This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Why does it always say that being thin is "judged as being attractive in Western culture". Is there ANY culture in the world where obesity is considered attractive? If no one defends this I'm going to go ahead and be bold by removing the POV dogshit. 76.223.237.10 16:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe there should be pictures in this article at all. To put a picture'in an article about physical attractiveness is POV. I say someone is attractive, you do not. You say someone is, I agree, someone else does not. Just because the person in the picture may meet statistical evidence of what some polled people consider attractive does not mean that person is attractive. So I propose we remove all pictures. i said 04:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- sorry to butt in, but all the pictures are of white people. I think that if pictures are necessary, it might be better if they represented more types of people. 24.74.141.22 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"Hardly. It's featured on her page, glamour photography, beauty, and physical attractiveness. " See anything wrong here?! Its so wrong to promote modelism as beauty, and to promote any living model. I say go for something.. tastefull, historic. Something that actually shows what the text says about the picture, and illustrates. - Alex
I personally think the picture of Michelle Merkin on this page is really ugly. How many agree with me? I know it's impossible to find a consensus here but I think that pic is so ugly that it makes the whole page look almost like a joke. Cazort ( talk) 01:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure "adiposity" is even a word, but I believe that (straight) males are biased toward females with flat tummies, to avoid hooking up with a pregnant mate, and thus supporting someone else's genes. Pretty sure there is a reference or two to be found for this. Am guessing this would fit in the "Proportion of Body Mass" section.
Went looking for references and found this, which points out that the pregnant female form was considered an "ideal of beauty" at some times in some places, to the extent that there was a brief fashion of women padding their abdomens...
For now, given that complication, I'll just leave this as a note on the discussion page. __ Just plain Bill 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to keep the photos of models, can we also have some pictures of ugly people, in order to illustrate physical features that studies have shown people find repellent?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The image of Michele Merkin has a POV description, the image itself is clearly retouched and a photoshopped composite, so we'll need a decent source identifying that this individual is considered an archetype of Western ideas of physical attractiveness before it goes back in. Guy ( Help!) 14:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Children are by definition beautiful. And since many people (pedophiles) are atracted to them in a physical way, shouldn't be at least one picture of a child? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.73.179.226 ( talk) 07:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Physical_attractiveness#Waist-hip_ratio i don't think this image really meets the article's criteria, but to some she might be beautiful. Just.. Not me. 72.77.93.122 ( talk) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser, I will reiterate what I said in my edit summary. The focus of men and women's eyes during the viewing of sexual activity is far from a "Social effect of attractiveness". Take a look at the rest of that section. It is also not relevant to physical attractiveness in general. Try human sexuality, sexual intercourse, human sexual behavior, sexual stimulation, or even pornography.-- Loodog ( talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
So what is your point? "Outward physical attractiveness"? How the male and female form is perceived has nothing to do with physical attractiveness? That's patently false. Why must this offending paragraph be removed, because all I see is "I think it does not belong" without a serious or believable explanation. --
Cheeser1 (
talk) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Both of you have brought up some valid points. However, from what that information is particularly dealing with, I agree with Loodog that it is better suited in the Sexual arousal, Erotica, or Sexual stimulation article. It most definitely would be better placed in one of those articles than here. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Motion for the material under discussion to be removed from this page as per above arguments.-- Loodog ( talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I usually have a significant portion to say in debates, but after reading everything you two have stated about this matter, I really don't have too much more to state concerning this...except that I still agree with Loodog about the above debated text being better off not here. I honestly don't have much more to say on this matter than that. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I request indepedent comment in resolving the above content dispute.-- Loodog ( talk) !!time=23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The two longest sections of this article detail the parts of the body that are considered attractive, and how. Which parts are the object of interest, when someone is attracted to (or aroused by, or judging the attractiveness of) another, is of clear and obvious relevance. What's the problem, is there not enough paper to fit this whole article onto? -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I couldn't participate earlier in the debate and I'm sorry I didn't read the entire thread, however I got the main point of this discussion. I, as the author of the material under dispute, agree with both Loodog and Cheeser1, since both opinions make sense: on one hand, information I provided maybe does have too much information on human sexual behavior and sexuality than on mere physical attractiveness, but on the other hand the article does describe parts of human body that are generally considered to be attractive, hence beautiful and sexy. What I provided was information on how men and women react on different erotic images and what they find more attractive. "The results illustrated that women were more attracted to sexual acts in the first place and men would paid attention to faces" - last sentence of my excerpt concludes on what both sexes are more attracted to, physically. Well, this is a tough one... As far as I understood Cheeser1 was more angry with the fact that the information was deleted without any notice and based on one single opinion of Loodog than with the fact that it doesn't belong in this particular article. What are the options? We either move this information to human sexuality, where it might be also deleted, because it would be considered to be more relevant to physical attractiveness, where parts of the body are described that men and women are attracted to or we leave it here in the newly created section. I think we should leave it here, because the piece of information is really very, very controversial and it might fit dozens of other articles, as erotic images, for example, human sexuality, sexual behavior and so on. -- Siliconov ( talk) 13:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Outside opinion: There seems to be a compromise on the table that everyone can agree with. I agree that it's a good alternative. For any possible future disputes, I hope everyone can keep this one in mind and avoid edit warring and assumptions of bad faith, as such things unbecoming of an editor and may next time result in blocks. Lara ❤ Love 16:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think everyone involved here needs to step back and take a deep breath. Oh, and remember that one should do onto others as they would have done onto themselves. -- Shark face 217 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The page states, "Since a woman's reproductive value declines steadily with age after twenty" which is factually incorrect. Human females are most fecund in their mid to late 20s. Most hunter-gatherer women (which we were for most of our human history) don't have their menarches until their late teens, early 20s due to the low level of fat in their environments. Infertility and the probability of miscarriage are increased in both the young and the old. Because of this, most non-human primates disdain nulliparous females. Adolescent females often have to badger the more mature males into sex. Females who have already had an infant are much preferred for sexual partners in most mammal species. The human preference for young females is a bit of an evolutionary puzzle based on when peak fertility occurs in human females. Based on comparisons with Hamadryas baboons, the selection for youth in humans is probably due to an attempt to minimize the costs of female choice and/or a method of bonding completely to one female with the hope of remaining with her and producing all of her offspring.
I can give you as many cites as you want on this topic, including information from Evolutionary Biologists who study this subject. If you are interested in learning more about it, I suggest Mother Nature by Sarah Hrdy. 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of this article seems to be highly POV:
“ | Large breasts have also been shown to be attractive to men in Western societies, with the explanation that larger breasts will more explicitly show the aging process, hence an "honest" indicator of fertility | ” |
“ | Women seem more receptive to an erect posture than men, though both prefer it as an element of beauty; this fact appears correlated to the preference for males who demonstrate confidence, physical strength, and a powerful bearing. | ” |
Also this seems to be written mainly from the POV of a heterosexual, and does not comment on what male or female homosexuals find attractive. NanohaA'sYuri Talk, My master 02:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Not much more to say... Equazcion •✗/ C • 14:37, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed there has been desire to remove the lead image again. Please read the above discussion. This picture is not to be taken as the ideal in Western beauty, but rather to provide an example of several features described in the article. The caption below the image says this. The features in the article are said to be attractive are confirmed through multiple sources on the page.-- Loodog ( talk) 16:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Any picture included to illustrate a feature with regard to its supposed attractiveness must be accompanied by a citation from a reliable, written source in which the attractiveness of that feature is discussed with specific reference to the person featured. In other words, if discussing standards by which eyes are judged to be attractive, a picture of an actress with supposedly attractive eyes cannot be used for illustrative purposes unless a reliable source remarks on the particular attractiveness of that actress' eyes. Anything less is original research, since determining whether someone or some feature is attractive involves an inherently subjective judgment. Nick Graves ( talk) 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes no sense, to have removed all of this article's images. Yes, I've read the newest picture discussion regarding this article above, and I certainly do not agree that no images should be used. What are we afraid of, offending someone? Just because beauty is supposedly subjective does not mean that this article should be without pictures. It should not be that difficult to have pictures to represent what is typically thought of as physically attractive among humans in the West, the non-West, and a few other cultures. We may not represent all considered types of beauty, but that still does not mean that this article should be absent of pictures. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me for starting a new section, but I'm communicating via the PlayStation 3 at this very moment, which doesn't allow me as much editing freedom.
Anyway, one could say it's subjective to include a few of those pictures that are currently in the Beauty article. However, I don't feel that it's subjective at all to use a picture of a supermodel, like the Beauty article does, which is of someone who has been cited as physically attractive numerous times over. It's not even difficult to judge what is typically thought of as physically attractive in the West. Just look at how many times Brad Pitt has been and still is cited as physically attractive.
Anyway, I can't really have this discussion right now. I'll respond further in a few days, when I actually have the freedom to talk without being restricted to this gaming console. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What, none of the images in this article were backed up with valid references showing that the people featured are thought of as physically attractive? Even, if that was the case, there had to be sources in those subjects' individual articles that point their perceived physical attractiveness.
Brad Pitt? There are two studies in his article (that I put into his lead back in late 2007) that address physical attractiveness, and cite him. The more interesting of the two is the article Men With 'Cavemen' Faces Most Attractive to Women. We could definitely include a picture of Brad Pitt, or any of the men it mentioned (like Will Smith), and note how having a "cavemen face" has made him (them) more attractive to women. While it may not seem flattering to say someone has a caveman face, surely we can explain that article's points clearly.
