Talk:Physical attractiveness/Archive 4

Facial symmetry making it easier for viewers to process cognitively
I had added the following section a month or so ago, but now I'm removing it, and just wanted to briefly explain. Here's the section:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"When a face is symmetrical vertically, so that left and right sides mirror each other along a vertical axis, the mirroring makes it easy cognitively and perceptively for a human mind to tell if the two sides match. There is a visual copy of each side in plain view making it easy for a person to judge if left matches right. The mind can make this mental comparison in a split second to look for aberrations, distortions, or lopsided features. If faces were not symmetrical, then the mind would have a more challenging cognitive task of comparing the seen face with a remembered standard face."

- --sentences added but removed summer 2011. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I had checked with a biologist who at one point suggested this material was already known, but lately suggested it's not known and may be speculative and probably is original research. So I'm moving the sentences to the talk page here for the time being until things become clearer. I still think this idea is right, but a reliable source is needed first. For further questions, write to Mokele who is an expert here in Wikipedia. There's a brief write-up here if anybody is interested and if you're a biologist or psychologist interested in this stuff, I'm interested in exploring this subject further.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article on attractiveness of facial stubble
Here it is: Article on sexiness of stubble FYI. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Female physical attractiveness- section on youthfulness regarding female fertility
I made some edits so allow me to explain them. There is no doubt that, as women get older (not necessary "after the age of 30", because this is a slow and gradual process, not something that just starts happening suddenly on a woman's 30th birthday!) their fertility declines. What I objected to, was the way the section was written, because, instead of clearly explaining things, it looked as something typical of the popular press sensational claims, "OMG your fertility falls after 25, you'll have to get married at 20!!" ). The problem is, that, what these reports and this article fail to make clear, is that the main effect of a woman's fall in fertility is primarily the fact that it takes longer to get pregnant because there is a lower chance per cycle, not the fact that there is a lesser chance to eventually have a child - although this is also true, this effect is minimal in a woman's early and mid 30's - for instance in the UK the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence states that "for women aged 35, about 94 out of every 100 who have regular unprotected sexual intercourse will get pregnant after 3 years of trying. For women aged 38, however, only 77 out of every 100 will do so". Complete sterility is rare in the 30s, until the late 30s (- ie.until a woman is close to 40 - after 38-39), and when a woman is sterile at such ages (early and mid 30s) it is typically the result of an underlying (often chronic) health problem. For instance one of the most often cited studies is one from 1957, done on a large population that never used birth control and the investigators measured the relationship between the woman's age and fertility; these were couples who never used contraception and simply had regular sexual intercourse, this study found that by age 30 (when the woman was 30) the infertility rate- i.e the couples who failed to have a child- was 7%; by age 35 was 11%;  by age 40 was 33%;  by age 45 was 87%).. Anyway this is NOT the place to discuss female fertility is such detail, and, in my view it is sufficient to just say that a woman's fertility gradually declines as she gets older, with this decline being somewhat faster after 35 (the age 35 is the most often cited one, actually it's the age which was chosen to define "advanced maternal age"). Anyway my objection was not with the fact that this article stated that a woman's fertility declines with age (this is a fact obviously!), but in the way in which this was described and in the inappropriate tone. 188.25.170.57 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP. I tweaked your links above to external links so that we can view them on this talk page. Thank you for explaining this edit and responding to my response. You removed the following part: "with female fecundity having declined 'markedly' after age 30." While I don't mind that removal too much, what I meant by "Not sure about your removal. Women being far less fertile past 30 is not just a past report." is that this was reported as recently as 2010. This ABC News source from 2010, which was also reported by other news organizations, speaks of a fairly recent study about female fertility. It says: "By the time a woman hits 30, nearly all of her ovarian eggs are gone for good, according a new study that says women who put off childbearing for too long could have difficulty ever conceiving. The study published by the University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University in Scotland found that women have lost 90 percent of their eggs by the time they are 30 years old, and only have about 3 percent remaining by the time they are 40. Dr. Marie Savard, Good Morning America medical contributor, visited GMA to discuss the issue and its implications for moms-to-be. 'Women lose eggs a lot faster than we thought,' she said. As you get older, conceiving is 'much more difficult. ...Even all those assisted reproductive techniques are challenges.'"


 * So it would seem there is some truth to "female fecundity having declined 'markedly' after age 30." The text you removed wasn't saying there is complete sterility in the 30s. It was reporting only what the ABC source appears to confirm. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, so let's take a close look at female fertility and the number of eggs a woman loses with age: at birth a girl is born with a finite number of eggs (1-2 million eggs), and guess what- by the time she reaches puberty the majority of her eggs have already been lost:


 * "Women are born with a finite number of eggs. At birth, a woman has around 1 to 2 million eggs. However, throughout her life, a woman loses eggs through a destructive process called atresia. At puberty, only around 400,000 eggs remain. Throughout the reproductive lifespan, from puberty until menopause, women lose about 1,000 eggs each month."


 * So while it is very true that the vast majority of eggs have been lost at 30, the same is true at 15, or at 20. Don't get me wrong, fertility does decline with age, and I don't think anybody who has even the slightest knowledge about female fertility would deny this, my problem was with the phrase "female fecundity having declined 'markedly' after age 30" and I objected to it because of several reasons. Firstly why chose the age 30? You could very well say "female fecundity having declined 'markedly' after age 28" or "female fecundity having declined 'markedly' after age 32", 30 was just an arbitrary number, in fact this is a very slow and gradual process, the older a woman is the less fertile she is. Another problem is the tone of this phrase, because, without any further explanation (i.e some statistics on the ability of having children at a certain age) the paragraph would reinforce, in many people's mind, the completely flowed views on age and fertility, which are, unfortunately, very common, and have extremely negative consequences on many people in many societies around the world, including early (forced) marriages, abandonment of higher education, lack of access to higher education for women in many countries and so on. And finally this is not the place to discuss female fertility, we shouldn't go in such details, the paragraph should just say something on the lines:


 * "The common explanation for this preference is that men have evolved to be attracted to women with high child-bearing potential and given that female fertility gradually declines with age men tend to prefer younger women."188.25.175.185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Good points, IP. In the comments section of the news link I displayed above, I came across a comment by a person who found the article (that news report) to be misleading in smiliar vein to your statements about such misleading information. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, though (WP:Reliable sources), sometimes even at the expense of the truth. See the top of WP:Verifiability. I'm not sure how reliable the babyspot.com source you provided is, but I understand what you are saying. Perhaps, the "with female fecundity having declined 'markedly' after age 30" line was to stress that 90 percent of the eggs a woman had left are gone by age 30 and that only "about 3 percent" remain "by the time [she is] 40"? After all, the ABC News source says "nearly all of her ovarian eggs are gone for good," not "the majority."


 * You don't want a specific age or age range concerning fertility mentioned in the Youthfulness section? I don't mind removing all specific mentions of age, but don't you think at least mentioning something about the mid-to-late 40s range is beneficial...especially given what you stated above about that? Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about this, I don't think that having anything age specific is a good thing. I think it's better to simply have something: "The common explanation for this preference is that men have evolved to be attracted to women with high child-bearing potential and therefore prefer young women". Afterall, this is an article about physical attractiveness, not female fertility. Readers don't come to this article to find about the patterns of childbearing years. The problem is that female fertility (and fertility in general) is such a complex issue that it can't just be easily described in one phrase and going into details about it in this article is unwarranted. The most difficult thing about female fertility and why it is so difficult to make general statements is that there is a huge variability from woman to woman - the reproductive spans of women are not the same - if you look at extremes you may very well find a 40 y/o who is more fertile than a 30 y/o! Since I can't think of a proper way to summarize it, I think it's better to avoid discussing it since it's not connected to the subject of this article; the idea here was that men prefer young women because young women have high child-bearing potential, and it's sufficient to say this and find sources to support this said preference of men.188.25.172.39 (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * More valid points. We'll see if others have anything to say about this. Give it a few days. If no one responds, then I advise you to be WP:BOLD and go ahead and implement your desired change. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since noone has responded I now made the changes.188.25.159.142 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Point of View
This article seems to be written from a straight man's point of view. It doesn't cover enough what straight women and gays are attracted to. Niyeti bozuk http nesnesi (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hair Color Preferences
Men's hair color preference by women is missing. I thought it was there before. Women seem to avoid red-haired males while the reverse isn't true for women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.2.44.127 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What is this reference?
One of the references is just "(Locke & Horowitz, 1990)." Is this a book? If so what is the name and page number?VR talk  15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit war over images
Okay, it's time to address the edit war going on between User:Tobby72 and an IP hopper. I observed it long enough. Discuss your differences here or be reported for edit warring. IP, I know that you think reporting won't faze you, but it will because it will likely result in this article being semi-protected (and you know what that means for your IP editing). I will state that I am in agreement with the IP that this article should not be dominated by images of white individuals. The IP is right that this caused the Physical attractiveness article problems in the past, and, because of those problems, no images except for the main image were left in this article. Sometime last year (July), images were allowed again, but only ones that significantly enhance the reader's understanding of this topic. We don't need images of people just being good-looking; they should actually add something of encyclopedic value to this article, and I do not see how the pictures Tobby72 wants included do that. See the end of the section and all of the  section about representing more than one type of racial/ethnic background. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see your point, it makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Tobby72 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Heterocentrism
Seriously...judging from this article you would think that only straight people are attracted to each other and there's no existence of any other forms of physical attraction. AlfiePepper (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. It reflects the bias of the literature on the topic though, unfortunately.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is some mention of gay male physical attraction in the article, but a little more about that and a bit about what lesbians find physically attractive in other women could be added to the article. However, like Maunus stated, most of the research about physical attractiveness relates to males being attracted to females and vice versa, whether we're talking about humans or what goes on in the rest of the animal kingdom. Flyer22 (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

People are attracted to attractiveness? No kidding!
"the most important factor that attracts gay men to other males is the man's physical attractiveness"

Does this sentence seem tautological to anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.82.160 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, but what'd you expect? This article is a joke, and I think all the alleged 'studies' regarding gay people are a bunch of bs. I'm straight and I find it idiotic, I guess a lot of man and female gays didn't found themselves indentified with this at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.191.23.40 (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure by "man's physical attractiveness," the source is not talking about the fact that it's a man. It's talking about how good-looking the man is. And considering that how good-looking a person is (or isn't) is not the most important thing to everyone, including gay men, when selecting a romantic/sexual partner, the line makes perfect sense in that respect. Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

On that same note, men being attracted to "beautiful women" in the opening line of female attributes really makes you want to slap your forehead. I didn't edit this out, but it definitely needs to be defined or fleshed out if not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarstan (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What about mannerism: pose, gait, gesticulation, etc?
That is, dynamic physical attractivebess, as opposed to the 'static type already discussed in this article. EIN (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Male-male physical attractiveness
I took out the section on how homosexuals view males mainly on physical attractiveness. I didn't think it was relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allieflett (talk • contribs) 21:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What you removed was not a section, but rather a sentence in a section. I added it back, because, like I stated in that edit summary, "per WP:Verifiability, a better reason for removal is needed than the one given on the talk page. People have already complained about this article being heterocentric; no need to make it more so." Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Double eyelid surgery
... is not a Western standard of beauty. Larger eyes have always been desirable in East Asian culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.215.167 (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Body scent subsection in the Male physical attractiveness section
Editor Jvgama separated the Body scent subsection from the Facial attractiveness subsection for the reason stated in this edit summary. While that reason for having a Body scent section separate from the Facial attractiveness section is valid, the body scent information is about how odor relates to facial attractiveness; therefore, it makes more sense to me that it stay a part of the Facial attractiveness section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


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

(Male) face averageness "beauty"
I mostly see averageness mentioned for female's (faces). I wandered if it doesn't apply to male's. I Googled and found it also to be true for them. It doesn't mean that it's one of the first things women (or men) look at/for, as the primary indicator of overall attractiveness/desirability. I wander if the subcategories for male's and female's attractiveness in this page are ordered (and maybe it should be mentioned that it's not the first factor (for males)?).


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

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


 * model agency from Munich chose 88% artificial faces (14 out of 16 selected faces) for potentially being interesting as a model for the category “beauty”. Only two natural male faces could keep up with the computer generated ones, within the group of female faces no natural faces have been selected! We also asked test subjects to indicate the most attractive faces found the same pattern: 81% (13 out of 16) of the selected faces had been generated by the computer.


 * favoured women with facial shapes of about 14 year old girls. There is no such woman existing in reality! They are artificial products - results of modern computer technology.


 * Yes, no such women, but 14 year old girls exists.., maybe no wander that they start modeling about that age or thinking about it..


 * What’s interesting is that attractive male and female faces seem to have similar structures and similarities. When aligning the images in Photoshop; I could see that faces which appeared completely different actually have similar basic proportions. You can see this in the averages and in relation to conformity with the Marquardt mask.


 * The most interesting aspect, to me, is the incoherence seen in the ‘unattractive’ averages. Attractive faces seem to conform to a basic attractive structure, with little variance of internal features. Unattractive faces have more varying features – this would explain why the unattractive averages are less coherent.

The link above links to scientific articles, for averageness, sush as: and has lots of interesting pictures (and the other links) including "‘Kids with Santa’ is an average of 100 pictures of which children pose with Santa.".. More trivia: comp.arch (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Men prefer shorter women?
Well known that women prefer taller men but "It has been found that, in Western societies, most men prefer shorter women and tend to view taller women as less attractive" (the ref, "How a Gambian Population Compares to the West", that I do not have access to, might say something about Gambia (but not non-Western in general?)). Is this really true, at all, in Western societies? Or anywhere (the lead doesn't say Western and I didn't find height mentioned in the source there). As the women are the choosers the men might not/or less try to go after women that they can't have or end up marrying, can we really say anything about their preference based on relationships? The quote imples that Gambian men go for taller women or are indifferent. Do we know that they do not end up with shorter women (by as much) as in the West (would not disprove if not, as women are the choosers) or have sex with taller women on average? comp.arch (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes; men prefer shorter women, but the height-difference-preference is not as big (sorry) of a factor for a man choosing a woman, as it is for a woman choosing a man. About Gambian men and women: if there is any preference by men for taller women, it is probably not a huge (again sorry) variable since, as we know, most men are taller than most women, so it would be difficult to measure any preferences (while isolating other variables?). Would be cool to see the Gambian study though.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comp.arch, men definitely (generally) prefer women who are shorter than they are, and that's not just a Western preference either. This is a well known matter as well, and I'm wondering how you had not heard of it before. Perhaps it is not as well known as women generally preferring taller men. Anyway, Tomwsulcer added a bit in response to your query.


 * And, Tomwsulcer, it's been nice seeing you again. Saw you here for the first time again at this article in a long time. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Flyer22, I watch this article too and appreciate how you've kept it shipshape and professional. I'm 5'11" and yes I somewhat prefer shorter women although I carried a stepstool when I dated members of a women's basketball team. See, I was a Boy Scout and followed its motto: Be Prepared. I'm writing a sci-fi novel and if you like there are many non-named characters (bit parts) so if you want me to name one Flyer I could do so possibly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "[A]lthough I carried a stepstoolo when I dated members of a women's basketball team." LOL! And you're writing a novel? A sci-fi one. Interesting. I'm currently working on a sci-fi screenplay, though I get distracted from that by matters at work and here at Wikipedia. But because of WP:Not a forum and WP:Talk, it would be best that, if this discussion is to continue, it is continued at one of our talk pages.


 * As for the indentation format you changed, I indented that way (the way that it was before you changed it) per WP:Indentation. Though Wikipedia editors generally don't follow WP:Indentation precisely, it's something I've been trying out lately; see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 13. My "15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)" commentary is a bit tricky on the WP:Indentation aspect, though, since I'm replying to two people on different matters. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Okey dokey.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, and going back to Comp.arch's post above, where the text states "and tend to view taller women as less attractive," given that men often find female models and supermodels physically/sexually attractive, and those women are usually tall, I'm not sure how true that statement is in the general sense. I think that statement is more so about a man having a tall woman as his girlfriend or wife; while he finds tall women such as supermodels quite attractive (if they are what he perceives as physically attractive) and often more so than the average woman, he personally (generally) would not want a romantic/sexual partner who is taller than he is. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Flyer, think you're right -- beautiful women are beautiful regardless of their height (and TV tends to make everybody appear to be a standard height) but the situation may be different in an interpersonal relationship, that is, a man dating a woman several inches taller might feel uncomfortable, or she might be less interested in him as a result.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One thing I think is true but I don't know if there is any research on this: that there is an ideal beauty-height for both men and women which is probably close to the averages of all people; so if men average 5'10" and women average 5'6" (say -- not sure what the actual average height numbers are), then, if everything else is equal, a man will be at his optimal beauty at 5'10" and a woman at her optimal beauty at 5'6". An indication that this is true is examining the heights of people deemed "beautiful" by the media -- even though being on television or in a film tends to make people appear to be the same height. If one studied the heights of movie stars, TV celebrities, models and beauty contestant winners, I bet one would find that their heights cluster more tightly around the average heights with not nearly as much variation as with the general public; still, they are deemed beautiful on a medium such as TV which tends to make everybody appear to be the same height. It seems rare to have an extremely tall or short person deemed beautiful although there are probably exceptions. Male movie stars such as Robert Redford or Matt Damon or Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise generally are not super-tall; female movie stars too such as Katharine Ross or Jessica Alba or Olga Kurylenko tend not to be super-tall either. Just a hunch on my part (ie WP:OR. Doubt there is any research yet to back this up but I believe it is true, based on personal observation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm 5'11". So I must be beautiful by my own logic, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Two quick points: 1) Any discussion should clarify that/whether what is meant is "women who are significantly shorter/taller than the average for (local culture) females" is meant, or, for example "women who are taller than the male(s) in question". 2) The fact that a high proportion of developed world women wear high heels when wishing to appear most attractive ought to be mentioned or factored in, one would think. I'd suggest that women think that being somewhat taller than other/average women, but not too tall, or taller than a specific partner, works best for them. There must be loads of studies of the issue, which should used. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Good idea to be careful how things are phrased.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see the pseudo scientists keep forcing all sort of unproven links between beauty and health. Every single beautiful characteristic gets dressed up as a health indicator. Dont get me started about symmetry and the golden ratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.86.159 (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Chiseled Jawline
One of the features listed as a male facial dimorphism is a "chiseled jawline". What the hell is a chiseled jawline? Obviously it doesn't literally mean men should carve themselves with chisels. I think a more literal term should be used to make more sense, as this article should be from the point of view of science.Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your confusion, but the entire purpose of adjectives and phrases, is so we don't have to spend a paragraph describing every little thing, Urban dictionary exists for a reason. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I would like to second Der Elbenkoenig's argument. The term "Chiseled Jawline", although fairly self explanatory, should be described more scientifically. Using the term, without defining the word, could lead to confusion due to the fact that readers are left to make their own interpretation of the term. I completely agree that "every little thing" shouldn't be explained, but this is the only example on the page, in my personal opinion, that should be clarified. Wilro (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wilro, something that should always factor into things like this is that, per WP:Verifiability, we should go by what the sources state. If there is a WP:Reliable source that describes what is meant by the term, then it is fine to add that description using that source. But describing what is meant by the term based on our own interpretations(s) is hardly any different than a reader basing the term on their interpretation. We should not engage in WP:Original research. Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but I'm sure there is an RS that describes the jawline in more explicit terms. What I actually have trouble believing is that an RS would just have used the phrase "chiseled jawline". Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Two years since you previously commented in this section. Welcome back, Der Elbenkoenig. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Stick with scientific facts (not opinions?)
Thanks, for changing to "He says that all of these requirements are socially constructed", as it is seems to be his opinion (if it contradicts facts). I meant to say "Evolutionary psychology" in my summary not evolutionary biology, although it might have something to say about this (have to look into it more. comp.arch (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have much more to state on this matter than what I stated in this, this and this edit summary. Whether you mean evolutionary psychology or evolutionary biology, evolution has a lot to do with social environment; things have often evolved due to what nature perceived as a social need.


 * You want this entire article to stick with scientific facts? If so, that is not possible; it's not possible because the vast majority of what determines physical attractiveness is socially constructed, not something usually rooted in science. As the lead of this article and other parts of this article make clear, physical attractiveness is very often subjective and what one culture finds physically attractive is very often not what another culture finds physically attractive. Sometimes a physical attractiveness aspect is consistent from one culture to another, especially if that culture's standard of beauty has been affected by the other culture, but beauty is obviously too subjective to insist that it is scientific fact across the board. And just because a study shows or suggests something...it does not mean that the conclusions of that study are fact; if every study were fact, then the Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) guideline would not be as strict as it is about sourcing. And the WP:Fringe guideline would not exist. I'm sure that you know that not every study is fact; I'm simply making a point. The aforementioned doctor whose statement you question might have been basing that comment on his research (personal research or other research), no different than other researchers in this article. And for anyone wondering why I removed "Dr." from that doctor's name, it is because of the WP:Credentials guideline; that's why I replaced "Dr." with "Scholar." That guideline is not simply about biographies, but also, as lead of that page shows, about "biographical information in other articles." Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, that Guardian article needs to stay deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.207.186 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You agree? Your argument is completely different than Comp.arch's argument. Your edits are here and here. And they are based purely on your personal opinion, not scientific fact. Like I stated here, per WP:Verifiability, we go by what the sources state, not personal opinion. And, indeed, various WP:Reliable sources report that Asian women get eyelid surgery to appeal to "Western standards of beauty." Yes, it's racist. And that racism has to do with society. Not that "race," in the context of human biological classification, exists anyway. Clines, on the other hand? Yes, those exist. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Section on skin color
That could well be true about the Caribbean and Hispanic and Latino Americans to which Americans are the most exposed to, but it certainly can't be generalized to Latin America in general. We have enormous discrepancies in what it is regarded to attractive in both men and women, and some cultural bias in certain areas favoring quite the reverse about the common idea of Latin Americans idealizing white people as superior are especially strong. I'd cite Brazil (more than half of the population of South America), where the norm in the beauty ideal to face and hair phenotypes being the European or the mestizo is still very true, but in color and body darker people are largely a national preference.

Most people except wealthier pardo and black men tend to prefer people darker than themselves for at least 50 years, and as in the West darker skin tones are associated with health and suntanning was always a trend, and since even much earlier times, when crosses were still burning in the USA (the very reason why your average Brazilian will usually become furious when told by American scholars that we have a chronic apartheid system and a racism problem) the body shapes of women of Amerindian and African descent was idealized as enchanting European men and their local descendants of every origin and age (not that I also celebrate this particular myth, I know well how it is rooted in colonial ideas of submission of women, specially those of color, but I can bet money that the ideal girlfriend of our average teenage boys and young men in the 30s and 40s here would be a mulata rather than a blonde, that is, consequence of the delirant mentality of "society without racism" or not, it is very incorporated in our culture). So, no, there is no such non-POV thing of affirmating that "as a matter of fact, Latin Americans demonstrate preference for lighter skin colors".

It requires research on several perspectives, not just a bunch of opinions from life experiences by an editor of some magazine, even if such statement was linked to studies done by scholars, their political and ideological objectives would be still questionable (obviously not being gauchephobic, just saying I am not the first to see an authoritative and neoconservative light even if with a libertarian intention in these conclusions of social relations in Latin America, seeing the U.S. as a model role, specially Brazil, seldom the feeling of "zOMG cant u guis see that we arn animoar in th timz of slaveri???!" can be even described as strong), especially if they questioned a very known common sense and/or generalized some individuals in this largely agrarian, full of poverty, ignorance and thus prejudice state together with that of historical strong European settlement and idealization of it and said it represented the country.

Not to say how heteronormative those researches on top and bottom gay guy preferences sound, as if versatiles weren't a majority among queer guys and there weren't lesbians or bisexual guys (even if a little bit of cissexism is to be understood as gender-variant people are relatively rare and the divisions of all transgender identities that are very distinct between themselves makes it even less simple to consider). Hell, it reinforces stereotypes (about how the non-normative sexuality works as a copy of the ideal one) rather than helping or making important or intelligent conclusions, pretty much like the problems we see in Bi the Way (a film that I saw and didn't find queer to any degree in this galaxy). But OK, it is properly sourced to a trusteeable secondary. 177.65.53.191 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool story bro. Keep the lie alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.86.159 (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, a quip with a tired catchphrase and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.235.68 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference 68 needs more information
Reference 68 on the importance of height in male attractiveness is not complete enough. The reference reads:

Pierce, C.A. 1996; Cunningham, M.R. 1990; Pawlowski B, Dunbar RI, Lipowicz A 2000.

I do not find any previous references in the list with these author names. Thus I believe we need the rest of the publication information for these three sources. Can the person who provided this reference fill in the data? --141.233.196.81 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Need a better source than 'The Guardian'
For the claim that 'although one contrary report suggests that "absolute flawlessness" with perfect symmetry can be "disturbing".' under the section General contributing factors (citation #22). Seems like an opinion column to me. — Fuebar (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Low waist-hip ratio?
[...] "full breasts, full lips, and a low waist-hip ratio.[13]" This source is wrong. Men like waist-hip ratio that is 2/3 to 3/3. Women with these traits also seem to score higher on intelligence.

For what it's worth: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/health-what-a-man-cant-resist-the-perfect-waisthip-ratio-forget-about-breasts-says-jerome-burne-its-the-last-two-figures-of-362436-that-truly-turn-on-the-male-naked-ape-1440859.html

http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2013/11/11/curves-ahead-the-science-of-female-waist-to-hip-ratio-and-at.html

http://www.today.com/style/ideal-real-what-perfect-body-really-looks-men-women-2D79582595 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.93.1 (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Penis Book by Maggie Paley
This book is cited as the source for "Studies based in China, England, the United States, Italy, New Zealand, Sweden, Spain, and France have suggested that women consider men more attractive whose erect penis is longer and thicker.[69]" under "Genetalia". I have the book and cannot find anywhere that says this. Could whoever posted this on the article give a direct quote so I can try to find it in the book?--2601:6:6C81:B92C:D0B8:289F:6809:FC39 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The confounding variable of torso-to-leg ratio studies
As far as I know, all of the torso-to-leg ratio studies changed two variables in their studies at the same time, and, for this reason, they should be inadmissible for evidence in this article. Specifically, when they increased the length of the legs on the stick figure they also decreased the torso length of the stick figure at the same time while keeping head size constant. This confounds the studies by making it impossible to isolate the variable that caused the results of their study. Doesn't decreasing torso length alone while keeping head size constant make a stick figure appear to represent a smaller person who is more likely to be a woman than a man? Yes, it does. On average, women have proportionately larger heads relative to their torso length, because sexual dimorphism causes women to be smaller than men on average. Decreasing torso length alone while keeping head size constant would give them the feminine reading they received for stick figures like that. The longer legs they attached onto the stick figures with smaller torsos may be either relevant or irrelevant to whether or not a stick figure is perceived to be feminine. We don't know the influence leg length had when the other variable alone would cause each of the studies' results by itself. A correctly done study would only change the leg length of the stick figures while keeping the head size and torso length constant, but, as far as I know, none of the studies cited in this article did that. In the interest of maintaining this article's reliability, all of the studies that confounded their results by changing two variables at the same time in this way should be removed from this article. We should investigate each study individually to see if they were flawed in this way, and dutifully remove them if need be.--Ephert (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eohert, what you are doing here and in your last comment in the section above, is doing your own peer review on the sources. We don't have the right to do that, as Wikipedia editors - it is essentially OR. Please stop going there.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll try to remember that. Thank you for the helpful pointer.--Ephert (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Blue eye image and blue eye primacy for the image caption
First, I don't see that having a blue eye image as the lead image is an improvement to this article. With this and this edit, removed text from the lead regarding Greek figures and replaced it with dubiously-sourced text about blue eyes being the most preferred eye color, based on sex selection; what the IP means is sexual selection. As seen with that second edit, the IP stated, "Replacing image wth providing sources, the previous one includes a contradictory challenged statement that the statue is considered both 'beutiful' and 'not beautiful'." I reverted the IP again, stating, "Your sources are poor and you are POV-pushing. Stop WP:Edit warring." As seen with this edit, the IP reverted again, commenting, "am sorry for edit warring but the sources for the statue of Venus are time.com, nytimes.com and cbs news, they are in no way better than mine sources which include studies." And I replied, "Really, the afritorial.com, dailymail.com, sheknows.com, etc. are better sources than the ones you removed? See WP:Reliable sources. Furthermore, the previous text is about Greek figures; your text is asserting blue eyes as primacy." The IP responded, "only the publisher is dailmail.co.uk, the study and the evolution aiming attraction is part of the study of the origin of blue eyes by dr Hans Eiberg hes saying blue eyes are atrraction not me, ucla.edu - reliable publisher."

Whether coming from Eiberg or not, the IP is using poor sources to support this material about sexual selection. Even using Eiberg directly as a source, one or more WP:Primary sources is not enough to make such a strong claim. Wikipedia generally discourages reliance on primary sources (as noted by WP:Primary sources), and this article has enough primary sources. That is why Tomwsulcer recently cut this, this and this bit from the article. And, per WP:MEDRS, primary sources for the biomedical content in this article is especially discouraged. For discussions about sourcing Eiberg, see this and this discussion I had with User332572385 and Evanh2008, respectively, at the Eye color talk page.

Being the most relevant WikiProjects to this discussion, I'll go ahead and alert WP:Biology, WP:WikiProject Psychology and WP:Med. Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Alerted here, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I also alerted WP:Evolution as especially relevant. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Something I should have mentioned earlier is the IP's WP:Original research violation. A part of the IP's caption states, "Consequently, studies reveal that most people throughout the world find blue the most attractive eye color, including in places where they represent the majority such as the United Kingdom and the USA, where the majority prefer blue eyes in the opposite sex for both women and men." Eiberg does not state that, and the sources do not support that. This Daily Mail source the IP used even states, "The UK was also the only country that opted for blue eyes as the ideal colour, with brown and green topping the table around the world." And this sheknows.com source the IP used notes that their data is based on a poll of more than 1,000 people by FastLife.com. And this edit the IP made to WP:Lead sentence has further worsened the article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for not reverting me once again. I am sure you think I am a kind of pussher of my view because I have blue eyes, no I am personally with green eyes, though I find blue personally most attractive, I am not pushing my view, the statue's image and its description is terrible and this was a reason. It may be interesting to the readers state a physical feature people prefer than a statue that is considered "both beutiful and not beutiful", so replacing it with better sourced could be improved I suggest. My statement is sourced somewhere with newspaper sources with what the statue is sourced everywhere(only the challenged claim that is unappealing is sourced by a realible source), but my news sources at least contain some sociological polls and some scientific studies in contrast to the others and reperesent what is generally attractive to the society, the others are from universities websites. The sexual selection is a mution aiming to attract the other sex, this was a theory established by Charles Darwin. In most parts of the world people generally have brown eyes and there blue eyes are considered highly attractive and exotic, you can start from ancient Egypt(the blue eye was literally a god), China, the American Indians, whre they are admired etc. People wear eye contacts, blue or green off course, almost never brown as far as I know. This statement may not apply for Scandinavia, whereas the mutation was a human evolution aiming attrativness affected them too. All humans are part of the animal familly, among animals, bright shades are part of the sexual selection evolution so this for the blue eyes in humans is nothing new. So people had had brown eyes originally, but had to mutate in something else to do sexual selection (attraction) as many animals evolve, I am sorry nothing personal to brown-eyed people but these are just the past events of the development of homo sapiens, the brown had been the first color and the evolution just had to be something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:4802:260:0:0:0:0:2A12 (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * poor sources to support this material about sexual selection I agree with this statement, Flyer22 is correct its always best to use secondary sources per Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Would anybody mind explaining simply how are exactly the sources of the statue more reliable sources than those of the blue eyes, they are just newspapers? Those for blue eyes include studies and surveys. What was the aim of the last revert requesting me to find reliable sources "blue eyes are more attractive than the rest"? How can make everybody be the same and like the same color, I can't find a source saying that I was requested because this is an individualistic preference for every human, but most people tend to be attracted to blue eyes anyway studies reveal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:4802:260:0:0:0:0:2A12 (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2A00:4802:260:0:0:0:0:2A12, I haven't checked your other sources, but two of the six you cited were from The Daily Fail, a newspaper which is notorious for being inaccurate and trashy. Time and The New York Times aren't as good as review articles in quality journals, but at least they're generally well regarded as legitimate journalism. Citing primary articles for this sort of thing is risky as scientific studies often disagree with one another.  If you want to make sweeping and potentially controversial claims about the attractiveness of blue eyes, you need something that's based on a broad review of the literature, such as a quality textbook or review article. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking further, "studies reveal that most people throughout the world find blue the most attractive eye color" is absolutely not supported by the cited sources. Neither claims a preference for blue eyes applies worldwide, and one is based on a "study" by Badoo, a lying spamming social network. I'm reverting to the earlier picture. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * NY times is a source as much as daily mail so if we are have to be honest, the statue should be removed not reverted in such case. It is just a survey I dounbt even the survey would be fake, but any way that may be my own opinion forget about daily mail. I found other sources, how about this survey of 180 people, resulting in overall preferance and attraction on blue eyes, 79 reported to prefer blue eyes in their partner: this is it--2A00:4802:260:0:0:0:0:2A12 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a question from a statistics textbook. Due to the limited preview I can't tell whether it's genuine survey data or just a made-up example being used to teach statistics. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP is engaging in pure WP:Synthesis. And the text shouldn't be included for other reasons I noted above. IP, also consider WP:Indenting your posts; I WP:Indented for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also note that the IP WP:Canvassed this new account to the discussion. Both could be the same person. Flyer22 (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * And see this recent edit, which I reverted, at the Eye color article by another new account. A coincidence? I think not. Flyer22 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP editor that the removal of the controversial statues from the article's introduction is an improvement, and I think it would be best for no images to be added in the introduction for the time being. I think the image the IP editor added, if the citations supporting it are deemed reliable, would be a better located in a relevant section inside the article rather than at the beginning of the article, because its prominence at the beginning of the article would give it undue weight. Also, the sources cited appear to claim that blue eyes spread due to sexual selection among white people, but the image caption the IP editor wrote did not specify that a preference for blue eyes is primarily a preference of white people. If the blue eye image and its caption are added back into the article, the caption should specify that the preference for blue eyes is a peculiarity of white people rather than a universal human preference.--Ephert (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The content added by the IP is not good. Loading all that speculation about the role of evolution in contemporary notions of attractiveness into the image caption is ridiculous WP:COATRACK and goes into way more detail than the article itself does and fails Manual of Style/Captions.   Also the greek statue is much better per WP:LEADIMAGE than a blue eye  - Greek statues are iconic images of physical attractiveness.  The revert was good. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , you've been against those lead images since the now archived "Picture possibilities" discussion (which was in 2011). I didn't agree with you then, and I still don't. There is nothing controversial about having those two Greek images and the third one (Ishtar). I don't see why we should forgo having lead images. As for altering the IP's primary sourced/WP:Synthesis text to what what you suggest, where are the WP:Reliable sources (the non-WP:Primary source kind) stating that "preference for blue eyes is a peculiarity of white people"? Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Each of the three statues had a creator. For each statue, the creator's thoughts about attractiveness went into them, but I doubt that he or she polled a large number of people to determine every minutia of their features. The problem is that they represent three people's ideas about beauty. Are the citations backing them studies that show a majority of people polled find them highly attractive or are they opinion pieces that tell the opinions of individuals? If the criterion for inclusion is that the image is of a statue from a long time ago, then I propose this Guan Yin statue as representation of an attractive Mongoloid woman. Among the reasons that the statues are controversial in their locations at the top of the article, is that they are all depictions of Caucasoid subjects, so the inclusion of this depiction of a Mongoloid woman at the top of the article would reduce that aspect of their controversial placement.--Ephert (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP editor's original caption on his or her blue eye image said, "studies reveal that most people throughout the world find blue the most attractive eye color". Did the studies that found blue eyes were most attractive poll primarily white people? How do polls using primarily white people translate to a preference that is prevalent "throughout the world"? As I have already stated, I don't support the inclusion of the blue eye citations if they are not deemed reliable sources, and, that being said, I don't support the "throughout the world" clause, and I instead favor a clause that indicates the restricted nature of the polls, because the preference seems to be primarily a peculiarity of white people and not primarily a preference of all peoples across the globe.--Ephert (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As I've stated, we've been through the debate about the Greek images before. I still support them as the lead images for the reasons I stated in the 2011 discussion. If others agree to go with different images for the lead, I will abide by that WP:Consensus. But the captions should be good to show why they are considered a representation of beauty; otherwise, the images just look like they were thrown up there with barely any thought. As for the Ishtar image, my memory is usually very good, but I don't remember who added that. Why do you consider that image a "Caucasoid subject"? Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a statue of a Greek woman who represents a lowly and powerless Greek mortal next to a statue of a Greek woman who represents an exalted and powerful Greek immortal. Notice the way the sculptors chose to construct the women's faces. The large nose, large jaw and large lower facial region of the Greek goddess projects power in accordance with her divinity. Her face was made to have a masculine appearance, because she was intended to be worshiped as a powerful being. In contrast, the small nose, small jaw and small lower facial region of the Greek woman next to her depicts a feminine and normal Greek woman who would be socially inferior to both the non-slave Greek men and the Greek goddess Venus. The heterosexual Greek men probably were attracted to the features of the normal Greek woman and intimidated by the features of the Greek goddess.--Ephert (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ishtar is a Mesopotamian goddess, and the Mesopotamians were Caucasoids. In the stone relief, Ishtar's nose has been damaged, making her appear more racially ambiguous, but the nasal root of her nose is very high, indicating that she represents a Caucasoid. Look at the depiction of the Mesopotamian man in the stone relief that is represented in a similar way to Ishtar. His nasal root is very high, his nose bridge is prominent and convex, and his mouth recedes inward below his nose, giving him a very Caucasoid facial profile. He is heavily bearded and that is another Caucasoid trait. Clearly, the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar was modeled after the native Caucasoids of Mesopotamia and not foreigners of other races.--Ephert (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For the "support" reasons noted in the "Picture possibilities" discussion, I still prefer to keep the Greek images we already have as the combined lead image. As for the Ishtar image... Whether or not Ishtar is a "Caucasoid subject," I'm not sure. But I don't mind if you replace that with an image of your preference, as long as you provide a good caption to go along with it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The IP was mine, I disagree with the current statues for being used on the top, it is a so called synthesis by newspaper and a reliable source stating that the statue of Venus is not so attractive. For blue eyes, here is what I found - [https://books.google.com/books?id=39B8fpdg_NwC&pg=PA131&dq=blue+eyes+rare+world+attractive&hl=bg&sa=X&ei=mBGiVdzUBsuAU8n7r8AD&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=blue%20eyes%20rare%20world%20attractive&f=false In northern cultures in which light hair and skin are predominate blue eyes light eyes tend to be preferred - particulary blue eyes. In fact studies hace shown that blue eyes, perhaps becaus they are so rare are heavily preferred in cultures around the world.. blue yed appear more attractive becausee.. some scientists think that blue-eyed men preffered blue-eyed women] - Is this a reliable source, if not what kind of sources should be found?? I found one additonal: blue eyes are more attractiv. For your comment on Mongoloid, according ot this source: Asian women prefer physical features of a Caucasoid such as blonde hair and blue eyes because they are attracted to them. The same is where blue eyes are rare, they are rare throughout most of the world, I thought this is clear and there is no need to source this, so I left this statement as OR, anyway the I found [this source for this statement . According to surveys, it is preferred as most attractive in countries where they are present in the majority such as the in the UK, that is why I added them to the image, but as my statement included UK I did not add blonde hair because surveys in UK said brown hair is preffered, though given its rarity blond and red hair is an attractive feauture throughout most of the world. Darker skin may also be rare globally but not dark eyes, but rarity is not always attraction and surveys are need to be found to show what people are attracted to whether it would be brown eyes. I am sure surevyes won't reveal that actually most people like the statue of Venus or that most people are fetishists towards any white statues, so I think a survey and studies would show best what people are attracted to, whatever it is. It would be improving if anybody else find any surveys, whatever results they show. The statue is moreover more unreliable than my image, because it is only from newspaper sources and is challenged by a reliable one.

