Misplaced Pages

Talk:Physical attractiveness: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:46, 21 December 2007 editCheeser1 (talk | contribs)7,317 edits Wrapping it up← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:33, 14 September 2024 edit undoShinyAlbatross (talk | contribs)151 edits Issues with specific studies 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{philosophy|importance=|class=|aesthetics=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{FailedGA|oldid=144927723}}
|archiveheader={{aan}}
__FORCETOC__
|maxarchivesize=200K
{{archive box|] ]}}
|counter=5
|minthreadsleft=10
|minthreadstoarchive=1
|algo=old(30d)
|archive=Talk:Physical attractiveness/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=04:37, 16 July 2007
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=144927811
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
{{Censor}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|aesthetics=yes}}
}}


== disproven scientific beliefs ==
== Obesity? ==
Most correlations between beauty and health have been proven to be falsified/unreproducible thus far.
== Human-centric ==


What about the rest of the species? It's not like the concept is somehow people related. --] (]) 05:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Why does it always say that being thin is "judged as being attractive in Western culture". Is there ANY culture in the world where obesity is considered attractive? If no one defends this I'm going to go ahead and be bold by removing the POV dogshit. ] 16:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
:Define "obesity". Refer to the Rubenesque period in English history. There are many local tribes that do not share westerner's newfound love of thinness.--] 22:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
::Check out as well, a highly in some cultures. __] 01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


: The article is already very long. To add the rest of the animal kingdom would make it impossibly large. The only solution, it seems to me, is for you to write a whole new set of articles on "Physical attractiveness among chimpanzees", among gorillas, among hyenas, among lions, among monitor lizards etc etc. Then this article could be retitled "physical attractiveness among humans". Mission impossible? But please don't try to shoehorn other species into this article. --] (]) 11:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
== Pictures, again. ==


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


This article goes into great detail about what heterosexual men and women, as well as homosexual men find attractive, but it only makes the most brief and vague mentions of what homosexual women find attractive. ] (]) 10:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
::: I reiterate, this article simply should not have pictures, what society and magazines feel is acceptable and attractive has little bearing on the reality of things, which is quite subjective and open to debate, and I'd fully support removing pictures if it was put up to a vote. ] 05:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:As usual, feel free to find the ]s and write it yourself. As a general principle (!), sweeping generalisations imply poor research unless the sample size is huge. Speaking generally. --] (]) 15:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
::I don't think I am capable of doing this myself, but it is a very important part of this subject that is totally missing. ] (]) 05:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


== Citations not verifying ==
::::Let me try again: "''I personally don't find any of the people posted in image form attractive; they function as visual aides in '''demonstrating characteristics''' that have been shown to be attractive cross culturally."--] 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::I won't be replying to you again, when you can find a less insulting tone, you get back to me. ] 06:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::What I'm saying is: '''Don't misconstrue every trait and appearance in the picture as something held or asserted to be universally attractive.''' The caption doesn't even mention Michelle Merkin or her skinniness or whatever trait you are repulsed by. It says "Features such as a symmetrical face, full lips, and low waist-hip ratio are commonly considered attractive." If I showed you a picture of ], to demonstrate the concept of ], you wouldn't think that its being tall makes it an example of Art Deco.--] 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::: Thank you for moving towards intelligent discussion, I fully understood what you were trying to relay, but that's entirely too subjective, Art Deco is heavily defined, and it's quite easy to find present examples of it in architecture, physical attractiveness varies wildly, and there is simply no logic in providing pictures for it. ] 06:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::''"physical attractiveness varies wildly, and there is simply no logic in providing pictures for it"''. If you honestly believe this, then this article can't be written at all.--] 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: Of course it can, there simply must be some kind of separation, between the article itself and the perception of the topic at hand, if pictures simply must exist, they cannot exist as examples of physically attractive people, but under their own section, and could logically include what other cultures perceive to be physically attractive under this section. Right now, as it is, there is very little separation between the perception and the fact, which is extremely subjective and varies wildly, I think that is a viable solution. ] 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Then, insofar as attractive traits can be specified, they can be demonstrated. The pictures make no claim about attributes the pictured people have that have not been shown cross culturally to be attractive.--] 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Good gracious, yes they have, simply by being featured so prominently, and I think the two should be separated for the sake of perception, what magazines and some of society feel is physically attractive has little sway with the public at large, and are extremely subjective. Listing what might be considered attractive versus pictures demonstrating models is a rather large gap, especially with pictures having such a wide appeal versus words, which allow people to fill in the gaps themselves. There is absolutely no argument for having pictures without attaching them very directly to being merely what might be "perceived" as attractive, and considering the vast array on ethnicities present on, well, ], the fact of the matter is, a thin, white, tan, blonde model cannot be attractive cross culturally in any meaningful way. ] 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Reread my last point.--] 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- sorry to butt in, but ''all'' the pictures are of white people. I think that if pictures are necessary, it might be better if they represented more types of people. ] 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:Hi. If you can find free pictures of attractive people of other races, you are welcome to change the images, though, keep in mind, that between three images, you're not going to get a mirror of American demographics here.--] 02:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


"Through the East Asian blepharoplasty cosmetic surgery procedure, Asian women can permanently alter the structure of their eyelid. Some people have argued that this alteration is done to resemble the structure of a Western eyelid while other people have argued that this is generally done solely to emulate the appearance of naturally occurring Asian double eyelids."
== Abdominal muscle tone/adiposity: indicators of pregnancy ==


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


Neither of the two sources cited for this say anything to this narrative. Nothing about female specification, either. ] (]) 08:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Went looking for references and found , which points out that the pregnant female form was considered an "ideal of beauty" at some times in some places, to the extent that there was a brief fashion of women padding their abdomens...


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


{{reflist}}
==Ugly people==
Chee E, Choo CT (January 2011). "Asian blepharoplasty--an overview". Orbit (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 30 (1): 58–61.
If we're going to keep the photos of models, can we also have some pictures of ugly people, in order to illustrate physical features that studies have shown people find repellent?--] 03:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:The title of this section made me laugh. I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. Anyway, to the question, I'm not so sure. I mean, that would be better-suited in the article ]. But for either article, adding pictures of people and stating that they are found to be ugly would seem more off without a source, and even with a source, would seem in bad taste. Especially if the images are of famous people. ] 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


https://archive.org/details/cosmeticsurgeryt0000panf/page/6/mode/2up ] (]) 08:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
== Merkin image and other images==


== Cunningham Et. al (1995) ==
The image of Michele Merkin has a POV description, the image itself is clearly retouched and a photoshopped composite, so we'll need a decent source identifying that this individual is considered an archetype of Western ideas of physical attractiveness before it goes back in. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


From "general" subsection:
:The description of Merkin should probably be changed, but that image is a featured image, and I don't see anything wrong with that image itself being the main (lead) image of this article. This article is already sourced with what people find physically attractive, and these images are displaying what this article already says is considered physically attractive, such as full lips, abs, etc. If we should provide valid sources within these image descriptions that reference these people as being considered physically attractive, then that should be easy enough. ] 18:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
::I've been down the picture road so many times on this article, I don't care anymore. Originally, this article had no pictures, and someone put up a "request for picture" template. I put up Jessica Alba as someone who obviously has big youthful lips, long thick hair, the appearance of clear skin, and also verifiably has the pan-cultural desirable characteristic WHR of .70. The image was her on the cover of Playboy with the cover stating that she was one of the "hottest" people. There were objections and the image was fair use instead of free so the image was changed to Merkin. I don't think she's particularly attractive, though I concede that she demonstrates the qualities discussed.


"Michael R. Cunningham of the Department of Psychology at the University of Louisville found, using a panel of East Asian, Hispanic and White judges, that the Asian, Hispanic and White female faces found most attractive were those that had "neonate large eyes, greater distance between eyes, and small noses" and his study led him to conclude that "large eyes" were the most "effective" of the "neonate cues". Cunningham also said that "shiny" hair may be indicative of "neonate vitality". Using a panel of blacks and whites as judges, Cunningham found more neotenous faces were perceived as having both higher "femininity" and "sociability". In contrast, Cunningham found that faces that were "low in neoteny" were judged as "intimidating". Cunningham noted a "difference" in the preferences of Asian and white judges with Asian judges preferring women with "less mature faces" and smaller mouths than the White judges. Cunningham hypothesized that this difference in preference may stem from "ethnocentrism" since "Asian faces possess those qualities", so Cunningham re-analyzed the data with "11 Asian targets excluded" and concluded that "ethnocentrism was not a primary determinant of Asian preferences." Rather than finding evidence for purely "neonate" faces being most appealing, Cunningham found faces with "sexually-mature" features at the "periphery" of the face combined with "neonate" features in the "center of the face" most appealing in men and women. Upon analyzing the results of his study, Cunningham concluded that preference for "neonate features may display the least cross-cultural variability" in terms of "attractiveness ratings" and, in another study, Cunningham concluded that there exists a large agreement on the characteristics of an attractive face."
::That's when people came here and started misconstruing what this article is about and viscerally objecting to the idea of putting an objective wrapping on the irrefutably subjective concept of beauty. Others said that putting any image up implies that person to be the ultimate standard of beauty '''in spite of the caption explicitly mentioning the picture as a demonstration of the qualities discussed''', thusly imposing an ethnocentric standard of beauty on the world. Do what you will.--] 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:::'''Loodog''', it may be inappropriate to say, but this post of yours made me want to clap, and yell, "Tell it like it is!" It sounds like you know that there is nothing wrong with having Merkin as the main image within this article, or having the other images exist within this article. And if so, you know that I agree with you. I just don't see the problem with Merkin or any of these images being examples, when it is clear that all they are doing is demonstrating features that this article already states (with valid sources) are physically attractive. ] 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


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


I have read this source pretty well over the past few days and I can say that some of the content here doesn't verify.
== children ==


This work contains 3 studies, in which a diverse panel of East Asian, Hispanic, White and Black judges rated female faces from the 4 previously mentioned groups.
Children are by definition beautiful. And since many people (pedophiles) are atracted to them in a physical way, shouldn't be at least one picture of a child? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


The claim that "this study led Cunningham to conclude that large eyes were the most effective of the neonate cues" isn't anywhere in It seems more like an observation from the data that the reader made, yet Cunningham also emphasized that neonate qualities were only one component of attraction. Cunningham also never says that shiny hair is indicative of neonate vitality. "Hair" is mentioned 27 times in Cunningham's report, and he doesn't speak to sheen. There is only one mentioning of shiny hair, in footnote 7 (p.276), and it's from DS Marshall (1971) describing preferences among Mangaian island people. It says:
:Uh...not if it's because pedophiles are attracted to them. And if it's not about the pedophiles, this article is more so focusing on physical attractiveness as being sexually or romantically attracted to a person. When most people think of physical attractiveness, they think in terms of sexual/romantic feelings, not on the simple basis of cute, such as a child being cute. ] (]) 08:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


"7 Marshall (1971) described Mangaian preferences as follows, "One
== Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? ==
version of the 'ideal girl' indicates that she should have a smiling face,
shiny black hair, small eyes 'like those of a pigeon,' with small breasts,
large hips and round cheeks; her lips should be neither too everted nor
too thin, and she should have skin that is neither black nor white" (p.
124). A preference for small eyes and round cheeks would be an al-
ternate neonate-mature combination to the current large eyes-promi-
nent cheekbone preference and suggests the need for further ethno-
graphic and quasi-experimental validation. Nonetheless, it might be
noted that pigeons do not have small eyes but rather have relatively
large, protruding eyes."


I also have to say that this section of the Wiki only talks about very specific details comparing Asians and Whites from Cunningham's study, ignoring completely that Hispanic and Black judges and models were included in the study. That's disappointing because Hispanic women were judged as highly attractive (p. 267), and exposure to Western media didn't affect the attractiveness rating of Hispanic women, nor for any other ethnic or racial group pf women (p. 268). This has social significance, because media exposure is often said to have an impact on attractiveness, as the Cunningham and colleagues pointed out. In such a diverse study as this, which concerns mainly ethnic differences in attractiveness, more weight should be given to the the broader conclusions about attractiveness, rather than the value of little pinpoints of data in the study, like the value of shiny hair in Mangaian islanders, an overemphasis on the preferences of Taiwanese participants, or a specific neonate cue. That would make this paragraph much more concise and easy to read, and do justice to the study's itself. ] (]) 10:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
]
:You are most welcome to rewrite the section, citing sources. You just need to be cautious to avoid ] and ]. First maxim of Misplaced Pages: if you want anything done properly around here, you have to do it yourself. --] (]) 14:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
i don't think this image really meets the article's criteria, but to some she might be beautiful. Just.. Not me. ] (]) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
:You're talking about the woman in the Signals of youth section. Well, it's mainly just pointing out how her youthfulness is a desired physical trait. ] (]) 05:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, wait, you were probably talking about that picture that a newcomer put up in that section. If so, it's now removed. ] (]) 05:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


== Tybur and Gangestad ==
== Focus of eyes during porn watching ==


"A scientific review published in 2011 identified from a vast body of empirical research that light skin colour and skin tone tend to be preferred as they act as indicators of good health. More specifically, these indicators are thought to suggest to potential mates that the beholder has strong or good genes capable of fighting off disease."
Cheeser, I will reiterate what I said in my edit summary. The focus of men and women's eyes during the viewing of sexual activity is far from a "Social effect of attractiveness". Take a look at the rest of that section. It is also not relevant to physical attractiveness in general. Try ], ], ], ], or even ].--] (]) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


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


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3189358/


"(d) Skin colour and texture
So what is your point? "Outward physical attractiveness"? How the male and female form is perceived has nothing to do with physical attractiveness? That's patently false. Why must this offending paragraph be removed, because all I see is "I think it does not belong" without a serious or believable explanation. --] (]) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Skin tone and texture may convey important information about underlying metabolic health and infectious disease status, presumably because it relates to blood oxygenation and skin vascularization . Facial attractiveness covaries with health ratings of isolated facial skin patches viewed apart from other facial features such as symmetry and dimorphism , and objectively measures skin characteristics such as colour (e.g. redness and yellowness), and haemoglobin and melanin homogeneity impact perceptions of health and attractiveness across multiple face ethnicities . Additionally, skin colour may inform carotenoid concentration, which may reflect resistance to infectious disease and oxidative damage , though there is currently little direct support for the idea that carotenoid concentration in human skin reflects adaptation to advertise robustness in the way that concentrations of carotenoids in colourful bird feathers may do . Indeed, at the current time, little direct evidence addresses whether skin tone or colour reflects current infection levels or infectability. More research is clearly needed.
:First, it's not even necessarily about the perception of attractiveness. The subjects may not even find the participants attractive. The crucial thing being tested is sexual behavioral reaction. The article, if you read its entirety at one pass, is serving as a description of what makes a person attractive. Second, we already have articles about ], ], ], and ] (including visual stimulation).--] (]) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ratings of healthiness of men's and women's faces, which appear to reflect variations in skin tone and texture, do not strongly covary with measures of masculinity or femininity of the same faces , indicating that these dimensions largely reflect different qualities."
::So we have extensive explanations of which parts are considered attractive, and in what ways. A section on how each part is perceived when judging physical attractiveness... this is irrelevant? Why exactly? --] (]) 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::The subjects exposed to erotic images are not judging physical attractiveness. They are responding to a sexual situation.--] (]) 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Try ]. To say that sexual attractiveness has nothing to do with physical attractiveness would be pretty naive. Erotic may mean of a sexual nature, but hell, the picture in the lead of this article has a topless woman. Let's not play the semantics game. --] (]) 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::I do not believe this is a semantical point. If I dangled a piece of meat in front of a tiger and watched its reaction, I wouldn't put in an article on how tiger's judge nutritional value.--] (]) 05:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::No, but if someone who studies animal behavior did, they'd publish a paper that would be a suitable source for such an article. And they '''do'''. Because that's how they study such things (not to put it to simplistically, but it is). --] (]) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Look, I would gladly concede that it is relevant to this article and the topic if, in the study in question, participants were asked to rank the attractiveness of the persons in the erotic imagery. Then, where they looked '''would''' be indicative of how they judged attractiveness. Where they look now is only a measure of how a person takes in erotic visual stimulus, '''regardless of attractiveness'''--] (]) 05:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, and in this article we establish which features of the body are a part of physical attractiveness. This study provides an explanation as to how these features are perceived. Do you want this to be in an article "perception of physical attractiveness" or something? It's clearly and obviously related. The fact that the study does not encompass the ''entirety'' of the content in this article doesn't mean the content is not relevant. --] (]) 05:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::No, I'd like it to be in ], ], or ]. My vote is for sexual stimulation. This isn't people responding to attractiveness so much as responding to visual sexual stimulus, which fits perfectly in with "Mental sexual stimulation".--] (]) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::And you can add it to whatever other articles you like. It can go in more place than one. It is still relevant to this article. --] (]) 05:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::This isn't people responding to attractiveness so much as responding to visual sexual stimulus. If a person came up behind you and rubbed your dick, you'd have a reaction, regardless of the attractiveness of the person. This is sexual stimulus, not attractiveness judgement.--] (]) 05:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Nice strawman, but I've already explained how this study is relevant (graphic allusions to my sex organs aside). The paragraph itself explains the relevance, making note of how attractiveness relates to what features each sex tends to judge attractiveness by. --] (]) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::"I've already explained how this study is relevant" and that was rebutted since the the focus of the eyes is '''irrespective''' of attractiveness. Please explain how a reaction irrespective of physical attractiveness belongs in an article about physical attractiveness.--] (]) 14:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Both of you have brought up some valid points. However, from what that information is particularly dealing with, I agree with '''Loodog''' that it is better suited in the ], ], or ] article. It most definitely would be better placed in one of those articles than here. ] (]) 07:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:So copy it there. Since when is information relevant to two articles allowed only in the one "better" for it? --] (]) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::The whole point is that it doesn't belong here because it is '''not in the scope of this article'''.--] (]) 17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Instead this reference seems like it would be better suited to support the following paragraph, which seems a bit synthesized:
=== Wrapping it up ===


"More recent research has suggested that redder and yellower skin tones, reflecting higher levels of oxygenated blood, carotenoid and to a lesser extent melanin pigment, and net dietary intakes of fruit and vegetables, appear healthier, and therefore more attractive."
Motion for the material under discussion to be removed from this page as per above arguments.--] (]) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