As said before, I'll come back to this discussion later. Feel free to remove these subsection headings. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The section titled "Prototypicality as beauty" is listed under "Determinants of female physical attractiveness", but the text doesn't seem to imply that it's specific to women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.186.169 ( talk) 07:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The effect is done with photoshopping and other methods that are very deceptive. The studies themselves relied on a website that is not respected what so ever. What is even worse is the use of the study of eurasians. That is simple vanity. I see this article is a great example of wikipornia's systematic bias. YVNP ( talk) 09:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The article says that a waist to shoulder ratio of 0.75 or less is considered attractive. Yet using the traditional shoulder measurement (distance between the ends of your shoulders on top of you) and the traditional waist measurement (circumfrence of your waist at the narrowest point), this ratio is clearly physiologically impossible for a human to have. I think what this SHOULD say is a waist-chest ratio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.162.18 ( talk) 04:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone replaced the Michele Merkin image with one of the Venus de Milo. I think replacing a contemporary image with one from antiquity is a splendid idea, but here's the problem: our caption talks about female beauty being associated with a low waist-to-hip ratio, and our friend Venus is built like a tree trunk and thus not a good example at all, I'm afraid. The Fat Man proposes a better idea: one of those semi-erotic Indian sculptures. Some of those Hindu goddesses have crazy waist-to-hip ratios and very pretty faces too--something like this or this (those are just examples, I wouldn't use either image because they are of rather poor quality). I don't want to offend anyone by including a picture of a revered deity, but maybe if there's someone in Hindu mythology who is said to exemplify physical beauty, we include a picture of her without too much of a fuss... -- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Jasmine Sinclair" image removed from section on female attractiveness due to fake boobs. WTF wikipedia?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.126.185 ( talk) 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know about the history of attractiveness? I'm a little curious on the subject, but I can't find any good sources about it. I always find the sociobiology explanation of attractiveness hard to take seriously. What aspects of attractiveness are consistent across cultures, throughout history? Historically, didn't it used to be attractive for women to be "fat" and thus more fertile? Also, I always get the feeling that the current obsession with big butts on women is just a current cultural trend and has little to do with the "waist-hip ratio" explanation some people offer. Personally, I've never seen the appeal in fat butts and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was just an artifact of the popularity of rap music videos. or maybe sir mix-a-lot or JLo is to blame Soxfan267 ( talk) 08:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Women who fall below a certain body fat percentage, like less than 5% of body weight being fat generally stop their menstrual cycles (and thus ovulating) as well. Some triatholonists experience this. Generally, both extremes aren't healthy, but in the Middle Ages and prior to that being fatter wasn't exactly as common as it is today, because work combined with famine, plague, and work generally worked it all off and they lost that crucial needed fat to keep ovulating. Being fatter was a sign of some prestige as upper classes didn't have to work as much, and generally ate better (which also lead to almost an epidemic of gout amoong certain upper classes in Europe), and portrayals of it might be exaggerated to show reflected tastes. And, well, the upper classes had to have a lot of kids, so evidently having some flab wasn't as devastating as you're making it out to be. Many, many female goddesses in pre-history sculptures showed fatter women that might have been portrayals of fertility goddesses. Also, there's a difference between 'fat' and 'dangerously obese', and that's a subjective definition as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.130.18 ( talk) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Is that second link really appropriate? The one that goes to savethemales.ca. If you take a look at the rest of the site it doesn't look very scientific or well-informed at all. 72.195.133.180 ( talk) 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Alex Actually, thats an op-ed piece. Chester polarbear ( talk) 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Every culture should have its own discription on physical attraction,what is physically attractive to one, may not be attractive to another. There is a lack of diversity,as well as cultural difference when it comes to physical sttraction in this article,may I add? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PriscillaR (
talk •
contribs) 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It is claimed that "several studies" show that children are attracted to similar sorts of faces as adults. There are only two referenced, and they are by the same authors. Thus there is not enough support for this claim. Find more references, or delete the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.195.36 ( talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I know of a book that discusses this. It suggest men prefer lighter women. It's explained as an effect of women being naturally lighter(slighty) men working outside more in history, and so on. However the extent I dispute YVNP ( talk) 02:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"I kind of doubt that more than one or two small cultures in the world exist which prefer darker women."
....You can't be serious. That's a ridiculously arrogant assumption. While it does hold true that in most cultures ligher skin is preffered more, that is only an AVERAGE. Not everyone is going to prefer lighter skin than average, so why make this huge leap of judgement that there'd be NO cultures in the world to have this preference?
And in exactly what way is lighter skin more "feminine"? It is true that women have lighter skin than men, but how many people percieve this as a true indicator of femininity? In fact, how many people ever consciously notice this difference among men and women? In my entire life, I have never, ever noticed this difference among males and females of any ethnic group. It seems to be a very small difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.133.95 ( talk) 17:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I think political correctness is taking over common sense. The general statement that men like a lighter skin than their own is the same as the general statement that chinese prefer a waist to hip ratio of 0.6. And it makes sense, because women do have lighter skin than men. My theory is that cavemen spent more time outside and so needed darker skin to protect from the sun. Maybe wikipedia should change it to men are more attracted to women with a lighter skin tone than their own rather than just a fair skin tone.
I know this picture subject has "spilled rivers of ink", what makes me want to relive this is that I don't think we're even close yet of picking the right pics for this page. First of all, I don't think the male twins pic or the British model pic really has something to see with the Physical attractiveness topic... I mean, the Physical attractiveness is such a wide topic to be represented with the pictures of these three people!!! They're just small examples of a incredible variety of extremely physically attractive people in the world! Kool Lat'n SD ( talk) 21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree they are examples of physical attractiveness. What I disagree is that they're not representing the topic as some other people could; If you're doing an article about shoes as general, It would be incomplete if you just put a pic of a pair of snickers, for example. I think Angelina Jolie or Milla Jovovich could do well to this article. I don't know one person who thinks they're ugly... trust me! If I'm going to read a wikipedia article about physical attractiveness I just won't be satisfied if I find Jasmine Sinclair as a representative image of the topic. Kool Lat'n SD ( talk) 22:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we should keep pictures off this page. Cazort ( talk) 22:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The amount of crap in the female's section compared to the men's section seriously disgusted and upset me. The male section really needs to be expanded. - Sara
You are a moran and you are completely missing my point. Thats is not what I said at all.- Sara —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC).
I agree with Sara's comment about needing to expand the male section. I think she simply means that the female beauty criteria go more in depth than the male criteria, although that could simply be a result of wikipedia's editors being prodominantly male. LOL. But I don't know about the "crap" comment. Both criteria in both the male and female sections seem reasonable. I mean person preferences will always vary somewhat compared to the article, but there's nothing in there that's completely way off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.92.131 ( talk) 02:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's crap too. Hey folks, this is the discussion section not the article itself and so if she thinks it's crap (which it is) it should be LEFT there. All of this seems to me a colossal amount of drivel mostly written by men who GOD ALMIGHTY so want it to be true! Back it up with sources? Studies? Data? Sure! Why not! There's a lot of pseudo-science out there ready, willing and able to justify people's most cherished prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.16.32 ( talk) 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Biology says that men are more visually stimulated and so a womens appearance plays a bigger part in society than a mans appearance, whether you like it or not. Changing an article on wikipedia is not going to change the fact that ugly men have it a lot easier than ugly women - and you KNOW that's true. Source - the book why men don't listen and women can't read maps
They say the larger the breast, the more attractive. However, there is such thing as too much of a good thing, not only in my opinion, but most other guys as well. An example would be most fat women (no offense to those on this site) usually have large boobs, but are not credited into physical attraction. Should we clearify? -- Wikistonecolddragon ( talk) 01:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
something tells me (a little bird) it was original research just forget what i said , I'm out! -- Wikistonecolddragon ( talk) 20:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
To the guy above, the word is "clarify" you ding-a-ling. Guys like you often seem to have trouble with regards to basic spelling, grammar and the ability to express themselves above cro-magnon diction. Oh. No offense to "those on this site."
You mean "express yourselves" 207.112.59.111 ( talk) 07:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
To set the grammar record straight, the corrected poster's agreement actually is correct. The third-person subject "Guys like you" is actually a proper antecedent for the reflexive pronoun "themselves." In order for "yourselves" to work, the subject would also have to be second person; i.e. "You and guys like you," "You people," or words to that effect.-- Caractacuss ( talk) 06:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.87.204 ( talk)
I have added a section on human evolution which gives some of the contemporary theories on physical attractiveness. Though there is already some of this information in the article, I think a direct discussion of the topic is pertinent. Wapondaponda ( talk) 09:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate. The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode. If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 13:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I find quite a bit of this article has NO source at all. I'm removing some of it but I'd like to bring it to attention YVNP ( talk) 08:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Symmetrical men and women are also best suited for their environment, and their physical characteristics are most likely to be inherited by future generations.[not in citation given][43][44][45][46]
I'm not really sure how to bring this to everyone's attention, but I just thought that this statement right at the end of the article is a little nonsensical... "Best suited for their environment"? Good lord.
Didn't the Nazis believe things like this?
Boo19 ( talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Whilst there is something to be said for the evolutionary psychology view of attractiveness being a module of sexual selection, this article is dreadful with way too many unsourced statements. It also gives too much emphasis to physical appearance a marker of fitness for reproduction - there are many other factors at play, and quite frankly if appearance was everything then all human societies would resemble an American soap opera. It sounds like some evo-pop students have fallen into the classic evo-pop trap of assuming that everything to do with human behaviour can be explained by the neolithic mind and the modules handed down. Humans are slightly more complicated than that but I suppose it lets some evo-psychologists portray themselves as scientists. 80.229.27.251 ( talk) 11:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Research has found that a measure relating volume to height squared, aka Volume Height Index (VHI), is a better predictor of attractiveness than either BMI or Waist-to-Hip Ratio (WHR) among females. Among males, it is better than BMI, Waist to Chest ratio (WCR) and WHR combined.
Links: females - http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/var4x159wyh69f3b/ males - http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/ymj62qqktyj47b1t/ .
