Alexander Profile picture
Sep 13 22 tweets 6 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
There is a body type not really shown here (perhaps closest to number 9) that is regularly featured on erotica novels (selected by women to represent female-authored sexual fantasies).

Women who say they prefer a body like 3 over 9 - why?

And thread on this: Image
These are some examples from some popular heterosexual female-authored erotic novels:


Image
Image
Image
Image
A few other examples:


Image
Image
Image
Image
We have the gym bro meme - boys like it, girls don’t.

Yet at the same time we have this huge canon of female sexual fantasies where the men are depicted as jacked and lean. Image
Research on the attractiveness of bodily muscularity often doesn’t use realistic bodies (eg using silhouettes instead of photos) and often doesn’t use men as muscular as those on the covers of these novels.
Here are some hypotheses for why so many women will say they prefer a man with a body type like number 3 (someone who isn’t fat, but pretty normal otherwise):
More muscular (up to a point) bodies are actually sexier, but because of this they signal (or are associated with) more short-term mating intentions.

Meanwhile, women on average have strong long-term orientations and some aversity to short-term mating.
These bodies may be associated with lower trust and lower intent to invest in a relationship. They may be associated with an enhanced ability to cheat or lower willingness to commit.

So, “sexy but not desirable as a mate.”
It could also be an “out of my league” effect. Most women don’t have the female equivalent of the novel covers and may simply realize “that is not a match for me.”
Which seems to be more important for women: some past research has found women are less happy and experience more anxiety with a partner who is more attractive than them (while men are simply happier with a partner more attractive than they are).
Reading through female comments on the first image and similar ones in the past, a few were “he would make me feel insecure” through comparisons between one’s own body and the potential mate.

Women may not want to feel body-related pressure or be faced with a comparison.
Being too muscular might signal dominance and aggression, which are both a dual-edged sword in mate selection.

Desirable, but also traits that reflect a potential threat to a woman.
And some research has also found an association with muscularity and perceptions of political conservativism. Perhaps there are many other things associated with it.

So, being jacked might give off a certain impression re: behavior, or have a stereotype associated with it.
These romance novel bodies still may be the sexiest, but are offset by something else that make women say “not for me.”

Which may be why they work well in female-authored sexual fantasies: the fantasy puts some distance and makes them safe.
We have seen the whole “dad bod” trend - lots of women will say this is what they prefer. It’s not necessarily a “lie,” but the preference may not be driven by “the dad bod is the most aesthetically pleasing or sexually attractive body.”

It may be driven by what it signals. Image
So as a man if you see many women say they prefer number 3, or a “dad bod,” or whatever - does this mean that is what you should aspire to for your own physique?

I would say no. You should still aspire to the physiques of the romance novel covers.
If the cover images (and text descriptions) are really the most sexually desirable bodies, but are offset with negative behavioral associations, you simply need to behave in such a way that you overcome the stereotypes.
Jacked man who isn’t a “dumb bro” and doesn’t behave like a cad? Yeah, he’s gonna do just fine.
An element of intrasexual competition may come into play here, too. We derogate not just more attractive rivals, but we derogate potential mates with higher mate value to “bring them down a notch.”

“Actually the hot guy isn’t attractive at all.”
There is high variation in what women like; preferences can be shaped by a lot of different things. So this isn’t a comprehensive explanation. And there is no single “female desire” that represents what every woman wants.
But I would be very skeptical that the peak sexual fantasy is “man who looks DYEL with a shirt on and has some belly rolls.”

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alexander

Alexander Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @datepsych

Aug 30
Recent study on the attractiveness of the "bad boy" and "nice guy" stereotypes:

Dating app photos were manipulated to be more and less facially dimorphic, reported as high/low testosterone in this paper.

Bios were written as "bad boy" and "nice guy" archetypes.

Four profiles were generated from this:

High T / high risk = "bad boy"
Low T / low risk = "nice guy"
High T / low risk = incongruent 1
Low T / high risk = incongruent 2

The "bad boy" was not rated as more physically attractive by participants. Rather, the incongruent condition - High T / low risk - was the most attractive profile.

There were also no significant differences across conditions on perceptions of short term sexual desirability.

And there was no difference in short term relationship versus long term relationship appeal across conditions. No differences in interest in a hook-up versus interest in a committed relationship.

The main effect of high T (actually facial dimorphism) was significant: these photos were rated as more attractive on average.

"This suggests that it is not whether a man is perceived as a bad boy or a nice guy but whether a man possesses features evidencing high testosterone."

A few thoughts on the results from this paper:

1. Facial dimorphism (a more masculine face, wide jaw etc) isn't closely related to serum T levels. It might be related to prenatal T exposure. What we're really looking at here is an effect of facial masculinity. Articles on testosterone and facial dimorphism:





2. Risk-taking behavior and the "bad boy" archetype has been associated with greater attractiveness and more short term sexual desire fairly consistently across past research. The author here covers that as well. So, I wouldn't take these null results as the final word.

3. The high T / low risk face emerging as the most attractive isn't entirely surprising. The "bad boy" archetype bio was written kind of like an asshole ("I know you'll swipe right"). It resulted in lower scores both in the high T / low T facial conditions. A lot of people confuse the "bad boy" archetype with this, which is usually not what women have in mind.

4. Being perceived as a "bad boy" may require "honest signals," or hard-to-fake signals. A lot of "PUA/game" has focused on the emulation of behaviors associated with the "bad boy," but only in interpersonal interactions with women: "don't care what she thinks, be confident, etc." But imagine someone who is a boxer or who has been to jail. The life history of an actual "bad boy" looks very different from that of someone who is just pretending.

5. Why are bad boys attractive to women and how do we reconcile this with the abundance of research indicating "good" and prosocial traits/behavior also are? It's the harm/protection trade-off. The same traits that make you a good protector also make you more dangerous to potential mates (women) and to other men. Women have a high sensitivity to threats, but also want a man capable of being a threat. Important though - they don't want a man who is a threat to them. Antisocial behavior towards a potential partner isn't desirable to them, even if the capacity for antisocial behavior towards others might be.

6. The high T / low risk profile - the one that scored the highest - might have signaled this best. Higher masculinity indicated in the face and a behavioral profile that indicates he is "safe" in some sense.


More broadly outside the scope of this paper: a lot of guys really could benefit from being more of a "bad boy," taking more risks, being more masculine, etc.
Few and far between are men who are really "too masculine," but much more common is an emulation of masculinity whereby antisocial interpersonal behavior serves as a sort of short-cut into a facade of masculinity.
Read 10 tweets
Aug 27
Sex differences in reasons for infidelity 🧵:

Men are more likely to cheat when the opportunity is available.

Women are more likely to cheat when unhappy, not attracted to a current partner, and to switch relationships.

link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Image
Consistent with the mate switching hypothesis in this study. An equal number of men and women reported infidelity, but:

Men who do cheat tend to cheat with more partners over time.

Women who cheat tend to do it less frequently. Image
Women are also more likely to tell their partners, consistent with cheating being concurrent with leaving a relationship (potentially for the new partner):
Image
Image
Read 16 tweets
Aug 25
A common narrative is “society told me women/relationships were like X,” but I wonder why fiction, romantic comedies/dramas, and Disney cartoons have been so influential in shaping the mental maps of so many people. 🧵
Fiction has tropes and archetypes. It builds on stereotypes (that may reflect real averages trends). It also reflects the aspirations, dreams, and fantasies of its creators - things that probably don’t happen most of the time, but that they wish would or should.
We live in an environment filled with media, stories, propaganda; movies and songs - whatever, you name it.

These do shape peoples beliefs, so the point isn’t “are you stupid for thinking all these fictional stories were real models of the world.”
Read 21 tweets
Aug 20
Snipping these Tweets for reference. What do they get right and wrong? 🧵

Image
Image
Image
1. Women do use sex to secure long term relationships. We see in some past research, for example, that this strategy may be used more by women of average attractiveness. Earlier sexual investment to secure a mate.
Meanwhile, women of higher physical attractiveness may be able to demand more investment and not need to commit sexually as early in a relationship - withholding for commitment.

However, these women also have access to higher value mates - not the "beta" demographic.
Read 19 tweets
Jul 22
People ask about this a lot - effects of attractiveness on extra-pair sexual behavior and the role of hormones.

A thread and recent paper on this.

Dinh and Gangestad are two of the authors; some of the main researchers of the dual mate hypothesis of ovulatory shifts. 🧵 Image
Women are sexually active across the cycle, but conception is mostly limited to a small window of ovulation:

"The periovulatory phase, the conceptive window encompassing the day of ovulation and the few days prior."
Thus the dual mate hypothesis: sexual preferences and behaviors may change during this window.

"Women’s sexual interests (e.g., for different partners or mate features) differ when conception is possible from when it is not possible (Gangestad, Dinh, Lesko, & Haselton, 2021)."
Read 22 tweets
Jul 21
"Positive illusions" in relationships, or cognitive reframing.

People who view their partner's faults and virtues as an integrated whole are more likely to remain in stable and lasting relationships.

https://t.co/XLjrQibxNptandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.120…
Image
A difference between those in good and bad relationships:

1. In good relationships, they link faults with virtues.

2. In bad relationships, they link faults with other faults.
A study described in this review used cards with words like "stubbornness," "selfishness," "caring" etc. to sort partner virtues and faults.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(