Talk:Physical attractiveness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Physical attractiveness was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Penis size[edit]

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

Chiseled Jawline[edit]

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)

Wilro, something that should always factor into things like this is that, per WP:Verifiability, we should go by what the sources state. If there is a WP:Reliable source that describes what is meant by the term, then it is fine to add that description using that source. But describing what is meant by the term based on our own interpretations(s) is hardly any different than a reader basing the term on their interpretation. We should not engage in WP:Original research. Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
True, but I'm sure there is an RS that describes the jawline in more explicit terms. What I actually have trouble believing is that an RS would just have used the phrase "chiseled jawline". Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Two years since you previously commented in this section. Welcome back, Der Elbenkoenig. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What about mannerism: pose, gait, gesticulation, etc?[edit]

That is, dynamic physical attractivebess, as opposed to the 'static type already discussed in this article. EIN (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Section on skin color[edit]

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)

Male-male physical attractiveness[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What you removed was not a section, but rather a sentence in a section. I added it back, because, like I stated in that edit summary, "per WP:Verifiability, a better reason for removal is needed than the one given on the talk page. People have already complained about this article being heterocentric; no need to make it more so." Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Body scent subsection in the Male physical attractiveness section[edit]

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)

Ok. It makes sense.Jvgama (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2013‎ (UTC)
Okay. I just undid your change. I also saw you having trouble with your signature, and I just added the time stamp to it. To sign your user name, all you have to do is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Double eyelid surgery[edit]

... 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)

(Male) face averageness "beauty"[edit]

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)?).

The more original images were used to create the composite, the more attractive it was rated. (r = 0.57 ** for female faces, r = 0.64 ** for male faces). On the one hand this result tends to support the averageness hypothesis put forward by Langlois & Roggman (1990), on the other hand we could clearly show: The ratings of the morphed faces also depend on the attractiveness of the underlying original faces (r = 0.75 ** for female faces, r = 0.68 ** for male faces). [..]
Surprisingly, especially male faces benefit from being blended together with respect to their attractiveness. This does not support older findings that found positive effects only for women.[1]

However the averaging seems to work "better" for females:

model agency from Munich chose 88% artificial faces (14 out of 16 selected faces) for potentially being interesting as a model for the category “beauty”. Only two natural male faces could keep up with the computer generated ones, within the group of female faces no natural faces have been selected! We also asked test subjects to indicate the most attractive faces found the same pattern: 81% (13 out of 16) of the selected faces had been generated by the computer.[2]
favoured women with facial shapes of about 14 year old girls. There is no such woman existing in reality! They are artificial products - results of modern computer technology.[3]
Yes, no such women, but 14 year old girls exists.., maybe no wander that they start modeling about that age or thinking about it..
What’s interesting is that attractive male and female faces seem to have similar structures and similarities. When aligning the images in Photoshop; I could see that faces which appeared completely different actually have similar basic proportions. You can see this in the averages and in relation to conformity with the Marquardt mask.
The most interesting aspect, to me, is the incoherence seen in the ‘unattractive’ averages. Attractive faces seem to conform to a basic attractive structure, with little variance of internal features. Unattractive faces have more varying features – this would explain why the unattractive averages are less coherent.[4]

The link above links to scientific articles, for averageness, sush as: [5] 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: [6] comp.arch (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Men prefer shorter women?[edit]

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)

Yes; men prefer shorter women, but the height-difference-preference is not as big (sorry) of a factor for a man choosing a woman, as it is for a woman choosing a man. About Gambian men and women: if there is any preference by men for taller women, it is probably not a huge (again sorry) variable since, as we know, most men are taller than most women, so it would be difficult to measure any preferences (while isolating other variables?). Would be cool to see the Gambian study though.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Comp.arch, men definitely (generally) prefer women who are shorter than they are, and that's not just a Western preference either. This is a well known matter as well, and I'm wondering how you had not heard of it before. Perhaps it is not as well known as women generally preferring taller men. Anyway, Tomwsulcer added a bit in response to your query.
And, Tomwsulcer, it's been nice seeing you again. Saw you here for the first time again at this article in a long time. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Flyer22, I watch this article too and appreciate how you've kept it shipshape and professional. I'm 5'11" and yes I somewhat prefer shorter women although I carried a stepstool when I dated members of a women's basketball team. See, I was a Boy Scout and followed its motto: Be Prepared. I'm writing a sci-fi novel and if you like there are many non-named characters (bit parts) so if you want me to name one Flyer I could do so possibly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
"[A]lthough I carried a stepstoolo when I dated members of a women's basketball team." LOL! And you're writing a novel? A sci-fi one. Interesting. I'm currently working on a sci-fi screenplay, though I get distracted from that by matters at work and here at Wikipedia. But because of WP:Not a forum and WP:Talk, it would be best that, if this discussion is to continue, it is continued at one of our talk pages.
As for the indentation format you changed, I indented that way (the way that it was before you changed it) per WP:Indentation. Though Wikipedia editors generally don't follow WP:Indentation precisely, it's something I've been trying out lately; see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 13#Indenting. My "15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)" commentary is a bit tricky on the WP:Indentation aspect, though, since I'm replying to two people on different matters. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Okey dokey.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and going back to Comp.arch's post above, where the text states "and tend to view taller women as less attractive," given that men often find female models and supermodels physically/sexually attractive, and those women are usually tall, I'm not sure how true that statement is in the general sense. I think that statement is more so about a man having a tall woman as his girlfriend or wife; while he finds tall women such as supermodels quite attractive (if they are what he perceives as physically attractive) and often more so than the average woman, he personally (generally) would not want a romantic/sexual partner who is taller than he is. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Flyer, think you're right -- beautiful women are beautiful regardless of their height (and TV tends to make everybody appear to be a standard height) but the situation may be different in an interpersonal relationship, that is, a man dating a woman several inches taller might feel uncomfortable, or she might be less interested in him as a result.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
One thing I think is true but I don't know if there is any research on this: that there is an ideal beauty-height for both men and women which is probably close to the averages of all people; so if men average 5'10" and women average 5'6" (say -- not sure what the actual average height numbers are), then, if everything else is equal, a man will be at his optimal beauty at 5'10" and a woman at her optimal beauty at 5'6". An indication that this is true is examining the heights of people deemed "beautiful" by the media -- even though being on television or in a film tends to make people appear to be the same height. If one studied the heights of movie stars, TV celebrities, models and beauty contestant winners, I bet one would find that their heights cluster more tightly around the average heights with not nearly as much variation as with the general public; still, they are deemed beautiful on a medium such as TV which tends to make everybody appear to be the same height. It seems rare to have an extremely tall or short person deemed beautiful although there are probably exceptions. Male movie stars such as Robert Redford or Matt Damon or Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise generally are not super-tall; female movie stars too such as Katharine Ross or Jessica Alba or Olga Kurylenko tend not to be super-tall either. Just a hunch on my part (ie WP:OR. Doubt there is any research yet to back this up but I believe it is true, based on personal observation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm 5'11". So I must be beautiful by my own logic, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Two quick points: 1) Any discussion should clarify that/whether what is meant is "women who are significantly shorter/taller than the average for (local culture) females" is meant, or, for example "women who are taller than the male(s) in question". 2) The fact that a high proportion of developed world women wear high heels when wishing to appear most attractive ought to be mentioned or factored in, one would think. I'd suggest that women think that being somewhat taller than other/average women, but not too tall, or taller than a specific partner, works best for them. There must be loads of studies of the issue, which should used. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Good idea to be careful how things are phrased.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:30, 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)

Stick with scientific facts (not opinions?)[edit]

Thanks, Flyer22 for changing to "He says that all of these requirements are socially constructed" [7], 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)

I don't have much more to state on this matter than what I stated in this, this and this edit summary. Whether you mean evolutionary psychology or evolutionary biology, evolution has a lot to do with social environment; things have often evolved due to what nature perceived as a social need.
You want this entire article to stick with scientific facts? If so, that is not possible; it's not possible because the vast majority of what determines physical attractiveness is socially constructed, not something usually rooted in science. As the lead of this article and other parts of this article make clear, physical attractiveness is very often subjective and what one culture finds physically attractive is very often not what another culture finds physically attractive. Sometimes a physical attractiveness aspect is consistent from one culture to another, especially if that culture's standard of beauty has been affected by the other culture, but beauty is obviously too subjective to insist that it is scientific fact across the board. And just because a study shows or suggests something...it does not mean that the conclusions of that study are fact; if every study were fact, then the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) guideline would not be as strict as it is about sourcing. And the WP:Fringe guideline would not exist. I'm sure that you know that not every study is fact; I'm simply making a point. The aforementioned doctor whose statement you question might have been basing that comment on his research (personal research or other research), no different than other researchers in this article. And for anyone wondering why I removed "Dr." from that doctor's name, it is because of the WP:Credentials guideline; that's why I replaced "Dr." with "Scholar." That guideline is not simply about biographies, but also, as lead of that page shows, about "biographical information in other articles." Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree, that Guardian article needs to stay deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.207.186 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You agree? Your argument is completely different than Comp.arch's argument. Your edits are here and here. And they are based purely on your personal opinion, not scientific fact. Like I stated here, per WP:Verifiability, we go by what the sources state, not personal opinion. And, indeed, various WP:Reliable sources report that Asian women get eyelid surgery to appeal to "Western standards of beauty." Yes, it's racist. And that racism has to do with society. Not that "race," in the context of human biological classification, exists anyway. Clines, on the other hand? Yes, those exist. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)