This post is also available in: Deutsch
A slew of eye-tracking heatmaps reveal some very interesting sex differences in subconscious desire, (as well as revealing optimum product positioning, which come to think of it is related to the former).
In the above map we see that men’s gazes focused on the woman’s face and body (and less so on the surrounding details). Women were more interested in the photo’s context, but they didn’t gaze any less at the model’s face and body. (It even looks like women spent *more* time checking out their competition.) Conclusion: Women objectify women as much as men do.
Similar results here. Women aren’t blind to other women’s beauty. Or their shoes. (Men, as per cultural stereotype, don’t give a shit about a hot babe’s choice of footwear.)
Here are two online dating profiles. The left profile is female, the right male. Eye tracking shows that men and women viewers gaze for a long time at the female profile’s face. The male profile photo, in contrast, hardly gets any attention, from either sex! More attention is paid to his background information, aka his story and his identity.
Eye gaze experiments provide strong evidence that a woman’s sexual market value is primarily a function of her looks, while a man’s SMV is multivariate. Women’s attraction triggers are holistic. Women will subconsciously measure and judge a host of personality, psychological, and contextual characteristics of a man before their arousal has solidified into conscious desire.
Because I know it drives certain spergalicious Rainmen crazy, once more with the slash of the shiv:
Maxim #5: A man’s looks don’t matter as much to women as a woman’s looks matter to men.
Men who grasp the innate truth of the above maxim will do better with women than men who give up all hope because they are sad their jawlines are 0.1 micrometers too narrow.
Taking bets now on how many bitter quasimodos and Tinder sluts with poor reading comprehension show up here to ragefroth after ignoring the part that says “as much”.