Actually you all seem to worry that this is a Caucasoid pushing, Currently, the statues also appear to be of Caucasoid, they are just not valued by people around the world as atractive(maybe by few people in Antiquity) unlike blue eyes. To reassure that I am not blue-eyed, I can prove that I have green eyes. --Evropariver (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Read Talk:Physical attractiveness/Archive 3 and the WP:Synthesis policy. The current lead images are not synthesis by any Wikipedia definition. And we've been clear above why the content you added is inappropriate. The current lead images are far more neutral and appropriate than what you added/proposed and what you seem to be currently proposing for a lead image. Having a lead image of an eye color and reporting that this eye color is the most preferred eye color across societies, without WP:Reliable sources directly supporting that, is not a good lead image. Even with a WP:Reliable source supporting it, it is not a good lead image for this article; if anything, the lead image of this article should show a body (real or man-made) and provide a relevant caption to go along with it. We have a section in the Female physical attractiveness section about eyes, which includes mention of eye color. Any reliably sourced content about eye color pertaining to women can obviously go there. If such a section is needed for the Male physical attractiveness section, then we can create that. Not wanting to use your proposed material has nothing to do with "Caucasoid pushing," except perhaps in the case of Ephert's opinion; as you know, Ephert questioned whether the preference for blue eyes that you were citing is mostly a white person's preference. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw a notice to a WikiProject page about this discussion of the recent series of edits. I will note that I am a blue-eyed person who agrees that there is no desirability based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines, nor any rationale based on reliable secondary sources for preferring the I.P. editor's proposed image over the images previously appearing in this article. I will also note for the record that I have lived in more than one continental region (that is, I have in both the New World and Old World), and I think it is important for  neutral point of view to source carefully an article about a topic like this, to take into account cultural influences on opinions about physical attractiveness. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "For your comment on Mongoloid, according ot this source: Asian women prefer physical features of a Caucasoid such as blonde hair and blue eyes because they are attracted to them." The book author's interviews don't appear to be a reliable source. If a study were done to investigate the prevalence of preference for blue eyes among Asian women, it should have Asian women rate faces of Caucasoid men with brown eyes and a different set of Asian women rate the faces of the same Caucasoid men with blue eyes. If the Caucasoid men received significantly higher attractiveness ratings by only changing their eye color, then I think we would have a trustworthy conclusion. I can think of a possibility where the Asian women interviewed would have over represented their feelings for blue eyes. Consider this. People have favorite colors, and nobody's favorite color is considered socially inappropriate. Well, eye color preference is similar to having a favorite color. When the interviewer probed deeper to find out the specific physical features the Asian women found attractive about Caucasoid men, the most socially appropriate answer would be eye and hair color preference. A less socially appropriate answer that the Asian women interviewed might believe would be that they viewed the facial features of Mongoloid men to be less masculine and less dominant than those of Caucasoid men. There are too many variables in this situation to draw a definitive conclusion from her interviews.--Ephert (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

