![]() | 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 |
I had added the following section a month or so ago, but now I'm removing it, and just wanted to briefly explain. Here's the section:-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
When a face is symmetrical vertically, so that left and right sides mirror each other along a vertical axis, the mirroring makes it easy cognitively and perceptively for a human mind to tell if the two sides match. There is a visual copy of each side in plain view making it easy for a person to judge if left matches right. The mind can make this mental comparison in a split second to look for aberrations, distortions, or lopsided features. If faces were not symmetrical, then the mind would have a more challenging cognitive task of comparing the seen face with a remembered standard face.
— --sentences added but removed summer 2011.
-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I had checked with a biologist who at one point suggested this material was already known, but lately suggested it's not known and may be speculative and probably is original research. So I'm moving the sentences to the talk page here for the time being until things become clearer. I still think this idea is right, but a reliable source is needed first. For further questions, write to Mokele who is an expert here in Wikipedia. There's a brief write-up here if anybody is interested and if you're a biologist or psychologist interested in this stuff, I'm interested in exploring this subject further.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Here it is: Article on sexiness of stubble FYI. -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I made some edits so allow me to explain them. There is no doubt that, as women get older (not necessary "after the age of 30", because this is a slow and gradual process, not something that just starts happening suddenly on a woman's 30th birthday!) their fertility declines. What I objected to, was the way the section was written, because, instead of clearly explaining things, it looked as something typical of the popular press sensational claims, "OMG your fertility falls after 25, you'll have to get married at 20!!" ). The problem is, that, what these reports and this article fail to make clear, is that the main effect of a woman's fall in fertility is primarily the fact that it takes longer to get pregnant because there is a lower chance per cycle, not the fact that there is a lesser chance to eventually have a child - although this is also true, this effect is minimal in a woman's early and mid 30's - for instance in the UK the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence states that "for women aged 35, about 94 out of every 100 who have regular unprotected sexual intercourse will get pregnant after 3 years of trying. For women aged 38, however, only 77 out of every 100 will do so". [1] Complete sterility is rare in the 30s, until the late 30s (- ie.until a woman is close to 40 - after 38-39), and when a woman is sterile at such ages (early and mid 30s) it is typically the result of an underlying (often chronic) health problem. For instance one of the most often cited studies is one from 1957, done on a large population that never used birth control and the investigators measured the relationship between the woman's age and fertility; these were couples who never used contraception and simply had regular sexual intercourse, this study found that by age 30 (when the woman was 30) the infertility rate- i.e the couples who failed to have a child- was 7%; by age 35 was 11%; by age 40 was 33%; by age 45 was 87%). [2]. Anyway this is NOT the place to discuss female fertility is such detail, and, in my view it is sufficient to just say that a woman's fertility gradually declines as she gets older, with this decline being somewhat faster after 35 (the age 35 is the most often cited one, actually it's the age which was chosen to define "advanced maternal age"). Anyway my objection was not with the fact that this article stated that a woman's fertility declines with age (this is a fact obviously!), but in the way in which this was described and in the inappropriate tone. 188.25.170.57 ( talk) 18:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
By the time a woman hits 30, nearly all of her ovarian eggs are gone for good, according a new study that says women who put off childbearing for too long could have difficulty ever conceiving. The study published by the University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University in Scotland found that women have lost 90 percent of their eggs by the time they are 30 years old, and only have about 3 percent remaining by the time they are 40. Dr. Marie Savard, Good Morning America medical contributor, visited GMA to discuss the issue and its implications for moms-to-be. "Women lose eggs a lot faster than we thought," she said. As you get older, conceiving is "much more difficult. ...Even all those assisted reproductive techniques are challenges."
This article seems to be written from a straight man's point of view. It doesn't cover enough what straight women and gays are attracted to. Niyeti bozuk http nesnesi ( talk) 16:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Men's hair color preference by women is missing. I thought it was there before. Women seem to avoid red-haired males while the reverse isn't true for women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.2.44.127 ( talk) 19:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
One of the references is just "(Locke & Horowitz, 1990)." Is this a book? If so what is the name and page number? VR talk 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it's time to address the edit war going on between User:Tobby72 and an IP hopper. I observed it long enough. Discuss your differences here or be reported for edit warring. IP, I know that you think reporting won't faze you, but it will because it will likely result in this article being semi-protected (and you know what that means for your IP editing). I will state that I am in agreement with the IP that this article should not be dominated by images of white individuals. The IP is right that this caused the Physical attractiveness article problems in the past, and, because of those problems, no images except for the main image were left in this article. Sometime last year (July), images were allowed again, but only ones that significantly enhance the reader's understanding of this topic. We don't need images of people just being good-looking; they should actually add something of encyclopedic value to this article, and I do not see how the pictures Tobby72 wants included do that. [4] See the end of the #Ideas for improvement section and all of the #Picture possibilities section about representing more than one type of racial/ethnic background. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Seriously...judging from this article you would think that only straight people are attracted to each other and there's no existence of any other forms of physical attraction. AlfiePepper ( talk) 00:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
"the most important factor that attracts gay men to other males is the man's physical attractiveness"
Does this sentence seem tautological to anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.82.160 ( talk) 02:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
On that same note, men being attracted to "beautiful women" in the opening line of female attributes really makes you want to slap your forehead. I didn't edit this out, but it definitely needs to be defined or fleshed out if not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarstan ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
That is, dynamic physical attractivebess, as opposed to the 'static type already discussed in this article. EIN ( talk) 05:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I took out the section on how homosexuals view males mainly on physical attractiveness. I didn't think it was relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allieflett ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
... is not a Western standard of beauty. Larger eyes have always been desirable in East Asian culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.215.167 ( talk) 14:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Editor Jvgama separated the Body scent subsection from the Facial attractiveness subsection for the reason stated in this edit summary. While that reason for having a Body scent section separate from the Facial attractiveness section is valid, the body scent information is about how odor relates to facial attractiveness; therefore, it makes more sense to me that it stay a part of the Facial attractiveness section. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
.
Flyer22 (
talk)
19:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)I mostly see averageness mentioned for female's (faces). I wandered if it doesn't apply to male's. I Googled and found it also to be true for them. It doesn't mean that it's one of the first things women (or men) look at/for, as the primary indicator of overall attractiveness/desirability. I wander if the subcategories for male's and female's attractiveness in this page are ordered (and maybe it should be mentioned that it's not the first factor (for males)?).
However the averaging seems to work "better" for females:
The link above links to scientific articles, for averageness, sush as: [9] and has lots of interesting pictures (and the other links) including "‘Kids with Santa’ is an average of 100 pictures of which children pose with Santa.".. More trivia: [10] comp.arch ( talk) 11:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well known that women prefer taller men but "It has been found that, in Western societies, most men prefer shorter women and tend to view taller women as less attractive" (the ref, "How a Gambian Population Compares to the West", that I do not have access to, might say something about Gambia (but not non-Western in general?)). Is this really true, at all, in Western societies? Or anywhere (the lead doesn't say Western and I didn't find height mentioned in the source there). As the women are the choosers the men might not/or less try to go after women that they can't have or end up marrying, can we really say anything about their preference based on relationships? The quote imples that Gambian men go for taller women or are indifferent. Do we know that they do not end up with shorter women (by as much) as in the West (would not disprove if not, as women are the choosers) or have sex with taller women on average? comp.arch ( talk) 12:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I see the pseudo scientists keep forcing all sort of unproven links between beauty and health. Every single beautiful characteristic gets dressed up as a health indicator. Dont get me started about symmetry and the golden ratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.86.159 ( talk) 05:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
One of the features listed as a male facial dimorphism is a "chiseled jawline". What the hell is a chiseled jawline? Obviously it doesn't literally mean men should carve themselves with chisels. I think a more literal term should be used to make more sense, as this article should be from the point of view of science. Der Elbenkoenig ( talk) 05:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand your confusion, but the entire purpose of adjectives and phrases, is so we don't have to spend a paragraph describing every little thing, Urban dictionary exists for a reason.
Bumblebritches57 (
talk)
19:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree. I would like to second Der Elbenkoenig's argument. The term "Chiseled Jawline", although fairly self explanatory, should be described more scientifically. Using the term, without defining the word, could lead to confusion due to the fact that readers are left to make their own interpretation of the term. I completely agree that "every little thing" shouldn't be explained, but this is the only example on the page, in my personal opinion, that should be clarified. Wilro ( talk) 04:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Flyer22 for changing to "He says that all of these requirements are socially constructed" [11], as it is seems to be his opinion (if it contradicts facts). I meant to say "Evolutionary psychology" in my summary not evolutionary biology, although it might have something to say about this (have to look into it more. comp.arch ( talk) 14:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
That could well be true about the Caribbean and Hispanic and Latino Americans to which Americans are the most exposed to, but it certainly can't be generalized to Latin America in general. We have enormous discrepancies in what it is regarded to attractive in both men and women, and some cultural bias in certain areas favoring quite the reverse about the common idea of Latin Americans idealizing white people as superior are especially strong. I'd cite Brazil (more than half of the population of South America), where the norm in the beauty ideal to face and hair phenotypes being the European or the mestizo is still very true, but in color and body darker people are largely a national preference.
Most people except wealthier pardo and black men tend to prefer people darker than themselves for at least 50 years, and as in the West darker skin tones are associated with health and suntanning was always a trend, and since even much earlier times, when crosses were still burning in the USA (the very reason why your average Brazilian will usually become furious when told by American scholars that we have a chronic apartheid system and a racism problem) the body shapes of women of Amerindian and African descent was idealized as enchanting European men and their local descendants of every origin and age (not that I also celebrate this particular myth, I know well how it is rooted in colonial ideas of submission of women, specially those of color, but I can bet money that the ideal girlfriend of our average teenage boys and young men in the 30s and 40s here would be a mulata rather than a blonde, that is, consequence of the delirant mentality of "society without racism" or not, it is very incorporated in our culture). So, no, there is no such non-POV thing of affirmating that "as a matter of fact, Latin Americans demonstrate preference for lighter skin colors".
It requires research on several perspectives, not just a bunch of opinions from life experiences by an editor of some magazine, even if such statement was linked to studies done by scholars, their political and ideological objectives would be still questionable (obviously not being gauchephobic, just saying I am not the first to see an authoritative and neoconservative light even if with a libertarian intention in these conclusions of social relations in Latin America, seeing the U.S. as a model role, specially Brazil, seldom the feeling of "zOMG cant u guis see that we arn animoar in th timz of slaveri???!" can be even described as strong), especially if they questioned a very known common sense and/or generalized some individuals in this largely agrarian, full of poverty, ignorance and thus prejudice state together with that of historical strong European settlement and idealization of it and said it represented the country.
Not to say how heteronormative those researches on top and bottom gay guy preferences sound, as if versatiles weren't a majority among queer guys and there weren't lesbians or bisexual guys (even if a little bit of cissexism is to be understood as gender-variant people are relatively rare and the divisions of all transgender identities that are very distinct between themselves makes it even less simple to consider). Hell, it reinforces stereotypes (about how the non-normative sexuality works as a copy of the ideal one) rather than helping or making important or intelligent conclusions, pretty much like the problems we see in Bi the Way (a film that I saw and didn't find queer to any degree in this galaxy). But OK, it is properly sourced to a trusteeable secondary. 177.65.53.191 ( talk) 15:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Cool story bro. Keep the lie alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.86.159 ( talk) 05:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, a quip with a tired catchphrase and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.235.68 ( talk) 17:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Reference 68 on the importance of height in male attractiveness is not complete enough. The reference reads:
Pierce, C.A. 1996; Cunningham, M.R. 1990; Pawlowski B, Dunbar RI, Lipowicz A 2000.
