04/11/2008
One is the Face of Commitment, The Other a One Night Stand
A study of 700 heterosexuals at the UK's Durham University found that men and women could identify the type of romantic relationship a potential partner would enjoy simply by looking at their facial features.
According to a survey of heterosexual women, one of the men above would prefer a short-term sexual relationship or one-night stand while the other would prefer a long-term relationship.
Does the same apply for gay men, and can you figure out which is which?
Answer, AFTER THE JUMP...
According to the researchers, the face on the right is likely to want a short-term sexual relationship while the face on the left is likely to want a long-term relationship.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 9:55 AM EST by Andy in Couples, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Exactly my thought....
Also, that the one on the right is more likely to be straight and the one on the left is more likely to be gay. Wonder what this means... hmmm...
Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 11, 2008 10:14:02 AM
Guess that if you are fat, you want to settle down and if you are thin you want to party. Sounds right to me!
Posted by: mike | Apr 11, 2008 10:19:44 AM
I remember reading another study a while back that indicated the people we find most attractive possess some kind of average of everyone's features. They did the same kind of digital blending of multiple faces, and the more faces they added the more attractive the result was. I think these pictures are further evidence of this as I wouldn't kick either of these guys out of my bed if they were real.
Posted by: Wes | Apr 11, 2008 10:21:59 AM
@ MIKE: "Guess that if you are fat, you want to settle down and if you are thin you want to party. Sounds right to me!"
No, Mike: you're *other* right. Fatties want a fling; the skinnier guy (the one on the left) is the one who wants to write you love poems.
Posted by: Mike B. | Apr 11, 2008 10:32:58 AM
How can you tell which face has a fat or a thin body? I can't tell, I don't know what photos the above are looking at? Both faces have an identical structure, spacing, lines, contours, formation, nearly same everything, the only difference MAY be the lighting, shadow, background, and distance from the camera. The face on the left has his hairline artificially lowered by his hair being allowed to fall over his forehead, the face on the right appears to have a larger cranial ridge because his hair is carefully combed back from his hairline, whether or not this is artificial or intended isn't stated. Same lip countours, identical nose contours, same eyes, same ears, contours don't vary at all, examine them closer and find a difference besides the artificially created lighting makes the face on the right appear larger and taller, they could be the same person, and we and the people in the study were played for fools here. Oh, the left face has a matte finish, the right face has a shiny glossier finish, that can be artificial also. I think the study shows which people make snap judgments without examining things close up.
Posted by: 2faced | Apr 11, 2008 10:47:32 AM
They both look like nice boys to me.
Posted by: ryan | Apr 11, 2008 10:47:43 AM
I'm so printing this bad boy out and taking it with me to the clubs.
Posted by: daveynyc | Apr 11, 2008 10:48:57 AM
Who the hell is fat here? Neither of the composites look fat and I can tell you for a fact, fat or thin's got NOTHING to do with it. There are overweight and underweight players alike. The features are more about roundness and square-faced features. Either way, that'd be a twin sammich for sure between those two...after they got a little oil up in that fro.
Happy Friday ;)
P.S. Derrick (and whomever it was last asking about it). FizziekruntNT is the remaining online presence of the once illustrious Fizzie Coffee; southern white trash swamp bunny sensation who found fame and fortune in Southern Cali and tragically, died choking on a fried chicken bone while performing "Who Let Your Husband Out? (And could you please not let that happen again, bitch?).
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Apr 11, 2008 10:55:40 AM
I went exactly the opposite. Guess I'm not a heterosexual woman.
Posted by: David | Apr 11, 2008 11:03:09 AM
This discussion and the article itself just go to show how shallow people tend to be. People make a quick judgment about others based on their looks or what they perceive to be their looks. I think gay men are some of the most guilty of that (me included sometimes). Let's move on from using terms like fatty or skinny. That's outright discrimination based on prejudicial point of view. Something we should know about and rise above.
Posted by: Brad | Apr 11, 2008 11:20:03 AM
I really hope the whole fat/thin comment was a joke because apart from being supremely obnoxious and shallow and [insert myriad stereotypes about gay men being sex-obsessed body fascists here], NEITHER OF THOSE GUYS IS FAT!!
I mean seriously.
Posted by: John | Apr 11, 2008 11:23:47 AM
Jesus people, enough with the "fat" backlash! It's obvious to me what Mike meant was that the WIDER face is the one night stand, so he interpreted that face as being fat(ter).
Posted by: Griff | Apr 11, 2008 11:36:51 AM
@ at FIZZIEKRUTNT LOL...LOL...LOL Lord, have mercy...LOL
The one on the left has a larger penis so...(and I'm not a size queen, mind you. Hell, I'll take any size nowadays).
