Article: Women can tell a cheating man just by looking at them

[DJDamage]

http://news.yahoo.com/women-tell-cheating-man-just-looking-them-study-040117769.html

Women can tell with some accuracy whether an unfamiliar male is faithful simply by looking at his face, but men seem to lack the same ability when checking out women, according to an Australian study published on Wednesday.

In a paper that appeared in the journal Biology Letters, the researchers found that women tended to make that judgement based on how masculine-looking the man was.

"Women's ratings of unfaithfulness showed small-moderate, significant correlations with measures of actual infidelity," wrote the team, led by Gillian Rhodes at the ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders at the University of Western Australia in Perth.

"More masculine-looking men (were) rated as more probable to be unfaithful and having a sexual history of being more unfaithful."

Attractiveness was not a factor in the women making the link.

In the study, 34 men and 34 women were shown colour photographs of 189 Caucasian adult faces and asked to rate them for faithfulness.

The researchers compared their answers to the self-reported sexual histories of the 189 individuals and found that the women participants were better able to tell who was faithful and who was not.

"We provide the first evidence that faithfulness judgements, based solely on facial appearance, have a kernel of truth," they wrote in the paper.

Men, on the other hand, seemed to have no clue. They tended to perceive attractive, feminine women to be unfaithful, when there was no evidence that they were, the scientists noted.

Faithfulness is seen as important in the context of sexual relationships and mate choice, the scientists wrote in the paper. Men with unfaithful partners risk raising another man's child, while women with unfaithful partners risk losing some, or even all, parental and other resources to competitors.

 

[Burroughs]

this is easy

all women are capable of cheating...most men can't comprehend this

all men can cheat as well...but most are not charismatic enough to draw attention...women understand this exceptionally well

 

[Who Dares Win]

Also who said those self report from women were real?

Anyway I have to support the vision of Burrough again also in this thread.

 

[Robert28]

Ironic, I can spot a wh0re in about 5 mins of being around her.

 

[backbreaker]

lol one of the added benefits of being black. women can't read **** off me lol.

 

[The Duke]

lol one of the added benefits of being black. women can't read **** off me lol.

lol, the world truly is stacked against the white man

 

[Boilermaker]

Ironic, I can spot a wh0re in about 5 mins of being around her.

:crackup:

:crackup:

This made my day.

ahahaha

+1

Funniest comment of the week.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

"More masculine-looking men (were) rated as more probable to be unfaithful and having a sexual history of being more unfaithful."

This isn't surprising when you consider women's natural propensity to be more sexually aroused by 'masculine' cues when in the proliferative phase (just before ovulation) of their menstrual cycles.

It would stand to reason that these masculine features would become associated with their desire for, or engaging in infidelity during this phase. They know a cheater because they've been aroused by him often enough to know the type.

 

[Jitterbug]

"Women can tell a cheating man just by looking at them"

Game recognises Game.

 

[zekko]

The article should have given some actual percentages. It tells us practically nothing, only that women were better at guessing which men were unfaithful. I agree with this comment from the comment section:

"Not nearly enough info. If women "guessed" right on 2 of the 189 and men once, women were twice as accurate. But the 2 of 189 is not an indicator, it's luck...Should be a link to the full study."

Also, maybe women are just better at reading people in general. Or maybe women are just better at reading men than men are at reading women. I think this forum maintains that the average woman has more interactions with the opposite sex than the average man does. And you might also argue that men are more straightforward and easier to read than women.

Ironic, I can spot a wh0re in about 5 mins of being around her

I agree with this. If I can talk to a girl for a little while, or even better, observe her interactions with others for a bit, I can pretty much tell whether they are inclined to be sleazy or not.

I think this would be a great skill to have if I were inclined to be a womanizer. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?), I'm not attracted to slvtty women.

Also who said those self report from women were real?

Also a good point.

 

[DJDamage]

Men, on the other hand, seemed to have no clue. They tended to perceive attractive, feminine women to be unfaithful, when there was no evidence that they were, the scientists noted.

I believe that men tend to percieve attractive feminine women to be unfaithful because of the plethora of options that are available to them and since most men are by default betas they know the trouble's of keeping an 8 or a 9 around for long terms.

Now the flaw of the study is that when it comes to cheating men are active while women are passive in the role.

The actual act of cheating starts with the woman in a relationship signaling to the interloper male that she is available and attempts to branch swing through passive-aggressive behaviour while waiting for the interloper male to make the move to seal the deal. It is no wonder why cheating by women is under reported because somehow they rationalize to themselves that they lost interest in the EX and had to let him go in favour of the interloper male so they haven't really cheated. When in fact the actual cheating began when they put themselves at the position to be picked up.

 

[HalfAddict]

lol one of the added benefits of being black. women can't read **** off me lol.

Thats just because they already assume you are

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear DJ,
We rarely anticipate in others,that which we have not carefully considered ourselves.....Think about it!

 

[Firefly]

Ironic, I can spot a wh0re in about 5 mins of being around her.

I can spot a wh0re in about 5 minutes of being inside her.

 

[Skhumbuzo]

I can spot a wh0re in about 5 minutes of being inside her.

Like jumping in2 a swimming pool. a deep 1

 

[Warrior74]

34 women is not a large enough sample size to draw sweeping conclusions from the available data. Yah, I'm going to keep pointing that **** out until it sinks into people's heads.

 

[Boilermaker]

The referees of the journal of Biology Letters probably considered that when they allowed publication, brother, yah?

There are reliability/validity tests that these guys use to see whether there's statistically relevant information in their findings or not.

Sweeping or not; they have conclusions.

 

[Warrior74]

The referees of the journal of Biology Letters probably considered that when they allowed publication, brother, yah?

There are reliability/validity tests that these guys use to see whether there's statistically relevant information in their findings or not.

Sweeping or not; they have conclusions.

I reject that premise and I reject that sample size. There still can be localized deviations in their sample. This is becoming common practice, to take some small study and extrapolate generalized conclusions that later may turn out to be false. A larger sample size helps to correct that. Statistics 101 innit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination

 

[Robert28]

I can spot a wh0re in about 5 minutes of being inside her.

I have worked on my wh0re detecting skills and perfected them because I was always scared of being with a woman where I would have to strap a 2x4 to my ass to keep from falling in.

 

[BMX]

somehow I still attract lots of sluts...