Line 167: | Line 167: | ||
:::Yeah, a picture containing me might be a good idea. I think my waist to hip ratio is 1:1 at this point. =P I'm also not sure if affection is quite what's being showcased by a guy groping his girlfriend...maybe something more tame? Just a thought. [[User:Srose|Srose]] 18:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
:::Yeah, a picture containing me might be a good idea. I think my waist to hip ratio is 1:1 at this point. =P I'm also not sure if affection is quite what's being showcased by a guy groping his girlfriend...maybe something more tame? Just a thought. [[User:Srose|Srose]] 18:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
::::Hip to waist ratio? What? You look fine, seriously. [[User:Yanksox|Yanksox]] <sup>[[User talk:Yanksox|(talk)]]</sup> 18:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:34, 15 June 2006
Behavior and habits should be included! Some women 'emanate sexuality' and self-confidence in men attract women.
This article should state more clearly that 'attractive' characteristics differ between individual, culture and times. Popular culture tends to ignore it, promoting that there is one ideal of man or woman.
This makes any hypothesis unlikely (eg. that sexually attractive characteristics are those which are associated with health).
For example, fat women were considered attractive in many cultures, and are still fattened in Mauritania. Men with hairy torso were considered attractive at least until 1980's, nowadays waxed torso is considered sexually attractive.
In opinion of most women I know, males practising bodybuilding are not attractive. This is, again, in contrast to what many young men think, and prompts dangerous steroid use in some.
In my opinion, this article is written from the point of view that everyone finds the exact same people attractive from a purely physical level, which is simply not the case. - anonymous user
- I added a sentence on this. - Patrick 09:19 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Patrick and Karada I have been adding things to Physical attraction, but I think that article should be merged with this one and that Physical attraction should, then, be deleted. I think Physical attraction is just a synonym for Sexual attraction. Perhaps there should be a redirect from Physical attraction to Sexual attraction after we are done. KeyStroke
Strongly disagree.
Physical attractiveness has influences beyond sexual or romantic relationships. People choose their friends and acquantances based on physical attractiveness, at least initially. People are more willing to compromise with physically attractive people. Physically attractive people are typically better paid.
Sexual attraction includes more than just physical attractiveness, since personality and social status play a huge role in sexual attraction.
I think the best example of where physical attractiveness and sexual attractiveness are clearly different is in children. Children can be very physically attractive (cute), particularily because of the relative size of their eyes. But they are not sexually attractive, because they don't have the defined cheekbones, breast or hip development (women) or deep voice and facial hair (men).
I propose that there be a separate physical attractiveness article that covers the determination of physical attractiveness in people, and its effects socially.
--Johnkarp 12:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK - put your keystrokes where your mouth is, Johnkarp, Physical attraction is all yours. KeyStroke 14:07, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
Look good to you? Physical attractiveness
--Johnkarp 23:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The golden ratio is about .618. That can't be about the width ratio; maybe the writer meant girth? Even with girth, that's asking for a lot, or should I say a little. lysdexia 09:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I intended to "run some experiments" measuring the ratio between the width of the waist and the width of the hips in attractive women, but my wife wouldn't buy the idea that the reason I wanted to go to the internet site of Fredrics of Hollywood was because of scientific research. (LOL) Anyway, go ahead and remove the reference until I have some research to back it up. KeyStroke 11:48, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
This article might not need to be here. All aspects of this article, as far as I can tell, could be covered by other articles. This page could maybe be a redirect or something Maratanos 21:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Attention
I added the attention tag to this article. From what I can see, it is a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions. Among other things, there needs to be references for many of the statements made in this article. gK ¿? 20:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The assertion about the efficacy of pheromones is a little too credulous. From what I've read, pheromones play a very limited role in human sexual relationships, naturally being crowded out by more "sophisticated" factors such as the dominant importance of human emotional and social relationships. This article pooh-poohs the idea, while apparently these researchers claim to have found a link. Regardless, the importance of pheromones in human relationships is not a settled issue. I'm altering the pheromones piece. Mr. Billion 21:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to suggest that fat people are more attractive. How many fat strippers are there in male and female strip clubs?
A leisurely stroll in conjecture land
Does the paragraph:
"Sociological and genetic studies in developed nations have indicated that in general females tend to mate with males of a slightly higher socioeconomic status. Therefore there are several loci of female attraction to male body hair "chasing" each other through society in a roughly vertical direction. Thus particular male attitudes to their body and facial hair within a social stratum are generated largely by the attitudes extant within women of a slightly lower socioeconomic status."
...make any sense at all to anyone, because it looks pretty opaque and entirely fuzzy headed to me.--Deglr6328 05:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, he is trying to say body hair in males is a function of testosterone levels: Males with high testosterone are the real desire, the hair is a signal. He then goes on about the feedback such a system exhibits, i.e. the males maintain thier hair, sexual attraction generates grooming. 81.86.114.91 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Improvement drive
Flirting is currently listed to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. You can vote to support the article if you are interested.--Fenice 09:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
"Physical attractiveness" article--content coordination
Physical attractiveness, as does Beauty, has a large section on features correlated with attractiveness. I suggest that this is a violation of the no duplicate articles rule of Wiki and producing a waste of effort on two projects which should be combined (somehow) as one. Should some kind of merge be done? --Dpr 05:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Dominance in males
What type of Dominance in Human Males? Different people dominate in different settings and under different conditions.
The article used to read:
- It would be preferable if the man is at least a little above the average in height in the given population of males. This implies that women look for signs of social dominance and power as factors that determine male beauty.
I've removed the second sentence. Although it may be true that women look for signs of social dominance, that they look for height does not imply this -- unless men grow taller when they gain social dominance and shrink when they lose it? --Ptcamn 14:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I read once in a New Scientist (I think) of a study that found taller men *were* more likely to be in positions of power in the workplace, and earn more money. Based on my experience, I'm pretty sure height does add to percieved dominance. But I'm not offering anything referencable, am I? ;-) matturn 11:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Anon
First of all, fat. There is a key biological difference between healthy fat and unhealthy fat. Exessively voluptious can be just as gross as excessively muscular, and once again, one can be fat and be unvoluptious. Fat accentuating proportion is beautiful.
Male physical attractiveness is not based on the asthetic physicality of height. All physical attraction is based on proportion, height is irrelevent to proportion (you can look "stocky" and be tall, and look "athletic and graceful" and still be short). Height plays a large role in building the attitude which makes males attractive. This is confidence and dominance. In general taller men are more confident because their height plays a larger functional role with other males. Taller males will usually be better at sports and other confidence building physical activity. In male-male social situations a taller male has an easier time intimidating and therefore dominating other males, he will then find it easier to build social dominance skills (a short male can find ways to do this as well). Pure physical attraction, in general, is based on proportion, when a guy says nice ass, nice legs, nice body he's unconsciously looking at proportion, a women can be proportional like this regardless of her height, so can a male. Look at the media for example, many famous men who are short are seen as especially sexually attractive based on their physical appearance, a male needs to be confident and have good posture to accentuate his physical appearance. Look at Tom Cruise for example, he is probably confident because of his fame, his wealth, his popularity, his skill, his good looks, but not his height, he can dominate with those things behind him. A socially inexperianced or very superfical women may think that height is a huge factor in attraction, this is because of her observing taller men as on average being more confident that shorter men. A taller man is usually more confident because of height's uses in the male world, not because of its appeal to women. A women is confident about her own good looks because it gives her a competive advantage to finding mates, and it does, height does not mean mates it means having an easier time building the confidense and dominance which is attractive. Height does matter in the sense that a man who is shorter than his wife will seem strange because it is a social taboo for a woman to date a visibly shorter man. A man who is say 5'5 will naturally figure out that it is extremly diffult to form physical relationships with the taller 50% of women, however his chances with shorter women, regardless of their level of attracion, is equal assuming he has no other visibily negative traits (fat, ugly etc). Anyways, it is true that male physical attraction is based on confidence, dominance (without being intimidating to the woman), and proportion (including facial features). A proportionate, dominant, confident male who meets all the "basic" requirments is what women will allow themselves to be sexually attracted to based on just looks.
Where is the history behind attraction based on height? Studies have been shown that secondary sexual characteristics (high testosterone) do not matter for male facial attraction, height is a secondary sexual characteristic as well and is thus cooralated with "male" facial features. Someone should find a source of information to prove the assumption. The psychology of physical attraction is different in women then men, more subliminal concepts come into play.
- For the record, Tom Cruise is 5'7", between one and two inches below the average height.
-anonymous
- This is basically trolling. While your theory is certainly plausible, plausiblity ≠ truth. Empirical data states that women are more attracted to taller men. Unless you can empirically back up your complicated explanation of this with good data, we should go with the simplest explanation for the data: taller men are more attractive.
Daniel Leavitt 01:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Racism and Homophobia
First of all the picture, and only picture, for this article is a straight white couple. The article goes on to state: "It is thought that sexual attraction to a man by a woman, is somewhat determined by..." leacing out homosexual attraction between two males. Only europeans (which aren't a distinct genetic group anyways) are given in height differences between males and females. Is that somehow evident of other populations? Also the article says "At various times in history and throughout various cultures and sub-cultures...a display of masculinity in general...has been considered a primary characteristic of sexual attractiveness." Well logically then at other times a display of feminity (and no hair and no muscles) has been seen as sexually attractive in males. So what is this statement saying? Nothing, it is simply reinforcing our current cultural conceptions of what is considered attractive in men as 'objective,' scientific and historical 'fact.' No where in this article does it even suggest homosexual attraction exists, which is in fact quite common. Instead the article adopts a mock scientific tone, providing anecdotal 'facts' (if providing anything at all) to justify a largely ignorant and unsubstianted view on our sexuality. I propose this article be eliminated all together until it a)it substatiates its assertions, b) it doesn't use pictures of whites and examples of whites in making claims to a 'universal' definition of sexual attraction, and c) includes homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, transgendered and intersex sexual attraction.