According to Table 13 from Sewell (2013), whites, Hispanics and the group labeled "Other" most commonly selected green eyes as the most attractive eye color for women. Blacks and Asian/Pacific Islanders differed from these three groups, because blacks most commonly selected light brown eyes as the most attractive eye color for women, and Asian/Pacific Islanders were evenly split between most commonly selecting blue eyes and most commonly selecting green eyes. Based on this data from Sewell (2013), I favor an image of green eyes over blue eyes if I had to choose between those two options, but I favor an image of light brown eyes even more than either of those two options. I favor an image of light brown eyes, because it creates an opportunity to add an African American who has ancestry from both the black and white races. If an image is to be included to depict a certain eye color, then I think it should be an image of Rihanna's face, because she would add to the racial diversity of people depicted in the article.--Ephert (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Your image caption states that Rihanna has light brown eyes. But some people believe she has hazel eyes; others believe she has green eyes. Then again, there is a lot of debate about Rihanna's eye color online (as seen by this and this Google search), which is, of course, racially-driven (because if she were white, people wouldn't be questioning her eye color so much). Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The African-American and African perspectives on physical attractiveness
There should be an image that depicts a representative African-American point of view on female beauty, and, if there is agreement between this view and the African-blacks-in-Africa point of view, it would be an even stronger reason to have such a representative image. Sewell (2013) in What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women on the bottom-right of page 61 found that their African-American male participants most commonly selected "light brown/caramel" skin as the most attractive skin color for women, and African-American female participants most commonly selected either "light brown/caramel" or "medium-brown" skin as the most attractive skin color for women. Similarly, Coetzee et al. (2014) in Cross-Cultural Agreement in Facial Attractiveness Preferences: The Role of Ethnicity and Gender said in the fourth paragraph of "General Discussion" that African blacks from South Africa preferred "a significantly lighter, yellower and redder complexion" for African black men and women than Scottish whites preferred for African blacks. Figure 1 in the "Methods" section of Coetzee et al. (2014) is a gallery of the African black faces used in the study. The lightest-skinned African black woman in that gallery appears to have medium-brown skin that is a bit darker than Rihanna's skin color, so Rihanna's skin color would probably be highly appraised by both African-Americans and African blacks from South Africa, doubling her representativeness, and increasing the reason an image of her should be included somewhere in the article. Like I previously said in the discussion about the questionable attractiveness of blue eyes, Rihanna's eye color is another reason to include her. She either has light brown or green eyes, and the Sewell (2013) study found African Americans most commonly selected light brown eyes as the most attractive eye color for women while green eyes were most commonly selected as the most attractive eye color for women by all participants overall in the "Combined" statistic.--Ephert (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You should read and reread the Wikipedia policy on using secondary sources as you continue to edit this article and other articles on Wikipedia. This whole article ought to be sourced to an overall textbook or handbook on physical attractiveness--if there is such a thing--and not to a miscellaneous set of primary research papers. And the same applies for articles on other topics. When you and I edit, we should be looking for  reliable sources, especially secondary sources, for topics like this and just about all topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 00:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Study in Psychology Today (using our image of Jessica Alba, btw)
Source here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thornhill and Gangestad 1995 debunked
I am positive that I've read a pretty damning criticism of this study. The main criticism was that, as mentioned in the wiki, the researchers asked both the partners and the women themselves about orgasm frequency, and then turned these responses into a single number per couple. However, when the male partners' responses were removed, and only the womens' presumably more accurate responses were counted, the effect was not statistically significant. I'd be happy to find this article sometime if no one here can find it quickly.--71.59.153.25 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You mean this study? The finding that Women with partners possessing low fluctuating asymmetry and their partners reported significantly more copulatory female orgasms that were reported by women with partners possessing high fluctuating asymmetry and their partners, even with many potential confounding variables controlled -- in other words, the finding that women with better-looking male partners (ie men w/symmetrical faces) are more likely to orgasm -- well this seems to be a reasonable conclusion. The study size (86) is a bit small, and it is not clear how well the researchers controlled the other variables. What sources say that this study was 'debunked'?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Western cultural tradition: women have long scalp hair
Currently, the hair section of the women's section talks about a preference for long hair on women without contextualizing it as a social construct of Western cultural tradition. There are a few isolated cultures across the world where the women customarily keep their scalp hair short that show that this preference is not something rooted in innate brain biology, but, instead, a socially-constructed gender signifier in Western culture that has to be learned through cultural transmission. I think that this section should have a neutral-point-of-view-disputed tag until the idea that long scalp hair makes women more attractive is contextualized as a social construct of Western cultural tradition by statements from additional reliable sources.--Ephert (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You stated, "There are a few isolated cultures across the world where the women customarily keep their scalp hair short." That means that women having long hair is indeed not simply a western culture thing. In fact, looking at different cultures, it's easy to see how prevalent that the "boys/men have short hair and girls/women have long hair" factor is. And, yes, it's socially-constructed, like much of any human society. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Meskó, Paál & Gábor (2012) in The Face and Head Hair of Woman: Long Hairstyle as an Adaptive Means of Displaying Phenotipic Quality said on the upper-left of page 464 that they personally believe in the "good genes model" wherein long hair is an indicator of health, since only healthy women can grow healthy long hair. After acknowledging the variability of hairstyles around the world on the bottom-left of page 467 which would seem to contradict their personal belief in an explanation rooted in evolutionary psychology, Meskó, Paál & Gábor (2012) state on the bottom-left of page 467 that women may keep short hair in other cultures for reasons unrelated to physical attractiveness. The next sentence that follows this statement says that having short hair may keep parasites out of the hair. This hygienic explanation could mean that the existence of isolated, non-Western cultures where women customarily keep their hair short may not be caused by differing preferences in physical attractiveness, so a neutral-point-of-view-disputed tag may not be warranted.--Ephert (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Asian/Pacific Islander preferred body shape for women
Sewell (2013) in What Is Appealing?: Sex and Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Physical Attractiveness of Women on the bottom-left of page 60 said that blacks, whites, Hispanics and the group labeled "Other" most commonly selected the "hourglass" body shape as the most attractive shape for women, but Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected the "thin-all-over" body shape as the most attractive shape for women. Sewell (2013) concludes on the bottom-left of page 61 that, "This study illustrates that answers to questions asking what is the most attractive when it comes to female physical appearance may vary between the sexes and among different racial groups, depending on the characteristic being discussed." This article is currently lacking any depictions of Mongoloid women aside from Jessica Alba who is only 13% indigenous American according to her DNA results on the Lopez Tonight show, and there are currently no women in this article with the "thin-all-over" body type that Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected as most attractive, so I think that a depiction of a Mongoloid woman with the "thin-all-over" body type that Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected as most attractive would make this article better represent the worldview of physical attractiveness.--Ephert (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I added this data table from page 68 of Sewell (2013) to display the percentages of Asian/Pacific Islanders who chose certain height ranges as being the most attractive height range for women. Asian/Pacific Islanders most commonly selected a height range of 5'0" to 5'2" tall as the most attractive height for women while the other groups questioned most commonly selected a height range of 5'3" to 5'6" tall as the most attractive height for women. Based on this data table, I think that finding an image of an Asian/Pacific Islander woman who is 5'0" to 5'2" tall should be a consideration when it comes to choosing an image of a Mongoloid woman who has a body that would most commonly be deemed most attractive by Asian/Pacific Islanders. As I said previously in the paragraph above, finding an image of a Mongoloid woman whose body type is "thin-all-over" should also be a consideration. Let's hope we can find an image of a Mongoloid woman with both of these qualities in Wiki Commons, so we can add an image of a Mongoloid woman studies indicate would have a body most commonly deemed most attractive by Asian/Pacific Islanders.--Ephert (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Racial bias in the waist-to-hip ratio image
The current image for the waist-to-hip ratio section shows a Caucasoid woman who has an hourglass shape due to a fat distribution that deposits fat in her breasts, in her butt region, in her extremities and around her hips, giving her a low waist-to-hip ratio. The current image also shows an obese Caucasoid man with a high waist-to-hip ratio due to his obesity. This image is racially biased against women of Mongoloid race, because it implies that high waist-to-hip ratios are unfeminine, caused by obesity and unattractive. At similar levels of adiposity to the Caucasoid woman in the current image, a typical Mongoloid woman would have a higher waist-to-hip ratio due to accumulating a greater percentage of fat evenly distributed around her trunk and less around her hips, in her breasts, in her butt region, around her hips and in her extremities (legs and arms). The image to the right of an indigenous American and European woman in a friendly embrace clearly shows this racial difference in fat distribution between two healthy women of reproductive age and similar body fat percentages, and, to counter the racial bias in the currently-used image, this new image should be used as a replacement. Note that the reason these racial differences exist is not important to this argument; it is only important to see that these racial differences do exist from the image at the right to understand the racial bias in the image currently used in the article, but I will explain the reason these differences exist, so people will understand that the striking differences seen in the image to the right are not anomalous. Indigenous Americans derive from Northern Asia and they still bear many of the physical adaptations that were adaptive for the extreme cold of Northern Asia even after being removed from this region for thousands of years. Among these adaptations for an extremely cold climate was a change in body fat distribution, so that fat was more centered around the trunk and away from the breasts, butt, hips and extremities to reduce surface area, maximizing heat retention in accordance with Allen's rule. Prior to this change in body fat distribution in Northern Asia that was adaptive to the region's extreme cold, it would be reasonable to assume that the pre-Mongoloid ancestors of Mongoloids before settling in Northern Asia had body fat distributions that were more tropically-adapted and more similar to other races. We can currently see the other extreme in the tropically-adapted steatopygiac women of the Andaman Islands and the tropically-adapted steatopygiac women of certain black African groups. Since Caucasoids evolved in a climate in-between these two temperature extremes, Caucasoid women have body shapes that are intermediate between these two extremes. That was a long explanation, so let me reiterate the change to the article that I am suggesting. The image of the indigenous American and European woman in a friendly embrace should replace the current image, because it counters the racial bias in the current image by showing that different waist-to-hip ratios naturally exist on healthy adult females of reproductive age and similar body fat percentages, and that these differences are not related to obesity, being less of a woman and/or being less attractive.--Ephert (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable, secondary source for any of these assertions, particularly that any of this relates to the article topic here, which is Physical attractiveness? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 22:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a reliable secondary source that supports the existence of racial differences in fat distribution. In Handbook of Pediatric Obesity: Etiology, Pathophysiology, and Prevention, Goran & Sothern (2006), the editors of the book, state in the middle of page 43 that Malina et al. found propotionately more subcutaneous adipose tissue on the trunks of Asian adolescent girls when compared to white adolescent girls, and Malina et al. found proportionately more subcutaneous adipose tissue on the trunks of white adolescent girls when compared to black adolescent girls. Goran and Sothern display a bar graph copied with permission from He et al. (2002) on the top of page 42 which shows that African American girls have more gynoid fat than Caucasian girls and that Caucasian girls have more gynoid fat than Asian girls. Goran and Sothern state in the middle of page 42 that He et al. (2002) found that Caucasian boys have more total limb fat than Asian boys and that Caucasian girls have more total limb fat than Asian girls. In the middle of page 43, Goran & Sothern state that Goran et al. found that Mohawk children had more centrally located fat than Caucasian children and that Mohawk children had significantly higher waist-to-hip ratios when compared to Caucasian children. In the middle of page 42, Goran and Sothern comment on the reality of racial differences in fat distribution with the statement, "Race differences in fat distribution are clearly evident in adults but are less well characterized in prepubertal children."--Ephert (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a reliable secondary source that makes a statement proposing a universal male preference for women with low waist-to-hip ratios, but I consider this to be a controversial statement, because the statement implies that Mongoloid men find the relatively low gynoid fat, relatively high trunk fat and relatively high waist-to-hip ratios of typical Mongoloid women to be of low sexual attractiveness. In The Evolution of Human Sociality: A Darwinian Conflict Perspective, Sanderson (2001) cites seven studies on page 180 which were done by Devendra Singh and his colleagues. On page 180, Sanderson states that Singh found that the preference for a low waist-to-hip ratio was "invariant across different racial and ethnic groups", and, on the bottom of page 180, Sanderson said that a portion of the male participants came from Hong Kong in at least one of Singh's studies. Sanderson states on page 180 that Singh hypothesizes that a preference for women with high gynoid fat and a low waist-to-hip ratio is a universal male preference due to all humans descending from "ancestral males" who maximized their "inclusive fitness" by preferring women with low waist-to-hip ratios. This reference to "ancestral males" appears to invoke the African savanna environment of evolutionary adaptation of evolutionary psychology which may posit that all humans share certain psychological traits which would have been adaptive to their hunter-gatherer ancestors on the African savanna. Sanderson concludes on the bottom of page 180 that more research is needed to see if a preference for women with a low waist-to-hip ratio is truly a universal male preference. I consider Singh's hypothesis to be controversial, because it would imply that ever since the extreme cold-climate body features of Mongoloids evolved which gave rise to the relatively high waist-to-hip ratios found in healthy adult Mongoloid females, Mongoloid men have found the body shape of women of their own race to be low in sexual attractiveness for tens of thousands of years yet still have reproduced with them in large numbers despite a supposed low sexual attraction to their bodies.--Ephert (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a reliable secondary source that is critical of the racial bias which favors white women in WHR research. In Complexities: Beyond Nature and Nurture, Susan McKinnon & Sydel Silverman (2005) state in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 146 that "The claim for the universality of the low WHR has received the most sustained criticism within the evolutionary science literature." On the bottom of page 146, they cite a counter example to the universality of male preference for a low WHR when they mention the Yu & Shepard (1998) study which found a preference for a high (0.9) WHR for women among the isolated Amerindian Matsigenka people of southeastern Peru (the exact (0.9) WHR number comes from a different source: Sorokowski, P. et al. (2014)). They state in the beginning of page 143 that WHR research "assumes a white woman as the norm". On the second paragraph of page 152, they further note the racial bias in WHR research when they conclude with rhetorical questions asking how the vaunted "hourglass shape" promoted by WHR research reflects "racialized hierarchies" with the "idealized white curvaceous woman" at the top and they ask how is a low WHR "both natural and universal". In the first sentence of the last paragraph of page 27, they state that ancestral humans were not situated in a single environment of evolutionary adaptation which is posited by the African savanna hypothesis. Therefore, in their hypothetical framework, I would assume that Mongoloid men would be sexually attracted to the naturally high WHRs of women of their own race in spite of expectations to the contrary supported by much of the WHR research and the African savanna hypothesis, since Mongoloid men would not have inherited the preference for a very low (0.7) WHR from their ancestors on the African savanna. Based on this book, I think that the section about the supposed universality of a preference for a low WHR and its supposed health benefits is given undue weight in the article, so this section should either be removed from the article or counterbalanced with criticism from this book.  I think that the former option is more appropriate, because this is not the article about WHR. A more in-depth discussion about the controversial subject of WHR research and its accompanying criticism should go in the main article about WHR.--Ephert (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a reliable primary source that hypothesizes that the trunk-centralized fat distribution of Mongolian women is an adaptation to a cold climate. In the journal article High Prevalence of Excess Fat and Central Fat Patterning Among Mongolian Pastoral Nomads in the American Journal of Human Biology, Cynthia M. Beall and Melvyn C. Goldstein (1992) in the right column of page 750 state that the average waist-to-hip ratio of Mongolian women is more than two standard deviations above the average waist-to-hip ratio for American women, and in the same paragraph they further note that Mongolian women have a fat distribution that deposits relatively more fat around their abdomens. In the upper-left of page 755, they hypothesize that the trunk-centralized fat distribution of Mongolian women could be an adaptation to conserve heat which would be adaptive in the cold climate where the Mongolian women live. In the same paragraph, they claim that "selection" favored this adaptation, and when they use the word "selection" in this instance they appear to mean natural selection. In the same paragraph they claim that the more spherical shape of Mongolian women is consistent with the predictions of Bergmann's rule. I think that they should have said that the shape is consistent with the predictions of Allen's rule which deals with body shape rather than Bergmann's rule which deals with body size, but I can see how the more trunk-centralized fat distribution of Mongolian women, giving them a larger trunk and a larger trunk size, would also be consistent with Bergmann's rule.--Ephert (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The reliable secondary source that criticizes the racial bias in WHR research also spells out the valuative implications of the assertion of the universality of a male preference for a low WHR. In Complexities: Beyond Nature and Nurture on the bottom of page 151, Susan McKinnon & Sydel Silverman (2005) critically state such an assertion leads to a certain valuative framework wherein conformity to that preference would be considered a legitimate sexual attraction and non-conformity to that preference would be considered "pathological". The authors use the term "pathological" which means that attraction to women with a high WHR is essentially seen as a mental illness in the hypothetical framework of the African savanna hypothesis which is a hypothesis that the authors do not support as implied by their claim in the last paragraph of page 27 that humans did not evolve in a single environment of evolutionary adaptation. This valuative framework pathologizes sexual attraction to women with a high WHR, among whom, of course, would be healthy Mongoloid women of reproductive age, although Mongoloid women are never specifically mentioned, making this idea potentially offensive to conscientious people of all backgrounds. The potentially offensive implication that men are mentally ill by virtue of their sexual attraction to the naturally high WHR of healthy Mongoloid women of reproductive age only adds another reason that the section about the preference for women with a low WHR being something innate, biological and universal is given undue weight in this article.--Ephert (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a reliable primary source that found that white women have a lower average WHR than black women, I have a reliable primary source that found that "Europoid" (white) women have a lower average WHR than Chinese women and I have a reliable primary source that found that Nigerian (black) women have a high average WHR of 0.870, so the idea that all men should prefer a low WHR seems to be an idea which was devised to glorify the physiques of white women rather than being derived from observations of the physiques of average African women under the assumptions of the African savanna hypothesis. In Racial Differences in Bone Density between Young Adult Black and White Subjects Persist after Adjustment for Anthropometric, Lifestyle, and Biochemical Differences, in Table 3, Ettinger et al. (1996) said that black women were measured to have an average WHR of 0.75 while white women were measured to have a lower average WHR of 0.72. In Body mass index, waist circumference, waist-hip ratio, and glucose intolerance in Chinese and Europid adults in Newcastle, UK, in Table 3 on page 164, Unwin et al. (1997) said that the average WHR of Chinese women with normal glucose tolerance was measured to be 0.840 while the average WHR of "Europoid" women with normal glucose tolerance was measured to be 0.774. In Relationship of Waist-Hip Ratio and Body Mass Index to Blood Pressure of Individuals in Ibadan North Local Government, on page 9 in Table 1, Sanya et al. (2009) found that Nigerian (black) women whose average age was 28.41 years old had a high average WHR of 0.870. I thought that researchers developed the idea for a universal preference for a low WHR from observations of the average physiques of African women under the assumptions of the African savanna hypothesis, but it now appears to be a Eurocentric beauty ideal which was devised to glorify the physiques of white women and, consequently, disparage of the physiques of non-European women. In light of these numbers that show that a low WHR seems to be primarily a European genetic trait due to the peculiar fat distribution pattern of white women, I can now better understand the truth of the statements of Susan McKinnon & Sydel Silverman (2005) in Complexities: Beyond Nature and Nurture on the second paragraph of page 152 about the vaunted "hourglass shape" promoted by WHR research being reflective "racialized hierarchies" with the "idealized white curvaceous woman" at the top.--Ephert (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In a review article which is a reliable secondary source, Devendra Singh said that populations where the women have higher WHRs like the Inuit may find women with higher WHRs to be attractive. In Female Mate Value at a Glance: Relationship of Waist-to-Hip Ratio to Health, Fecundity and Attractiveness, in the second paragraph of the right column of page 89, Devendra Singh (2002) said that "Population-specific" differences in the distribution of WHR may affect the WHR which is considered to be "maximally attractive". Singh futher said that in populations where the women have higher WHRs, of whom he mentioned the "Eskimos of Alaska", men may find women with higher WHRs to be "quite attractive". Singh qualified this statement by saying in the same paragraph that men in "a population" should still find WHRs lower than their WHRs to be "maximally attractive". This hypothetical framework seems to allow for multiple ideal WHRs for women rather than the single, Eurocentric 0.7 ideal which is currently being touted in this article as being the normative ideal. In The Health of Native Americans: Toward a Biocultural Epidemiology, on page 143 at bottom of the second paragraph, T. Kue Young (1994) said that non-diabetic Navajo men have an average WHR of 0.96, and non-diabetic Navajo women have an average WHR of 0.89. If we take Singh's idea of WHR ideals that are specific to populations and apply that idea to the Navajo, that idea may mean that Navajo men may find the 0.89 WHR of average Navajo women to be ideal. One of the major problems with the current version of this article is that it gives undue weight to the Eurocentric WHR ideal of 0.7 which probably is reflective of the average preferences of white men and not other groups of people like the Inuit, the Navajo or other Mongoloid peoples where the women normally have relatively high WHRs. The relevant section of this article should be structured so it just talks about multiple WHR ideals without putting white men's ideal WHR of 0.7 as normative in relation to other people's ideals, because the current version of this article reads like it is implying that the hourglass body shape of the average white woman is the normative sexually attractive body shape, and the thin-all-over body shape of the average Mongoloid woman is not the normative sexually attractive body shape when that sentiment is probably not shared with the majority of men of Mongoloid race if we apply what appears to be Singh's hypothetical framework that allows for multiple WHR ideals which are specific to individual populations.--Ephert (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Late 19th century black Africans' perception of their own attractiveness
Here is an account from the late nineteenth century of uncontacted black Africans' perception of their own physical attractiveness relative to white people's physical attractiveness. In The Works of Charles Darwin, Volume 22 which written in 1989, on the bottom of page 605, Charles Darwin appears to talk about the experiences of William Winwood Reade from Reade's account in the African Sketch Book which was written in 1873. Darwin reported that Reade told of his impressions of black Africans from the interior of Africa who had "never associated with Europeans". Reade was reported to have said that these black Africans did not consider very flat African noses to be attractive. Also, Reade was reported to have said that these black Africans like the long hair of white people and also the thick beard of white men, but Reade was reported to have said that these black Africans did not like white people's skin color, their blue eyes, their long noses and their thin lips. Unfortunately, this account of black Africans' beliefs of physical attractiveness is framed in a negative rather than a positive way. That is to say, it is not framed as black Africans finding their own skin color, their own eye color, their own nose length and their own lip thickness as being attractive physical traits. Instead, it is framed as black Africans finding the contrasting features of white people to be unattractive. I was wondering whether or not it would be considered a faithful representation of this source to reframe its statements in a positive way. My proposition would be to cite this source for the idea that black Africans in the interior of Africa from the late nineteenth century who had "never associated with Europeans" found their own skin color, their own eye color, their own nose length and their own lip thickness to be attractive physical traits. What do other people think of using this source in this way?--Ephert (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Male/Female Lip Size
According to studies that measure the lips physically, men have larger lips. Women have overall smaller faces however and narrower lips. For whatever reason I've often seen it mentioned that women have larger lips though. I think it's partially due to a desire to legitimize changes in beauty standards, seeing as full lips are particularly trendy. Should I link some studies here that show the measured differences? Sleepyed (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)sleepyed

Jesus is sexy
Jesus in media and artistic images is very masculine young man with slim body, facial hair and other manly features. Also in crucifixion he wearing nothing but a loincloth and exposing his toned and sun-kissed body. The body of Jesus has been the subject of many paintings over the centuries, and showing his masculinity and his slimness --Fastez (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Fastez, as you know, I reverted you here and Isambard Kingdom reverted you here. I reverted because Jesus is not so commonly cited as physically attractive or sexy...that he needs to be placed as a lead image. Your addition was also unsourced; this is a case where citing a figure as physically attractive should have WP:Reliable sources for inclusion. There is also WP:Offensive material to take into consideration when it comes to displaying religious images in this way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. There was a good deal of discussion in early Christianity as to whether Jesus was attractive or very ordinary looking, a matter never really settled. See Depiction of Jesus. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Male Beauty
This article has tons of photos of females, but none of males. Shouldn't this imbalance be corrected? --Roland 03:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , good point about the current state of the article. It used to feature Adonis as part of the lead image, but that was recently removed by an IP. The IP removed two other images as well, including this male image. I responded with this edit.


