Talk:Physical attractiveness

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Aesthetics B‑class

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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics

Physical attractiveness was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 16, 2007, reviewed version). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Height

That is awesome, about the Cosmopolitan magazine thing that says women prefer a man whose height is 1.1 times their own! I have long known that almost all the guys I'm ever strongly attracted to tend to be 6'2", for some odd reason. What a shock when I saw this here and calculated my height, 5"7.5", times 1.1... and it came out to 6'2.25"! That's crazy! Haha! Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 incledible variety of extremely physically attractive people in the world! Kool Lat'n SD (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Rachel