Despite what Siirtyrion, and women, wish to believe, male facial attractiveness is negatively correlated with semen quality. Despite what you might think, there has NEVER been any consistent support found for the hypothesis that ANY *male* physical secondary sexual traits are “honest” indicators of male fertilization efficiency.

Conception isn’t a one way effort as it requires both sexes. While a man’s fertility is important, that’s not the complete picture here.
The study below will give you a better idea of what I’m getting at. I will provide some key excerpts.

All taken from: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199601/the-orgasm-wars

Yet, it was only three years ago that two British biologists, Robin Baker and Mark Bellis, tested the so-called upsuck hypothesis. They were building upon ideas articulated by evolutionary biologist Robert Smith, who suggested that since women don’t have orgasms every time out, female orgasm favors some sperm over others. Baker and Bellis sought to learn just how female orgasms might affect which of a lover’s sperm is used to fertilize a woman’s eggs.

…

They discovered that when a woman climaxes any time between a minute before to 45 minutes after her lover ejaculates, she retains significantly more sperm than she does after nonorgasmic sex. When her orgasm precedes her male’s by more than a minute, or when she does not have an orgasm, little sperm is retained. Just as the doctors’ letters suggested decades earlier, the team’s results indicated that muscular contractions associated with orgasm pull sperm from the vagina to the cervix, where it’s in better position to reach an egg.
Baker and Bellis proposed that by manipulating the occurrence and timing of orgasm–via subconscious processes–women influence the probability of conception.

…

Development, or the translation of genes into parts of the body, can be perturbed by stresses such as disease, malnutrition, or genetic defects. One measure of developmental instability is deviation from bilateral symmetry in traits like hands, eyes, and even birds’ tail feathers. Males whose immune systems are strong, and who forage well, develop with high symmetry, so females who choose symmetrical suitors are securing good genes for their offspring.

Evolutionary biologist Randy Thornhill and psychologist Steve Gangestad at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque have tested whether humans also share this preference. And indeed they do. In their studies, women consistently identify as most attractive males whose faces (and other body parts) are most symmetrical.

…

Thornhill and Gangestad reasoned that if women’s orgasms are an adaptation for securing good genes for their offspring, women should report more orgasms with relatively symmetrical mates. Collaborating for a second time, the two, along with graduate student Randall Comer, devised some very interesting studies to test this idea.

The researchers took facial photographs of each person and analyzed the features by computer; they also had them graded for attractiveness by independent raters blind to the study. They measured various body parts to assess bilateral symmetry–the width of elbow, wrist, hand, ankle, and foot bones, and the length of the second and fifth fingers.

Earlier studies had suggested all of these were associated with health.
Indeed, the hypothesized relationship between male symmetry and female orgasm proved to be true, the researchers recently reported in the journal Animal Behavior (Vol. 50, December). From data on sexual behavior provided by the women, those whose partners were most symmetrical enjoyed a significantly higher frequency of orgasms during sexual intercourse than did those with less symmetrical mates. Even the data on sexual experience provided by the men showed the women had more orgasms with the most symmetrical men.

…

“It’s important to note what did not correlate with female orgasm during sex. Degree of women s romantic attachment did not increase the frequency of orgasm! Nor did the sexual experience of either partner. Conventional wisdom holds that birth control and protection from disease up orgasm rates, since they allow women to feel more relaxed during intercourse. But no relationship emerged between female orgasm and the use of contraception.

Nor can the study results be explained by the possibility that the symmetrical males were dating especially uninhibited and orgasmic women. Their partners did not have more orgasms during foreplay or in other sexual activities. Male symmetry correlated with a high frequency of female orgasm only during copulation.

Kama Sutra practitioners wept. heh.

To wrap this up:

The findings support evolutionary psychologists’ “good genes” hypothesis: Women have orgasm more often with their most symmetrical lovers, increasing the likelihood of conceiving these men’s children. Well, that’s how it would have worked for millennia, before condoms and the Pill.

And it is for the precontraceptive stone age that our brains seem to be built; the agricultural and industrial revolutions are flashes in the geological pan, far too recent in evolutionary terms to have fundamentally changed the way we experience emotions or sex. To argue, as may champions of chance like Gould, that sexual attraction has remained completely arbitrary throughout evolution seems increasingly unwarranted.”