There is also already a Wikipedia page on the same concept, Body volume index. This information should be added to both pages.
how about adding a methodology for physical attractiveness both for men and for women —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.171.253 ( talk) 03:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
How about adding a methodology for phyisical attractivness what that will show is a ranking describing the features from the most attractive people in the world to the lest attractive people in the world. Rank 1 will be the most attractive people in the world. The ranks below will be less attractive people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.127.209 ( talk) 17:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a lack of diversity in the images used in this article, only three Europeans. I would suggest adding more images or removing the current images completely. Wapondaponda ( talk) 18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have an idea. I recommand this article to have a ranking of physical characteristics from the most beautiful people in the world to the ugliest people. in the world. I am not recomminding that we list 6 billion people from the most beautiful to the ugliest. Their should be two seperate categories physical attractivness in men and physical attractiveness in woman. the first rank should list the physical characterisitcs of the most beautiful men and women in the world. The lower ranks should list the physical characteristics of less attractive men and women. And the lowest ranks should list the physical characteristics of the ugliest men and women. In addition each rank should have a number of how many people in the world have those characteristics and to provide a list of notable people with those chararcteristics. What do you think of my idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.94.195 ( talk) 15:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
According to [ [3]]:
Science writer Eric Haseltine claimed (in an article in Discover magazine in September 2002) to have found that the distance from the chin to the eyebrows in Langlois's 32-composite faces divides the face in a Golden Ratio. A similar claim was made in 1994 by orthodontist Mark Lowey, then at University College Hospital in London. Lowey made detailed measurements of fashion models' faces. He asserted that the reason we classify certain people as beautiful is because they come closer to Golden Ratio proportions in the face than the rest of the population.
So does this imply that there is a math to beauty? Should this be included in the article Apothecia ( talk) 07:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This material is also covered (and sourced) in Human skin color#Cultural effects. It was also discussed here, in #skin color. I don't know how reputable Frost is, but if he's a suitable source then this material seems relevant. Will Beback talk 05:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I quote: "The only consistent preference seen among females for males is very light skin, which is usually disliked". which proves the point mentioned bellow- there is a built-in bias against red headed men amoung women. This is probably an evolutionary adaptation for choosing men who have the best hunting skills and highest testosterone levels: redheads cannot survive as hunters in a natural enviroment so a ginger guy can't maintain his wife, and he's less likely to supply her healthy offspring. acourding to frost, redhead men have a 4:2 finger ratio almost equal to a woman's, and also tend to suffer from osteophorosis and anemia more often, as do women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.6.17 ( talk) 13:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a good ideal to add another article listing both men and women of very rare beauty. And lets call this article "list of highly attractive people" And put it under people by physical attributes. If you know someone who is extremely attractive that person should be on the list along with links to a picture. While I am not recommending to list all models and beauty contestants the list will be too long. Here is how the list should be should list the most attractive living person in each country, and since personal taste plays a part in the equation, It should also have a list of people from that country who rival that person's physical attractiveness along with a picture. Tell me what you think of my new idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.95.135 ( talk) 02:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks Peter Frost should not be mentioned as absolute truth? His theory tries to make fairly minor skin tone differences/preferences and makes them seem to suggest that skin color correlates with success. YVNP ( talk) 10:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The section does seem rather biased. For example, there is no mention of the popularity of tanning in Western cultures. Kaldari ( talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add something I dont see in this discussion. what about charisma,I feel this quality cotributes to the physical attraction one has for another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaR ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I find the last paragraph of the introduction to be heteronormative, and to contain weasle words. Men may be attracted to women that are ... I'm not trying to inject my politics here, but a simple rewording could elliminate this unnecessary position, perhaps by refering to another wiki article on human sexuality or stereotypes. Obviously, there is some consensus on what secondary sexual characteristics are attractive, but I think it's unnecessary to muddle these applications with gender. Any human being with sexuality will respond to sexual attractiveness, regardless who perceives the qualities displayed. 96.50.236.65 ( talk) 05:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems that red hair on a woman is sexualized, while on a man it's considered unattractive. citation needed According to researches, citation needed only 2% of women actually preffer redhead men, and there's a strong preferance of 75% citation needed for the "tall, dark and handsome" type. Is this perception culture dependant, or is it evolutionary like the preferance of women for tall and broad- sholdered men? Do male redheads have any disadvantage in the matter of fertility or gene quality?
I couldn't enter the research itself, but I have it's details: Shame and glory: a sociology of hair Anthony synnott The British journal of sociology, vol. 38, no. 3 (sep., 1987),. pp. 381- 413 Does anybody know if the perception of male redheads as unappealing is universal, hence biological, or was there any culture that actually admired or even prefered redhead men?
Accourding to Peter frost, redhead men do have lower testosterone levels compared with the "tall, dark and handsome" type, so there is evolutionary sence in the perception of them as unattractive by women, and also in the "chuckie finster" stereotype.
I reworked the section on muscularity. I added the finding of a more detailed study, that found preferences for a mesomorphic physique, low waist shoulder ratio, and a degree of hirsuteness. There is a slight preference for a waist hip ratio of 0.8-0.9, but overall, it doesn't make much difference, as compared to a waist shoulder ratio. Also, when looking at studies, realize that those that use silhouettes are superior to human subjects, because factors other than muscularity muddy the results (eg, acne on the chest, hair, etc). I found a study about waist to chest ratio, but they used human subjects, and the results are kinda scattered.
I deleted the reference to the study that found that women prefer a man of average muscularity, as multiple studies find contradicting evidence.
Just so you know, there's a lot less research on male attractiveness, as compared to female attractiveness.
Information on the golden ratio and facial and bodily proportions should be added. Not sure of the research yet, but I've seen some convincing graphics. Ashernm ( talk) 16:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
most women like men whom have arm hair.they are usaly veiwed as very masculine and attractive.-- Sweetheart2009 ( talk) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)sweetheart2009
I'd comment (or dicker?) about the penile size discussion regarding attractiveness but I'll have to recuse myself on this one, being fairly well-endowed, and therefore capable of bias.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 19:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
There was a study conducted on an indigenous African tribe which showed that a significantly above-average flaccid penis is actually perceives as less attractive among women. Slightly below average to slightly above average lengths were all rated as more attractive than the extremes at either end. This may counter the source cited in the 'genitalia' section, which references a book that google has categorized as fiction. Dissemalicious ( talk) 21:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Please expand coverage on Fair Skin Obsession in India. It generated millions of dollars of revenue, adverts and products. It also affects matrimony in India. Supreme Unmanifest ( talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 12:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
There's an image in the article of Maud Gonne. The text associated with it claims that "her beauty ... was enough to drive W B Yeats half mad". There are a few things wrong with this inclusion.
You would never know from this article that evolutionary psychology explanations for human behavior are controversial and are disputed by many scientists.
This claim that females are *biologically* less attracted to beauty in males than vice-versa is based on nothing but "surveys" and just-so stories. Not on hard evidence.
There may be cross-cultural studies that indicate that men state a preference for beauty more than women do, but that could more easily be explained by the fact that in every culture in the world, men have more money, resources and power than women. Men have the luxury of choosing mates for beauty far more than women do. To completely ignore this fact and then claim biology is the only explanation is, I'm sorry to say, all too typical of proponents of evolutionary psychology.
One of the most pernicious practitioners of evidence-free "science" is David Buss. There doesn't seem to be a single human sexual circumstance that he won't claim is biological.
In "Adapting Minds, Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature" David J. Buller explains exactly how extreme David Buss is.
First he quotes Buss:
"...in a well-documented study, the anthropologist William Irons found that, among the Turkmen of Persia, males in the wealthier half of the population left 75 percent more offspring than males in the poorer half of the population. Buss cites several studies like this as indicating that "high status in men leads directly to increased sexual access to a larger number of women," and he implies that this is due to the greater desirability of high-status men (David Buss 1999 "Evolutionary Psychology the New Science of the Mind")."
Then he responds:
"But, among the Turkmen, women were sold by their families into marriage. The reason that higher-status males enjoyed greater reproductive success among the Turkmen is that they were able to buy wives earlier and more often than lower-status males. Other studies that clearly demonstrate a reproductive advantage for high-status males are also studies of societies or circumstances in which males "traded" in women. This isn't evidence that high-status males enjoy greater reproductive success because women find them more desirable. Indeed, it isn't evidence of female preference at all, just as the fact that many harem-holding despots produced remarkable numbers of offspring is no evidence of their desirability to women. It is only evidence that when men have power they will use it to promote their reproductive success, among other things (and that women, under such circumstances, will prefer entering a harem to suffering the dire consequences of refusal)."
Men control women's sexuality the world over - from the relatively mild situation of making rules about birth control and abortion to the promotion of female beauty in advertising etc but not male beauty (the result of male homophobia as well as other factors) in the West, to the extreme conditions in some non-Western parts of the world, where parents actually sell teenage daughters (or younger!) to old men in order to pay off a family debt. This is legal sexual slavery. And then there's all the illegal sexual slavery...
That evolutionary psychologists routinely ignore this vast sexual inequality throughout the world - include inequality of sexual opportunity and agency - and then claim that women are just like that, biologically, is absolutely appalling. And incredibly bad science.
Nancymc ( talk) 04:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion of this image, as captioned, is incorrect. It suggests, Corpula was used to make the average person "fat" in order to meet the standard of beauty of the time. Not quite. Corpula was taken to "restore vitality" to people who had lost significant weight through disease or age. In short, it was meant to bring very thin people back to a healthy weight (similar to whey products still sold today, a.k.a. protein powders targeted toward lanky males). Moreover, please remember that what was considered a good weight in 1895, was much smaller than today, so it is difficult to argue that what is termed "fat" today would be considered a standard of beauty 100 years ago. The link below is a long-form of the ad in 1895. I plan to remove the image based on its inappropriate context.
Tobit2 ( talk) 02:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Evidence of this theory are present in the real world, men, in general are universally sexually attracted (and willing to have sex with immediately) to physically attractive females, yet most women are not willing to have sex with attractive men whom they have not yet had the chance to be fully introduced to. Women are also generally the ones to be concerned more with appearance, whereas males will be less occupied. Scientific evidence of this is the fact that men are fertile their entire lives, but women lose fertility and a fertile appearance (thus their attractiveness) upon menopause. This study concluded that "men who demonstrate an extraordinary personality, despite their age, are sexually appealing to fertile females", and "women who possess a fertile appearance [this window lasts from the onset of puberty to menopause], are sexually appealing to men"; thus women lose their sexual appeal eventually, and men do not. citation needed
I know the citation needed tag is still fairly fresh, but the nonsense in this passage is just too much. To paraphrase: "All men are willing to immediately have sex with attractive strangers". Maybe the author is, but some people have brains and not testicles in their heads. If you think you can find some sources for this, feel free to rewrite it. Ziiv ( talk) 11:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia seriously attempting to say that sexual attraction or physical attractiveness is an attribute *only* of humans? Not even of primates or other mammals but only humans? This article needs to be merged with sexual attraction or perhaps named human sexual attraction or even more correctly modern human sexual attraction. A more correct factoring of articles would be:
While this article may reveal a lot about physical attractiveness stereotypes in Western countries, it gives no examples of what is considered attractive in other cultures and indigenous societies. Just one example: in some tribal cultures it is favorable for a man to find a full-figured woman for a mate; her weight is seen as a sign of her health and wealth, much to the contrary of Western body-type ideals. This article should either expand to include more information so it does not ignore other cultures or change its name to reflect its narrowness, like "Physical Attractiveness Stereotypes in the Western World." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.201.169 ( talk) 13:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the enthusiasm of the current active editor but the article has become WAY too long and unwieldy. Please check the standard for length of average article. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, it was beginning to look like a novella and I was remiss in not thinking about FA status. Best wishes and good luck! Namaste,,, — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Ephert, please be much more careful with sources than you have been with these.
I recognize that some of these errors may have preceded your work, but whether intentional or not, a disquieting amount of synthesis came out of these errors. I would admonish you to PLEASE be more careful with your sources in the future. Louiedog ( talk) 17:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
"A 2003 study in the area concluded that heterosexual women are about equally aroused when viewing men or women." sounds contradictory. How can a woman be heterosexual if she's attracted to the female body as well? I thought it was called bisexual. In my opinion it should say: "Alleged heterosexual women...", or something. -- Devamech ( talk) 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody know why symmetry is such an important factor in physical attractiveness? I think I've figured out why this is the case. But it's probably original research. But I'm fairly sure I'm right since it makes intuitive sense to me. If interested, bug me about this on my talk page, or I may add it to one of my knols, such as the one on Dating & mating in the 2010s.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Here are a few ideas I was wondering about.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a few ideas for now. But overall I think this article is a fairly good one, wouldn't you agree, overall, but it could use improvement like everything.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Searching for "beauty" in Wikimedia Commons, there were quite a few paintings of women from previous centuries, very few of men. Searching for "handsome", there were not that many men showing up. So I searched for "prince", then "don juan" then finally rolled around to trying to dredge up deceased male film stars. Here's a tentative list to choose from (please feel free to add others). Other idea: beauty pageants from a while ago (black and white photos of women in bikinis). Wondering what people think. Perhaps we might have a voting system so that each active editor can choose perhaps 10 pictures, and we'll see what comes up? But I think we need more men in there but I'm not sure what criteria to use for selecting.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Gallery (below) submitted by tomwsulcer but feel free to add more pictures.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Please choose exactly ten (10) pictures. Try to balance out men and women. Vote beneath them by signing your name. Feel free to add more pictures or make comments.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 02:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I can see the effort made to compile these pictures, but I have pre-empted the process by adding a pin-up girl photo, to try it on in context. I feel a photo is more suitable than a painting. Ewawer ( talk) 18:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
“ | In the following discussion, I set the Aphrodite of Melos within its original context: the world of a minor Hellenistic city and in particular its gymnasium. While previous scholars have described the statue as a timeless ideal of female beauty, they have paid insufficient attention to its contemporary appearance and function, and to its calculated response to earlier images and texts (page 227)...convincing representation of a heavyset, almost matronly, image of a mature goddess. And finally, as Magiddis has shown, the sculptor has used classical elements for the head -- for example, the small, extremely regular eyes and mouth; the strongly delineated brow line, eyelids and nosebridge; the full lower face and heavy chin... The neoclassical style helps impart an impressive appearance to an over-life-sized statue of a major Olympian goddess. (page 239) The argument concerning Aphrodite's appropriateness in a gymnasium, it is argued, reflects modern perceptions of the goddess' role rather than ancient beliefs and practices...the goddess' role as a protector of young men-- above all, as their guide during transition to adulthood via marriage and sexuality -- helps explain her presence here. (page 241) | ” |
Kousser, R. (2005). Creating the Past: The Vénus de Milo and the Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece. American Journal of Archaeology, 109(2), 227-250.
I think we should strive for a balance, but I am thinking we should have four Mongoloids, two Caucasoids, and three Negroids (I agree with one Australoid) since it would more accurately reflect the worldwide population distribution. Xochipilli is not the god of beauty but has that as only one task; Aphrodite was the goddess of beauty. Please add ideas of pictures you think would be appropriate to the gallery above. Could you explain your choices more fully?-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 02:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I added a Cham sculpture to the gallery from the Champa civilization. Cham are an Austronesian people with different features from the Japanese and Mayan Mongoloids I suggested. This should be taken into account when deciding if this picture should be included in the article as one of the Mongoloid representatives.-- Ephert ( talk) 04:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It has been four days since Flyer22 wrote, "And these two images can definitely be cited by reputable sources as being representative of beauty.", and I would like to know how long do I have to wait until Flyer22 or some other editor finds a reliable source that claims the Aphrodite of Melos appearance was considered beautiful by the ancient Greeks. Flyer22, I should not have to wait indefinitely for you to source your claim. This type of search does not take four days. It took me roughly an hour to find a reliable source from a journal of archaeology that claimed the Aphrodite of Melos statue was not considered beautiful by the ancient Greeks and I imagine finding a source that claims a particular statue was not attractive would be much more difficult than finding a source that claims a particular statue was attractive. What I am asking for is source from a relevant peer-reviewed journal having the Aphrodite of Melos's beauty or lack thereof as its main focus, since I can easily find less than credible sources on the internet assuming she was considered beautiful by the related albeit dubious evidence that she was the goddess of beauty.-- Ephert ( talk) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
“ | In the following discussion, I set the Aphrodite of Melos within its original context: the world of a minor Hellenistic city and in particular its gymnasium. While previous scholars have described the statue as a timeless ideal of female beauty, they have paid insufficient attention to its contemporary appearance and function, and to its calculated response to earlier images and texts (page 227)...convincing representation of a heavyset, almost matronly, image of a mature goddess. And finally, as Magiddis has shown, the sculptor has used classical elements for the head -- for example, the small, extremely regular eyes and mouth; the strongly delineated brow line, eyelids and nosebridge; the full lower face and heavy chin... The neoclassical style helps impart an impressive appearance to an over-life-sized statue of a major Olympian goddess. (page 239) The argument concerning Aphrodite's appropriateness in a gymnasium, it is argued, reflects modern perceptions of the goddess' role rather than ancient beliefs and practices...the goddess' role as a protector of young men-- above all, as their guide during transition to adulthood via marriage and sexuality -- helps explain her presence here. (page 241) | ” |
Kousser, R. (2005). Creating the Past: The Vénus de Milo and the Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece. American Journal of Archaeology, 109(2), 227-250.
The classical vision of beauty exemplified in Greek art, such as the 2nd century B.C. Venus de Milo (a.k.a. Aphrodite of Milos), was an ideal carried through millennia, laying the basis for much of Western art's depictions of the human form.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Arleen Whelan, 28, flame-haired, green-eyed stage & screen starlet and ex-manicurist, got undivided attention from a committee of 65 illustrators, who awarded her a wellrounded, unequivocal title: "the most perfect all-over beauty of all time." Runner-up: the Venus de Milo.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Venus de Milo was not a flapper. That lady of renowned beauty...
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
This article still needs a section about sexual atractiveness derived of looking into someone's buttocks, sometimes referred as butt, or ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.185.129.36 ( talk) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Sources, people. This can't just be a bunch of wikipedia editors' homage to buttocks.-- Louiedog ( talk) 16:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In its current form, "the Buttocks" section seems to justify a taste for average and larger -size buttocks. However, there is youthfulness (and perhaps other things) in tighter-than-average buttocks. Perhaps it would be opportune to add a little something in this regard. Of course not much can be said other than to bear this in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N49o7 ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
FYI Psychology Today article.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe this one may require a RfC but I'll give it a try on the talk page first. Avaya1 and I seem to have a disagreement about the concept (1) that men place higher emphasis on physical attractiveness in a mate than women do. Avaya1 changed the text from the majority agreeing with (1) to simply that "recent research" refutes (1). I believe this is inaccurate. The broad agreement in the EP community is that (1) is true. To corroborate this, I provided additional sources, which have been removed without reason.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u31kx42472756022/ Physical attractiveness and its relationship to sex-role stereotyping, Daniel Bar-Tal and Leonard Saxe
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w347l70332j1n087/ Sex differences in factors of romantic attraction, Jeffrey S. Nevid
http://www.youbeauty.com/relationships/women-body-shape, excerpted from Psychology of Physical Attraction.
Additionally, I have read Buss's book. He examines things like personals ads and studies in various cultures. It's not simply his opinion.
Therefore, I would like to come to a consensus on this issue before further editing. Thanks.-- Louiedog ( talk) 19:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Loopdog, I haven't removed the sources (except for one unreliable source, that was an argument, not a study). The article says "Recent research has supported the argument that there is little difference between men and women in the importance they place on physical attractiveness,[139][140] in particular with regard to their implicit, as opposed to explicitly articulated, preferences.[141]" This accords with our recent sources, published in the top journal in the field. There were a number of (questionably designed) studies in the 1960s(!) and 1970s (when the subject was in infancy), that seem to be all questionaires (a study from that period, in which an independent variable was manipulated - Walster et al - contradicts them), in which women said they placed more emphasis on other factors. Buss's chaptor (which is now a little out of date) summarises some of these, and then speculates about a possible evolutionary explanation (it's an argument). (I've seen a more recent lecture by Buss, in which he seems to go back on some of this.) We've included all this in our paragraph. There's no consensus ("most research") and I think the paragraph is accurate in showing that there is no consensus. However, bear in mind, that to get into the top journals, the recent research has to be a lot more carefully designed than the older stuff. Thanks Avaya1 ( talk) 19:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- ::: I agree I'm starting to try to refine it a bit now - the thing which might be best is to merge the section on variability with this section? As for the citations supporting the opposite sentences, they might have been moved around after the editor re-wrote the section a few months ago. I will check them now. Avaya1 ( talk) 20:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
“ | According to one study, men with facial scars are more attractive to Western women seeking short-term relationships; the authors speculated that the facial scars could be seen by women as a symbol of masculinity, a possible indicator of genetically higher testosterone levels. [1] | ” |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Why does it always say that being thin is "judged as being attractive in Western culture". Is there ANY culture in the world where obesity is considered attractive? If no one defends this I'm going to go ahead and be bold by removing the POV dogshit. 76.223.237.10 16:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe there should be pictures in this article at all. To put a picture'in an article about physical attractiveness is POV. I say someone is attractive, you do not. You say someone is, I agree, someone else does not. Just because the person in the picture may meet statistical evidence of what some polled people consider attractive does not mean that person is attractive. So I propose we remove all pictures. i said 04:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- sorry to butt in, but all the pictures are of white people. I think that if pictures are necessary, it might be better if they represented more types of people. 24.74.141.22 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"Hardly. It's featured on her page, glamour photography, beauty, and physical attractiveness. " See anything wrong here?! Its so wrong to promote modelism as beauty, and to promote any living model. I say go for something.. tastefull, historic. Something that actually shows what the text says about the picture, and illustrates. - Alex
I personally think the picture of Michelle Merkin on this page is really ugly. How many agree with me? I know it's impossible to find a consensus here but I think that pic is so ugly that it makes the whole page look almost like a joke. Cazort ( talk) 01:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure "adiposity" is even a word, but I believe that (straight) males are biased toward females with flat tummies, to avoid hooking up with a pregnant mate, and thus supporting someone else's genes. Pretty sure there is a reference or two to be found for this. Am guessing this would fit in the "Proportion of Body Mass" section.
Went looking for references and found this, which points out that the pregnant female form was considered an "ideal of beauty" at some times in some places, to the extent that there was a brief fashion of women padding their abdomens...
For now, given that complication, I'll just leave this as a note on the discussion page. __ Just plain Bill 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to keep the photos of models, can we also have some pictures of ugly people, in order to illustrate physical features that studies have shown people find repellent?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The image of Michele Merkin has a POV description, the image itself is clearly retouched and a photoshopped composite, so we'll need a decent source identifying that this individual is considered an archetype of Western ideas of physical attractiveness before it goes back in. Guy ( Help!) 14:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Children are by definition beautiful. And since many people (pedophiles) are atracted to them in a physical way, shouldn't be at least one picture of a child? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.73.179.226 ( talk) 07:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Physical_attractiveness#Waist-hip_ratio i don't think this image really meets the article's criteria, but to some she might be beautiful. Just.. Not me. 72.77.93.122 ( talk) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser, I will reiterate what I said in my edit summary. The focus of men and women's eyes during the viewing of sexual activity is far from a "Social effect of attractiveness". Take a look at the rest of that section. It is also not relevant to physical attractiveness in general. Try human sexuality, sexual intercourse, human sexual behavior, sexual stimulation, or even pornography.-- Loodog ( talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
So what is your point? "Outward physical attractiveness"? How the male and female form is perceived has nothing to do with physical attractiveness? That's patently false. Why must this offending paragraph be removed, because all I see is "I think it does not belong" without a serious or believable explanation. --
Cheeser1 (
talk) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Both of you have brought up some valid points. However, from what that information is particularly dealing with, I agree with Loodog that it is better suited in the Sexual arousal, Erotica, or Sexual stimulation article. It most definitely would be better placed in one of those articles than here. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Motion for the material under discussion to be removed from this page as per above arguments.-- Loodog ( talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I usually have a significant portion to say in debates, but after reading everything you two have stated about this matter, I really don't have too much more to state concerning this...except that I still agree with Loodog about the above debated text being better off not here. I honestly don't have much more to say on this matter than that. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I request indepedent comment in resolving the above content dispute.-- Loodog ( talk) !!time=23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The two longest sections of this article detail the parts of the body that are considered attractive, and how. Which parts are the object of interest, when someone is attracted to (or aroused by, or judging the attractiveness of) another, is of clear and obvious relevance. What's the problem, is there not enough paper to fit this whole article onto? -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I couldn't participate earlier in the debate and I'm sorry I didn't read the entire thread, however I got the main point of this discussion. I, as the author of the material under dispute, agree with both Loodog and Cheeser1, since both opinions make sense: on one hand, information I provided maybe does have too much information on human sexual behavior and sexuality than on mere physical attractiveness, but on the other hand the article does describe parts of human body that are generally considered to be attractive, hence beautiful and sexy. What I provided was information on how men and women react on different erotic images and what they find more attractive. "The results illustrated that women were more attracted to sexual acts in the first place and men would paid attention to faces" - last sentence of my excerpt concludes on what both sexes are more attracted to, physically. Well, this is a tough one... As far as I understood Cheeser1 was more angry with the fact that the information was deleted without any notice and based on one single opinion of Loodog than with the fact that it doesn't belong in this particular article. What are the options? We either move this information to human sexuality, where it might be also deleted, because it would be considered to be more relevant to physical attractiveness, where parts of the body are described that men and women are attracted to or we leave it here in the newly created section. I think we should leave it here, because the piece of information is really very, very controversial and it might fit dozens of other articles, as erotic images, for example, human sexuality, sexual behavior and so on. -- Siliconov ( talk) 13:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Outside opinion: There seems to be a compromise on the table that everyone can agree with. I agree that it's a good alternative. For any possible future disputes, I hope everyone can keep this one in mind and avoid edit warring and assumptions of bad faith, as such things unbecoming of an editor and may next time result in blocks. Lara ❤ Love 16:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think everyone involved here needs to step back and take a deep breath. Oh, and remember that one should do onto others as they would have done onto themselves. -- Shark face 217 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The page states, "Since a woman's reproductive value declines steadily with age after twenty" which is factually incorrect. Human females are most fecund in their mid to late 20s. Most hunter-gatherer women (which we were for most of our human history) don't have their menarches until their late teens, early 20s due to the low level of fat in their environments. Infertility and the probability of miscarriage are increased in both the young and the old. Because of this, most non-human primates disdain nulliparous females. Adolescent females often have to badger the more mature males into sex. Females who have already had an infant are much preferred for sexual partners in most mammal species. The human preference for young females is a bit of an evolutionary puzzle based on when peak fertility occurs in human females. Based on comparisons with Hamadryas baboons, the selection for youth in humans is probably due to an attempt to minimize the costs of female choice and/or a method of bonding completely to one female with the hope of remaining with her and producing all of her offspring.
I can give you as many cites as you want on this topic, including information from Evolutionary Biologists who study this subject. If you are interested in learning more about it, I suggest Mother Nature by Sarah Hrdy. 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of this article seems to be highly POV:
“ | Large breasts have also been shown to be attractive to men in Western societies, with the explanation that larger breasts will more explicitly show the aging process, hence an "honest" indicator of fertility | ” |
“ | Women seem more receptive to an erect posture than men, though both prefer it as an element of beauty; this fact appears correlated to the preference for males who demonstrate confidence, physical strength, and a powerful bearing. | ” |
Also this seems to be written mainly from the POV of a heterosexual, and does not comment on what male or female homosexuals find attractive. NanohaA'sYuri Talk, My master 02:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Not much more to say... Equazcion •✗/ C • 14:37, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed there has been desire to remove the lead image again. Please read the above discussion. This picture is not to be taken as the ideal in Western beauty, but rather to provide an example of several features described in the article. The caption below the image says this. The features in the article are said to be attractive are confirmed through multiple sources on the page.-- Loodog ( talk) 16:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Any picture included to illustrate a feature with regard to its supposed attractiveness must be accompanied by a citation from a reliable, written source in which the attractiveness of that feature is discussed with specific reference to the person featured. In other words, if discussing standards by which eyes are judged to be attractive, a picture of an actress with supposedly attractive eyes cannot be used for illustrative purposes unless a reliable source remarks on the particular attractiveness of that actress' eyes. Anything less is original research, since determining whether someone or some feature is attractive involves an inherently subjective judgment. Nick Graves ( talk) 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes no sense, to have removed all of this article's images. Yes, I've read the newest picture discussion regarding this article above, and I certainly do not agree that no images should be used. What are we afraid of, offending someone? Just because beauty is supposedly subjective does not mean that this article should be without pictures. It should not be that difficult to have pictures to represent what is typically thought of as physically attractive among humans in the West, the non-West, and a few other cultures. We may not represent all considered types of beauty, but that still does not mean that this article should be absent of pictures. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me for starting a new section, but I'm communicating via the PlayStation 3 at this very moment, which doesn't allow me as much editing freedom.
Anyway, one could say it's subjective to include a few of those pictures that are currently in the Beauty article. However, I don't feel that it's subjective at all to use a picture of a supermodel, like the Beauty article does, which is of someone who has been cited as physically attractive numerous times over. It's not even difficult to judge what is typically thought of as physically attractive in the West. Just look at how many times Brad Pitt has been and still is cited as physically attractive.
Anyway, I can't really have this discussion right now. I'll respond further in a few days, when I actually have the freedom to talk without being restricted to this gaming console. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What, none of the images in this article were backed up with valid references showing that the people featured are thought of as physically attractive? Even, if that was the case, there had to be sources in those subjects' individual articles that point their perceived physical attractiveness.
Brad Pitt? There are two studies in his article (that I put into his lead back in late 2007) that address physical attractiveness, and cite him. The more interesting of the two is the article Men With 'Cavemen' Faces Most Attractive to Women. We could definitely include a picture of Brad Pitt, or any of the men it mentioned (like Will Smith), and note how having a "cavemen face" has made him (them) more attractive to women. While it may not seem flattering to say someone has a caveman face, surely we can explain that article's points clearly.
As said before, I'll come back to this discussion later. Feel free to remove these subsection headings. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The section titled "Prototypicality as beauty" is listed under "Determinants of female physical attractiveness", but the text doesn't seem to imply that it's specific to women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.186.169 ( talk) 07:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The effect is done with photoshopping and other methods that are very deceptive. The studies themselves relied on a website that is not respected what so ever. What is even worse is the use of the study of eurasians. That is simple vanity. I see this article is a great example of wikipornia's systematic bias. YVNP ( talk) 09:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The article says that a waist to shoulder ratio of 0.75 or less is considered attractive. Yet using the traditional shoulder measurement (distance between the ends of your shoulders on top of you) and the traditional waist measurement (circumfrence of your waist at the narrowest point), this ratio is clearly physiologically impossible for a human to have. I think what this SHOULD say is a waist-chest ratio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.162.18 ( talk) 04:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone replaced the Michele Merkin image with one of the Venus de Milo. I think replacing a contemporary image with one from antiquity is a splendid idea, but here's the problem: our caption talks about female beauty being associated with a low waist-to-hip ratio, and our friend Venus is built like a tree trunk and thus not a good example at all, I'm afraid. The Fat Man proposes a better idea: one of those semi-erotic Indian sculptures. Some of those Hindu goddesses have crazy waist-to-hip ratios and very pretty faces too--something like this or this (those are just examples, I wouldn't use either image because they are of rather poor quality). I don't want to offend anyone by including a picture of a revered deity, but maybe if there's someone in Hindu mythology who is said to exemplify physical beauty, we include a picture of her without too much of a fuss... -- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Jasmine Sinclair" image removed from section on female attractiveness due to fake boobs. WTF wikipedia?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.126.185 ( talk) 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know about the history of attractiveness? I'm a little curious on the subject, but I can't find any good sources about it. I always find the sociobiology explanation of attractiveness hard to take seriously. What aspects of attractiveness are consistent across cultures, throughout history? Historically, didn't it used to be attractive for women to be "fat" and thus more fertile? Also, I always get the feeling that the current obsession with big butts on women is just a current cultural trend and has little to do with the "waist-hip ratio" explanation some people offer. Personally, I've never seen the appeal in fat butts and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was just an artifact of the popularity of rap music videos. or maybe sir mix-a-lot or JLo is to blame Soxfan267 ( talk) 08:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Women who fall below a certain body fat percentage, like less than 5% of body weight being fat generally stop their menstrual cycles (and thus ovulating) as well. Some triatholonists experience this. Generally, both extremes aren't healthy, but in the Middle Ages and prior to that being fatter wasn't exactly as common as it is today, because work combined with famine, plague, and work generally worked it all off and they lost that crucial needed fat to keep ovulating. Being fatter was a sign of some prestige as upper classes didn't have to work as much, and generally ate better (which also lead to almost an epidemic of gout amoong certain upper classes in Europe), and portrayals of it might be exaggerated to show reflected tastes. And, well, the upper classes had to have a lot of kids, so evidently having some flab wasn't as devastating as you're making it out to be. Many, many female goddesses in pre-history sculptures showed fatter women that might have been portrayals of fertility goddesses. Also, there's a difference between 'fat' and 'dangerously obese', and that's a subjective definition as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.130.18 ( talk) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Is that second link really appropriate? The one that goes to savethemales.ca. If you take a look at the rest of the site it doesn't look very scientific or well-informed at all. 72.195.133.180 ( talk) 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Alex Actually, thats an op-ed piece. Chester polarbear ( talk) 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Every culture should have its own discription on physical attraction,what is physically attractive to one, may not be attractive to another. There is a lack of diversity,as well as cultural difference when it comes to physical sttraction in this article,may I add? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PriscillaR (
talk •
contribs) 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It is claimed that "several studies" show that children are attracted to similar sorts of faces as adults. There are only two referenced, and they are by the same authors. Thus there is not enough support for this claim. Find more references, or delete the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.195.36 ( talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I know of a book that discusses this. It suggest men prefer lighter women. It's explained as an effect of women being naturally lighter(slighty) men working outside more in history, and so on. However the extent I dispute YVNP ( talk) 02:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"I kind of doubt that more than one or two small cultures in the world exist which prefer darker women."
....You can't be serious. That's a ridiculously arrogant assumption. While it does hold true that in most cultures ligher skin is preffered more, that is only an AVERAGE. Not everyone is going to prefer lighter skin than average, so why make this huge leap of judgement that there'd be NO cultures in the world to have this preference?
And in exactly what way is lighter skin more "feminine"? It is true that women have lighter skin than men, but how many people percieve this as a true indicator of femininity? In fact, how many people ever consciously notice this difference among men and women? In my entire life, I have never, ever noticed this difference among males and females of any ethnic group. It seems to be a very small difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.133.95 ( talk) 17:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I think political correctness is taking over common sense. The general statement that men like a lighter skin than their own is the same as the general statement that chinese prefer a waist to hip ratio of 0.6. And it makes sense, because women do have lighter skin than men. My theory is that cavemen spent more time outside and so needed darker skin to protect from the sun. Maybe wikipedia should change it to men are more attracted to women with a lighter skin tone than their own rather than just a fair skin tone.
I know this picture subject has "spilled rivers of ink", what makes me want to relive this is that I don't think we're even close yet of picking the right pics for this page. First of all, I don't think the male twins pic or the British model pic really has something to see with the Physical attractiveness topic... I mean, the Physical attractiveness is such a wide topic to be represented with the pictures of these three people!!! They're just small examples of a incredible variety of extremely physically attractive people in the world! Kool Lat'n SD ( talk) 21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree they are examples of physical attractiveness. What I disagree is that they're not representing the topic as some other people could; If you're doing an article about shoes as general, It would be incomplete if you just put a pic of a pair of snickers, for example. I think Angelina Jolie or Milla Jovovich could do well to this article. I don't know one person who thinks they're ugly... trust me! If I'm going to read a wikipedia article about physical attractiveness I just won't be satisfied if I find Jasmine Sinclair as a representative image of the topic. Kool Lat'n SD ( talk) 22:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we should keep pictures off this page. Cazort ( talk) 22:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The amount of crap in the female's section compared to the men's section seriously disgusted and upset me. The male section really needs to be expanded. - Sara
You are a moran and you are completely missing my point. Thats is not what I said at all.- Sara —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC).
I agree with Sara's comment about needing to expand the male section. I think she simply means that the female beauty criteria go more in depth than the male criteria, although that could simply be a result of wikipedia's editors being prodominantly male. LOL. But I don't know about the "crap" comment. Both criteria in both the male and female sections seem reasonable. I mean person preferences will always vary somewhat compared to the article, but there's nothing in there that's completely way off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.92.131 ( talk) 02:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's crap too. Hey folks, this is the discussion section not the article itself and so if she thinks it's crap (which it is) it should be LEFT there. All of this seems to me a colossal amount of drivel mostly written by men who GOD ALMIGHTY so want it to be true! Back it up with sources? Studies? Data? Sure! Why not! There's a lot of pseudo-science out there ready, willing and able to justify people's most cherished prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.16.32 ( talk) 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Biology says that men are more visually stimulated and so a womens appearance plays a bigger part in society than a mans appearance, whether you like it or not. Changing an article on wikipedia is not going to change the fact that ugly men have it a lot easier than ugly women - and you KNOW that's true. Source - the book why men don't listen and women can't read maps
They say the larger the breast, the more attractive. However, there is such thing as too much of a good thing, not only in my opinion, but most other guys as well. An example would be most fat women (no offense to those on this site) usually have large boobs, but are not credited into physical attraction. Should we clearify? -- Wikistonecolddragon ( talk) 01:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
something tells me (a little bird) it was original research just forget what i said , I'm out! -- Wikistonecolddragon ( talk) 20:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
To the guy above, the word is "clarify" you ding-a-ling. Guys like you often seem to have trouble with regards to basic spelling, grammar and the ability to express themselves above cro-magnon diction. Oh. No offense to "those on this site."
You mean "express yourselves" 207.112.59.111 ( talk) 07:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
To set the grammar record straight, the corrected poster's agreement actually is correct. The third-person subject "Guys like you" is actually a proper antecedent for the reflexive pronoun "themselves." In order for "yourselves" to work, the subject would also have to be second person; i.e. "You and guys like you," "You people," or words to that effect.-- Caractacuss ( talk) 06:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.87.204 ( talk)
I have added a section on human evolution which gives some of the contemporary theories on physical attractiveness. Though there is already some of this information in the article, I think a direct discussion of the topic is pertinent. Wapondaponda ( talk) 09:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate. The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode. If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 13:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I find quite a bit of this article has NO source at all. I'm removing some of it but I'd like to bring it to attention YVNP ( talk) 08:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Symmetrical men and women are also best suited for their environment, and their physical characteristics are most likely to be inherited by future generations.[not in citation given][43][44][45][46]
I'm not really sure how to bring this to everyone's attention, but I just thought that this statement right at the end of the article is a little nonsensical... "Best suited for their environment"? Good lord.
Didn't the Nazis believe things like this?
Boo19 ( talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Whilst there is something to be said for the evolutionary psychology view of attractiveness being a module of sexual selection, this article is dreadful with way too many unsourced statements. It also gives too much emphasis to physical appearance a marker of fitness for reproduction - there are many other factors at play, and quite frankly if appearance was everything then all human societies would resemble an American soap opera. It sounds like some evo-pop students have fallen into the classic evo-pop trap of assuming that everything to do with human behaviour can be explained by the neolithic mind and the modules handed down. Humans are slightly more complicated than that but I suppose it lets some evo-psychologists portray themselves as scientists. 80.229.27.251 ( talk) 11:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Research has found that a measure relating volume to height squared, aka Volume Height Index (VHI), is a better predictor of attractiveness than either BMI or Waist-to-Hip Ratio (WHR) among females. Among males, it is better than BMI, Waist to Chest ratio (WCR) and WHR combined.
Links: females - http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/var4x159wyh69f3b/ males - http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/ymj62qqktyj47b1t/ .
There is also already a Wikipedia page on the same concept, Body volume index. This information should be added to both pages.
how about adding a methodology for physical attractiveness both for men and for women —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.171.253 ( talk) 03:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
How about adding a methodology for phyisical attractivness what that will show is a ranking describing the features from the most attractive people in the world to the lest attractive people in the world. Rank 1 will be the most attractive people in the world. The ranks below will be less attractive people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.127.209 ( talk) 17:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a lack of diversity in the images used in this article, only three Europeans. I would suggest adding more images or removing the current images completely. Wapondaponda ( talk) 18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have an idea. I recommand this article to have a ranking of physical characteristics from the most beautiful people in the world to the ugliest people. in the world. I am not recomminding that we list 6 billion people from the most beautiful to the ugliest. Their should be two seperate categories physical attractivness in men and physical attractiveness in woman. the first rank should list the physical characterisitcs of the most beautiful men and women in the world. The lower ranks should list the physical characteristics of less attractive men and women. And the lowest ranks should list the physical characteristics of the ugliest men and women. In addition each rank should have a number of how many people in the world have those characteristics and to provide a list of notable people with those chararcteristics. What do you think of my idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.94.195 ( talk) 15:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
According to [ [3]]:
Science writer Eric Haseltine claimed (in an article in Discover magazine in September 2002) to have found that the distance from the chin to the eyebrows in Langlois's 32-composite faces divides the face in a Golden Ratio. A similar claim was made in 1994 by orthodontist Mark Lowey, then at University College Hospital in London. Lowey made detailed measurements of fashion models' faces. He asserted that the reason we classify certain people as beautiful is because they come closer to Golden Ratio proportions in the face than the rest of the population.
So does this imply that there is a math to beauty? Should this be included in the article Apothecia ( talk) 07:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This material is also covered (and sourced) in Human skin color#Cultural effects. It was also discussed here, in #skin color. I don't know how reputable Frost is, but if he's a suitable source then this material seems relevant. Will Beback talk 05:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I quote: "The only consistent preference seen among females for males is very light skin, which is usually disliked". which proves the point mentioned bellow- there is a built-in bias against red headed men amoung women. This is probably an evolutionary adaptation for choosing men who have the best hunting skills and highest testosterone levels: redheads cannot survive as hunters in a natural enviroment so a ginger guy can't maintain his wife, and he's less likely to supply her healthy offspring. acourding to frost, redhead men have a 4:2 finger ratio almost equal to a woman's, and also tend to suffer from osteophorosis and anemia more often, as do women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.6.17 ( talk) 13:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a good ideal to add another article listing both men and women of very rare beauty. And lets call this article "list of highly attractive people" And put it under people by physical attributes. If you know someone who is extremely attractive that person should be on the list along with links to a picture. While I am not recommending to list all models and beauty contestants the list will be too long. Here is how the list should be should list the most attractive living person in each country, and since personal taste plays a part in the equation, It should also have a list of people from that country who rival that person's physical attractiveness along with a picture. Tell me what you think of my new idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.95.135 ( talk) 02:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks Peter Frost should not be mentioned as absolute truth? His theory tries to make fairly minor skin tone differences/preferences and makes them seem to suggest that skin color correlates with success. YVNP ( talk) 10:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The section does seem rather biased. For example, there is no mention of the popularity of tanning in Western cultures. Kaldari ( talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add something I dont see in this discussion. what about charisma,I feel this quality cotributes to the physical attraction one has for another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaR ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I find the last paragraph of the introduction to be heteronormative, and to contain weasle words. Men may be attracted to women that are ... I'm not trying to inject my politics here, but a simple rewording could elliminate this unnecessary position, perhaps by refering to another wiki article on human sexuality or stereotypes. Obviously, there is some consensus on what secondary sexual characteristics are attractive, but I think it's unnecessary to muddle these applications with gender. Any human being with sexuality will respond to sexual attractiveness, regardless who perceives the qualities displayed. 96.50.236.65 ( talk) 05:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems that red hair on a woman is sexualized, while on a man it's considered unattractive. citation needed According to researches, citation needed only 2% of women actually preffer redhead men, and there's a strong preferance of 75% citation needed for the "tall, dark and handsome" type. Is this perception culture dependant, or is it evolutionary like the preferance of women for tall and broad- sholdered men? Do male redheads have any disadvantage in the matter of fertility or gene quality?
I couldn't enter the research itself, but I have it's details: Shame and glory: a sociology of hair Anthony synnott The British journal of sociology, vol. 38, no. 3 (sep., 1987),. pp. 381- 413 Does anybody know if the perception of male redheads as unappealing is universal, hence biological, or was there any culture that actually admired or even prefered redhead men?
Accourding to Peter frost, redhead men do have lower testosterone levels compared with the "tall, dark and handsome" type, so there is evolutionary sence in the perception of them as unattractive by women, and also in the "chuckie finster" stereotype.
I reworked the section on muscularity. I added the finding of a more detailed study, that found preferences for a mesomorphic physique, low waist shoulder ratio, and a degree of hirsuteness. There is a slight preference for a waist hip ratio of 0.8-0.9, but overall, it doesn't make much difference, as compared to a waist shoulder ratio. Also, when looking at studies, realize that those that use silhouettes are superior to human subjects, because factors other than muscularity muddy the results (eg, acne on the chest, hair, etc). I found a study about waist to chest ratio, but they used human subjects, and the results are kinda scattered.
I deleted the reference to the study that found that women prefer a man of average muscularity, as multiple studies find contradicting evidence.
Just so you know, there's a lot less research on male attractiveness, as compared to female attractiveness.
Information on the golden ratio and facial and bodily proportions should be added. Not sure of the research yet, but I've seen some convincing graphics. Ashernm ( talk) 16:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
most women like men whom have arm hair.they are usaly veiwed as very masculine and attractive.-- Sweetheart2009 ( talk) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)sweetheart2009
I'd comment (or dicker?) about the penile size discussion regarding attractiveness but I'll have to recuse myself on this one, being fairly well-endowed, and therefore capable of bias.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 19:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
There was a study conducted on an indigenous African tribe which showed that a significantly above-average flaccid penis is actually perceives as less attractive among women. Slightly below average to slightly above average lengths were all rated as more attractive than the extremes at either end. This may counter the source cited in the 'genitalia' section, which references a book that google has categorized as fiction. Dissemalicious ( talk) 21:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Please expand coverage on Fair Skin Obsession in India. It generated millions of dollars of revenue, adverts and products. It also affects matrimony in India. Supreme Unmanifest ( talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 12:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
There's an image in the article of Maud Gonne. The text associated with it claims that "her beauty ... was enough to drive W B Yeats half mad". There are a few things wrong with this inclusion.
You would never know from this article that evolutionary psychology explanations for human behavior are controversial and are disputed by many scientists.
This claim that females are *biologically* less attracted to beauty in males than vice-versa is based on nothing but "surveys" and just-so stories. Not on hard evidence.
There may be cross-cultural studies that indicate that men state a preference for beauty more than women do, but that could more easily be explained by the fact that in every culture in the world, men have more money, resources and power than women. Men have the luxury of choosing mates for beauty far more than women do. To completely ignore this fact and then claim biology is the only explanation is, I'm sorry to say, all too typical of proponents of evolutionary psychology.
One of the most pernicious practitioners of evidence-free "science" is David Buss. There doesn't seem to be a single human sexual circumstance that he won't claim is biological.
In "Adapting Minds, Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature" David J. Buller explains exactly how extreme David Buss is.
First he quotes Buss:
"...in a well-documented study, the anthropologist William Irons found that, among the Turkmen of Persia, males in the wealthier half of the population left 75 percent more offspring than males in the poorer half of the population. Buss cites several studies like this as indicating that "high status in men leads directly to increased sexual access to a larger number of women," and he implies that this is due to the greater desirability of high-status men (David Buss 1999 "Evolutionary Psychology the New Science of the Mind")."
Then he responds:
"But, among the Turkmen, women were sold by their families into marriage. The reason that higher-status males enjoyed greater reproductive success among the Turkmen is that they were able to buy wives earlier and more often than lower-status males. Other studies that clearly demonstrate a reproductive advantage for high-status males are also studies of societies or circumstances in which males "traded" in women. This isn't evidence that high-status males enjoy greater reproductive success because women find them more desirable. Indeed, it isn't evidence of female preference at all, just as the fact that many harem-holding despots produced remarkable numbers of offspring is no evidence of their desirability to women. It is only evidence that when men have power they will use it to promote their reproductive success, among other things (and that women, under such circumstances, will prefer entering a harem to suffering the dire consequences of refusal)."
Men control women's sexuality the world over - from the relatively mild situation of making rules about birth control and abortion to the promotion of female beauty in advertising etc but not male beauty (the result of male homophobia as well as other factors) in the West, to the extreme conditions in some non-Western parts of the world, where parents actually sell teenage daughters (or younger!) to old men in order to pay off a family debt. This is legal sexual slavery. And then there's all the illegal sexual slavery...
That evolutionary psychologists routinely ignore this vast sexual inequality throughout the world - include inequality of sexual opportunity and agency - and then claim that women are just like that, biologically, is absolutely appalling. And incredibly bad science.
Nancymc ( talk) 04:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion of this image, as captioned, is incorrect. It suggests, Corpula was used to make the average person "fat" in order to meet the standard of beauty of the time. Not quite. Corpula was taken to "restore vitality" to people who had lost significant weight through disease or age. In short, it was meant to bring very thin people back to a healthy weight (similar to whey products still sold today, a.k.a. protein powders targeted toward lanky males). Moreover, please remember that what was considered a good weight in 1895, was much smaller than today, so it is difficult to argue that what is termed "fat" today would be considered a standard of beauty 100 years ago. The link below is a long-form of the ad in 1895. I plan to remove the image based on its inappropriate context.
Tobit2 ( talk) 02:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Evidence of this theory are present in the real world, men, in general are universally sexually attracted (and willing to have sex with immediately) to physically attractive females, yet most women are not willing to have sex with attractive men whom they have not yet had the chance to be fully introduced to. Women are also generally the ones to be concerned more with appearance, whereas males will be less occupied. Scientific evidence of this is the fact that men are fertile their entire lives, but women lose fertility and a fertile appearance (thus their attractiveness) upon menopause. This study concluded that "men who demonstrate an extraordinary personality, despite their age, are sexually appealing to fertile females", and "women who possess a fertile appearance [this window lasts from the onset of puberty to menopause], are sexually appealing to men"; thus women lose their sexual appeal eventually, and men do not. citation needed
I know the citation needed tag is still fairly fresh, but the nonsense in this passage is just too much. To paraphrase: "All men are willing to immediately have sex with attractive strangers". Maybe the author is, but some people have brains and not testicles in their heads. If you think you can find some sources for this, feel free to rewrite it. Ziiv ( talk) 11:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia seriously attempting to say that sexual attraction or physical attractiveness is an attribute *only* of humans? Not even of primates or other mammals but only humans? This article needs to be merged with sexual attraction or perhaps named human sexual attraction or even more correctly modern human sexual attraction. A more correct factoring of articles would be:
While this article may reveal a lot about physical attractiveness stereotypes in Western countries, it gives no examples of what is considered attractive in other cultures and indigenous societies. Just one example: in some tribal cultures it is favorable for a man to find a full-figured woman for a mate; her weight is seen as a sign of her health and wealth, much to the contrary of Western body-type ideals. This article should either expand to include more information so it does not ignore other cultures or change its name to reflect its narrowness, like "Physical Attractiveness Stereotypes in the Western World." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.201.169 ( talk) 13:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the enthusiasm of the current active editor but the article has become WAY too long and unwieldy. Please check the standard for length of average article. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, it was beginning to look like a novella and I was remiss in not thinking about FA status. Best wishes and good luck! Namaste,,, — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Ephert, please be much more careful with sources than you have been with these.
I recognize that some of these errors may have preceded your work, but whether intentional or not, a disquieting amount of synthesis came out of these errors. I would admonish you to PLEASE be more careful with your sources in the future. Louiedog ( talk) 17:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
"A 2003 study in the area concluded that heterosexual women are about equally aroused when viewing men or women." sounds contradictory. How can a woman be heterosexual if she's attracted to the female body as well? I thought it was called bisexual. In my opinion it should say: "Alleged heterosexual women...", or something. -- Devamech ( talk) 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody know why symmetry is such an important factor in physical attractiveness? I think I've figured out why this is the case. But it's probably original research. But I'm fairly sure I'm right since it makes intuitive sense to me. If interested, bug me about this on my talk page, or I may add it to one of my knols, such as the one on Dating & mating in the 2010s.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Here are a few ideas I was wondering about.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a few ideas for now. But overall I think this article is a fairly good one, wouldn't you agree, overall, but it could use improvement like everything.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Searching for "beauty" in Wikimedia Commons, there were quite a few paintings of women from previous centuries, very few of men. Searching for "handsome", there were not that many men showing up. So I searched for "prince", then "don juan" then finally rolled around to trying to dredge up deceased male film stars. Here's a tentative list to choose from (please feel free to add others). Other idea: beauty pageants from a while ago (black and white photos of women in bikinis). Wondering what people think. Perhaps we might have a voting system so that each active editor can choose perhaps 10 pictures, and we'll see what comes up? But I think we need more men in there but I'm not sure what criteria to use for selecting.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Gallery (below) submitted by tomwsulcer but feel free to add more pictures.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Please choose exactly ten (10) pictures. Try to balance out men and women. Vote beneath them by signing your name. Feel free to add more pictures or make comments.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 02:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I can see the effort made to compile these pictures, but I have pre-empted the process by adding a pin-up girl photo, to try it on in context. I feel a photo is more suitable than a painting. Ewawer ( talk) 18:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
“ | In the following discussion, I set the Aphrodite of Melos within its original context: the world of a minor Hellenistic city and in particular its gymnasium. While previous scholars have described the statue as a timeless ideal of female beauty, they have paid insufficient attention to its contemporary appearance and function, and to its calculated response to earlier images and texts (page 227)...convincing representation of a heavyset, almost matronly, image of a mature goddess. And finally, as Magiddis has shown, the sculptor has used classical elements for the head -- for example, the small, extremely regular eyes and mouth; the strongly delineated brow line, eyelids and nosebridge; the full lower face and heavy chin... The neoclassical style helps impart an impressive appearance to an over-life-sized statue of a major Olympian goddess. (page 239) The argument concerning Aphrodite's appropriateness in a gymnasium, it is argued, reflects modern perceptions of the goddess' role rather than ancient beliefs and practices...the goddess' role as a protector of young men-- above all, as their guide during transition to adulthood via marriage and sexuality -- helps explain her presence here. (page 241) | ” |
Kousser, R. (2005). Creating the Past: The Vénus de Milo and the Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece. American Journal of Archaeology, 109(2), 227-250.
I think we should strive for a balance, but I am thinking we should have four Mongoloids, two Caucasoids, and three Negroids (I agree with one Australoid) since it would more accurately reflect the worldwide population distribution. Xochipilli is not the god of beauty but has that as only one task; Aphrodite was the goddess of beauty. Please add ideas of pictures you think would be appropriate to the gallery above. Could you explain your choices more fully?-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 02:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I added a Cham sculpture to the gallery from the Champa civilization. Cham are an Austronesian people with different features from the Japanese and Mayan Mongoloids I suggested. This should be taken into account when deciding if this picture should be included in the article as one of the Mongoloid representatives.-- Ephert ( talk) 04:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It has been four days since Flyer22 wrote, "And these two images can definitely be cited by reputable sources as being representative of beauty.", and I would like to know how long do I have to wait until Flyer22 or some other editor finds a reliable source that claims the Aphrodite of Melos appearance was considered beautiful by the ancient Greeks. Flyer22, I should not have to wait indefinitely for you to source your claim. This type of search does not take four days. It took me roughly an hour to find a reliable source from a journal of archaeology that claimed the Aphrodite of Melos statue was not considered beautiful by the ancient Greeks and I imagine finding a source that claims a particular statue was not attractive would be much more difficult than finding a source that claims a particular statue was attractive. What I am asking for is source from a relevant peer-reviewed journal having the Aphrodite of Melos's beauty or lack thereof as its main focus, since I can easily find less than credible sources on the internet assuming she was considered beautiful by the related albeit dubious evidence that she was the goddess of beauty.-- Ephert ( talk) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
“ | In the following discussion, I set the Aphrodite of Melos within its original context: the world of a minor Hellenistic city and in particular its gymnasium. While previous scholars have described the statue as a timeless ideal of female beauty, they have paid insufficient attention to its contemporary appearance and function, and to its calculated response to earlier images and texts (page 227)...convincing representation of a heavyset, almost matronly, image of a mature goddess. And finally, as Magiddis has shown, the sculptor has used classical elements for the head -- for example, the small, extremely regular eyes and mouth; the strongly delineated brow line, eyelids and nosebridge; the full lower face and heavy chin... The neoclassical style helps impart an impressive appearance to an over-life-sized statue of a major Olympian goddess. (page 239) The argument concerning Aphrodite's appropriateness in a gymnasium, it is argued, reflects modern perceptions of the goddess' role rather than ancient beliefs and practices...the goddess' role as a protector of young men-- above all, as their guide during transition to adulthood via marriage and sexuality -- helps explain her presence here. (page 241) | ” |
Kousser, R. (2005). Creating the Past: The Vénus de Milo and the Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece. American Journal of Archaeology, 109(2), 227-250.
The classical vision of beauty exemplified in Greek art, such as the 2nd century B.C. Venus de Milo (a.k.a. Aphrodite of Milos), was an ideal carried through millennia, laying the basis for much of Western art's depictions of the human form.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Arleen Whelan, 28, flame-haired, green-eyed stage & screen starlet and ex-manicurist, got undivided attention from a committee of 65 illustrators, who awarded her a wellrounded, unequivocal title: "the most perfect all-over beauty of all time." Runner-up: the Venus de Milo.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Venus de Milo was not a flapper. That lady of renowned beauty...
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
This article still needs a section about sexual atractiveness derived of looking into someone's buttocks, sometimes referred as butt, or ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.185.129.36 ( talk) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Sources, people. This can't just be a bunch of wikipedia editors' homage to buttocks.-- Louiedog ( talk) 16:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In its current form, "the Buttocks" section seems to justify a taste for average and larger -size buttocks. However, there is youthfulness (and perhaps other things) in tighter-than-average buttocks. Perhaps it would be opportune to add a little something in this regard. Of course not much can be said other than to bear this in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N49o7 ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
FYI Psychology Today article.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe this one may require a RfC but I'll give it a try on the talk page first. Avaya1 and I seem to have a disagreement about the concept (1) that men place higher emphasis on physical attractiveness in a mate than women do. Avaya1 changed the text from the majority agreeing with (1) to simply that "recent research" refutes (1). I believe this is inaccurate. The broad agreement in the EP community is that (1) is true. To corroborate this, I provided additional sources, which have been removed without reason.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u31kx42472756022/ Physical attractiveness and its relationship to sex-role stereotyping, Daniel Bar-Tal and Leonard Saxe
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w347l70332j1n087/ Sex differences in factors of romantic attraction, Jeffrey S. Nevid
http://www.youbeauty.com/relationships/women-body-shape, excerpted from Psychology of Physical Attraction.
Additionally, I have read Buss's book. He examines things like personals ads and studies in various cultures. It's not simply his opinion.
Therefore, I would like to come to a consensus on this issue before further editing. Thanks.-- Louiedog ( talk) 19:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Loopdog, I haven't removed the sources (except for one unreliable source, that was an argument, not a study). The article says "Recent research has supported the argument that there is little difference between men and women in the importance they place on physical attractiveness,[139][140] in particular with regard to their implicit, as opposed to explicitly articulated, preferences.[141]" This accords with our recent sources, published in the top journal in the field. There were a number of (questionably designed) studies in the 1960s(!) and 1970s (when the subject was in infancy), that seem to be all questionaires (a study from that period, in which an independent variable was manipulated - Walster et al - contradicts them), in which women said they placed more emphasis on other factors. Buss's chaptor (which is now a little out of date) summarises some of these, and then speculates about a possible evolutionary explanation (it's an argument). (I've seen a more recent lecture by Buss, in which he seems to go back on some of this.) We've included all this in our paragraph. There's no consensus ("most research") and I think the paragraph is accurate in showing that there is no consensus. However, bear in mind, that to get into the top journals, the recent research has to be a lot more carefully designed than the older stuff. Thanks Avaya1 ( talk) 19:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- ::: I agree I'm starting to try to refine it a bit now - the thing which might be best is to merge the section on variability with this section? As for the citations supporting the opposite sentences, they might have been moved around after the editor re-wrote the section a few months ago. I will check them now. Avaya1 ( talk) 20:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
“ | According to one study, men with facial scars are more attractive to Western women seeking short-term relationships; the authors speculated that the facial scars could be seen by women as a symbol of masculinity, a possible indicator of genetically higher testosterone levels. [1] | ” |