web
counter
 

Chicks Dig Bad Boys: Science Don't Lie

By Joanna Robinson | Posted Under Miscellaneous | Comments (45)



james-mcavoy.jpeg

A recent study at the University of British Columbia about the comparative sexual attractiveness of men and women will challenge absolutely nothing about your preconceived notions. According to their data, men like docile and sweet-seeming women while women respond best to brooding and swagger. Basically the study claims to prove the whole “chicks dig bad boys and guys like their wimmenfolk submissive and demure” thing. You know what? I’m calling bullshit. Not so much on the bad boy thing, that’s sort of true. But that “demure women” crap? I don’t think so.

Here’s the gist of their study:

In a series of studies, more than 1,000 adult participants rated the sexual attractiveness of hundreds of images of the opposite sex engaged in universal displays of happiness (broad smiles), pride (raised heads, puffed-up chests) and shame (lowered heads, averted eyes).

The study found that women were least attracted to smiling, happy men, preferring those who looked proud and powerful or moody and ashamed. In contrast, male participants were most sexually attracted to women who looked happy, and least attracted to women who appeared proud and confident.

So let’s have a little experiment, shall we? Using this year’s Pajiba Ten as the data set, let’s see how your reactions compare to UBC’s. Ladies First.

Happiness: According to the study, this data set ought to be the most attractive to you. They remark: “Past research has associated smiling with a lack of dominance, which is consistent with traditional gender norms of the ‘submissive and vulnerable’ woman.” Well the ladies do look quite pretty.
Mona Lisa Smiles.jpg

Shame: This, they say, should be the second most attractive posture. Once again reinforcing submission.
Lady Demure.jpg

Pride: And here, they say, is the least attractive posture for a woman. “Raised heads, puffed-up chests.” And this, my friends, is where the whole argument falls apart for me. You’re going to tell me someone who is attracted to ladies is not attracted to “puffed-up chests?” You’re going to tell me these ladies don’t look amazing in a power stance? Preposterous.
Proud Marys.jpg

Let’s take a look at the lads, shall we?

Pride: I’m not loving this look. The study claims “the pride expression accentuates typically masculine physical features, such as upper body size and muscularity. Previous research has shown that these features are among the most attractive male physical characteristics, as judged by women.” As long as confidence doesn’t turn into arrogance, we’re okay. But it’s a thin line.
Proud Men 1.jpg

Shame: Yeah this is where we get into bad boy brooding territory, and I must admit I’m a fan.
Demure Dudes.jpg

Happiness: The interesting thing for me here is not that I find these goofy, affable looks unattractive, but that these images were very hard to come by. More often than not, the images available of these men were of the sexy, squinty, scowly variety. In fact, I’m beginning to think McAvoy is ashamed of his teeth.
Smile Men 1.jpg

But, well, I have to agree with science on this one. Chicks dig brooding. Don’t believe me? Let’s try it once more with squealing.

Pride
Proud Men 2.jpg

Shame: Side note. Do you know how hard it is to find a photo of Joel McHale looking like anything resembling “ashamed” “demure” or “brooding?” The man is made of solid bravado.
Demure Dudes 2.jpg

Happiness
Smile Men 2.jpg

You can’t fight science. I want to mention (as did the study) that UBC’s test subjects were restricted to North American heterosexuals. They’re looking to broaden their scope in the future.

Joanna Robinson welcomes your smiles, your frowns and your puffed chests. She loves you all, just as you are.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Is Amy Poehler Even Doper Than Knope? | Ron Swanson's Best Quotes from "Parks and Recreation"









Comments

So this article told us what we already knew! Great job, Courtney! Bow your head submissively in shame now.

Posted by: logan at May 25, 2011 4:15 PM

Speaking from the male perspective, science is dumb. I find the happy and proud women to be much more attractive. The other ones just look like drama.

Posted by: admin at May 25, 2011 4:16 PM

McAvoy looks about as threatening as my 5 year old in the header pic.

Posted by: Scarecrow Julien at May 25, 2011 4:16 PM

logan

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at May 25, 2011 4:16 PM

Oh, and keep playing that one note, Logan, eventually you'll write a symphony.

Posted by: admin at May 25, 2011 4:17 PM

Not so much on the bad boy thing, that’s sort of true.

Sort of?

Posted by: Jay at May 25, 2011 4:18 PM

The study found that women were least attracted to smiling, happy men, preferring those who looked proud and powerful or moody and ashamed.

BAM! I've found my in with the ladies. Oh wait, I'm happy now. Crap!

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at May 25, 2011 4:20 PM

I'm starting to suspect that logan's repitition of the joke is the equivalent of Dr. Blowhole deliberately pronouncing the word "pen-gyu-ins" to annoy the non-flying avian zoo inhabitants.

Too obscure? How about: I just picked that one up to annoy you, actually.


Posted by: Mrs. Julien at May 25, 2011 4:22 PM

And when the 5 year old makes that McAvoy header pic face, we call it The Grumpy Eagle as it doubles as his impression of a certain Muppet.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at May 25, 2011 4:24 PM

Heeee admin. Joanna, I must say I'm down with the pride face. But that's because Olyphant looks best when he's angry and brooding. And clenching.

Posted by: Julie at May 25, 2011 4:24 PM

Sigh. I know I'm totally beating a dead horse, but the biggest thing this list does for me is highlight how much narrower the standards for female attractiveness are compared to the men folk. I mean seriously. If weird lookin' owly faced guys like James McAvoy and David Tennant are considered attractive, then why isn't like, Rachel Dratch making hottie lists? I suppose we always have Tilda....

Posted by: Cree83 at May 25, 2011 4:29 PM

I'm liking the Pride slides. Both the ladies and the fellas. Because that's how I roll.

Posted by: Scully at May 25, 2011 4:30 PM

And here, they say, is the least attractive posture for a woman.

I unprejudicedly choose Pride.

Posted by: branded at May 25, 2011 4:31 PM

As a North American heterosexual I have to say, there is NO look that Christina Hendricks can have that would turn me off.

Smiling is a lack of dominance? I would do anything those ladies asked me to if they smiled at me.

Posted by: Paultera at May 25, 2011 4:32 PM

Logan is the new First.

Posted by: Yossarian at May 25, 2011 4:34 PM

Brooding, secretive, maybe menancing--not attractive. My boss is brooding and since December, six employees have left for other jobs. Brooding knows nothing of retention.

Posted by: DenG at May 25, 2011 4:35 PM

I'm calling shenanigans on the "Proud" female pictures. I'll give you Zoe and Rachel, but the two in the center? Definitely open to interpretation. The broad in the underwear reads as, "Shy/Unsure."

I know I sound picky, but the point I'm trying to make is that, like smiling, happy men, you're hard pressed to find imagery of a woman in a proud stance. I once sat in on a fascinating lecture, that sifted through a massive amount of images, almost all of which displayed women in weak/non-assertive positions.

I won't bore anybody by preaching. I just couldn't help but think of that correlation in that article.

And Christ, I don't want to prove any lame study correct, but the last set of "Shame" pics are...damn. But Ms. Robinson cheated, though. How the holy hell do you not swoon seeing JGL's beautiful eyes staring at you through that lock of hair? How?!?

Posted by: Kala at May 25, 2011 4:36 PM

I disagreed in large part w/last year's list, but holy hell, that "Shame" pic of JoGo is a winner.

Posted by: Samantha at May 25, 2011 4:46 PM

I'm particularly digging the pride photos as well. They look great.

Posted by: Cherie at May 25, 2011 4:55 PM

None of those pictures labeled "Shame" demonstrate that emotion, as far as I can tell. I can only assume the pictures in the "study" were similarly misleading. Maybe somebody could do a study about how labeling pictures purporting to illustrate certain emotions will encourage people to interpret those pictures according to the label, even when the labels are obviously inaccurate, or at best, equivocal. The "Pride" pictures are not much better. It is damn near impossible to know that someone feels pride by looking at a picture of them.

Studies that purport to prove something about human nature in general by showing pictures of strangers to a group of 1,000 adults are amusing. You may as well show them tea leaves and then ask them to predict the future.

Posted by: Slash at May 25, 2011 5:01 PM

I use entrails myself, Slash.

Posted by: admin at May 25, 2011 5:09 PM

Ironically enough, while the womenfolk disagree with the findings of "dark & brooding > happy and sunny" I'm going to disagree with the whole "men prefer subservient and demure women.

I'm sure there are many guys who want nothing more than a woman who sits there, looks pretty and has no independent thought. But as someone who has had that tethered to him, I can say "IT'S FUCKING ANNOYING AS ALL FUCKETY FUCK!"