I think it is best to replace Tybur and Gangestad, since Tybur and Gangestad already cited this reference (reference 60) in the very quote I have posted here, and since we're supposed to value secondary sources over primary ones. - ] (]) 18:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
:Motion? What is this, parliament? You want to cut it because you believe it's "not in the scope of this article." The person who added it, the people who allowed it to remain a part of the status-quo version of this article, and I who've objected disagree with this assessment. If you want a "motion" to do something, I suggest you submit a ]. --] (]) 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
::Please stick to content and kindly respond to my point, that it is not in the scope of this article. Its endurance on the page is a moot point. It's been around for a little over a month now, and only because I didn't catch it before. You know that appeal to wikipedia existence means nothing. Second, if you would like to continue debating as if other people were here, I invite you to notify them so they may speak for themselves.--] (]) 23:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:::You're the one who wants a change. Establish your consensus that this material is not relevant (despite appearing to be, at least to the people I've mentioned). The onus is on you to establish a consensus that which parts people consider attractive is somehow irrelevant. As far as I can tell, it's relevant prima facie, regardless of what kind of rhetorical distance you can put between this paragraph and other parts of the article. --] (]) 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Stop ducking my points and respond:
::::#Please explain how a reaction irrespective of physical attractiveness belongs in an article about physical attractiveness.
::::#The existence of this piece of information for a month on wikipedia proves nothing ''because it's wikipedia''.
::::#The presupposition of a concensus or lack thereof is invalid since, as of now, the only participants are you, me, and Flyer, the majority of which disagrees with you, not me.
::::--] (]) 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
::::4. You've already changed it, without somehow the onus being on you.
::::--] (]) 23:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Points 2 & 3 are overblown nonsense. It's in the article. You want to remove it. So build a consensus. (A 2-1 "vote" is not a consensus). It's ], although the ] you engaged in over this matter indicates you may not be familiar with it. As for point 1, I've explained why it's relevant. I don't need to explain how it's not irrelevant. You're asking questions that have nothing to do with the reason for including it: here's a list of body parts and features that affect attractiveness, and here's a study that explains which parts of the body are of interest during romantic/sexual/erotic situations. Absolutely relevant, a great way to contextualize the content in this article, and I have ''no idea'' why you're so hell-bent on removing it from the article. Are you ] or something?? Where does your zeal come from? Why are you so offended in that you (wrongly) believe I'm "ducking" your "points"? I'm ] you want the best for this article, but why does deleting relevant (even marginally relevant) content help anyone, ever? --] (]) 23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Edit conflict: What are you going on about in point 4?? --] (]) 23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


== RfC == == Relevancy of Photos ==


I think we should remove the photos of Ishtar and Xi Shi. While they are an important part of past perceptions of beauty, this article mainly covers physical attractiveness sociologically. It also clips into the contents of the article, which takes up valuable screen space. Please let me know if i am wrong! ] (]) 01:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
{{RFCsoc |!! reason=disputed material!! time=23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)}}
I request indepedent comment in resolving the above content dispute.--] (]) 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


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

Just leaving a note here about a removal of Locke & Horrowitz. Their study is referenced against this: "Studies have suggested that people are generally attracted to people who ]".

The study doesn't actually say this, or anything like it. This study is about ] and the mutual attraction of people with similar ''moods''. It has nothing to do with physical attractiveness/physical appearance.

On page 829, right under the Discussion section, it says:

"The purpose of this study was to compare dysphoric and nondysphoric people as they interacted with people of similar or dissimilar mood. The results showed that people in homogeneous dyads (in which both partners were dysphoric or both partners were nondysphoric) were more satisfied, and their satisfaction increased as the conversation proceeded. People in mixed dyads were less satisfied, perceived each other as colder, and spoke about increasingly negative topics. Thus, in accord with other research showing that similarity leads to liking, the crucial determinant of interactional satisfaction was neither the mood of the subject nor the mood of the partner, but their similarity in mood. We therefore need to consider the mechanisms by which similarities and differences between partners influence their satisfaction with each other." '

What this study is ''actually'' saying is that people get along better with those who have similar attitudes and mental health status. It doesn't say anything about ''physical'' attractiveness, only individual behavior/attitude. That's why I'm removing this line and the source.

There is also some issue with beating around the bush in regards to some of the references. The Tsunokai 2014 study is summarized as "the authors cited race as a factor in dating preferences by Asian-American men, both homosexual and heterosexual." But if we don't also point out that it was also a factor for Asian women, and that two of these three groups actually expressed an opposite race preference, we misrepresent this study as suggesting that there is a universal same-race preference, albeit not as forcefully as with the Locke & Horrowitz study.

There are other problems with some sources cited in this section. Bereczkei doesn't say that people generally prefer people with ethnic features from their in-group. Hall's "Racism in the 21st century" doesn't seem to verify either, and the Psychology Today article is actually criticizing ]'s fringe study, which is not even worth mentioning here given the enormous backlash it received. Lewis 2012 notes that their 2011 study failed correction and was contradicted by another study, and they say that further experimentation is needed to clarify their results. So there's a reproducibility problem with the 2011 study.

] (]) 10:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


== sexism ==
Why are there 10 images about female attractiveness and only two images about male attractiveness? all genders can be equally attractive, there should be at least more 3 images about male attractiveness --] (]) 15:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

== Issues with specific studies ==

Article:

{{tq|A 2014 study found that racial preferences in Asian-Americans varied by gender: while heterosexual Asian women preferred to date White men, heterosexual Asian men preferred to date Asian women.}}

It's more accurate to say that in online dating in the US, all groups of women have a preference for White men. Even more accurate would be to say that when initiating contact, all groups of men and women have an own-race preference, but when responding, all groups of women favour White men. (Lin 2013, Lewis K 2013, see also Christian Rudder's book "Dataclysm" from 2014). In Western Europe, all groups of women preferred White men and all groups of men preferred White women, with the sole exception of Arab men preferring Arab women. (Potarca 2015)

However, this is only distantly and indeterminately related to ''physical'' attractiveness. Attraction and the motivations behind dating are not solely due to physical attractiveness. Men care more than women about physical attractiveness. I recommend removing this entirely.