 * On a side note: You need to fix your signature. It should have a link to your user page/talk page so that editors can click on it and learn more about you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You can also see that, via this edit, I initially got your username wrong (despite having seen your username in the edit history), which also posed a problem when trying to WP:Ping you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Indian beauty
Former Miss World and top Indian actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan is often cited as the "most beautiful woman in the world", for which she has received worldwide attention. Atleast from South Asian perspective she can be considered very beautiful. Her pic should be put in article.Amateur0 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fertility-driven Attractiveness
We are thinking of adding some informations on this article as part of a university project. I am thinking of working especially on the fertility-driven attractiveness section, focusing mainly on how women's attractiveness is perceived across her menstrual cycle , and the impact of hormones on women's attractiveness. Here are some sources I am thinking of using, please if anyone has more advice, don't hesitate to let met know :) Drey02 (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

___

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

Animal physical attraction
(new section) Thinking of adding a section associated with animal attraction, including both primates and non-primates. Some of the references I will be using is as follows:

Smith, A. S., Ågmo, A., Birnie, A. K., & French, J. A. (2010). Manipulation of the oxytocin system alters social behavior and attraction in pair-bonding primates, Callithrix penicillata. Hormones and Behaviour, 57, 255-262.

Tegoni, M., Campanacci, V., & Cambillau, C. (2004). Structural aspects of sexual attraction and chemical communication in insects. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 29, 257-264.

Herbert, J. (1977). Gonadal Hormones and Sexual Behavior in Groups of Adult Talapoin Monkeys (Miopithecus talapoin). Hormones and Behaviour, 8, 141-154. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.g.rooney25 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Contraceptive pill
For my university project I will be adding a section to this article focusing on how attraction differs when women are on the contraceptive pill. Here are some examples of research I am thinking of using:

Roberts, S. C., Cobey, K. D., Klapilová, K., & Havlíček, J. (2013). An evolutionary approach offers a fresh perspective on the relationship between oral contraception and sexual desire. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(8), 1369-1375.

Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Cobey, K. D., Klapilová, K., Havlíček, J., ... & Petrie, M. (2014). Partner Choice, Relationship Satisfaction, and Oral Contraception The Congruency Hypothesis. Psychological science, 25(7), 1497-1503.

Russell, V. M., McNulty, J. K., Baker, L. R., & Meltzer, A. L. (2014). The association between discontinuing hormonal contraceptives and wives’ marital satisfaction depends on husbands’ facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(48), 17081-17086.

Roberts, S. C., Klapilová, K., Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., ... & Havlíček, J. (2011). Relationship satisfaction and outcome in women who meet their partner while using oral contraception.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, rspb20111647. Hhammam (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Youthulness
For my Human Sexuality course at University I will be adding to the section which discusses attractiveness and youthfulness in females. I will be focusing on an evolutionary explanation for this and some of the research which may be included is listed below:

Clarke, L. C. H. (2002). Beauty in later life: Older women's perceptions of physical attractiveness. Canadian Journal on Aging, 21, 429-442.

Farmer, H., McKay, R., Tsakiris, M. (2014). Trust in Me: Trustworthy Others Are Seen as More Physically Similar to the Self. Psychological Science, 25, 290-292.

Iglesias-Julios. M., Munoz-Reyes, J. A., Pita, M., & Tturiegano, E. (2015). Facial Features: What Women Perceive as Attractive and What Men Consider Attractive. PLoS ONE, 10.

Karupiah, P. (2015). Have beauty ideals evolved? Reading of beauty ideals in Tamil movies by Malaysian Indian youths. Sociological Inquiry, 85, 239-261.

Oberzaucher, E., & Grammer, K. (2010). Immune reactivity and attractiveness. Gerontology, 56, 521-524.

Ricciardelli, L. A. & Williams, R. J. (2012). Beauty over the centuries - Male. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Swami, V. & Furham, A. (2008). The psychology of Attraction. New York, NY:Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group

Zebrowitz, L. A., Rhodes, G. (2002). Nature let a hundred flowers bloom: The multiple ways and wherefores of attractiveness. In G. Rhodes, L. A.

Zebrowitz (Eds.). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 261-293). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing

Peer review
i think the article is very well structured and organized with informative neutral content. i think what would be really interesting to add in the social effects section of physical attractiveness is evidence for the existence of relationship between physical attractiveness and personality. Studies have show that symmetry is closely related to physical attractiveness and symmetry is related to more social aversive personalities among individuals. Sine there is evidence for these two correlations it would be interesting to see if there is research on how attractive people lead to certain personality traits

Aditi bhansali (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

___

Peer Review
I think your discussion of youthfulness is a great addition to the Wikipedia page. The style of writing is easy to understand and you have made sure that the content is accessible to a wide audience of readers without jeopardising any of the accuracy. Perhaps you could highlight the evolutionary reasons for why women are attracted to older men and men are attracted to younger women? My first thought would be to talk about the fertility of younger women compared to older women, and the fitness of older men compared to younger men who cannot offer as much in terms of resources. In particular features of youthfulness influence peoples' perceptions of attractiveness. Studies have shown that youthfulness of facial features influences' men's perceptions of women's attractiveness but not the other way around. Evolutionarily, younger, more fertile women have higher mate value and are considered more attractive. Linking your section on fertility-driven attractiveness with youthfulness could help the flow of the whole page. It could also be interesting to mention that women consider older men more attractive than younger men, potentially because, evolutionarily, older men have more resources and higher mate value.

EBL 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice! I was definitely planning to include the evolutionary point that older males generally have a higher mate value due to increased resources and your references will be very useful. (Psuneh (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC))

____

Peer Review 3
I think this article is great overall - the layout and list format makes it easy to read and understand. It could be interesting to add some information about the influence of status symbols on male physical attractiveness - studies have shown that women consider status symbols to contribute to physical attractiveness of men. For example, one study found that the same male model was rated as more attractive when sitting in a "high-status" car, but this has no effect on male ratings of female models. Another study found that women rate men as more attractive when they are wearing a red shirt than when they are wearing a blue shirt, and suggests that this is because the red colour makes men appear more powerful The article might be improved by adding some information on this, perhaps with evolutionary reasons for why women value resources and strength in men. Oryx7892 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

___

Peer review of youthfulness section
This is a really interesting section and particularly interesting because it has been linked to real life data from dating websites.

One or two points could be clarified a bit more. It needs to be slightly clearer why youthfulness is an indicator of physical attractiveness from the evolutionary perspective. You could go into more detail about this.

Where it says 'women's attractiveness does not change between 18 and 40', this is not clear what you mean. Does this mean that male's opinions of female attractiveness does not change? On a similar note, I think the following sentence needs to be clarified 'This may explain why age combating age declines in attractiveness occurs from a younger age in women than in men.' You could change the wording to make it clearer to the reader.

You could perhaps link 'pheromones' to the wikipedia page for it as some readers may not be aware of what they are. And similarly, perhaps explain in more detail what 'honest signals' are and what the research and theory is behind this.

Overall, it is a well written section! EllaMcCann (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EllaMcCann (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I'm actually considering making the evolutionary perspective my focus! Also, although I didn't write the paragraph saying 'women's attractiveness does not change between 18 and 40' or that about pheromones I'll definitely look into making it all a bit clearer so that my additional paragraphs link in well. (Psuneh (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC))

__

PEER REVIEW
Changes you could make to the youthfulness:

1. Could include the fact that women are the most physically attractive to males when their reproductive value is at it's highest, Symons (1979) suggests this is late teens but precise data on this point is lacking

2. A few more hyperlinks to relevant articles would be handy and useful to readers

Psunco (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will do! (Psuneh (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC))

___

WP:Student editing
WP:Student editing has recently been going on at this article, and not all of it has been good. As seen above, I objected to material that Hhammam added. I'm not stating that none of it should be added, but it does need tweaking.

Hhammam, Psuneh, and R.g.rooney25, when experienced Wikipedians object to your edits to this article, you are supposed to take the time to discuss the matter at the article talk page, not immediately revert or assume you know what the problem is and restore the material. When Izno reverted here, for example, none of you addressed the matter here on the talk page. Do read what WP:Student editing states about working with experienced Wikipedians. This article is big enough as it is, so WP:SIZE is something to consider, and I feel that a lot of what is being added is overkill or WP:Undue weight. Noting evolutionary perspectives is fine, but going overboard with it is another thing. And the recently added Sexual ornamentation subsection in the Female physical attractiveness section addresses the breasts and buttocks, which already have subsections in that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I could tell, the immediate edit after mine fixed the format; I think the editor who I reverted had copy-pasted incorrectly from sandbox (perhaps assuming something about VE which was not true). In general, the article needs some massaging--while I'm not sure WEIGHT isn't being observed, the format of the article probably isn't the best shape for it to take. --Izno (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn I was unaware there was an issue with my addition on the evolutionary perspective of youthfulness. Much of the information written is descriptive, rather than explanatory, in this section and so I assumed this would be a good addition. The fact that I received no complaints or comments when I mentioned I would be making the addition also led me to believe this was acceptable. It would therefore have been better if this was discussed before my latest addition was reverted back to my February addition. This is because I have refined the writing much more and so, of course, would rather have this visible than the previous piece. If this is too heavily evolutionary, I'm sure it can be shortened. I will therefore add the latest paragraphs again and wait to see/discuss the changes. (Psuneh (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC))
 * You didn't change your content an jot. You added it right back. That is edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdod Yes, the content had been changed and developed substantially from my earlier inclusion (Feb 2016) which has once again been placed back in the article. Yes, I added it back due to the aforementioned reason, however, I will just leave it at that. (Psuneh (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC))
 * I'm looking at the article History and your contribution history. May 4 just into May 5 you made this edit, which Flyer reverted most of on May 5.   You tweaked the citations in your sandbox on May 5 and added the whole thing right back on May 8.  Flyers' comments above weren't about the citations, now were they. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog Yes, reverted most of it back to my original contribution. It is the difference between my original contribution and latest contribution (May 4/5th) that I was referring to. No, the comments were clearly about the depth of the evolutionary perspective which is why I said that the minimal content which did remain could still come from my latest contribution instead. However, as said, I will leave it as is. (Psuneh (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC))

"The effects of oral contraception on physical attractiveness"
Hhammam, the "The effects of oral contraception on physical attractiveness" section you added is problematic per Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). That is why I reverted you here and here. Do not keep restoring this material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn I modified the section using secondary sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I was wondering what can be done to improve the section further in order to remain in the article? Hhammam (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hhammam, the addition still looked somewhat problematic, which is why I reverted it. There is also the matter of WP:Due weight. It would have been better had you discussed the matter here on the talk page before simply re-adding all that material. Pinging Jytdog for his opinion on the material and on what should be salvaged from it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

content
One aspect of physical attraction that oral contraception can affect is female’s attraction to masculine males. For example, women that are not using hormonal contraception are more likely to prefer a masculine face, body shape and voice during the fertile phase of their menstrual cycle. However, women taking the contraceptive pill do not experience the same peak in the middle of their cycle. This reduced preference for masculine partners has been shown by Little, Burris, Petrie, Jones and Roberts (2013) who found that the partners of women using hormonal contraceptive were rated less masculine than those who did not use oral contraception Masculine facial traits are cues of genetic and fitness benefits. For example, Masculine-faced men are healthier, stronger and more dominant. They also pursue more short term than long-term relationships, indicating little investment. It has been suggested that the weaker preference for masculine faces and voices seen in women using contraceptives is due to the raised progesterone levels, which are similar to that of pregnancy where good genes are of low importance and a preference for more feminine, cooperative and investing males is more valuable. An alternative theory is that women on the contraceptive pill do not experience the increased attention to masculine features around the time of ovulation that non-pill users do and so are less attentive to masculine features.
 * The effects of oral contraception on physical attractiveness
 * Masculinity

Increased progesterone levels during oral contraception use also increases women's attraction to healthy faces as progesterone can weaken the immune system and an increased attraction to healthy faces may be adaptive to reduce risk of infection.


 * Smell

Scent can influence physical attractiveness, for example exposure to male pheromones increased the attractiveness of men to women. Additionally, research has found that women preferred the odour of genetically dissimilar men to those who were genetically similar. They also prefer the odour of symmetrical males when in the fertile phase of their menstrual cycle. However, this is not seen in women using oral contraception who instead report having a higher preference for the scent of genetically similar males. It has been suggested that this may be because oral contraceptives produce a hormonal state similar to pregnancy, where a preference for genetically similar relatives is beneficial as they may provide support in raising your child.