Give me someone smart, intelligent and capable of doing things for herself.

Posted by: Fredo at May 25, 2011 5:11 PM

Fredo
How YOU Doin'?

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at May 25, 2011 5:12 PM

Slash,

Show me tea leaves and I can predict the future with a fairly high margin of success.

If they're wet and in the bottom of a cup, I'll predict someone will be doing dishes in the not too distant future. If they aren't, well, I'd just predict that someone's hankering after a hot drink.

But as far as the study goes... I'm not surprised in the least. This seems like one of those "self-fulfilling prophecy" studies. I'd be interested to see their methodology and the images they actually used, but I'd be even more interested if they'd gotten UNEXPECTED results out of this study. Telling us things that are "common knowledge" isn't really useful or thought-provoking... telling us that what we thought all along was wrong is far more fascinating.

No?

Posted by: Wintermute at May 25, 2011 5:14 PM

Brooding is good and all, but there's nothing like when a cute guys looks at you and gives you a slow, sexy smile that makes your panties melt.

(For some reason, I always picture George Clooney doing that. He's my default for sexy smiles)

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at May 25, 2011 5:42 PM

Fredo, you must be over 35. Men learn these things as they mature. Big boobs and a pretty face are great to look at but if that pretty head has no solids betwixt the ears...well, life can be pretty, and pretty boring.

Posted by: kirbyjay at May 25, 2011 5:44 PM

Smiles melt me. That is all.

Posted by: Lauren at May 25, 2011 6:37 PM

SKAAAAARRRRRRSSSSSSGGGGGGÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅRRRRRDDDDDD!!!!!


♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Posted by: Cindy at May 25, 2011 6:39 PM

you must be over 35. Men learn these things as they mature.

Who the hell would take that long?

I'm greatly offended at your opinion of my youth.

Posted by: Jay at May 25, 2011 6:46 PM

First of all, may I be so bold as to say that perhaps on this website the gentlemen are a bit more evolved in their thinking? Also, pictures are VERY subjective. The "confident" ones of the women, in terms of body language aren't actually so.

Rachel Weiz looks the most confident there, I'd say but still counters it with slumping her shoulders far forwards to counter it.

Zoe Deschenel, love her though I do, always seems a bit submissive to me, and here the peeking out from under the bangs while giving the "hey look at my boobs" pose doesn't scream independent woman.

Underwear chick (who is that?) is most submissive of all with the one arm tied behind her back and major head tilt which is a big flirty move for women but mainly because it makes us look questioning or confused, not exactly a power stance - I don't make the rules kids, just study body language.

And Christina Hendricks, who I think usually looks the most confident in pictures is tilting her head down submissively and looking up from under her eyelids. This is also a big seductive move for women, and is submissive. It's because the smaller you are, the more you have to look up at the bigger person. This is why men tend to jut their chins and look down their noses while puffing their chests. They are making themselves look bigger. Try reversing these dominant/submissive moves (hey go with God, doesn't bother me) but it might not work so well unless you are with someone with very extreme dom/sub tendencies.

All that said, it's photographs. In person, everyone prefers open poses and confidence. It's that they want it MIXED with the submissive postures on women. The term is somewhat misleading. I think coy might be a better word, as Hendricks shows, she's doing a coy gaze but seems to know she can get her subject to do just about anything. So it's a mix. Sorry for the essay, I just love this kind of thing.

Oh and JGL looks cocky as hell in that "shame" pose. It's like, "yeah, I slept with your sister. But you'll forgive me."

Posted by: rhombus at May 25, 2011 7:03 PM


happiness wins in a romp..... although they are probably faking the
smiles.

Posted by: snake at May 25, 2011 7:41 PM

Perhaps SOME men out there have to feel dominant over a woman and want her to feel shame because she'll be easier to control, more likely to give in to sex, less likely to put up a fight if he cheats or treats her poorly. I don't want to be a cynic so I hope that most men would rather be with happy women and want to keep his mate happy.

I LOVE a smiling happy guy. I've never been into the bad boys. I just don't get wanting to be with someone who is broody and moody. Screw it. Life is short, be serious when you must, but I'd rather spend time with someone I can nut up with.

Miles O'Keefe in that godawful Tarzan movie is one exception, he was kind of broody but mostly he was just gorgeous and intense and my first crush as I was about 12 when I saw it. That movie was just about sexual tension between two gorgeous people so it is no wonder really that he blew my socks off. Viggo as Aragorn is my other exception. And he does smile here and there, when the pressure of saving the world from hell on earth isn't crushing the humor out of him. Angel on Buffy never did anything for me, but Spike enjoyed himself, and seemed like more fun. Maybe I can only truly enjoy a bad boy if he is fun. Now I have to go think about what that says about me.

I don't want to be mean but that header picture makes whoever that is look greasy (and hence, dirty) juandiced and mealy mouthed. I just don't think that guy is terribly attractive at all. Or maybe it is just a rotten photo.

I think most people are attracted to, well, attractive people. But it gets less interesting if there is no humor, smarts or whatever it is you are attracted to personality wise.

Posted by: Viking at May 25, 2011 8:36 PM

Haven't even read this yet, but I saw the header pic and all parts of me (mouth, brain, lady bits) when YEEEEEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Posted by: MyySharona at May 25, 2011 9:18 PM

Slash my thoughts exactly. I don't really buy the body language pictures here either.

If they really wanted results, they could/should have used a video. As much as I love a man with a sense of humour, a photo of someone with a giant goofy smile or who is mid-laugh may be attractive, but probably not sexy, while an image of someone brooding/"ashamed" may be sexy, while the reality is probably really annoying. When you're in the presence of someone who is having fun and enjoying themselves, it's wayyy sexier than someone who is brooding/ashamed/submissive in person. I think this goes for both genders. So yeah, if we're all in still moments from life, I'd buy the results of the study, but the reality is that we're not.

Posted by: Tits McGee at May 25, 2011 10:10 PM

I have to say, brooding and sullen did it for me all through high school, but it got old quick once I hit 20. I am about to celebrate 10 years of happy marriage to a goofy, silly, sweet, emotionally stable and open math geek. Ladies, I promise you, this is better.

JGL seems like the least broody star ever, and he successfully explodes panties worldwide every day.

Posted by: McSquish at May 25, 2011 10:30 PM

Lindsey, how YOU doing?

Jay, not yet but close. But that was something I learned in my early 20s. Let's just say after one girl in college who wouldn't make any decision without checking with me first, I got over that fast.

Posted by: Fredo at May 25, 2011 11:22 PM

So ... those surveys where most woman say what they REALLy want in a man is a sense of humor and cuddles: That's all bullshit, is it? Well, it's back to black leather jackets, white T's with ciggies rolled up in the sleeve, tight jeans* and brooding for me.

But this survey's information doesn't explain why female models never seem to smile anymore. It DOES help explain why that doggie-style all-fours arched-back pose is so popular.

*--At my age, ALL my jeans are tight.

Posted by: , at May 25, 2011 11:34 PM

The men DO look stupid when they're smiling.

Posted by: John. G. at May 26, 2011 12:09 AM

For me boils down to:

if you be smart, nicely proportioned and vaguely sardonic, i am usually quite down witcha.

Posted by: firedmyass at May 26, 2011 12:43 AM

I don't know about all that, but I don't really see how any of those expressions represent "shame".

Posted by: Protoguy at May 26, 2011 1:16 AM

My intelligent scientific remarks that were fostered during the majority of this article were, I'm afraid, entirely replaced at the very end by thoughts of how Alexander Skarsgard is so very nice to look at and how much I'm looking forward to True Blood starting again.

Posted by: sevenstories at May 26, 2011 5:12 AM

Well, I need more examples of the women folk to make up my mind on this. For science.

Meanwhile, I find affect & mood a lot easier to read in motion and especially interaction. So, moving pictures of the women folk interacting with other folks. Um, maybe this isn't that kind of website?

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at May 26, 2011 9:27 AM

It's not an objective assessment if you only put pictures of hot men and women up there. Try it with pictures of mere mortals and see what the response is.

Posted by: PaddyDog at May 26, 2011 10:24 AM

So men don't like a woman whose posture thrusts her chest out? Right. Next thing they'll discover is that men are turned off by a woman licking an ice cream cone.

Posted by: Todd at May 26, 2011 11:18 AM

If you click on the link Joanna provided at the top, the article you get has links to some of the images used in the study, none of which appear to be images of hot, famous people (apart from a few athletes who may be vaguely familiar).

Posted by: ... at May 29, 2011 12:10 PM