Advertisements
Image

Where Would Men Look At A Woman To Show They Like Her – Study Reveals

Karen Fratti
Apparently, if someone is looking at this part of your body, they don’t like you THAT way© klublu/Shutterstock Apparently, if someone is looking at this part of your body, they don’t like you THAT way  

There’s apparently a very simple way to tell if someone is into you or not, according to a new study. Researchers at Wellesley College and the University of Kansas did a joint study and found that if a man looks at a woman’s face, they don’t like a woman in a romantic way. When they looked at the chest or hip region, that meant they had hearts in their eyes. And you thought eye contact was the most important thing! The research was intended to figure out how to tell if someone thought a person was “attractive,” so if someone is looking at your face, they might still like you. Just possibly not in a sexual way.

The study gathered 105 heterosexual undergraduate students for subjects and asked them to look at photos of men and women and to answer whether they wanted to be buddies or date a person. The researchers then tracked their eye movements. While the study was peer-reviewed, it’s important to remember that it only looked at heterosexuals college students.

But it certainly is something to think about. The researchers noted that the men looking at a woman’s chest and hips are actually in line with past research that found that men tend to consider a woman’s reproductive abilities when choosing a mate. It’s apparent evolution. It still feels gross, though.

Moreover, the study shows that it really depends on what you’re already looking for in a relationship. Men, across the board, looked at the chest and hips whether or not they were looking for love. Meanwhile, women looked at the head but looked at it longer if they were considering just being friends with a man. They also checked out legs and feet when they just had pure thoughts about a person.

“Research on attraction tends to assume there is a fixed set of characteristics that make a person desirable. This new study shows that what people look for in a prospective relationship partner depends on their relational goals. The same person who makes a highly desirable friend may not make a good mate,” Angela Bahns, the study’s co-author and an assistant professor of psychology at Wellesley, wrote in a statement.

But don’t be totally offended if your crush is checking out your feet or ear lobes and not your chest. Maybe they’re just highly evolved and know that female partners aren’t just for mating.   (Hello Giggles)

http://www.twitter.com/RNNetwork1

Continue reading

Advertisements
Image

The Disturbing Reason Women’s Clothing Historically Never Had Pockets |RN

Danica pockets2                              © Getty pockets2  

Friend: ‘I love your dress!’

Me: ‘Oh, thanks! It’s got POCKETS’

Women globally: *shriek with excitement*

If there is one thing women can communally agree on, it’s that we love pockets. We cannot get enough of them. Literally. We can’t, and don’t, get enough of them.

It’s not news to any of us that still, in 2017, women’s clothing either completely lacks the potential for a pouch or, even worse, has COUNTERFEIT POCKETS that inspire a millisecond of hope before crushing your dreams when you realise it only has a depth of two centimetres.

But historically, women have always been deprived of pockets. And the reason why is disturbing.

In a piece on Racked, journalist Chelsea Summers puts it most simply when she writes, “the fewer women could carry, the less freedom they had”.

Think about that for a second.

Before the seventeenth century, both men and women’s clothing wasn’t conducive to pockets, and both genders would have to add purses or bags to their attire. But towards the eighteenth century, men’s clothing all of a sudden got pockets. Women, of course, were left behind.

“Take away pockets happily hidden under garments,” writes Summers, “and you limit women’s ability to navigate public spaces, to carry seditious (or merely amorous) writing, or to travel unaccompanied”.

In the mid to late 1800s, as women were fighting for liberation, pockets were introduced to clothing. Pockets represented independence – as did the pants women started to wear. Post war, however, pockets went out of fashion, in an effort to make women’s silhouettes ‘thinner’ and more feminine, whatever that means.

Throughout history, women have had a complex relationship with pockets. Even now, countless articles have been written lamenting the fact that women’s clothes rarely have pockets large enough to fit an iPhone – a piece of property almost every person needs to carry.

No pockets also mean women need to invest in clutches and handbags – a strategy that earns the fashion industry more and more money.

So when you do find that dress or skirt or pants that have excellent pockets, be reminded there’s something inherently political about them. Ladies – our obsession with pockets could not be more warranted.  (Mamamia)

http://www.twitter.com/RNNetwork1

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: