Talk:Physical attractiveness/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Citation provided help

I found a citation for this sentence at the end of the article: "Both men and women use physical attractiveness as a measure of how 'good' another person is. Men often tend to value attractiveness more than women[citation needed]."

The citation can be found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=L014FD2CYOJDZQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/05/09/nmen09.xml Please insert it. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IntricateBalance (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Unreferenced and made-up on the spot

This article has for some time apparently comprised of various individuals throwing in their two cents worth, apparently from the top of their heads. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. WP:NFT A look through some of the references reveals that some contradict each other. In the "female attractiveness" section, compare the findings of the reference for "Body mass proportion" with that of "waist-hip ratio". Much of the rest is made-up and unencyclopedic. I would encourage other editors to remove material from the article which they challenge and which also is unreferenced. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor. WP:CITE

Pathlessdesert 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Pathless. I've thrown up some unreferenced tags. Will remove any unsourced information in a few days.--Loodog 00:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Difference from Sexual Attraction

I'd like to make some changes to make more of a differentiation between these two, but I'm not sure which article should contain the physical elements of sexual attraction. Should such a large portion of the physical attractiveness article concern itself with attraction towards potential mates?Guava 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Olfactory factors

When I think of physical attractiveness, I think of only those aspects that we can see and touch. Would this section be more appropriate under sexual attraction?Guava 04:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality

In this article, homosexuality is unaccounted for. Regardless of one's feelings for it, it does exist, and should be included in this article. Various sections of the article read like "females like males who..." and "male who like females who..."

I would suggest editing various bits to make them gender-neutral, so it will read like "males are found attractive when they..." 72.24.173.143 02:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with sentences like "males are found attractive when they..." since (at least stereotypically), homosexual males find different traits attractive in men than heterosexual women do.--Loodog 02:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Gays shouldn't need to be accounted tax cuts in '06. Physical attractiveness is a separate thing from sexual attraction. The article reads "females like males who..." because this is how the supporting studies have been conducted. It cannot be edited to be gender neutral, belause they would then be unsupported claims. At one point I considered removing all maxxxerial relaiing to sexual attraction, but then there wouldn't be much left here. Guava 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly, and wikipedia is not written based on stereotypes, less-so your personal opinions and i actually disagree I think most straight and bi women find the same things attractive about men as gay and bi men do. Good looks, symmetrical faces, height weight proportions, athletic figure, deep voice, outgoingness, but again this isn't the issue, neutral wording is key here as plenty of women probably find sissy hetero men sexy as fuck and probably plenty of homos do too, its all subjective and even if its not that way in the general political culture in which each one of us experiences independently and differently neutral wording goes in line with wp policy of WP:NPOV^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 00:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Evolution of Desire". David Buss. 2003. p60-63. What homosexual men find attractive in other men are the same things that heterosexual men find attractive in women: youth, heavy emphasis on appearances. Lesbians have same preferences in women that hetersexual women have in men: little to no importance on youth, physical appearance. I will put this in the article, k?--Loodog 05:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

English

I move that this excuse for an article be deleted. This travesty of the english language is not actually an article at all. Until someone with an 8th grade level understanding or higher of english cares to take the time to synthesize this article, it should be removed. This article possess no redeeming characteristics whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.206.83.152 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Then nominate it.--Loodog 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

the disturbing trend of gutting articles on neccisary topics simply because they are not written the best at a certain point in time really needs to stop, this is wikipedia, its a continuing collaborative effort to improve. look at any article's history 1 month ago and its probably horrible in comparison to today if you think its broke than fix it or else shut up and do something constructive. At least put up a cleanup or copyedit or references tag on it and write a sentence or two or some bullets here on the TP (talk page) so someone else may take a look.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs more sexy dames.

I'm all for neoteric features, but she looks like a total coldfish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.149.253 (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Removed POV material

Removed the following part:

"Cultural, social, or time period environments can have a strong effect on the degree to which people determine certain traits to be attractive. As part of the socialization process, children typically learn what their culture or time period considers attractive. Children are shown examples of what is considered beautiful in the form of dolls and pictures on magazine covers. Perception of what is considered as attractive and appealing is also very heavily influenced by other dominant cultures and the impact of their value systems."

Seems POV and unfounded. Redsand

Re-removed the above text. This reads like a pamphlet for self-esteem. Wikipedia is not the place for this. See: Universal determinants of beauty.

I don't think this is a POV issue at all it reads like a psychology book to me, although children should probably be changes to people. A source would be great though, any shrinks we can ask?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 00:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone actually wants this to be a decent article, one could pick up a few books on evolutionary psychology and sociology and read them. So far, it's a few piecemeal pieces of information from assorted internet articles. A solid theme with substance. When I get through my reading list, I'll get on it. Just don't hold your breath...--Loodog 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

sweet, and why hold my breath this is what wikipedia is about, constant betterment over time.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Followup: I've found an article published in the Journal of Sex Research, full of sources. 14 pages plus 6 pages of sources. If someone with more time than me wants to read this, it'll get put in this article faster.--Loodog 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing Pictures

OK. The picture of Resident Evil 4 of Ada Wong has been removed. The remover says the picture is riduclous, but most people think she is physically attractive. So I think it should stay. Whether the less, I don't agree with the remover.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunder642 (talk • contribs).

Thunder, please sign your posts with a 4 tildas ~~~~ in the interests of being able to link a statement to who's saying it. Thank you.--Loodog 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the initial remover's reasoning in the edit summary, but I am removing the Ada Wong image for the time being for the following reason:

The image is licensed under a fair use, but no detailed fair use rationale is given for its inclusion in this article. The only way that I can see it qualifying under fair use is if the image is used to specifically highlight one or more points made in the article.

If the image is reinstated with a valid fair use rationale, please also consider providing a different caption. The current text of "Most teenaged males who play Resident Evil 4 find Ada Wong physically attractive." is likely original research, does not tie the image into the text, and also makes no mention of adult males and females (teenage or adult) ... the majority of them probably find the character attractive as well. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC) By the way, that last part should not be taken entirely seriously. ;)

Images

As a gameplayer I object to having an image such as this on this article. A common sterotype non-gamers apply to gamers is that they are maladjusted teenagers who drool over the female characters in them. To say that they essentially fancy 'drawings' - this picture and comment essentially confirms this...

Anyone who posts a picture on this page (such as the Jessica Alba promoting one applied by one of her fans) would be guilty of POV - I'm a heterosexual male but why isn't the image of someone a majority of females would find attractive, such as Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp? No one could universally agree with one particular person being featured on this article so there shouldn't be any). Thanks. Lughguy 23:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lughguy, answers to your questions are in the article itself:

1. There are universal correlates of beauty which correlate to evolutionary fitness.
2. Women are less superficial than men, so the body of their "perfect" mate isn't as important.
3. Jessica Alba's picture is captioned with the universally attractive qualities she has, consequently making her an example of attractive characteristics, which have no basis in individual judgement.

Nonetheless, if you like, feel free to add an image to the article of an attractive celebrity male for balance.--Loodog 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree with your comment that women are more "superficial" than men. In the realm of what makes them attracted to someone, then yes, you're probably right, but on the more general level, that's hotly contentious. Also as for Jessica Alba having "universally attractive qualities", I disagree to a large extent: she doesn't have enough body fat to be especially attractive to a lot of men, myself included.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a neutrality dispute tag to the top of the page here as I'm not sure it fully represents the views of significant minorities, like homosexuals among others.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about individual preferences here. What Jessica Alba represents in this article is the unequivocal trend in a statistical average over thousands of men, across 60 cultures and 5 continents, established repeatedly in studies. The fact that men are on average more superficial than me has been reproduced across cultural lines as well. If you'd like to know more, I direct you to the references on the page. What I'm asserting right now comes out of David M. Buss's Evolution of Desire. You and I may have different preferences, but this is what the research shows over an enormous sample group.--Loodog 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your POV tag is unnecessary in my opinion, for the reasons I stated above. We're indiscriminately reporting all data as it has been gathered. The information about homosexuals has been shown through research. If you have any sources that contest what's in the article, feel free to include them for balance.--Loodog 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Struckthrough: I didn't see that you were talking about the V-shaped torso part of the article, which is unsourced. Thought you were talking about homosexual comment in intro.--Loodog 15:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just not sure about this article. There are plenty of unreferenced bits and citation needed tags. There's no way to be sure that this article is neutral for this reason, but I'll take your point about Jessica Alba anyway - her proportions may match the statistical average of a wide survey of male preferences, yes, but her size may not. And I'm not speaking for fat fetishists in particular, but going on that picture I'd say that there would be many men who would prefer a female with more body fat without being overweight - women have an ideal average of 25% of their body weight made up by it - as it is a strong indictor of fertility. Also, it's interesting to note that the size of women that seems to be preferable changes throughout history and with fashion throughout certain eras...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This too is in the article:

