Talk:Physical attractiveness

Waist-Shoulder Ratio in men?

The article says that a waist to shoulder ratio of 0.75 or less is considered attractive. Yet using the traditional shoulder measurement (distance between the ends of your shoulders on top of you) and the traditional waist measurement (circumfrence of your waist at the narrowest point), this ratio is clearly physiologically impossible for a human to have. I think what this SHOULD say is a waist-chest ratio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.162.18 (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's shoulder circumference. Or, I suppose, shoulder breadth and waist breadth, from a two dimensional image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashernm (talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

Someone replaced the Michele Merkin image with one of the Venus de Milo. I think replacing a contemporary image with one from antiquity is a splendid idea, but here's the problem: our caption talks about female beauty being associated with a low waist-to-hip ratio, and our friend Venus is built like a tree trunk and thus not a good example at all, I'm afraid. The Fat Man proposes a better idea: one of those semi-erotic Indian sculptures. Some of those Hindu goddesses have crazy waist-to-hip ratios and very pretty faces too--something like this or this (those are just examples, I wouldn't use either image because they are of rather poor quality). I don't want to offend anyone by including a picture of a revered deity, but maybe if there's someone in Hindu mythology who is said to exemplify physical beauty, we include a picture of her without too much of a fuss... --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone has restored the Venus de Milo (albeit no longer as the lead image) and added a great, referenced caption; too bad the image has very little to do with the caption. I've placed the image in a hidden comment[1] until someone comes up with a better example. Am I alone in perceiving the Venus has no discernible waist? If someone has a source that the Venus de Milo is a great example of a low waist-to-hip ratio, I'll drop this issue and move on to more pressing matters.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So... I went with the Hindu chick instead[2]. I love the sculpture, but the photo is horribly blurry. If someone has a better image, please replace it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the Venus de Milo is hourglass-shaped and has a plenty discernible waist... Your "hindu chick" has a more exaggerated one, which may better illustrate the point, but the Venus has the exact "desirable" ratio of 0.7, according to the studies I've read... Still, I support your choice. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Jasmine Sinclair" image removed from section on female attractiveness due to fake boobs. WTF wikipedia?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.126.185 (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Attractiveness, evolutionary adaptation or cultural trend?

Does anyone know about the history of attractiveness? I'm a little curious on the subject, but I can't find any good sources about it. I always find the sociobiology explanation of attractiveness hard to take seriously. What aspects of attractiveness are consistent across cultures, throughout history? Historically, didn't it used to be attractive for women to be "fat" and thus more fertile? Also, I always get the feeling that the current obsession with big butts on women is just a current cultural trend and has little to do with the "waist-hip ratio" explanation some people offer. Personally, I've never seen the appeal in fat butts and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was just an artifact of the popularity of rap music videos. or maybe sir mix-a-lot or JLo is to blame Soxfan267 (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the article.--Loodog (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fat and thus more fertile" is incorrect. Fat women have never been and will never be more fertile. Obesity has been shown to complicate fertility, pregnancy and childbirth, and it's even fairly common for women with BMI > 30 to stop ovulating altogether, due to hormonal abnormalities. Or, for the daft: estrogen = girls and androgens = boys. Fat boys get more estrogen and less androgens, which has physiologically feminizing effects, and fat girls get more androgens and less estrogen, which has masculinizing effects. In both genders' cases, their fertility just got shat on. Gawd, Rubens paints a couple of pictures of his fetish and suddenly everyone thinks fat was the "in" thing at some point in history. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

External link

Is that second link really appropriate? The one that goes to savethemales.ca. If you take a look at the rest of the site it doesn't look very scientific or well-informed at all. 72.195.133.180 (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Alex Actually, thats an op-ed piece. Chester polarbear (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Every culture should have its own discription on physical attraction,what is physically attractive to one, may not be attractive to another. There is a lack of diversity,as well as cultural difference when it comes to physical sttraction in this article,may I add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaR (talk • contribs) 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Children and Beauty

It is claimed that "several studies" show that children are attracted to similar sorts of faces as adults. There are only two referenced, and they are by the same authors. Thus there is not enough support for this claim. Find more references, or delete the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.195.36 (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The support to a claim is provided for the estadistic significance of a study (size of the sample, f.ex.), and not by the amount of studies related, or the fact that a single team of authors is the only interested in the topic.