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Apr 11, 2008 11:40:54 AM
I guess I can't read faces. Women are much better at this and yet, they marry trashy jerks or have abusive boyfriends all the time. Maybe they can show us the face of a domestic abuser.
Posted by: anon | Apr 11, 2008 12:16:50 PM
I picked it!
The face on the left is softer looking: smaller jaw, smaller forehead, smaller eyes. Which, I guess, could be seen as someone quiet, sensitive, kind.
The face on the right is larger and a little more "masculine." Bigger forehead and bolder jaw. Bigger eyes. Says more "intense," more forward, maybe more sexual.
Interesting how you can create stories based on your prejudices.
Posted by: JTluvr | Apr 11, 2008 12:17:19 PM
I went the other way. I thought the thin guy would be the short term fuck and the heavier guy was the relationship person. Go figure?
Posted by: what the f***? | Apr 11, 2008 12:22:57 PM
The amount of shoulder hair on both is quite disturbing.
Posted by: Ulrich | Apr 11, 2008 12:30:02 PM
Didn't mean to offend the fatties in the house! If you guys want to go out and get laid too... more power to you!
Posted by: mike | Apr 11, 2008 12:30:57 PM
Geese, must be something wrong with my eyes. They look so much a like they could pass for twins. I first though it was the same picture that had been photoshopped. I wouldn't kick either out of bed except for the fact that there's more room on the floor! I think studies like these are just mental masturbation with little basis in fact.
Posted by: Bob R | Apr 11, 2008 12:56:57 PM
Next time around, are they going to ask which is dominant versus submissive, who prefers oral versus anal, top or bottom? Who prefers oral, wide faced or thin faced? And submissive, wide-eyed or narrow-eyed? While I agree there are subtle cues that guide us in who we like and dislike, prefer or overlook, including the study of pheromones, air-borne hormonal cues which are based on scientific fact. We are also thinking individuals who cannot be pigeon-holed into a formulaic facial recognition chart, dictating who we will have casual sex with, long term relationship with, hetero sex or homo sex, masculine or feminine, people are too complex to be tagged and classified like scientists would be more than happy to do.
Posted by: lustr2 | Apr 11, 2008 1:03:47 PM
for those who are interested, here's the abstract from the actual paper, from the journal _evolution and human behavior_:
Facial correlates of sociosexuality
Lynda G. Boothroyda, Benedict C. Jonesa, D. Michael Burta, Lisa M. DeBruinec and David I. Perretta
Received 14 August 2007; accepted 28 December 2007. Available online 26 March 2008.
Abstract
Previous studies have documented variation in sexual behaviour between individuals leading to the notion of ‘restricted’ individuals (i.e., people who prefer long-term relationships) and ‘unrestricted’ individuals (i.e., people who are open to short-term relationships). This distinction is often referred to as sociosexual orientation. Observers have been previously found to distinguish sociosexuality from video footage of individuals, although the specific cues used have not been identified. Here we assessed the ability of observers to judge sexual strategy based specifically on cues in both facial composites and real faces. We also assessed how observers' perceptions of the masculinity/femininity and attractiveness of faces relate to the sociosexual orientation of the pictured individuals. Observers were generally able to identify restricted vs. unrestricted individuals from cues in both composites and real faces. Unrestricted sociosexuality was generally associated with greater attractiveness in female composites and real female faces and greater masculinity in male composites. Although male observers did not generally associate sociosexuality with male attractiveness, female observers generally preferred more restricted males' faces (i.e., those with relatively strong preferences for long-term relationships). Collectively, our results support previous findings that androgenisation in men is related to less restricted sexual behaviour and suggest that women are averse to unrestricted men.
an important point that i think some commenters have missed is that this isn't simply about people's judgments about faces: it's that people can accurately predict (i.e., with greater success than chance) "sociosexuality" (openness to one-night stands) based on facial features. the images illustrate the identifiable physical features that seem to underlie these accurate judgments.
Posted by: humanist | Apr 11, 2008 1:05:22 PM
the one on the left looks filthier, so i figured he was after a fling, the one on the right looks more luminous, more idealistic. So i figured he'd like something more substantial.
whatever...
silly psychologists and anthropologists spending too much time at the computer.
Posted by: xassantex | Apr 11, 2008 1:16:07 PM
I want to try them both out before I answer ;)
Posted by: SJ | Apr 11, 2008 1:37:10 PM
I got it right. The face on the left is more friendly and warm. The face on the right is selfish looking(eager eyes searching for what it can take). We've evolved to make instant decisions about whether or not to trust someone. Our lives depend upon it. I work in retail and every day make hundreds of snap decisions about peoples faces to simply know their mood,if help is wanted,are they potential thieves etc.etc. Faces give away so much and that's a good thing.