 * Men’s perception of attractiveness

Oral contraception does not only affect women’s perception of attraction. It has been found that men rated women’s voices, and odours as more attractive around the fertile phase. For women using oral contraception this variation along the menstrual cycle was not seen. Men in relationships also rated their partners as less attractive when using hormonal contraception than when they were regularly cycling. It has also been found that oral contraception can affect men’s perception of their own attractiveness, as men rated themselves as less attractive when their partner was using oral contraception than then their partners were regularly cycling. It is thought that this is because men find women most attractive when progesterone levels are low, which corresponds to fertility, whereas oral contraception increases progesterone levels to that of pregnancy, indicating low risk of conception.

Posting here for easier consideration/discussion. Will read and comment in a bit. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC) So, sourcing is unacceptable. This is not useable. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * refs
 * none of these sources are adequately cited. None had PMIDs which made this a huge waste of my time to check.
 * Several of these links violate WP:ELNEVER. Source 7 is a deadlink; I think it is meant to be ?
 * Ref 8  is the only review here that I could identify.
 * content
 * The content handles "evolutionary psychology" notions without nuance. This kind of thing is not OK: "Masculine facial traits are cues of genetic and fitness benefits. For example, Masculine-faced men are healthier, stronger and more dominant. " Not acceptable.


 * Thank you for analyzing this situation, Jytdog. I'm so busy (off Wikipedia) these days that I barely have enough time for Wikipedia anymore. I have to go out of my way to make time for it, like now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog this is a copy of the first contribution I made, my in my revised section I had removed most of these references and used reviews instead. Therefore, I had thought that these issues would no longer be a problem. Hhammam (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what a "review" is.  Sourcing was not the only problem. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

pictures of guys
In order to remain neutral, I think it's important that this article also feature at least one photo or representation of male attractiveness. It currently has 11 pictures of female attractiveness. I don't know much about Wikipedia so suggestions welcome. 70.60.230.215 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No objections here. anything you find here should be fine to use.Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, this was brought up before: Talk:Physical attractiveness/Archive 4. One reason that so many pictures of women have been in the article might be because the male editors had more interest in female beauty. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also noticed this. There should be one in the lead as well.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. See here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A person who is ugly can have a completely symmetrical body
A person who is ugly can have a completely symmetrical body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.50.217 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Alot of ugly people are super intelligent
I removed the theory that good looking people are intelligent. Most nobel prize winners are ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.50.217 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to have a source about that. The List of Nobel laureates in Literature does not include supermodels, but I see among them decently-looking people like Selma Lagerlöf, Grazia Deledda, and Sigrid Undset. Dimadick (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

IP, what you were reverted on is not stating that good-looking people are automatically intelligent. It's speaking of the perception more than anything. And in any case, there is the "dumb blonde" perception for some physically attractive women with blond hair. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I will state that the author behind the source, Satoshi Kanazawa, is quite controversial, though. In cases like these, it's best to look into his work and see how it holds up to the general literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Primary source studies
Ephert, adding primary source after primary source study is not the way to build Wikipedia articles. I think I've told you this before. Look for WP:Secondary sources instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The WP:NOR article currently says, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." The physical attractiveness article in its current state is not only based on primary sources, so the first part of the guideline about not basing whole articles on primary sources does not seem like it applies here. The second part of the guideline says to be cautious about basing large passages on primary sources, and I am going to assume that is what you are talking about. I am also going to assume that you are talking about my most recent contributions which was a citation about Brazilian ideas of attractiveness in this edit and a citation about Luo ideas of attractiveness in this edit. Unfortunately, the WP:NOR article in its current state does not seem to explain what the word "cautious" entails in that specific instance of its guideline. I do not know, but I guess that the word "cautious" as used in that instance of the guideline means Wikipedia editors have to be cautious when citing primary sources that make extraordinary claims and Wikipedia editors have to be cautious that the primary sources being cited are reliable. The citation about Brazil claimed that they liked women with big butts in Brazil, and the citation about the Luo claimed that the Luo liked women with big butts too, and I do not think that either of these claims are extraordinary. The primary sources about the Luo people and the Brazilian people appear to be reliable. The guy who wrote the book for the Brazilian claim is Don Kulick, and he's a professor of anthropology. One of the authors of the Luo claim is a professor in the Department of Literary Studies at Maseno University in Kenya as stated in the first page of the academic journal article which was cited, so you have a professor at a Kenyan university making claims about how the people who live in his area (the Luo people) think after analyzing subject matter relevant to his or her field of study (music of the Luo people) in an academic journal article. Yes, they are both primary sources, but using primary sources is allowed, and they do not appear to be making extraordinary claims, and they appear to be reliable sources for the claims that they are making.--Ephert (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Flyer22, primary sources should be avoided as much as possible. Because we cannot necessarily judge correctly whether a professor in Luo music is a reliable source for claims about physical preferences. This kind of stuff very quickly becomes synthesis or at least invites the reader to do the synthesis for us.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ephert, the WP:Primary sources policy is clear that we should generally avoid primary sources. Rather, we should use them sparingly unless using them is necessary. You rely too heavily on them. I'm saying that you should rely more heavily on secondary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you look at the secondary sources part of the policy, it states, "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The university professor from the Department of Literary Studies at the Kenyan university in the academic journal article which was cited must have read song lyrics and/or some other type of literature which served as his or her primary sources. Then, the university professor at the Kenyan university must have made his or her "interpretive" claim that the Luo people liked women with big butts, so the professor appears to actually be a secondary source who made an "interpretive" claim based on primary sources that he or she read. Therefore, it seems to be okay to include the "interpretive" claim attributed to the Kenyan university source, because the "interpretive" claim being made in that source appears to have been made based on his or her interpretation of primary sources.--Ephert (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The professor is a primary source for her own interpretation of those lyrics, and a secondary source for the contents of the songs/texts. We are not writing about the content of the songs/texts here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A web page at Lafeyette College Library says, for the academic discipline of "Literature", possible primary sources include "contemporary review, interview, letter, manuscript, personal account, published work", and the web page says that its list which includes the list specific to literature is an "incomplete list of things that might be considered primary sources". Judging by its list for the academic discipline of literature, it appears to be that things that were written down in the case of "letter" or things that were said in the case of "interview" are considered fair game in the academic discipline of literature. Although song lyrics were not specifically listed in the library's list as being possible primary sources for the academic discipline of literature, the range of primary sources in the academic discipline of literature seems very broad, seemingly encompassing things that were written or spoken and probably encompassing song lyrics too. The academic journal article from the Kenyan university must have passed peer review to be published in an academic journal article, so other literary studies academic people must have viewed song lyrics as acceptable primary sources to make the interpretive claims that the professor and his or her co-author made.--Ephert (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That a source is peer reviewed does not mean that it is not a primary source for its own analytical claims. The article is not about physical attractiveness but about song lyrics, YOU are the one who is interpreting the article to be relevant for this topic. I think that is problematic. Unless you can find a secondary source that cites the article by Magak and Okombo I don't think it belongs in this article at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the Luo article and also Kulick's study which is not about physical attractiveness in Brazil but about the lives of travestis. A book that actually is about concepts of physical attractiveness in Brazil is the ethnography Pretty Modern by Alexander Edmonds.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Maunus said, at 09:10 on 12/2/2016, in this edit, that "The article is not about physical attractiveness but about song lyrics, YOU are the one who is interpreting the article to be relevant for this topic." I can see how someone could easily misinterpret Maunus's statement here to mean that Maunus is claiming that Magak & Okombo (2014) article did not make statements about what Luo people find physically attractive when Maunus must have meant by his or her phrase "not about physical attractiveness" that the article was not only an article about physical attractiveness. I believe that this is the correct interpretation of Maunus's words, since Maunus later said, at 09:14 on 12/2/2016, in this edit,"I think Ephert is very clearly conducting original research by extracting information about physical attractiveness in different cultures from texts that are not about physical attractiveness but only mention local concepts of physical attractiveness in passing while discussing other topics." which is a statement that indicates that Maunus is making a distinction between texts that "only mention" a concept and texts that are "about" a concept. I would just like to make this clarification about a meaning which I do not think is readily apparent, so other people will not confuse Maunus's meaning in his or her statement here to mean something other than what he or she intended.--Ephert (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Ephert is very clearly conducting original research by extracting information about physical attractiveness in different cultures from texts that are not about physical attractiveness but only mention local concepts of physical attractiveness in passing while discussing other topics. This is not a proper way of writing wikipedia articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Maunus said, in this edit, "I think Ephert is very clearly conducting original research by extracting information about physical attractiveness in different cultures from texts that are not about physical attractiveness but only mention local concepts of physical attractiveness in passing while discussing other topics." I do not see how what Maunus talked about in his or her quote in the previous sentence is an example of original research. Maybe Maunus can show me where such a thing is addressed in the WP:OR policy. To clarify what Maunus is talking about, Maunus is talking about me citing page 70 of Don Kulick's book Travesti: sex, gender, and culture among Brazilian transgendered prostitutes (1998), and saying since Travesti is a book about travestis and not about physical attractiveness in particular when Don Kulick talked about physical attractiveness ideals in Brazil it is inadmissible even though Don Kulick would be considered a reliable source for that information as it is within his field of research. I'll put forth an analogy in case people do not understand. It is like saying that a cultural anthropology professor who did research about prostitutes in ancient China and who wrote a book about prostitutes in ancient China could not have a page within his or her book cited for a statement about the ancient Chinese ideal of small feet known about through evidence of footbinding and other possibly textual evidence, since the main topic of his or her book is about prostitutes in ancient China and not the ancient Chinese ideal of small feet in particular even though the ancient Chinese ideal of small feet would be a topic that would be within his or her field of research. I think that closest policy I know of that sounds similar to what Maunus is saying is the policy about not being allowed to take quotes of out context to change their meaning even though that's completely different. However, I think that other people might read what User:Maunus said and think that he or she is referring to said policy about misrepresenting sources. To address this foreseeable misunderstanding, I have written down page 70 of Don Kulick's book Travesti in a box above. In the copy of page 70 above, I have highlighted the most relevant parts in yellow. These parts that are highlighted in yellow were not highlighted in yellow in the original text. A person can compare the original text of page 70 in the box above and the part I wrote which was cited to the original text in this edit to see that I did not misrepresent the source.--Ephert (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a kind of synthesis and Original Research to find passing mentions in books that are now specifically about x topic to write about x. It is kind of the equivalent of doing a survey of primary sources. Kulick is not writing about physical attrativeness but is writing n ethnographic study of trasvesti life. He is not an expert in concepts of physical attractiveness in brazil, and cannot be expected to necessarily represent the mainstream view on that. So if we want to write about physical attractiveness in brazil we should use sources about physical attractiveness in Brazil (and there are many). I agree that it is not a clear cut violation of OR, but I think it is clearly not the way we write good articles in wikipedia to use sources in the way you are doing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Manga image of young girl
I removed the image of "Wikipe-tan" but an IP editor reverted me twice and suggested I take it to the talk page, so I am doing so.

I want to remove this image because:
 * 1) It is highly inappropriate for Wikipedia to use an image of a fictional child - or an image that looks like it is depicting a child, at any rate - to illustrate physical attractiveness. We can of course illustrate the concept of neotenous facial features on adults - a concept that is discussed already in the text - without using images of children.
 * 2) One of the sources cited in the image caption is a blog, which is not a reliable source.
 * 3) The other source cited, a book of cultural criticism about anime films, does not actually verify the claims made in the caption - there is no mention of "neoteny", "large eyes" etc. in the entire book (which is available online as a PDF, so I was able to search for those exact phrases in it).
 * 4) The warning that appears when anyone edits the article states that images of people must have reliable sources to indicate they have been notably referred to as physically attractive. But the caption does not even make this claim about this specific image. It is pure WP:SYNTH.

