Commonsense observations and the Golden Ratio, Phi, 1.618 have solved the riddle as to why certain heinous criminals are attractive to women
Golden Ratio, Phi, 1.618, and Fibonacci in Math
Precise mathematical ratios are hidden in all natural phenomena.
When the human face is analyzed it also reveals these same hidden rules which determine our power of attraction over the opposite sex. It is a powerful subconscious force that has it's roots deep in our DNA. To be an attractive possible choice for breeding we need to possess a high correlation to these hidden ratios.
The best ratios trigger the female breeding response.
This breeding response generally governs our behavior when it comes to deciding who is physically attractive. It is nine tenths of the mating iceberg hidden from view. The top ten percent of the iceberg is merely the rationalization of the human conscious mind regarding the endless dramas of attraction, fashion, and other "reasons" given for why we find someone attractive. The main concern of the breeding response is to produce healthy symmetrical physical bodies. As in the animal kingdom even things like parenting only play a very secondary role and are of no real consideration. The human face offers a direct summary of the symmetry and physical condition of the human body.
There are now many online sites that allow any of us to find out how our face, or anybody's face, correlates with these hidden ratios.
It may surprise the reader to know that evil Josef Fritzl has a very high correlation to the perfect face ratios normally reserved for the Brad Pitt's of the world. We may not see this with our conscious mind as our thoughts are colored by Fritzl's heinous acts. The effect of the Golden Ratio may be glimpsed in the above photo of Frtizl as a young man where he bears a striking resemblance to the actor Russell Crowe who is a renowned ladies man.
What I have observed (anthropologically) is that women become literally spellbound by great male wealth, success or good looks. It's as if an instinct takes over. Powerful biological forces emanating from the DNA seems to temporarily take away their rational ability.
It's like the "beer goggle" effect. Historically it was once called "animal magnetism".
Many females don't seem to be fully aware of it when it is happening.
Then later, sometimes years later, the penny drops and some of them (not all) build up a resentment to "instinctual seduction".
This is not about rape but "seduction", or powerful instinctual forces at work.
Josef Frtizl received hundreds of marriage proposals after his arrest and continues to have many females who support him and want to be sexually involved with him.
On the other hand Harvey Weinstein didn't receive any marriage proposals at all even though his crimes pale in comparison to Fritzl. In fact Weinstein's marriage immediately ended.
Perfect Face Ratios Determined by Maths.
The recent movement against sexual harrassment and violence towards women has paid no attention to Brad Pitt and have accepted his support for their cause. However Brad Pitt was subjected to child abuse accusations and allegations of physical brutality against Angelina Jolie. His career was not put on hold and the accusations of brutality to Angelina Jolie were never taken seriously by any woman. Brad Pitt has a very high 90% correlation to the Golden Ratio. Somehow females support Brad Pitt and tend to blame Angelina Jolie for "making things up". Any allegations made against Brad Pitt simply don't register with the general female population. His alleged misdemeanors are seen as inexplicably different to those being leveled against numerous other men in Hollywood.
All is forgiven without question as far as Brad Pitt goes.
There is a common theme of "low face ratio" men being in the firing line, but not the very "high face ratio" men.
However the low face ratio (only 40%) of Harvey Weinstein saw his career ruined immediately before any trial.
There are numerous other examples of this phenomena. Hugh Hefner for example made a living by seducing women with his fame and power. He also rates very highly on the face ratio scale. Nearly all of the Hollywood starlets who complained against Weinstein had posed nude for Hefner and freely admit that Hefner expected sexual favors in return for their career advancement and promotion. Hefner was even photographed pawing young women until he was quite elderly. Yet Hefner is an icon.
Jermey Meeks was in jail doing significant time for serious crimes such as violence against women. He had spent a total of 9 years behind bars. However none of this stopped his sudden rise to stardom. He has a 90% plus face ratio and was embraced by women world wide.
Charles Manson had a very high 82% golden face ratio and was therefore able to cultivate a fanatical harem of young women who were willing to follow him to hell.
The serial killer Ted Bundy was easily able to pick up women at will. His face ratio is in the high 80's. By triggering the female mating response he was able to lure women to their deaths.
The serial killer Peter Sutcliffe had a golden face ration of 80%. He maintained his female popularity and inspired loyalty in a devoted wife.
Golden Ratio Explanation
Once upon a time two devilishly handsome men tried to rob a bank in Stockholm. To everyone's surprise their female hostages began to support the two handsome bank robbers. The hostages began to feel that the bank robbers were just two misunderstood guys and that they were actually good crooks. The hostages helped the two bank robbers and they all lived happily ever after.
Today if we study the golden ratio we can easily see that the handsome bank robbers possessed a very high 80% plus golden face ratio. The act of being in bondage to two handsome criminals triggered the female sexual response.
If the two crooks had a low face ratio they would in all likelihood have been shot and killed.
Just as in the animal kingdom, the females choose the best physical specimens. The subconscious desire to breed has been sublimated by our conscious rationalizations that somebody is a good person or a bad person.
Likewise in the animal kingdom, inferior specimens are rejected or killed.
The famous "women's intuition" may be no more than a subconscious breeding preference.
Tony on February 10, 2020:
"the golden ratio"?
According to who?
What about the rest of creation?
The moon , the stars, and the sun?
All creatures, great and small?
and "skies of coupled-colour, like a brinded cow"?
Outside of a rectangle and Brad Pitt, that is.
I have to wonder about the proportionate scale of your
eyes and heart dimensions, as being indicative of
the relative perception of the pied beauty in the universe.
Tony on February 03, 2020:
Are you seriously suggesting that in the majority of the world's population of 7.8 billion people, physical attraction is about maths?
Natives of New Guinea, Aboriginal People of Australia, the Amazon, Africa, Europe, Russia, China, Scandinavia, America, etc., etc., are all human beings.
Maybe that has something to do with it.
All human beings have a heart.
Human beings love each other and animals, and animals love each other and human beings, as well.
I, for one, am not attracted to Brad Pitt or Fritzel or Russell Crowe, whereas some males might be.
I expect that some human beings might also be repelled rather than attracted by these people.
In any case, you haven't indicated how this perfect ratio applies to females or to animal faces and corresponding attraction to each other, or cross attraction for that matter.
Does (1 + √5/2, approximately equal to 1.618), a supposedly perfect ratio, apply to the attractiveness of everything in the entire creation?
Phidias? Who? What? Pie? Phi?
Just because you read it somewhere, doesn't make it true.
And it doesn't explain anything.
Tony on February 03, 2020:
So how does maths explain love at first sight, if love is a different topic.
I think you are confused.
That's the same confusion and contradiction you demonstrate in your claims of religious tolerance and equality, when in fact all religions claim mutual exclusiveness, and express violent intolerance.
In fact, some well known "religions" promote and propagate "love" of hatred, expressed with the infliction of pain, suffering, and death.
I think you have a problem with distinguishing between liking things for aesthetic or selfish pleasures, and the feeling of love that comes from the heart.
As you suggest, love is transcendent.
Your intolerance to criticism is expressed as a claim to openness, and an inability or unwillingness to differentiate between the words "god", "religion", and "love".
You are not alone in your confusion.
The many articles on hubpages on Atheism, Agnosticism, and "religion" generally, are a testimony to that confusion.
Atheists express their confusion in claiming the disbelief in a
"religious" god which can't be defined.
In other words, they don't believe in their own stupid concepts, and are adamant about it.
As I said on another post:-
"In this life, it's what you know that counts, not what you believe or don't believe."
Stick to the art and music, and try to recognise true love and friendship.
Pride is the devil's playground.
Andrew Petrou (author) from Brisbane on February 03, 2020:
I'm open to criticism of course. However I forgot to point out it doesn't have to be about math but in the majority of cases it is. It explains nearly everything like love at first sight, the Stockholm syndrome, why Hefner is an icon and Weinstein a devil, why women supported Hitler etc etc.
Actual Love is a different topic but basically it transcends superficial appearances
Tony on February 02, 2020:
You could be the only human on Earth who thinks that love has something to do with Arithmetic.
Maybe love could be put into a mathematical equation.
Then everyone could use the formula and get to Heaven with nothing more than a Master of Divinity, from an accredited School of Mathematics.
Graduates could then become Counting Monks and write up some scriptures.
"Enlightenment for Dummies"?
"Love made Easy".
"Love....It All Adds Up"
"I'm Counting On Love."
"Love. It's All Greek To Me."
So many possibilities!
Tony on January 31, 2020:
Andrew, you are a great artist, your articles are excellently presented with well written text, graphics and photos, and you are an even greater musician.
So where did it all go so wrong?