{{tq|A 2011 study, by Wilkins, Chan and Kaiser found correlations between perceived femininity and attractiveness; that is, women's faces which were seen as more feminine were judged by both men and women to be more attractive. The study also found that East Asian women's faces were more "prototypically" feminine than White women's, a finding that was replicated by several follow-up studies which found that this explains the higher attractiveness ratings of East Asian women compared to White women.}}

Lewis (2012) leaps from "attractiveness" ratings straight to implying causality on interracial marriage stats. However, other studies show that there is no difference between White and Asian women's attractiveness (Burke 2013, Rudder 2014), or that white women are the most attractive when it's a composite photo (Burke 2013), or Asian women are the least attractive (Belletti 2008), or that mixed-race women are the most attractive (Rhodes 2005), or maybe not (Burke 2013). Most of these studies were mostly White participants, although Burke 2013 included White and Asian participants. My recommendation is to simply say there is no conclusive answer.

Regarding Yang's 2020 study on attractiveness: Undergraduate research, marginal finding, no peer review, not cited anywhere. Discard.

Regarding Cunningham, 1995:

{{tq|Hispanic and East Asian women were judged as more attractive than White and Black women, and they happened to possess more of the attributes defined as attractive, however the authors noted that it would be inaccurate to conclude that any ethnic group was more attractive than the other, based on their sample.}}

They probably said that because their stimuli sample was comprised of images of multi-ethnic beauty queens ''plus'' photos of average White American college women. This statement isn't even worth including.

sources:

* Belletti 2008: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-79098-5_6
* Burke 2013: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/147470491301100410
* Lin 2013: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/673129
* K Lewis 2013: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1308501110
* Potarca 2015: https://academic.oup.com/esr/article-abstract/31/3/326/436153
* Rhodes 2005: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/p5191
* Rudder 2014: https://books.google.ca/books/about/Dataclysm.html?id=-xEcAwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

] (]) 00:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:33, 14 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Physical attractiveness article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Former good article nomineePhysical attractiveness was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPsychology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Aesthetics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Aesthetics

disproven scientific beliefs

Most correlations between beauty and health have been proven to be falsified/unreproducible thus far.

Human-centric

What about the rest of the species? It's not like the concept is somehow people related. --Palosirkka (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is already very long. To add the rest of the animal kingdom would make it impossibly large. The only solution, it seems to me, is for you to write a whole new set of articles on "Physical attractiveness among chimpanzees", among gorillas, among hyenas, among lions, among monitor lizards etc etc. Then this article could be retitled "physical attractiveness among humans". Mission impossible? But please don't try to shoehorn other species into this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Homosexual women

This article goes into great detail about what heterosexual men and women, as well as homosexual men find attractive, but it only makes the most brief and vague mentions of what homosexual women find attractive. Tadfafty (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

As usual, feel free to find the wp:reliable sources and write it yourself. As a general principle (!), sweeping generalisations imply poor research unless the sample size is huge. Speaking generally. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I am capable of doing this myself, but it is a very important part of this subject that is totally missing. Tadfafty (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Citations not verifying

"Through the East Asian blepharoplasty cosmetic surgery procedure, Asian women can permanently alter the structure of their eyelid. Some people have argued that this alteration is done to resemble the structure of a Western eyelid while other people have argued that this is generally done solely to emulate the appearance of naturally occurring Asian double eyelids."

But have they really?

Neither of the two sources cited for this say anything to this narrative. Nothing about female specification, either. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:E8AC:9984:B6B9:3308 (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


Chee E, Choo CT (January 2011). "Asian blepharoplasty--an overview". Orbit (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 30 (1): 58–61.

https://archive.org/details/cosmeticsurgeryt0000panf/page/6/mode/2up 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:E8AC:9984:B6B9:3308 (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Cunningham Et. al (1995)

From "general" subsection:

"Michael R. Cunningham of the Department of Psychology at the University of Louisville found, using a panel of East Asian, Hispanic and White judges, that the Asian, Hispanic and White female faces found most attractive were those that had "neonate large eyes, greater distance between eyes, and small noses" and his study led him to conclude that "large eyes" were the most "effective" of the "neonate cues". Cunningham also said that "shiny" hair may be indicative of "neonate vitality". Using a panel of blacks and whites as judges, Cunningham found more neotenous faces were perceived as having both higher "femininity" and "sociability". In contrast, Cunningham found that faces that were "low in neoteny" were judged as "intimidating". Cunningham noted a "difference" in the preferences of Asian and white judges with Asian judges preferring women with "less mature faces" and smaller mouths than the White judges. Cunningham hypothesized that this difference in preference may stem from "ethnocentrism" since "Asian faces possess those qualities", so Cunningham re-analyzed the data with "11 Asian targets excluded" and concluded that "ethnocentrism was not a primary determinant of Asian preferences." Rather than finding evidence for purely "neonate" faces being most appealing, Cunningham found faces with "sexually-mature" features at the "periphery" of the face combined with "neonate" features in the "center of the face" most appealing in men and women. Upon analyzing the results of his study, Cunningham concluded that preference for "neonate features may display the least cross-cultural variability" in terms of "attractiveness ratings" and, in another study, Cunningham concluded that there exists a large agreement on the characteristics of an attractive face."


I have read this source pretty well over the past few days and I can say that some of the content here doesn't verify.

This work contains 3 studies, in which a diverse panel of East Asian, Hispanic, White and Black judges rated female faces from the 4 previously mentioned groups.

The claim that "this study led Cunningham to conclude that large eyes were the most effective of the neonate cues" isn't anywhere in the link. It seems more like an observation from the data that the reader made, yet Cunningham also emphasized that neonate qualities were only one component of attraction. Cunningham also never says that shiny hair is indicative of neonate vitality. "Hair" is mentioned 27 times in Cunningham's report, and he doesn't speak to sheen. There is only one mentioning of shiny hair, in footnote 7 (p.276), and it's from DS Marshall (1971) describing preferences among Mangaian island people. It says:

"7 Marshall (1971) described Mangaian preferences as follows, "One version of the 'ideal girl' indicates that she should have a smiling face, shiny black hair, small eyes 'like those of a pigeon,' with small breasts, large hips and round cheeks; her lips should be neither too everted nor too thin, and she should have skin that is neither black nor white" (p. 124). A preference for small eyes and round cheeks would be an al- ternate neonate-mature combination to the current large eyes-promi- nent cheekbone preference and suggests the need for further ethno- graphic and quasi-experimental validation. Nonetheless, it might be noted that pigeons do not have small eyes but rather have relatively large, protruding eyes."

I also have to say that this section of the Wiki only talks about very specific details comparing Asians and Whites from Cunningham's study, ignoring completely that Hispanic and Black judges and models were included in the study. That's disappointing because Hispanic women were judged as highly attractive (p. 267), and exposure to Western media didn't affect the attractiveness rating of Hispanic women, nor for any other ethnic or racial group pf women (p. 268). This has social significance, because media exposure is often said to have an impact on attractiveness, as the Cunningham and colleagues pointed out. In such a diverse study as this, which concerns mainly ethnic differences in attractiveness, more weight should be given to the the broader conclusions about attractiveness, rather than the value of little pinpoints of data in the study, like the value of shiny hair in Mangaian islanders, an overemphasis on the preferences of Taiwanese participants, or a specific neonate cue. That would make this paragraph much more concise and easy to read, and do justice to the study's itself. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:E8AC:9984:B6B9:3308 (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

You are most welcome to rewrite the section, citing sources. You just need to be cautious to avoid original research and synthesis of sources. First maxim of Misplaced Pages: if you want anything done properly around here, you have to do it yourself. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Tybur and Gangestad

"A scientific review published in 2011 identified from a vast body of empirical research that light skin colour and skin tone tend to be preferred as they act as indicators of good health. More specifically, these indicators are thought to suggest to potential mates that the beholder has strong or good genes capable of fighting off disease."

I don't find this anywhere in the citation. It doesn't seem to say that light skin is preferred according to research. It does say that skin characteristics such as color, haemoglobin and melanin homogeneity impact perceptions of health and attractiveness (according to two studies). But it does not appear to specify anywhere in the article that this means light skin color or skin tone.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3189358/

"(d) Skin colour and texture Skin tone and texture may convey important information about underlying metabolic health and infectious disease status, presumably because it relates to blood oxygenation and skin vascularization . Facial attractiveness covaries with health ratings of isolated facial skin patches viewed apart from other facial features such as symmetry and dimorphism , and objectively measures skin characteristics such as colour (e.g. redness and yellowness), and haemoglobin and melanin homogeneity impact perceptions of health and attractiveness across multiple face ethnicities . Additionally, skin colour may inform carotenoid concentration, which may reflect resistance to infectious disease and oxidative damage , though there is currently little direct support for the idea that carotenoid concentration in human skin reflects adaptation to advertise robustness in the way that concentrations of carotenoids in colourful bird feathers may do . Indeed, at the current time, little direct evidence addresses whether skin tone or colour reflects current infection levels or infectability. More research is clearly needed. Ratings of healthiness of men's and women's faces, which appear to reflect variations in skin tone and texture, do not strongly covary with measures of masculinity or femininity of the same faces , indicating that these dimensions largely reflect different qualities."

Instead this reference seems like it would be better suited to support the following paragraph, which seems a bit synthesized:

"More recent research has suggested that redder and yellower skin tones, reflecting higher levels of oxygenated blood, carotenoid and to a lesser extent melanin pigment, and net dietary intakes of fruit and vegetables, appear healthier, and therefore more attractive."