I do not find any previous references in the list with these author names. Thus I believe we need the rest of the publication information for these three sources. Can the person who provided this reference fill in the data? -- 141.233.196.81 ( talk) 13:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
For the claim that 'although one contrary report suggests that "absolute flawlessness" with perfect symmetry can be "disturbing".' under the section General contributing factors (citation #22). Seems like an opinion column to me. — Fuebar ( talk) 17:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
[...] "full breasts, full lips, and a low waist-hip ratio.[13]" This source is wrong. Men like waist-hip ratio that is 2/3 to 3/3. Women with these traits also seem to score higher on intelligence.
http://www.today.com/style/ideal-real-what-perfect-body-really-looks-men-women-2D79582595 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.93.1 ( talk) 09:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This book is cited as the source for "Studies based in China, England, the United States, Italy, New Zealand, Sweden, Spain, and France have suggested that women consider men more attractive whose erect penis is longer and thicker.[69]" under "Genetalia". I have the book and cannot find anywhere that says this. Could whoever posted this on the article give a direct quote so I can try to find it in the book?-- 2601:6:6C81:B92C:D0B8:289F:6809:FC39 ( talk) 20:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, all of the torso-to-leg ratio studies changed two variables in their studies at the same time, and, for this reason, they should be inadmissible for evidence in this article. Specifically, when they increased the length of the legs on the stick figure they also decreased the torso length of the stick figure at the same time while keeping head size constant. This confounds the studies by making it impossible to isolate the variable that caused the results of their study. Doesn't decreasing torso length alone while keeping head size constant make a stick figure appear to represent a smaller person who is more likely to be a woman than a man? Yes, it does. On average, women have proportionately larger heads relative to their torso length, because sexual dimorphism causes women to be smaller than men on average. Decreasing torso length alone while keeping head size constant would give them the feminine reading they received for stick figures like that. The longer legs they attached onto the stick figures with smaller torsos may be either relevant or irrelevant to whether or not a stick figure is perceived to be feminine. We don't know the influence leg length had when the other variable alone would cause each of the studies' results by itself. A correctly done study would only change the leg length of the stick figures while keeping the head size and torso length constant, but, as far as I know, none of the studies cited in this article did that. In the interest of maintaining this article's reliability, all of the studies that confounded their results by changing two variables at the same time in this way should be removed from this article. We should investigate each study individually to see if they were flawed in this way, and dutifully remove them if need be.-- Ephert ( talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
First, I don't see that having a blue eye image as the lead image is an improvement to this article. With this and this edit, 2a00:4802:260::2a12 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed text from the lead regarding Greek figures and replaced it with dubiously-sourced text about blue eyes being the most preferred eye color, based on sex selection; what the IP means is sexual selection. As seen with that second edit, the IP stated, "Replacing image wth providing sources, the previous one includes a contradictory challenged statement that the statue is considered both 'beutiful' and 'not beautiful'." I reverted the IP again, stating, "Your sources are poor and you are POV-pushing. Stop WP:Edit warring." As seen with this edit, the IP reverted again, commenting, "am sorry for edit warring but the sources for the statue of Venus are time.com, nytimes.com and cbs news, they are in no way better than mine sources which include studies." And I replied, "Really, the afritorial.com, dailymail.com, sheknows.com, etc. are better sources than the ones you removed? See WP:Reliable sources. Furthermore, the previous text is about Greek figures; your text is asserting blue eyes as primacy." The IP responded, "only the publisher is dailmail.co.uk, the study and the evolution aiming attraction is part of the study of the origin of blue eyes by dr Hans Eiberg hes saying blue eyes are atrraction not me, ucla.edu - reliable publisher."
Whether coming from Eiberg or not, the IP is using poor sources to support this material about sexual selection. Even using Eiberg directly as a source, one or more WP:Primary sources is not enough to make such a strong claim. Wikipedia generally discourages reliance on primary sources (as noted by WP:Primary sources), and this article has enough primary sources. That is why Tomwsulcer recently cut this, this and this bit from the article. And, per WP:MEDRS, primary sources for the biomedical content in this article is especially discouraged. For discussions about sourcing Eiberg, see this and this discussion I had with User332572385 and Evanh2008, respectively, at the Eye color talk page.
Being the most relevant WikiProjects to this discussion, I'll go ahead and alert WP:Biology, WP:WikiProject Psychology and WP:Med. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Alerted here, here and here. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I also alerted WP:Evolution as especially relevant. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Something I should have mentioned earlier is the IP's WP:Original research violation. A part of the IP's caption states, "Consequently, studies reveal that most people throughout the world find blue the most attractive eye color, including in places where they represent the majority such as the United Kingdom and the USA, where the majority prefer blue eyes in the opposite sex for both women and men." Eiberg does not state that, and the sources do not support that. This Daily Mail source the IP used even states, "The UK was also the only country that opted for blue eyes as the ideal colour, with brown and green topping the table around the world." And this sheknows.com source the IP used notes that their data is based on a poll of more than 1,000 people by FastLife.com. And this edit the IP made to WP:Lead sentence has further worsened the article. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Would anybody mind explaining simply how are exactly the sources of the statue more reliable sources than those of the blue eyes, they are just newspapers? Those for blue eyes include studies and surveys. What was the aim of the last revert requesting me to find reliable sources "blue eyes are more attractive than the rest"? How can make everybody be the same and like the same color, I can't find a source saying that I was requested because this is an individualistic preference for every human, but most people tend to be attracted to blue eyes anyway studies reveal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:4802:260:0:0:0:0:2A12 ( talk) 10:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The IP was mine, I disagree with the current statues for being used on the top, it is a so called synthesis by newspaper and a reliable source stating that the statue of Venus is not so attractive. For blue eyes, here is what I found - In northern cultures in which light hair and skin are predominate blue eyes light eyes tend to be preferred - particulary blue eyes. In fact studies hace shown that blue eyes, perhaps becaus they are so rare are heavily preferred in cultures around the world.. blue yed appear more attractive becausee.. some scientists think that blue-eyed men preffered blue-eyed women - Is this a reliable source, if not what kind of sources should be found?? I found one additonal: blue eyes are more attractiv . For your comment on Mongoloid, according ot this source: Asian women prefer physical features of a Caucasoid such as blonde hair and blue eyes because they are attracted to them . The same is where blue eyes are rare, they are rare throughout most of the world, I thought this is clear and there is no need to source this, so I left this statement as OR, anyway the I found [ this source for this statement . According to surveys, it is preferred as most attractive in countries where they are present in the majority such as the in the UK, that is why I added them to the image, but as my statement included UK I did not add blonde hair because surveys in UK said brown hair is preffered, though given its rarity blond and red hair is an attractive feauture throughout most of the world. Darker skin may also be rare globally but not dark eyes, but rarity is not always attraction and surveys are need to be found to show what people are attracted to whether it would be brown eyes. I am sure surevyes won't reveal that actually most people like the statue of Venus or that most people are fetishists towards any white statues, so I think a survey and studies would show best what people are attracted to, whatever it is. It would be improving if anybody else find any surveys, whatever results they show. The statue is moreover more unreliable than my image, because it is only from newspaper sources and is challenged by a reliable one.
Actually you all seem to worry that this is a Caucasoid pushing, Currently, the statues also appear to be of Caucasoid, they are just not valued by people around the world as atractive(maybe by few people in Antiquity) unlike blue eyes. To reassure that I am not blue-eyed, I can prove that I have green eyes. -- Evropariver ( talk) 08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
White | Hispanic | Black | Asian/Pacific Islander |
Other | Combined | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dark Brown | 7% | 5% | 17% | 14% | 5% | 8% |
Light Brown | 9% | 18% | 49% | 14% | 19% | 17% |
Green | 43% | 42% | 20% | 29% | 48% | 40% |
Blue | 36% | 26% | 2% | 29% | 24% | 29% |
Other | 5% | 8% | 12% | 14% | 5% | 6% |
Note: Figures are percentages. Percentages may not total to 100% due to rounding errors. * = 59.237, p < 0.05 | ||||||
This data comes from: Sewell, R. (2013). What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women. In The University of Central Florida Undergraduate Research Journal. 6(2). Page 67. |
According to Table 13 from Sewell (2013), whites, Hispanics and the group labeled "Other" most commonly selected green eyes as the most attractive eye color for women. Blacks and Asian/Pacific Islanders differed from these three groups, because blacks most commonly selected light brown eyes as the most attractive eye color for women, and Asian/Pacific Islanders were evenly split between most commonly selecting blue eyes and most commonly selecting green eyes. Based on this data from Sewell (2013), I favor an image of green eyes over blue eyes if I had to choose between those two options, but I favor an image of light brown eyes even more than either of those two options. I favor an image of light brown eyes, because it creates an opportunity to add an African American who has ancestry from both the black and white races. If an image is to be included to depict a certain eye color, then I think it should be an image of Rihanna's face, because she would add to the racial diversity of people depicted in the article.-- Ephert ( talk) 04:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
There should be an image that depicts a representative African-American point of view on female beauty, and, if there is agreement between this view and the African-blacks-in-Africa point of view, it would be an even stronger reason to have such a representative image. Sewell (2013) in What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women on the bottom-right of page 61 found that their African-American male participants most commonly selected "light brown/caramel" skin as the most attractive skin color for women, and African-American female participants most commonly selected either "light brown/caramel" or "medium-brown" skin as the most attractive skin color for women. Similarly, Coetzee et al. (2014) in Cross-Cultural Agreement in Facial Attractiveness Preferences: The Role of Ethnicity and Gender said in the fourth paragraph of "General Discussion" that African blacks from South Africa preferred "a significantly lighter, yellower and redder complexion" for African black men and women than Scottish whites preferred for African blacks. Figure 1 in the "Methods" section of Coetzee et al. (2014) is a gallery of the African black faces used in the study. The lightest-skinned African black woman in that gallery appears to have medium-brown skin that is a bit darker than Rihanna's skin color, so Rihanna's skin color would probably be highly appraised by both African-Americans and African blacks from South Africa, doubling her representativeness, and increasing the reason an image of her should be included somewhere in the article. Like I previously said in the discussion about the questionable attractiveness of blue eyes, Rihanna's eye color is another reason to include her. She either has light brown or green eyes, and the Sewell (2013) study found African Americans most commonly selected light brown eyes as the most attractive eye color for women while green eyes were most commonly selected as the most attractive eye color for women by all participants overall in the "Combined" statistic.-- Ephert ( talk) 22:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Source here.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I am positive that I've read a pretty damning criticism of this study. The main criticism was that, as mentioned in the wiki, the researchers asked both the partners and the women themselves about orgasm frequency, and then turned these responses into a single number per couple. However, when the male partners' responses were removed, and only the womens' presumably more accurate responses were counted, the effect was not statistically significant. I'd be happy to find this article sometime if no one here can find it quickly.-- 71.59.153.25 ( talk) 11:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the hair section of the women's section talks about a preference for long hair on women without contextualizing it as a social construct of Western cultural tradition. There are a few isolated cultures across the world where the women customarily keep their scalp hair short that show that this preference is not something rooted in innate brain biology, but, instead, a socially-constructed gender signifier in Western culture that has to be learned through cultural transmission. I think that this section should have a neutral-point-of-view-disputed tag until the idea that long scalp hair makes women more attractive is contextualized as a social construct of Western cultural tradition by statements from additional reliable sources.-- Ephert ( talk) 00:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
White | Hispanic | Black | Asian/Pacific Islander |
Other | Combined | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apple | 1% | 0% | 5% | 29% | 0% | 2% |
Pear (Bottom heavy) | 8% | 13% | 5% | 0% | 14% | 8% |
Hourglass | 72% | 63% | 76% | 29% | 76% | 70% |
Top heavy, small bottom | 3% | 13% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% |
Thin all over | 17% | 11% | 15% | 43% | 10% | 16% |
Note: Figures are percentages. Percentages may not total to 100% due to rounding errors. * = 49.807, p < n.s. | ||||||
This data comes from: Sewell, R. (2013). What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women. In The University of Central Florida Undergraduate Research Journal. 6(2). Page 68. |
