Talk:Physical attractiveness/Archive 3

Obesity?
Why does it always say that being thin is "judged as being attractive in Western culture". Is there ANY culture in the world where obesity is considered attractive? If no one defends this I'm going to go ahead and be bold by removing the POV dogshit. 76.223.237.10 16:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Define "obesity". Refer to the Rubenesque period in English history.  There are many local tribes that do not share westerner's newfound love of thinness.--Loodog 22:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Check out "steatopygy" as well, a highly attractive feature in some cultures. __Just plain Bill 01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures, again.
I do not believe there should be pictures in this article at all. To put a picture'in an article about physical attractiveness is POV. I say someone is attractive, you do not. You say someone is, I agree, someone else does not. Just because the person in the picture may meet statistical evidence of what some polled people consider attractive does not mean that person is attractive. So I propose we remove all pictures. i said 04:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, we've been through this. I personally don't find any of the people posted in image form attractive; they function as visual aides in demonstrating characteristics that have been shown to be attractive cross culturally.--Loodog 05:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind giving me sources that show a large majority of the human race find certain attributes attractive, one for both men and women, and then sources that say the subjects of these photos meet them? i said 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources are all over the page.--Loodog 14:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to second this, much as sexual attraction this article should be without any pictures, people have different preferences. I for one don't find a skinny, blonde model with what are most likely fake breasts, and enough make-up to shame Mimi Bobeck, attractive, and I'm sure many other people don't as well. Revrant 02:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, let me just quote myself since you've ignored it: "''I personally don't find any of the people posted in image form attractive; they function as visual aides in demonstrating characteristics that have been shown to be attractive cross culturally.--Loodog 05:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)"--Loodog 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I did not, and I'd appreciate refraining from such veiled insults in the future, blonde, over-tanned, make-up lathered, and quite possibly anorexic women are not considered attractive cross-culturally, how do I know this? They may just be in a short supply across Asia and many other places in the world. Also, deeply tanned men with exaggerated muscles are not considered attractive cross culturally, again most notably in Asia, though extending to places such as Africa and Europe.


 * I reiterate, this article simply should not have pictures, what society and magazines feel is acceptable and attractive has little bearing on the reality of things, which is quite subjective and open to debate, and I'd fully support removing pictures if it was put up to a vote. Revrant 05:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me try again: "''I personally don't find any of the people posted in image form attractive; they function as visual aides in demonstrating characteristics that have been shown to be attractive cross culturally."--Loodog 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't be replying to you again, when you can find a less insulting tone, you get back to me. Revrant 06:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is: Don't misconstrue every trait and appearance in the picture as something held or asserted to be universally attractive. The caption doesn't even mention Michelle Merkin or her skinniness or whatever trait you are repulsed by.  It says "Features such as a symmetrical face, full lips, and low waist-hip ratio are commonly considered attractive."  If I showed you a picture of Buffalo City Hall, to demonstrate the concept of Art Deco, you wouldn't think that its being tall makes it an example of Art Deco.--Loodog 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for moving towards intelligent discussion, I fully understood what you were trying to relay, but that's entirely too subjective, Art Deco is heavily defined, and it's quite easy to find present examples of it in architecture, physical attractiveness varies wildly, and there is simply no logic in providing pictures for it. Revrant 06:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "physical attractiveness varies wildly, and there is simply no logic in providing pictures for it". If you honestly believe this, then this article can't be written at all.--Loodog 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it can, there simply must be some kind of separation, between the article itself and the perception of the topic at hand, if pictures simply must exist, they cannot exist as examples of physically attractive people, but under their own section, and could logically include what other cultures perceive to be physically attractive under this section. Right now, as it is, there is very little separation between the perception and the fact, which is extremely subjective and varies wildly, I think that is a viable solution. Revrant 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then, insofar as attractive traits can be specified, they can be demonstrated. The pictures make no claim about attributes the pictured people have that have not been shown cross culturally to be attractive.--Loodog 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good gracious, yes they have, simply by being featured so prominently, and I think the two should be separated for the sake of perception, what magazines and some of society feel is physically attractive has little sway with the public at large, and are extremely subjective. Listing what might be considered attractive versus pictures demonstrating models is a rather large gap, especially with pictures having such a wide appeal versus words, which allow people to fill in the gaps themselves. There is absolutely no argument for having pictures without attaching them very directly to being merely what might be "perceived" as attractive, and considering the vast array on ethnicities present on, well, Earth, the fact of the matter is, a thin, white, tan, blonde model cannot be attractive cross culturally in any meaningful way. Revrant 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reread my last point.--Loodog 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

- sorry to butt in, but all the pictures are of white people. I think that if pictures are necessary, it might be better if they represented more types of people. 24.74.141.22 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you can find free pictures of attractive people of other races, you are welcome to change the images, though, keep in mind, that between three images, you're not going to get a mirror of American demographics here.--Loodog 02:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Listen up. This fraction is from the talk-page of the Michele_Merkin picture:

"Hardly. It's featured on her page, glamour photography, beauty, and physical attractiveness. " See anything wrong here?! Its so wrong to promote modelism as beauty, and to promote any living model. I say go for something.. tastefull, historic. Something that actually shows what the text says about the picture, and illustrates. - Alex
 * I do like that idea. I've changed Michelle Merkin to Venus de Milo.--Loodog (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the picture of Michelle Merkin on this page is really ugly. How many agree with me? I know it's impossible to find a consensus here but I think that pic is so ugly that it makes the whole page look almost like a joke. Cazort (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Abdominal muscle tone/adiposity: indicators of pregnancy
Not sure "adiposity" is even a word, but I believe that (straight) males are biased toward females with flat tummies, to avoid hooking up with a pregnant mate, and thus supporting someone else's genes. Pretty sure there is a reference or two to be found for this. Am guessing this would fit in the "Proportion of Body Mass" section.

Went looking for references and found this, which points out that the pregnant female form was considered an "ideal of beauty" at some times in some places, to the extent that there was a brief fashion of women padding their abdomens...

For now, given that complication, I'll just leave this as a note on the discussion page. __Just plain Bill 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugly people
If we're going to keep the photos of models, can we also have some pictures of ugly people, in order to illustrate physical features that studies have shown people find repellent?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The title of this section made me laugh. I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. Anyway, to the question, I'm not so sure. I mean, that would be better-suited in the article Ugliness. But for either article, adding pictures of people and stating that they are found to be ugly would seem more off without a source, and even with a source, would seem in bad taste. Especially if the images are of famous people. Flyer22 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Merkin image and other images
The image of Michele Merkin has a POV description, the image itself is clearly retouched and a photoshopped composite, so we'll need a decent source identifying that this individual is considered an archetype of Western ideas of physical attractiveness before it goes back in. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a composite. I think it got that effect by using sunlight behind and a flash gun in front. Man with two legs (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The description of Merkin should probably be changed, but that image is a featured image, and I don't see anything wrong with that image itself being the main (lead) image of this article. This article is already sourced with what people find physically attractive, and these images are displaying what this article already says is considered physically attractive, such as full lips, abs, etc. If we should provide valid sources within these image descriptions that reference these people as being considered physically attractive, then that should be easy enough. Flyer 18:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been down the picture road so many times on this article, I don't care anymore. Originally, this article had no pictures, and someone put up a "request for picture" template.  I put up Jessica Alba as someone who obviously has big youthful lips, long thick hair, the appearance of clear skin, and also verifiably has the pan-cultural desirable characteristic WHR of .70.  The image was her on the cover of Playboy with the cover stating that she was one of the "hottest" people. There were objections and the image was fair use instead of free so the image was changed to Merkin.  I don't think she's particularly attractive, though I concede that she demonstrates the qualities discussed.


 * That's when people came here and started misconstruing what this article is about and viscerally objecting to the idea of putting an objective wrapping on the irrefutably subjective concept of beauty. Others said that putting any image up implies that person to be the ultimate standard of beauty in spite of the caption explicitly mentioning the picture as a demonstration of the qualities discussed, thusly imposing an ethnocentric standard of beauty on the world.  Do what you will.--Loodog 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Loodog, it may be inappropriate to say, but this post of yours made me want to clap, and yell, "Tell it like it is!" It sounds like you know that there is nothing wrong with having Merkin as the main image within this article, or having the other images exist within this article. And if so, you know that I agree with you. I just don't see the problem with Merkin or any of these images being examples, when it is clear that all they are doing is demonstrating features that this article already states (with valid sources) are physically attractive. Flyer22 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would recommend adding lots of images. There are famous iconic images of beauty from a variety of civilizations though out history from a famous African statue to ancient Greek depictions of icons of beauty to Indian sacred art depicting classic beauties etc. WAS 4.250 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a bad suggestion, of course. Flyer22 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

children
Children are by definition beautiful. And since many people (pedophiles) are atracted to them in a physical way, shouldn't be at least one picture of a child? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.73.179.226 (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh...not if it's because pedophiles are attracted to them. And if it's not about the pedophiles, this article is more so focusing on physical attractiveness as being sexually or romantically attracted to a person. When most people think of physical attractiveness, they think in terms of sexual/romantic feelings, not on the simple basis of cute, such as a child being cute. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We need a source for that, dude. Without a source your comment is invalid. - Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.185.54 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
Physical_attractiveness i don't think this image really meets the article's criteria, but to some she might be beautiful. Just.. Not me. 72.77.93.122 (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're talking about the woman in the Signals of youth section. Well, it's mainly just pointing out how her youthfulness is a desired physical trait. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, you were probably talking about that picture that a newcomer put up in that section. If so, it's now removed. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Focus of eyes during porn watching
Cheeser, I will reiterate what I said in my edit summary. The focus of men and women's eyes during the viewing of sexual activity is far from a "Social effect of attractiveness". Take a look at the rest of that section. It is also not relevant to physical attractiveness in general. Try human sexuality, sexual intercourse, human sexual behavior, sexual stimulation, or even pornography.--Loodog (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So move it to another section. I also find it interesting that when some of the erotic images include sexual intercourse, you immediately speciate this to "where people look during porn." This article isn't censored, nor is its scope. This paragraph seems to follow smoothly from the previous one, and its context and content are just fine. Why do you insist on deleting it? Create a new section in the article, change the heading for the existing one, do something (besides edit-warring by repeatedly deleting perfectly good material). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that there is no place in this article, nor could there be created one, that is appropriate for this piece of information. It is possibly appropriate to one of the above article I've mentioned.  If you'd like this piece of information included (and it is interesting), look there instead of randomly dropping it into where it clearly doesn't belong.--Loodog (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't look at me - that info's been in here for a while and I didn't put it here. It seems to be properly contextualized by other information in the article. You may say "there is no place" but you haven't explained why. You just say so, and that's that. But I disagree, as does the rest of consensus, which allowed that paragraph to become a part of the status-quo version of this article. If you want to remove it, you'll need a reason besides "it doesn't go here." --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine. Surrounding section, outlined:
 * Being attractive is linked to being a better adjusted person.
 * Being attractive is linked to earning more.
 * Being attractive gets you societal benefits.
 * Being attractive is linked to being more promiscuous.
 * Gender differentiation appears when people are exposed to erotic imagery.
 * Yeah, that fits right in.--Loodog (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it doesn't fit its section. How about the article? We have entire sections on how men and women are perceived, physically. Gender differentiation fits right in. So be bold and move it to a new section or subsection, instead of cutting it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So we leave it in randomly? What's the point of leaving it in a place you concede it doesn't fit in?  I personally can see no section in this article it is suitable for since this is about the reception of a sexualized situation, rather than what visual stimulus a person puts out in sexual and nonsexual interactions.  I'm removing it because it improves the coherence of the article.  If you want it included so badly, you are welcome to spend the time to find a better place for it rather than reinserting it in the admittedly wrong place.--Loodog (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, did you just say (excuse the paraphrasing) "forget the consensus-building process, I'm going to do whatever I want"??? --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As of right now, the concensus is me and you, both of whom have agreed that the piece in question does not fit where it is. This means we have both agreed to remove it from that section.  The point on which concensus has not been reached is if we want to put it somewhere.  Fine.  We remove this piece as per agreement.  It will be reinstated when you propose where it goes and it makes sense to me.--Loodog (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. You've already been trying to force your deletion onto the article. Deleting it again and saying "if you want to fix it, do whatever else you want to undo my forced deletions" in the name of consensus... well then you need to reread WP:CONS. Until consensus is established, you absolutely should not delete it again. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which. I've seen your recent move and do not agree.  The entire article is about outward attractiveness, not human response to sexual depiction, which is (again) more appropriate to human sexuality, sexual intercourse, human sexual behavior, sexual stimulation, or even pornography.--Loodog (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Says you. But since you haven't built a consensus to delete this paragraph, you don't get to delete it. Anyone else care to comment? I'm done feeding this discussion for now. The content has been moved. It fits the article. You want to cut it because you "do not agree" and don't want it there?? Well, until you build a consensus to do so, it stays. Comments from anyone else? --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are concensus. Kindly reply to my comments in such a way that we can find agreement.  That will make concensus.  I've made points as to why this is not appropriate here, you have not responded.--Loodog (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So what is your point? "Outward physical attractiveness"? How the male and female form is perceived has nothing to do with physical attractiveness? That's patently false. Why must this offending paragraph be removed, because all I see is "I think it does not belong" without a serious or believable explanation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First, it's not even necessarily about the perception of attractiveness. The subjects may not even find the participants attractive.  The crucial thing being tested is sexual behavioral reaction.  The article, if you read its entirety at one pass, is serving as a description of what makes a person attractive.  Second, we already have articles about Sexual arousal, Sexual attraction, Erotica, and Sexual stimulation (including visual stimulation).--Loodog (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So we have extensive explanations of which parts are considered attractive, and in what ways. A section on how each part is perceived when judging physical attractiveness... this is irrelevant? Why exactly? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The subjects exposed to erotic images are not judging physical attractiveness. They are responding to a sexual situation.--Loodog (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Try erotic. To say that sexual attractiveness has nothing to do with physical attractiveness would be pretty naive. Erotic may mean of a sexual nature, but hell, the picture in the lead of this article has a topless woman. Let's not play the semantics game. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this is a semantical point. If I dangled a piece of meat in front of a tiger and watched its reaction, I wouldn't put in an article on how tiger's judge nutritional value.--Loodog (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but if someone who studies animal behavior did, they'd publish a paper that would be a suitable source for such an article. And they do. Because that's how they study such things (not to put it to simplistically, but it is). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I would gladly concede that it is relevant to this article and the topic if, in the study in question, participants were asked to rank the attractiveness of the persons in the erotic imagery. Then, where they looked would be indicative of how they judged attractiveness.  Where they look now is only a measure of how a person takes in erotic visual stimulus, regardless of attractiveness--Loodog (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and in this article we establish which features of the body are a part of physical attractiveness. This study provides an explanation as to how these features are perceived. Do you want this to be in an article "perception of physical attractiveness" or something? It's clearly and obviously related. The fact that the study does not encompass the entirety of the content in this article doesn't mean the content is not relevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'd like it to be in Sexual arousal, Erotica, or Sexual stimulation. My vote is for sexual stimulation.  This isn't people responding to attractiveness so much as responding to visual sexual stimulus, which fits perfectly in with "Mental sexual stimulation".--Loodog (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And you can add it to whatever other articles you like. It can go in more place than one. It is still relevant to this article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't people responding to attractiveness so much as responding to visual sexual stimulus. If a person came up behind you and rubbed your dick, you'd have a reaction, regardless of the attractiveness of the person.  This is sexual stimulus, not attractiveness judgement.--Loodog (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice strawman, but I've already explained how this study is relevant (graphic allusions to my sex organs aside). The paragraph itself explains the relevance, making note of how attractiveness relates to what features each sex tends to judge attractiveness by. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "I've already explained how this study is relevant" and that was rebutted since the the focus of the eyes is irrespective of attractiveness. Please explain how a reaction irrespective of physical attractiveness belongs in an article about physical attractiveness.--Loodog (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of you have brought up some valid points. However, from what that information is particularly dealing with, I agree with Loodog that it is better suited in the Sexual arousal, Erotica, or Sexual stimulation article. It most definitely would be better placed in one of those articles than here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So copy it there. Since when is information relevant to two articles allowed only in the one "better" for it? --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that it doesn't belong here because it is not in the scope of this article.--Loodog (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrapping it up
Motion for the material under discussion to be removed from this page as per above arguments.--Loodog (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Motion? What is this, parliament? You want to cut it because you believe it's "not in the scope of this article." The person who added it, the people who allowed it to remain a part of the status-quo version of this article, and I who've objected disagree with this assessment. If you want a "motion" to do something, I suggest you submit a request for comment. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stick to content and kindly respond to my point, that it is not in the scope of this article. Its endurance on the page is a moot point.  It's been around for a little over a month now, and only because I didn't catch it before.  You know that appeal to wikipedia existence means nothing.  Second, if you would like to continue debating as if other people were here, I invite you to notify them so they may speak for themselves.--Loodog (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the one who wants a change. Establish your consensus that this material is not relevant (despite appearing to be, at least to the people I've mentioned). The onus is on you to establish a consensus that which parts people consider attractive is somehow irrelevant. As far as I can tell, it's relevant prima facie, regardless of what kind of rhetorical distance you can put between this paragraph and other parts of the article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop ducking my points and respond:
 * Please explain how a reaction irrespective of physical attractiveness belongs in an article about physical attractiveness.
 * The existence of this piece of information for a month on wikipedia proves nothing because it's wikipedia.
 * The presupposition of a concensus or lack thereof is invalid since, as of now, the only participants are you, me, and Flyer, the majority of which disagrees with you, not me.
 * --Loodog (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4. You've already changed it, without somehow the onus being on you.
 * --Loodog (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Points 2 & 3 are overblown nonsense. It's in the article. You want to remove it. So build a consensus. (A 2-1 "vote" is not a consensus). It's basic policy, although the edit warring you engaged in over this matter indicates you may not be familiar with it. As for point 1, I've explained why it's relevant. I don't need to explain how it's not irrelevant. You're asking questions that have nothing to do with the reason for including it: here's a list of body parts and features that affect attractiveness, and here's a study that explains which parts of the body are of interest during romantic/sexual/erotic situations. Absolutely relevant, a great way to contextualize the content in this article, and I have no idea why you're so hell-bent on removing it from the article. Are you worried about sexual content in this article or something?? Where does your zeal come from? Why are you so offended in that you (wrongly) believe I'm "ducking" your "points"? I'm sure you want the best for this article, but why does deleting relevant (even marginally relevant) content help anyone, ever? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict: What are you going on about in point 4?? It appears that you don't understand the consensus building process. I didn't change anything, but the person who added this content in the past - the addition was not challenged, which means it becomes accepted by consensus. Coming around after it has become an established part of the article and demanding it be deleted because you don't think it's relevant requires a new consensus to be built. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you've done it again and now you're not assuming good faith.
 * You write "which parts of the body are of interest during sex". Not which parts of the body are attractive during sex.
 * You haven't addressed this point, except dismissing it as "nonsense".
 * The point of this was to stop creating opinions of nonpresent people.
 * You took the material and moved it to a new section. This is a change you unilaterally performed.
 * You speak of my "coming around after it's been established" as if I were doing this to circumvent reaction. To the best of your or my knowledge, there are only two people opposed to my removal, and Siliconov, the user adding it, might agree that upon debate, yes, it shouldn't be there.  I came along because it had slipped my notice.  Don't believe me?  Then you're not assuming good faith.
 * --Loodog (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6. My single reversion past the original was in good faith and not edit warring.  I honestly believed that my edit summary would be sufficient for the differing editor to agree.--Loodog (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm done addressing your laundry lists. You're playing semantics games instead of thinking about what content might be valuable to the article. We both agreed it didn't fit the subsection it was in, so I moved it. You contest that, fine, move it back but don't object to the move just to prove some point about consensus building. You reverted a revert, which is what it is. Edit warring. I'm done dancing around this issue. Build your consensus or don't, but I'm not going to pander to this endless bickering any longer. And please don't play this AGF game with me. You removed the content weeks and weeks after it was added: you need to justify your deletion. My saying so is not a lack of good-faith assumption. Why don't you read up on how you're the one making this personal. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I can't understand your viewpoint and address your points and come to some agreement with you unless you take the bother of addressing any of the points that I've made. If you just say, "I don't agree" without explanation, all you're doing is preventing concensus.  Please respond to the above points if you care enough to obstruct removal of the piece of text in question.--Loodog (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I usually have a significant portion to say in debates, but after reading everything you two have stated about this matter, I really don't have too much more to state concerning this...except that I still agree with Loodog about the above debated text being better off not here. I honestly don't have much more to say on this matter than that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC
I request indepedent comment in resolving the above content dispute.--Loodog (talk) !!time=23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The two longest sections of this article detail the parts of the body that are considered attractive, and how. Which parts are the object of interest, when someone is attracted to (or aroused by, or judging the attractiveness of) another, is of clear and obvious relevance. What's the problem, is there not enough paper to fit this whole article onto? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I couldn't participate earlier in the debate and I'm sorry I didn't read the entire thread, however I got the main point of this discussion. I, as the author of the material under dispute, agree with both Loodog and Cheeser1, since both opinions make sense: on one hand, information I provided maybe does have too much information on human sexual behavior and sexuality than on mere physical attractiveness, but on the other hand the article does describe parts of human body that are generally considered to be attractive, hence beautiful and sexy. What I provided was information on how men and women react on different erotic images and what they find more attractive. "The results illustrated that women were more attracted to sexual acts in the first place and men would paid attention to faces" - last sentence of my excerpt concludes on what both sexes are more attracted to, physically. Well, this is a tough one... As far as I understood Cheeser1 was more angry with the fact that the information was deleted without any notice and based on one single opinion of Loodog than with the fact that it doesn't belong in this particular article. What are the options? We either move this information to human sexuality, where it might be also deleted, because it would be considered to be more relevant to physical attractiveness, where parts of the body are described that men and women are attracted to or we leave it here in the newly created section. I think we should leave it here, because the piece of information is really very, very controversial and it might fit dozens of other articles, as erotic images, for example, human sexuality, sexual behavior and so on. --Siliconov (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize to Cheeser if my actions seemed needlessly unilateral or obstructionist.


