThe “move on rule” is one of the most important conclusions of the HLA. Suppose you see a girlfor the first time in your life. After you start a conversation, she reacts in a not very receptive way.Simply move on! Chances are marginal that she just had a bad day yet finds you attractive.Otherwise she would have forgotten about her headache for a moment and acted nicely. The mostlikely explanation is that your face traits are simply not her type. You have just been added to the“not boyfriend material” category by her subconscious. Don’t try to make her change her mind,impress her in any way or make efforts to “create attraction” in some other weird manner. The bestyou can achieve with all that mind control subliminal seduction crazy stuff is that you will beclassified in the “nice/funny/interesting guy” category – but “weirdo” category is more probable. If a woman doesn’t find you sexually appealing, it doesn’t mean you have committed a mistakeanywhere – at least that does not have to be the case. It doesn’t mean you have to improve yourlooks, sense of humor, social skills, and so on. Sure, improving those areas of your life is a goodthing, but the main point is that you don’t have to worry that you didn’t fit into some girl’s criteria.

SHOWING OFFBuying expensive clothes, watches, or cars just to make a good impression on a potential date is awaste of time and money, provided you are not genuinely interested in motorization or fashion.Sure, a girl won’t complain if you drive a Ferrari and wear a suit from Armani’s newest collection,but she also won’t complain if you drive an ordinary car and wear ordinary clothes. Just make surenot to do something that will embarrass her, something that would be a “turnoff” – the only thingthat may KILL attraction. What do I mean by doing something embarrassing? Well, it depends onthe woman, the situation, the culture, the social group you two belong to. Certainly there aresituations where a good suit, watch, car, or other sign of wealth might be essential. For example,

43

next to you stands another guy who just happens to be her type as well; now she will have to make adecision.

The same comments apply to other secondary factors, such as self-confidence, sense of humor,body shape. Our society is pretty materialistic, hence I concentrated on the wealth issue.

44

Chapter 13OTHER CONCLUSIONS OF THE HLA

GOLD DIGGERS“Gold diggers” was the first thing that came to my mind when I started writing this chapter. Richmen often feel confused when contemplating whether their “other half” is with them for real or onlyafter their money. How many men have lost their time and money engaging in relationships with –let’s face it – luxurious prostitutes? How many men have destroyed their relationships by accusingtheir girlfriends or even wives of having dishonest intentions?

It is important to understand one thing – a gold digger is a girl who is ONLY after your money. Onthe other hand, if a girl appreciates your wealth but also finds you “cute,” that is not the case. It alldepends on the mindset you adopt. Imagine that you were an attractive woman, frequently being hiton – why would you settle for less? I’d bet that many of you would choose a guy you honestly findsexually attractive but also financially stable.

The HLA is a great weapon for wealthy men who have this dilemma. If they evaluate their own andtheir partner’s face traits, and acknowledge it is clear that they do not completely match, then theanswer will be: leave this gold digger. At least if your facial features are effeminate and you aredating a woman with very feminine facial features. After all, Chapter 4 expressly addresses theissue of exceptions to the HLA. Now, if your face traits match, this doesn’t mean she has absolutelyno dishonest intentions. You have to find out in another manner. In this last case, at least theprobability of the worst scenario significantly diminishes.

THE WONDERS OF ONLINE DATINGYes, it is all about the looks! But not in the sense society taught us. We should draw the conclusionthat the most reasonable way to find a special someone in the global village is through the Internet.We live in fascinating times! Never before in history have we had the chance to meet so manypotential partners. Once again I am forced to repeat: dating is indeed a numbers game.

The HLA tells us that it is a big mistake not to upload a photo to our online profile. Many userscommit this mistake, claiming they are searching for a soul mate rather than someone attracted bytheir looks. It lies in our nature to consider the image of our potential romantic partners as the mostimportant criteria – even for someone who does not place any importance on objective physicalattractiveness. Many guys get confused when a woman who states on her online dating profile thatlooks are not important subsequently asks her admirers to include a photo.

The HLA explicates the phenomenon of online dating. For women it takes merely one glimpse atsomeone’s photo to ascertain whether this man is “boyfriend/husband material.” Online datingshould not be considered the favorite tool of desperate computer geeks. At the same time we shouldalso know that most of the success stories of people who found their love partners without evenseeing their photos (as happens in the romantic comedy You’ve Got Mail) are probably fiction.Some people regard such tales as proof of true love. They reckon: since two people fell in lovewithout even seeing each other’s faces, then it means they found their “perfect match” and not justanother crush. Those people don’t comprehend that as human beings we need to find mates whomatch us “biologically.” We consist not only from the spirit but also from the body.

SCANDALS/AFFAIRSThe HLA as well as the concept of visual categories presented in “Love at first sight” are usefuleven while discussing scandals. Much gossip about alleged affairs of famous politicians may be

45

verified – a good example is the case of the pregnancy of Rachida Dati, a French minister in thecabinet of Nicolas Sarkozy. After Ms. Dati got pregnant in 2008, there were rumors that Jose MariaAznar, former prime minister of Spain, was the father. To my knowledge Ms. Dati still keeps theidentity of her child’s father a secret. I have set together photos of these politicians, and theindisputable similarity of their facial features gives food for thought:

PLASTIC SURGERYThe HLA is good reason to refrain from doing any serious facial plastic surgery. Rejuvenation isone thing, but correcting the facial features you were born with is a completely other issue. There isa danger that after changing your face traits they will become less or more respectivelyfeminine/masculine than they “originally” were. In consequence, you will become more attractiveto other types of men/women than the ones you subconsciously crave. Obviously your ownpreferences won’t change, since it is something that is programmed in our minds by nature. Thiswill lead you to confusion, and probably unhappiness.

MATCHMAKINGMatchmaking should be considered a relic of the past that has no use in modern society. It may leadto unhappy marriages – especially in cultures where boys and girls are forced by their parents tomarry each other. Today some people try to defend this custom by arguing that such couples mayfind true love after being together for a long time. This is pure nonsense! What are the odds thattheir parents by accident matched future spouses in accordance with the HLA or Suzi Malin'smatches?

WOMEN SHOULD BE ACTIVEThe HLA gives a tip to women: if you are attractive, and you see a man whom you find attractive –approach him! Yes, you heard me right; in such cases it is the female who should be active, not themale, contrary to cultural stereotypes. Am I promoting feminist ideas here? No, not at all. The onlyreason is that it simply makes more sense. We are rational creatures, and should start to think morerationally about this sphere of our lives as well. Attractive women are the pickiest creatures on thisplanet. Men pursue beautiful women; consequently, the rational solution is to encourage gorgeouswomen to approach men. Yes, I know, try to convince a woman that she should perceive love in arational, cold manner…

46

COUPLES FROM THE MOVIE SCREENThe HLA explains why so many couples from the silver screen become couples in real life.Hollywood producers and directors are professionals, who instinctively feel when there is potentialfor “chemistry” between certain people. Their job is to give roles to those actors whose combinedperformances would be perceived as authentic. Sometimes critics say that there was no “chemistry”between partners in a given movie. This is another good example of what the HLA is all about, andwhy many other theories misperceive the core of attraction. It is not about the man’s/woman’sattitude, personality, sense of humor, or views on certain topics, because actors only interpret whatis written in the script. Hence, it must be their looks that make the difference – but not objectivebeauty, since most of the people in show business are good looking.

EXPERIMENT 2.0No one has tracked social interactions of a large, diversified group of people to check whether theacclaimed theories on sexual attraction bear out. Nowadays, in the world where Big Brother iswatching, finally they can be verified.

I suggest a reality TV show that would finally solve the greatest mystery of all time: what dowomen want?

- 100 beautiful straight girls: 18-35 years old; all have one thing in common – beauty. Everythingelse differentiates them: height, hair color, race, education, political views, religion, socialbackground, nationality, character, hobbies, IQ;

- 100 straight guys: diversified under categories that reflect certain theories on human mating. Forexample: the rich guy, the hunk, the “muscle man,” the smart nerd, the party boy, guys trained bydifferent PUAs – PUAs representing different “schools” of seduction — and even one gay man whowould pretend he is straight, just to establish whether women really appreciate certain traces ofcharacter allegedly possessed by gay men.

The guys would be given only one task on the show – picking up the most women. The girls wouldnot be aware of it. Before starting we would carefully examine every participant from both sexes,from every angle: facial traits, weight, height, views, psychological tests, hormone levels, naturalscent, even astrological signs. Every expert could take a closer look at each participant before thecompetition begins. A large number of participants, and the possibility of observing them 24/7,would make it the most on-point scientific experiment with regard to human mating, and probably afinancial success.

FACE READINGFace reading is based on the correlation between the facial features and the character of a person.Beyond doubt that is what my concept and Suzi Malin’s theory materially is – a form of facereading. The HLA demonstrates that the science of face reading has more applications than peopleused to think.

It makes perfect sense – certain chemicals that had an impact on the development of your brainduring prenatal life also influenced the shape of your facial features throughout that period. Thisancient art has been used by the Chinese since the times of Confucius. Today face reading has beenrediscovered by the corporate world. IBM, AT&T, 3M, GE, American Airlines, MCI – all thesecorporate giants have hired face reading expert Mac Fulfer. You can find the CNN and Fortunemagazine report on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9c5amwriRw). Mac Fulfer is atrial lawyer who applied face reading in jury selection. He also advises companies, teaching this

47

amazing science. One of the possible applications is avoiding employment disputes. BarbaraRoberts is another acclaimed face reading expert. Her ideas serve a variety of purposes, from datingto politics. What is important from my perspective: she emphasizes that we have to look at thewhole face and not only at one feature.

48

Chapter 14OVERVIEW OF RECENT STUDIES REGARDING FACIAL

ATTRACTIVENESS

We still can’t precisely identify what chemicals make us feel attraction for someone. Consideringthe negative evidence presented in Chapter 5, we may be sure that the shape of our faces decideswho “will fall for us,” and whom we will find attractive. My prediction is that since the sexhormones level, which affects the fetus in the womb, has a massive impact on our facialappearance, those chemicals are probably the true love elixirs. At the same time, the relationbetween our adult level of sex hormones and our facial attractiveness remains unclear.

Below you will find a brief description of some studies that partly confirm the accuracy of the HLAand Suzi Malin’s ideas. I will also comment, in the light of the HLA, on the most significantresearch concerning facial attractiveness.

THE ABILITY TO “READ” THE LEVEL OF FACIAL MASCULINI TY/FEMININITYThe degree of facial dimorphism was found to correlate with levels of sex hormones:

“...The relationships found here between oestrogen and appearance in natural images of faces aremore important because they are the first evidence for a link between assumed femininity andoestrogen that has previously been assumed in facial attractiveness research. This providesevidence that the sexually dimorphic appearance of female faces is related to oestrogen levels.”Smith Law M., Perrett D.I., Jones B.C., Cornwell R.E., Moore F., Feinberg D.R., Boothroyd L.G.,Durrani S., Stirrat M., Whiten S., Pitman R., Hillier S., “Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogenlevels in women,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2005

This relation was observed not only in females but also within the male population:

“Here, we used salivary testosterone assays to investigate the relationship between circulatingtestosterone and both masculinity and attractiveness of facial appearance by (1) constructingdigital composites from the faces of men with high and low testosterone, which were presentedusing a forced-choice task to subjects and (2) using a forced-choice task in which participantsjudged the masculinity of pairs of original photographs. Composites from high-testosterone menwere judged to be more masculine than those from low-testosterone men. Evidence that high-testosterone composites are considered more attractive than low-testosterone composites wasequivocal. The forced-choice task using the original face images indicated that participantsidentified faces associated with relatively high circulating testosterone as being more masculinethan faces of men with lower circulating testosterone. This effect was more pronounced when thefaces in the pair were from men who differed greatly in testosterone levels.”Penton-Voak I.S., Chen J., “High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearancein humans,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 229-241

Not only sex hormones shape human faces. Men and women are also able to estimate the level ofthese chemicals by looking at the face of the rated individual:

“We undertook a pilot study to establish whether or not manipulating sexual dimorphism of 2Dshape in our stimuli influenced perceptions of their masculinity. Participants (N=38, all female,age: M=20.15 years, SD=3.92) viewed the 40 pairs of face images and were asked to choose theface in each pair that looked more masculine. For each participant, the order of face pairs was

49

fully randomized, as was the side of the screen on which any given image was shown. Note that thetwo-alternative forced-choice method that we used to assess perceptions of masculinity produces asingle face in each participant (the portion of trials on which the more masculine face in each pairwas chosen). One sample t-tests confirmed that would be predicted by chance for both male(t(37)=10.52, p<0.001; M=0.87, SE=0.03) and female faces (t(37)=13.87, p<0.001; M=0.84,SE=0.03), confirming that our image manipulation influenced perceptions of facial masculinity inthe predicted way (see also DeBruine et al., 2006).”Welling L.L.M., Jones B.C., DeBruine L.M., Conway C.A., Smith Law M.J., Little A.C., FeinbergD.R., Sharp M.A., Al-Dujaili E.A.S., “Raised salivary testosterone in women is associated with in-creased attraction to masculine faces,” Hormones and Behavior 52 (2007) 156-161

The last two experiments involved circulating (not prenatal) testosterone and composites. However,it is worth noting some common findings with my theory (in connection with Manning’s findings).You need only to glimpse at someone’s face to gauge the sex hormones level that affected thatperson throughout prenatal life, and is responsible for that person’s facial dimorphism. Duringsocial interactions this gauging happens subconsciously within the first few seconds of seeingsomeone.

THE NEED TO ANALYZE “BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUATION”We have to take into account “both sides of the equation” – all researchers quoted in this chapterfailed to comply with this requirement. They examined the level of sex hormones only in one sex.In the majority of cases, male participants’ testosterone level had been measured. Afterward, femalevolunteers were asked to judge those male faces. Various techniques were used. But in allexperiments the researchers put the answers of the raters in one box, and took the average. The sexhormones level of the rating participants was not measured, or in other cases – for example, inJones and DeBruine’s experiment (“Raised salivary testosterone in women is associated withincreased attraction to masculine faces,” Hormones and Behavior, 2007) – the sex hormones levelof female participants was measured; however, the rated faces were composites generated by acomputer.

Although some researchers reached the conclusion that the raters should also be examined(“Perhaps consideration of the interactions between the properties of both the raters and multiplecues within the faces to be judged will be necessary in order to provide a fuller understanding ofattractiveness judgements in our own species” – Penton-Voak I.S., Jones B.C., Little A.C., Baker S.,Tiddeman B.P., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I., “Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions andmale facial attractiveness,” School of Psychology, University of St Andrews), so far there has beenno such experiment. The raters’ faces should be carefully taken apart so that the subjective taste ofeach individual could be revealed and studied. In addition, I believe that prenatal levels of sexhormones should also be established – the 2nd to 4th digit ratio method could be used.

Interestingly, one group of scientists was very close to revealing the essence of the HLA. Theypointed to the subjective character of what is attractive to women in men’s faces as far as facialdimorphism is concerned:

“We also show that women’s preferences for masculine male faces are positively related to ratingsof the masculinity of their actual partner and their ideal partner. Correlations with partner mas-culinity were independent of real and ideal partner age, which were not associated with facial mas-culinity preference....This suggests that the differences in general preference for masculinity in male faces found in vari-ous studies are more likely to result from individual differences among the participants than from

50

differences in the techniques used to manipulate facial masculinity....Here we also demonstrated that preferences for facial masculinity are predicted by stated prefer-ence for masculinity in an ideal partner and also by an actual partner’s rated masculinity.” DeBruine L.M., Jones B.C., Little A.C., Boothroyd L.G., Perrett D.I., Penton-Voak I.S., CooperP.A., Penke L., Feinberg D.R., Tiddeman B.P., “Correlated preferences for facial masculinity andideal or actual partner’s masculinity”

Regrettably, DeBruine, Jones et al. did not investigate the most important issue; namely, the sourcesof individual variation in preferences for masculinity. Once again, the mechanism behind the “NoSuch Couple Paradox” was not unveiled, because the faces of only one group of volunteers wererated:

“2. MATERIAL AND METHODS(a) Stimulus manufacture six individual male faces (ages 17–19) were masculinized and feminizedusing prototype-based computer graphic transformations (Tiddeman et al. 2001). Faces weretransformed in shape (sexual dimorphism and pubertal development methods) or shape, colour andtexture (perceived masculinity method) relative to the differences between two composite prototypefaces, one ‘masculine’ and one ‘feminine’.…(c) ParticipantsParticipants in the preference test were 124 women (a subset of the 324 women who completed themasculinity preference test reported previously) between the ages of 16 and 30 (mean ageZ21.9,s.d.Z3.51), who reported a heterosexual preference and completed a questionnaire about partnerpreferences.

(d) ProcedureFacial masculinity preference was assessed using a two alternative forced choice paradigm, wherethe masculinized and feminized versions of one face identity were presented on a computer screenat the same time and participants were asked to indicate which was the more attractive by clickingon the face.”

THE NEED TO INCLUDE A LARGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN THEEXPERIMENTYou probably have heard that there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” This istrue when we formulate very specific conclusions based on studies of small numbers of volunteers,and even more so in the case of such a complex issue as human mating. Another reason the HLAhas not been discovered before is the small amount of participants of many experiments conductedso far in this field (commonly 15-50), which leads to ambiguous results, unlike the HLA, whichrelies on celebrity couples worldwide.