I don't think the sentence should be deleted if they don't find more references. Kool Lat'n SD (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

skin color

I know of a book that discusses this. It suggest men prefer lighter women. It's explained as an effect of women being naturally lighter(slighty) men working outside more in history, and so on. However the extent I disputeYVNP (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This article states that some cultures prefer lighter and some darker complexions. But it only documents the former. It supports the latter claim by refering to cultural approval of tanned complexions. But tanning is a temporary phenomenon, and that fact is generally known by those who appreciate it. Not one culture is cited in which permanent, hereditary darkness of complexion is considered more socially desirable or aesthetically pleasing than a lighter complexion. Surely such cultures exist, so why aren't they mentioned in the article? PlayCuz (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I kind of doubt that more than one or two small cultures in the world exist which prefer darker women. Why? Because it's a universal constant that men prefer women with features more feminine than the cultural average. And women have somewhat lighter skin than men. Therefore men will prefer lighter-than-average women just like they always prefer a smaller WHR than the cultural average, etc. If one island nation somewhere in the south Pacific, with a population of 800, prefers darker women, is it really relevant? Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"I kind of doubt that more than one or two small cultures in the world exist which prefer darker women."

....You can't be serious. That's a ridiculously arrogant assumption. While it does hold true that in most cultures ligher skin is preffered more, that is only an AVERAGE. Not everyone is going to prefer lighter skin than average, so why make this huge leap of judgement that there'd be NO cultures in the world to have this preference?

And in exactly what way is lighter skin more "feminine"? It is true that women have lighter skin than men, but how many people percieve this as a true indicator of femininity? In fact, how many people ever consciously notice this difference among men and women? In my entire life, I have never, ever noticed this difference among males and females of any ethnic group. It seems to be a very small difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.133.95 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures on the article

I know this picture subject has "spilled rivers of ink", what makes me want to relive this is that I don't think we're even close yet of picking the right pics for this page. First of all, I don't think the male twins pic or the British model pic really has something to see with the Physical attractiveness topic... I mean, the Physical attractiveness is such a wide topic to be represented with the pictures of these three people!!! They're just small examples of a incredible variety of extremely physically attractive people in the world! Kool Lat'n SD (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The pictures aren't meant to give the definition of such a varied and subjective thing as beauty. They give an example of traits which have been confirmed cross-culturally to be attractive.--Loodog (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree they are examples of physical attractiveness. What I disagree is that they're not representing the topic as some other people could; If you're doing an article about shoes as general, It would be incomplete if you just put a pic of a pair of snickers, for example. I think Angelina Jolie or Milla Jovovich could do well to this article. I don't know one person who thinks they're ugly... trust me! If I'm going to read a wikipedia article about physical attractiveness I just won't be satisfied if I find Jasmine Sinclair as a representative image of the topic. Kool Lat'n SD (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep pictures off this page. Cazort (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. No pictures. All we were trying to do was show examples the way the Art Deco article might show a pic of the Empire State Building, but since people seem to think that ANY picture put up is the editor arrogantly declaring who the most attractive people are, we won't do it, lest we offend the casual reader.--Loodog (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Overreact much? One guy posts an 8-word sentence for the first time in over three months, and you throw in the towel? Tan | 39 22:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because this has never been brought up before. I suggest you read the archives before making assumptions.--Loodog (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the previous discussion. It's clear to me that including any image is going to stir up controversy here. I haven't ever heard anyone dispute, for example, that the Empire State Building is a good example of the Art Deco style. Cazort (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You disgust me.

The amount of crap in the female's section compared to the men's section seriously disgusted and upset me. The male section really needs to be expanded. -Sara

WP:SOFIXIT.--Loodog (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia is not censored, so some of what you encounter may upset you. What may disgust readers is not a factor on wikipedia so long as the information is supported by reliable sources, which the vast of material in this article is. If you believe any information on the page is not adequately supported, that is a valid objection and grounds for removal of it.--Loodog (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are a moran and you are completely missing my point. Thats is not what I said at all.-Sara —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC).

Why are such ad-hominem comments allowed in this section? Note to be removed.91.153.156.165 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I missed your point. As such, the best way to ensure this article is fixed pursuant to your concerns is to do it yourself, following the guidelines on wikipedia concerning original research and verifiability. Also, it's wikipedia policy to avoid personal attacks like that you have made, which tend to create a hostile environment and distract from discussion of article content.--Loodog (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sara's comment about needing to expand the male section. I think she simply means that the female beauty criteria go more in depth than the male criteria, although that could simply be a result of wikipedia's editors being prodominantly male. LOL. But I don't know about the "crap" comment. Both criteria in both the male and female sections seem reasonable. I mean person preferences will always vary somewhat compared to the article, but there's nothing in there that's completely way off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.92.131 (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT.--Loodog (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's crap too. Hey folks, this is the discussion section not the article itself and so if she thinks it's crap (which it is) it should be LEFT there. All of this seems to me a colossal amount of drivel mostly written by men who GOD ALMIGHTY so want it to be true! Back it up with sources? Studies? Data? Sure! Why not! There's a lot of pseudo-science out there ready, willing and able to justify people's most cherished prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.16.32 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Boobs (or to be more proper breasts

They say the larger the breast, the more attractive. However, there is such thing as too much of a good thing, not only in my opinion, but most other guys as well. An example would be most fat women (no offense to those on this site) usually have large boobs, but are not credited into physical attraction. Should we clearify? --Wikistonecolddragon (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this is all just you talking. Find a source that says what you're saying.--Loodog (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

something tells me (a little bird) it was original research just forget what i said , I'm out! --Wikistonecolddragon (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, it's fine if you can find a source. The thing we're trying to avoid is people posting their personal theories. WP:OR is the only thing preventing wikipedia from being taunted as reality by fiat.--Loodog (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To the guy above, the word is "clarify" you ding-a-ling. Guys like you often seem to have trouble with regards to basic spelling, grammar and the ability to express themselves above cro-magnon diction. Oh. No offense to "those on this site."

You mean "express yourselves" 207.112.59.111 (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

human evolution

I have added a section on human evolution which gives some of the contemporary theories on physical attractiveness. Though there is already some of this information in the article, I think a direct discussion of the topic is pertinent. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure all of it is already in the article. The lead mentions the evolutionary psychology behind attractiveness, and each section mentions why that particula trait is favored for sex by evolution. This section is superfluous and I'd like to remove it.--Loodog (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice debate

The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate. The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode. If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

unsourced babble

I find quite a bit of this article has NO source at all. I'm removing some of it but I'd like to bring it to attention YVNP (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Symmetrical men and women are also best suited for their environment, and their physical characteristics are most likely to be inherited by future generations.[not in citation given][43][44][45][46]

I'm not really sure how to bring this to everyone's attention, but I just thought that this statement right at the end of the article is a little nonsensical... "Best suited for their environment"? Good lord.

Didn't the Nazis believe things like this?

Boo19 (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst there is something to be said for the evolutionary psychology view of attractiveness being a module of sexual selection, this article is dreadful with way too many unsourced statements. It also gives too much emphasis to physical appearance a marker of fitness for reproduction - there are many other factors at play, and quite frankly if appearance was everything then all human societies would resemble an American soap opera. It sounds like some evo-pop students have fallen into the classic evo-pop trap of assuming that everything to do with human behaviour can be explained by the neolithic mind and the modules handed down. Humans are slightly more complicated than that but I suppose it lets some evo-psychologists portray themselves as scientists. 80.229.27.251 (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology says nothing about individual people's preferences, for which there is not accounting, and this is mentioned in the third sentence. EP explains, when successful, why trends appear when all people together are considered.--Loodog (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Body Volume Indices

Research has found that a measure relating volume to height squared, aka Volume Height Index (VHI), is a better predictor of attractiveness than either BMI or Waist-to-Hip Ratio (WHR) among females. Among males, it is better than BMI, Waist to Chest ratio (WCR) and WHR combined.

Links: females - http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/var4x159wyh69f3b/ males - http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/ymj62qqktyj47b1t/ .

There is also already a Wikipedia page on the same concept, Body volume index. This information should be added to both pages.

how about adding a methodology for physical attractiveness both for men and for women —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.171.253 (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

methodology

How about adding a methodology for phyisical attractivness what that will show is a ranking describing the features from the most attractive people in the world to the lest attractive people in the world. Rank 1 will be the most attractive people in the world. The ranks below will be less attractive people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.127.209 (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't work. There's no way to quantify attractiveness since personal taste is a inextricable piece of the equation. On top of that, we don't have relative weights that we could even assign to a particular trait.--Loodog (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of diversity

There is a lack of diversity in the images used in this article, only three Europeans. I would suggest adding more images or removing the current images completely. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the perennial favorite: I don't like choice of pictures. WP:SOFIXIT.--Loodog (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I will, I've just been wondering what the regular editors of this article have been doing perennially, since it was pretty obvious. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I should warn you, any pictures of people seem to stir up quite a ruckus. The use of statues seem less objectionable to people since they're more about the idea of beauty than instances of it. Same with Maud Gonne. I mean, we used to have pics of Jessica Alba up, and then Michelle Merkin, as examples of women with the attributes described. What do "lustrous hair" and "full lips" mean? Show it in a pic, right? User after user became mortally offended, thinking we were declaring these women to officially be the most beautiful, calling them objectifying, racist, Western examples. Other than that, most anything you suggest would probably be fine.--Loodog (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Critica for physical attractivness

I have an idea. I recommand this article to have a ranking of physical characteristics from the most beautiful people in the world to the ugliest people. in the world. I am not recomminding that we list 6 billion people from the most beautiful to the ugliest. Their should be two seperate categories physical attractivness in men and physical attractiveness in woman. the first rank should list the physical characterisitcs of the most beautiful men and women in the world. The lower ranks should list the physical characteristics of less attractive men and women. And the lowest ranks should list the physical characteristics of the ugliest men and women. In addition each rank should have a number of how many people in the world have those characteristics and to provide a list of notable people with those chararcteristics. What do you think of my idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.94.195 (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Golden ratio and face

According to [[3]]:

Science writer Eric Haseltine claimed (in an article in Discover magazine in September 2002) to have found that the distance from the chin to the eyebrows in Langlois's 32-composite faces divides the face in a Golden Ratio. A similar claim was made in 1994 by orthodontist Mark Lowey, then at University College Hospital in London. Lowey made detailed measurements of fashion models' faces. He asserted that the reason we classify certain people as beautiful is because they come closer to Golden Ratio proportions in the face than the rest of the population.

