I've also read that women take the "wham bam thank you ma'am" promiscuity approach for men who have high testosterone because high testosterone is an indicator of an excellent immune system. The testosterone handicaps the immune system, so if these men are still alive into adulthood it means that the underlying immune system must be exceptional.

Question 1: Isn't this indicator an evolutionary dead end in any modern civilization with good health care? High testosterone men with an underlying weak or average immunity are still alive because of advances in modern health care. A woman can no longer used continued survival as an indicator of a good immune system.

Question 2: How does a women factor in being paired with a handsome mate (i.e. high symmetry, culturally averaged features), but who also has a baby face (quasi-feminine, fatherly, "nice" features) when deciding to cheat? Do the cave-man features always trump or is it just a heavily weighted factor in a complex equation that also heavily weighs beauty.

Speaking of value judgments. In what sense is it true that "handsome men make better lovers than husbands"? Other than their being handsome, I see nothing in the post that would allow such an interpretation. Unless it is being less honest with and less attentive to one's partners that makes for being a "better lover"?

I find this to be interesting, and in light of my own experience, true. There is something about a man who has that "baby face" along with a "good head of hair" and a "not quite having finished puberty" look about him which yells out to me that he is low on testosterone. On the other hand, a man with a craggy face, low voice, and non-poetic, yells out to me he is a high testosterone man, and he is the one I want for a partner. One experience with a pretty man who turned out to be an xxy, convinced me that the lean, mean, masculine machine is the man for me.

This is the dumbest studies I've ever seen and is completely full of holes. Brad and Jen vs Brad and Angelina? Give me a break. Brad's looks compared to Jen and Angelina are a matter of opinion. Jenifer Aniston isn't exactly ugly. They broke up due to much more important issues than their looks. And the less attractive men not being able to cheat?! I think Donald Trump could cheat any time he wanted and he's definately no Fabio. Not to mention, how many times has Trump been married? The only thing that this study is really saying is that women with low self-esteam are paranoid about their men that they "feel" are more attractive leaving them for someone better. Women, if you want some advice, don't get with a man just because of superficial things like looks or money on either side of the spectrum. What you need to do is get some confidence. If you are a 7 and have a lot of confidence and personality, a man...a good man (smart, values, etc.) will see you as a 10. But you won't even care about that because you have confidence.

P.S.
Same goes for men in needing confidence.

Hmmm, So this would explain why I had a daughter. So are you actually saying that if I like women who aren't as attractive as myself, I wouldn't have a chance at a long term relationship? So being that I am good looking (by women's standards - Clearly, I could not think this of myself...my ego isn't that big but at times I admit, it's hard getting my head through the house door on a good night) I won't find someone and should consider myself a cad?

The solution is to actually gauge yourself and your looks and find someone who is way more attractive than you and this statement will not be true. Oh, as not mentioned....when you have an extremely attractive woman, you will more than likely run the chances of that woman wanting someone as equally attractive as herself - if not more than....attractive than you in her eyes if you do not fit the bill. Can you deal with that? The solution is not to care as much for them try and keep your feelings out until they are absolutely necessary. This takes away the fear of them leaving you for someone if you can't seem to find yourself living up to their standards.

But from understanding, usually a highly attractive woman wants a complimentive balance. Maybe this view is based off of my personal reflection of my life. A friend once asked me how did I pick women. This was something that I have been thinking about for a very long time.

The way I pick a woman is not based off of what most use to choose. Features!!! Yeah, That is the top. But usually, I look through that and how this is done is I First find all of the qualities physically that I want and those that I am not willing to sacrifice. Second, I will base my decision of my interest sheerly from the way she carries herself. See, it works like this, if you actually think about it, a really attractive woman has nothing to prove. Am I right? OK, so with that being said acknowledged or what have you, this means that 9 times out of 10 she can wear just about anything and she will look GREAT. She can dress retro and be accepted, she can be a glam girl and get more attention. That is all well and fine and only matters to me when there is a purpose for it. On the average, I look at a woman and see if she can be as plain as possible but incredibly fine. Usually it is harder to maintain that disposition if they are a glam girl than to have to be made up everytime she steps out the door. Just throw your hair in a bun, throw on some sweats and carry yourself in a relaxed way and you will get just as much attention as the glam girl. Remember, she is a female so just based of that you should know she will get attention. Don't find this to be true?

If you know how to look, you can see all of the things that make her more special. Usually these girls are in long term relationships. They tend to pick the right dude and have these long term relationships. So with that said, Find someone who is way finer than you and you won't have to deal with worrying about if she is not as attractive than you are.

If more sensible women are the subject here, it shouldn't be a problem getting a woman. They seem to want the woman to like less attractive. Well, I always go for what I would call more attractive.

You can tell by the way I walk that I'm a woman's man. No time for talk.

This is the biggest load of BS I've ever heard. Behavior isn't dependant on looks. Any case of appearance-dependant behavior is because of the pressure put on people by society and irrelevent to a study as ludicrous as this.

Utter crap that makes too many generaliztions. I don't buy it. You have many ugly guys who are cads and decent to nice looking guys who stay loyal to their work, wife & kids. The only difference is that the ugly looking cads primarily get the plain Janes or ugly ladies. Why is this overlooked?

"couples in which the woman is more attractive than the man are happier than couples in which the man is more attractive than the woman." That is a bold, not to mention ridiculous, statement to make. I think unattractive male scientists are behind all of these studies to make themselves feel better, and to encourage beautiful women to be with ugly men. The problem with evo-psych is that it takes a behavior and tries to twist and contort the information so that it will fit a bias evolutionary model that is based on outdated stereotypes. Take a look at Hollywood and pro athletes, there are countless ugly guys married to pretty women that only end up divorced. Yet I've seen countless handsome wealthy male celebs in successful relationships with less than hot wives. I could just as easily find evidence to support another hypothesis: that very attractive women made bad wives, especially if they're married to very rich men. Of course that's a ridiculous hypothesis, but no more ridicolous than the one presented here. And this study conveniently leaves out the part about ugly rich men who make bad long term partners and sleep around constantly. Governor Spitzer wasn't all that attractive in my opinion. And I should also add that I think Jen is prettier than Angelina. Lousy evidence to support your claim considering that it's not a scientific fact that Angelina is prettier.

It should also be noted that as women continue to advance in the work place and more women outearn men, women will no longer have to settle for a less attractive guy simply because he can financially provide. Hence why more older women are dating younger men. Here's some research to support that women do not merely go for a guy with money, and presents a counter-arguement to "women want less attractive men to be husbands, and more attractive men to only be lovers":

http://personals.aol.com/love-dating/_a/4-qualities-women-want-in-a-man/...

It should also be noted that the reason why attractive men might be more likely to cheat is because they can: the ones who want to cheat have more opportunities to do so, as more women will hit on them. There are plenty of ugly men who cheat, so I have doubts that attractive men are more likely to cheat, but regardless the ugly men who want to cheat would have an easier time if more women hit on them. That's not science; that's called common sense. They should look at men who actually want to cheat, not all men in general. Out of all the men who want to cheat, the more attractive one will have an easier time finding one night stands or a mistress. Again, common sense. Aside from this, I think it's hilarious they would test newlyweds rather than couples that have been married for 20+ years. Like you're really gonna learn a lot from studying people for half an hour, rather than look at marriages that have actually lasted.

There are many problems I see with consideration to the study. What subject pool was used? location? age range?

The people who gave the study; are they gay? straight? good looking? ugly?

It seams as though bias is a large part of this study especially if AOL is posting it.

Jane you dont have to wait any longer because women have advanced in the workplace, this is old news. They have the choice in their mate. Men have no choice or say in the matter unless they are extremely attractive, wealthy, popular and or hold a status in society. America is a women's world, more than any other part of the world. Also men are more visually stimulated than women.

I also forgot to mention that there is a significantly larger percentage of women in college than men.

These conclusions seem too hasty. I guess it'll take too long to present your full study here on a blog, but do you have good experimental controls for your conclusions? Evolution is just one force, but there are societal forces too. Do you have controls to show that the differences you observe are truly due to natural selection, and NOT due to some other factor?

Just because A correlates with B, does not mean that A causes B. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you know that already, but the conclusions you make seem to assume that correlation equals cause.

The next article this guy should write is "Why do I like to Bull shit" or "why I am even to keep thinking of Bull Shit"... Please go an read a book on logic and stop making wishy washy statements..

It sounds like Jane should be writing the book... Go ahead girl, I would buy it!!!! Awesome points.

I believe its true that most handsome men are good lovers but bad husbands. Though most women do not want to admit it but if a guy is handsome they would allow him to get away with much more than a guy who just looks average. I know a married man who has 6 or 7 children all from different women and he had 4 of the children after he married his wife, and he is still married to her now!!!

I am 48 years old. My sperm is great. I have had no children, yet I have never used a condom. I have only had 7 partners. Every one of them now have children. Why...because I'm ugly. No other reason. The information provided in this article is exactly what my doctor told me in more discerning terms. There is nothing I can do about it because apparently women select who they are prepared to get pregnant with, unconsciously. Behaviour in women is definitely affected by looks. It is not necessarily conscious. I was a professional musician for 12 years. In bands of 4 to 5 guys, I was the one that never got the girls. Ever. Yes, I thought musicians got them easily. Not so. Did I work at it? You bet. Never made any difference.