Sewell (2013) in What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women on the bottom-left of page 60 said that blacks, whites, Hispanics and the group labeled "Other" most commonly selected the "hourglass" body shape as the most attractive shape for women, but Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected the "thin-all-over" body shape as the most attractive shape for women. Sewell (2013) concludes on the bottom-left of page 61 that, "This study illustrates that answers to questions asking what is the most attractive when it comes to female physical appearance may vary between the sexes and among different racial groups, depending on the characteristic being discussed." This article is currently lacking any depictions of Mongoloid women aside from Jessica Alba who is only 13% indigenous American according to her DNA results on the Lopez Tonight show, and there are currently no women in this article with the "thin-all-over" body type that Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected as most attractive, so I think that a depiction of a Mongoloid woman with the "thin-all-over" body type that Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected as most attractive would make this article better represent the worldview of physical attractiveness.-- Ephert ( talk) 22:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
White | Hispanic | Black | Asian/Pacific Islander |
Other | Combined | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5'—5'2" | 13% | 18% | 12% | 43% | 10% | 14% |
5'3"—5'6" | 56% | 53% | 44% | 29% | 57% | 54% |
5'7"—5'10" | 27% | 18% | 29% | 29% | 24% | 26% |
5'11"+ | 4% | 11% | 15% | 0% | 10% | 7% |
Note: Figures are percentages. Percentages may not total to 100% due to rounding errors. * = 15.395, p < n.s. | ||||||
Note: Choosing a height range of under five feet tall was a possible choice in the questionnaire which was reprinted on page 63 of the study. | ||||||
This data comes from: Sewell, R. (2013). What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women. In The University of Central Florida Undergraduate Research Journal. 6(2). Page 68. |
I added this data table from page 68 of Sewell (2013) to display the percentages of Asian/Pacific Islanders who chose certain height ranges as being the most attractive height range for women. Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected a height range of 5'0" to 5'2" tall as the most attractive height for women while the other groups questioned most commonly selected a height range of 5'3" to 5'6" tall as the most attractive height for women. Based on this data table, I think that finding an image of an Asian/Pacific Islander woman who is 5'0" to 5'2" tall should be a consideration when it comes to choosing an image of a Mongoloid woman who has a body that would most commonly be deemed most attractive by Asian/Pacific Islanders. As I said previously in the paragraph above, finding an image of a Mongoloid woman whose body type is "thin-all-over" should also be a consideration. Let's hope we can find an image of a Mongoloid woman with both of these qualities in Wiki Commons, so we can add an image of a Mongoloid woman studies indicate would have a body most commonly deemed most attractive by Asian/Pacific Islanders.-- Ephert ( talk) 06:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The current image for the waist-to-hip ratio section shows a Caucasoid woman who has an hourglass shape due to a fat distribution that deposits fat in her breasts, in her butt region, in her extremities and around her hips, giving her a low waist-to-hip ratio. The current image also shows an obese Caucasoid man with a high waist-to-hip ratio due to his obesity. This image is racially biased against women of Mongoloid race, because it implies that high waist-to-hip ratios are unfeminine, caused by obesity and unattractive. At similar levels of adiposity to the Caucasoid woman in the current image, a typical Mongoloid woman would have a higher waist-to-hip ratio due to accumulating a greater percentage of fat evenly distributed around her trunk and less around her hips, in her breasts, in her butt region, around her hips and in her extremities (legs and arms). The image to the right of an indigenous American and European woman in a friendly embrace clearly shows this racial difference in fat distribution between two healthy women of reproductive age and similar body fat percentages, and, to counter the racial bias in the currently-used image, this new image should be used as a replacement. Note that the reason these racial differences exist is not important to this argument; it is only important to see that these racial differences do exist from the image at the right to understand the racial bias in the image currently used in the article, but I will explain the reason these differences exist, so people will understand that the striking differences seen in the image to the right are not anomalous. Indigenous Americans derive from Northern Asia and they still bear many of the physical adaptations that were adaptive for the extreme cold of Northern Asia even after being removed from this region for thousands of years. Among these adaptations for an extremely cold climate was a change in body fat distribution, so that fat was more centered around the trunk and away from the breasts, butt, hips and extremities to reduce surface area, maximizing heat retention in accordance with Allen's rule. Prior to this change in body fat distribution in Northern Asia that was adaptive to the region's extreme cold, it would be reasonable to assume that the pre-Mongoloid ancestors of Mongoloids before settling in Northern Asia had body fat distributions that were more tropically-adapted and more similar to other races. We can currently see the other extreme in the tropically-adapted steatopygiac women of the Andaman Islands and the tropically-adapted steatopygiac women of certain black African groups. Since Caucasoids evolved in a climate in-between these two temperature extremes, Caucasoid women have body shapes that are intermediate between these two extremes. That was a long explanation, so let me reiterate the change to the article that I am suggesting. The image of the indigenous American and European woman in a friendly embrace should replace the current image, because it counters the racial bias in the current image by showing that different waist-to-hip ratios naturally exist on healthy adult females of reproductive age and similar body fat percentages, and that these differences are not related to obesity, being less of a woman and/or being less attractive.-- Ephert ( talk) 22:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is an account from the late nineteenth century of uncontacted black Africans' perception of their own physical attractiveness relative to white people's physical attractiveness. In The Works of Charles Darwin, Volume 22 which written in 1989, on the bottom of page 605, Charles Darwin appears to talk about the experiences of William Winwood Reade from Reade's account in the African Sketch Book which was written in 1873. Darwin reported that Reade told of his impressions of black Africans from the interior of Africa who had "never associated with Europeans". Reade was reported to have said that these black Africans did not consider very flat African noses to be attractive. Also, Reade was reported to have said that these black Africans like the long hair of white people and also the thick beard of white men, but Reade was reported to have said that these black Africans did not like white people's skin color, their blue eyes, their long noses and their thin lips. Unfortunately, this account of black Africans' beliefs of physical attractiveness is framed in a negative rather than a positive way. That is to say, it is not framed as black Africans finding their own skin color, their own eye color, their own nose length and their own lip thickness as being attractive physical traits. Instead, it is framed as black Africans finding the contrasting features of white people to be unattractive. I was wondering whether or not it would be considered a faithful representation of this source to reframe its statements in a positive way. My proposition would be to cite this source for the idea that black Africans in the interior of Africa from the late nineteenth century who had "never associated with Europeans" found their own skin color, their own eye color, their own nose length and their own lip thickness to be attractive physical traits. What do other people think of using this source in this way?-- Ephert ( talk) 01:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
According to studies that measure the lips physically, men have larger lips. Women have overall smaller faces however and narrower lips. For whatever reason I've often seen it mentioned that women have larger lips though. I think it's partially due to a desire to legitimize changes in beauty standards, seeing as full lips are particularly trendy. Should I link some studies here that show the measured differences? Sleepyed ( talk) 19:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)sleepyed
Jesus in media and artistic images is very masculine young man with slim body, facial hair and other manly features. Also in crucifixion he wearing nothing but a loincloth and exposing his toned and sun-kissed body. The body of Jesus has been the subject of many paintings over the centuries, and showing his masculinity and his slimness -- Fastez ( talk) 07:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This article has tons of photos of females, but none of males. Shouldn't this imbalance be corrected? --Roland 03:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Former Miss World and top Indian actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan is often cited as the "most beautiful woman in the world", for which she has received worldwide attention. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Atleast from South Asian perspective she can be considered very beautiful. Her pic should be put in article. Amateur0 ( talk) 22:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
We are thinking of adding some informations on this article as part of a university project. I am thinking of working especially on the fertility-driven attractiveness section [7], focusing mainly on how women's attractiveness is perceived across her menstrual cycle [8] [9], and the impact of hormones on women's attractiveness [10] [11]. Here are some sources I am thinking of using, please if anyone has more advice, don't hesitate to let met know :) Drey02 ( talk) 20:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
___
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Don't women, on average, consider large penis size to be a turn on? Why isn't this included in second paragraph?
== Animal physical attraction === (new section) Thinking of adding a section associated with animal attraction, including both primates and non-primates. Some of the references I will be using is as follows:
Smith, A. S., Ågmo, A., Birnie, A. K., & French, J. A. (2010). Manipulation of the oxytocin system alters social behavior and attraction in pair-bonding primates, Callithrix penicillata. Hormones and Behaviour, 57, 255-262.
Tegoni, M., Campanacci, V., & Cambillau, C. (2004). Structural aspects of sexual attraction and chemical communication in insects. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 29, 257-264.
Herbert, J. (1977). Gonadal Hormones and Sexual Behavior in Groups of Adult Talapoin Monkeys (Miopithecus talapoin). Hormones and Behaviour, 8, 141-154. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.g.rooney25 ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
For my university project I will be adding a section to this article focusing on how attraction differs when women are on the contraceptive pill. Here are some examples of research I am thinking of using:
Roberts, S. C., Cobey, K. D., Klapilová, K., & Havlíček, J. (2013). An evolutionary approach offers a fresh perspective on the relationship between oral contraception and sexual desire. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(8), 1369-1375.
Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Cobey, K. D., Klapilová, K., Havlíček, J., ... & Petrie, M. (2014). Partner Choice, Relationship Satisfaction, and Oral Contraception The Congruency Hypothesis. Psychological science, 25(7), 1497-1503.
Russell, V. M., McNulty, J. K., Baker, L. R., & Meltzer, A. L. (2014). The association between discontinuing hormonal contraceptives and wives’ marital satisfaction depends on husbands’ facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(48), 17081-17086.
Roberts, S. C., Klapilová, K., Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., ... & Havlíček, J. (2011). Relationship satisfaction and outcome in women who meet their partner while using oral contraception.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, rspb20111647. Hhammam ( talk) 14:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
For my Human Sexuality course at University I will be adding to the section which discusses attractiveness and youthfulness in females. I will be focusing on an evolutionary explanation for this and some of the research which may be included is listed below:
Clarke, L. C. H. (2002). Beauty in later life: Older women's perceptions of physical attractiveness. Canadian Journal on Aging, 21, 429-442.
Farmer, H., McKay, R., Tsakiris, M. (2014). Trust in Me: Trustworthy Others Are Seen as More Physically Similar to the Self. Psychological Science, 25, 290-292.
Iglesias-Julios. M., Munoz-Reyes, J. A., Pita, M., & Tturiegano, E. (2015). Facial Features: What Women Perceive as Attractive and What Men Consider Attractive. PLoS ONE, 10.
Karupiah, P. (2015). Have beauty ideals evolved? Reading of beauty ideals in Tamil movies by Malaysian Indian youths. Sociological Inquiry, 85, 239-261.
Oberzaucher, E., & Grammer, K. (2010). Immune reactivity and attractiveness. Gerontology, 56, 521-524.
Ricciardelli, L. A. & Williams, R. J. (2012). Beauty over the centuries - Male. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Swami, V. & Furham, A. (2008). The psychology of Attraction. New York, NY:Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group
Zebrowitz, L. A., Rhodes, G. (2002). Nature let a hundred flowers bloom: The multiple ways and wherefores of attractiveness. In G. Rhodes, L. A.
Zebrowitz (Eds.). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 261-293). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing
i think the article is very well structured and organized with informative neutral content. i think what would be really interesting to add in the social effects section of physical attractiveness is evidence for the existence of relationship between physical attractiveness and personality. Studies have show that symmetry is closely related to physical attractiveness [1] and symmetry is related to more social aversive personalities among individuals [2]. Sine there is evidence for these two correlations it would be interesting to see if there is research on how attractive people lead to certain personality traits
Aditi bhansali ( talk) 18:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
___
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
I think your discussion of youthfulness is a great addition to the Wikipedia page. The style of writing is easy to understand and you have made sure that the content is accessible to a wide audience of readers without jeopardising any of the accuracy. Perhaps you could highlight the evolutionary reasons for why women are attracted to older men and men are attracted to younger women? My first thought would be to talk about the fertility of younger women compared to older women, and the fitness of older men compared to younger men who cannot offer as much in terms of resources. In particular features of youthfulness influence peoples' perceptions of attractiveness [1]. Studies have shown that youthfulness of facial features influences' men's perceptions of women's attractiveness but not the other way around [2]. Evolutionarily, younger, more fertile women have higher mate value and are considered more attractive [3]. Linking your section on fertility-driven attractiveness with youthfulness could help the flow of the whole page. It could also be interesting to mention that women consider older men more attractive than younger men, potentially because, evolutionarily, older men have more resources and higher mate value [4].
EBL 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
____
I think this article is great overall - the layout and list format makes it easy to read and understand. It could be interesting to add some information about the influence of status symbols on male physical attractiveness - studies have shown that women consider status symbols to contribute to physical attractiveness of men. For example, one study found that the same male model was rated as more attractive when sitting in a "high-status" car, but this has no effect on male ratings of female models [1]. Another study found that women rate men as more attractive when they are wearing a red shirt than when they are wearing a blue shirt, and suggests that this is because the red colour makes men appear more powerful [2] The article might be improved by adding some information on this, perhaps with evolutionary reasons for why women value resources and strength in men. Oryx7892 ( talk) 11:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
___
This is a really interesting section and particularly interesting because it has been linked to real life data from dating websites.
One or two points could be clarified a bit more. It needs to be slightly clearer why youthfulness is an indicator of physical attractiveness from the evolutionary perspective. You could go into more detail about this.
Where it says 'women's attractiveness does not change between 18 and 40', this is not clear what you mean. Does this mean that male's opinions of female attractiveness does not change? On a similar note, I think the following sentence needs to be clarified 'This may explain why age combating age declines in attractiveness occurs from a younger age in women than in men.' You could change the wording to make it clearer to the reader.
You could perhaps link 'pheromones' to the wikipedia page for it as some readers may not be aware of what they are. And similarly, perhaps explain in more detail what 'honest signals' are and what the research and theory is behind this.
Overall, it is a well written section! EllaMcCann ( talk) 11:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
EllaMcCann (
talk •
contribs)
11:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
__
Changes you could make to the youthfulness:
1. Could include the fact that women are the most physically attractive to males when their reproductive value is at it's highest, Symons (1979) suggests this is late teens but precise data on this point is lacking
2. A few more hyperlinks to relevant articles would be handy and useful to readers
Psunco ( talk) 16:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
___
WP:Student editing has recently been going on at this article, and not all of it has been good. As seen above, I objected to material that Hhammam added. I'm not stating that none of it should be added, but it does need tweaking.
Hhammam, Psuneh, and R.g.rooney25, when experienced Wikipedians object to your edits to this article, you are supposed to take the time to discuss the matter at the article talk page, not immediately revert or assume you know what the problem is and restore the material. When Izno reverted here, for example, none of you addressed the matter here on the talk page. Do read what WP:Student editing states about working with experienced Wikipedians. This article is big enough as it is, so WP:SIZE is something to consider, and I feel that a lot of what is being added is overkill or WP:Undue weight. Noting evolutionary perspectives is fine, but going overboard with it is another thing. And the recently added Sexual ornamentation subsection in the Female physical attractiveness section addresses the breasts and buttocks, which already have subsections in that section. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hhammam, the "The effects of oral contraception on physical attractiveness" section you added is problematic per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). That is why I reverted you here and here. Do not keep restoring this material. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
One aspect of physical attraction that oral contraception can affect is female’s attraction to masculine males. For example, women that are not using hormonal contraception are more likely to prefer a masculine face, body shape and voice during the fertile phase of their menstrual cycle. However, women taking the contraceptive pill do not experience the same peak in the middle of their cycle [1] [2] [3]. This reduced preference for masculine partners has been shown by Little, Burris, Petrie, Jones and Roberts (2013) [4] who found that the partners of women using hormonal contraceptive were rated less masculine than those who did not use oral contraception
Masculine facial traits are cues of genetic and fitness benefits. For example, Masculine-faced men are healthier, stronger and more dominant. They also pursue more short term than long-term relationships, indicating little investment. It has been suggested that the weaker preference for masculine faces and voices seen in women using contraceptives is due to the raised progesterone levels, which are similar to that of pregnancy where good genes are of low importance and a preference for more feminine, cooperative and investing males is more valuable [5]. An alternative theory is that women on the contraceptive pill do not experience the increased attention to masculine features around the time of ovulation that non-pill users do and so are less attentive to masculine features [4].
Increased progesterone levels during oral contraception use also increases women's attraction to healthy faces as progesterone can weaken the immune system and an increased attraction to healthy faces may be adaptive to reduce risk of infection. [6]
Scent can influence physical attractiveness, for example exposure to male pheromones increased the attractiveness of men to women [7]. Additionally, research has found that women preferred the odour of genetically dissimilar men to those who were genetically similar. They also prefer the odour of symmetrical males when in the fertile phase of their menstrual cycle. However, this is not seen in women using oral contraception who instead report having a higher preference for the scent of genetically similar males. It has been suggested that this may be because oral contraceptives produce a hormonal state similar to pregnancy, where a preference for genetically similar relatives is beneficial as they may provide support in raising your child [8] [9].
Oral contraception does not only affect women’s perception of attraction. It has been found that men rated women’s voices, and odours as more attractive around the fertile phase. For women using oral contraception this variation along the menstrual cycle was not seen [10] [11]. Men in relationships also rated their partners as less attractive when using hormonal contraception than when they were regularly cycling. It has also been found that oral contraception can affect men’s perception of their own attractiveness, as men rated themselves as less attractive when their partner was using oral contraception than then their partners were regularly cycling [12]. It is thought that this is because men find women most attractive when progesterone levels are low, which corresponds to fertility, whereas oral contraception increases progesterone levels to that of pregnancy, indicating low risk of conception [13].
References
Posting here for easier consideration/discussion. Will read and comment in a bit. Jytdog ( talk) 21:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
So, sourcing is unacceptable.
This is not useable. Jytdog ( talk) 21:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
In order to remain neutral, I think it's important that this article also feature at least one photo or representation of male attractiveness. It currently has 11 pictures of female attractiveness. I don't know much about Wikipedia so suggestions welcome. 70.60.230.215 ( talk) 00:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
A person who is ugly can have a completely symmetrical body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.50.217 ( talk) 18:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed the theory that good looking people are intelligent. Most nobel prize winners are ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.50.217 ( talk) 15:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
You need to have a source about that. The List of Nobel laureates in Literature does not include supermodels, but I see among them decently-looking people like Selma Lagerlöf, Grazia Deledda, and Sigrid Undset. Dimadick ( talk) 08:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
IP, what you were reverted on is not stating that good-looking people are automatically intelligent. It's speaking of the perception more than anything. And in any case, there is the "dumb blonde" perception for some physically attractive women with blond hair. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I will state that the author behind the source, Satoshi Kanazawa, is quite controversial, though. In cases like these, it's best to look into his work and see how it holds up to the general literature. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Ephert, adding primary source after primary source study is not the way to build Wikipedia articles. I think I've told you this before. Look for WP:Secondary sources instead. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Travesti: sex, gender, and culture among Brazilian transgendered prostitutes a 1998 book by Don Kulick, Page 70 |
---|
in exasperation at a travesti who had marked little xs with eyebrow pen– After the talk reaffirming that "one always has to do a little touching Throughout Brazil, the hallmark of feminine beauty is not first and |
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
I removed the image of "Wikipe-tan" but an IP editor reverted me twice and suggested I take it to the talk page, so I am doing so.
I want to remove this image because:
In summary, both this image and its caption should removed due to being inappropriate, WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH.-- greenrd ( talk) 11:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Disagree. This is not an image of a young girl. This is an image of wikipe-tan. Person who removed this is batshit crazy. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan More, the image is there to describe a category of physical attractiveness. 2001:558:6025:75:6168:955F:54A1:6CB9 ( talk) 06:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how that image improves the article. And if its caption is WP:OR, it certainly should stay removed. Ephert, did you add that image, like you added most of the other images? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Physical attractiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no solution to fixing this article except totally tearing it down and building it up from scratch. It is an absolute mess: politically, socially, structurally, scientifically. Nmwe5j58 ( talk) 22:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
we need a separate article for facial beauty. All of these qualities are wonderful but after it's all said and done we are attracted to a beautiful face.i learned nothing about what makes a face beautiful except symmetry. the words "symmetry" and "symmetrical" appear over 65 times in this article which is frankly absurd. symmetrical faces be ugly and asymmetrical faces can be good looking.. why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:5D0:3D90:E931:61DA:83CC ( talk) 14:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
As seen here and here, I twice reverted the following addition by WikiManStan ( talk · contribs):
___
Data from OkCupid has show that men tended to not be attracted to African American women, but other wise had little racial preference. Women first preferred their own race, but had white men as a second place (except for white women who had white men as their number one preference). [1] A study from Coffee Meets Bagel shows that Asian women prefer White men more than White men prefer Asian women. [2]
References
___
I reverted because this data comes from the OkCupid and Coffee Meets Bagel dating site blogs and the text generalizes the preferences of white men, white women and Asian women. These are not encyclopedic sources in any way, and, per WP:Reliable sources, blogs are typically not the type of sources we should be including (unless it's a news blog, which still has exceptions). As for the other OkCupid material in the article, I don't agree with it being included either, but it is at least tailored to the OkCupid site and is not written in a way that seems to be suggesting that men and women are that way in general. Pinging Maunus, Greenrd, Johnbod and Zefr for their thoughts on this. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Where to begin...
89.173.151.168 ( talk) 01:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I think a great deal of confusion could be set aside if this were split into two articles. One focusing on sexual arousal and physical attractiveness and the other focusing specifically on just physical attractiveness that is not intended for purposes of sexual arousal. Then make a link to the page specifically about sexual attractiveness to lead people who are looking just for that.
Or at lesst make an article focused specifically on sexual attraction and have a link to it. But this new article should deal with specific adult man and adult women sexual attractions (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise). And not deal with fetishes or mental illnesses which lead to inappropriate sexual attractiveness of others such as children. That would be my recommendation to kind of clean the article up. In so far as people could no longer argue about other forms of attraction that don't involve defined body parts and whether sexual arousal is necessary. 2601:8D:8800:A032:D9BF:AAA0:EC69:FD76 ( talk) 07:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Physical attractiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sesever.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Sensitivity-to-Bad-Genes.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Diener-Physical-Attractiveness-and-Subjective-Well-Being.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I do not understand why there are mentions of the preferences of persian, arabian, chinese/japanese/thailand/asian cultures yet none from europe. What gives? Are these being removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.139.97 ( talk) 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
No mention of the golden ratio? See: Golden ratio Objects, eg. buildings, faces etc that conform to the golden ratio are thought to be more physically attractive.
Also: "In computer face averaging tests, women with averaged faces have been shown to be considered more attractive.[22][134] This is possibly due to average features being more familiar and, therefore, more comfortable.[117]" - What does this paragraph mean?? BronHiggs ( talk) 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
An "OK Cupid study" (LOL) is nothing scientific but a ridiculous try of inserting pseudo-science into an article. Parts of the whole article lack the scientific and encyclopedic approach an encyclopedia must have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:8C:4C09:6300:755C:572F:E81E:753F ( talk) 23:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Physical attractiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Suggest renaming to human beauty. "Physical attractiveness" is common but its jargon, as "physical" is itself jargon for "body," a meaning which is distant, and it would be better to say "bodily attractiveness." "Human beauty" is more formal, and philosophical. - Inowen ( talk) 01:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Why is there only a Genitalia section in the male category and not the female category, when there are enough studies about female genital attractiveness one could reference from? In my opinion that unbalance or better said lack of information on female Genitalia paints a bad picture about equality standards of Wikipedia. For example here is already an article about how attractiveness in Vulvas is perceived by heterosexual men and what attributes are deemed as desirable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26032042/ There are even more articles, but at least a start for a section with the information there is urgently needed. Tariq Si ( talk) 09:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
I had added the following section a month or so ago, but now I'm removing it, and just wanted to briefly explain. Here's the section:-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
When a face is symmetrical vertically, so that left and right sides mirror each other along a vertical axis, the mirroring makes it easy cognitively and perceptively for a human mind to tell if the two sides match. There is a visual copy of each side in plain view making it easy for a person to judge if left matches right. The mind can make this mental comparison in a split second to look for aberrations, distortions, or lopsided features. If faces were not symmetrical, then the mind would have a more challenging cognitive task of comparing the seen face with a remembered standard face.
— --sentences added but removed summer 2011.
-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I had checked with a biologist who at one point suggested this material was already known, but lately suggested it's not known and may be speculative and probably is original research. So I'm moving the sentences to the talk page here for the time being until things become clearer. I still think this idea is right, but a reliable source is needed first. For further questions, write to Mokele who is an expert here in Wikipedia. There's a brief write-up here if anybody is interested and if you're a biologist or psychologist interested in this stuff, I'm interested in exploring this subject further.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Here it is: Article on sexiness of stubble FYI. -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I made some edits so allow me to explain them. There is no doubt that, as women get older (not necessary "after the age of 30", because this is a slow and gradual process, not something that just starts happening suddenly on a woman's 30th birthday!) their fertility declines. What I objected to, was the way the section was written, because, instead of clearly explaining things, it looked as something typical of the popular press sensational claims, "OMG your fertility falls after 25, you'll have to get married at 20!!" ). The problem is, that, what these reports and this article fail to make clear, is that the main effect of a woman's fall in fertility is primarily the fact that it takes longer to get pregnant because there is a lower chance per cycle, not the fact that there is a lesser chance to eventually have a child - although this is also true, this effect is minimal in a woman's early and mid 30's - for instance in the UK the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence states that "for women aged 35, about 94 out of every 100 who have regular unprotected sexual intercourse will get pregnant after 3 years of trying. For women aged 38, however, only 77 out of every 100 will do so". [1] Complete sterility is rare in the 30s, until the late 30s (- ie.until a woman is close to 40 - after 38-39), and when a woman is sterile at such ages (early and mid 30s) it is typically the result of an underlying (often chronic) health problem. For instance one of the most often cited studies is one from 1957, done on a large population that never used birth control and the investigators measured the relationship between the woman's age and fertility; these were couples who never used contraception and simply had regular sexual intercourse, this study found that by age 30 (when the woman was 30) the infertility rate- i.e the couples who failed to have a child- was 7%; by age 35 was 11%; by age 40 was 33%; by age 45 was 87%). [2]. Anyway this is NOT the place to discuss female fertility is such detail, and, in my view it is sufficient to just say that a woman's fertility gradually declines as she gets older, with this decline being somewhat faster after 35 (the age 35 is the most often cited one, actually it's the age which was chosen to define "advanced maternal age"). Anyway my objection was not with the fact that this article stated that a woman's fertility declines with age (this is a fact obviously!), but in the way in which this was described and in the inappropriate tone. 188.25.170.57 ( talk) 18:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
By the time a woman hits 30, nearly all of her ovarian eggs are gone for good, according a new study that says women who put off childbearing for too long could have difficulty ever conceiving. The study published by the University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University in Scotland found that women have lost 90 percent of their eggs by the time they are 30 years old, and only have about 3 percent remaining by the time they are 40. Dr. Marie Savard, Good Morning America medical contributor, visited GMA to discuss the issue and its implications for moms-to-be. "Women lose eggs a lot faster than we thought," she said. As you get older, conceiving is "much more difficult. ...Even all those assisted reproductive techniques are challenges."
This article seems to be written from a straight man's point of view. It doesn't cover enough what straight women and gays are attracted to. Niyeti bozuk http nesnesi ( talk) 16:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Men's hair color preference by women is missing. I thought it was there before. Women seem to avoid red-haired males while the reverse isn't true for women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.2.44.127 ( talk) 19:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
One of the references is just "(Locke & Horowitz, 1990)." Is this a book? If so what is the name and page number? VR talk 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it's time to address the edit war going on between User:Tobby72 and an IP hopper. I observed it long enough. Discuss your differences here or be reported for edit warring. IP, I know that you think reporting won't faze you, but it will because it will likely result in this article being semi-protected (and you know what that means for your IP editing). I will state that I am in agreement with the IP that this article should not be dominated by images of white individuals. The IP is right that this caused the Physical attractiveness article problems in the past, and, because of those problems, no images except for the main image were left in this article. Sometime last year (July), images were allowed again, but only ones that significantly enhance the reader's understanding of this topic. We don't need images of people just being good-looking; they should actually add something of encyclopedic value to this article, and I do not see how the pictures Tobby72 wants included do that. [4] See the end of the #Ideas for improvement section and all of the #Picture possibilities section about representing more than one type of racial/ethnic background. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Seriously...judging from this article you would think that only straight people are attracted to each other and there's no existence of any other forms of physical attraction. AlfiePepper ( talk) 00:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
"the most important factor that attracts gay men to other males is the man's physical attractiveness"
Does this sentence seem tautological to anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.82.160 ( talk) 02:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
On that same note, men being attracted to "beautiful women" in the opening line of female attributes really makes you want to slap your forehead. I didn't edit this out, but it definitely needs to be defined or fleshed out if not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarstan ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
That is, dynamic physical attractivebess, as opposed to the 'static type already discussed in this article. EIN ( talk) 05:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I took out the section on how homosexuals view males mainly on physical attractiveness. I didn't think it was relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allieflett ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
... is not a Western standard of beauty. Larger eyes have always been desirable in East Asian culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.215.167 ( talk) 14:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Editor Jvgama separated the Body scent subsection from the Facial attractiveness subsection for the reason stated in this edit summary. While that reason for having a Body scent section separate from the Facial attractiveness section is valid, the body scent information is about how odor relates to facial attractiveness; therefore, it makes more sense to me that it stay a part of the Facial attractiveness section. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
.
Flyer22 (
talk)
19:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)I mostly see averageness mentioned for female's (faces). I wandered if it doesn't apply to male's. I Googled and found it also to be true for them. It doesn't mean that it's one of the first things women (or men) look at/for, as the primary indicator of overall attractiveness/desirability. I wander if the subcategories for male's and female's attractiveness in this page are ordered (and maybe it should be mentioned that it's not the first factor (for males)?).
However the averaging seems to work "better" for females:
The link above links to scientific articles, for averageness, sush as: [9] and has lots of interesting pictures (and the other links) including "‘Kids with Santa’ is an average of 100 pictures of which children pose with Santa.".. More trivia: [10] comp.arch ( talk) 11:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well known that women prefer taller men but "It has been found that, in Western societies, most men prefer shorter women and tend to view taller women as less attractive" (the ref, "How a Gambian Population Compares to the West", that I do not have access to, might say something about Gambia (but not non-Western in general?)). Is this really true, at all, in Western societies? Or anywhere (the lead doesn't say Western and I didn't find height mentioned in the source there). As the women are the choosers the men might not/or less try to go after women that they can't have or end up marrying, can we really say anything about their preference based on relationships? The quote imples that Gambian men go for taller women or are indifferent. Do we know that they do not end up with shorter women (by as much) as in the West (would not disprove if not, as women are the choosers) or have sex with taller women on average? comp.arch ( talk) 12:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I see the pseudo scientists keep forcing all sort of unproven links between beauty and health. Every single beautiful characteristic gets dressed up as a health indicator. Dont get me started about symmetry and the golden ratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.86.159 ( talk) 05:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
One of the features listed as a male facial dimorphism is a "chiseled jawline". What the hell is a chiseled jawline? Obviously it doesn't literally mean men should carve themselves with chisels. I think a more literal term should be used to make more sense, as this article should be from the point of view of science. Der Elbenkoenig ( talk) 05:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand your confusion, but the entire purpose of adjectives and phrases, is so we don't have to spend a paragraph describing every little thing, Urban dictionary exists for a reason.
Bumblebritches57 (
talk)
19:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree. I would like to second Der Elbenkoenig's argument. The term "Chiseled Jawline", although fairly self explanatory, should be described more scientifically. Using the term, without defining the word, could lead to confusion due to the fact that readers are left to make their own interpretation of the term. I completely agree that "every little thing" shouldn't be explained, but this is the only example on the page, in my personal opinion, that should be clarified. Wilro ( talk) 04:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Flyer22 for changing to "He says that all of these requirements are socially constructed" [11], as it is seems to be his opinion (if it contradicts facts). I meant to say "Evolutionary psychology" in my summary not evolutionary biology, although it might have something to say about this (have to look into it more. comp.arch ( talk) 14:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
That could well be true about the Caribbean and Hispanic and Latino Americans to which Americans are the most exposed to, but it certainly can't be generalized to Latin America in general. We have enormous discrepancies in what it is regarded to attractive in both men and women, and some cultural bias in certain areas favoring quite the reverse about the common idea of Latin Americans idealizing white people as superior are especially strong. I'd cite Brazil (more than half of the population of South America), where the norm in the beauty ideal to face and hair phenotypes being the European or the mestizo is still very true, but in color and body darker people are largely a national preference.
Most people except wealthier pardo and black men tend to prefer people darker than themselves for at least 50 years, and as in the West darker skin tones are associated with health and suntanning was always a trend, and since even much earlier times, when crosses were still burning in the USA (the very reason why your average Brazilian will usually become furious when told by American scholars that we have a chronic apartheid system and a racism problem) the body shapes of women of Amerindian and African descent was idealized as enchanting European men and their local descendants of every origin and age (not that I also celebrate this particular myth, I know well how it is rooted in colonial ideas of submission of women, specially those of color, but I can bet money that the ideal girlfriend of our average teenage boys and young men in the 30s and 40s here would be a mulata rather than a blonde, that is, consequence of the delirant mentality of "society without racism" or not, it is very incorporated in our culture). So, no, there is no such non-POV thing of affirmating that "as a matter of fact, Latin Americans demonstrate preference for lighter skin colors".
It requires research on several perspectives, not just a bunch of opinions from life experiences by an editor of some magazine, even if such statement was linked to studies done by scholars, their political and ideological objectives would be still questionable (obviously not being gauchephobic, just saying I am not the first to see an authoritative and neoconservative light even if with a libertarian intention in these conclusions of social relations in Latin America, seeing the U.S. as a model role, specially Brazil, seldom the feeling of "zOMG cant u guis see that we arn animoar in th timz of slaveri???!" can be even described as strong), especially if they questioned a very known common sense and/or generalized some individuals in this largely agrarian, full of poverty, ignorance and thus prejudice state together with that of historical strong European settlement and idealization of it and said it represented the country.
Not to say how heteronormative those researches on top and bottom gay guy preferences sound, as if versatiles weren't a majority among queer guys and there weren't lesbians or bisexual guys (even if a little bit of cissexism is to be understood as gender-variant people are relatively rare and the divisions of all transgender identities that are very distinct between themselves makes it even less simple to consider). Hell, it reinforces stereotypes (about how the non-normative sexuality works as a copy of the ideal one) rather than helping or making important or intelligent conclusions, pretty much like the problems we see in Bi the Way (a film that I saw and didn't find queer to any degree in this galaxy). But OK, it is properly sourced to a trusteeable secondary. 177.65.53.191 ( talk) 15:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Cool story bro. Keep the lie alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.86.159 ( talk) 05:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, a quip with a tired catchphrase and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.235.68 ( talk) 17:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Reference 68 on the importance of height in male attractiveness is not complete enough. The reference reads:
Pierce, C.A. 1996; Cunningham, M.R. 1990; Pawlowski B, Dunbar RI, Lipowicz A 2000.