Posted by: pearpenguin | Apr 11, 2008 1:52:24 PM
It may be just me, but there's something odd about the hair aura... if someone approaches me in a club with hair that seems to have it's own atmosphere, I'd probably pay more attention to that than fine details the guy's facial characteristics...
Posted by: Malkey | Apr 11, 2008 2:15:04 PM
I agree with Malkey---the weird hair is so distracting that I have trouble focusing on anything else, so they look nearly identical to me.
Posted by: Paul R | Apr 11, 2008 2:28:45 PM
the boy on left is a bottom.
the boy on right is a top.
regardless of the fact that it's the same guy with slightly adjusted features, the one on the right seems more confident, in-your-face(for starters), and attractive. the guy on the left has kinder eyes, sliiiiightly softer features, and a welcoming expression on his face :-)
Posted by: tobethatguy | Apr 11, 2008 3:15:34 PM
This is the same guy....with a few minor adjustments to the photo.
After looking at both photo's extensively, thats the only conclusion any of us have. And the fact that I wouldn't date either one.....lol
Posted by: Joshua | Apr 11, 2008 4:49:58 PM
I got it wrong .. .
But now that I look at it for a second time, what we see in others could be a reflection of our desires. The guy on the right is looks more clean/cut, attractive and therefore he is more appealing sexually.
Posted by: Rafael | Apr 11, 2008 4:53:49 PM
one is more groomed than the other ie plucked eyebrows for the player.
i am old so experience speaks for me. i say an over groomed man is probably a player and someone who is undergroomed can't hold a job. so..........the middle of the road guy would be the obvious winner eh?
Posted by: Helen Nickerson | Apr 11, 2008 5:10:52 PM
i got it back to front, too. i think a lot of gay guys look at it this way. who would you *want* as a one-night stand. lol. and, at least for me, def the right one.
the study is about testosterone levels. apparently, boys with more testosterone are less likely to want a long-term relationship, and increased testosterone levels are associated with the "fatter" face of the right guy (lower chin & cheekbones, etc).
don't think it really applies to us, as much. most guys are into one-night stands, anyway, regardless of testosterone. whether they are also into a long-term relationship has more to do with where they are in life, it seems to me, rather than how much testosterone there is in the blood....
Posted by: jason | Apr 11, 2008 8:36:13 PM
fuk. i meant, i'd def want to have a fling with the LEFT one.... geez
Posted by: jason | Apr 11, 2008 8:39:42 PM
How can they say that the subjects judgments on the composite faces was "accurate" when the composite faces have no real preference in relationship length?
It seems hopelessly subjective to me.
Posted by: thin mint | Apr 11, 2008 10:30:11 PM
"How can they say that the subjects judgments on the composite faces was "accurate" when the composite faces have no real preference in relationship length?"
@jason: Please use the correct tense of the verb "WAS" ACCURATE to "WERE" accurate...
Posted by: JUANA | Apr 12, 2008 2:17:43 AM
How about a 3-way?
Posted by: Greg | Apr 12, 2008 6:04:05 AM
I got it completely wrong! I guess that's why I keep picking Mr. Rightnow instead of Mr. Right.
Sigh........
Q
Posted by: Querelle | Apr 12, 2008 8:18:19 AM
the artice states that the study suggests,
"On men, a square jaw, large nose and small eyes are more likely to betray the look of lust than of love."
given that information, i defy anyone to explain where and how those characteristics fit the physiognomy of one composite face over the other. while i am loath to ascribe too much to facial features (the psuedo-science of physiognomy has lead humanity to places we should never revisit), i believe that the person who wrote the article has little grasp of the implications of the study. however, thanks to the abstract provided by HUMANIST, i am able to deduce where the reaserchers were headed. heterosexual males intuit the wants of heterosexual females, and vice-versa and there are reasons why. so! what else is new?
i am all for contributing to the wealth of human knowledge and understanding, and i could devote more time to the topic. but, to what end? the research has nothing concrete to offer.
now, if they were researching the differnces between (and the commonalities among) straight and gay men, and the same, as they pertain to gay men and straight women, i would be very interested.
a 2005 swedish study showed that gay men and straight women react the same to pheromones (read that as, sweat) released by males. other studies have shown that the size of the hypothalamus in gay men is somewhere between the size of that in straight men and straight women. that, my friends, is intriguing.
Posted by: nic | Apr 12, 2008 12:24:18 PM