- I think you mean 'ethnocentric,' not racist.--Nectar 03:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article may be focused on people of European decent and heterosexuals, but then so is primary use of the English language. The people writing (and reading) this article are by far more likely to be part of these groups than others, which likely explains the article's present composition. If you think there should be mentions of forms of attraction presently unmentioned, and feel compintant to write about them, I urge you to do so. As for the lack of a gay picture, you might like to add one if you've got one. matturn 11:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
don't be such asshole and stop trying to find a problem everywhere you god damn sucker. homosexualism is not natural so you can't want everyone to remember about it all the time. and i think that picture MUST be removed. who the fuck cares about a stupid couple with a guy sucking a girl's neck? that's not sexy. TAKE IT OFF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.228.14 (talk • contribs)
You shouldn't be homophobic here. Its your right to disapprove of it, but not to be offensive to people. I added some words about fetishism and homosexuality as not being important to sexual reproduction, but equally valid. Could someone clean them up a bit though as I didn't write them well. Also I'm not gay so I don't really know what gay men and women find attractive in each other! Mostly Zen 00:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm very attracted to my male partner, but I guess that isn't a genuine attraction because this enyclopedia is only for some peoples definition of "natural" attractions. He is far more attractive than any straight guy or girl I've seen though, so feck off JayKeaton 14:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
WHR and phi? No.
"Some studies suggest that one source of physical attraction of a human male to a human female is dependent upon a proportion between the width of the hips and the width of the waist (aka waist-hip ratio) (see Golden ratio)."
Phi is 1.618
1/phi is .618
The "ideal" waist hip ratio is .7
There is no relationship between the golden ratio and waist hip ratio. The above quote is misleading.
Bold textSara blandin is
Same wording of the article found in another website. Check http://www.whatis.tv/Sexual_attraction.html. Plagiarism.
That page takes content from Wikipedia, not the other way around - 85.145.148.191 22:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The picture
Seems like the whole article needs a rewrite, but i have a little suggestion; maby the picture should be of someone more widly known to be a sex symbol - such as Marilyn Monroe, Cleopatra or someone like that.
Factors determining sexual attraction to human females
Currently there is a topic regarding: Factors determining sexual attraction to human males. So shouldn't there therefore be a topic regarding human females?
Merger
Better disambiguation would be between attraction and beauty. Change the title of "Physical Attraction" to "Physical Beauty", then shift content dealing with attraction (lust) to this article while leaving beauty issues in beauty article.
A Physical and Sexually Attraction
Throughout everyday life and time, physical and sexually attraction have been either two or many things that matter when people are trying to be in a relationship. In other words, some people go for what they see physically while others are after what they experience sexually. One person might say, "I go for the sex because the sex has to be good." while another person will reply, "I look for appearance."
Why not trace the events back to the dawn of time to the modern day we live in. Back in the old days of many years ago, social status was more important than how physical or sexual was viewed. As the years rolled on, human nature changed that and went to what they view as physical appearance like the muscle man or the perfect woman with the right body such as: Hips, legs, face, hair, and breasts. As much as I know for today's way of thinking, it is now about how good a person looks where as the sex is the least factor for some to worry less about; however, there are people who prefer the sex to be better than what they see in appearance.
In the final view of everything I know, it is either the sexual attraction that draws people to each other by how they look while the physical attraction is the less value.--Zhang Liao 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
An affectionate Couple
hmmmm... looks like one of the couple is being affectionate... looks like the other one is cringing or at least nervous about having her picture taken while her other half is being 'affectionate'.
Perhaps the image should be entitled 'woman being groped by affectionate other half'. The caption also implies couples who aren't affectionate in public aren't affectionate. Which of course is a load of crap....
So perhaps we can get a better picture and change the caption to 'a couple showing/displaying affection'? Factoid Killer 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Might we not change it back to "A couple being sexually attracted"?172.191.162.44 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I can actually use a picture of my girlfriend and I if she's okay with it. :P Yanksox 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Get a wiki-room you two! - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)`
- Yeah, a picture containing me might be a good idea. I think my waist to hip ratio is 1:1 at this point. =P I'm also not sure if affection is quite what's being showcased by a guy groping his girlfriend...maybe something more tame? Just a thought. Srose 18:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)