So does this imply that there is a math to beauty? Should this be included in the articleApothecia (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There's the Golden Radio all over the human body. It would surprise me if it weren't in the face.--Loodog (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter Frost & skin color

• Peter Frost has found few, if any, pre-modern cultures that show a preference for darker skin on females, though there have been a sizable amount of Melanesian and African cultures who show no preference, such as the Zulu. There is still, however, significant debate to the role of skin color and innate values of attractiveness among humans. Skin color on males seems to have significantly less value than it does on females, with most societies showing indifference, with only a handful showing a preference, usually it being in the direction of either darker or lighter. The only consistent preference seen among females for males is very light skin, which is usually disliked.

This material is also covered (and sourced) in Human skin color#Cultural effects. It was also discussed here, in #skin color. I don't know how reputable Frost is, but if he's a suitable source then this material seems relevant.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

He got a book out of it anyway published by "Cybereditions Corporation".--Loodog (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite the name and business model, Cybereditions appears to qualify as a legitimate publisher.[4] They have an advisory board and a reasonable list of books.[5]   Will Beback  talk  18:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Capital, then. I've wanted a skin color source on this article for awhile.--Loodog (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

new article

I think it would be a good ideal to add another article listing both men and women of very rare beauty. And lets call this article "list of highly attractive people" And put it under people by physical attributes. If you know someone who is extremely attractive that person should be on the list along with links to a picture. While I am not recommending to list all models and beauty contestants the list will be too long. Here is how the list should be should list the most attractive living person in each country, and since personal taste plays a part in the equation, It should also have a list of people from that country who rival that person's physical attractiveness along with a picture. Tell me what you think of my new idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.95.135 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no way that would hold up. You may as well have ranking of paintings by how beautiful they are. There is no objective way to do it.--Loodog (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The skin color section is bad

Am I the only one who thinks Peter Frost should not be mentioned as absolute truth? His theory tries to make fairly minor skin tone differences/preferences and makes them seem to suggest that skin color correlates with success. YVNP (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What don't you like about it?--Loodog (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Physical attraction

I would like to add something I dont see in this discussion. what about charisma,I feel this quality cotributes to the physical attraction one has for another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaR (talk • contribs) 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

hair colour

It seems that red hair on a woman is sexualized, while on a man it's considered unattractive. According to researches, only 2% of women actually preffer redhead men, and there's a strong preferance of 75% for the "tall, dark and handsome" type. Is this perception culture dependant, or is it evolutionary like the preferance of women for tall and broad- sholdered men? Do male redheads have any disadvantage in the matter of fertility or gene quality?

If you could show where you read this, this might be a valid point to entertain for the article.--Loodog (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't enter the research itself, but I have it's details: Shame and glory: a sociology of hair Anthony synnott The British journal of sociology, vol. 38, no. 3 (sep., 1987),. pp. 381- 413 Does anybody know if the perception of male redheads as unappealing is universal, hence biological, or was there any culture that actually admired or even prefered redhead men?

I found the title of the work you're talking about but can't get to the contents: [6]. If you see anything in it you think might be suitable to the article, feel free to add it.--Loodog (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Male Physical Attractiveness

I reworked the section on muscularity. I added the finding of a more detailed study, that found preferences for a mesomorphic physique, low waist shoulder ratio, and a degree of hirsuteness. There is a slight preference for a waist hip ratio of 0.8-0.9, but overall, it doesn't make much difference, as compared to a waist shoulder ratio. Also, when looking at studies, realize that those that use silhouettes are superior to human subjects, because factors other than muscularity muddy the results (eg, acne on the chest, hair, etc). I found a study about waist to chest ratio, but they used human subjects, and the results are kinda scattered.

I deleted the reference to the study that found that women prefer a man of average muscularity, as multiple studies find contradicting evidence.

Just so you know, there's a lot less research on male attractiveness, as compared to female attractiveness.

Information on the golden ratio and facial and bodily proportions should be added. Not sure of the research yet, but I've seen some convincing graphics. Ashernm (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

what women like in men

most women like men whom have arm hair.they are usaly veiwed as very masculine and attractive.--Sweetheart2009 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)sweetheart2009