In order to understand the intersexual relations between the sexes, you must take into account the entire picture on human mating. I’ve done this for years and I know when someone nitpicks a study just to sooth their ego and try to “prove” their worldview. Jf12 I suggest you read up some more; you’ll get there eventually.

I’m nearly six months into the red pill and continue to reap its rewards. However, setbacks happen, and I just wish to share & inspire for a moment.

I’m 43 and have been an avid mtn biker here in nor Cali for over 20 yrs. 3hrs into the start of my vacation I got bucked & launched off of my bike, and fractured my tibia and punched out like 40% of the knee cartilage in one of the two disks.

Being a swinging bachelor and all this is a bit of a challenge. I don’t mean to whine-I’m fortunate enough to have health ins, time on the books, and Aflac! But this is a major delay in my dating and clubbing and other game ventures.

However, I have no doubt that the red pill and game principles are in use & effect during this latest challenge. Positive masculinity I have no doubt has helped me maintain a positive outlook pre and post surgery. I remain eggar to begin the rehab & physical therapy & wt lifting that will get me back on the bike, and hopefully tree-skiing again this winter.

But most importantly, learning game in the last 6 mo has laid a foundation in my social life that has made this difficult situation much more bearable. For one, I simply have more friends! I got a younger girl (who’s cheating w/my friend!) to pick me up from the surgery clinic when I had no other ride available (most people work at 2pm Tuesdays!). Also, reaching out is not a personal strength, but game has given me the inner confidence to reach out and ask for help when needed. All I can say is that I’d hate to imagine facing this challenge in my pre-red pill life!

While Jenny will never know exactly what caused her brother-in-law “to snap” she knows better than anyone the pressures the family was under.

“Kim’s accident had put such a strain on their lives that Geoff obviously thought this was the only option open to him. Kim was no longer the woman he had married,” Jenny continued, revealing the extent to which the car accident in July 2012 had changed her sister.

“A brain injury robs a person of empathy and love. Unless you live with someone who’s gone through this you can’t understand – it dulls their emotions.”

Interesting. Seems to tie back into the Empathy post Nov 2013.

C. Soler, J. Kekäläinen, M. Núñez, M. Sancho, J. G. Álvarez, J. Núñez, I. Yaber and R. Gutiérrez. 2014. Male facial attractiveness and masculinity may provide sex- and culture-independent cues to semen quality. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 27(9), 1930–1938.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jeb.12446/full

The more general idea is that women have lousy pickers, and have had lousy pickers for millenia at least. This general idea explains a lot, and the contrary idea, i.e. that women have marvelous pickers, is easy to disprove.

this is the very best use of the internet – the conversations we have here could never take place IRL. Here we can get straight to the point without concern for what women might think of what we have to say. Where else could that be the case?

It’s good to know that women are not the unknowable creatures of myth they would have us believe – but the facts behind the system are akin to up-ending a rock on damp soil, we shouldn’t be surprised if the first reaction is throw it back in disgust at the sight of what’s underneath.

Some of the comments are gold too – in particular the med student pretending to be a grunt so he can get first night sex; her complaint “I never would have slept with you so soon if I’d known!” kind of violently shifted a gear in my head like a good Twilight Zone ending. I can’t search comments so I can’t find it to link to.

Thanks again, great resource – still going through your past posts,

GD

I found this at Heartiste:

“Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. … All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). … ”

Sadalla, Edward K.; Kenrick, Douglas T.; Vershure, Beth, “Dominance and heterosexual attraction”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 52(4), Apr 1987, 730-738. [psycnet.apa[]org/journals/psp/52/4/730/]
.

Notice that ” … the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering).”

One reason is that “aggressive or domineering” (or both), in this context, are actually signs of weakness, signs that there is fear of resistance.

If you are certain, in your own mind, that you will not back down, then you relax and enjoy the show, which is also “amused mastery”, and the relaxed certainty that women can sense from far away.

Also, for this to work in the long term, the dominance must be consistent and real (actual strength and power), and not a male version of when a woman sobs and then peeks through her fingers to gauge the effect.