Talk:Physical attractiveness

Penis size

Don't women, on average, consider large penis size to be a turn on? Why isn't this included in second paragraph?

Ideas for improvement

Here are a few ideas I was wondering about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• As per Flyer22, the lead section should probably be pared a bit, or detailed information moved south into the body of the article so the lead sticks with its task of staying as a summary.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• I would like more pictures -- ones which hopefully make this article about physical attraction more visually attractive; but at the same time, not adding ones which encourage battling. Any ideas?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm wondering whether some subjects have been left out here; in particular, I think physical attractiveness is more than physical characteristics such as hair, facial symmetry and such, but is a perceived quality which can be influenced by what a person thinks and does and choices in dress or behavior. That is, a woman or man who thinks they're good looking will (in my view -- but I think it's right) come across to others as better looking. Things like: attitude; dress; associations (ie being seen with beautiful people -- does the perception of beauty rub off on others next to beautiful people?). Another: how does physical attractiveness change as people age? (Can this be measured scientifically possibly?). Whole subject of measuring physical attractiveness -- I'm curious about it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Wondering if we can think of a better subsection title that "Possible gender differences for preferences".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• When researching, I found that many characteristics of physically attractive people are shared by both sexes, such as facial symmetry. I had wondered where to add information which applied to both genders, but the article is divided up into "male physical attractiveness" and "female physical attractiveness". This division is tidy but maybe we should consider adding a section for characteristics which both men and women share (ie symmetry, youthfulness, etc).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Cunningham -- a whole paragraph about only one researcher seems overdone, out of balance; like, maybe that paragraph should be collapsed, or maybe we might consider splitting off an article devoted only to research studies about physical attractiveness, and include the Cunningham information there?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• The paragraph about White Lies: Race and the Myth of Whiteness maybe should be moved to the "Racial bias" subsection?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a few ideas for now. But overall I think this article is a fairly good one, wouldn't you agree, overall, but it could use improvement like everything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Some good ideas. The lead was significantly cut down, but was recently restored to its longer version by Loodog, which I tweaked, because Loodog wanted the sociobiological reasons, etc. in the lead...but accidentally restored things too far.[1][2][3][4]

I'm not sure about adding more pictures; edit wars always seem to break out over them, at least in the past when editing of this article was more active.

Physical attractiveness may be more than physical characteristics. I hear all the time how a person may find a person's "mind" sexy and therefore the person becomes physically attractive to him or her. That should have its own section, backed up by reliable sources.

A better subsection title than Possible gender differences for preferences? We could cut it back down to Gender differences for preferences, like it used to be.

I feel that the article being divided up into Male physical attractiveness and Female physical attractiveness is needed to neatly and clearly cover what is found attractive in the different sexes. You speak of youth, for example, but it seems youth is more important to men. But I'm not against you adding a subsection on preference that both sides share. The Possible gender differences section could even cover it if retitled to Gender differences and similarities for preferences, or something like that. We need a shorter title.

And as you know, I commented on the newly-added Cunningham paragraph in my edit summary. I also moved it away from starting the Facial features section about women. I'm not sure that we collapse paragraphs in Wikipedia articles. And it's not that big of a paragraph anyway. But cutting away at it? Yes. Though I disagree with splitting off an article devoted only to research studies about physical attractiveness. If you wanted to make such an article, I really couldn't stop you, however.

The paragraph about White Lies: Race and the Myth of Whiteness maybe should be moved to the "Racial bias" subsection.

I'm worried about adding too much to this article. It already has a lot in it. But then again, WP:SIZE is okay with it, I believe. And even if it isn't, we have articles way bigger than this on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

About the recent picture that's been added, I commented here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See what you mean. Like, allowing even one picture in, of a model or somebody currently alive, is kind of like a huge advertisement for them. What if we had a policy of only choosing pictures of persons (including sculptures, paintings etc) before, say, 1940 possibly, or maybe even a little earlier. Then, there would be no question of a photo here being used for publicity purposes. Further, we could have a policy that any possible pictures be posted to the talk page for perhaps a week to let people comment on whether to include them?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, in part, with the objection to publicity. The only issue I have with dual purpose pics is that in the process of excluding them one also excludes an example of potentially highly relevant and indicative representation. Using old pics doesn't itself solve the problems. Ewawer (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean too. Like, I think the best pictures of beautiful people are ones who are alive today, unfortunately, and I wish there could be a good compromise solution while avoiding editing battling as well as keeping this article from turning into a soft porn pullout, but I'm wondering whether there is a good solution here. I might troll through the Wikimedia pictures and post possible pictures to a gallery here on this talk page and get feedback.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We used to have a pic of Jessica Alba up, which was probably among the least objectionable choices since the image was her on the cover of Playboy with the title being "Sexiest celebrities". Still, many objected that rather than being shown as an example that showed attractive features that the inclusion of the pic amounted to implicit endorsement that she was the pinnacle of human attractiveness and maybe gave the perception that the editors here were a bunch of Alba fanboys going, "OMG, she's soo sexy!" There may also have been objections to the specifics of her body shape, since individual and cultural preferences exist for broader and less curvy women and that Alba was simply an example of the body shape so idealized and propagated by Western media and/or advertisers.--Louiedog (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Alba would be great but I can see the problems developing like you suggest, unfortunately; btw did you see her film Into the Blue? Hmmmmm--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture possibilities

Searching for "beauty" in Wikimedia Commons, there were quite a few paintings of women from previous centuries, very few of men. Searching for "handsome", there were not that many men showing up. So I searched for "prince", then "don juan" then finally rolled around to trying to dredge up deceased male film stars. Here's a tentative list to choose from (please feel free to add others). Other idea: beauty pageants from a while ago (black and white photos of women in bikinis). Wondering what people think. Perhaps we might have a voting system so that each active editor can choose perhaps 10 pictures, and we'll see what comes up? But I think we need more men in there but I'm not sure what criteria to use for selecting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gallery (below) submitted by tomwsulcer but feel free to add more pictures.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mongoloid Gallery Options

• 

  A Kyoto Geisha JAPANESE (1759-1818)

• 

  Cham Angel CHAM (7th-15th Century)

• 

  The Wrestler OLMEC (1200-500 BCE)

• 

  Maya figurine MAYA 650-800 CE

• 

  Shin Bijin JAPANESE 1897

• 

  Four Beauties CHINESE (Early 20th Century)

• 

  Woman with a Spray of Flowers MONGOL (1575 CE)

• 

  TOTANAC (600-1200 CE)

Negroid Gallery Options

• 

  Ife sculpture IFE (12th century CE)

• 

  Head of an Oba King OBA (16th Century)

• 

  Wee Spoon Unknown Wee artist WEE (late 19th to early 20th Century)

Australoid Gallery Options

• 

  PAPUAN (1897)

• 

  TAMIL (10th CENTURY CE)

• 

  POLYNESIAN (1250-1500 CE)

Caucasoid Gallery Options

• 

  Fath Ali Shah PERSIAN (1814 CE)

• 

  EGYPTIAN (380-362 BCE)

• 

  MESOPOTAMIAN (2750-2600 BCE)

• 

  Bartolini Fiducia ITALIAN (1835)

• 

  Uffizi Wrestlers recreation of 3rd Century Greek statue

• 

  Beauty Henry Howard, 1836

• 

  Beauty and the Butterfly, Vittorio Matteo Corcos, before 1923

• 

  Sadko in the Underwater Kingdom, 1875

• 

  Konstantin Makovsky (1839-1915)

• 

  American Beauties by Jerome Thompson (1867)

• 

  Woman behind cattails (1895)

• 

  Classical Beauty by J. W. Godward (1861–1922)

• 

  Beauty by Boris Kustodiev (1915)

• 

  A Rare Beauty by Gustave Jacquet (before 1923)

• 

  An Oriental Beauty Valery Jacobi, 1881

• 

  A Beauty with Doves, Charles Joshua Chaplin (1825–1891)

• 

  An Oriental Beauty Jean-François Portaels, circa 1877

• 

  A Type of Beauty by James Tissot, 1880

• 

  Beauty preparing to bathe Konstantin Makovsky (1839–1915) L

• 

  Russian beauty in summer garland Konstantin Makovsky (1839–1915)

• 

  An Elegant Beauty William Clarke Wontner (1857-1930)

• 

  Time orders Old Age to destroy Beauty ca. 1746

• 

  Father Time Overcome by Love, Hope and Beauty Simon Vouet, 1627

• 

  A Spring Beauty Vittorio Matteo Corcos, 1886

• 

  A Young Beauty With Flowers In Her Hair Albert Lynch (1851–1912)

• 

  Gustave Doyen, before 1937

• 

  Philip the Handsome between 1496 and 1500

• 

  Prince Alfred Duke of Edinburgh & Saxe-Coburg Gotha, Carl I. Bergamasco (1830–1896)

• 

  Prince Albert, F Winterhalter 1842

• 

  Don Juan de Austria, Alonso Sánchez Coello (1532–1588)

• 

  American actor Charlie Chaplin, 1900–1910s

• 

  Napoleon Bonaparte on the Bridge at Arcole, Antoine-Jean Gros, Late 1796 - early 1797

• 

  Cropped screenshot of Rock Hudson from the trailer for the film Giant.

• 

  Hl. Johannes der Täufer in der Wüste Guido Reni c. 1640

• 

  Academic Study of a Male TorseJean Auguste Dominique Ingres (1801)

• 

  Bathing Men Georg Vilhelm Pauli (1855–1935)

• 

  Porträt des Bonifazius Amerbach Hans Holbein the Younger 1519

• 

  Christi Höllenfahrt, Detail: Eva (Adam & Eve) Beccafumi, Domenicon 1530-1535

• 

  THE REGENT, PHILIPPE DUC D'ORLEANS AND HIS MISTRESS, MADELEINE DE LA VIEUVILLE, MADAME DE PARABERE, AS ADAM AND EVE IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN Jean-Baptiste Santerre 1651-1717

• 

  The Woman The Man the Serpent John Liston Byam Shaw (before 70 years ago)

• 

  Dieu réprimandant Adam et Ève (détail) Domenichino 1623-1625

• 

  self portrait by Hyacinthe Rigaud Hyacinthe Rigaud 1698

• 

  Portrait of Duarte de Sousa da Mata Coutinho 17th century

• 

  Michelangelo's David (original statue) Michelangelo

Please choose exactly ten (10) pictures. Try to balance out men and women. Vote beneath them by signing your name. Feel free to add more pictures or make comments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• American Beauties by Jerome Thompson (1867)

--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Woman behind cattails (1895)
• Classical Beauty by J. W. Godward (1861–1922)
• Beauty by Boris Kustodiev (1915)

--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Mongoloid woman - A Kyoto Geisha Yamaguchi Soken (1759-1818)
• Mongoloid man -'The Wrestler Unknown Olmec artist (1200-500 BCE)
• Caucasoid man - Uffizi Wrestlers recreation (3rd century CE)
• Caucasoid woman - Classical Beauty by J. W. Godward (1861–1922)
• Negroid man - Head of an Oba King' (16th Century)
• Negroid woman - Wee Spoon Unknown (late 19th to early 20th Century)

--Ephert (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Beauty Henry Howard, 1836
• Shin Bijin (True Beauties) by Toyohara Chikanobu, 1897

--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Beauty and the Butterfly, Vittorio Matteo Corcos, before 1923
• Sadko in the Underwater Kingdom, 1875
• Konstantin Makovsky (1839-1915)
• A Rare Beauty by Gustave Jacquet (before 1923)
• An Oriental Beauty Valery Jacobi, 1881

--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• A Beauty with Doves, Charles Joshua Chaplin (1825–1891)
• An Oriental Beauty Jean-François Portaels, circa 1877
• A Type of Beauty by James Tissot, 1880
• Beauty preparing to bathe Konstantin Makovsky (1839–1915) L

--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Russian beauty in summer garland Konstantin Makovsky (1839–1915)
• An Elegant Beauty William Clarke Wontner (1857-1930)

--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Time orders Old Age to destroy Beauty ca. 1746
• Father Time Overcome by Love, Hope and Beauty Simon Vouet, 1627
• A Spring Beauty Vittorio Matteo Corcos, 1886
• A Young Beauty With Flowers In Her Hair Albert Lynch (1851–1912)
• Gustave Doyen, before 1937
• Philip the Handsome between 1496 and 1500
• Prince Alfred Duke of Edinburgh...
• Prince Albert, ...
• Don Juan de Austria, Alonso Sánchez Coello (1532–1588)
• American actor Charlie Chaplin, 1900–1910s

--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Napoleon Bonaparte on the Bridge at Arcole, Antoine-Jean Gros, ...
• Cropped screenshot of Rock Hudson from the trailer for the film Giant.
• Hl. Johannes der Täufer in der Wüste Guido Reni c. 1640
• Academic Study of a Male TorseJean Auguste Dominique Ingres (1801)
• Bathing Men Georg Vilhelm Pauli (1855–1935)

--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Porträt des Bonifazius Amerbach Hans Holbein the Younger 1519
• Christi Höllenfahrt, Detail: Eva (Adam & Eve) Beccafumi, Domenicon 1530-1535

--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• THE REGENT, PHILIPPE DUC D'ORLEANS ...
• The Woman The Man the Serpent John Liston Byam Shaw (before 70 years ago)
• Dieu réprimandant Adam et Ève (détail) Domenichino 1623-1625
• self portrait by Hyacinthe Rigaud Hyacinthe Rigaud 1698
• Portrait of Duarte de Sousa da Mata Coutinho 17th century
• Michelangelo's David (original statue)

--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see the effort made to compile these pictures, but I have pre-empted the process by adding a pin-up girl photo, to try it on in context. I feel a photo is more suitable than a painting. Ewawer (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't pre-empted the process. You'll find that in Wikipedia it is worth it in the long run to get the views of other contributors; like I'd like others to weigh in first and try to get some consensus before doing something contentious like pictures. Why not add the pin-up picture to the list, above, and then vote on it?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like A Kyoto Geisha by Yamaguchi Soken (1759-1818) to be in the article. I do not want Shin Bijin by Toyohara Chikanobu, (1897), to be in the article, because her chin was drawn too large for her face.--Ephert (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I added it to the list and put your name beneath it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There should be equal depictions of Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid men and women. I propose the Japanese painting A Kyoto Geisha as a representative for a Mongoloid woman and the Olmec statue The Wrestler as a representative for a Mongoloid man. I favor Classical Beauty as a representative for a Caucasoid woman and I propose Uffizi Wrestlers as a representative for a Caucasoid man. I propose Head of an Oba King as a representative for a Negroid man and Wee Spoon as a representative for a Negroid woman.--Ephert (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are additional pictures you mentioned which are not yet in the gallery, please add them. And please add your signature beneath the pictures you favor. I agree about trying to balance out pictures of people from different races and backgrounds but I don't think a hard-and-fast rule is necessary, but that we should take these things into account when we make our personal choices.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I take back what I said about equal Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid men and women pictures, since I see you have added a cited picture that represents a study on facial attractiveness. That is the kind of picture that should be in this article. Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid representatives would be second best, in my opinion, if a cited picture like that could not be found. Since they are not cited by reputable sources as being representative of beauty, I think the Betty Grable, Venus De Milo and Adonis pictures should be removed, leaving only the Jessica Alba and Betty Boop pictures cited to Fiona Macrae and Barry Bogin respectively.--Ephert (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree but what I'm thinking is that we should probably not be adding individual pictures on our own (like I just did -- ok -- so I'm a hypocrite here) but the stuff on U. Toronto was so cool I thought I had to add it, and the J. Alba face was the only one of the three that was looking forward and would work best to illustrate the point. The thing we should try to avoid is having needless edit-battling over pictures and I think the best approach overall is probably to have discussions and get consensus here on the talk page, including Flyer and others who actively work with this article, and try to get pictures which balance men vs women and balance different races while trying to avoid some kind of racial quota system. Like, if we go ahead and make decisions, I bet in a week or so there will be tug-of-wars with other pictures and we'll all end up wasting a lot of time. So, maybe we should establish a deadline to hash out these picture choices, and put Venus de Milo and Betty Boop along with the others above on this talk page, and so how about August 10th? That's when we decide. So speak up people now please.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the lead pictures (File:Venus de Milo Louvre Ma399 n4.jpg and File:Adonis Mazarin Louvre MR239.jpg) should stay. I don't much care what other pictures are removed. Ephert removed the pictures that were in this article when he first arrived at it, and the only ones I really objected to the removal of were the lead ones. And these two images can definitely be cited by reputable sources as being representative of beauty. Flyer22 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with Flyer for the additional reason that Venus & Adonis are probably less likely to spark picture-battling, since they've been on this page a while without coming under attack. And the Betty Boop and Betty Grable stuff -- maybe we should add that to the gallery list but put them in play, meaning up for review?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"And these two images can definitely be cited by reputable sources as being representative of beauty." If you believe these two sources can be cited to peer-reviewed, reputable psychological journals, then you should cite them yourself or they should be removed. I do NOT believe they can be cited to peer-reviewed, reputable psychological journals.--Ephert (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ephert, we do not have to cite images to "peer-reviewed, reputable psychological journals." That is your preference. I should have stated, "And these two images can definitely be cited by reliable sources as being representative of beauty." Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

“

In the following discussion, I set the Aphrodite of Melos within its original context: the world of a minor Hellenistic city and in particular its gymnasium. While previous scholars have described the statue as a timeless ideal of female beauty, they have paid insufficient attention to its contemporary appearance and function, and to its calculated response to earlier images and texts (page 227)...convincing representation of a heavyset, almost matronly, image of a mature goddess. And finally, as Magiddis has shown, the sculptor has used classical elements for the head -- for example, the small, extremely regular eyes and mouth; the strongly delineated brow line, eyelids and nosebridge; the full lower face and heavy chin... The neoclassical style helps impart an impressive appearance to an over-life-sized statue of a major Olympian goddess. (page 239) The argument concerning Aphrodite's appropriateness in a gymnasium, it is argued, reflects modern perceptions of the goddess' role rather than ancient beliefs and practices...the goddess' role as a protector of young men-- above all, as their guide during transition to adulthood via marriage and sexuality -- helps explain her presence here. (page 241)

”

Kousser, R. (2005). Creating the Past: The Vénus de Milo and the Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece. American Journal of Archaeology, 109(2), 227-250.

I have saved you the effort Flyer. Rachel Kousser who published in the American Journal of Archaeology claims the Aphrodite of Melos statue had an imposing appearance that was intended convey her attributes as a powerful goddess to protect young men in the gymnasium -- her appearance was NOT an ideal female beauty even at the time.--Ephert (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If one source suggests the Aphrodite wasn't the ideal beauty image, still, Aphrodite was the Greek goddess of beauty. She complements Adonis nicely. So we have male & female classical images as the lead picture -- I think Venus & Adonis work fine there. If you can come up with a better alternative, and if Flyer might agree, I'll swing towards your view. In the meantime please update the gallery and please choose perhaps 10 that you like best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Xochipilli is also a god of beauty... Would you apply your reasoning to this case as well? Of course you would not. This example goes to show that just because a god or goddess is in charge of beauty does not mean they are beautiful themselves.--Ephert (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If I had to choose ten candidates, I would choose three Mongoloids, three Caucasoids and three Negroid representatives with the final candidate representing Australoids. For the three Mongoloids, I have chosen the best and most realistic Mongoloid artwork: a Kyoto Geisha (Japanese; 1759-1818 CE), Wrestler (Olmec; 1200-1500 BCE) and the Maya figurine (Maya; 650-800 CE). For the three Caucasoids, I too have chosen the best and most realistic Caucasoid craftsmanship: Uffizi Wrestlers (Greek; 3rd Century CE), Bartolini Fiducia (Italian; 1835) and Michelangelo's David (Italian; 1504). For the three Negroids, I have chosen the finest quality and most realistic Negroid masterpieces: Wee Spoon (Wee; late 19th - early 20th century), Head of an Oba King (Oba; 16th Century CE) and Ife sculpture (Ife; 12th century CE). Lastly, I choose Skull Mask (Papuan; 1897 CE) as a work depicting Australoids.--Ephert (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Tomwsulcer and Flyer22 seem to have already found two Caucasoid candidates you find fitting, you should pick two Mongoloid candidates and two Negroid candidates. This article cannot represent a neutral point of view if there are only two Caucasoids represented and not an equal number of Mongoloids and equal number of Negroids and maybe Australoids. Following this train of thought, if this article is going to have three Caucasoids depicted, then it should have three Mongoloids and three Negroids depicted as well as some number of Australoids and so on and so forth. --Ephert (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ephert, I stated this above, but I'm stating it here, too, in case you miss it: We do not have to cite images to "peer-reviewed, reputable psychological journals." That is your preference. I should have stated, "And these two images can definitely be cited by reliable sources as being representative of beauty." Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So on that note, I want to add that while Aphrodite, according to the one source you cited, wasn't the ideal beauty, she is still representative of beauty and has been for years. In poetry, song, film, television, etc. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. And about Aphrodite's oids. Mostly Caucasoid but possibly some Negroid in there too (they called her Afrodite). Plus wasn't her mother part Persian (Mongoloid?) Definitely no Australoid; still, I think Aphrodite is a keeper however we add her oids.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture possibilities (continued)

I think we should strive for a balance, but I am thinking we should have four Mongoloids, two Caucasoids, and three Negroids (I agree with one Australoid) since it would more accurately reflect the worldwide population distribution. Xochipilli is not the god of beauty but has that as only one task; Aphrodite was the goddess of beauty. Please add ideas of pictures you think would be appropriate to the gallery above. Could you explain your choices more fully?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, what if an image belongs to multiple oids. Like, is Jessica Alba a Caucasoid or a Mongoloid? Should we award points for mixed oids in backgrounds? I admit I'm somewhat biased to both Mongoloids and Caucasoids, however, because I'm half of each (Cauc + Asian => Caucasian), that is, half Asian, half cauc. But I'm descended from Africans from East Africa about 250K yrs ago.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should strive for a neutral point of view. I personally have a very specific beauty ideal and I have come to realize other people have very specific beauty ideals too, so I feel a racial quota using depictions made by the different races themselves is the way to represent a neutral point of view. As for mixed race people, I think people like Jessica Alba (87% Caucasoid 13% Mongoloid) should be balanced out with other mixed race people, so in her case someone would have to be approximately 87% Mongoloid and 13% Caucasoid to balance her out.--Ephert (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to try to be balanced about this, we should have a good sprinkling of different races and different body types and different genders. It might be good to deliberately include mixed race people if we can get an article that talks about the apparently recent trend toward multiethnic beauty in a lot of media.--Louiedog (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm wondering what is the best way to go about this without getting into senseless fuss over particular pictures. I think almost any pictures in the article would be an improvement so overall I'm not that fussy about any particular picture, except for the two on the top already (Venus & Adonis).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm worried about us adding too many pictures. We don't need this to become a photo album, LOL. Remember that we can always add a photo gallery to the bottom of the article, though, like we do for Eye color. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how many pictures do you think we might add to the article without it getting too album-y, and how many can we add to the gallery? I like pictures. Maybe it's my third-grade fear-of-reading something without enough pictures -- books with ONLY text scared me then -- and maybe the fear lingers even today? Plus I think lots of people click thru Wikipedia and don't really read much -- they're looking for pictures. And I would like to make this article about physical attractiveness a case study in physical attractiveness, and I think pictures would help. And, not to brag (ok I'm bragging) I was once told that I had a certain "je ne sais crois" which is French I believe for "being attractive" so maybe a picture of moi could go in too? Next to Venus de Milo?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess different body types should be added too... I have seen a documentary on Youtube that some men find female bodybuilders attractive and I have read about some men finding fat women attractive as well. I think that too many pictures would not be a problem if they were added in gallery at the end of the article.--Ephert (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a Cham sculpture to the gallery from the Champa civilization. Cham are an Austronesian people with different features from the Japanese and Mayan Mongoloids I suggested. This should be taken into account when deciding if this picture should be included in the article as one of the Mongoloid representatives.--Ephert (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I added Papuan, Tamil and Polynesian self-depictions to the gallery and I think that if these people are going to count as Australoid for this project, then Australoids should get three i.e. equal number of representatives with Mongoloids, Caucasoids and Negroids. I could not find a self-depiction made by the indigenous people of Australia, so these people who I think have been considered part Australoid by some experts will have to do. Also, I disagree with Tomwsulcer's suggestion that there should be more Mongoloid representatives than other races and I do not understand his reasoning behind that suggestion. I think each race should only get three representatives.--Ephert (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's good there are more choices but many of the photos added are statues or figurines, more like artwork, than examples of physical attractiveness. Wouldn't you prefer to have photos of real people? I had thought we might avoid the battling over which photos of people in the present if we avoided this, and we chose paintings of people from the past. Plus we should have to balance men vs women too. I'm coming around to seeing that this whole "adding pictures" idea is opening up a can of worms, with all this "oid" stuff -- like we're weighing what I see as an essentially irrelevant factor (race or ethnicity or genetic heritage) too heavily, and it's pushing us away from the subject, which is physical attractiveness. So I'm kind of thinking -- let's keep it the way it is for now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not important that the representatives are different races as long as the study used as a citation included different races as raters. Let me clarify. If the raters did not find women of all races equally attractive, as was the case in the Cunningham study where "Asian" and "Hispanic" women were found most attractive, the study would still represent a neutral point of view as long as the raters were a diverse selection of races. This is the important criterion here. An unequal number of racial representatives in this article would be justified and neutral as long as the picture selection represented the findings of neutral and reliable studies. Case in point would be the Jessica Alba picture currently in the article, since she has a very neotenous face relative to pure Caucasoid women, and this was found to be considered feminine and attractive by races other than just Caucasoids.--Ephert (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Aphrodite of Melos

It has been four days since Flyer22 wrote, "And these two images can definitely be cited by reputable sources as being representative of beauty.", and I would like to know how long do I have to wait until Flyer22 or some other editor finds a reliable source that claims the Aphrodite of Melos appearance was considered beautiful by the ancient Greeks. Flyer22, I should not have to wait indefinitely for you to source your claim. This type of search does not take four days. It took me roughly an hour to find a reliable source from a journal of archaeology that claimed the Aphrodite of Melos statue was not considered beautiful by the ancient Greeks and I imagine finding a source that claims a particular statue was not attractive would be much more difficult than finding a source that claims a particular statue was attractive. What I am asking for is source from a relevant peer-reviewed journal having the Aphrodite of Melos's beauty or lack thereof as its main focus, since I can easily find less than credible sources on the internet assuming she was considered beautiful by the related albeit dubious evidence that she was the goddess of beauty.--Ephert (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

“

In the following discussion, I set the Aphrodite of Melos within its original context: the world of a minor Hellenistic city and in particular its gymnasium. While previous scholars have described the statue as a timeless ideal of female beauty, they have paid insufficient attention to its contemporary appearance and function, and to its calculated response to earlier images and texts (page 227)...convincing representation of a heavyset, almost matronly, image of a mature goddess. And finally, as Magiddis has shown, the sculptor has used classical elements for the head -- for example, the small, extremely regular eyes and mouth; the strongly delineated brow line, eyelids and nosebridge; the full lower face and heavy chin... The neoclassical style helps impart an impressive appearance to an over-life-sized statue of a major Olympian goddess. (page 239) The argument concerning Aphrodite's appropriateness in a gymnasium, it is argued, reflects modern perceptions of the goddess' role rather than ancient beliefs and practices...the goddess' role as a protector of young men-- above all, as their guide during transition to adulthood via marriage and sexuality -- helps explain her presence here. (page 241)

”

Kousser, R. (2005). Creating the Past: The Vénus de Milo and the Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece. American Journal of Archaeology, 109(2), 227-250.

I agree with Flyer on this one. Aphrodite = goddess of beauty. Reasonable selection.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

R. Kousser is the reliable source here and she argued that that reasoning rests on a face-value assumption that does not take account the historical context of the sculpture. You and Flyer22 are not reliable sources.--Ephert (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

An archaeologist is a source about beauty? And I don't think whether it matters whether the ancient Greeks thought Venus was beautiful, or Renaissance people either for that matter -- it's people today. My sense is hardening that the way to avoid fuss is to simply leave the article as is in terms of pictures since nobody seems to be able to agree much about even one picture.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Kousser got her Ph.D. in Greek and Roman art history, so her article that was published in the American Journal of Archaeology represents the work of an expert talking about her field of expertise. The "people today" are not sources for this article unless they are also reliable sources in their own right. No, the solution is not to leave this article as it stands when it is not neutral and has a picture that should not be included. The solution that would address the neutral point of view issue presented by the 3 and 87/100 Caucasoids and 13/100 Mongoloids already in the article would be either adding other races or removing some of the Caucasoids and then adding other races.--Ephert (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Numerous sources point to Venus de Milo being a classical beauty standard, including CBS News, Time Magazine, The New York Times. There are dozens more references practically everywhere you might choose to look.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The "numerous sources" have to be reliable sources on the subject of which they speak. News sources are reliable sources for news, but they are not reliable sources for a particular statue representing the female beauty ideal of the Greeks. That would require an expert like Rachel Kousser who obtained her Ph.D. in Greek and Roman art history.--Ephert (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Kousser is a better source than CBS News, Time Magazine, The New York Times???--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Kousser is a better source than CBS News, Time Magazine, The New York Times for the information I have cited her for.-Ephert (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ephert, I did not state that I was going to look for a reliable source that claims the Aphrodite of Melos's appearance was considered beautiful by the ancient Greeks. I said that while Aphrodite, according to the one source you cited, wasn't the ideal beauty, she is still representative of beauty and has been for years. In poetry, song, film, television, etc. I said we do not have to cite images to "peer-reviewed, reputable psychological journals." That is your preference, and that we can find reliable sources showing that Aphrodite is representative of beauty. I don't know why you keep focusing on whether or not Aphrodite was considered an ideal beauty by the Greeks. That does not mean she was/is not considered attractive and it has nothing to do with whether or not she is representative of beauty in modern times.

I told you this before, but you take one source and then generalize with that one source. That is one source stating that. And that one source does not negate the fact that Aphrodite is representative of beauty.

My taking days to respond here is because I am not as concerned with images being in this article. I'm okay with just the two lead images being in the article, really. I am letting you and Tom work everything else out by yourselves when it comes to the pictures. I simply advise against there being too many images in this article, disrupting the text. That's why I suggested a photo gallery being at the bottom of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Buttocks

This article still needs a section about sexual atractiveness derived of looking into someone's buttocks, sometimes referred as butt, or ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.185.129.36 (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think it has become a bigger issue particularly for women looking at men (basing my expertise on the one comment in the movie Sleepless in Seattle about how women look at men's butts.) This might call for a competent assologer for further inspection. Definitely a good idea, thank you for your comment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a great idea. Here are two sexy female butts in a double image for consideration.-Ephert (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

People, people, let's behave here. Suggest remove the butt-images.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I restored this section, because, despite what Johnuniq said in removing it, the discussion of the buttocks is just as relevant to physical attractiveness as legs and other body parts discussed in this article. Not off-topic at all. I, however, renamed it to Buttocks and removed the images included by Ephert.

Obviously, I agree that discussion of the buttocks should be included in this article. But I disagree that we need to/should have images of the buttocks. If we do include an image or two of the buttocks, then I feel that it should be of the buttocks only, such as what is shown at the top of the Buttocks article. We should not be able to see the sex organs, or even the anus, in my opinion. This is mainly why I object to the two images selected by Ephert. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, however this is not the place for a chat about what we each think is attractive. Any proposal for development of the article should be based on reliable sources rather than posting our favorite pics. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Johnuniq, and I believe that is the direction this discussion was going in. Tomwsulcer and Ephert are about improving this article with reliable sources and not simply their opinion, so I believe that reliable sources were on the verge of coming up. The IP was talking about a section discussing the attractiveness of the buttocks, not images showing it. Pictures mostly likely came up because pictures for this article have been the most recent discussion on this talk page. Ephert was throwing around picture suggestions that can accompany text. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources, people. This can't just be a bunch of wikipedia editors' homage to buttocks.--Louiedog (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice on adding a section about it, Ephert. And you'll probably expand or tweak it further (or both). But I feel that we are focusing too much on female beauty. Let's not forget male beauty, and that a section on women's attraction to the male buttocks can be added as well. Not every source has to be scholarly or peer-reviewed, though such sources are preferred for a topic like this. Flyer22 (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes nice job Ephert. Agree with Flyer but was wondering if there were pictures of males (perhaps above) that you liked or what else should be written about male beauty.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom, if you're talking to me... As I stated before, I don't care much for whatever image is added to this article, as long as it's not an unneeded or inappropriate image. Regarding images for this article, I am mainly concerned with picture-overkill and feel that most pictures should be left to a gallery section to cover (whatever we title it). In my opinion, we already have enough images of women in this article and more images of women should not be added unless it's to a gallery section. I'm not sure what else should be written about males, other than the subject of this section -- the physical attractiveness of the buttocks. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes Flyer I was asking your view, and I remembered what you wrote earlier about your general position on this subject. I generally agree with your gallery approach but at the same time I guess I'd want perhaps one or two more pictures in the article proper to make this article more beautiful to look at? And being the persuasion that I am, I feel qualified to pick female beauty, but not qualified to judge male beauty (and if I did choose an example of male beauty, well, hmmm, I'd probably not do a good job here since my focus is on human females and selected female chimpanzees.) But that's okay; we'll figure something out sooner or later.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article possible source material

FYI Psychology Today article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Men place more emphasis on physical attractiveness in a mate

I believe this one may require a RfC but I'll give it a try on the talk page first. Avaya1 and I seem to have a disagreement about the concept (1) that men place higher emphasis on physical attractiveness in a mate than women do. Avaya1 changed the text from the majority agreeing with (1) to simply that "recent research" refutes (1). I believe this is inaccurate. The broad agreement in the EP community is that (1) is true. To corroborate this, I provided additional sources, which have been removed without reason.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u31kx42472756022/ Physical attractiveness and its relationship to sex-role stereotyping, Daniel Bar-Tal and Leonard Saxe

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w347l70332j1n087/ Sex differences in factors of romantic attraction, Jeffrey S. Nevid

http://www.youbeauty.com/relationships/women-body-shape, excerpted from Psychology of Physical Attraction.