I do not find any previous references in the list with these author names. Thus I believe we need the rest of the publication information for these three sources. Can the person who provided this reference fill in the data? -- 141.233.196.81 ( talk) 13:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
For the claim that 'although one contrary report suggests that "absolute flawlessness" with perfect symmetry can be "disturbing".' under the section General contributing factors (citation #22). Seems like an opinion column to me. — Fuebar ( talk) 17:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
[...] "full breasts, full lips, and a low waist-hip ratio.[13]" This source is wrong. Men like waist-hip ratio that is 2/3 to 3/3. Women with these traits also seem to score higher on intelligence.
http://www.today.com/style/ideal-real-what-perfect-body-really-looks-men-women-2D79582595 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.93.1 ( talk) 09:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This book is cited as the source for "Studies based in China, England, the United States, Italy, New Zealand, Sweden, Spain, and France have suggested that women consider men more attractive whose erect penis is longer and thicker.[69]" under "Genetalia". I have the book and cannot find anywhere that says this. Could whoever posted this on the article give a direct quote so I can try to find it in the book?-- 2601:6:6C81:B92C:D0B8:289F:6809:FC39 ( talk) 20:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, all of the torso-to-leg ratio studies changed two variables in their studies at the same time, and, for this reason, they should be inadmissible for evidence in this article. Specifically, when they increased the length of the legs on the stick figure they also decreased the torso length of the stick figure at the same time while keeping head size constant. This confounds the studies by making it impossible to isolate the variable that caused the results of their study. Doesn't decreasing torso length alone while keeping head size constant make a stick figure appear to represent a smaller person who is more likely to be a woman than a man? Yes, it does. On average, women have proportionately larger heads relative to their torso length, because sexual dimorphism causes women to be smaller than men on average. Decreasing torso length alone while keeping head size constant would give them the feminine reading they received for stick figures like that. The longer legs they attached onto the stick figures with smaller torsos may be either relevant or irrelevant to whether or not a stick figure is perceived to be feminine. We don't know the influence leg length had when the other variable alone would cause each of the studies' results by itself. A correctly done study would only change the leg length of the stick figures while keeping the head size and torso length constant, but, as far as I know, none of the studies cited in this article did that. In the interest of maintaining this article's reliability, all of the studies that confounded their results by changing two variables at the same time in this way should be removed from this article. We should investigate each study individually to see if they were flawed in this way, and dutifully remove them if need be.-- Ephert ( talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
First, I don't see that having a blue eye image as the lead image is an improvement to this article. With this and this edit, 2a00:4802:260::2a12 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed text from the lead regarding Greek figures and replaced it with dubiously-sourced text about blue eyes being the most preferred eye color, based on sex selection; what the IP means is sexual selection. As seen with that second edit, the IP stated, "Replacing image wth providing sources, the previous one includes a contradictory challenged statement that the statue is considered both 'beutiful' and 'not beautiful'." I reverted the IP again, stating, "Your sources are poor and you are POV-pushing. Stop WP:Edit warring." As seen with this edit, the IP reverted again, commenting, "am sorry for edit warring but the sources for the statue of Venus are time.com, nytimes.com and cbs news, they are in no way better than mine sources which include studies." And I replied, "Really, the afritorial.com, dailymail.com, sheknows.com, etc. are better sources than the ones you removed? See WP:Reliable sources. Furthermore, the previous text is about Greek figures; your text is asserting blue eyes as primacy." The IP responded, "only the publisher is dailmail.co.uk, the study and the evolution aiming attraction is part of the study of the origin of blue eyes by dr Hans Eiberg hes saying blue eyes are atrraction not me, ucla.edu - reliable publisher."
Whether coming from Eiberg or not, the IP is using poor sources to support this material about sexual selection. Even using Eiberg directly as a source, one or more WP:Primary sources is not enough to make such a strong claim. Wikipedia generally discourages reliance on primary sources (as noted by WP:Primary sources), and this article has enough primary sources. That is why Tomwsulcer recently cut this, this and this bit from the article. And, per WP:MEDRS, primary sources for the biomedical content in this article is especially discouraged. For discussions about sourcing Eiberg, see this and this discussion I had with User332572385 and Evanh2008, respectively, at the Eye color talk page.
Being the most relevant WikiProjects to this discussion, I'll go ahead and alert WP:Biology, WP:WikiProject Psychology and WP:Med. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Alerted here, here and here. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I also alerted WP:Evolution as especially relevant. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Something I should have mentioned earlier is the IP's WP:Original research violation. A part of the IP's caption states, "Consequently, studies reveal that most people throughout the world find blue the most attractive eye color, including in places where they represent the majority such as the United Kingdom and the USA, where the majority prefer blue eyes in the opposite sex for both women and men." Eiberg does not state that, and the sources do not support that. This Daily Mail source the IP used even states, "The UK was also the only country that opted for blue eyes as the ideal colour, with brown and green topping the table around the world." And this sheknows.com source the IP used notes that their data is based on a poll of more than 1,000 people by FastLife.com. And this edit the IP made to WP:Lead sentence has further worsened the article. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Would anybody mind explaining simply how are exactly the sources of the statue more reliable sources than those of the blue eyes, they are just newspapers? Those for blue eyes include studies and surveys. What was the aim of the last revert requesting me to find reliable sources "blue eyes are more attractive than the rest"? How can make everybody be the same and like the same color, I can't find a source saying that I was requested because this is an individualistic preference for every human, but most people tend to be attracted to blue eyes anyway studies reveal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:4802:260:0:0:0:0:2A12 ( talk) 10:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The IP was mine, I disagree with the current statues for being used on the top, it is a so called synthesis by newspaper and a reliable source stating that the statue of Venus is not so attractive. For blue eyes, here is what I found - In northern cultures in which light hair and skin are predominate blue eyes light eyes tend to be preferred - particulary blue eyes. In fact studies hace shown that blue eyes, perhaps becaus they are so rare are heavily preferred in cultures around the world.. blue yed appear more attractive becausee.. some scientists think that blue-eyed men preffered blue-eyed women - Is this a reliable source, if not what kind of sources should be found?? I found one additonal: blue eyes are more attractiv . For your comment on Mongoloid, according ot this source: Asian women prefer physical features of a Caucasoid such as blonde hair and blue eyes because they are attracted to them . The same is where blue eyes are rare, they are rare throughout most of the world, I thought this is clear and there is no need to source this, so I left this statement as OR, anyway the I found [ this source for this statement . According to surveys, it is preferred as most attractive in countries where they are present in the majority such as the in the UK, that is why I added them to the image, but as my statement included UK I did not add blonde hair because surveys in UK said brown hair is preffered, though given its rarity blond and red hair is an attractive feauture throughout most of the world. Darker skin may also be rare globally but not dark eyes, but rarity is not always attraction and surveys are need to be found to show what people are attracted to whether it would be brown eyes. I am sure surevyes won't reveal that actually most people like the statue of Venus or that most people are fetishists towards any white statues, so I think a survey and studies would show best what people are attracted to, whatever it is. It would be improving if anybody else find any surveys, whatever results they show. The statue is moreover more unreliable than my image, because it is only from newspaper sources and is challenged by a reliable one.
Actually you all seem to worry that this is a Caucasoid pushing, Currently, the statues also appear to be of Caucasoid, they are just not valued by people around the world as atractive(maybe by few people in Antiquity) unlike blue eyes. To reassure that I am not blue-eyed, I can prove that I have green eyes. -- Evropariver ( talk) 08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
White | Hispanic | Black | Asian/Pacific Islander |
Other | Combined | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dark Brown | 7% | 5% | 17% | 14% | 5% | 8% |
Light Brown | 9% | 18% | 49% | 14% | 19% | 17% |
Green | 43% | 42% | 20% | 29% | 48% | 40% |
Blue | 36% | 26% | 2% | 29% | 24% | 29% |
Other | 5% | 8% | 12% | 14% | 5% | 6% |
Note: Figures are percentages. Percentages may not total to 100% due to rounding errors. * = 59.237, p < 0.05 | ||||||
This data comes from: Sewell, R. (2013). What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women. In The University of Central Florida Undergraduate Research Journal. 6(2). Page 67. |
According to Table 13 from Sewell (2013), whites, Hispanics and the group labeled "Other" most commonly selected green eyes as the most attractive eye color for women. Blacks and Asian/Pacific Islanders differed from these three groups, because blacks most commonly selected light brown eyes as the most attractive eye color for women, and Asian/Pacific Islanders were evenly split between most commonly selecting blue eyes and most commonly selecting green eyes. Based on this data from Sewell (2013), I favor an image of green eyes over blue eyes if I had to choose between those two options, but I favor an image of light brown eyes even more than either of those two options. I favor an image of light brown eyes, because it creates an opportunity to add an African American who has ancestry from both the black and white races. If an image is to be included to depict a certain eye color, then I think it should be an image of Rihanna's face, because she would add to the racial diversity of people depicted in the article.-- Ephert ( talk) 04:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
There should be an image that depicts a representative African-American point of view on female beauty, and, if there is agreement between this view and the African-blacks-in-Africa point of view, it would be an even stronger reason to have such a representative image. Sewell (2013) in What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women on the bottom-right of page 61 found that their African-American male participants most commonly selected "light brown/caramel" skin as the most attractive skin color for women, and African-American female participants most commonly selected either "light brown/caramel" or "medium-brown" skin as the most attractive skin color for women. Similarly, Coetzee et al. (2014) in Cross-Cultural Agreement in Facial Attractiveness Preferences: The Role of Ethnicity and Gender said in the fourth paragraph of "General Discussion" that African blacks from South Africa preferred "a significantly lighter, yellower and redder complexion" for African black men and women than Scottish whites preferred for African blacks. Figure 1 in the "Methods" section of Coetzee et al. (2014) is a gallery of the African black faces used in the study. The lightest-skinned African black woman in that gallery appears to have medium-brown skin that is a bit darker than Rihanna's skin color, so Rihanna's skin color would probably be highly appraised by both African-Americans and African blacks from South Africa, doubling her representativeness, and increasing the reason an image of her should be included somewhere in the article. Like I previously said in the discussion about the questionable attractiveness of blue eyes, Rihanna's eye color is another reason to include her. She either has light brown or green eyes, and the Sewell (2013) study found African Americans most commonly selected light brown eyes as the most attractive eye color for women while green eyes were most commonly selected as the most attractive eye color for women by all participants overall in the "Combined" statistic.-- Ephert ( talk) 22:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Source here.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I am positive that I've read a pretty damning criticism of this study. The main criticism was that, as mentioned in the wiki, the researchers asked both the partners and the women themselves about orgasm frequency, and then turned these responses into a single number per couple. However, when the male partners' responses were removed, and only the womens' presumably more accurate responses were counted, the effect was not statistically significant. I'd be happy to find this article sometime if no one here can find it quickly.-- 71.59.153.25 ( talk) 11:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the hair section of the women's section talks about a preference for long hair on women without contextualizing it as a social construct of Western cultural tradition. There are a few isolated cultures across the world where the women customarily keep their scalp hair short that show that this preference is not something rooted in innate brain biology, but, instead, a socially-constructed gender signifier in Western culture that has to be learned through cultural transmission. I think that this section should have a neutral-point-of-view-disputed tag until the idea that long scalp hair makes women more attractive is contextualized as a social construct of Western cultural tradition by statements from additional reliable sources.-- Ephert ( talk) 00:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
White | Hispanic | Black | Asian/Pacific Islander |
Other | Combined | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apple | 1% | 0% | 5% | 29% | 0% | 2% |
Pear (Bottom heavy) | 8% | 13% | 5% | 0% | 14% | 8% |
Hourglass | 72% | 63% | 76% | 29% | 76% | 70% |
Top heavy, small bottom | 3% | 13% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% |
Thin all over | 17% | 11% | 15% | 43% | 10% | 16% |
Note: Figures are percentages. Percentages may not total to 100% due to rounding errors. * = 49.807, p < n.s. | ||||||
This data comes from: Sewell, R. (2013). What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women. In The University of Central Florida Undergraduate Research Journal. 6(2). Page 68. |
Sewell (2013) in What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women on the bottom-left of page 60 said that blacks, whites, Hispanics and the group labeled "Other" most commonly selected the "hourglass" body shape as the most attractive shape for women, but Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected the "thin-all-over" body shape as the most attractive shape for women. Sewell (2013) concludes on the bottom-left of page 61 that, "This study illustrates that answers to questions asking what is the most attractive when it comes to female physical appearance may vary between the sexes and among different racial groups, depending on the characteristic being discussed." This article is currently lacking any depictions of Mongoloid women aside from Jessica Alba who is only 13% indigenous American according to her DNA results on the Lopez Tonight show, and there are currently no women in this article with the "thin-all-over" body type that Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected as most attractive, so I think that a depiction of a Mongoloid woman with the "thin-all-over" body type that Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected as most attractive would make this article better represent the worldview of physical attractiveness.-- Ephert ( talk) 22:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
White | Hispanic | Black | Asian/Pacific Islander |
Other | Combined | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5'—5'2" | 13% | 18% | 12% | 43% | 10% | 14% |
5'3"—5'6" | 56% | 53% | 44% | 29% | 57% | 54% |
5'7"—5'10" | 27% | 18% | 29% | 29% | 24% | 26% |
5'11"+ | 4% | 11% | 15% | 0% | 10% | 7% |
Note: Figures are percentages. Percentages may not total to 100% due to rounding errors. * = 15.395, p < n.s. | ||||||
Note: Choosing a height range of under five feet tall was a possible choice in the questionnaire which was reprinted on page 63 of the study. | ||||||
This data comes from: Sewell, R. (2013). What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women. In The University of Central Florida Undergraduate Research Journal. 6(2). Page 68. |
I added this data table from page 68 of Sewell (2013) to display the percentages of Asian/Pacific Islanders who chose certain height ranges as being the most attractive height range for women. Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected a height range of 5'0" to 5'2" tall as the most attractive height for women while the other groups questioned most commonly selected a height range of 5'3" to 5'6" tall as the most attractive height for women. Based on this data table, I think that finding an image of an Asian/Pacific Islander woman who is 5'0" to 5'2" tall should be a consideration when it comes to choosing an image of a Mongoloid woman who has a body that would most commonly be deemed most attractive by Asian/Pacific Islanders. As I said previously in the paragraph above, finding an image of a Mongoloid woman whose body type is "thin-all-over" should also be a consideration. Let's hope we can find an image of a Mongoloid woman with both of these qualities in Wiki Commons, so we can add an image of a Mongoloid woman studies indicate would have a body most commonly deemed most attractive by Asian/Pacific Islanders.-- Ephert ( talk) 06:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The current image for the waist-to-hip ratio section shows a Caucasoid woman who has an hourglass shape due to a fat distribution that deposits fat in her breasts, in her butt region, in her extremities and around her hips, giving her a low waist-to-hip ratio. The current image also shows an obese Caucasoid man with a high waist-to-hip ratio due to his obesity. This image is racially biased against women of Mongoloid race, because it implies that high waist-to-hip ratios are unfeminine, caused by obesity and unattractive. At similar levels of adiposity to the Caucasoid woman in the current image, a typical Mongoloid woman would have a higher waist-to-hip ratio due to accumulating a greater percentage of fat evenly distributed around her trunk and less around her hips, in her breasts, in her butt region, around her hips and in her extremities (legs and arms). The image to the right of an indigenous American and European woman in a friendly embrace clearly shows this racial difference in fat distribution between two healthy women of reproductive age and similar body fat percentages, and, to counter the racial bias in the currently-used image, this new image should be used as a replacement. Note that the reason these racial differences exist is not important to this argument; it is only important to see that these racial differences do exist from the image at the right to understand the racial bias in the image currently used in the article, but I will explain the reason these differences exist, so people will understand that the striking differences seen in the image to the right are not anomalous. Indigenous Americans derive from Northern Asia and they still bear many of the physical adaptations that were adaptive for the extreme cold of Northern Asia even after being removed from this region for thousands of years. Among these adaptations for an extremely cold climate was a change in body fat distribution, so that fat was more centered around the trunk and away from the breasts, butt, hips and extremities to reduce surface area, maximizing heat retention in accordance with Allen's rule. Prior to this change in body fat distribution in Northern Asia that was adaptive to the region's extreme cold, it would be reasonable to assume that the pre-Mongoloid ancestors of Mongoloids before settling in Northern Asia had body fat distributions that were more tropically-adapted and more similar to other races. We can currently see the other extreme in the tropically-adapted steatopygiac women of the Andaman Islands and the tropically-adapted steatopygiac women of certain black African groups. Since Caucasoids evolved in a climate in-between these two temperature extremes, Caucasoid women have body shapes that are intermediate between these two extremes. That was a long explanation, so let me reiterate the change to the article that I am suggesting. The image of the indigenous American and European woman in a friendly embrace should replace the current image, because it counters the racial bias in the current image by showing that different waist-to-hip ratios naturally exist on healthy adult females of reproductive age and similar body fat percentages, and that these differences are not related to obesity, being less of a woman and/or being less attractive.-- Ephert ( talk) 22:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is an account from the late nineteenth century of uncontacted black Africans' perception of their own physical attractiveness relative to white people's physical attractiveness. In The Works of Charles Darwin, Volume 22 which written in 1989, on the bottom of page 605, Charles Darwin appears to talk about the experiences of William Winwood Reade from Reade's account in the African Sketch Book which was written in 1873. Darwin reported that Reade told of his impressions of black Africans from the interior of Africa who had "never associated with Europeans". Reade was reported to have said that these black Africans did not consider very flat African noses to be attractive. Also, Reade was reported to have said that these black Africans like the long hair of white people and also the thick beard of white men, but Reade was reported to have said that these black Africans did not like white people's skin color, their blue eyes, their long noses and their thin lips. Unfortunately, this account of black Africans' beliefs of physical attractiveness is framed in a negative rather than a positive way. That is to say, it is not framed as black Africans finding their own skin color, their own eye color, their own nose length and their own lip thickness as being attractive physical traits. Instead, it is framed as black Africans finding the contrasting features of white people to be unattractive. I was wondering whether or not it would be considered a faithful representation of this source to reframe its statements in a positive way. My proposition would be to cite this source for the idea that black Africans in the interior of Africa from the late nineteenth century who had "never associated with Europeans" found their own skin color, their own eye color, their own nose length and their own lip thickness to be attractive physical traits. What do other people think of using this source in this way?-- Ephert ( talk) 01:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
According to studies that measure the lips physically, men have larger lips. Women have overall smaller faces however and narrower lips. For whatever reason I've often seen it mentioned that women have larger lips though. I think it's partially due to a desire to legitimize changes in beauty standards, seeing as full lips are particularly trendy. Should I link some studies here that show the measured differences? Sleepyed ( talk) 19:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)sleepyed
Jesus in media and artistic images is very masculine young man with slim body, facial hair and other manly features. Also in crucifixion he wearing nothing but a loincloth and exposing his toned and sun-kissed body. The body of Jesus has been the subject of many paintings over the centuries, and showing his masculinity and his slimness -- Fastez ( talk) 07:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This article has tons of photos of females, but none of males. Shouldn't this imbalance be corrected? --Roland 03:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Former Miss World and top Indian actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan is often cited as the "most beautiful woman in the world", for which she has received worldwide attention. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Atleast from South Asian perspective she can be considered very beautiful. Her pic should be put in article. Amateur0 ( talk) 22:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
We are thinking of adding some informations on this article as part of a university project. I am thinking of working especially on the fertility-driven attractiveness section [7], focusing mainly on how women's attractiveness is perceived across her menstrual cycle [8] [9], and the impact of hormones on women's attractiveness [10] [11]. Here are some sources I am thinking of using, please if anyone has more advice, don't hesitate to let met know :) Drey02 ( talk) 20:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
___
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Don't women, on average, consider large penis size to be a turn on? Why isn't this included in second paragraph?
== Animal physical attraction === (new section) Thinking of adding a section associated with animal attraction, including both primates and non-primates. Some of the references I will be using is as follows:
Smith, A. S., Ågmo, A., Birnie, A. K., & French, J. A. (2010). Manipulation of the oxytocin system alters social behavior and attraction in pair-bonding primates, Callithrix penicillata. Hormones and Behaviour, 57, 255-262.
Tegoni, M., Campanacci, V., & Cambillau, C. (2004). Structural aspects of sexual attraction and chemical communication in insects. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 29, 257-264.
Herbert, J. (1977). Gonadal Hormones and Sexual Behavior in Groups of Adult Talapoin Monkeys (Miopithecus talapoin). Hormones and Behaviour, 8, 141-154. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.g.rooney25 ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
For my university project I will be adding a section to this article focusing on how attraction differs when women are on the contraceptive pill. Here are some examples of research I am thinking of using:
Roberts, S. C., Cobey, K. D., Klapilová, K., & Havlíček, J. (2013). An evolutionary approach offers a fresh perspective on the relationship between oral contraception and sexual desire. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(8), 1369-1375.
Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Cobey, K. D., Klapilová, K., Havlíček, J., ... & Petrie, M. (2014). Partner Choice, Relationship Satisfaction, and Oral Contraception The Congruency Hypothesis. Psychological science, 25(7), 1497-1503.
Russell, V. M., McNulty, J. K., Baker, L. R., & Meltzer, A. L. (2014). The association between discontinuing hormonal contraceptives and wives’ marital satisfaction depends on husbands’ facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(48), 17081-17086.
Roberts, S. C., Klapilová, K., Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., ... & Havlíček, J. (2011). Relationship satisfaction and outcome in women who meet their partner while using oral contraception.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, rspb20111647. Hhammam ( talk) 14:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
For my Human Sexuality course at University I will be adding to the section which discusses attractiveness and youthfulness in females. I will be focusing on an evolutionary explanation for this and some of the research which may be included is listed below:
Clarke, L. C. H. (2002). Beauty in later life: Older women's perceptions of physical attractiveness. Canadian Journal on Aging, 21, 429-442.
Farmer, H., McKay, R., Tsakiris, M. (2014). Trust in Me: Trustworthy Others Are Seen as More Physically Similar to the Self. Psychological Science, 25, 290-292.
Iglesias-Julios. M., Munoz-Reyes, J. A., Pita, M., & Tturiegano, E. (2015). Facial Features: What Women Perceive as Attractive and What Men Consider Attractive. PLoS ONE, 10.
Karupiah, P. (2015). Have beauty ideals evolved? Reading of beauty ideals in Tamil movies by Malaysian Indian youths. Sociological Inquiry, 85, 239-261.
Oberzaucher, E., & Grammer, K. (2010). Immune reactivity and attractiveness. Gerontology, 56, 521-524.
Ricciardelli, L. A. & Williams, R. J. (2012). Beauty over the centuries - Male. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Swami, V. & Furham, A. (2008). The psychology of Attraction. New York, NY:Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group
Zebrowitz, L. A., Rhodes, G. (2002). Nature let a hundred flowers bloom: The multiple ways and wherefores of attractiveness. In G. Rhodes, L. A.
Zebrowitz (Eds.). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 261-293). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing
i think the article is very well structured and organized with informative neutral content. i think what would be really interesting to add in the social effects section of physical attractiveness is evidence for the existence of relationship between physical attractiveness and personality. Studies have show that symmetry is closely related to physical attractiveness [1] and symmetry is related to more social aversive personalities among individuals [2]. Sine there is evidence for these two correlations it would be interesting to see if there is research on how attractive people lead to certain personality traits
Aditi bhansali ( talk) 18:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
___
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
I think your discussion of youthfulness is a great addition to the Wikipedia page. The style of writing is easy to understand and you have made sure that the content is accessible to a wide audience of readers without jeopardising any of the accuracy. Perhaps you could highlight the evolutionary reasons for why women are attracted to older men and men are attracted to younger women? My first thought would be to talk about the fertility of younger women compared to older women, and the fitness of older men compared to younger men who cannot offer as much in terms of resources. In particular features of youthfulness influence peoples' perceptions of attractiveness [1]. Studies have shown that youthfulness of facial features influences' men's perceptions of women's attractiveness but not the other way around [2]. Evolutionarily, younger, more fertile women have higher mate value and are considered more attractive [3]. Linking your section on fertility-driven attractiveness with youthfulness could help the flow of the whole page. It could also be interesting to mention that women consider older men more attractive than younger men, potentially because, evolutionarily, older men have more resources and higher mate value [4].