 * Actually, I believe there's a perfect non-controversial place for it, under Sexual stimulation. This is besides the point: If people would like this piece of information included somewhere, they are free to look at other articles it may be appropriate to, but this article, which Flyer and I have spent a lot of time working to improve would be weakened by the addition of incongruous information.


 * Each wikipedia article is not endless because we worry about the "space on the page", but because each has its own scope, which targets a specific concept. We deal with related topics with see also links at the bottom.  To include the content of anything peripherally related adversely affects readability and usability of wikipedia.


 * Again, I reiterate: location of vision during sexual stimulation is, at best, peripherally related to what makes a person physically attractive. The rest of this article is about what evolution and society has favored to be the ideal in attractiveness, and what being attractive means for you in modern society.  Since the study as cited exists merely to evaluate how visual sexual stimulus is taken in, the issue of attractiveness is ancillary.--Loodog (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that Loodog's opinion is simply his opinion. Mine differs from his, in that the focus of people's interest when attracted to or aroused by another party is clearly related to how we perceive physical attraciveness. Furthermore, I am appalled that my opinion is being dismissed because Loodog thinks he's done lots of work on this article, going so far as to label the inclusion of (arguably) relevant content as "adversely affect[ing the] readability and usability of [W]ikipedia." --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just came back to add that I don't find the above debated text controversial at all. My feelings on the matter have nothing to do with it being controversial, since I don't see it as that. Anyway, yep, I felt that I needed to say that. Flyer22 (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right and Sexual stimulation would be a more appropriate place for this information.
 * Cheeser1, I think you should be more objective. I understand that you were angry because one subjective opinion was about to be decisive, but if you look deeper into it it doesn't really belong here and loodog was right: this particular article describes things slightly different from what I added. --Siliconov (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not angry, and would be happy to see consensus (whatever it may be) do right by this article. What's disturbing and quite sad is when a single editor cuts material (without explanation) from an article, and even edit wars over it. When finally brought to the talk page, the editor accuses others of disrupting Wikipedia, acting in bad faith, or making Wikipedia unreadable. That kind of behavior has nothing to do with the content dispute, but is quite inexcusable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, give it a rest.--Loodog (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Says the guy who filed an RfC?? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, stop it! Both! Maybe it was a mistake to delete the material without a notice, but I think, Loodog rehabilitated by proposing an alternative, which I find to be correct.
 * I am sorry for saying that you, Cheeser1, were angry. We're humans and we sometimes act too emotional. Loodog has given a lot of time and effort to write a good article and then someone is interfering with unsuitable material. I think the mistake is understood... The material, in my opinion, should be really transferred to Sexual stimulation, as I have said earlier. I hope we agree on this and keep on improving other wikipedia articles, rather than raising dust clouds on this one.--Siliconov (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the consensus, then I'm fine with it, although I'd hope to get at least one outside opinion first. I think it's relevant, but I guess not everyone is an inclusionist. None of this excuses edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, or deliberate micharacterization of my actions and intent. I would have expected an apology from a mature Wikipedian, but that doesn't seem to be forthcoming. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion: There seems to be a compromise on the table that everyone can agree with. I agree that it's a good alternative. For any possible future disputes, I hope everyone can keep this one in mind and avoid edit warring and assumptions of bad faith, as such things unbecoming of an editor and may next time result in blocks.  Lara  ❤  Love  16:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think everyone involved here needs to step back and take a deep breath. Oh, and remember that one should do onto others as they would have done onto themselves. -- Shark face  217  04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Female Reproductive Value
The page states, "Since a woman's reproductive value declines steadily with age after twenty" which is factually incorrect. Human females are most fecund in their mid to late 20s. Most hunter-gatherer women (which we were for most of our human history) don't have their menarches until their late teens, early 20s due to the low level of fat in their environments. Infertility and the probability of miscarriage are increased in both the young and the old. Because of this, most non-human primates disdain nulliparous females. Adolescent females often have to badger the more mature males into sex. Females who have already had an infant are much preferred for sexual partners in most mammal species. The human preference for young females is a bit of an evolutionary puzzle based on when peak fertility occurs in human females. Based on comparisons with Hamadryas baboons, the selection for youth in humans is probably due to an attempt to minimize the costs of female choice and/or a method of bonding completely to one female with the hope of remaining with her and producing all of her offspring.

I can give you as many cites as you want on this topic, including information from Evolutionary Biologists who study this subject. If you are interested in learning more about it, I suggest Mother Nature by Sarah Hrdy. 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Define "reproductive value" to mean "number of kids this woman will be able to crank out in her lifetime" and the mystery disappears. Evolution says "pick one with the most reproductive years ahead of her".--Loodog (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

POV
Most of this article seems to be highly POV: Large breasts have also been shown to be attractive to men in Western societies, with the explanation that larger breasts will more explicitly show the aging process, hence an "honest" indicator of fertility Women seem more receptive to an erect posture than men, though both prefer it as an element of beauty; this fact appears correlated to the preference for males who demonstrate confidence, physical strength, and a powerful bearing. Also this seems to be written mainly from the POV of a heterosexual, and does not comment on what male or female homosexuals find attractive. Nan oha A's Yu ri    Talk, My master 02:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which assumes that ALL males find big breasts to be attractive.
 * Which assumes that ALL women find "powerful men" to be attractive.
 * None of this is POV, but is directly supported by the research in the sources. And you're the one inserting the word "all", though if you like you could weaken the wording to something like "Men tend to be attracted to..."  Read the opening paragraph, "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."


 * As for heterosexual viewpoint, the second paragraph touches on it, but you're welcome to add more.--Loodog (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge Ugliness here
Not much more to say...  Equazcion •✗/C • 14:37, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * An unsourced stub with a definition for an article?
 * Physical attractiveness and ugliness are not simple logical opposites.
 * There's not article to merge.
 * --Loodog (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge means redirect and combine usable material. No usable material = plain redirect. I think the image would be useful here though.  Equazcion •✗/C • 15:08, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * That being the case, I feel beauty would be more appropriate. Physical attractiveness is somewhat related to ugliness, but there are many examples of ugliness (and also beauty) that have nothing to do with interhuman attraction.--Loodog (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture again
I have noticed there has been desire to remove the lead image again. Please read the above discussion. This picture is not to be taken as the ideal in Western beauty, but rather to provide an example of several features described in the article. The caption below the image says this. The features in the article are said to be attractive are confirmed through multiple sources on the page.--Loodog (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In this particular article, an image of e.g. Merkin is for all practical purposes equal to a statement like "Michele Merkin is beautiful". Image captions have nothing to do with this. Loodog assumes ownership of this article and violates policy. Dorftrottel (troll) 17:48, April 28, 2008
 * Who's to say what the "most" Art Deco example is? The article WP has shows the Chrysler Building as the first example of Art Deco architecture even though such a choice is not unique.  If the Chrysler Building can be invoked to demonstrate an example of Art Deco architecture and characteristics, a person demonstrating the characteristics described in this article can be used to demonstrate physical attractiveness.--Loodog (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the characteristics are exactly described in the article, what do we need an image for? Furthermore, where do you have that information (depicted persons have those characteristics) from? Or is it simply original research on your part? Dorftrottel (troll) 18:21, April 28, 2008
 * For the same reason a picture is needed in any article. Why do we have pictures in Art Deco?--Loodog (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you both are edit warring here. You should probably take this to RfC or 3O. Tan   |   39  18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, good piece of advice, done below. Dorftrottel (troll) 20:21, April 28, 2008

RfC - images on Physical attractiveness

 * This is a content dispute regarding images in this particular article, namely the question whether or not any image in this particular article is equal to the statement that the depicted person is physically attractive, and thus whether or not images added to this article need accompanying reliable sources. See also discussion at WP:RSN (permlink). Dorftrottel (bait) 20:07, April 28, 2008
 * This is an interesting problem, and probably a pretty common one for subjective article topics. I think there are two solutions; one easy and one hard. The easy solution is to not include a picture at all. This is the most feasible option and the most fair; while there are general characteristics of beauty as this article states, everyone is obviously going to have different ideas on their own version of the ideal male/female - not only within one community, but worldwide. It is unfair and unrepresentative to simply include one image up of one female from one culture. The second, harder option is to include a picture of ideal beauty for several races/cultures, with adequate citations - they won a major beauty award, they were voted "most beautiful" by some reliable, significant source, or things of a similar vein. Off the top of my head, you would probably have to do this with Western culture, Middle Eastern culture, Indian culture, Asian culture, African culture, and possibly others (this could be limited by editor interest). You also have to display appropriate pictures for both genders. As I said, the first option is definitely easier and less controversial. This should also be the default until someone takes on the challenge of the second option. Tan   |   39  20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing left to add as far as I'm concerned, except: Thank you. Spot-on and far better than I could ever have put it. Dorftrottel (warn) 20:25, April 28, 2008
 * The whole reason we put a picture in here is because it was requested that a photo be provided to demonstrate the characteristics specified, just as examples of the architectural style Art Deco are shown through pictoral examples. I'd prefer pictures because it adds a lot to the article.  I don't care who they are of, so long as something is there to demonstrate these abstract descriptions.--Loodog (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with comparing it to Art Deco, Loodog, is that Art Deco is a far, far less controversial topic than physical attractiveness. If you found a pretty spot-on image of something that represented art deco, you probably wouldn't have much debate - scholars worldwide would say, "Yep, that's a good example". You can't do the same with this topic, however. There will probably be whole entire regions of the world who find our (I'm presuming you are part of western culture, my apologies if I'm wrong) example - such as the previous included image - to be a wholly unattractive female. I understand where you are coming from, that we just want an example up there, we don't need to be all-inclusive - but for this topic, I feel it is all or nothing. Represent all the factions, or don't represent any. It's a matter of avoiding constant controversy, ill-will and misrepresentation. Tan   |   39  20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then include all. Maybe make a mosaic like they did for African American.  I'm not trying to include pictures to be controversial or so assert my opinion of attractiveness; I honestly believe it improves and clarifies the article.
 * As for Art Deco, the characteristics are uncontroversial, just like whether Michelle Merkin has a low WHR is uncontroversial. This isn't an article about beauty, which is irrefutably subjective.--Loodog (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A mosaic would be totally appropriate here, but again, someone would have to do the work to make sure all major cultures are included, and that they are probably doubly referenced from solid sources. I agree with you that pictures would improve the article, but it will take some work to make it fair. I don't really agree with you that "physical attractiveness" is an uncontroversial topic (I think that's what you meant, it's a little unclear); perhaps the WHR is statistical but in reality we're going to have major opinion problems on the image. However, that's a small difference when compared to the salient point here. You said yourself, "then include all" - have at it. Tan   |   39  20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe there's a third option. I believe schematic drawings like this one can have truly explanatory power. Dorftrottel (ask) 19:22, April 29, 2008


 * Beauty has a subjective and a universal component. The subjective component is bigger. Every culture has a different beauty ideal. But there are cetain features that almost all humans consider beautiful. There is a branch of science that tries to discover the rules behind objective beauty. I oppose the idea of including a picture in this article simply because the user (or some users) considers the subject beautiful. It would most likely represent the narrow view of a just one culture or subculture. A reliable source must consider the person beautiful, and the caption should say something like "this is considered beautiful by X", or "surveys have shown that this is considered most beautiful". I would recommend including a picture like one in this article, along with an explanation in the caption. -- Cambrasa  confab  20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the article. This article is not beauty. This article is NOT beauty.  This ARTICLE is not beauty.  If this were beauty there wouldn't be 60+ sources at the bottom that could objectively describe anything.  This article is about the component of physical attractiveness that is found cross-culturally and can be explained through evolutionary psychology as signs of reproductive fitness.  Low waist-hip ratio, appearance of youth, preference for shorter women &mdash; these are all objective traits backed up by multiple sources.  Pictures demonstrating these traits would not constitute OR, bias, or ethnocentrism, and certainly wouldn't be an arbitrary statement of what beauty is.--Loodog (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL. Dorftrottel (troll) 23:48, April 29, 2008
 * If the picture focuses on those traits only, and the traits are explained in the caption, then I have nothing against including it. However, we shouldn't have "magazine pictures" of models where the "subjective beauty" component dominates over just displaying the traits. -- Cambrasa  confab  16:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * RFC response. Because of the wide variation in perceived attractiveness worldwide, I think that posting a photograph of someone an editor believes is attractive is original research (i.e., one's interpretation of a subject's beauty). I believe this to be true even for Marilyn Monroe because people in some cultures would find her far too skinny (or far too fat).  I do agree that it would be great to have several illustrative photographs that have been used in scholarly research (I like the Vitruvian Man too).  For example, one body of research has found that symmetrical features lead to higher ratings of attractiveness, and the photographs they give as examples are of Denzel Washington (symmetrical features) and Lyle Lovett (asymmetrical features), see this Newsweek article. I could see adding their pictures to illustrate symmetry because one has solid sources to back up these examples and Newsweek (a reliable source) has already published them as illustrative examples.  Another body of research has found that the more "average" one's face is, the higher the ratings of attractiveness.  One of the composite photographs the authors use in these studies could be included to show examples of "average" features.Renee (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Spot on.--Loodog (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, good points. (Incidentally, I think Cambrasa's and Reneeholle's comments go in a very similar direction.) Dorftrottel (complain) 09:01, April 30, 2008
 * yes, you're right! I should have read Cambrasa's reply more carefully -- there's another more interesting set of composite photographs there.Renee (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the two pieces of information I mentioned above with appropriate citations under the "universal correlates..." heading.Renee (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Any picture included to illustrate a feature with regard to its supposed attractiveness must be accompanied by a citation from a reliable, written source in which the attractiveness of that feature is discussed with specific reference to the person featured. In other words, if discussing standards by which eyes are judged to be attractive, a picture of an actress with supposedly attractive eyes cannot be used for illustrative purposes unless a reliable source remarks on the particular attractiveness of that actress' eyes. Anything less is original research, since determining whether someone or some feature is attractive involves an inherently subjective judgment. Nick Graves (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No images in this article at all?
That makes no sense, to have removed all of this article's images. Yes, I've read the newest picture discussion regarding this article above, and I certainly do not agree that no images should be used. What are we afraid of, offending someone? Just because beauty is supposedly subjective does not mean that this article should be without pictures. It should not be that difficult to have pictures to represent what is typically thought of as physically attractive among humans in the West, the non-West, and a few other cultures. We may not represent all considered types of beauty, but that still does not mean that this article should be absent of pictures. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that pictures ought to be used. But their selection should not depend on Wikipedia editors' subjective notions about what are examples of attractive people or physical features. That's original research, which is prohibited. A reliable source has to be cited that discusses the subjective attractiveness of the person illustrated. Nick Graves (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ideally, as has been noted above, pictures should not be gratuitous illustrations of beauty even with a reliable source attached to them. They should have explanatory power and focus on particular physically attractive traits, and cite a source for that. Compare for example the very simple and straightforward schematic drawing I included in Cuteness. It explains, and not merely decorates, the article content. dorftrottel (talk)
 * Excellent example, Dorftrottel. I completely agree. Tan   |   39  16:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the Beauty article
Excuse me for starting a new section, but I'm communicating via the PlayStation 3 at this very moment, which doesn't allow me as much editing freedom.

Anyway, one could say it's subjective to include a few of those pictures that are currently in the Beauty article. However, I don't feel that it's subjective at all to use a picture of a supermodel, like the Beauty article does, which is of someone who has been cited as physically attractive numerous times over. It's not even difficult to judge what is typically thought of as physically attractive in the West. Just look at how many times Brad Pitt has been and still is cited as physically attractive.

Anyway, I can't really have this discussion right now. I'll respond further in a few days, when I actually have the freedom to talk without being restricted to this gaming console. Flyer22 (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well sure, if you have sources showing that Brad Pitt or anybody else is considered beautiful or attractive, it's perfectly appropriate to show a picture of them in the article as an example. But we should leave our own judgments out of it, even if you're certain that most everyone in the West would agree with you. I'm sure this article will have pictures again. It's just a matter of finding the right sources to back up the inclusion of the pictures. Nick Graves (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See my reply above. I think it's still the weaker alternative, as compared to using images with true explanatory power. dorftrottel (talk)

And that's what I mean
What, none of the images in this article were backed up with valid references showing that the people featured are thought of as physically attractive? Even, if that was the case, there had to be sources in those subjects' individual articles that point their perceived physical attractiveness.

Brad Pitt? There are two studies in his article (that I put into his lead back in late 2007) that address physical attractiveness, and cite him. The more interesting of the two is the article Men With 'Cavemen' Faces Most Attractive to Women. We could definitely include a picture of Brad Pitt, or any of the men it mentioned (like Will Smith), and note how having a "cavemen face" has made him (them) more attractive to women. While it may not seem flattering to say someone has a caveman face, surely we can explain that article's points clearly.

As said before, I'll come back to this discussion later. Feel free to remove these subsection headings. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Prototypicality as beauty
The section titled "Prototypicality as beauty" is listed under "Determinants of female physical attractiveness", but the text doesn't seem to imply that it's specific to women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.186.169 (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

averageness is shit
The effect is done with photoshopping and other methods that are very deceptive. The studies themselves relied on a website that is not respected what so ever. What is even worse is the use of the study of eurasians. That is simple vanity. I see this article is a great example of wikipornia's systematic bias.YVNP (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The studies that have been done include all cultures and races. The conclusions are always the same: averaged faces are more attractive.--Loodog (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But they use photo editing. This can be deceptive as it gets rid of a lot of human flaws.

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 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. 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)

Not necessarily. Women who fall below a certain body fat percentage, like less than 5% of body weight being fat generally stop their menstrual cycles (and thus ovulating) as well. Some triatholonists experience this. Generally, both extremes aren't healthy, but in the Middle Ages and prior to that being fatter wasn't exactly as common as it is today, because work combined with famine, plague, and work generally worked it all off and they lost that crucial needed fat to keep ovulating. Being fatter was a sign of some prestige as upper classes didn't have to work as much, and generally ate better (which also lead to almost an epidemic of gout amoong certain upper classes in Europe), and portrayals of it might be exaggerated to show reflected tastes. And, well, the upper classes had to have a lot of kids, so evidently having some flab wasn't as devastating as you're making it out to be. Many, many female goddesses in pre-history sculptures showed fatter women that might have been portrayals of fertility goddesses. Also, there's a difference between 'fat' and 'dangerously obese', and that's a subjective definition as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.130.18 (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (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&#39;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)

I think political correctness is taking over common sense. The general statement that men like a lighter skin than their own is the same as the general statement that chinese prefer a waist to hip ratio of 0.6. And it makes sense, because women do have lighter skin than men. My theory is that cavemen spent more time outside and so needed darker skin to protect from the sun. Maybe wikipedia should change it to men are more attracted to women with a lighter skin tone than their own rather than just a fair skin tone.

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&#39;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&#39;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   &#124;   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)


 * The studies are there, run repeatedly in large sample groups across cultures. Read some of the 61 explicit citations or the ~20 books in the bibliography,--Louiedog (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Biology says that men are more visually stimulated and so a womens appearance plays a bigger part in society than a mans appearance, whether you like it or not. Changing an article on wikipedia is not going to change the fact that ugly men have it a lot easier than ugly women - and you KNOW that's true. Source - the book why men don't listen and women can't read maps

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)

To set the grammar record straight, the corrected poster's agreement actually is correct. The third-person subject "Guys like you" is actually a proper antecedent for the reflexive pronoun "themselves." In order for "yourselves" to work, the subject would also have to be second person; i.e. "You and guys like you," "You people," or words to that effect.--Caractacuss (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.87.204 (talk)

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 []:

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
This material is also covered (and sourced) in Human skin color. It was also discussed here, in. 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)
 * 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.
 * 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. They have an advisory board and a reasonable list of books.   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)

I quote: "The only consistent preference seen among females for males is very light skin, which is usually disliked". which proves the point mentioned bellow- there is a built-in bias against red headed men amoung women. This is probably an evolutionary adaptation for choosing men who have the best hunting skills and highest testosterone levels: redheads cannot survive as hunters in a natural enviroment so a ginger guy can't maintain his wife, and he's less likely to supply her healthy offspring. acourding to frost, redhead men have a 4:2 finger ratio almost equal to a woman's, and also tend to suffer from osteophorosis and anemia more often, as do women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.6.17 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. upchuck, ralph malph- real studs... I've also noticed that the majority of the handful of woman who do like redhead men tend to look rather butchy (facial hair, flat chest, etc), so they are probably borderline dykes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.17.94 (talk • contribs) 16:06, December 6, 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)

The section does seem rather biased. For example, there is no mention of the popularity of tanning in Western cultures. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We used to have something saying, "The trend is often opposite in Western culture where tanned skin carries with it associations of class and an active lifestyle." but this was removed for lack of sources. If you can find sources, please do include it.--Louiedog (talk) 22:55, 26 October 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)


 * I agree, particularly with the angle of how charisma is manifested through physical attractiveness? Like, do physically attractive people tend to have more charisma? Or, is charisma something that makes an ordinary person appear to be more physically attractive? To answer such questions, feel free to interview me, a person who is not only extremely physically attractive but loaded with charisma AND who likes to kid around in talk pages. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Except the title of this article is physical attractiveness.--Louiedog (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, if something is added, including about charisma, it should be about how it influences the subject of "physical attraction".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Charisma is not a physical quality. C.f. height, posture, musclarity, symmetry, breast size, waist-hip ratio.--Louiedog (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, but if someone is charismatic, does it enhance their physical attractiveness? Like, wondering how Jim Jones, Jesus, Jim Morrison of the Doors, early Mormon leaders -- how did they all score with the babes? Was it physical attractiveness alone? Or did their charismatic power enhance their physical attractiveness? And, a woman who is relaxed, smiling, happy, confident and has the right attitude has more physical attractiveness, than a beautiful woman frowning, angry, sullen. Emotions come to play here. To an extent, I think lots of these factors are wrapped up with each other, so I think it's a judgment call. At any rate, I'm open to looking at things others wish to contribute, and seeing whether it's relevant then.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Charisma, intelligence, charm, energy level, musical taste, preferred choice of films, academic interests, favorite color, and political affiliation are not physical attributes.  You're welcome to create a mental attractiveness article.--Louiedog (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree somewhat, but I agree that discussion of charisma, and charisma alone, doesn't belong in the article. This article is about physical attractiveness and related issues such as charisma should only be included to the extent that they impact physical attractiveness. I don't have particular new information to add; but if others feel inclined to add information, I'll consider it, and if it's relevant, I'll advocate for its inclusion, and if not, for creating another article, or adding it elsewhere. But, again, I'm somewhat biased here, because being both extremely physically attractive AND extremely charismatic, I probably should disqualify myself here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the last paragraph of the introduction to be heteronormative, and to contain weasle words. Men may be attracted to women that are ... I'm not trying to inject my politics here, but a simple rewording could elliminate this unnecessary position, perhaps by refering to another wiki article on | human sexuality or | stereotypes. Obviously, there is some consensus on what secondary sexual characteristics are attractive, but I think it's unnecessary to muddle these applications with gender. Any human being with sexuality will respond to sexual attractiveness, regardless who perceives the qualities displayed.96.50.236.65 (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. But I would add that, unless otherwise specified, the results are specific to the hetereonormative paradigm.  If research shows that women are attracted to tall men, there's no basis to say that men are attracted to tall men.--Louiedog (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2010 (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: . 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)

Accourding to Peter frost, redhead men do have lower testosterone levels compared with the "tall, dark and handsome" type, so there is evolutionary sence in the perception of them as unattractive by women, and also in the "chuckie finster" stereotype.
 * This IP has been saying the same thing on more than one talkpage, and it's coming perilously close to violating WP:CIVIL as well as WP:NOTFORUM. I wouldn't take his unsourced allegations - which so far include redheads being less attractive, less intelligent, less muscular, more likely to be homosexual and more likely to suffer from numerous diseases - particularly seriously.--Pondle (talk) 23:53, 27 November 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)


 * Interesting stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:14, 6 December 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

Penile size discussion
I'd comment (or dicker?) about the penile size discussion regarding attractiveness but I'll have to recuse myself on this one, being fairly well-endowed, and therefore capable of bias.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a study conducted on an indigenous African tribe which showed that a significantly above-average flaccid penis is actually perceives as less attractive among women. Slightly below average to slightly above average lengths were all rated as more attractive than the extremes at either end. This may counter the source cited in the 'genitalia' section, which references a book that google has categorized as fiction.Dissemalicious (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Expand coverage on fair skin obsession
Please expand coverage on Fair Skin Obsession in India. It generated millions of dollars of revenue, adverts and products. It also affects matrimony in India. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to do it. It sounds like you're already better versed in it than the casual editor of this page.  Just please make sure you document your statements with sources to back them up.--Louiedog (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Maud Gonne
There's an image in the article of Maud Gonne. The text associated with it claims that "her beauty ... was enough to drive W B Yeats half mad". There are a few things wrong with this inclusion.
 * The subject of this article is Physical Attractiveness, not Gonne and Yeats. The only place in the article that mentions either of them is the photograph and its associated text.
 * Wikipedia requires verifiable sources.
 * There's no source cited for the text, and no source or copyright mention for the photograph. The photograph also appears on the Wiki article for Maud Gonne without copyright or source info.
 * I have found many places that describe the relationship between Yeats and Gonne. But I have found nothing to prove that it was only Gonne's physical appearance that attracted Yeats. I haven't found anything that supports the claim that Yeats was at any time half-mad for any reason.  The only citations that head in either of those directions are circular or otherwise unverified.


 * Without any verifiable sources to support the "beauty" and "half mad" claims, neither the photograph nor its associated text have any connection to the article. That makes them worthless inclusions to it, so I have deleted them. JH49S (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

way too biased in favor of evolutionary psychology
You would never know from this article that evolutionary psychology explanations for human behavior are controversial and are disputed by many scientists.

This claim that females are *biologically* less attracted to beauty in males than vice-versa is based on nothing but "surveys" and just-so stories. Not on hard evidence.

There may be cross-cultural studies that indicate that men state a preference for beauty more than women do, but that could more easily be explained by the fact that in every culture in the world, men have more money, resources and power than women. Men have the luxury of choosing mates for beauty far more than women do. To completely ignore this fact and then claim biology is the only explanation is, I'm sorry to say, all too typical of proponents of evolutionary psychology.

One of the most pernicious practitioners of evidence-free "science" is David Buss. There doesn't seem to be a single human sexual circumstance that he won't claim is biological.

In "Adapting Minds, Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature" David J. Buller explains exactly how extreme David Buss is.

First he quotes Buss:

"...in a well-documented study, the anthropologist William Irons found that, among the Turkmen of Persia, males in the wealthier half of the population left 75 percent more offspring than males in the poorer half of the population. Buss cites several studies like this as indicating that "high status in men leads directly to increased sexual access to a larger number of women," and he implies that this is due to the greater desirability of high-status men (David Buss 1999 "Evolutionary Psychology the New Science of the Mind")."

Then he responds:

"But, among the Turkmen, women were sold by their families into marriage. The reason that higher-status males enjoyed greater reproductive success among the Turkmen is that they were able to buy wives earlier and more often than lower-status males. Other studies that clearly demonstrate a reproductive advantage for high-status males are also studies of societies or circumstances in which males "traded" in women. This isn't evidence that high-status males enjoy greater reproductive success because women find them more desirable. Indeed, it isn't evidence of female preference at all, just as the fact that many harem-holding despots produced remarkable numbers of offspring is no evidence of their desirability to women. It is only evidence that when men have power they will use it to promote their reproductive success, among other things (and that women, under such circumstances, will prefer entering a harem to suffering the dire consequences of refusal)."

Men control women's sexuality the world over - from the relatively mild situation of making rules about birth control and abortion to the promotion of female beauty in advertising etc but not male beauty (the result of male homophobia as well as other factors) in the West, to the extreme conditions in some non-Western parts of the world, where parents actually sell teenage daughters (or younger!) to old men in order to pay off a family debt. This is legal sexual slavery. And then there's all the illegal sexual slavery...

That evolutionary psychologists routinely ignore this vast sexual inequality throughout the world - include inequality of sexual opportunity and agency - and then claim that women are just like that, biologically, is absolutely appalling. And incredibly bad science.

Nancymc (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This claim that females are *biologically* less attracted to beauty in males than vice-versa is based on nothing but "surveys" and just-so stories. Not on hard evidence.


 * I suggest you read Evolution of Desire by David Buss. The results compiled here are the results of statistically rigorous surveys spanning multiple cultures, done with quantifiable metrics when applicable.--Louiedog (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, you are also free to add any sources you have to this article, appending their content here and noting where it contradicts. This article barely even mentions male status as an attractor of females.--Louiedog (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Corpula Foods
The inclusion of this image, as captioned, is incorrect. It suggests, Corpula was used to make the average person "fat" in order to meet the standard of beauty of the time. Not quite. Corpula was taken to "restore vitality" to people who had lost significant weight through disease or age. In short, it was meant to bring very thin people back to a healthy weight (similar to whey products still sold today, a.k.a. protein powders targeted toward lanky males). Moreover, please remember that what was considered a good weight in 1895, was much smaller than today, so it is difficult to argue that what is termed "fat" today would be considered a standard of beauty 100 years ago. The link below is a long-form of the ad in 1895. I plan to remove the image based on its inappropriate context.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9vQBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=corpula+foods&source=bl&ots=jkVf4pvGpI&sig=Fc6eADmDpcig8GqtLARxN9mDCQQ&hl=en&ei=gVDSS8m2EYH7lwfw6vTsDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=corpula%20foods&f=false

Tobit2 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to save the image by re-writting the caption.Tobit2 (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed Anecdote
Evidence of this theory are present in the real world, men, in general are universally sexually attracted (and willing to have sex with immediately) to physically attractive females, yet most women are not willing to have sex with attractive men whom they have not yet had the chance to be fully introduced to. Women are also generally the ones to be concerned more with appearance, whereas males will be less occupied. Scientific evidence of this is the fact that men are fertile their entire lives, but women lose fertility and a fertile appearance (thus their attractiveness) upon menopause. This study concluded that "men who demonstrate an extraordinary personality, despite their age, are sexually appealing to fertile females", and "women who possess a fertile appearance [this window lasts from the onset of puberty to menopause], are sexually appealing to men"; thus women lose their sexual appeal eventually, and men do not.

I know the citation needed tag is still fairly fresh, but the nonsense in this passage is just too much. To paraphrase: "All men are willing to immediately have sex with attractive strangers". Maybe the author is, but some people have brains and not testicles in their heads. If you think you can find some sources for this, feel free to rewrite it.Ziiv (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Major refactoring required: physical/sexual attraction in humans is not distinct from other forms of attraction
Is Wikipedia seriously attempting to say that sexual attraction or physical attractiveness is an attribute *only* of humans? Not even of primates or other mammals but only humans? This article needs to be merged with sexual attraction or perhaps named human sexual attraction or even more correctly modern human sexual attraction. A more correct factoring of articles would be:
 * sexual attraction covering the subject the way, say National Geographic Wild Sex would, each species being treated as interesting in its own right - part of biology not specific to humans
 * primate sexual attraction covering what is known about monkeys, Great Apes especially bonobos (nearest human relative) and any theories of early human sexuality that predate our involvement in tame civilized modern societies - part of primatology not specific to humans
 * human sexual behavior covering more the social aspects of it rather than the individual perception of it, with either a section or sub-article called modern human sexual attraction acknowledging that we know absolutely nothing about pre-modern or pre-state-society humans because we didn't test them before we wiped them out, and have inexorably altered sexual attraction in all human societies we have encountered - evidence suggests that we'd have to make this part of sociology as well as sexuality because we can't separate social from other influences given we are the products of many generations of domestication.
 * physical attractiveness generalizing the non-sexual elements of attraction outlined in this article - we can forgo the "modern human" prefix as we aren't ever likely to have National-Geographic style surveys of other species general ideas of physical attraction separate from sexual attraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.109.103 (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously attempting to say that primates will now start editing the Wikipedia, or that anyone will assume this article is not talking about humans, you know, those creatures that edit the Wikipedia?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha-ha, but... as of today, primates already edit wikipedia, and only them :-) Still, 142.177 has a point. I briefly scanned the article and see that indeed many things are mixed and matched in same page. For example, it liberally confuses the concept of "physical attraction" and "physical attractiveness", i.e., the object and the subject of attraction. 142.77 is also right to notice that this subject must be systematically treated with chronology. Also, while (other) primates cannot edit wikipedia, something can be said about (a) mutual attraction of primates and (b) physical attracion in various zoofetishisms (yuck, but it seems that there is quite a thriving subculture in wikipedia for this). Kaligelos (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Western-bias
While this article may reveal a lot about physical attractiveness stereotypes in Western countries, it gives no examples of what is considered attractive in other cultures and indigenous societies. Just one example: in some tribal cultures it is favorable for a man to find a full-figured woman for a mate; her weight is seen as a sign of her health and wealth, much to the contrary of Western body-type ideals. This article should either expand to include more information so it does not ignore other cultures or change its name to reflect its narrowness, like "Physical Attractiveness Stereotypes in the Western World." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.201.169 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article should be expanded in the way that you mention. I don't agree with the title change, however. This article is not just about stereotypes, and we have the Physical attractiveness stereotype article for that (which needs a lot of work). Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You clearly have not read this article. NOTHING in it is based on stereotypes, but on rigorously conducted cross-cultural studies and scientific experiment.  Take note:


 * Generally, physical attraction can be studied from a number of perspectives, including universal perceptions common to all human cultures, cultural and social aspects, and individual subjective preferences.


 * Every section that makes a statement about beauty, unless stating otherwise, is making it about UNIVERSAL trait, found cross-culturally to be attractive. Sections like BMI and skin tone mention the regional variations, in terms of Western vc. Eastern culture.


 * If you have any suggestions to add things that are not already here, after reading the article, feel free to add them.--Louiedog (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because someone claims that their findings represent a universal preference in humans doesn't make it so. Many of these studies only ask a few white people what they think and then they draw a big conclusion from it, claiming they have found a kind of universal preference. It is very important to keep in mind that people tend to prefer traits of their own race, so many of these studies that only have white participants are biased. For example, the Cunningham study (which was in the article until I removed it) found the most preferred face of about 150 white male participants was a white woman's face, yet it tried to claim that it found a beauty mask with perfect mathematical proportions. The conclusion of the study was criticized by Maurice Berger in his book White Lies. --Ephert (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If it makes it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it's met the quality criteria for inclusion here. If there are additional studies that criticize previous studies, or at least have what we subjectively believe to be better methodology, we as editors do have some leeway in weighting the inclusions.  Far better to keep the section you removed and also include Maurice Berger's criticism.  As editors, we can only present the debate as notably published by other people; we can't make the arguments for them or edit it in such a way.


 * Recall Verifiability, not truth.--Louiedog (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay Cunningham should be in the article with Maurice Berger criticizing him.--Ephert (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * For posterity of other readers who might come across this talk page: Follow-up in "Regarding the Cunningham study, and Berger's comments:" below. A great example of why its best to include everything that's published, rather than selectively censor based on personal opinion.--Louiedog (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The white-racial bias also showed in the three white people being used as pictures (I removed them). The two Greek statues were not even cited as being representative of beauty by an expert and neither was the fat white woman.--Ephert (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, we shouldn't be hung up on race, though the "fat white" woman you speak of was included I imagine because it was such a clear example of BMI preferences being highly variable by culture. The fact that she's white shouldn't preclude her image from being used, unless you can find an image that better demonstrates this point.--Louiedog (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with the fat white woman is that there is not credible source saying that she represented beauty at the time. It is merely inferred that the advertising company who commissioned the drawing knew what was desirable in women. I don't believe that the advertising company is a reliable source.--Ephert (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There was/is nothing wrong with this image. Of course it doesn't represent beauty for all, but no image will. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a lead image. What should be the lead image has been debated time and time again, and we finally came across those statues, which seemed to have been okay with everyone. Until now. Ephert, if you strongly object to the main image, I suggest you find a good replacement. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Too Long
I appreciate the enthusiasm of the current active editor but the article has become WAY too long and unwieldy. Please check the standard for length of average article. — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  03:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the article should be split into two articles - one covering male and the other covering female physical attractivenes.--Ephert (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is there is just too much detail that strays away from what people care about beauty. I removed one paragraph that was a duplicate (Legs) and who cares about one sentence about feet? I would suggest some severe editing but feel free to ask for more opinions. I really don't mean to sound negative but you have put in just too much work on this one article and after editing this one, it is time to move on. I mean well and I hope this doesn't discourage or offend you. Namaste... — DocOfSoc •  Talk  •  13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't mean to sound negative but you have put in just too much work on this one article and after editing this one, it is time to move on.
 * That's not the wikipedia way at all. The problem isn't too much work, the problem is too much included material.  If Ephert wants to keep working to improve the article further, there's no reason to stop him/her.  This article is nowhere near Featured Article status so a ton of work is still needed.  The important thing is to maintain the content on a hierarchical level where:
 * 1. The lead is a summary of the sections of the article.
 * 2. If the sections are too long, then each section should be a summary of its respective separate daughter page as Ephert has suggested.
 * The solution isn't just to stop working on the article; it's to continually split the article up into sections and daughter articles, and streamline what's left until it's the proper size again. I do agree that the article is too long now.--Louiedog (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, it was beginning to look like a novella and I was remiss in not thinking about FA status. Best wishes and good luck! Namaste,,, — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  11:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Ephert's suggestions that the article be "split into two articles - one covering male and the other covering female physical attractiveness." As this article is about physical attractiveness, both should be covered here and I see no reason that both cannot be adequately covered here. Ephert has added some material, but this article is not that big kilobytes-wise. Look at WP:Size, for what to go on. It's just that there are a lot of sections, which make it seem as though it's that big. Some of these sections should be combined. The Small feet section, for example, is currently only one sentence long. We do not/should not have sections that short. Further, I see no need that such a section should be expanded. As for the recent edits in general, I disagreed with two cuts and one add, and reverted because of that. There was/is nothing wrong with this image. As I just stated above, "Of course it doesn't represent beauty for all, but no image will. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a lead image. What should be the lead image has been debated time and time again, and we finally came across those statues, which seemed to have been okay with everyone. Until now. Ephert, if you strongly object to the image, I suggest you find a good replacement." I also removed the big blockquote from the lead that Loodog added, as the lead should not have a big blockquote, especially if anyone wants this article to reach featured article status. If that quote is important enough to be included, it should be somewhere in the lower body of the article. I also added back all of what was in the Social effects section, because I do not feel that the extreme downsize by Ephert is adequate enough to explain the social effects beauty perception has on society. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not clear to me that this article was really too long, but, since some people thought this article was too long, I took it upon myself to remedy the problem. When my proposal to split this article into males and females was met with a lukewarm response, I made many sections more concise.--Ephert (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any time sections are too small and can fit perfectly fine in an already present section, they should be combined...as shown in this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Cunningham study, and Berger's comments
Ephert, please be much more careful with sources than you have been with these.


 * 1) You had Cunningham's studies making the claim that the study group found the East Asian epicanthic fold's attractive, which was about two steps removed from anything true.
 * Berger's interpretation of Cunningham's studies concluded that "almond-shaped" eyes were found to be attractive. Park claimed epicanthic folds cause almond-shaped fissures. Using these two sources in combination in the epicanthic fold article constituted synthesis of sources and was, therefore, wrong.--Ephert (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) You had Cunningham's studies claiming that "almond-shaped" eyes were attractive with a quote apparently attributed to him. "Almond-shaped" was a wry observation made by Berger of the beauty schematic his research group had created.
 * Yes, Berger was the one who made that obervation--Ephert (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) You had Berger making the claim that the findings should only be considered representative of American culture, when it was the New York Times article that claimed that.
 * The New York Times citation that discussed the Cunningham results confused me about the attribution of statements. Citations to second-hand newspaper sources should be removed in favor of primary sources.--Ephert (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) You had linked "almond-shaped eyes" to "epicanthic fold", when neither the New York Times, nor Cunningham used either phrase.
 * Berger used the phrase in reference to the Cunningham study.---Ephert (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) You had the "mathematically quantifiable" quote attributed to Cunningham, when it was the New York Times writer who wrote it.
 * The New York Times citation that discussed the Cunningham results confused me about the attribution of statements. Citations to second-hand newspaper sources should be removed in favor of primary sources.--Ephert (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that some of these errors may have preceded your work, but whether intentional or not, a disquieting amount of synthesis came out of these errors. I would admonish you to PLEASE be more careful with your sources in the future.Louiedog (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The fact that the New York Times came out in regard to Cunningham's study and reported it as if it were the first time anyone had studied the idea of an objectively beautiful face is part of the problem here.  Although, it makes Berger's criticism curious.  He seemed to have read the Times article, but commented on the graphic shown in the original paper.  Surely, he had read enough to realize that neither the Times nor Cunningham himself had claimed that the findings purported to be anything more than what they were.--Louiedog (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Further, in his original study, Cunningham wrote:


 * Cross-cultural investigations on the judgment of facial attractiveness tended to high-light societal differences, but rough agreements in facial aesthetic preferences were shown by Asian-American and Caucasian females (Wagatsuma & Kleinke, 1979), Chinese, Indian, and English females judging Greek males (Thakerar & Iwawaki, 1979), South African and American males and females (Morse, Gruzen, & Reis, 1976), and blacks and whites judging males and females from both races (Cross & Cross, 1971).


 * And concluded:


 * Historical and cross-cultural data may provide further insight into consistency and variability in the facial features associated with attractiveness. Cultures differ in the degree to which status and respect is accorded to women. In subsistence economics, or cultures in which women produced goods of high market value, female status tended to be relatively high (Rosenblatt & Cunningham, 1976). Perhaps those social groups which accorded greater power and autonomy to females also idealized women with more pronounced maturity features, whereas those cultures which emphasized submissive females also may have preferred few maturity cues, and instead desired rounded cheeks, minimal cheekbone prominence, and a small mouth (cf. Banner, 1983).


 * --Louiedog (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The original study, in case you don't have access.--Louiedog (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Heterosexual females attracted to women?
"A 2003 study in the area concluded that heterosexual women are about equally aroused when viewing men or women." sounds contradictory. How can a woman be heterosexual if she's attracted to the female body as well? I thought it was called bisexual. In my opinion it should say: "Alleged heterosexual women...", or something. --Devamech (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Devamech, we can't say "alleged heterosexual women" when the women identify as "heterosexual." As for bisexual, see Bisexuality and Bisexuality. People often identify themselves in ways that may seem contradictory when it comes to sexual orientation. And there is the belief that no one is 100% heterosexual or homosexual. Further, plenty of heterosexual women state how they find the female form attractive or more attractive than a male's, but that they don't want to be with a woman sexually. Also, as I'm sure you know, people are turned on by different things; it doesn't always mean they necessarily desire the things they are turned on by. For example, plenty of lesbians watch -- and are turned on by -- gay male porn. Don't believe me? Just Google it. And I don't doubt that the majority of these women do not want to be with men sexually. They are just turned on by the visuals -- what they are seeing -- for whatever reason. Some are even turned on by heterosexual sex; still doesn't mean they want a man. Flyer22 (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess you're right. Personally, I define bisexuality as the sexual attraction to both genders, not the acts derived of such. But as you say, bisexuality covers a whole lot of different, but just as correct definitions.Devamech (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why symmetry is such an important factor in attractiveness
Does anybody know why symmetry is such an important factor in physical attractiveness? I think I've figured out why this is the case. But it's probably original research. But I'm fairly sure I'm right since it makes intuitive sense to me. If interested, bug me about this on my talk page, or I may add it to one of my knols, such as the one on Dating & mating in the 2010s.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Update -- here is my guess in case people are interested, but of course we need some scientists or journalists to weigh in on this. It's here FYI.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition, computer scientist and software entrepreneur Gary Robinson suggests an additional genetic benefit of symmetry: he wrote "it takes far less information storage to produce an inverse copy of something that to produce two completely different things." That is, it takes less DNA to come up with more human. (Robinson believes he's come across this idea from some other source but does not recall which one, that is, he's not claiming that he thought of this idea first.) So persons with symmetrical features can be described with shorter strands of the genetic helix, and this is a competitive advantage as well.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Update. According to a PhD biology student and Wikipedian, the links between facial symmetry and attractiveness have been known by biologists (but most of the information relates to animal studies). Further information, ask User:Mokele. Or read Mokele's comment Most of the info may be relating to arthropods. Still, I'd feel better if we could get some references about this stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I'm worried about adding too much to this article. It already has a lot in it. But then again, WP:SIZE is okay with it, I believe. And even if it isn't, we have articles way bigger than this on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * About the recent picture that's been added, I commented here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


 * American Beauties by Jerome Thompson (1867)
 * --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Woman behind cattails (1895)
 * Classical Beauty by J. W. Godward (1861–1922)
 * Beauty by Boris Kustodiev (1915)
 * --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mongoloid woman - A Kyoto Geisha Yamaguchi Soken (1759-1818)
 * Mongoloid man -'The Wrestler Unknown Olmec artist (1200-500 BCE)
 * Caucasoid man - Uffizi Wrestlers recreation (3rd century CE)
 * Caucasoid woman - Classical Beauty by J. W. Godward (1861–1922)
 * Negroid man - Head of an Oba King' (16th Century)
 * Negroid woman - Wee Spoon Unknown (late 19th to early 20th Century)
 * --Ephert (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Beauty Henry Howard, 1836
 * Shin Bijin (True Beauties) by Toyohara Chikanobu, 1897
 * --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Beauty and the Butterfly, Vittorio Matteo Corcos, before 1923
 * Sadko in the Underwater Kingdom, 1875
 * Konstantin Makovsky (1839-1915)
 * A Rare Beauty by Gustave Jacquet (before 1923)
 * An Oriental Beauty Valery Jacobi, 1881
 * --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A Beauty with Doves, Charles Joshua Chaplin (1825–1891)
 * An Oriental Beauty Jean-François Portaels, circa 1877
 * A Type of Beauty by James Tissot, 1880
 * Beauty preparing to bathe Konstantin Makovsky (1839–1915) L
 * --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Russian beauty in summer garland Konstantin Makovsky (1839–1915)
 * An Elegant Beauty William Clarke Wontner (1857-1930)
 * --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Time orders Old Age to destroy Beauty ca. 1746
 * Father Time Overcome by Love, Hope and Beauty Simon Vouet, 1627
 * A Spring Beauty	Vittorio Matteo Corcos, 1886
 * A Young Beauty With Flowers In Her Hair Albert Lynch (1851–1912)
 * Gustave Doyen, before 1937
 * Philip the Handsome between 1496 and 1500
 * Prince Alfred Duke of Edinburgh...
 * Prince Albert, ...
 * Don Juan de Austria, Alonso Sánchez Coello (1532–1588)
 * American actor Charlie Chaplin, 1900–1910s
 * --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Napoleon Bonaparte on the Bridge at Arcole, Antoine-Jean Gros, ...
 * Cropped screenshot of Rock Hudson from the trailer for the film Giant.
 * Hl. Johannes der Täufer in der Wüste Guido Reni c. 1640
 * Academic Study of a Male TorseJean Auguste Dominique Ingres (1801)
 * Bathing Men Georg Vilhelm Pauli (1855–1935)
 * --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Porträt des Bonifazius Amerbach Hans Holbein the Younger 1519
 * Christi Höllenfahrt, Detail: Eva (Adam & Eve) Beccafumi, Domenicon 1530-1535
 * --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ''THE REGENT, PHILIPPE DUC D'ORLEANS ...
 * The Woman The Man the Serpent John Liston Byam Shaw (before 70 years ago)
 * Dieu réprimandant Adam et Ève (détail) Domenichino 1623-1625
 * self portrait by Hyacinthe Rigaud Hyacinthe Rigaud 1698
 * Portrait of Duarte de Sousa da Mata Coutinho 17th century
 * Michelangelo's David (original statue)
 * --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I agree but what I'm thinking is that we should probably not be adding individual pictures on our own (like I just did -- ok -- so I'm a hypocrite here) but the stuff on U. Toronto was so cool I thought I had to add it, and the J. Alba face was the only one of the three that was looking forward and would work best to illustrate the point. The thing we should try to avoid is having needless edit-battling over pictures and I think the best approach overall is probably to have discussions and get consensus here on the talk page, including Flyer and others who actively work with this article, and try to get pictures which balance men vs women and balance different races while trying to avoid some kind of racial quota system. Like, if we go ahead and make decisions, I bet in a week or so there will be tug-of-wars with other pictures and we'll all end up wasting a lot of time. So, maybe we should establish a deadline to hash out these picture choices, and put Venus de Milo and Betty Boop along with the others above on this talk page, and so how about August 10th? That's when we decide. So speak up people now please.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that the lead pictures (File:Venus de Milo Louvre Ma399 n4.jpg and File:Adonis Mazarin Louvre MR239.jpg) should stay. I don't much care what other pictures are removed. Ephert removed the pictures that were in this article when he first arrived at it, and the only ones I really objected to the removal of were the lead ones. And these two images can definitely be cited by reputable sources as being representative of beauty. Flyer22 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree with Flyer for the additional reason that Venus & Adonis are probably less likely to spark picture-battling, since they've been on this page a while without coming under attack. And the Betty Boop and Betty Grable stuff -- maybe we should add that to the gallery list but put them in play, meaning up for review?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "And these two images can definitely be cited by reputable sources as being representative of beauty." If you believe these two sources can be cited to peer-reviewed, reputable psychological journals, then you should cite them yourself or they should be removed. I do NOT believe they can be cited to peer-reviewed, reputable psychological journals.--Ephert (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ephert, we do not have to cite images to "peer-reviewed, reputable psychological journals." That is your preference. I should have stated, "And these two images can definitely be cited by reliable sources as being representative of beauty." Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * If one source suggests the Aphrodite wasn't the ideal beauty image, still, Aphrodite was the Greek goddess of beauty. She complements Adonis nicely. So we have male & female classical images as the lead picture -- I think Venus & Adonis work fine there. If you can come up with a better alternative, and if Flyer might agree, I'll swing towards your view. In the meantime please update the gallery and please choose perhaps 10 that you like best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Xochipilli is also a god of beauty... Would you apply your reasoning to this case as well? Of course you would not. This example goes to show that just because a god or goddess is in charge of beauty does not mean they are beautiful themselves.--Ephert (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had to choose ten candidates, I would choose three Mongoloids, three Caucasoids and three Negroid representatives with the final candidate representing Australoids. For the three Mongoloids, I have chosen the best and most realistic Mongoloid artwork: a Kyoto Geisha (Japanese; 1759-1818 CE), Wrestler (Olmec; 1200-1500 BCE) and the Maya figurine (Maya; 650-800 CE). For the three Caucasoids, I too have chosen the best and most realistic Caucasoid craftsmanship: Uffizi Wrestlers (Greek; 3rd Century CE), Bartolini Fiducia (Italian; 1835) and Michelangelo's David (Italian; 1504). For the three Negroids, I have chosen the finest quality and most realistic Negroid masterpieces: Wee Spoon (Wee; late 19th - early 20th century), Head of an Oba King (Oba; 16th Century CE) and Ife sculpture (Ife; 12th century CE). Lastly, I choose Skull Mask (Papuan; 1897 CE) as a work depicting Australoids.--Ephert (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Tomwsulcer and Flyer22 seem to have already found two Caucasoid candidates you find fitting, you should pick two Mongoloid candidates and two Negroid candidates. This article cannot represent a neutral point of view if there are only two Caucasoids represented and not an equal number of Mongoloids and equal number of Negroids and maybe Australoids. Following this train of thought, if this article is going to have three Caucasoids depicted, then it should have three Mongoloids and three Negroids depicted as well as some number of Australoids and so on and so forth. --Ephert (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ephert, I stated this above, but I'm stating it here, too, in case you miss it: We do not have to cite images to "peer-reviewed, reputable psychological journals." That is your preference. I should have stated, "And these two images can definitely be cited by reliable sources as being representative of beauty." Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So on that note, I want to add that while Aphrodite, according to the one source you cited, wasn't the ideal beauty, she is still representative of beauty and has been for years. In poetry, song, film, television, etc. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. And about Aphrodite's oids. Mostly Caucasoid but possibly some Negroid in there too (they called her Afrodite). Plus wasn't her mother part Persian (Mongoloid?) Definitely no Australoid; still, I think Aphrodite is a keeper however we add her oids.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * I agree. I'm wondering what is the best way to go about this without getting into senseless fuss over particular pictures. I think almost any pictures in the article would be an improvement so overall I'm not that fussy about any particular picture, except for the two on the top already (Venus & Adonis).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm worried about us adding too many pictures. We don't need this to become a photo album, LOL. Remember that we can always add a photo gallery to the bottom of the article, though, like we do for Eye color. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


 * I agree with Flyer on this one. Aphrodite = goddess of beauty. Reasonable selection.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * R. Kousser is the reliable source here and she argued that that reasoning rests on a face-value assumption that does not take account the historical context of the sculpture. You and Flyer22 are not reliable sources.--Ephert (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An archaeologist is a source about beauty? And I don't think whether it matters whether the ancient Greeks thought Venus was beautiful, or Renaissance people either for that matter -- it's people today. My sense is hardening that the way to avoid fuss is to simply leave the article as is in terms of pictures since nobody seems to be able to agree much about even one picture.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rachel Kousser got her Ph.D. in Greek and Roman art history, so her article that was published in the American Journal of Archaeology represents the work of an expert talking about her field of expertise. The "people today" are not sources for this article unless they are also reliable sources in their own right. No, the solution is not to leave this article as it stands when it is not neutral and has a picture that should not be included. The solution that would address the neutral point of view issue presented by the 3 and 87/100 Caucasoids and 13/100 Mongoloids already in the article would be either adding other races or removing some of the Caucasoids and then adding other races.--Ephert (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Numerous sources point to Venus de Milo being a classical beauty standard, including CBS News, Time Magazine, The New York Times. There are dozens more references practically everywhere you might choose to look.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The "numerous sources" have to be reliable sources on the subject of which they speak. News sources are reliable sources for news, but they are not reliable sources for a particular statue representing the female beauty ideal of the Greeks. That would require an expert like Rachel Kousser who obtained her Ph.D. in Greek and Roman art history.--Ephert (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rachel Kousser is a better source than CBS News, Time Magazine, The New York Times???--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rachel Kousser is a better source than CBS News, Time Magazine, The New York Times for the information I have cited her for.-Ephert (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ephert, I did not state that I was going to look for a reliable source that claims the Aphrodite of Melos's appearance was considered beautiful by the ancient Greeks. I said that while Aphrodite, according to the one source you cited, wasn't the ideal beauty, she is still representative of beauty and has been for years. In poetry, song, film, television, etc. I said we do not have to cite images to "peer-reviewed, reputable psychological journals." That is your preference, and that we can find reliable sources showing that Aphrodite is representative of beauty. I don't know why you keep focusing on whether or not Aphrodite was considered an ideal beauty by the Greeks. That does not mean she was/is not considered attractive and it has nothing to do with whether or not she is representative of beauty in modern times.


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


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

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


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


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


 * People, people, let's behave here. Suggest remove the butt-images.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored this section, because, despite what Johnuniq said in removing it, the discussion of the buttocks is just as relevant to physical attractiveness as legs and other body parts discussed in this article. Not off-topic at all. I, however, renamed it to Buttocks and removed the images included by Ephert.


 * Obviously, I agree that discussion of the buttocks should be included in this article. But I disagree that we need to/should have images of the buttocks. If we do include an image or two of the buttocks, then I feel that it should be of the buttocks only, such as what is shown at the top of the Buttocks article. We should not be able to see the sex organs, or even the anus, in my opinion. This is mainly why I object to the two images selected by Ephert. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, however this is not the place for a chat about what we each think is attractive. Any proposal for development of the article should be based on reliable sources rather than posting our favorite pics. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, Johnuniq, and I believe that is the direction this discussion was going in. Tomwsulcer and Ephert are about improving this article with reliable sources and not simply their opinion, so I believe that reliable sources were on the verge of coming up. The IP was talking about a section discussing the attractiveness of the buttocks, not images showing it. Pictures mostly likely came up because pictures for this article have been the most recent discussion on this talk page. Ephert was throwing around picture suggestions that can accompany text. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources, people. This can't just be a bunch of wikipedia editors' homage to buttocks.--Louiedog (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice on adding a section about it, Ephert. And you'll probably expand or tweak it further (or both). But I feel that we are focusing too much on female beauty. Let's not forget male beauty, and that a section on women's attraction to the male buttocks can be added as well. Not every source has to be scholarly or peer-reviewed, though such sources are preferred for a topic like this. Flyer22 (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes nice job Ephert. Agree with Flyer but was wondering if there were pictures of males (perhaps above) that you liked or what else should be written about male beauty.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom, if you're talking to me... As I stated before, I don't care much for whatever image is added to this article, as long as it's not an unneeded or inappropriate image. Regarding images for this article, I am mainly concerned with picture-overkill and feel that most pictures should be left to a gallery section to cover (whatever we title it). In my opinion, we already have enough images of women in this article and more images of women should not be added unless it's to a gallery section. I'm not sure what else should be written about males, other than the subject of this section -- the physical attractiveness of the buttocks. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Flyer I was asking your view, and I remembered what you wrote earlier about your general position on this subject. I generally agree with your gallery approach but at the same time I guess I'd want perhaps one or two more pictures in the article proper to make this article more beautiful to look at? And being the persuasion that I am, I feel qualified to pick female beauty, but not qualified to judge male beauty (and if I did choose an example of male beauty, well, hmmm, I'd probably not do a good job here since my focus is on human females and selected female chimpanzees.) But that's okay; we'll figure something out sooner or later.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In its current form, "the Buttocks" section seems to justify a taste for average and larger -size buttocks. However, there is youthfulness (and perhaps other things) in tighter-than-average buttocks. Perhaps it would be opportune to add a little something in this regard. Of course not much can be said other than to bear this in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N49o7 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Generally I agree that men place more emphasis on physical attractiveness than women do -- let me specify -- heterosexual men choosing women, than heterosexual women choosing men. For a man, beauty is a big factor; for women; beauty is perhaps one of several other important factors (income, status, health, perceived future faithfulness, etc). I've been working on such subjects as dating and beauty plus have written my own article on the subject here (which has had over 4000 readers) and I think the research supports the notion of (1) above. There are all sorts of reasons for this, including from evolutionary genetics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that most studies have found this difference. However, there may be differences regarding for example short-term and long-term relationships which should be mentioned. Miradre (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Your own studies state that most research have shown that males place a greater emphasis on physical attractiveness. However, there may be differences regarding for example short-term and long-term relationships which should be mentioned. Miradre (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In summarising the questionaires, of the 60s-70s-80s, that it then goes on to contradict, or explain as explicit as opposed to implicit preferences, respectively. The paragraph needs to summarise the recent studies, and show that there is no consensus - but rather, older studies, and newer studies that contradict them. It currently does this accurately. It also probably gives undue weight to Buss's speculations. If you could add a sentence on possible difference between short-term/long-term preferences, it would be great. Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first study talks about differences regarding short and long term relationships: . Your second study looks at speed dating: . Seems dubious that the second study necessarily contradict other studies finding that at least for long-term relationships women place less emphasis on looks. Anyway, one study does not change what most have found.Miradre (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is another recent study making the situation even more complicated but certainly finding gender differences: Miradre (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another recent study finding sex differences with similar results to one above. Miradre (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet another recent study finding sex differences: Miradre (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Three studies, manipulating variables, all published in the top-rated journal, contradicting a consensus of questionaires from the 60s and 70s. There's certainly no consensus, and given the field, we have to prioritise more recent studies in better journals, in the paragraph. As for short-long term relationships, we already covered that here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Variability_in_preferences  We might have enough on it already. In the meantime, while we are discussing, can we keep something close to the original version of the paragraph, before it was massively changed without consensus. As for the status enhancement study, feel free to add a sentence on it to the paragraph. Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually only the second and possibly the third support you. You misrepresent the research, many of the studies are not from the 60s or 70s. In addition I have above cited several recent studies contradicting you. Here is another one: Miradre (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All three studies support little difference in short-term mates (if anything, the summaries of the field in the studies acknowledge the beginning of a consensus for strategic pluralism). Additionally, the study you cite by Li, Patel and Valentine is arguing for strategic pluralism, and should be added to that section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Variability_in_preferences) - they write "For shortterm mates, both sexes of both countries prioritized physical attractiveness significantly more than other traits". I agree with you that we need to qualify and refine the current paragraph - for short-term for long-term. Feel free to help do this. Avaya1 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly disagree with characterizing the views of one side as "recent" and the other side not. Miradre (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you simply changed some views to the opposite: Thus, you changed "Most studies have concluded that men place a higher emphasis on physical attractiveness in a partner than women do, though some claim otherwise." to "Some conclude that little difference exists between men and women in terms of the weight they place on physical attractiveness in choosing a partner". That is simply tje opposite of what the studies state. Miradre (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


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

- ::: I agree I'm starting to try to refine it a bit now - the thing which might be best is to merge the section on variability with this section? As for the citations supporting the opposite sentences, they might have been moved around after the editor re-wrote the section a few months ago. I will check them now.Avaya1 (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is my suggestion. Incorporating both my sources and yours. User:Miradre/sandbox3‎ Miradre (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the sentence "most studies have found" written by Loopdog, which is misleading and implies a consensus. Note the recent, good, study you cited writes in the conclusion "For shortterm mates, both sexes of both countries prioritized physical attractiveness significantly more than other traits".  I agree with your point that we need to distinguish between long-term and short-term, which hasn't been done in the sandbox. The most recent articles we have cited are all arguing for the strategic pluralism hypothesis. I think we need to re-work the section a little along the short-term-long-term lines and merge it with the variability section above? Avaya1 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the text. And made a quick merge with variability section. Thoughts? Miradre (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's quite good, although in the first paragraph we should distinguish - short-term, long-term - more clearly. I have to go now, but I can help more later, and also browse the journals and look at more studies. Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be no serious further objections to this version and section merger I will change to it shortly. Miradre (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


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

"According to one study, men with facial scars are more attractive to Western women seeking short-term relationships; the authors speculated that the facial scars could be seen by women as a symbol of masculinity, a possible indicator of genetically higher testosterone levels. "Avaya1 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)