Additionally, I have read Buss's book. He examines things like personals ads and studies in various cultures. It's not simply his opinion.

Therefore, I would like to come to a consensus on this issue before further editing. Thanks.--Louiedog (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally I agree that men place more emphasis on physical attractiveness than women do -- let me specify -- heterosexual men choosing women, than heterosexual women choosing men. For a man, beauty is a big factor; for women; beauty is perhaps one of several other important factors (income, status, health, perceived future faithfulness, etc). I've been working on such subjects as dating and beauty plus have written my own article on the subject here (which has had over 4000 readers) and I think the research supports the notion of (1) above. There are all sorts of reasons for this, including from evolutionary genetics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree that most studies have found this difference. However, there may be differences regarding for example short-term and long-term relationships which should be mentioned. Miradre (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Loopdog, I haven't removed the sources (except for one unreliable source, that was an argument, not a study). The article says "Recent research has supported the argument that there is little difference between men and women in the importance they place on physical attractiveness,[139][140] in particular with regard to their implicit, as opposed to explicitly articulated, preferences.[141]" This accords with our recent sources, published in the top journal in the field. There were a number of (questionably designed) studies in the 1960s(!) and 1970s (when the subject was in infancy), that seem to be all questionaires (a study from that period, in which an independent variable was manipulated - Walster et al - contradicts them), in which women said they placed more emphasis on other factors. Buss's chaptor (which is now a little out of date) summarises some of these, and then speculates about a possible evolutionary explanation (it's an argument). (I've seen a more recent lecture by Buss, in which he seems to go back on some of this.) We've included all this in our paragraph. There's no consensus ("most research") and I think the paragraph is accurate in showing that there is no consensus. However, bear in mind, that to get into the top journals, the recent research has to be a lot more carefully designed than the older stuff. Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your own studies state that most research have shown that males place a greater emphasis on physical attractiveness. However, there may be differences regarding for example short-term and long-term relationships which should be mentioned. Miradre (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In summarising the questionaires, of the 60s-70s-80s, that it then goes on to contradict, or explain as explicit as opposed to implicit preferences, respectively. The paragraph needs to summarise the recent studies, and show that there is no consensus - but rather, older studies, and newer studies that contradict them. It currently does this accurately. It also probably gives undue weight to Buss's speculations. If you could add a sentence on possible difference between short-term/long-term preferences, it would be great. Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first study talks about differences regarding short and long term relationships: [5]. Your second study looks at speed dating: [6]. Seems dubious that the second study necessarily contradict other studies finding that at least for long-term relationships women place less emphasis on looks. Anyway, one study does not change what most have found.Miradre (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another recent study making the situation even more complicated but certainly finding gender differences: [7] Miradre (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Another recent study finding sex differences with similar results to one above.[8] Miradre (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet another recent study finding sex differences: [9] Miradre (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Three studies, manipulating variables, all published in the top-rated journal, contradicting a consensus of questionaires from the 60s and 70s. There's certainly no consensus, and given the field, we have to prioritise more recent studies in better journals, in the paragraph. As for short-long term relationships, we already covered that here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Variability_in_preferences We might have enough on it already. In the meantime, while we are discussing, can we keep something close to the original version of the paragraph, before it was massively changed without consensus. As for the status enhancement study, feel free to add a sentence on it to the paragraph. Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually only the second and possibly the third support you. You misrepresent the research, many of the studies are not from the 60s or 70s. In addition I have above cited several recent studies contradicting you. Here is another one: [10] Miradre (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

All three studies support little difference in short-term mates (if anything, the summaries of the field in the studies acknowledge the beginning of a consensus for strategic pluralism). Additionally, the study you cite by Li, Patel and Valentine is arguing for strategic pluralism, and should be added to that section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Variability_in_preferences) - they write "For shortterm mates, both sexes of both countries prioritized physical attractiveness significantly more than other traits". I agree with you that we need to qualify and refine the current paragraph - for short-term for long-term. Feel free to help do this. Avaya1 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with characterizing the views of one side as "recent" and the other side not. Miradre (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, you simply changed some views to the opposite: Thus, you changed "Most studies have concluded that men place a higher emphasis on physical attractiveness in a partner than women do, though some claim otherwise." to "Some conclude that little difference exists between men and women in terms of the weight they place on physical attractiveness in choosing a partner". That is simply tje opposite of what the studies state. Miradre (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with placing as a straw man a 1966 study as the only representative of studies finding sex differences. That is simply grossly incorrect. Hopefully we can agree on a text stating in essence that the current mainstream view is that there are are sex differences for long-term relationships but not, or much less so, for short-term? Miradre (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC) + :::::I certainly disagree with characterizing the views of one side as "recent" and the other side not. Miradre (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

- ::: I agree I'm starting to try to refine it a bit now - the thing which might be best is to merge the section on variability with this section? As for the citations supporting the opposite sentences, they might have been moved around after the editor re-wrote the section a few months ago. I will check them now.Avaya1 (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion. Incorporating both my sources and yours. User:Miradre/sandbox3‎ Miradre (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the sentence "most studies have found" written by Loopdog, which is misleading and implies a consensus. Note the recent, good, study you cited [11] writes in the conclusion "For shortterm mates, both sexes of both countries prioritized physical attractiveness significantly more than other traits". I agree with your point that we need to distinguish between long-term and short-term, which hasn't been done in the sandbox. The most recent articles we have cited are all arguing for the strategic pluralism hypothesis. I think we need to re-work the section a little along the short-term-long-term lines and merge it with the variability section above? Avaya1 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the text. And made a quick merge with variability section. Thoughts? Miradre (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's quite good, although in the first paragraph we should distinguish - short-term, long-term - more clearly. I have to go now, but I can help more later, and also browse the journals and look at more studies. Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no serious further objections to this version and section merger I will change to it shortly. Miradre (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the merger was a good idea. I removed the sentence below because it doesn't seem completely relevant to the section. Not sure where we should put it now?

“

"According to one study, men with facial scars are more attractive to Western women seeking short-term relationships; the authors speculated that the facial scars could be seen by women as a symbol of masculinity, a possible indicator of genetically higher testosterone levels."

”

Avaya1 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Facial symmetry making it easier for viewers to process cognitively

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)

Interesting article on attractiveness of facial stubble

Here it is: Article on sexiness of stubble FYI. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Female physical attractiveness- section on youthfulness regarding female fertility

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".[12] 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%).[13]. 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)

Hello, IP. I tweaked your links above to external links so that we can view them on this talk page. Thank you for explaining this edit and responding to my response. You removed the following part: "with female fecundity having declined 'markedly' after age 30." While I don't mind that removal too much, what I meant by "Not sure about your removal. Women being far less fertile past 30 is not just a past report." is that this was reported as recently as 2010. This ABC News source from 2010, which was also reported by other news organizations, speaks of a fairly recent study about female fertility. It says:

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."

So it would seem there is some truth to "female fecundity having declined 'markedly' after age 30." The text you removed wasn't saying there is complete sterility in the 30s. It was reporting only what the ABC source appears to confirm. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, so let's take a close look at female fertility and the number of eggs a woman loses with age: at birth a girl is born with a finite number of eggs (1-2 million eggs), and guess what- by the time she reaches puberty the majority of her eggs have already been lost:

"Women are born with a finite number of eggs. At birth, a woman has around 1 to 2 million eggs. However, throughout her life, a woman loses eggs through a destructive process called atresia. At puberty, only around 400,000 eggs remain. Throughout the reproductive lifespan, from puberty until menopause, women lose about 1,000 eggs each month."[14]

So while it is very true that the vast majority of eggs have been lost at 30, the same is true at 15, or at 20. Don't get me wrong, fertility does decline with age, and I don't think anybody who has even the slightest knowledge about female fertility would deny this, my problem was with the phrase "female fecundity having declined 'markedly' after age 30" and I objected to it because of several reasons. Firstly why chose the age 30? You could very well say "female fecundity having declined 'markedly' after age 28" or "female fecundity having declined 'markedly' after age 32", 30 was just an arbitrary number, in fact this is a very slow and gradual process, the older a woman is the less fertile she is. Another problem is the tone of this phrase, because, without any further explanation (i.e some statistics on the ability of having children at a certain age) the paragraph would reinforce, in many people's mind, the completely flowed views on age and fertility, which are, unfortunately, very common, and have extremely negative consequences on many people in many societies around the world, including early (forced) marriages, abandonment of higher education, lack of access to higher education for women in many countries and so on. And finally this is not the place to discuss female fertility, we shouldn't go in such details, the paragraph should just say something on the lines:

"The common explanation for this preference is that men have evolved to be attracted to women with high child-bearing potential and given that female fertility gradually declines with age men tend to prefer younger women."188.25.175.185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC).

Good points, IP. In the comments section of the news link I displayed above, I came across a comment by a person who found the article (that news report) to be misleading in smiliar vein to your statements about such misleading information. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, though (WP:Reliable sources), sometimes even at the expense of the truth. See the top of WP:Verifiability. I'm not sure how reliable the babyspot.com source you provided is, but I understand what you are saying. Perhaps, the "with female fecundity having declined 'markedly' after age 30" line was to stress that 90 percent of the eggs a woman had left are gone by age 30 and that only "about 3 percent" remain "by the time [she is] 40"? After all, the ABC News source says "nearly all of her ovarian eggs are gone for good," not "the majority."

You don't want a specific age or age range concerning fertility mentioned in the Youthfulness section? I don't mind removing all specific mentions of age, but don't you think at least mentioning something about the mid-to-late 40s range is beneficial...especially given what you stated above about that? Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, I don't think that having anything age specific is a good thing. I think it's better to simply have something: "The common explanation for this preference is that men have evolved to be attracted to women with high child-bearing potential and therefore prefer young women". Afterall, this is an article about physical attractiveness, not female fertility. Readers don't come to this article to find about the patterns of childbearing years. The problem is that female fertility (and fertility in general) is such a complex issue that it can't just be easily described in one phrase and going into details about it in this article is unwarranted. The most difficult thing about female fertility and why it is so difficult to make general statements is that there is a huge variability from woman to woman - the reproductive spans of women are not the same - if you look at extremes you may very well find a 40 y/o who is more fertile than a 30 y/o! Since I can't think of a proper way to summarize it, I think it's better to avoid discussing it since it's not connected to the subject of this article; the idea here was that men prefer young women because young women have high child-bearing potential, and it's sufficient to say this and find sources to support this said preference of men.188.25.172.39 (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

More valid points. We'll see if others have anything to say about this. Give it a few days. If no one responds, then I advise you to be WP:BOLD and go ahead and implement your desired change. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Since noone has responded I now made the changes.188.25.159.142 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What is this reference?

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)

Edit war over images

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.[15] 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)

Ok, I see your point, it makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Tobby72 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)