“ The BMI refers to the proportion of the body mass to the body structure. However, the optimal body proportion is interpreted differently in various cultures. The Western ideal considers a slim and slender body mass as optimal while many historic cultures consider an embonpoint or plump body-mass as appealing. [19] [20] Men don't seem to have evolved to hold a particular build as more attractive, but rather to be drawn to whichever build associates with social status.[20] ”

Jessica Alba therefore embodies the statistical average of what is seen to be attractive to men in Western culture due to cultural trends.--Loodog 01:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As for "plenty" of cite needed tags, I only see 3, of which I just fixed 2. Research for "Such diverse beauty icons as Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, Beyoncé Knowles, Alessandra Ambrosio and the Venus de Milo all have ratios around 0.7.[citation needed]" will take me longer. Still, it hardly seems enough uncited information to warrant a POV issue.--Loodog 01:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you feel otherwise, I'd like to remove the POV tag.--Loodog 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Go on and remove it then, but I'm still not sure it's totally balanced, especially with the underrepresentation of LGBT/queer takes on the subject, which I don't know much about myself. I quote the image caption in saying "Jessica Alba is commonly ranked highly in comparisons of physical attractiveness for her youthful face, full lips, and low waist-hip ratio of 0.7, all of which imply high fertility to a potential mate". I see what you mean in that she's ranked highly in comparisons, but these have only have taken place in the contemporary Western world. -h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Youthful face, full lips, low WHR are all traits that have been observed cross culturally. There is NOTHING SPECIFIC TO WESTERN CULTURE about them.--Loodog 00:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Alba's body type might please the plurality, but that does not equate to "universal" by any stretch. Attractiveness is totally an individual preference. Statistical trends have no influence on what an individual would like. Many, even a plurality statistically, might find Paris Hilton attractive... for God only knows what reason. Many of us find her unappealing on every level. No "statistical trend" distates to me or anyone else what to find attractive. That comes from within. Therein lies the journalistic mine field within an article such as this. Baseball Bugs 09:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're expecting something of this article which it cannot possibly provide. Those reading it are aware that these are the more common preferences and NOT a totalitarian list of the only things that can ever be found attractive. The third sentence at the very top even says it: Judgment of attractiveness of physical traits is partly universal to all human cultures, partly dependent on culture or society or time period, and partly a matter of individual subjective preference. --Loodog 00:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There hardly seems to be a consensus about whether or not including images on this page is POV. I personally do not feel that you have really addressed the concerns raised by other people and it seems that a number of other people feel the same way. While it was not my intention to start an edit war I am afraid I think that you (Loodog) seem to be trying to impose your own will on this article even though a number of people have objected to it. I propose/vote that we remove all images from this article, permanently. Let's vote on it and see how it comes out? Cazort 21:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There will never be an image the WORLD finds attractive. There ARE certain features that have been demonstrated repeatedly to be attractive. Placing an image up therefore provides a much needed illustration of AN EXAMPLE of those features. I don't even think Merkin is hot, but I concede that she demonstrates WHR, youthful facial expression, and soft skin quite well.--Loodog 21:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first two sentences, but I think that including any image amounts to an implicit claim about the image's overall physical attractiveness which goes into the realm of subjectivity because, even though some traits of attractiveness may be objective, many of them are not. I think you're right about certain traits being universally attractive, but because it's impossible to isolate these traits, I think including any pics on this page amounts to POV (an example of another problem--even if you include a disclaimer about how the narrow waist is considered attractive in western culture, by putting the pic in a prominent location on the page, it is making an implicit normative claim that this western standard is somehow superior); I recognize you may not agree with this....but let's wait and see how other users feel about the matter. Cazort 13:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No no. First, a small waist is attractive cross culturally relative to hip. But to address your point, just looking at which articles in wikipedia have been written to any degree of depth shows that wikipedia is irrefutably Americentric. Placing an image up that demonstrates a BMI that's attractive in Western culture is no more culturally POV than having a 103kb article on George W. Bush and a 54 kb article on Jacques Chirac. Users of wikipedia at least tacitly acknowledge that they're using an encyclopedia with a western bias, simply based on who edits it.--Loodog 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking better

This article has come a ways from a depository of scattered original research to a excellent overview with 40+ sources. Thanks everyone who's worked on it.--Loodog 22:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Women naturally should outsize Men

Not just saying this becouse i like it but Women should, Becouse its like that with animals and Insects where the Females outsize the Males. It would help them match the physical strengh of the Male and would help them live a healthier life.

Link

Image—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiamaninana (talk • contribs)

Interesting, but impertinent here.--Loodog 01:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism. -h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Among mammals in general, the males outsize the females. Evolution has taken mammals in a different direction than it has taken insects (with the occasional exception; I'm sure you know someone like that). Baseball Bugs 09:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging sexual attraction into this page

There is an assload of redundant informatio on the sexual attraction page. I've put a tag there for a merging into this page.--Loodog 02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

jessica alba's picture

Why can't we just leave this? When there was no picture on the page, there was a request for one. It is the perfect visual aid for this article and its caption includes major points in the article. It is useful and there's no reason to remove it short of feminism. There are also no pictures WHATSOEVER if we remove this. What are we afraid of, that we'll lengthen the article?--Loodog 03:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

maybe we could use a free license image for that, in favor of policies --Andersmusician VOTE 06:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed, because what is considered "attractive" varies tremendously among various cultures, in different eras, and between individuals. A gallery would be far more appropriate. 209.204.144.185 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the above discussion before assuming we hadn't considered that.--Loodog 19:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What is attractive is subjective. Jessica Alba is not universally recognized as physically attractive, it is inappropriate to include her picture. Joie de Vivre ^T 01:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How about balancing Jessica's skinny, blonde looks (which I find unattractive) with a babe with some meat on her bones and dark hair. Megan Mullally would be a good choice. :b Baseball Bugs 01:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not mispresent what this article says. It makes no statements of individual preferences and even states in the second sentence that such judgements are: "partly a matter of individual subjective preference".--Loodog 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please read the above discussion about this issue.--Loodog 17:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the picture should remain, it's relevant to the article. - PhDP 17:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What people find physically attractive varies so widely that a single image at the top of the page is not appropriate. I have removed the image of Alba. Joie de Vivre° 06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Better than removing it would be to find a bunch of different photos of varieties of attractiveness. A rear view of Jennifer Lopez would be good. And how about some cleavage of the bounteous Queen Latifah? And for the opposite side of the fence, there's Brad Pitt or Bruce Willis or whoever. Now that I think of it, the gallery would be endless. Hmmm... Baseball Bugs 07:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If what people find physically attractive is so diverse that no picture can be called attractive, this entire article can't be written. The fact is there are trends observed cross-culturally, verified repeatedly by research. This article is about those observed trends though it concedes that attractiveness is "partly a matter of individual subjective preference." For the goddamn hundredth time, the picture is not there to show an attractive person. The picture demonstrates AN EXAMPLE of traits which are universally attracitve AS IT SAYS IN THE CAPTION.--Loodog 12:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If I as a straight guy (which I am) don't find her all that attractive (which I don't), then either (1) I'm not in this universe; or (2) her look is not "universally" attractive. Baseball Bugs 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's true. If you blatantly pervert the article and fail to read the caption under the image as well as the sentence I just posted.--Loodog 14:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It says "often", it doesn't say "universal". "Univesal" is your word, above, which is logically and factually untrue. Baseball Bugs 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

universal.--Loodog 20:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So, for example, American citizens are "universally" caucasian? Baseball Bugs 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I suggest you read the dictionary entry I provided before misusing the word.--Loodog 21:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I did. You're misusing the term. Baseball Bugs 22:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. "American citizens are universally caucausion" is not misusage. I retract my statement.--Loodog 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor are American citizens "universally" into skinny babes. Baseball Bugs 23:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems to be the difference between "universally" and "predominantly". Baseball Bugs 23:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor did I nor this article ever intend to assert that.--Loodog 23:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Then lose "universal" and substitute "predominant", and you'll be on safer ground. Baseball Bugs 23:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The word universal is correct in the usage of omnipresent, as in, cross-culturally. Not as in "absolute".--Loodog 23:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Its usage here is misleading, as well as being false. Baseball Bugs 23:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your definition is misleading, as well as being false. universal--Loodog 23:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. At least I'm not reverting you to death. Good luck with that. Baseball Bugs 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the images, I'm afraid it's against our non-free content policy to use a non-free image here. There are plenty of high-quality, free images of attractive people. I've added one. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Although someone's got to be kidding with that last name. Baseball Bugs 10:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Height Section Is Extreme, Unsettling, and Unforgiving

[Note: I am not trying to send off an "egalitarian" message as some of you have implied, I am not saying that short and tall men are equals, what I am trying to say is that an untruthful message about height is being exuded by this article and that the message is wrongfully black and white ie. tall = attractive, short = unattractive, this is pretty much how it works with regard to body mass index (weight) and symmetry, not height, it is much more complicated, so please, instead of disregarding what i'm saying below, get out of your houses look at people, watch the real world, read some books and researched articles, and tell me what you see, oh yeah and quit taking all your information from the personals, ask yourself "how many friends do I have that use the personals", anything which has to do with personals and things like speed dating is called pop-psychology and is known to most social psychologists (I just called a friend who is one) as the "paparazzi magazines" of psychological research.] 24.80.33.91 06:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)MS

Firstly the personal ad study that was mentioned is a very extreme example, the idea that most women will only date a man in the top 15% of height is not a reality in the real world. I recommend removing this garbage and finding a more scientific article to cite.

Secondly the height section says that in evolutionary terms all short men are seen as unattractive ["As a corollary, short men are viewed as unattractive for both casual and intended long-term relationships."] this is simply not true (short is NOT like obese) because what about short men who ARE seen as very attractive because they possess other physical traits which negate the height. I am on a university campus for most of the week and I see plenty of short attractive men who are athletic and have handsome features but one can also look at celebrities such as Tom Cruise (5'7) (before he became a moron) or Michael J. Fox (5'4) when he was a sex symbol in the 80's, I'm sure there are better examples of attractive short men, TV actors tend to be short. I am NOT talking about an attractive personality, (although that matters alot) I am talking about purely physical traits. Also shorter men are MUCH more tolerated for "intended long-term relationships" as it even says in this section that women prefer men of an average height (probably average compared to them) for this purpose.

Also I'm a biology student and I can safely say that height preference is more a cultural thing than an evolutionary thing although it is a combination of both as height does usually make a man seem more physically powerful. However if it was the stone age women would not care about height so much as pure brute strength and physical ability to protect, this does not explain the preference that some women have for tall thinner men over shorter stronger men. Height may also indicate social status but so can a short guy with nice suit.

Lastly 1.1 is the wrong ratio, it is not precise enough, I searched the internet and 3 - 7 inches (5 is the average dimorphic distance between a man and a woman) seems to be the zone for desired height difference and chance of successful romantic relationships although some women prefer much taller men as some men prefer much shorter women. The strong desire for an unnatural height difference (like a foot) is called a fetish, not a preference.

In conclusion shorter men have a disadvantage and taller men have an advantage in the most superficial sense (not doubt there) but there are lots of short men that women find very physically attractive and lots of tall men that they find very physically unattractive. Online dating, and personal ads will bring out the most unrealistic desires that are not relevant in the real world because what you think you want is much different than what you really want when you SEE it (and for your bozos out there who haven't figured this out; women are the grand masters of thinking they want something when really they want something totally different. And one must also think of the TYPES of woman that use personals, I don't think I know any women who use them, but I've heard of people using them and they typically have more feminine values (need to feel feminine, want to find a good man) and are more superficial, i may be wrong of course, discuss below.

I look forward to discussion about this and I also look forward to making this section closer to reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.33.91 (talk • contribs)

Reguarding your first paragraph: data is expressed preferences, not what was successfully achieved by the desiring women. Also, censoring information to preserve people's feelings has to be the most absurd reason I've heard to remove text. If your self-worth is measured in inches from the ground, I have no pity for you. And even if it were true that women will ONLY, in ALL cases, only date men over the height of 5'7" (which is NOT what this says), denying this doesn't make short men any more desirable. If short men have a stigma to overcome, maybe they can acknowledge it and do something about it.

Second paragraph: you are citing specific examples. A few examples of specimens contrary to a rule does not negate the rule. Read the second sentence in the entire article: "Judgment of attractiveness of physical traits is partly universal to all human cultures, partly dependent on culture or society or time period, and partly a matter of individual subjective preference."

-What I am saying is that the article should not say "all short men are viewed as unattractive", short men are not fat men or really skinny men, in society 99% of fat men will be viewed as unattractive, its pretty much a sure thing. It should say taller men are viewed as more attractive as short men, not that tall men are attractive while short men are unattractive. Lets say for example a 5'5 guy has an attractive face/body he can be seen as generally attractive, he is healthy, evolution will favor this guy. If it was the same guy but he was 6'0 he would be viewed as favorably but even more favorably because he has the height advantage. A fat guy is never in favor of evolution because he is not fit (not physically fit, but also may have bad metabolic genes), rememember "survival of the fittest". Also another thing, evolution doesn't only favor a mans ability to protect his woman, it also favors his genetic qualtity, which is something a short guy can also possess (as well as ability to protect which in our society can come from ways other than size: money, kung fu, etc.), good genes are sexy and good genes don't always mean tall genes. I'm writing this pretty quickly but like I said i've studied evolution in university quite a bit, the message i'm trying to get to you is that short is a disadvantage statistically but short men are not viewed automatically as unattractive (espcially for longterm relationships!) but it increases their chances of being viewed this way. I look forward to debating this if you disagree with me. 24.80.33.91 02:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)MS

Third paragraph: there is a high (but not 100%) correlation between a man's height and his ability to win in a fight. Bouncers are rarely short strong guys.

I've seen plenty, ever seen judo? In judo being short and stocky is a huge advantage as you have a lower centre of gravity and thus are harder to bring down.

Yes, of course. Our primitive ancestors in the EEA all knew Judo. Plus height does not only correlate to physical dominance in a mate, but also maturity, since younger normal-heighted people have the same height as short adults. Notice how you seem to infer that short guys are less mature than their tall counterparts? Also, from Evolution of Desire, "Tall men tend to have a higher status in nearly all cultures."(p39) --Loodog 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok so cavemen didn't know judo, but who is going to be more physically dominant, a 200 pound muscular 5'10 guy, or a 200 pound 6'4 guy. The taller guy will have more bone, less muscle, and therefore will be easily dominated buy the 5'10 guy. Height gives a higher chance of being stronger but you can still be tall and be weak physically. The stockier guy may not be as attractive in other areas though. As for maturity, if you look at any evolutionay anthropology textbook you learn that the most sexually dimorphic trait that indicates maturity in men is facial hair, not height, if a shorter guy has a beard then it will be known to all that he is mature. As for status, your right tall men statistically earn a little more money in society as do caucasians and men in general (it becomes very minimal with those with university degrees). As I am a college student I do not really notice these biases work very strongly, I have friends who are tall and have social status and money and I have shorter friends with the same, since no one fights or threatens each other physically it all comes down to intelligence, confidence, and social skills in the real world. If any women is thinking to herself "I want a dominant male." then she would be superficial to ignore other signs of dominance and only look at height, and in this case height isn't even an asthetic desire, more so a functional desire, so is it even relevant for this wiki "Physical attractiveness". There is a diffence between saying "I like tall men because they are dominant" and "I like the way tall men look, they are sexy". 24.80.33.91 04:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)MS

What is "sexy" is not a conscious choice. It's one made for you by evolutionary selection.--Loodog 23:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. People are not totally slaves to their genetics. There is a lot of choice involved. Baseball Bugs 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

When did you "choose" to find 80-year-olds unattractive sexually?--Loodog 14:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says I don't? No human and no genetics dictate to me what I find attractive. Nor to you. Baseball Bugs 16:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue with disingenuous people.--Loodog 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you say you're totally controlled by your genetics, and I say you aren't. You're not a robot. You have choices. Genetics influence but they aren't absolute determinants of what you like or don't like. Baseball Bugs 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for beating up a view I don't have (see: Straw man), but you've just told me you found 80-year-olds more attractive than 20-year-olds, and that if I choose not to have bipolar disorder, my genetics mean fuck all.--Loodog 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say I found 80 year olds more attractive than 20 year olds, or that I find them attractive at all? And how does finding one body type more interesting than another relate to bipolar disorder? Baseball Bugs 20:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you know what you said above, and understand what I mean by genetics, why disingenuously pretend not to?--Loodog 20:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You said genetics drive attractiveness rather than choice, and I claim that is an untrue generalization. You made assumptions about what I find attractive, and I teased you about that assumption. Baseball Bugs 20:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I like thin women. You may like fat women. I have a friend who likes women with huge asses. None of us made the *choice* to have these preferences.--Loodog 21:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. Baseball Bugs 21:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, an attraction to skinny (i.e. physically weak) women could express a desire to control, which could be due to upbringing more than to genetics. Baseball Bugs 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Prove it." Hah!--Loodog 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Could" express such a desire, not "absolutely" or "universally" or even "often". And it's a well-documented fact that abuse of women is learned behavior. What humans like or don't like, do or don't do, is based on a lot more than just genetics. Baseball Bugs 21:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph: how does citing a specific number negate the ratio? These are hardly incompatible requirements.

Bring me some citable studies that support your egalitarian message, and we'll throw those up there too, but everything on the page now has been observed repeatedly and cross-culturally in human society.--Loodog 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

i'll work on it later—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.33.91 (talk • contribs)

your right, this shouldn't be censored, but there are probably thousands of articles and it seems this is the most extreme one picked to display. Go out into the real world, sure maby some women will reject all men under 6 foot but I'm telling you, It's NOT 80%, try 10% which would probobly be mostly tall or very hot, highly selective women. I think that personal ads are a terrible way to study attraction because they are based on opinions of thought, not of reactions to a stimulus such as a man in person. Who ever said I was talking about MY esteem, I did not say I was short nor did I say I had low selfesteem. Showing one extreme study does not create an "average" of what the reality is, like I said this study is most likely in the very high eschelons of height selection examples.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.33.91 (talk • contribs)

You aren't making this discussion any more productive by ignoring the disclaimers in the article

sorry the fact that there is that disclamer shows that that citation shouldn't be in the article, its not realistic—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.33.91 (talk • contribs)

"However, this percentage only was of ads specifying height in the first place, and therefore possibly self-selected and/or biased by a third factor such as female height."

--Loodog 02:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The survey cited is a valid piece of gathered data. It should be presented with all the appropriate disclaimer so that the reader may interpret for himself.--Loodog 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, if you could do me a favor and sign your posts, this discussion would be easier to follow.--Loodog 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To settle a recurring point

Objections to this article as it stands seem centralized around the issue of the subjectivity of beauty and if the trends this article asserts (through sources) negate that. The third sentence in this article states that an individual's notions of attractiveness are governed by three things:

1. Genetic selection (e.g. Waist-hip ratio)
2. Cultural exposure (e.g. slimness in Hollywood)
3. Individual variation there is no goddamn accounting for (e.g. blondes vs. brunettes vs. redheads)

Anything attributed to the first cause must be observed cross-culturally with sufficient prominence to be statistically significant. Anything attributed to the second must be observed across a society with sufficient prominence to be statistically significant. Everything else is still individual variation. This article addresses the first two, as that's all that can be measured objectively and scientifically. Please do not infer this article to be attempting anything further.--Loodog 22:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

I've nominated the article for GA status. If you haven't contributed signicantly, feel free to leave a review.--Loodog 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination review

Upon reviewing the article against the GA criteria, I came to the following conclusions:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Criteria 2a

• References should include all available information requested at WP:CITE.
  • This includes page numbers for books, magazines, etc. for verification of information; and retrieval dates allowing for potential replacement of links that may die in the future. I recommend the use of {{cite web}}.
• They should also be consistently formatted per WP:WIAGA note 2.
  • Note also that as this is the English Wikipedia, all references should be in English, as long as it's available. For this reason, it is unnecessary to put "(In English)" in references. Such a note should be reserved for references in another language.

Criteria 2b and 2c

• There are many claims, determinations, and conclusions made without references. This is unacceptable.

Criteria 3a, 4a, and 4b

• This article is very Westernized. The images each specify that the subject has features attractive to Western culture. There should not only be images, but also details in text regarding what features are found attractive in various countries and cultures.

Conclusion

Because the issues are numerous and I don't feel can easily or quickly be corrected, I have failed the nomination. Once corrections are made on the article to improve the quality of that needed for GA, it can be renominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this review was made in error, you can request remediation at WP:GA/R. Regards, LaraLove 04:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm?

"Despite the existence of universally agreed upon signs of beauty in both genders, both homosexual and heterosexual men tend to place significantly higher value on physical appearance in a partner than women." I just can't make sense of the sentence. Can someone rephrase it? 202.136.111.86 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was intended to convey, "Even though both genders are superficial to the point that certain features can almost always be called attractive, men are more superficial than women."--Loodog 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Huge picture of a woman

Sorry. Why does this article have a huge picture of an attractive woman on the introduction? Do you think physical attractiveness = females? This is straight guy bias, sorry (I know, for some of you the perception of that as bias is outrageous, I mean, *gasp* do you mean my vision of the world isn't universal??) Betina 02:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, to the extent that there was anything to fix. The "huge" pic of a woman was 13.7% larger than the one of the guys (250px as opposed to 220px), but now they're all the same. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but the issue isn't the size itself. Rather, the association of attractiveness = women implied by having a female white model on the introduction as opposed to its specific section. Betina 02:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

When we have an article like Art Deco, we put an image up top and there's no arguing about what's "the most" Art Deco image, nor that the first image being a building implies that the term is centered on buildings.--Loodog 02:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WHR

Since the (cited) publications in the early-mid '90s, which claimed that the whole world preferred female WHRs of approximately 0.7, some researchers went out to into the jungles of East Africa and elsewhere, and did surveys of people who hadn't been exposed to significant amounts of western media. And, lo and behold, they did not uniformly like 0.7, the Hadza of Tanzania, for example, preferred somewhere between .78 and 1.0, depending on how one looks at the data.[[1]] A study in the Peruvian Andes, and another in rural Ecuador, also gave results favoring a WHR significantly higher than 0.7. So, despite my great fondness for my SO's 0.63, I am going to have to question the article's statement that a low WHR is a universal preference. Thoughts? Poindexter Propellerhead 02:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Then question the source's accuracy. David Buss mentions in his book that there are a few cultures that do not prefer a low WHR, but by and large, most cultures, including those not exposed to Western media, prefer it. At any rate, it's not our place to contest a source personally. We can only offer other sources that contest it. If you have a source that contradicts Buss's findings, it should be cited and mentioned in the article.--Loodog 02:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mean to be contesting it personally, rather to be pointing out a number of newer studies that appear to at least partially refute the original conclusion. Like the one I cited above, and these.[2][3][4][5] The Chinese prefer 0.6,[6] and are 1/5 of the world's population. The article now reads "Women with a 0.7 WHR (waist circumference that is 70% of the hip circumference) are invariably rated as more attractive by men, regardless of their culture.[13]" I will probably attempt a (very thoroughly cited) revision of this section, but thought that I should, at very least, mention my reasoning on the talk page before fiddling with things. Poindexter Propellerhead 04:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I've read that .7 is the magic number, but I'm pretty sure "low" WHR has been said by Buss to be observed to be more attractive cross culturally.--Loodog 06:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just gave an edit a try, see what you think of it. Preference for low WHR (0.6-0.7) seems to be the rule in Europe, the US and China, but those pesky Equadorians, Peruvians and some Africans like 0.8-0.9, as mentioned (and cited) in the text. I commented out a little material which was sourced, but which I didn't know what to do with, since the context had changed. Poindexter Propellerhead 06:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)