Skip to main content

Forget the square jaw, rugged complexion and tough-guy macho attitude -- what women really want is a man with full lips and feminine features, according to a British study published on Wednesday.

The findings add to previous research about masculinity and offer further insight into what people look for in others when choosing potential partners, said evolutionary psychologist Lynda Boothroyd, who led the study.

"What I've shown is that when people look at masculine faces they see them as being associated with dominance -- which is a good thing in evolution but less good as a long-term partner," she said in a telephone interview.

Story continues below advertisement

In the study, published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, the researchers asked more than 400 British men and women to judge digitally altered pictures of male faces made to look more masculine or feminine.

The participants were then asked to predict personality traits such as dominance, ambition, wealth and whether a person would be faithful or make a good parent, said Dr. Boothroyd, a researcher at Durham University.

But it wasn't the macho men who came out ahead. The study showed these masculine types with larger noses, smaller eyes and thicker eyebrows were viewed as less faithful and worse parents.

Instead it was the "feminine" faces with wide eyes, finer features and thinner, more curved eyebrows that were chosen as the best potential long-term mates, Dr. Boothroyd said.

And faces that also appeared healthier -- like those with better complexion -- were also seen as more desirable in all personality traits. This helps to counter claims that masculinity is best viewed as an indicator of genetic fitness and immunity to disease, Dr. Boothroyd said.

"Here what I'm showing is healthiness is really positive and masculinity isn't," Dr. Boothroyd said. "We shouldn't be thinking about masculinity in terms of health, which is a totally different thing in women's minds, but in terms of social dominance."

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies