https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-13812-3

I’ve found a somewhat interesting study that somewhat confirms previous research that what women say they are attracted to, may not be what actually arouses them in reality. Which not only gives credit to the classic Redpill saying “watch what women do, not what they say”, but it also might explain why men don’t always take women’s words seriously when it comes to their supposed preferences.

But the most interesting part about this study in my opinion is that, it gives ammunition to both Redpillers and Bluepillers in different ways. On the one hand, it supports several Redpill theories on women’s stated preferences vs. their revealed preferences. But on the other hand, it suggests that facial rating alone may not mean all that much. Which brings into question how much the infamous “80/20 study” actually even matters in terms of physical attraction in the first place. Which does at least lend some support to classic bluepill arguments (that face ratings from women don’t really matter anyways) I guess.

One other interesting wrinkle within the study is that, higher testosterone in men was linked to greater pupil dilation in women. And then said dilation was successfully linked to sexual arousal within the women. Meaning that, regardless of how women ranked the faces in terms of attractiveness, it was the faces of the men with the highest testosterone levels that actually aroused the women the most. (At least in terms of physiological signs of arousal.)

Which could be significant, because it would support classic evolutionary arguments for sexual selection based on biological factors rather than societal or cultural factors. (Sorry bluepillers..). But then again, it does seems like in Study 2, they might have had trouble recreating the link between dilation and testosterone… So maybe there’s still some hope for you if you’re a bluepiller after all I suppose…(I’m not sure on this part tho. This particular detail is worded very vaguely within the study.)

So who knows what this study means in the bigger scheme of things. Maybe it’s simply too ambiguous to make any absolute judgements based on. But still, I thought it was pretty interesting and I don’t think I’ve seen it posted here before. Feel free to give your take on it I guess.