In summary, both this image and its caption should removed due to being inappropriate, WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH.--greenrd (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree - in particular the attractiveness of "neoteny" is only partly, if at all, sexual, which is what this article is mainly about. Hence puppies, kittens, and other animal favourites. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree.. Your primary argument is it isn't appropriate for the article which is highly up for debate and two people do not a consesnsus make.  Your other two complaints stand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangrim (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. This is not an image of a young girl. This is an image of wikipe-tan. Person who removed this is batshit crazy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan More, the image is there to describe a category of physical attractiveness. 2001:558:6025:75:6168:955F:54A1:6CB9 (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks please. Also, Wikipe-tan is a young girl, and appears to be under 18 in this image.--greenrd (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * She is not a young girl, she's a drawing. 206.41.25.114 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ... of a young girl. Marteau (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. That most certainly is a representation of a young girl and its usage as an example of features men desire is completely inappropriate and unsourced. Marteau (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Jimbo had it right in 2007. Just no.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that image improves the article. And if its caption is WP:OR, it certainly should stay removed. Ephert, did you add that image, like you added most of the other images? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked through previous versions of this article to try to find the first instance of that image of Wikipe-tan, and I think that I tracked down the first instance of that image. I think that User:Anddme was the editor who first added it to this article in this edit on December 16, 2015. I added a different anime image about a bishōnen in this edit on May 1, 2011, and I used The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Japanese Culture as a reference for the inclusion of a drawing of a bishōnen for that edit on May 1, 2011. The quote located on page 45 in The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Japanese Culture which is relevant for the inclusion of a bishōnen drawing is, "Literally 'beautiful boys', bishōnen refers most directly to a style of depiction of male characters in manga for adolescent girls. Bishōnen are uniformly svelte, with enormous eyes and features recognisably male, but nearly as delicate and beautiful as those of the depiction of female characters. Bishōnen narratives often involve a homo-erotic romance between these beautiful young men." I think you may be recalling this other anime image that I added, because they are both anime images.--Ephert (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I wasn't recalling anything, though. My memory is usually very good, but I wasn't sure who added that image. I asked if you added it because you've added most of the images and image captions in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Physical attractiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140630103616/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/preferred%20waist.pdf to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/preferred%20waist.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140601070431/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/profilewhr.pdf to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/profilewhr.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is a nightmare
There is no solution to fixing this article except totally tearing it down and building it up from scratch. It is an absolute mess: politically, socially, structurally, scientifically.Nmwe5j58 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Nmwe5j58, I see that you are advocating for WP:TNT. You have to give guideline or policy-based reasons for your argument, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

facial beauty
we need a separate article for facial beauty. All of these qualities are wonderful but after it's all said and done we are attracted to a beautiful face.i learned nothing about what makes a face beautiful except symmetry. the words "symmetry" and "symmetrical" appear over 65 times in this article which is frankly absurd. symmetrical faces be ugly and asymmetrical faces can be good looking.. why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:5D0:3D90:E931:61DA:83CC (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

OkCupid and Coffee Meets Bagel material
As seen here and here, I twice reverted the following addition by :

___

Data from OkCupid has show that men tended to not be attracted to African American women, but other wise had little racial preference. Women first preferred their own race, but had white men as a second place (except for white women who had white men as their number one preference). A study from Coffee Meets Bagel shows that Asian women prefer White men more than White men prefer Asian women.

___

I reverted because this data comes from the OkCupid and Coffee Meets Bagel dating site blogs and the text generalizes the preferences of white men, white women and Asian women. These are not encyclopedic sources in any way, and, per WP:Reliable sources, blogs are typically not the type of sources we should be including (unless it's a news blog, which still has exceptions). As for the other OkCupid material in the article, I don't agree with it being included either, but it is at least tailored to the OkCupid site and is not written in a way that seems to be suggesting that men and women are that way in general. Pinging Maunus, Greenrd, Johnbod and Zefr for their thoughts on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. These are not secondary sources suitable for an encyclopedia per WP:SOURCETYPES. To be 'secondary', they would have to be part of an analysis by another source, such as a social science publication, a scholarly book or news outlet. --Zefr (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

stereotype and assumptions
Where to begin...


 * Men:
 * 1) 'Flat abdomen' There's plenty of women who are attracted to chubby men with big bellies, finding it both visually pleasant and arousing, especially those with preference for older men
 * 2) 'Genitalia' No mention of the scrotum
 * 3) 'Hairiness' Again, plenty of women who find men with hair visually pleasant and arousing... girls, I mean shaved men, are a product of society in the several last decades


 * Women:
 * 1) 'Genitalia' Heterosexual/bisexual men being aroused by women's genitalia isn't the same as finding it visually attractive, in fact many men don't find vulva aesthetically appealing, likely why some societies cut off the labia to make it nicer looking
 * 2) 'Breasts' Many women regardless of self-identified orientation also find breasts of other women attractive, not sure why this is so often attributed to men alone, heterosexual women find breasts attractive aesthetically, that's not the same as liking them sexually
 * 3) 'Buttocks' Why aren't they mentioned as part of Men's physical attractiveness? Many women like buttocks
 * 4) 'Nose' Likewise, nice nose is very attractive on a man, ask a heterosexual woman
 * 5) 'Eyes' Likewise, eyes are on the top of the list of what women attracts to men

89.173.151.168 (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We should go by what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. These sources are usually talking about what people are typically attracted to. For example, typically, men are sexually attracted to slender women as opposed to chubby or overweight women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, as noted before on this talk page, most of the research in this area is heteronormative. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Hairiness", I'm not sure why you mean that to be an insult. Men shaving their face is a result mostly of usefulness. Someone with facial hair fairs poorly when trying to don a gas mask. So the military and many public safety sectors instituted facial hair standards to adhere to that. Unless you put on a special much longer to equip gas mask than any facial hair besides a moustache would be of much less value to an individual. The hair stops the rubber from forming an airtight seal. So you would have to already be wearing a rubber or latex open face hood to put on a gas mask in the proper amount of time. Then also have the mask be effective for long periods of time. The two easiest professions I can think up that should require no facial hair is the military (where I learned to not have facial hair as an identity) and a firefighter. You must have some saline injected big balls to call the military and firemen girls. It's also not a modern phenomenon. Many Greeks and afterward more Romans thought it barbaric to have an unclean face which included grooming of the hair. In most cases shaving it off. I know not your profession but you are ill informed on the subject based on an ignorance of knowing your history. In fact there are very few true empires where Viking like facial hair was acceptable. And most giant empires in history did not grow facial hair, I don't know your heritage or where you learned history but from a lot of your comments you fail ro know your history. In another example being overweight is generally only considered attractive in societies where it equates to wealth and prestige. Not the actual fat belly itself. If you want the scrotum mentioned then I suggest you look up,research articles about it and then you can have it put in. You should be aware if you actually follow links or read the cited material it is misquoted often on Wikipedia, comes from a non reputable source like vogue or readers digest, or simply doesn't exist. If you don't like something start with the citations. Read them. Are they being authored correctly into the article. Is the subject being cited even in the cited material (a cheap trick used by people who try to muddy the waters about climate change and such is to use citations that have nothing to do with the statements they are making). They just put a citation to it because they assume (correctly) visrtually no one who isn't an academic will read the citation.


 * Again with your complaints about women find material you can cite and present it. Don't just complain about it and hope someone else does the work only       you seem interested in.


 * There really isn't a list per se that you mentioned about in what women are attracted to. But you could list almost any body part and each gender will have an opinion about it. There is no top of a list for such an abstract subject. And I would change it from "what women attracts to men" to " what attracts women to a man". If you want it to sound better.


 * But I think you are putting too much thought into this as if this were say a math theorem or physics theory which is concrete and debatable with irrefutable data if done correctly. This subject is very abstract and not one that is as definable to study. There are no theories or math equations or proofs that can be used. A lot of the research has biases ingrained in the results that cannot be properly reduced to none or close to none. For instance using a control group and double blind study it can easily be shown if a medicine works and if it has side effects and if those side effects are really significant when you read how many of the control group members also got the side effect (usually not many side effects differ a whole lot). You'll find a few side effects that greatly differ but otherwise they have to be mentioned simply because they had shown up but likely had nothing to do with the medicine. But you can show all this with statistics and the fact that all subjects were unbiased. Double blind means the patient and the treating group do not know which is real or fake. There is simply no experiment one can set up to research this topic without removing most or all bias. Researchers can throw numbers around but many times the numbers change depending on who does the experiment. It also goes by an abstract scale of asking people to rate attractiveness and then post hoc try to make theories and measuremnrts. But the whole point is any experiment uses abstract data. Meaning there was no measurement device that could define units of beauty and use that to make measurements. It's often done by asking participants to rate a feature on a scale. Say rate this on a scale from one to ten. With the only definition being 1is the least attractive and 10 is the most. But not really defining it beyond that.


 * Where if I came up with a pain scale from 1 to 10 it would still be abstract but I could make it less so by stating a painful event for each number. Like 10 is you are on fire. Even then I will see people walking around and talking calmly but say their pain is a 10. I then ask them if they have ever seen a person on fire. If not to look it up. Come back when you see how a person on fire behaves. A 5 could be I got hit by a pitch in baseball only the pain is constant. The more a scale can be defined the better the results will become and the less bias is in the work. Unfortunately how do you rate a scale of beauty. If you say what a 10 is to someone then you already just influenced and biased the research by telling them what beauty is. So any scale you use has to be intentionally vague. But a vague scale then leads to the likely result that what I consider to be a 4 you might consider to be a 5 making any numbers obtained less meaningupfuk since there is no standard to go by on which most reasonable people could agree.. So it's a catch 22. I won't argue about physical attractiveness and sexual arousal. I can find a dog to be something beautiful but if course I'm not aroused by one. I love German shepherds but not sexually. How this article is suppose to deal with that issue I really didn't read enough of it to know what the goal was. But the outset seemed to set up sexual attractiveness but only using physical traits. That was my take on the purpose of the article. It did not outright state it which I will give you that. However it was implied in several ways that the physical attraction is one of a sexual nature. But implying something that should be stated outright is poor authorship that I can't help you with. But yes there is a difference.2601:8D:8800:A032:D9BF:AAA0:EC69:FD76 (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)a


 * I was incorrrect. The author does distinctly say what the article is about. Only the author states it could be about both. Which is worse then saying nothing at all or at least implying one or the other.2601:8D:8800:A032:D9BF:AAA0:EC69:FD76 (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sexual vs non sexual attractiveness
I think a great deal of confusion could be set aside if this were split into two articles. One focusing on sexual arousal and physical attractiveness and the other focusing specifically on just physical attractiveness that is not intended for purposes of sexual arousal. Then make a link to the page specifically about sexual attractiveness to lead people who are looking just for that.

Or at lesst make an article focused specifically on sexual attraction and have a link to it. But this new article should deal with specific adult man and adult women sexual attractions (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise). And not deal with fetishes or mental illnesses which lead to inappropriate sexual attractiveness of others such as children. That would be my recommendation to kind of clean the article up. In so far as people could no longer argue about other forms of attraction that don't involve defined body parts and whether sexual arousal is necessary.2601:8D:8800:A032:D9BF:AAA0:EC69:FD76 (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thing is... A number of the physical attractiveness studies are partly based on sexual attraction. So we can't really split the material in any valid way or in a way that won't cause a WP:Content fork issue. Plus, we already have the Sexual attraction article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Physical attractiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110155050/http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/arts_life/story.html?id=89cfe85e-664a-4abf-ba93-faed9fd7704b to http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/arts_life/story.html?id=89cfe85e-664a-4abf-ba93-faed9fd7704b
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110155117/http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=80528414-59df-4167-b5fb-fca13919d345&sponsor= to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=80528414-59df-4167-b5fb-fca13919d345&sponsor=
 * Added tag to http://sesever.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Sensitivity-to-Bad-Genes.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309015913/http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-13/living/o.laws.of.sex.attraction_1_attraction-mhc-testosterone-levels?_s=PM%3ALIVING to http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-13/living/o.laws.of.sex.attraction_1_attraction-mhc-testosterone-levels?_s=PM%3ALIVING
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110818081026/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/kohl.htm to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/kohl.htm
 * Added tag to http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Diener-Physical-Attractiveness-and-Subjective-Well-Being.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No mention of the historical preference of white/european cultures
I do not understand why there are mentions of the preferences of persian, arabian, chinese/japanese/thailand/asian cultures yet none from europe. What gives? Are these being removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.139.97 (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Golden Ratio
No mention of the golden ratio? See: Golden ratio Objects, eg. buildings, faces etc that conform to the golden ratio are thought to be more physically attractive.



Also: "In computer face averaging tests, women with averaged faces have been shown to be considered more attractive.[22][134] This is possibly due to average features being more familiar and, therefore, more comfortable.[117]" - What does this paragraph mean?? BronHiggs (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Youthfulness et al
An "OK Cupid study" (LOL) is nothing scientific but a ridiculous try of inserting pseudo-science into an article. Parts of the whole article lack the scientific and encyclopedic approach an encyclopedia must have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:8C:4C09:6300:755C:572F:E81E:753F (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Physical attractiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723145440/http://www.liv.ac.uk/vp/Publications/BertaminiBennett2009.pdf to http://www.liv.ac.uk/vp/Publications/BertaminiBennett2009.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726034953/http://www.pri.org/world/asia/skin-whitening-big-business-asia.html to http://www.pri.org/world/asia/skin-whitening-big-business-asia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Rename
Suggest renaming to human beauty. "Physical attractiveness" is common but its jargon, as "physical" is itself jargon for "body," a meaning which is distant, and it would be better to say "bodily attractiveness." "Human beauty" is more formal, and philosophical. -Inowen (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sections about Genitalia
Why is there only a Genitalia section in the male category and not the female category, when there are enough studies about female genital attractiveness one could reference from? In my opinion that unbalance or better said lack of information on female Genitalia paints a bad picture about equality standards of Wikipedia. For example here is already an article about how attractiveness in Vulvas is perceived by heterosexual men and what attributes are deemed as desirable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26032042/ There are even more articles, but at least a start for a section with the information there is urgently needed. Tariq Si (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * To make matters worse, while browsing through the history of this page, I noticed there already was a (although short) section about Female Genitalia that got vandalized and ultimately removed!
 * First an IP user removed the attached reference, so that the brackets only showed "citation needed" afterwards:
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/781925505
 * Then a nowadays blocked user removed the section completely with a slightly sarcastic, if not even malign edit summary:
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/804025614
 * The section should either be restored with the content and informations from the reference from my comment above added to it, or either rebuilt from scratch, because as it stands now, this page has an anti-female bias! Tariq Si (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I re-added the content that was removed in 2017 without good reason. If I were you, I would tone down the "anti-female bias" rhetoric and just say that it is imbalanced to talk about male genitalia and not female genitalia. Anyway, when it comes to new content, WP:SECONDARY sources would be preferred. WP:PRIMARY sources can be used if done right, but it would be even better to see if secondary sources cover it. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)