If a man is presented with a choice between a butterface (ugly face, hot body, everything “but her face”) and a myspace angle (cute face, ugly body), his decision will depend in part on whether he’s down for a short-term fling or if he’s seeking a long-term lover.
The reason for this is not hard to figure out upon reflection: the prime directive is to survive and reproduce, and that means, for men, getting seed into womb (or wombs, as the opportunity may present). A man with pump and dumps on his mind will shift focus to girls with highly fertile bodies, placing less emphasis on their faces. His dividing rod will target women with 0.7 WHRs, 17-23 BMIs, fruitfully ripening in the age range of 22-29. Since he’s not planning on investing much time or energy in his little red curvette, he doesn’t sweat the worry of romantically gazing into the limpid eyes of a plain jane year after year.
A man who is more K-selected, i.e., more NW European white or East Asian (ain’t I a steenker!), feels a cosmic pull toward hitching himself to a woman for the long term so that his few kids have a shot to thrive in a resource-restricted environment. It’s the quality over quantity strategy. To this man, a woman’s facial prettiness matters, a lot. He’s gotta look at her and provide for her for a long time, and he won’t be much inspired to do either if her face isn’t intoxicating. The body is still important (fat chicks left out in cold again, news at 11), but now the contours of her face have become a crucial determinant of her acceptability as a mate. His dividing rod will be recalibrated toward younger women — ages late adolescence to mid-20s — with large, expressive eyes, small chins and jaws, and exquisitely molded subcutaneous fat deposits.
This is the theory. In practice, such choices rarely come up, because there is a strong correlation between a woman’s facial prettiness and her body attractiveness. When a rift between body and face does occur in the same woman, it is typically a butterface. Homely-faced women with slender boffable bodies are more common than pretty-faced women with unappealing bodies. Fat chicks stir the needle a little toward myspace anglers, but just a little, because it doesn’t take much weight gain until a girl’s face begins to display the deformity that is evident in her body. Another example of the myspace angler is the masculinized woman with a striking model-esque face tethered to a curveless body built for spiking volleyballs.
Another point worth making is that men, regardless of their mating strategies, will only choose between butterfaces and myspace anglers when they HAVE to choose. Most men, given a free choice, will choose women who are blessed with both. Plotting cads and plodding dads will both choose the woman who has it all, face and body (and yeah, personality too, I guess) if such a woman is a real prospect.
Originally, this post was meant as conjecture, based on observation and hunch. But to my surprise, there are ♥♥♥STUDIES♥♥♥ available for perusal which have looked into the issue of male preference for female body versus female face and how that preference might change depending on a man’s mating strategy. These studies, naturally, confirm CH hunches, as they almost always do, because it’s hard to be disproven by SCIENCE when you simply keep your eyes open to watch how the world works.
PS The Area Code Rating System is a handy method for efficiently categorizing your dates by their bangability and relationship worthiness. If you regularly hook up with 000s, might I suggest you lay off the absinthe?