EBL 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
____
I think this article is great overall - the layout and list format makes it easy to read and understand. It could be interesting to add some information about the influence of status symbols on male physical attractiveness - studies have shown that women consider status symbols to contribute to physical attractiveness of men. For example, one study found that the same male model was rated as more attractive when sitting in a "high-status" car, but this has no effect on male ratings of female models [1]. Another study found that women rate men as more attractive when they are wearing a red shirt than when they are wearing a blue shirt, and suggests that this is because the red colour makes men appear more powerful [2] The article might be improved by adding some information on this, perhaps with evolutionary reasons for why women value resources and strength in men. Oryx7892 ( talk) 11:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
___
This is a really interesting section and particularly interesting because it has been linked to real life data from dating websites.
One or two points could be clarified a bit more. It needs to be slightly clearer why youthfulness is an indicator of physical attractiveness from the evolutionary perspective. You could go into more detail about this.
Where it says 'women's attractiveness does not change between 18 and 40', this is not clear what you mean. Does this mean that male's opinions of female attractiveness does not change? On a similar note, I think the following sentence needs to be clarified 'This may explain why age combating age declines in attractiveness occurs from a younger age in women than in men.' You could change the wording to make it clearer to the reader.
You could perhaps link 'pheromones' to the wikipedia page for it as some readers may not be aware of what they are. And similarly, perhaps explain in more detail what 'honest signals' are and what the research and theory is behind this.
Overall, it is a well written section! EllaMcCann ( talk) 11:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
EllaMcCann (
talk •
contribs)
11:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
__
Changes you could make to the youthfulness:
1. Could include the fact that women are the most physically attractive to males when their reproductive value is at it's highest, Symons (1979) suggests this is late teens but precise data on this point is lacking
2. A few more hyperlinks to relevant articles would be handy and useful to readers
Psunco ( talk) 16:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
___
WP:Student editing has recently been going on at this article, and not all of it has been good. As seen above, I objected to material that Hhammam added. I'm not stating that none of it should be added, but it does need tweaking.
Hhammam, Psuneh, and R.g.rooney25, when experienced Wikipedians object to your edits to this article, you are supposed to take the time to discuss the matter at the article talk page, not immediately revert or assume you know what the problem is and restore the material. When Izno reverted here, for example, none of you addressed the matter here on the talk page. Do read what WP:Student editing states about working with experienced Wikipedians. This article is big enough as it is, so WP:SIZE is something to consider, and I feel that a lot of what is being added is overkill or WP:Undue weight. Noting evolutionary perspectives is fine, but going overboard with it is another thing. And the recently added Sexual ornamentation subsection in the Female physical attractiveness section addresses the breasts and buttocks, which already have subsections in that section. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hhammam, the "The effects of oral contraception on physical attractiveness" section you added is problematic per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). That is why I reverted you here and here. Do not keep restoring this material. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
One aspect of physical attraction that oral contraception can affect is female’s attraction to masculine males. For example, women that are not using hormonal contraception are more likely to prefer a masculine face, body shape and voice during the fertile phase of their menstrual cycle. However, women taking the contraceptive pill do not experience the same peak in the middle of their cycle [1] [2] [3]. This reduced preference for masculine partners has been shown by Little, Burris, Petrie, Jones and Roberts (2013) [4] who found that the partners of women using hormonal contraceptive were rated less masculine than those who did not use oral contraception
Masculine facial traits are cues of genetic and fitness benefits. For example, Masculine-faced men are healthier, stronger and more dominant. They also pursue more short term than long-term relationships, indicating little investment. It has been suggested that the weaker preference for masculine faces and voices seen in women using contraceptives is due to the raised progesterone levels, which are similar to that of pregnancy where good genes are of low importance and a preference for more feminine, cooperative and investing males is more valuable [5]. An alternative theory is that women on the contraceptive pill do not experience the increased attention to masculine features around the time of ovulation that non-pill users do and so are less attentive to masculine features [4].
Increased progesterone levels during oral contraception use also increases women's attraction to healthy faces as progesterone can weaken the immune system and an increased attraction to healthy faces may be adaptive to reduce risk of infection. [6]
Scent can influence physical attractiveness, for example exposure to male pheromones increased the attractiveness of men to women [7]. Additionally, research has found that women preferred the odour of genetically dissimilar men to those who were genetically similar. They also prefer the odour of symmetrical males when in the fertile phase of their menstrual cycle. However, this is not seen in women using oral contraception who instead report having a higher preference for the scent of genetically similar males. It has been suggested that this may be because oral contraceptives produce a hormonal state similar to pregnancy, where a preference for genetically similar relatives is beneficial as they may provide support in raising your child [8] [9].
Oral contraception does not only affect women’s perception of attraction. It has been found that men rated women’s voices, and odours as more attractive around the fertile phase. For women using oral contraception this variation along the menstrual cycle was not seen [10] [11]. Men in relationships also rated their partners as less attractive when using hormonal contraception than when they were regularly cycling. It has also been found that oral contraception can affect men’s perception of their own attractiveness, as men rated themselves as less attractive when their partner was using oral contraception than then their partners were regularly cycling [12]. It is thought that this is because men find women most attractive when progesterone levels are low, which corresponds to fertility, whereas oral contraception increases progesterone levels to that of pregnancy, indicating low risk of conception [13].
References
Posting here for easier consideration/discussion. Will read and comment in a bit. Jytdog ( talk) 21:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
So, sourcing is unacceptable.
This is not useable. Jytdog ( talk) 21:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
In order to remain neutral, I think it's important that this article also feature at least one photo or representation of male attractiveness. It currently has 11 pictures of female attractiveness. I don't know much about Wikipedia so suggestions welcome. 70.60.230.215 ( talk) 00:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
A person who is ugly can have a completely symmetrical body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.50.217 ( talk) 18:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed the theory that good looking people are intelligent. Most nobel prize winners are ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.50.217 ( talk) 15:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
You need to have a source about that. The List of Nobel laureates in Literature does not include supermodels, but I see among them decently-looking people like Selma Lagerlöf, Grazia Deledda, and Sigrid Undset. Dimadick ( talk) 08:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
IP, what you were reverted on is not stating that good-looking people are automatically intelligent. It's speaking of the perception more than anything. And in any case, there is the "dumb blonde" perception for some physically attractive women with blond hair. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I will state that the author behind the source, Satoshi Kanazawa, is quite controversial, though. In cases like these, it's best to look into his work and see how it holds up to the general literature. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Ephert, adding primary source after primary source study is not the way to build Wikipedia articles. I think I've told you this before. Look for WP:Secondary sources instead. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Travesti: sex, gender, and culture among Brazilian transgendered prostitutes a 1998 book by Don Kulick, Page 70 |
---|
in exasperation at a travesti who had marked little xs with eyebrow pen– After the talk reaffirming that "one always has to do a little touching Throughout Brazil, the hallmark of feminine beauty is not first and |
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
I removed the image of "Wikipe-tan" but an IP editor reverted me twice and suggested I take it to the talk page, so I am doing so.
I want to remove this image because:
In summary, both this image and its caption should removed due to being inappropriate, WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH.-- greenrd ( talk) 11:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Disagree. This is not an image of a young girl. This is an image of wikipe-tan. Person who removed this is batshit crazy. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan More, the image is there to describe a category of physical attractiveness. 2001:558:6025:75:6168:955F:54A1:6CB9 ( talk) 06:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how that image improves the article. And if its caption is WP:OR, it certainly should stay removed. Ephert, did you add that image, like you added most of the other images? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Physical attractiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no solution to fixing this article except totally tearing it down and building it up from scratch. It is an absolute mess: politically, socially, structurally, scientifically. Nmwe5j58 ( talk) 22:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
we need a separate article for facial beauty. All of these qualities are wonderful but after it's all said and done we are attracted to a beautiful face.i learned nothing about what makes a face beautiful except symmetry. the words "symmetry" and "symmetrical" appear over 65 times in this article which is frankly absurd. symmetrical faces be ugly and asymmetrical faces can be good looking.. why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:5D0:3D90:E931:61DA:83CC ( talk) 14:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
As seen here and here, I twice reverted the following addition by WikiManStan ( talk · contribs):
___
Data from OkCupid has show that men tended to not be attracted to African American women, but other wise had little racial preference. Women first preferred their own race, but had white men as a second place (except for white women who had white men as their number one preference). [1] A study from Coffee Meets Bagel shows that Asian women prefer White men more than White men prefer Asian women. [2]
References
___
I reverted because this data comes from the OkCupid and Coffee Meets Bagel dating site blogs and the text generalizes the preferences of white men, white women and Asian women. These are not encyclopedic sources in any way, and, per WP:Reliable sources, blogs are typically not the type of sources we should be including (unless it's a news blog, which still has exceptions). As for the other OkCupid material in the article, I don't agree with it being included either, but it is at least tailored to the OkCupid site and is not written in a way that seems to be suggesting that men and women are that way in general. Pinging Maunus, Greenrd, Johnbod and Zefr for their thoughts on this. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Where to begin...
89.173.151.168 ( talk) 01:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I think a great deal of confusion could be set aside if this were split into two articles. One focusing on sexual arousal and physical attractiveness and the other focusing specifically on just physical attractiveness that is not intended for purposes of sexual arousal. Then make a link to the page specifically about sexual attractiveness to lead people who are looking just for that.
Or at lesst make an article focused specifically on sexual attraction and have a link to it. But this new article should deal with specific adult man and adult women sexual attractions (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise). And not deal with fetishes or mental illnesses which lead to inappropriate sexual attractiveness of others such as children. That would be my recommendation to kind of clean the article up. In so far as people could no longer argue about other forms of attraction that don't involve defined body parts and whether sexual arousal is necessary. 2601:8D:8800:A032:D9BF:AAA0:EC69:FD76 ( talk) 07:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Physical attractiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sesever.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Sensitivity-to-Bad-Genes.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Diener-Physical-Attractiveness-and-Subjective-Well-Being.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I do not understand why there are mentions of the preferences of persian, arabian, chinese/japanese/thailand/asian cultures yet none from europe. What gives? Are these being removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.139.97 ( talk) 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
No mention of the golden ratio? See: Golden ratio Objects, eg. buildings, faces etc that conform to the golden ratio are thought to be more physically attractive.
Also: "In computer face averaging tests, women with averaged faces have been shown to be considered more attractive.[22][134] This is possibly due to average features being more familiar and, therefore, more comfortable.[117]" - What does this paragraph mean?? BronHiggs ( talk) 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
An "OK Cupid study" (LOL) is nothing scientific but a ridiculous try of inserting pseudo-science into an article. Parts of the whole article lack the scientific and encyclopedic approach an encyclopedia must have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:8C:4C09:6300:755C:572F:E81E:753F ( talk) 23:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Physical attractiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Suggest renaming to human beauty. "Physical attractiveness" is common but its jargon, as "physical" is itself jargon for "body," a meaning which is distant, and it would be better to say "bodily attractiveness." "Human beauty" is more formal, and philosophical. - Inowen ( talk) 01:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Why is there only a Genitalia section in the male category and not the female category, when there are enough studies about female genital attractiveness one could reference from? In my opinion that unbalance or better said lack of information on female Genitalia paints a bad picture about equality standards of Wikipedia. For example here is already an article about how attractiveness in Vulvas is perceived by heterosexual men and what attributes are deemed as desirable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26032042/ There are even more articles, but at least a start for a section with the information there is urgently needed. Tariq Si ( talk) 09:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)