I think it is best to replace citation 86 Tybur and Gangestad, since Tybur and Gangestad already cited this reference (reference 60) in the very quote I have posted here, and since we're supposed to value secondary sources over primary ones. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:199C:AF08:A97F:14EB (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Relevancy of Photos

I think we should remove the photos of Ishtar and Xi Shi. While they are an important part of past perceptions of beauty, this article mainly covers physical attractiveness sociologically. It also clips into the contents of the article, which takes up valuable screen space. Please let me know if i am wrong! BossDJ2 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Locke & Horrorwitz, issues with other studies

Just leaving a note here about a removal of Locke & Horrowitz. Their study is referenced against this: "Studies have suggested that people are generally attracted to people who look like them".

The study doesn't actually say this, or anything like it. This study is about dysphoria and the mutual attraction of people with similar moods. It has nothing to do with physical attractiveness/physical appearance.

On page 829, right under the Discussion section, it says:

"The purpose of this study was to compare dysphoric and nondysphoric people as they interacted with people of similar or dissimilar mood. The results showed that people in homogeneous dyads (in which both partners were dysphoric or both partners were nondysphoric) were more satisfied, and their satisfaction increased as the conversation proceeded. People in mixed dyads were less satisfied, perceived each other as colder, and spoke about increasingly negative topics. Thus, in accord with other research showing that similarity leads to liking, the crucial determinant of interactional satisfaction was neither the mood of the subject nor the mood of the partner, but their similarity in mood. We therefore need to consider the mechanisms by which similarities and differences between partners influence their satisfaction with each other." '

What this study is actually saying is that people get along better with those who have similar attitudes and mental health status. It doesn't say anything about physical attractiveness, only individual behavior/attitude. That's why I'm removing this line and the source.

There is also some issue with beating around the bush in regards to some of the references. The Tsunokai 2014 study is summarized as "the authors cited race as a factor in dating preferences by Asian-American men, both homosexual and heterosexual." But if we don't also point out that it was also a factor for Asian women, and that two of these three groups actually expressed an opposite race preference, we misrepresent this study as suggesting that there is a universal same-race preference, albeit not as forcefully as with the Locke & Horrowitz study.

There are other problems with some sources cited in this section. Bereczkei doesn't say that people generally prefer people with ethnic features from their in-group. Hall's "Racism in the 21st century" doesn't seem to verify either, and the Psychology Today article is actually criticizing Satoshi Kanazawa's fringe study, which is not even worth mentioning here given the enormous backlash it received. Lewis 2012 notes that their 2011 study failed correction and was contradicted by another study, and they say that further experimentation is needed to clarify their results. So there's a reproducibility problem with the 2011 study.

173.174.84.201 (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


sexism

Why are there 10 images about female attractiveness and only two images about male attractiveness? all genders can be equally attractive, there should be at least more 3 images about male attractiveness --Ernne (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Issues with specific studies

Article:

A 2014 study found that racial preferences in Asian-Americans varied by gender: while heterosexual Asian women preferred to date White men, heterosexual Asian men preferred to date Asian women.

It's more accurate to say that in online dating in the US, all groups of women have a preference for White men. Even more accurate would be to say that when initiating contact, all groups of men and women have an own-race preference, but when responding, all groups of women favour White men. (Lin 2013, Lewis K 2013, see also Christian Rudder's book "Dataclysm" from 2014). In Western Europe, all groups of women preferred White men and all groups of men preferred White women, with the sole exception of Arab men preferring Arab women. (Potarca 2015)

However, this is only distantly and indeterminately related to physical attractiveness. Attraction and the motivations behind dating are not solely due to physical attractiveness. Men care more than women about physical attractiveness. I recommend removing this entirely.

A 2011 study, by Wilkins, Chan and Kaiser found correlations between perceived femininity and attractiveness; that is, women's faces which were seen as more feminine were judged by both men and women to be more attractive. The study also found that East Asian women's faces were more "prototypically" feminine than White women's, a finding that was replicated by several follow-up studies which found that this explains the higher attractiveness ratings of East Asian women compared to White women.

Lewis (2012) leaps from "attractiveness" ratings straight to implying causality on interracial marriage stats. However, other studies show that there is no difference between White and Asian women's attractiveness (Burke 2013, Rudder 2014), or that white women are the most attractive when it's a composite photo (Burke 2013), or Asian women are the least attractive (Belletti 2008), or that mixed-race women are the most attractive (Rhodes 2005), or maybe not (Burke 2013). Most of these studies were mostly White participants, although Burke 2013 included White and Asian participants. My recommendation is to simply say there is no conclusive answer.

Regarding Yang's 2020 study on attractiveness: Undergraduate research, marginal finding, no peer review, not cited anywhere. Discard.

Regarding Cunningham, 1995:

Hispanic and East Asian women were judged as more attractive than White and Black women, and they happened to possess more of the attributes defined as attractive, however the authors noted that it would be inaccurate to conclude that any ethnic group was more attractive than the other, based on their sample.

They probably said that because their stimuli sample was comprised of images of multi-ethnic beauty queens plus photos of average White American college women. This statement isn't even worth including.

sources:

ShinyAlbatross (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: