Healthy Women “Prefer Feminine Men”


New research suggests women from healthier countries prefer feminine men whilst those in deathtrap nations incline towards manly men.

University of Aberdeen researchers studied some 4,500 heterosexual women from 30 countries, aged 16-40.


The women were presented with 20 pairs of male faces; each pair consisted of the same face, but subtly altered to look slightly more “masculine” in one picture, and slightly more feminine in another, by modifying dimorphic facial traits such as brow or jaw line.

Their preferences were then compared to the health care statistics of their respective countries.

Researchers say they found a pronounced correlation between levels of healthcare and a preference for effete men, with a nation considered to have the “best” healthcare, Sweden, having 68% of its women prefer men with more feminine faces.

In the US, 48% of women preferred masculine men. Japan did not feature in the results, not that anyone doubts the inclination of its womenfolk towards sissy men.

Meanwhile, in Brazil, with the worst healthcare on offer in the sample, only 45% of the women preferred feminine men.

One researcher explains her interpretation of the results:

“The results suggests that as health care improves, more masculine men fall out of favour.

That could be why feminine looking movie stars like Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom are popular now compared with the likes of Clark Gable and Sean Connery in the past.”

She touts healthcare and not culture as a key determinant of what is considered attractive in a given nation:

“We found that women from countries with poorer health, which have higher mortality and increased incidence of communicable disease, were more attracted to masculine faces than women living in countries with better health.

People used to think beauty was arbitrary and that different cultures have different preferences.

However our research shows that preferences may instead be explained by responses to different environmental factors like a low level of health in the population.”

Such a study immediately falls foul of the “correlation does not equal causation” statistical mantra so often left out of science reporting, but the researchers aren’t having any of it:

“These new findings really do seem to show that preferences for different types of men in different parts of the world are linked to cross-cultural differences in health.

The effect remained even when we controlled for lots of other factors, such as cross-cultural differences in wealth.”

The study in its entirety can be read here.

Leave a Comment


  • These studies are stupid. Their definition of what makes faces “feminine” makes no sense. Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom might have a their own look, but they are CLEARLY men. No one with eyes doubts that. And changing the brow line or the nose or size of the eyes doesn’t automatically make a face more masculine or feminine, it just means someone has a smaller or larger brow or nose or eyes. For example, maybe women prefer men with larger eyes? Why does it have to be automatically concluded that they prefer feminine men from that?

  • men have no balls nowadays! these skinny jean wearing faggots are kill me! listening to nickelback, fallout boys and watching twilight! no balls at all! They dont fight, or play sports, there only merit is how highly ranked they are in halo or call of duty! i really feel like a wolf among sheep, just becuz i can actually run more than a mile without passing out…its a fucking shame…

    if you where skinny jeans, makeup, watch or read twilight, cant run or do really physical labor, dont play real sports, perferably martial arts and your only source of competetion in life is on xbox live…ur a faggot! if ur gay…but dont qualify with the rest above…than ur more manly than xbox lozers here…

  • The real catch is in contraception. Women who are using contraception pills like more feminine man. Because they don’t need man for reproduction but for talk and social life, so they perfer man who is more like woman.

    So woman in Sweden eats more pills than in Brazil.

  • Since only photos were shown in their research can we also assume that the definition for feminine men is limited only to their facial features? I had thought it referred to primarily to the more profound ‘sensitive’ personality than physical appearance. Was it only inferred that a more boyish looking male is feminine as opposed to his personailty as well?

  • Old news. Similar studies find pregnant women, and women on the pill, prefer feminine men. Women not of the pill, and women ovulating, prefer masculine men. But as soon as they get pregnant or start up on birth control, their preferance shifts to feminine men.

  • Honestly, Sankaku likes to put a sensational spin on iffy science, but this is getting me pissed.

    1. The study doesn’t say healthy women prefer feminine faces, it says women who live in places where everyone’s healthy prefer feminine faces. There’s a difference. You can be healthy in a place where health care sucks. The hypothesis is that “manly” men have stronger immune systems which is a priority if everyone’s health sucks, while “feminine” men are more likely to stay faithful and raise children, a priority once you’ve got health covered.

    2. The sample stinks. 4500 women in 30 countries = 150 women per country. The New Zealand sample was 26 women; obviously imbalanced. Also, if you read the experiment, selected participants were ethnically white. WHITE! (This was so they could use the same experimental pictures of a white guy for all trials.) Also, no lesbians.

    3. Even ignoring that the last quote used in this article only indicates correlation, the scientists DO actually write, “we cannot rule out the possibility that other variables not considered in our study mediate the association between national health and women’s masculinity preferences.” Unmeasured variables include “prevalence of violent crime, women’s rights or wealth distribution.”

    Get it together, people.

  • as a fan of athletic girls i have known this for long time and it works for both men and women.

    in the Japanese idea of beauty the girl should be as physically weak as possible.

    in Brazil, the girls are really buff

    it also changes over time, until the 1990s buff girls where hot in the west also. Now wimpy is hot which has cleared out the gyms.

    I doubt if it is a health care issue. probably level of general risk

  • Lets see 4500 people would be something like 0.025% of New York Cities Population. So even if this test were of the preferences of New York City the sample size is abysmal.

    Factor in 30 countries, and assuming a balanced spread, and you have 150 people per country.

    So for the USA that would be 3 people per state.

    Even if the sample size was larger then the number of students at a small college then correlation does not imply causation… it just gestures furtively in that direction while mouthing “look that way”.

  • The research is wrong! I mean they even said it….

    “That could be why feminine looking movie stars like Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom are popular now compared with the likes of Clark Gable and Sean Connery in the past.”

    You see Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom is what’s “in” right now! The media controls what people like…. (Sometimes) It isn’t about health care at all…. It’s what ever is “in”. You see, just like in the past Clark Gable and Sean Connery was in the “in” of their time and so girls started to like those types of men…. Shitttt! I know you guys hear this before, “People are trying their hardest to look beautiful because of how the media presents itself.” It just tha media people…. Research has already been done…. Just use google…. This shit was a wasted of time reading….

  • Healthcare…? REEEEEEEEALLY? Come on, Asian chicks in general love girlier guys, but I don’t think we can say that China has better healthcare than some European countries. Try testing this around the world and not just the West, researchers.

    But yay for feminine men =D I would think that there might be a correlation with gender equality culture, since I think a lot of the appeal of feminine men for women is the idea of having a partner who’s an equal.

      • When going out for eating and women also have a job and deserve their cash,it is good that you go dutch so you shouldn’t be always paying fully for it alone.

        You think a man should be paying always for women dinners,even in todays economical times of equality where both have jobs?
        Then you are an effeminit man or a pussified mangina who doesn’t have a back when he needs one.
        And you will probably have more problems if you don’t learn how to properly have a spine for the good of both

        • Ah 9:56 anon, your idiocy is showing. The MAN is expected in western society of paying for the meal, it could be seen as more effeminate to go dutch. Still, being a ‘gentleman’ and picking up the gals tab is still expected of traditional MEN. Also remember theres a difference between having a spine and being dominant, which you imply.

  • Me: Actually, the 2nd researcher doesn’t say “Caused by”. they only says “Linked” which DOES equate to “correlation”

    The first researcher however is jumping to conclusions about causality.

    I would like to offer this possibility:
    Countries that prefer masculine men also spend a higher percentage on military. Countries that spend a lower proportion on military (Such as Sweden) are those that value feminine men. As a result those countries have better health care.

    The hidden variable causing both: Military spending.

  • More like women want men who are not butt fucking ugly.

    Seriously guys, body hair, fat, muscles, lack of personal hygiene, and other “manly” features are just not attractive. At all. Period.

    Fem boys FTW

    • You operate under the false assumption that a man with a manly face will look like Rambo, sleep in the jungle and be covered with hair like a monkey. Seriously how old are you?
      First feminine boys have hair also. Waxing the hair our of your ass doesn’t mean you don’t have any? A more manly face man could wax his hair also you know.
      Hygiene- Are you retarded? Do you think that just because a guy has a man face he will piss on trees take baths once a week and never brush his teeth? Hygiene has more to do if you grew up learning good manners and not being an asshole instead of how you look.
      Fat-Yes you are definitely retarded? Because obviously when you have a more manly face that pizza suddenly multiplies in calories. WTF being a fat guy has to do with anything. New flash, that fat guy may not look very feminine to you but that’s only because his fat.
      Muscles- Don’t ask me how that can coexist with being fat. So from when is having muscles a bad thing? Are you shitting me. Also to you realize that having some nicely shaped muscle’s on your body does not mean you will be like a body-builder? But the most funny thing is that it also has nothing to do with what type of face stature or style you have. It’s just your wrong assumption that whenever you see some ridiculously muscle man that he looks manly because you never payed any attention to his face structure. You where just looking at his body.

        • secret is they don’t preffer the looks,maybe at start,but you won’t keep a woman with looks only.It’s how these men are,they know what they want and include women in it also.Because men find themselfs very important and don’t give to everything a woman says,women love to give in to these men who have a spine when they care for them.
          Oh and maybe these uglier men are socially more advanced.

  • Does it say anywhere whether it was 4,500 women from each country or 4,500 women across the 30 countries. If it is 4,500 from each of the 30 countries I’d say that is a decent sample size, but with the age range and number of countries if it was 4,500 people total it would be a terrible sample size (~150 per country). I tried finding the article in the link but could only find a brief summary similar to what was posted here (the link went to the main site and not the specific article for me).

    • There’s a PDF of the entire study on the abstract page at the top.

      In short: their sample is rubbish. They had 2,500 Americans and the rest in insufficient sample sizes. Also their entire sample is apparently drawn from people who found their way onto their site, not in any way a structured sampling procedure it seems.

  • So if you have a beard don’t bother unless you live in Russia or Germany where the women have beards too? Why didn’t they include if the man has less underarm hair than she does question as well?

    • That’s kind of funny if you consider that Russian girls kick the ass of US females in terms of beauty.
      There are a lot less beard women in Russia that fat asses in the US. For that you can be certain my friend.

    • It’s natural to be attract to those that are similar to yourself in someway. Flip it around and think about how a lot of guys like girls that tomboyish or aggressively playful.
      The ideal that all women wet their panties over a manly-man is mostly a guy fantasy, and a mostly American one at that. Keyword here, all. A lot of women do, but there is just as many that men that aren’t brick faced and 200-pounds of muscular.

      • Yeah. I have a theory on that. Ever wonder how women can tolerate being prostitutes and sleep with every ugly fuck out there a lot easier than a man can? Or how they can ignore your ugly face if you have something else they want?
        That is because they can do sex and only see a dick completely ignoring the rest. For guys that is very hard. An ugly girl might have the same looking pussy as any pretty girl but we just can’t concentrate at only one point. We like the whole beautiful package.
        Also don’t you notice how women magazines still have women on there covers. If men magazines only had men in there covers they wouldn’t sell much. It’s like women prefer to see the image of a woman. But it could just be that they are egoistical and narcissistic about there own sex and that’s why they put women there. Who knows.

        • Sylar, they do it mostly cause the job pays well for almost no skills required, and they don’t even see a dick they see a John, a customer/problem to be handled and then moved past.
          Thier reason to have sex recreationaly is just as varied and bizzarre sometimes as any man. Your statement about sexual tunnel vision REEKS of personal opinion backed by not much research.
          As for the magazine jab, MEN are more likely to be stimulated by visuals then women, as recognized in scientific journals and the target audience of pornography, which is WHY they show hot women on the front covers. Factor in slightly different areas of interest and its easily explained why womens magazine covers differ thematically from mens

        • A theory holds that women respond to sexual cues whether they want sex or not as a form of protection from rape. Are primitive foremothers who produced enough vaginal lubrication during aggressive sex didn’t die from injury and lived to produce offspring.

  • Lack of or reduced media influence in developing countries could also explain the more traditional penchant for the biologically stronger male. With all those pretty boy examples you see in movies and music it’s hard to argue that there’s no influence from that.

    • Exactly!! You hit the nail on the head. A country with good health care is obviously an advance nation. So it’s obviously filled with media that advance that kind of stereotype.
      The mystery is, why are the media today so much in to the feminine looking men instead of the manly men?
      Also i notice that the pretty boy effect is more in to the minds of teenage girls instead of grown-up women.
      I bet the resold would have been a little different if the research was from 20-40 instead of 16-40.

      BTW i must admit this research made me look at the mirror and wonder what kind of face i have. Am a little shocked. I’m not certain in what category i fit.

  • Effeminate men are less threatening and tend to be easier to talk to, and that has nothing to do with my health care. I just find them more attractive because I find them to be less intimidating.

    • Japanese Butt Toucher says:

      That’s because they lack the muscle mass, angry scowl, a masculine voice and so forth. You’re right though. They’re easier to talk to because they are less threatening though that also makes them feel more like a brother then a lover.

  • And to think that Burt Reynolds used to be the hottest man alive (well, according to magazines and such).

    Prevailing standards of beauty seem to change over time and across cultures, but survey-based studies like these rarely seem to address such things. A philosophical exploration of aesthetics may be much more engaging than the take-a-fault-ridden-survey approach of self-professed “scientists.”

  • According to statics, 95% of statics and “studies” are false or manipulated.

    On other non-stadistic news:
    Well, to tell the truth, if we’re talking about fappable traps then I kind of agree but still, I’m sure the wallet has the final word.

  • Barbarian of Gor says:

    Don’t think it’s a “Disease” issue…
    Pretty obvious why:

    The ladies from the less “Law and order and enforced culture” countries naturally want big, strong men that can protect them.

    The ladies from the “Developed” world want to assert themselves and so want weaker men they don’t fear (subconsciously or not) overpowering them. And I mean weaker in more ways than one.

    • Ahh silly barbar, first you twist the meaning of the OP, which does say there’s an apparent link between health care QUALITY and ideal male features, into something about a “Disease”. This strawman you then proceed to slay in a single dismissal to then focus on the true threat, Grendal’s Moth…. FEMDOMS!

      The ladies from less “Developed” countries, which you claim are less imposing of enforced culture (Here’s a hint, thier not, see Al Queda’s enfocement of thier ways in area’s under thier control), some how naturally want (what’s this want stuff? fathers choose thier mates) big, strong men that can protect them (Male power fantasy much Mr. McGorean?). Security and “Za Muscles” are quite high on the list of things women want over there, but to claim they’re the only things that they want in a man is rather narrow-minded.

      Yet somehow, in developed countries woman (magically) start wanting to assert themselves over men (goddamn it, knew there was a reason we shouldn’t have invented mass production). If thier “natural” instinct was to find a big strong feller to protect them then they would do the same in the developed country, which they don’t so its not (which further renders your first claim moot).

      Finally you claim they now (magically) want men they aren’t afraid would overpower them (they didnt mind this in “less developed” nations mainly since this WAS HOW THINGS WERE). You then actually mangage to bring it back to the OP by insinuating that effeminate FACIAL features make men weaker mentally, phisicaly, or socially (they don’t).

      Basically, you come off as paranoid of females in general, vaguely Hard Gay, and suffering from delusions of Male Grandeur.

      • Barbarian of Gor says:

        That’s exactly the point I’ve been making, and riling people up doing it.

        The women want to be “Empowered” intellectually, but they really want the men to protect them, but the “Feminist” aspect is turning this into an insanity.

        So, in the “Developed” world we have most “Producing” men beset by a schizoid system of laws regarding marriage, relationships, divorce, etc. The women are “Protected” as if it was an earlier age, but more enforced, but then “Empowered” to become “Equal”. The forces behind this simply hate men, and wish to hurt and de-power the men, so they educate the women to hate, hurt and dominate men. The “50s Wife” is lower than a prostitute or porn star in their eyes.

        This schizoid assault on the male has destroyed some friends of mine. He jumps through all the hoops; Educated and with a good job, strong but not a brute, throws away all the Star Trek and Dungeons and Dragons stuff, leaves the seat down but the lid up, the cap on the toothpaste… The woman gets to “Feeling her wild oats” after the first or second kid drops, gets a job but for spending money and to see other people, then divorces and gets everything despite blatant cheating and neglect of the kids. Since the man actually loved her, it brings him to the ground. And it’s never a happy ending. Once the man’s money supply runs out, her “outlaw” she cheats on her and starts finding another “neurotic married woman” and the kids are so warped by their parents fighting any ‘reproductive advantage’ is bacterial at best.

        And, this is behind the population drop in the “Developed” countries. Enough men realize that if they marry a woman, they give them liberty and license to do that to them. And, even if they really love them, they can change in a few years. All that nonsense about how men “Feel their wild oats” and if not for fear of “Alimony” laws would just dump their woman and stick their dicks in another woman, well it applies double to women. Everyone goes through times where we’d break all our commitments if there was no consequence.

        What I’d be for is simply reversing a number of “Modern” laws. Make “Marriage = Consent”, Adultery something a man could legally kill over, legally bind the man to the woman he marries but give her little or nothing if she leaves except the ability to come back for a few years and no new marriage till then.

        The man has to have power, pride and be the driving force in the relationship. The reason so many men don’t marry now is that they’d have to be even more polite than at official gatherings and just be setting themselves up for ruin at the whim of the woman.

        If the “Modern women who want to destroy men” want to swear off men and go form a “Rug Muncher” commune, or have a “Cougar” lifestyle either thrilling very young men or letting ‘outlaws’ leech of them, fine by me. I just want to deprive these “Hyenas in Petticoats” the cultural destruction of teaching women to marry men to use them then destroy them. They’ll find themselves relatively alone for only the few truly ‘abused’ women will run away facing reasonable consequences.

      • cheese_cake says:

        well, when health care is more available, smaller, ie common, probs would be taken care the same as in the US. but free etc. bla bla bla.

        such procedures ur referring to would imo be more or rather for “repair” than “improve” general well-ness of health d: something that should theoretically be done less if everyone was taken care of.

        • >also pay a monthly premium for health coverage.

          The health care covers a subset of what I would considered as health coverage. You automatically have it when you are a Canadian landed immigrant/citizen and satisfy the residence requirements.

          Unfortunately, it does not cover eye care/dental care or prescription drugs and other things. These are the ones that you would need to pay for at work under a group plan or on your own.

          I believe people on welfare might qualify for some kind of basic drugs coverage (might not have coverage for the more expensive drugs).

        • cheese_cake says:

          b4 i continue, fyi i’m still a minor XD & not born in canada…

          1. if i recall correctly, the monthly thing u mentioned is for additional care. what additional care? cant really rmb but it’s quite important for the procedures u speak of.

 theoretics, if everyone is healthy because basic “everyday” heath-care are met easily, they dont need those specialized things u speak of. though oc u physically hurt urself etc.. then ya… but it would then be, imo, considered “repairing” or “restoring” actions because ur body cannot do it itself. ie requires serious aid.

          2-2. lets compare with another system i’m used with: Singapore. u catch a cold(sever), see a doctor, tada~ 70bucks gone (50 consultation, 20 for a bottle or 2 of meds). spore’s society is very split. ie some r, others v.poor. so the poor people who cant afford 70bucks (btw, big deal when income is considered) tend to not be as quick to consult a doctor. thus less healthy~

          compare that to canada, consul==free therefore when ill no matter what==consul therefore healthier.

          3. yes, other factors aside frm heath-care play bigger roles ito one’s health. i’d sum it up by saying countries w/ higher literacy lvls contain a medically healthier pop.

        • snakeofoctober says:

          The problem is that the type of specialization of these procedures does not exist in Canada. This is because these specialists go to places where their services will receive top dollar. A “free” or “universal” health care system is not the place where doctors get paid top dollar. Also, the idea of a “free” system is a bit of a misunderstanding. Taxes pay for it. From what I understand most Canadians pay not only about a large percentage of their income to taxes but also pay a monthly premium for health coverage. Where in the states I pay about 6% of my yearly income for great insurance and I don’t have to wait forever to see the doc. I really don’t understand the idea of supporting the lazy, who as it turns out have the shittiest health in the first place.

  • Healthy US women? I wouldn’t say that living in a country with better health care automatically makes a person healthy. Most of the women I know here in the US are very unhealthy.

    edit: Society also plays a heavy influence on what people would want in the opposite sex. If women see a lot of effeminate men on tv and in movies and magazines then they’re going to want effeminate men. When famous women begin going after a certain type of man then other women begin to go after the same type as well.

        • Bad Fonzer, your implying that (a) the quality will drop and (b) the quality will STAY dropped. If science teaches anything they/we can find ways. This also doesn’t mean that after the techniques are reasonably succesful that they’ll murderize all the men at once, they can always keep some as security. Hell, even if there were serious genetic/fertility problems, given that simple plan they would be minimized and eventually expunged (and I think you mean genetic problems not fertility).

        • “You do know that it is possible to make fertile eggs with two females right? modern science has deemed men obsolete.”

          And the quality will drop,who knows how much trouble will that make.
          In the end one modern science is risking too much towards extinction,even if it may not happen.There will be fertility problems.

        • Studies have magnificently demonstrated time and time again that:

          1) You cannot defy nature.
          2) You cannot defy nature forever.
          3) Defying nature continuously ensures that your species will disappear from the collective lifeform genepool.
          4) Even if not 3, your species may disappear from the collective lifeform genepool anyway.

          TL;DR Nature wins. Always.