Does the duckface actually 'work'?

First off, let me say that I have a severe case of performance anxiety thanks to Gongaa and Vulash.




Regarding the relative attractiveness of the duckface, I think the data from that study is necessarily skewed. It's from an online dating site. People go there to look for someone to sleep with. I'm with Vulash in thinking that the duckface is found "attractive" by men who are looking for an easy woman. Whether or not they think it's attractive like "Wow, she's hot" or attractive like "Wow, a cheeseburger for $0.99" I can't say. I'm also with Vulash in automatically dropping them down a couple hundred slots in the "People I Might Actually Talk To For More Than Five Minutes" list (and similarly raising them a couple hundred slots in the "People I'd Like To Bitchslap For No Reason" list), but then again, I do the same thing for people with poor grammar or terrible spelling.

The website's data supports this theory of duckface = easy. Yes, women who make the duckface and look into the camera get the most messages from new people per month on this particular dating site, and the "MySpace shot" gets about twice as much. But the chance of any particular message from a new contact turning into a conversation ("conversation" based on the number of messages sent back and forth) was ~20% for the "MySpace shot" compared to 40% for pictures depicting the person doing something interesting ("interesting" meaning scuba diving or playing the guitar, perverts).

I'm sure Verileah and a few others know my stance on "biological imperatives" and the role they play in dictating our actions. My opinion, based on the 0 years of formal education I have had in biology, sociology, and psychology, is that nearly everything we do is goal-oriented with a focus on continuation of the species. So, I look at things like this from an evolutionary standpoint. Women bear and nurture our offspring, men provide food and protection. Obviously, in today's culture, the lines are dramatically blurred, but humans have been around for millions of years. This was not always the case. It's only been the case for a couple thousand years.

So, I think from a genetic standpoint - or maybe it's cultural; I really don't know, but I'm guessing genetic - women are predisposed to an attraction to physically fit men. They are healthy, so their genes would provide good material for offspring. They are strong, so they are able to provide protection from sabertooth tigers and shit. And they are at least somewhat motivated, because six-pack abs don't just happen on their own. A strong, healthy man, who is willing to work for what he wants? Nothing wrong with being attracted to that. And from a purely cultural standpoint, we are conditioned to find those men attractive. During the renaissance, the cultural ideal for physical beauty was plump and pale. But I surmise that even back then, women were getting all hot and bothered over the strong, tanned servants.

The same ideas can be applied to women and cleavage shots. The theory is that breasts represent nourishment for your offspring (and probably some form of memory of their own infancy). And, again, perhaps this is also a mainly cultural thing. I don't know if there are any cultures where men in general are not attracted to women's breasts. Perhaps in those tribal cultures where everyone walks around topless, but I think that can be compared to the difference between the 1800s and women's ankles and the 2000s and women's ankles. If we see an ankle now, big deal. That doesn't mean men don't find women's legs unattractive; it just means we are somewhat desensitized to it.

So, when Verileah says "I think the nature of cleavage is very different than the nature of the ab shot", I tend to disagree. I think any difference is circumstantial in that men have to actively remove parts of their clothing to display their abs, where in today's society, women's cleavage can be on display 24/7. I also disagree, because whereas a man showing off his abs is displaying something he accomplished through hard work, a woman showing off her cleavage is displaying something she accomplished through surgery, or was simply born with. I still think the guy is a douchebag, but that doesn't mean I think the girl is entirely innocent, either. "The abs shot is more 'look at me, I work out, and I have these magnificent abs to offer'." The cleavage shot is "look at me, I was blessed with genes that randomly came together to form these attractive breasts, sort of like I won the genetic lottery." No wonder girls have so many complexes about their bodies.

Obviously, most or none of this applies to homosexuals or others who deviate from sexual norms for whatever reason. I can get into my amateur theories on that, if you're interested, but I thought it was outside the scope of this thread, being outside the scope of the research the thread is based on. And in case you're wondering, no, I don't have anything negative to say there. You're certainly welcome to your own opinion and all, but one of my close family members is homosexual, and if you happen to say anything negative to ME about their sexual orientation, I'll break your face. ;) That being said, if you catch me using "gay" or other terms as a perjorative... well, we can get into that, too, if you wish. I've got all kinds of things to say about all kinds of subjects.

About that "classic blunder"... does it work? Do Wonder Bras work? Of course it works! Even when you know what you're looking at is not the real thing. It serves the purpose of generating interest, therefore, it works. Still... douchebag.

I think I said everything I was planning on saying. It's been a few hours though, so I might have forgotten some stuff.


Oh, PS: that girl has a shuttlecock in her hair. Clever.

First off, let me say that I have a severe case of performance anxiety thanks to Gongaa and Vulash.




Regarding the relative attractiveness of the duckface, I think the data from that study is necessarily skewed. It's from an online dating site. People go there to look for someone to sleep with. I'm with Vulash in thinking that the duckface is found "attractive" by men who are looking for an easy woman. Whether or not they think it's attractive like "Wow, she's hot" or attractive like "Wow, a cheeseburger for $0.99" I can't say. I'm also with Vulash in automatically dropping them down a couple hundred slots in the "People I Might Actually Talk To For More Than Five Minutes" list (and similarly raising them a couple hundred slots in the "People I'd Like To Bitchslap For No Reason" list), but then again, I do the same thing for people with poor grammar or terrible spelling.

The website's data supports this theory of duckface = easy. Yes, women who make the duckface and look into the camera get the most messages from new people per month on this particular dating site, and the "MySpace shot" gets about twice as much. But the chance of any particular message from a new contact turning into a conversation ("conversation" based on the number of messages sent back and forth) was ~20% for the "MySpace shot" compared to 40% for pictures depicting the person doing something interesting ("interesting" meaning scuba diving or playing the guitar, perverts).

I'm sure Verileah and a few others know my stance on "biological imperatives" and the role they play in dictating our actions. My opinion, based on the 0 years of formal education I have had in biology, sociology, and psychology, is that nearly everything we do is goal-oriented with a focus on continuation of the species. So, I look at things like this from an evolutionary standpoint. Women bear and nurture our offspring, men provide food and protection. Obviously, in today's culture, the lines are dramatically blurred, but humans have been around for millions of years. This was not always the case. It's only been the case for a couple thousand years.

So, I think from a genetic standpoint - or maybe it's cultural; I really don't know, but I'm guessing genetic - women are predisposed to an attraction to physically fit men. They are healthy, so their genes would provide good material for offspring. They are strong, so they are able to provide protection from sabertooth tigers and shit. And they are at least somewhat motivated, because six-pack abs don't just happen on their own. A strong, healthy man, who is willing to work for what he wants? Nothing wrong with being attracted to that. And from a purely cultural standpoint, we are conditioned to find those men attractive. During the renaissance, the cultural ideal for physical beauty was plump and pale. But I surmise that even back then, women were getting all hot and bothered over the strong, tanned servants.

The same ideas can be applied to women and cleavage shots. The theory is that breasts represent nourishment for your offspring (and probably some form of memory of their own infancy). And, again, perhaps this is also a mainly cultural thing. I don't know if there are any cultures where men in general are not attracted to women's breasts. Perhaps in those tribal cultures where everyone walks around topless, but I think that can be compared to the difference between the 1800s and women's ankles and the 2000s and women's ankles. If we see an ankle now, big deal. That doesn't mean men don't find women's legs unattractive; it just means we are somewhat desensitized to it.

So, when Verileah says "I think the nature of cleavage is very different than the nature of the ab shot", I tend to disagree. I think any difference is circumstantial in that men have to actively remove parts of their clothing to display their abs, where in today's society, women's cleavage can be on display 24/7. I also disagree, because whereas a man showing off his abs is displaying something he accomplished through hard work, a woman showing off her cleavage is displaying something she accomplished through surgery, or was simply born with. I still think the guy is a douchebag, but that doesn't mean I think the girl is entirely innocent, either. "The abs shot is more 'look at me, I work out, and I have these magnificent abs to offer'." The cleavage shot is "look at me, I was blessed with genes that randomly came together to form these attractive breasts, sort of like I won the genetic lottery." No wonder girls have so many complexes about their bodies.

Obviously, most or none of this applies to homosexuals or others who deviate from sexual norms for whatever reason. I can get into my amateur theories on that, if you're interested, but I thought it was outside the scope of this thread, being outside the scope of the research the thread is based on. And in case you're wondering, no, I don't have anything negative to say there. You're certainly welcome to your own opinion and all, but one of my close family members is homosexual, and if you happen to say anything negative to ME about their sexual orientation, I'll break your face. ;) That being said, if you catch me using "gay" or other terms as a perjorative... well, we can get into that, too, if you wish. I've got all kinds of things to say about all kinds of subjects.

About that "classic blunder"... does it work? Do Wonder Bras work? Of course it works! Even when you know what you're looking at is not the real thing. It serves the purpose of generating interest, therefore, it works. Still... douchebag.

I think I said everything I was planning on saying. It's been a few hours though, so I might have forgotten some stuff.


Oh, PS: that girl has a shuttlecock in her hair. Clever.

"Easy" to me implies submissive, it implies "prey". It implies a woman who is easy talked into sex on a man's terms, into doing whatever the man wants to do. I think at least some of these women making that face and putting it up on the internet are actively trying to get sex, on their terms, and it's the guys who respond to them that are "easy" for falling for a dumb photo

Or "easy" is synonymous with "likes to fuck"

Easy to a guy means easy to sleep with - doesn't matter who's terms.

Am I right about the implication that it's easy sex without much in the way of discrimination as far as partners? And that is where the negative connotations lie? *thinks* Maybe there is the implication, with the word 'easy', that she'll sleep with all comers (hi pun!), and plenty of men would prefer someone who radiates monogamy and fidelity? Now we're back to biological imperatives - the idea that a man has to be sure that the woman is only sleeping with him, so he doesn't get screwed (*cough*) out of propagating his line.

So maybe with modern birth control that way of thinking is outdated.

I claim that I'm easy all the time, and all I mean by that is that I'll be happy with whatever restaurant you pick . So maybe because I use that term when I mean to say "I'm passive, I don't want to make choices or take actions, do what you want", I tend to apply it to other situations.

*IRONYEXPLOSION*