It is necessary that a large number of volunteers participate in the study, so that the test will coverindividuals with various levels of sex hormones. Under such conditions a girl with a substantiallymasculinized face, for example, has the chance to rate a barely dimorphic man’s face as well, andnot only the most typical masculine or medium masculine men’s faces. To make the study evenmore representative, participants should also be differentiated in the category of “objective beauty.”Beauties will include not only the most common feminine faces but also this group’s raremasculinized ladies.

Otherwise we will come to very general conclusions, half-truths, such as claiming that facialfemininity always equals beauty in the case of women:

51

“(ii) Composite facesThe high oestrogen face was rated as much more feminine, attractive and healthy than the lowreproductive hormone face (all tO6.31, p!0.001, d.f.Z20) using a one-sample t-test on strength ofpreference.”Smith Law M., Perrett D.I., Jones B.C., Cornwell R.E., Moore F., Feinberg D.R., Boothroyd L.G.,Durrani S., Stirrat M., Whiten S., Pitman R., Hillier S., “Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogenlevels in women,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2005

SYMMETRY AS A SIGN OF “OBJECTIVE BEAUTY”For the reasons expressed in the following studies, I assumed in this book that objective facialbeauty is substantially correlated with the symmetry level of a given face:

“Symmetry may act as a marker of phenotypic and genetic quality and is preferred during mateselection in a variety of species. Measures of human body symmetry correlate with attractiveness,but studies manipulating human face images report a preference for asymmetry. These results mayreflect unnatural feature shapes and changes in skin textures introduced by image processing. Whenthe shape of facial features is varied (with skin textures held constant), increasing symmetry of faceshape increases ratings of attractiveness for both male and female faces. These findings implyfacial symmetry may have a positive impact on mate selection in humans.”Perrett D.I., “Symmetry and human facial attractiveness,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume20, Issue 5, Pages 295-307

“Evolutionary, as well as cultural, pressures may contribute to our perceptions of facialattractiveness. Biologists predict that facial symmetry should be attractive, because it may signalmate quality. We tested the prediction that facial symmetry is attractive by manipulating thesymmetry of individual faces and observing the effect on attractiveness, and by examining whethernatural variations in symmetry (between faces) correlated with perceived attractiveness.Attractiveness increased when we increased symmetry, and decreased when we reduced symmetry,in individual faces (Experiment 1), and natural variations in symmetry correlated significantly withattractiveness (Experiments 1 and 1A). Perfectly symmetric versions, made by blending the normaland mirror images of each face, were preferred to less symmetric versions of the same faces (evenwhen those versions were also blends) (Experiments 1 and 2). Similar results were found whensubjects judged the faces on appeal as a potential life partner, suggesting that facial symmetry mayaffect human mate choice. We conclude that facial symmetry is attractive and discuss the possibilitythat this preference for symmetry may be biologically based.”Rhodes G., Proffitt F., Grady J.M., Sumich A., “Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty,”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1998, 5 (4), 659-669

Considering the HLA, we should keep in mind that people perceive facial beauty, and that issomething of an objective nature. Ultimately, as mentioned, this aesthetic sense is shared by bothsexes. We are also able to distinguish “subjective” beauty, so to say. Beyond a doubt, individualshave their unique preferences for certain facial features. In this last case we are dealing with sexualattraction, which is of subjective character in women’s case. I predict that women are able to admitthat a given man’s face is beautiful, and at the same time honestly claim the face is not sexuallyattractive.

Although I am aware that symmetry’s influence on the perceived facial beauty may be morecomplicated (as contemplated in Chapter 7’s “Sex appeal versus beauty”), the said assumptionshould serve for the purpose of analyzing the main subject of this book – sexual attraction.

52

VISUAL APPEAL IS NOT ONLY ABOUT SYMMETRYMany studies led to this implication. Researchers could not establish precisely what this otherelement contributing to facial attractiveness was. Experiments regarding facialmasculinity/femininity did not yield consistent results. The notion of another cue to facialattractiveness is consistent with my predictions:

“Using photographs of men’s faces, for which facial symmetry had been measured, we found arelationship between women’s attractiveness ratings of these faces and symmetry, but the subjectscould not rate facial symmetry accurately. Moreover, the relationship between facial attractivenessand symmetry was still observed, even when symmetry cues were removed by presenting only theleft or right half of faces. These results suggest that attractive features other than symmetry can beused to assess phenotypic condition. We identified one such cue, facial masculinity (cheek-boneprominence and a relatively longer lower face), which was related to both symmetry and full- andhalf-face attractiveness.” Scheib J.E., Gangestad S.W., Thornhill R., “Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of goodgenes”

“It was recently proposed that symmetry is not a primary cue to facial attractiveness, assymmetrical faces remain attractive even when presented as half faces (with no cues to symmetry).Facial sexual dimorphisms (‘masculinity’) have been suggested as a possible cue that may covarywith symmetry in men following data on trait size/symmetry relationships in other species. Here, weuse real and computer graphic male faces in order to demonstrate that (i) symmetric faces are moreattractive, but not reliably more masculine than less symmetric faces and (ii) that symmetric facespossess characteristics that are attractive independent of symmetry, but that these characteristicsremain at present undefined.” Penton-Voak I.S., Jones B.C., Little A.C., Baker S., Tiddeman B.P., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I.,“Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness,” School ofPsychology, University of St Andrews

THE “AVERAGENESS HYPOTHESIS”Some academics hypothesize that in terms of beauty it is not only symmetry that is relevant but alsothe perceived averageness, which increases the attractiveness of the rated face.

In his preference test Rhodes discovered that increasing the averageness of face images whileholding symmetry constant increased the attractiveness of those faces (Rhodes G., Yoshikawa S.,Clark A., Lee K., McKay R., Akamatsu S., “Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry innonwestern cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty,” Perception, 30, 611-625,2001). Meanwhile, Valentine found that increasing the averageness of profile views of faces thathave no bilateral axis of symmetry increased their attractiveness (Valentine T., Darling S., DonnellyM., “Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness offemale faces,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 482-487, 2004).

Collectively these findings suggest that preferences for averageness in facial features are not causedby symmetry preferences alone (Rhodes G., “The evolution of facial attractiveness,” AnnualReview of Psychology, 57, 199-226, 2006).

What is the relation between symmetry and averageness?

“Our findings for stronger averageness preferences when both symmetry and averageness aremanipulated than when averageness alone is manipulated suggest that symmetry contributes to the

53

attractiveness of faces.”Benedict C.J., DeBruine L.M., Little A.C., “The role of symmetry in attraction to average faces,”Perception & Psychophysics, Volume 69, Number 8, November 2007, pp. 1273-1277(5)

The HLA is a further illustration of the role of averageness shown in the above quoted works.Symmetry is simply what I refer to throughout this book as “objective beauty.” So DeBruine iscorrect in claiming that symmetry contributes to the attractiveness of faces. The averagenesshypothesis is a rational consequence of the HLA. All the above studies were based on theexamination of average ratings of faces included in a given test. As a consequence, the average-looking faces should have achieved the best scores. It is not averageness per se that makes a faceattractive but rather the amount of sex hormones it indicates. Such average faces have betterchances to be found attractive by a larger group of raters than, e.g., an extremely masculine face. Inthis last case odds are very slim that the majority of female raters participating in the preferencetests had extremely feminine faces.

THE RELATION BETWEEN PERCEIVED MASCULINITY OR FEMIN INITY ANDFACIAL ATTRACTIVENESSMany theories on attraction propose that there is a link between the level of sex hormones and facialattractiveness (quoted above, “Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes,” Joanna E.Scheib, Steven W. Gangestad, Randy Thornhill); others show there is no connection between thesefactors (“Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males,” JohnP. Swaddle and Gillian W. Reierson, Biology Department, College of William & Mary,Williamsburg, Virginia; or quoted above, “High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine malefacial appearance in humans,” I. Penton-Voak, J. Chen, Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 25,Issue 4, Pages 229-241).

Some studies of the first group suggest that masculinity in a man’s face is correlated with health orage. Hence, it increases facial attractiveness. Others believe femininity is actually more appealing tothe female sex, since such faces indicate certain positive traces of character:

“The multiple motive hypothesis of physical attractiveness suggests that women are attracted tomen whose appearances elicit their nurturant feelings, who appear to possess sexual maturity anddominance characteristics, who seem sociable, approachable, and of high social status.” Cunningham M.R., Barbee A.P., Pike C.L., “What do women want? Facialmetric assessment ofmultiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness,” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 1990 Jul; 59(1):61-72, Department of Psychology, University of Louisville,Kentucky

“…The role of facial masculinity in attractiveness judgements is disputed. Cunningham et al.(1990) and Grammer & Thornhill (1994) used facial measurements and found a female preferencefor large jaws in males. Masculine features, such as a large jaw and a prominent brow ridge, arealso reliably associated with ratings of dominance in photographic, identikit and composite stimuliby male and female raters (McArthur & Apatow 1983^1984; McArthur & Berry 1987; Berry &Brownlow 1989; Berry & Wero 1993; Perrett et al. 1998). Facial dominance appears to correlatewith status in some human hierarchies (Mueller & Mazur 1997) and facial dominance inadolescent males is associated with an earlier age at first copulation (Mazur et al. 1994).Nonetheless, the relationship between facial dominance and attractiveness is unclear – somestudies find a positive relationship (Keating 1985) while others find the opposite (McArthur &Apatow 1983^1984; Berry & McArthur 1985; Perrett et al. 1998). Other studies propose that amixture of masculine and feminine traits are found attractive (Cunningham et al. 1990) or that

54

preferences for masculinity or femininity vary across the menstrual cycle as a function of theprobability of conception (Penton-Voak et al. 1999; Penton-Voak & Perrett 2000).”Penton-Voak I.S., Jones B.C., Little A.C., Baker S., Tiddeman B.P., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I.,“Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness,” School ofPsychology, University of St Andrews

According to the HLA, the level of sex hormones is strictly correlated with facial attractiveness. Yetonly subjective facial attractiveness that is associated with the sex hormones level of the rater. Theauthors of the research mentioned in the beginning of this section (“Testosterone increasesperceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males”) in a certain way were correct. Let’stake a look at the methodology of their preference test:

“2. MATERIAL AND METHODSWe took digital photographs of 21 male Caucasians’ faces in a (right-side) profile and face-onorientation to the camera. Models were 18–21 years old, had short hair, lacked beards ormoustaches, were not wearing jewellery, and were told to adopt a neutral facial expression whilesitting for the photographs. Photographs were taken in standardized lighting conditions against acommon background. We compared how facial structure changes with natural levels of testosterone during puberty, andin delayed puberty boys treated with low-dose testosterone (Verdonck 1997; Verdonck et al. 1999)to create vectors of facial trait changes that represent realistic variation in plasma testosteroneinfluencing facial bone growth fields (Enlow 1990; Silveira et al. 1992).…This resulted in 21 representations of a single face that ranged from the low treatment to the hightreatment with equal warp differences between all images, and where the median face was thecontrol (i.e. non-manipulated face).…Thirty females, age 18–21 years old, viewed each of the 42 sequences on a computer screen.Subjects were asked to choose the most sexually attractive, and most physically dominant looking,face in each sequence. One of the experimenters advanced (or went back through) the slides at aregular pace of one slide Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B (2002) approximately every 0.5 s.”

The study does not say anything about the method of choosing those 30 female participants.Assuming that they were chosen randomly – which would be the fairest thing to do – their level ofprenatal sex hormones and connected facial femininity should reflect the average level of facialdimorphism in the female population. It could be somehow twisted, though. Thirty participants isnot a large representative number. Anyway, this fact explains why the results showed that:

“The frames chosen by females as being most attractive, for both face-on and profile views, werefaces with testosterone expression very similar to that of the non-manipulated face.”

It is very unlikely that the majority of the female participants had, for instance, very feminine faces,which would make them choose as the most attractive – the face manipulated in a way to reflect thehighest testosterone treatment. Thus, the majority simply chose the testosterone expression verysimilar to that of the non-manipulated face.

The HLA presents a much more optimistic view of human nature than the one allegedly uncoveredby the cited research. We live in a world where facial features shaped by whatever amounts of sexhormones are attractive to someone out there. Luckily, we do not pursue the same type of physicalappearance. Although my guess is that some types of faces may be more beneficial, any type of faceis attractive to someone out there. Which types of facial features may be privileged? I suppose those

55

faces indicating a medium level of sex hormones, since there is a larger amount of people who willfind them attractive. Perhaps this explains the exceptions to the HLA noted in Chapter 4. Suchindividuals are compatible to more types of faces than those extremely or barely dimorphic ones:

“Those multiple motives may cause people to be attracted to individuals who display an optimalcombination of neotenous, mature, and expressive facial features, plus desirable groomingattributes. Three quasi-experiments demonstrated that men who possessed the neotenous features oflarge eyes, the mature features of prominent cheekbones and a large chin, the expressive feature ofa big smile, and high-status clothing were seen as more attractive than other men. Furthersupporting the multiple motive hypothesis, the 2nd and 3rd studies indicated that impressions ofattractiveness had strong relations with selections of men to date and to marry but had acurvilinear relation with perceptions of a baby face vs. a mature face.”Cunningham M.R., Barbee A.P., Pike C.L., “What do women want? Facialmetric assessment ofmultiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness,” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 1990 Jul; 59(1):61-72, Department of Psychology, University of Louisville,Kentucky

The above mentioned combination of neotoneous features of large eyes and the mature features ofpronounced cheekbones and chin is nothing more than a sign of a medium-high amount oftestosterone. Obviously, there are other characteristics that contribute to an overall masculine orwomanish appearance. We have to recall that the sole component of large eyes does not make a faceeffeminate. This is still a very masculine face, if the majority of other elements are dimorphic.The fact that in the foregoing experiments impressions of attractiveness had a curvilinear relationwith perceptions of a baby face vs. a mature face is in line with the HLA. Attractiveness is a verysubjective quality, since to a significant extent it depends on the amount of sex hormones thataffected the rater during prenatal life. Thus, a woman with not very feminine facial featuresprobably won’t perceive an effeminate man’s face as infantlike. It would be contrary to hersubconscious feeling – the one that whispers to her ear that the observed face is “sexy.”

My opinion on the beneficial character of a medium amount of sex hormones corresponds to thetheory that “average” is attractive, expressed by many authors:

“Here we demonstrate that increasing averageness of 2D face shape independently of symmetry issufficient to increase attractiveness, indicating that preferences for symmetry cannot solely explainthe attractiveness of average faces.”Benedict C.J., DeBruine L.M., Little A.C., “The role of symmetry in attraction to average faces,”Perception & Psychophysics, Volume 69, Number 8, November 2007, pp. 1273-1277(5)

As a matter of fact, it is not only symmetry but also an adequate level of masculinity or femininitythat makes a face attractive.

“Although average faces are more symmetric and have smoother skin than individual faces, theseattributes alone do not account for the attractiveness of average faces, as preferences for averageshape remain when these factors are controlled (Little & Hancock, 2002; Rhodes et al., 1999;Valentine et al., 2004). The attractiveness of average faces may be a functionless byproduct of thevisual system or it may be the result of adaptive preferences. Facial averageness may signal geneticheterozygosity, a predictor of a strong immune system, which from an evolutionary perspective willbe attractive in potential mates (Rhodes, Harwood, Yoshikawa, Nishitani, & McLean, 2002;Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993).”DeBruine L.M., Jones B.C., Unger L., Little A., Feinberg D.R., “Dissociating averageness and at-

56

tractiveness: Attractive faces are not always average”

Above I speculated on the advantages of possessing average facial features. On the other hand, italso depends on what mate qualities someone is after. Attractive women are statistically (not all ofthem!) very feminine, as far as facial appearance is concerned. This would imply that if a manwants to find a dazzling mate, then a high prenatal concentration of testosterone will be helpful inadult life:

“…When characteristics that are known to be attractive became less prototypical in our experiment(i.e. after exposure to unattractive faces), these same attractive characteristics were judged as moreattractive. As our results show, under certain conditions averageness and attractiveness can bedifferentiated or even independent. Therefore, studies using visual adaptation paradigms shouldexplore the differential effects of exposure to faces on all attributions of interest and not inferincreased attractiveness from increased normality or vice versa.”DeBruine L.M., Jones B.C., Unger L., Little A., Feinberg D.R., “Dissociating averageness and at-tractiveness: Attractive faces are not always average”

HIGH AMOUNT OF SEX HORMONE AND HEALTHAnother issue – which is connected with the previous section – is whether a substantial amount ofsex hormones is associated with health. This premise was popularized by authors who believe thatremarkably masculine or feminine faces are more attractive – the so-called “good-genes” theory.Other authors propose that masculinity is attractive when certain other conditions are met:

“Secondary sexual characteristics may indicate quality of the immune system and therefore apreference for masculinity may confer genetic benefits to offspring; however, high masculinity maybe associated with costs of decreased paternal investment. The current study examined women’spreferences for masculinity in male faces by using computer graphics to allow transformationbetween feminine and masculine versions of individual male faces. We found that preferences formasculinity are increased when women either have a partner or are considering a short-termrelationship.”Little A.C., Jones B.C., Penton-Voak I.S., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I., “Partnership status and the tem-poral context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in maleface shape,” The Royal Society, 25 April 2002

Some hypothesize that although high testosterone indicates health, it also increases the probabilityof infidelity. Therefore, they reason, men with masculine faces are chosen by attractive women,who dare to take the risk. They feel more confident than less attractive ones:

“High quality women may be more attracted to markers of quality in men because their own highquality means that lower parental investment (or even desertion) is less detrimental. Alternatively,high quality men may be more willing to invest (or not desert) high quality women compared withlower quality women. Conversely, women who perceive themselves as less competitive in the matingmarket may lack preferences for cues to good genes or actively prefer cues to direct benefits (suchas parental investment) in faces. Such ‘market forces’ have been shown to influence men andwomen’s behavior when seeking a romantic partner (Pawlowski & Dunbar, 1999).” Penton-Voak I.S., Little A.C., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Tiddeman B.P., Perrett D.I., “FemaleCondition Influences Preferences for Sexual Dimorphism in Faces of Male Humans (Homosapiens),” University of St Andrews

“…Rather the results of the study may suggest that individuals without partners and those looking

57

for men for long-term relationships prefer greater femininity, and hence positive personalityattributes, in men.”Little A.C., Jones B.C., Penton-Voak I.S., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I., “Partnership status and the tem-poral context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in maleface shape,” The Royal Society, 25 April 2002

“The principal aim of this study was to replicate and extend Little et al.’s (2001) study ofpreferences that appeared to demonstrate condition-dependent mate choice in women. Followingthe findings of this earlier study, we predicted that two measures of female mate value wouldpredict women’s preferences for masculinity in male faces. Consistent with this prediction, thecurrent study demonstrates that both self-measured WHR (author: waist to hip ratio) and other-rated attractiveness are related to individual women’s preferences for masculinity in male faces.Women rated low in facial attractiveness by others and women with a high WHR (author:unattractive body) preferred more feminine faces in the context of a long-term relationship.”Penton-Voak I.S., Little A.C., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Tiddeman B.P., Perrett D.I., “FemaleCondition Influences Preferences for Sexual Dimorphism in Faces of Male Humans (Homosapiens),” University of St Andrews

“This research investigated the partner characteristics that are attributed to male facialmasculinity, and how these characteristics compare to those attributed to increased age or health infaces. We found that masculinity is perceived as reflecting heightened dominance, but reducedsuitability as a long-term partner. This is concordant with previous studies and supports theproposal that a masculinity preference could reflect attraction to dominance rather thanimmunocompetence.”Boothroyd L.G., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I., “Partner characteristics associated withmasculinity, health and maturity in male faces,” www.sciencedirect.com, 2007

“High mate value individuals are the ones that can afford to be choosy: they are probably in arelationship with the partner of their first choice, and therefore would profit less and potentiallylose more if they were to pursue another mate. Therefore their satisfaction might reflect the qualityof their primary mate (and possibly a psychological mechanism which prevents them from engagingin costly adulterous behavior).” Hromatko I., Tadinac M., Prizmićm H., “Women’s Hormonal Status and Mate Value Influence Re-lationship Satisfaction and Perceived Male Attractiveness,” University of Zagreb, Faculty of Hu-manities and Social Sciences Department of Psychology

In the above data there is no evidence against the HLA. The view that attractive women tend tochoose masculine men as their partners may be explained in light of my theory: the majority ofattractive women have feminine faces. This is the reason why they pick men with faces indicatinghigh testosterone levels. Yet not all attractive women choose masculine men – this finding aloneoverthrows such theories, and also explains why not all experiment results are consistent in thismatter. The second and the third of the quoted works introduce the division between long-term andshort-term relationships, which is discussed in the respective section below (“Long-term vs. short-term relationship”).

Many studies reveal that there is no direct connection between perceived masculinity and health:

“Facial masculinity has been proposed as a possible indicator of good genes, as masculinesecondary sexual traits develop at puberty under the influence of sex steroids and hence may

58

function as an honest signal (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999). Although some studies find support forfemale preferrences for facial masculinity, several studies do not (for a review, see Penton-Voak &Perrett, 2001). For example, computer graphic studies using controlled manipulation of facialcharacteristics indicate that masculine faces are perceived as possesing negative personality traitsand are not clearly preferred over more “feminine” male faces, which are seen as possessingprosocial, desirable personality characteristics (Perrett et al., 1998). In the light of these conflictfindings, it appears that good genes models cannot completely account for female judgements ofmale facial attractiveness.”Penton-Voak I.S., Little A.C., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Tiddeman B.P., Perrett D.I., “Female Condi-tion Influences Preferences for Sexual Dimorphism in Faces of Male Humans (Homo sapiens),”University of St Andrews

“These studies investigated the proposal that attraction to facial masculinity could be due to eitheran attraction to advertised immunocompetence or a by-product of attraction to maturity.…There is little evidence in this study to support Immunocompetence explanation of female attractionto facial masculinity. Neither stimulus set showed any correlation between masculinity preferencesand preferences for apparent health, and increasing facial masculinity did not increase perceivedhealth (although healthier faces did not look more masculine). This does not rule out a link betweenmasculinity and real or underlying health, but these results suggest apparent health is of limitedimportance in masculinity preferences with regard to facial shape.Given these results, the question is raised as to the validity of theories relying on ‘good-genes’explanations of attraction to facial masculinity....Collectively our findings suggest that the assumption that a preference for masculinity in males isdue to a preference for immunocompetence should be treated cautiously; the present data fail tosupport this view. Indeed, there is also lack of strong evidence for a link between testosterone andimmune function in humans (Angele & Faist, 2000) and mammals in general (Roberts, Buchanan &Evans, 2004). Facial attraction researchers should perhaps consider alternative advantages anddisadvantages of facial masculinity, such as dominance and sexy-sons, versus paternal investment.”Boothroyd L.G., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Cornwell R.E., Little A.C., Tiddeman B.P., Perrett D.I.,“Facial masculinity is related to perceived age but not perceived health,” Evolution and Human Be-havior 26 (2005)

And again the already quoted above conclusion from Boothroyd et al:

“We found that masculinity is perceived as reflecting heightened dominance, but reduced suitabilityas a long-term partner. This is concordant with previous studies and supports the proposal that amasculinity preference could reflect attraction to dominance rather than immunocompetence.”Boothroyd L.G., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I., “Partner characteristics associated withmasculinity, health and maturity in male faces,” www.sciencedirect.com, 2007

It is also worth noting that some studies on the connection between facial dimorphism and healthcondition of a given individual expressly questioned other research in this scope:

“Although Rhodes, Chan, Zebrowitz, and Simmons (2003) observed no significant associationbetween incidence of past health problems and femininity in women's faces, Thornhill andGangestad (2006) found that feminine facial proportions were negatively associated with incidenceof past health problems in women.”Jones B.C., DeBruine L.M., Little A.C., Conway C.A., Welling L.L.M., Smith F., “Sensation seek-ing and men’s face preferences,” School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK andSchool of Psychology, University of Stirling, Scotland

59

The HLA neither provides evidence for nor rules out any association between health and highamount of sex hormones. However, after taking the quoted studies into consideration, you can seethat it is more likely that the amount of sex hormones is not connected with health. Ultimately, inconformity with the HLA, there are no better or worse faces in terms of perceived femininity ormasculinity. All types of faces are attractive to some people; hence we may say we are all equallyattractive and yet different at the same time.

THE USE OF COMPOSITE FACESMost of the experiments contradicting the HLA involved composite faces generated by morphprograms or other techniques. I am aware that many authors relied on composite faces only toisolate the effect of testosterone or other hormones. When using composite faces, they analyzedexactly the same facial features, and only changed certain characteristic facial elements in order toadd or decrease masculinity, for instance. Otherwise their work could be accused of being biased,since one could point out that different ratings of attractiveness are a result of different shapes offacial features and not different levels of sexual dimorphism. Nonetheless, I sustain my claims sincethe “No Such Couple Paradox” is evidenced by extreme examples – very and barely dimorphicfaces. What are the odds that no such couple exists in the world, if my theory was not correct? Theuse of composites has a major drawback: we highly limit the choices of our raters compared to real-life partner choice. Such faces may also be considered unnatural by the raters. Moreover, studieslisted in section “Facial resemblance” below also brought results in line with the HLA: volunteersjudged the similarity of facial features of real-life couples with far greater accuracy than randomguessing. Such studies are very difficult to question, contrary to composite faces experiments.

LONG-TERM VS. SHORT-TERM RELATIONSHIPNumerous studies involving facial attractiveness pivot on the impact of the character of relationshippursued by women on their mate choices. Their results allegedly show that the character ofrelationship pursued has a major influence on perceived attractiveness of the rated men’s faces:

“A further illustration of varying preferences that can be interpreted in terms of a conditionalstrategy demonstrated that women who consider themselves physically attractive show a greaterpreference for two proposed markers of phenotypic and genotypic quality in male faces:masculinity and symmetry (Litle, Burt, Penton-Voak, & Perrett, 2001). The increased preference formasculine faces was seen only when women with high self-rated attractiveness were judging in thecontext of a long-term relationship. In short-term relationships, no effects of attractiveness werefound, possibly as facial cues to parental investment are less important to such judgments. If self-rated female attractiveness can be considered a measure of actual viability, these preferences couldbe considered analogous to varying preferences found in other species (e.g., Bakker et al., 1999).Clearly, in humans, the outcomes of social interactions are likely to influence preferences – somecharacteristics will increase demand for a particular individual as a mate, improving their ‘marketvalue’ (Pawlowski & Dunbar, 1999).” Penton-Voak I.S., Little A.C., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Tiddeman B.P., Perrett D.I., “FemaleCondition Influences Preferences for Sexual Dimorphism in Faces of Male Humans (Homosapiens),” University of St Andrews

The foregoing findings have nothing to do with “facial cues to parental investment” or “marketforces.” In the context of a long-term relationship, individuals from both sexes – physicallyattractive and unattractive – will usually show preference for one type of face (the one that matchestheir own in accordance the HLA). Then why did the previously cited study show that “Theincreased preference for masculine faces was seen only when women with high self-rated

60

attractiveness were judging in the context of a long-term relationship”? It is all a result of themethods used in such experiments. Most of them take the average of the results produced in theexperiments conducted with various participants, and on the basis of such average phrase theirtheory. It is obvious that the majority of women by definition possess feminine faces. Physicallyattractive women tend to have very feminine faces. That is why when preferences are calculated byaveraging, the results are that “high quality” women pursue masculine faces. Yet these resultsprovide no evidence in support of any “market forces” theory. We may also find physicallyattractive women with masculinized facial features (e.g., Kate Moss), who do not pursue onlypronounced, rugged faces in their potential partners.

The authors of the quoted article, when conducting their own experiment, also took the average ofmany preferences instead of examining and comparing each participant’s answers individually:

“ResultsOverall Preferences for Sexual Dimorphism in Male FacesMasculinity-femininity preferences were calculated by averaging the mean preference across eachof the six continua....” Penton-Voak I.S., Little A.C., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Tiddeman B.P., Perrett D.I., “FemaleCondition Influences Preferences for Sexual Dimorphism in Faces of Male Humans (Homosapiens),” University of St Andrews

In another study, once again conclusions were formulated after examining the participants’preferences with regard to composite faces:

“2. METHODS(a) ParticipantsOne hundred and fifty eight females, aged between 16 and 39 years (mean age = 21.7, s.d. = 4.8)took part in the experiment. The experiment was administered over the Internet. All participantswere volunteers and were selected for reporting to be heterosexual and less than 40 years old.(b) StimuliFive interactive face sequence trials were constructed using composite faces made from five groupsof male and female faces. Each group of faces contributed to a single sequence trial and was madeup of about 20 male and 20 female facial images of young adults in a neutral pose....4. DISCUSSIONThe current study shows that human females have different preferences for femininity in male facesin relation to both the temporal context of the relationship they are assessing males for and inrelation to their current partnership status. It was found that women showed a higher preference formale face masculinity when judging for short-term relationships than when judging for long-termrelationships.”Little A.C., Jones B.C., Penton-Voak I.S., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I., “Partnership status and the tem-poral context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in maleface shape,” The Royal Society, 25 April 2002

One could respond to my objections concerning the use of composite faces by pointing to the factthat various studies showed that certain preferences depend on the character of the relationshippursued, e.g.:

“As in the study by Little et al. (2001), it is clear that the relationship context is of primaryimportance to these shifts in women’s preferences. The long-term/short-term distinction iscontroversial in research in human mating, as many short-term relationships develop into long-

61

term relationships and the motivations and expectations at the start of relationships may changeover time. Although we accept that the distinction between the two relationship types is not aprecise definition, it should be noted that in a number of experimental situations, women haveshown different preferences when cued to long- or short-term contexts (e.g., Penton-Voak et al.,1999). Additionally, the differences between preferences in long- and short-term contexts areconsistent with a status dependent trade-off for good genes against expected paternal investment inhumans. Less attractive women (either bodily or facially) seem to change their preferences whenchoosing partners for a long-term relationship.”Penton-Voak I.S., Little A.C., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Tiddeman B.P., Perrett D.I., “FemaleCondition Influences Preferences for Sexual Dimorphism in Faces of Male Humans (Homosapiens),” University of St Andrews

My criticism of such ideas is not concentrated solely on the issue of composite faces. I sustain mydoubts also on the ground that all such studies illustrate purely hypothetical speculations, incomparison to analysis of actual couples. For instance, in the last quoted paper, the researchers infact limited the female participants’ opinion to judgments of about 200 faces. In the study titled“Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferencesfor sexual dimorphism in male face shape,” participants had even fewer faces to choose from:

“The final stimuli were five interactive tests which allowed for the on-screen transformation of a composite male face between a masculinized and feminized version of itself.”

That is nothing compared to the variety of facial features found in real life. The researcherssummarized their results as follows:

“It should be noted that the results of the study may not reflect that females with a partner orfemales rating for short-term relationships prefer masculinity; rather the results of the study maysuggest that individuals without partners and those looking for men for long-term relationshipsprefer greater femininity, and hence positive personality attributes, in men.”Little A.C., Jones B.C., Penton-Voak I.S., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I., “Partnership status and the tem-poral context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in maleface shape,” The Royal Society, 25 April 2002

If the above observations are accurate, why do a bewildering number of exceptionally attractiveactresses choose men with very masculine facial features as their husbands or long-time partners?

Just a few couples for the sake of example:

Jessica Alba and Cash WarrenAngelina Jolie and Brad PittMonica Bellucci and Vincent CasselKatie Holmes and Tom CruiseDiane Lane and Josh Brolin Bridget Moynahan and Tom BradyJennifer Lopez and Ben AffleckDemi Moore and Bruce WillisKelly Preston and John TravoltaKim Basinger and Alec BaldwinAnnette Bening and Warren BeattyKelly Brook and Jason Statham

62

Do I have to point out that the listed women happen to be very feminine in terms of facialappearance? Examples include very beautiful and successful women, who plainly could easily findlongtime partners with less dimorphic faces, if only they wanted to.

Some research reveals that a high amount of testosterone is connected with infidelity. Although theHLA itself does not provide any evidence for or against this premise, I think that there may be someconnections between these issues. We have to be cautious because we are dealing with ageneralization. This notion is often mentioned as a justification of the alleged preference foreffeminate faces in case of long-term relationships. I believe in such predispositions in the case ofvery masculinized males.

On the other hand, I am also sure that a pretty, very feminine woman will never be attracted to aman with a very low amount of fetal testosterone, even if she desperately seeks a long-termrelationship: “No Such Couple Paradox”!

FACIAL RESEMBLANCEIn the below cited paper Lisa DeBruine described two experiments that were aimed to reveal theimpact of facial resemblance on attractiveness of the studied face. The research relied on compositefaces, and brought results in general confirming the “self seeking like” hypothesis:

“Experimentally manipulated facial resemblance to self influences the perceived attractiveness offaces. Although same-sex and other-sex self-resembling transforms were produced by identicalimage manipulation techniques, attractiveness was enhanced for same-sex faces to a much greaterextent than for other-sex faces.”DeBruine L.M., “Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex faces more than oth-er-sex faces,” McMaster University

Another study in this respect yielded results showing that facial resemblance has a negative effecton sexual attractiveness. The title of this paper says it all:

“Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: context-specific effects of facial resemblance,” Lisa M. DeBru-ine, Department of Psychology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

The results were unequivocal:

“2. RESULTSCompared with controls, participants judged their own transformed image as more trustworthy(Z143Z2.42, pZ0.008), equally attractive for a long-term relationship (Z143Z0.05, pZ0.481) andless attractive for a short-term relationship (Z143ZK2.04, pZ0.021).”

However, it is worth noting that contrary to the studies described in the section “The self seekinglike hypothesis” of Chapter 4, where actual faces were rated, in this experiment composite faceswere used:

“1. METHODS(a) ParticipantsParticipants were 66 male and 78 female undergraduate students enrolled in an introductorypsychology course (mean ageZ19.1 years, s.d.Z2.3).

63

…All participants in a testing unit viewed the same set of nine images, which included one self-resembling face for each participant in the testing unit. For the nine testing units with fewer thannine participants (6 with 8 participants and 1 each with 6, 5 and 4 participants), images ofunknown persons of the same sex and same phenotypic category as the participants were added toequate the number of images seen by each participant.

(b) StimuliStimuli were constructed in a manner identical to DeBruine 2004b using computer graphic methodsdescribed in detail in Tiddeman et al. (2001). In brief, composite faces were created by averagingthe shape and colour of 20 individual images (of participants in a previous experiment) for eachcombination of sex and phenotypic category. Each participant’s image was used to transform theother-sex composite face of the same phenotypic category. The shape of each face was delineatedusing 179 facial landmarks. Transforms were made by calculating the shape differences betweenthe participant’s face and the same-sex composite face and applying 50% of this difference to theother-sex composite face (figure 1). Resemblance was subtle and at debriefing no participantsreported correctly detecting the nature of the manipulation.”

Conversely to studies that used composite faces, the following relied on evaluation of facial featuresof real couples, and reported facial resemblance in romantic partners:

− “Married couples resemble each other to the extent that their faces can be correctly matchedby strangers,” Griffiths R.W., Kunz P.R.

− “Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples,” Hinsz V.B., Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships, Vol. 6, No. 2, 223-229, 1989

− “Assortative mating: a study of physiognomic homogamy,” Griffiths R. & Kunz P., 1973,Social Biology, 20, 448–453

− “Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses,” Zajonc R.B., Adelmann P.K., MurphyS.T. & Niedenthal P.M., 1987, Motiv. Emotion 11, 335–346

− “Sexual imprinting in human mate choice,” Bereczkei T., Gyuris P. & Weisfeld G.E., 2004,Proceedings of the Royal Society, B, 271, 1129–1134

− “Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; parental influence on mate choicepreferences,” Bereczkei T., Gyuris P., Koves P. & Bernath L., 2002, Pers. Individ. Dif., 33,677–690

Research on partners’ resemblance featuring composite faces did not include the effects of facialdimorphism in the created models. Furthermore, as explained in the section above, research usingcomposite faces is in general dubious. All other studies in this area only confirm Suzi Malin’sobservations.

The question remains about the reasons for such tendency in human couples. Some studiesindicated the possible role of similar characters of partners, which through the years made theirfacial features look alike. The assumption was that those couples tend to mimic each other’sexpressions – Zajonc and others came to such conclusions in the paper listed above. It could be avalid explanation of development of similar aging and muscle contraction patterns in their faces.

64

This speculation cannot justify remarkably similar proportions of bone structure. A much moreprobable scenario is that all those experiments illustrate a condition precedent mate choice in thehuman species. In the above mentioned study, Hinsz determined that striking facial resemblance isevident also among young engaged couples, who haven’t married yet. The HLA complements thesefindings.

Theoretical justification of the shown similarities is elaborated in the study of Liliana Alvarez:

“Abstract: Theoretical studies suggest that mating and pair formation is not likely to be random.Computer simulations suggested that sex among genetically complex organisms requires matechoice strategies for its evolutionary maintenance, to reduce excessive genetic variance producedby out-crossing. One strategy achieving this aim efficiently in computer simulations is assortativemating modeled as ‘self seeking like’. Another one is selection of ‘good genes’. Assortative matingincreases the probability of finding a genetically similar mate, without fomenting inbreeding,achieving assortative mating without hindering the working of other mate selection strategieswhich aim to maximize the search for ‘good genes’, optimizing the working of sex in evolutionaryterms. Here we present indirect evidence that in a significant proportion of human reproductivecouples, the partners show much higher facial resemblances than can be expected by random pairformation, or as the outcome of ‘matching for attractiveness’ or the outcome of competition for themost attractive partner accessible, as had been previously assumed. The data presented iscompatible with the hypothesis derived from computer simulations, that human mate selectionstrategies achieve various aims: ‘self seeking like’ (including matching for attractiveness) andmating with the best available genes.”Alvarez L., Jaffe K., “Narcissism guides mate selection: Humans mate assortatively, as revealed byfacial resemblance, following an algorithm of ‘self seeking like,’” Evolutionary Psychology human-nature.com/ep – 2004. 2: 177-194, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Venezuela

65

Chapter 15SO WHAT DO WOMEN WANT AFTER ALL?

According to the idiom, the exception proves the rule. In theory a gorgeous woman may one daydecide to try dating men who are not her type. In this case she will pick other mating criteria. Thisscenario is far more probable when a woman looks for casual dates. But it will not last long,because the Hormonal Law of Attraction is about a drive that men and women followsubconsciously. It has a very strong impact on all human beings; we cannot resist it in the long run.Eventually, this woman will change her mind. She again will start dating men who match herhormonal matrix.

Another situation where exceptions are possible has already been addressed in Chapter 4: womenmay engage in relationships with men that do not conform to the HLA, because of other qualitiesthey appreciate in those men. However, the HLA can be circumvented only in a certain scope – “NoSuch Couple Paradox”!

A HARD TO OBSERVE RELATIONSHIPWhy hasn’t this simple theory been discovered before? At first glance, the fastest way to provideevidence for the HLA would be an experiment involving assessment of facial features of volunteercouples by other participants, similar to those described in Chapter 14. The couples should includepeople with various combinations of genes. My prediction is that it would take more than a hundredcouples to achieve a representative sample, where beauty and sexual dimorphism appear in everypossible configuration, so the “No Such Couple Paradox” could be observed. Otherwise, the rareyet symptomatic case of a beautiful and very masculinized woman’s face would probably not becovered by the study, and the research would demonstrate that attractive women prefermasculinized men’s faces.

Human beings like to think that sexual attraction is complicated. We all want some deeper meaning.It is hard for us to accept that our looks govern this most intimate area of life. Sure, there are somedeeper reasons, but only once you have already found that visually compatible person.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONOne could suggest that the HLA is a theory that is concerned principally with examining the choicesof attractive women. Not at all! The book features examples of celebrity couples only because theirbiographies and photos are widely available online. I chose the point of view of beautiful womenonly for the purpose of conducting certain experiments or making certain hypothetical analyses: toextract the core of sexual attraction.

Take a look at your friends and their love partners. I bet you will see the visual triggers of attractionat work. In case of women other than the very attractive, exceptions to the HLA may arise. Anunattractive woman could agree to date a man who does not match her under the HLA for a shortperiod of time, just to build up her self-esteem. This man would engage in such a relationship in asituation where there was a very limited number of single women. This would happen only veryrarely. Today, when most people live in huge urban areas, physically unattractive females have noproblems meeting men who possess face traits compatible with their own.

MATING STRATEGIESWhy does society fail to recognize that for both sexes the first attraction trigger is purely visual?After all, this fact was established by:

− the “No Such Couple Paradox”

66

− Suzi Malin’s research− experiments listed in Chapter 14 (section “Facial resemblance”)− Helen Fisher’s theories to some extent – if we consider that facial proportions are correlated

with sex hormones

So, why doesn’t society recognize that the first attraction trigger is purely visual? Probably becausein the case of women the pattern is not so clear as when observing men’s decisions, which aremainly guided by the woman’s objective beauty. The vast majority of women are reluctant to admitthat they were tempted by looks in the first place. Attraction ignites within the first few seconds andthen other factors gain importance. Many women may have genuinely not noticed the first visualattraction trigger. Other women don’t consider it a good reason to feel emotions for someone. Theyneed something more romantic. Those few who focus mainly on the visual appeal are concentratedon objective beauty.

If you are a man and have trouble in understanding the feminine approach to dating, ask yourselfthis question:

Imagine you could have any woman you want, under one condition: after you chose her, you haveto stay with her for the rest of your life. This book is about visual appeal, so let’s focus on thisaspect. Which woman would you choose in terms of facial appearance? Simply the prettiest youcould find? I bet not. I am sure you would choose a woman who is your type. Apart from beingobjectively beautiful, she would have that special something written in her face.

Why am I posing this purely hypothetical scenario? So that you can enter the mind of an attractivewoman. Because the above situation is typically the place every beautiful woman finds herself:

1. She is gorgeous, so she can have any man;

2. She is a woman, and according to the evolutionary point of view women have completelydifferent mating strategies. They are the ones who get pregnant, so they subconsciouslypursue a long-term commitment. Even though today there are all kinds of contraceptionmethods available, many women are financially independent, and single mothers are in a farbetter situation than their female ancestors, the idea of finding a long-term partner is codedin women’s DNA.

BALANCE OF THE GENESLiliana Alvarez’s “Self Seeking Like” strategy in fact comes down to selecting “good genes” – theones a particular individual lacks.

Contrary to many scientific views, the amount of sex hormones is neither an advantage nor adrawback. It is simply another factor that differentiates human individuals, like hair color. My guessis that the HLA is a mechanism created by nature to keep the balance of the genes in the humanpopulation. As explained in Chapter 3, our facial features are shaped to a significant extent duringprenatal development. Imagine a world where the HLA didn’t have any influence on human mating: A man whose traits developed under low testosterone levels could marry a woman with a very highlevel of female sex hormones. Their offspring would have feminine facial appearance. Their soncould marry a woman who has very feminine facial traits. Their offspring would be exposed tohormones related to feminine facial features, and so on. Each generation of this family would beaffected by more and more prenatal estrogen (in the case of females) or less and less prenatal

67

testosterone (in the case of females).

In our world, where the HLA governs human mating, such scenarios may also take place because ofarranged marriages, rape, prostitution, and other situations where two people have sex withoutfeeling mutual attraction. However, these are rare cases compared to the dominant one, wherepeople choose individuals they consider attractive as their longtime partners, individuals whosegenes complement their genotype.

My ideas are again concordant with Dr. Fisher’s theory:

“My hypothesis is that we’re unconsciously drawn to chemical personalities that compliment ourtype, and it has a genetic purpose,” Dr. Fisher said. “It means that we’re pooling our genes toraise more healthy babies.”“Is the Right Chemistry a Click Nearer?” Rachel Lehmann-Haupt http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/fashion/sundaystyles/12chemistry.html

POINT OF VIEW DEPENDS ON VIEWING POINTMen and women tend to commit the same mistake when it comes to dating: they both assume thatthe opposite sex uses the same criteria for choosing partners as their own.

As a consequence, men often assume they don’t have a chance with an attractive woman, since theyare not exceptionally good-looking. Some men who want to verify their views try to pick up analluring woman. Most often, they are rejected. Simple math tells us that it is a lot more probablethat the woman you just met in a bar does not “match” your face traits. Additionally, if the womanis attractive, we have the answer to the question that men around the world ask themselves so often:“Why is it so hard to pick up an attractive woman?” The odds are simply against us. So, going backto the gentleman from the above example: he is rejected. It only assures him that he is nothandsome enough to pick up a hot woman. Only the most persistent men try again. Encouraged bythe success of other not-particularly handsome men, many of them eventually succeed as well. Onlya few from this small group experience what alcoholics refer to as a “moment of clarity”: a momentwhen they realize that they have managed to pick up an attractive woman only because she wasreceptive from the very beginning.

Now, let’s switch perspectives. A woman tries to conquer a particular man. She feels a strong pulltoward him, which she cannot explain. It seems facial traits are not a very romantic reason. She willtry coming up with reasons for that feeling by recalling his other attributes, such as a sense ofhumor, personality, or intelligence. Unfortunately, sometimes she finds that he is not interested. Shecannot understand it: “Why? There is ‘chemistry’ between us! I know it! I can feel it!” She cannotsee that she is simply not objectively physically or intellectually attractive enough for him.

Such situations are not uncommon. It is so difficult for us to perceive the world from theperspective of another human being, especially if that person is of the opposite sex.

68

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alvarez L., Jaffe K., “Narcissism guides mate selection: Humans mate assortatively, as revealed byfacial resemblance, following an algorithm of ‘seeking like,’” Evolutionary Psychology human-nature.com/ep – 2004. 2: 177-194, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Venezuela

Benedict C.J., DeBruine L.M., Little A.C., “The role of symmetry in attraction to average faces,”Perception & Psychophysics, Volume 69, Number 8, November 2007, pp. 1273-1277(5)

Bereczkei T., Gyuris P., Koves P., Bernath L., “Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; par-ental influence on mate choice preferences,” 2002, Pers. Individ. Dif., 33, 677–690

Bereczkei T., Gyuris P., Weisfeld G.E., “Sexual imprinting in human mate choice,” 2004,Proceedings of the Royal Society, B, 271, 1129–1134

Boothroyd L.G., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Cornwell R.E., Little A.C., Tiddeman B.P., Perrett D.I.,“Facial masculinity is related to perceived age but not perceived health,” Evolution and HumanBehavior 26 (2005)

Boothroyd L.G., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I., “Partner characteristics associated with mas-culinity, health and maturity in male faces,” www.sciencedirect.com, 2007

Cunningham M.R., Barbee A.P., Pike C.L., “What do women want? Facialmetric assessment ofmultiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness,” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 1990 Jul; 59(1):61-72, Department of Psychology, University of Louisville,Kentucky 40292

DeBruine L.M., “Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex faces more than oth-er-sex faces,” McMaster University

DeBruine L.M., “Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: context-specific effects of facial resemblance,”Department of Psychology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

DeBruine L.M., Jones B.C., Little A.C., Boothroyd L.G., Perrett D.I., Penton-Voak I.S., CooperP.A., Penke L., Feinberg D.R., Tiddeman B.P., “Correlated preferences for facial masculinity andideal or actual partner’s masculinity”

DeBruine L.M., Jones B.C., Unger L., Little A., Feinberg D.R., “Dissociating averageness andattractiveness: Attractive faces are not always average”

Fink B., Grammer K., Mitteroecker P., Gunz P., Schaefer K., Bookstein F.L., Manning J.T., “Secondto fourth digit ratio and face shape,” Proceedings of the Royal Society

Griffiths R.W., Kunz P.R., “Assortative mating: a study of physiognomic homogamy,” 1973, SocialBiology, 20, 448–453

Griffiths R.W., Kunz P.R., “Married couples resemble each other to the extent that their faces can becorrectly matched by strangers”

Hinsz V.B., “Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples,” Journal of Social and Personal

69

Relationships, Vol. 6, No. 2, 223-229, 1989

Hromatko I., Tadinac M., Prizmićm H., “Women’s Hormonal Status and Mate Value Influence Re-lationship Satisfaction and Perceived Male Attractiveness,” University of Zagreb, Faculty of Hu-manities and Social Sciences Department of Psychology

Jones B.C., DeBruine L.M., Little A.C., Conway C.A., Welling L.L.M., Smith F., “Sensationseeking and men's face preferences,” School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, andSchool of Psychology, University of Stirling, Scotland

Little A.C., Jones B.C., Penton-Voak I.S., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I., “Partnership status and thetemporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism inmale face shape,” The Royal Society, 25 April 2002

Malin S., Love at First Sight: Why You Love Who You Love, Dorling Kindersley 2004

Manning J.T., Digit Ratio: A Pointer to Fertility, Behavior, and Health, Rutgers University Press,2002

Manning J.T., Scutt D., Wilson J., Lewis-Jones D.I., “The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length: apredictor of sperm numbers and concentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone and oestrogen,”1998

Penton-Voak I.S., Chen J., “High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearancein humans,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 229-241

Penton-Voak I.S., Jones B.C., Little A.C., Baker S., Tiddeman B.P., Burt D.M., Perrett D.I.,“Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness,” School ofPsychology, University of St Andrews

Penton-Voak I.S., Little A.C., Jones B.C., Burt D.M., Tiddeman B.P., Perrett D.I., “FemaleCondition Influences Preferences for Sexual Dimorphism in Faces of Male Humans (Homosapiens),” University of St Andrews

Perrett D.I., “Symmetry and human facial attractiveness,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume20, Issue 5, Pages 295-307

Rhodes G., “The evolution of facial attractiveness,” Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199-226,2006

Rhodes G., Proffitt F., Grady J.M., Sumich A., “Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty,”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1998, 5 (4), 659-669

Rhodes G., Yoshikawa S., Clark A., Lee K., McKay R., Akamatsu S., “Attractiveness of facial aver-ageness and symmetry in nonwestern cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty,”Perception, 30, 611-625, 2001

Rule N.O., Ambady N., “Brief exposures: Male sexual orientation is accurately perceived at 50ms,” Tufts University, Department of Psychology; revised 27 November 2007, Available online 25

70

January 2008 http://ase.tufts.edu/psychology/ambady/pubs/2008RuleJESP.pdf

Schaefer K., Fink B., Grammer K., Mitteroecker P., Gunz P., Bookstein F.L., “Female appearance:facial and bodily attractiveness as shape,” Psychology Science, Volume 48, 2006 (2), p. 187 – 204

Scheib J.E., Gangestad S.W., Thornhill R., “Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of goodgenes”

Smith Law M., Perrett D.I., Jones B.C., Cornwell R.E., Moore F., Feinberg D.R., Boothroyd L.G.,Durrani S., Stirrat M., Whiten S., Pitman R., Hillier S., “Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogenlevels in women,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2005

Swaddle J.P., Reierson G.W., “Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness inhuman males,” Biology Department, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia

Welling L.L.M., Jones B.C., DeBruine L.M., Conway C.A., Smith Law M.J., Little A.C., FeinbergD.R., Sharp M.A., Al-Dujaili E.A.S., “Raised salivary testosterone in women is associated with in-creased attraction to masculine faces,” Hormones and Behavior 52 (2007) 156-161

Valentine T., Darling S., Donnelly M., “Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view andaverageness on the attractiveness of female faces,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 482-487,2004

Zajonc R.B., Adelmann P.K., Murphy S.T., Niedenthal P.M., “Convergence in the physicalappearance of spouses,” 1987, Motiv. Emotion 11, 335–346

71

OTHER SOURCES

Fisher H., all her works featured on Chemistry.com

Geoffrey Cowley, “The biology of beauty,” Newsweek, June 3, 1996 v127 n23 p60(7)

Gordon J., “The appeal of baby-faced men,” 24 November 2006 http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/you/article.html?in_article_id=418449&in_page_id=1908

Gruendl M., Institute for Psychology, University of Regensburg, Germany http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/kindchenschema/kindchens-chema.htm

Holland E. – webmaster, femininebeauty.info

Lehmann-Haupt R., “Is the Right Chemistry a Click Nearer?” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/fashion/sundaystyles/12chemistry.html

Neumann K.D., “Are Certain Types Destined To Date?” Chemistry.com

“Basic instinct: Women take just three minutes to make up their mind about Mr Right,”Daily Mail Reporterhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1340868/Basic-instinct-Women-just-minutes-make-min-d-Mr-Right.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#

72