Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I have not read the current research on this, but I thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss in a serious manner on this forum. I hope that it does not degrade to the equivalent of an OTF thread.

This is not a male oriented thread, it is intended to examine the phenomena of attraction in general, so women should include their input on the attractiveness of men as well. Also, comments regarding a persons thoughts on the attractiveness of same sex individuals should be explored as well.

Is it due to our parent's appearance? How much is due to media image? Does porn effect preference? Is it familiarity? Is it the exotic? Are specific feature preferences common cross culturally?

Other considerations?

What is it that produces attraction?

Just in terms of physical features, I've preferred...
...voluptuous over thin (so right away, you know society's standards--artificial and highly profit-driven, IMO--have Never held sway over me);
...dark over light;
...normal/tall over short.

But when all is said and done, the sexiest part of a woman is her mind. Attitude is everything, even more than a pretty face or great body.

I personally like the athletic appearance. The reason I believe is my preferred activities. I tend to be highly active, athletic abilities are of high value to me.

I would find it rather interesting to study the area around a hypothetical absolute threshold. How much manipulation of physical attraction is possible through extraneous stimuli? I am referring to signal detection theory, at least in part. The issue would be locating women that would fit the threshold.

Originally posted by Regret
I personally like the athletic appearance. The reason I believe is my preferred activities. I tend to be highly active, athletic abilities are of high value to me.

I would find it rather interesting to study the area around a hypothetical absolute threshold. How much manipulation of physical attraction is possible through extraneous stimuli? I am referring to signal detection theory, at least in part. The issue would be locating women that would fit the threshold.

Yes. Athletic/strong is sexy, too.

Would be interesting. Off-hand, I would say that manipulation of extraneous stimuli could have a much more powerful effect than many people would be comfortable with.

Originally posted by Mindship
Yes. Athletic/strong is sexy, too.

Would be interesting. Off-hand, I would say that manipulation of extraneous stimuli could have a much more powerful effect than many people would be comfortable with.

I think that is one of the major things people dislike about behavior analysis, well that and the fact that behavior analysis isn't as fun to talk about

Physically I prefer voluptuous/curvy over thin as well Mindship, I like light skin better and I prefer a woman who is a little taller or my own height. (I'm 5'3). I must also agree that personality is WAY better then how she looks.

I think our parents affect our views on what we find physically attractive greatly, most of my family members are "chubby" and have never ever really been skinny. So because of this as I stated above I find myself more attracted to voluptuous/curvy women then I do skinny women, so I think family has a big part in it or maybe even the whole thing. I think media image affects women more then it does men based on the sole fact that every time my g/f sees some skinny model in a magazine or t.v. ad she gets kind of down b/c she has it in her head that she HAS to look like that but I think she is very beautiful the way she is now. I personally think the media puts WAY WAY WAY to much emphasis on the whole "you have to be skinny or else" idea, which I think is total b.s. But all in all I think that it is our environment and what we grow up around that ultimately chooses what physical features we are most attracted to.

So, if family plays a strong role in determining physical attraction, is hair color similar between a child's mate and the corresponding parent? Are children of parents with differing hair color more varied in their hair color preferences?

I have found that a skinny woman will be found more attractive than someone heavier. The exception is when the skinny reaches an obviously malnourished state, and visible body areas show this. Even if a woman is unattractive by other criteria, skinny will increase the probability of a male finding her attractive.

Also, there was a study on the effects of media on men. Men typically have a different response, and don't generally share their discomfort in the same manner as women will. Yet, the study did show that men were impacted nearly as strongly as women by male images in the media. Although following marriage, men were less likely to be impacted by media while women did not alter in their response to media images. If I can find the reference I'll post it, but it was an old paper and was only used because I had a Nazi feminist FHD professor that was hammering men with blame for media image and female self-esteem during my undergrad work.

Well the funny thing about the hair color is that my mom has blonde hair and my dad has blondish hair. I always prefer blondes over any other hair color. I still think that the whole skinny factor is again affected by media whether it be men or women, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what I like is going to be way different from what other people like.

the Nazi feminist FHD professor

Originally posted by Regret
That is the question, why? What are the factors that have made this the image in the media? There must be some basis.

My 2-cents worth:

Throughout history, people with wealth have always set up standards of beauty to separate themselves from the masses. For example: a tan was once considered a mark of the peasant, the field worker, out in the sun all day, while the aristocrats--shielded from the sun in their palaces--bore skin like white porcelain.
Later, as agricultural societies became industrial societies, and working people spent more time indoors, tan became good: it suggested the wealth required Not to have to work all the time; you were rich enough to go on vacation and have fun in the sun. The pale skins were the poor who were always inside working.

Now we have a marvelous capitalistic society were everyone is equal. So what standard of beauty do you set?

Well...the goal of a capitalistic society is to sell.
You can't sell unless people have need. Real need is best.
However, if there isn't any real need (or "not enough", you create need.
And the more need you can instill in people, the more you can sell.

Now with regard to women: if women are happy with their appearance--with how normal women look--they have no need.
You create need by enforcing the mindset that "normal" is not good.
You set a difficult/impossible ideal, reinforcing it as "good" by associating this ideal with things people value (like wealth, but in modern times, also fame and overt sexual desirability).
The more extreme the ideal of beauty you can enforce (the further from normal you can successfully take it), the more need you can create in the average, normal woman.
And the more she needs, the more you can sell her.

Hence: our modern standard of female beauty, which includes (but is not limited to): thighs as thin as one's calves, boy-hips, a concave lower abdomen, a skeletal face; and just in case you can't grow boobs on such a malnourished frame, you buy fake ones.

Originally posted by Mindship
My 2-cents worth:

Throughout history, people with wealth have always set up standards of beauty to separate themselves from the masses. For example: a tan was once considered a mark of the peasant, the field worker, out in the sun all day, while the aristocrats--shielded from the sun in their palaces--bore skin like white porcelain.
Later, as agricultural societies became industrial societies, and working people spent more time indoors, tan became good: it suggested the wealth required Not to have to work all the time; you were rich enough to go on vacation and have fun in the sun. The pale skins were the poor who were always inside working.
And the more she needs, the more you can sell her.

Hence: our modern standard of female beauty, which includes (but is not limited to): thighs as thin as one's calves, boy-hips, a concave lower abdomen, a skeletal face; and just in case you can't grow boobs on such a malnourished frame, you buy fake ones.

I was thinking something like that, it is like a way to make themselves distinct from the masses. Good explanation. It is strange that this body type is so accepted, is is not so much feminine. I mean, scientifically makes more sense atracttion for voluptous, curvy body types.

Originally posted by Mindship
My 2-cents worth:

Throughout history, people with wealth have always set up standards of beauty to separate themselves from the masses. For example: a tan was once considered a mark of the peasant, the field worker, out in the sun all day, while the aristocrats--shielded from the sun in their palaces--bore skin like white porcelain.
Later, as agricultural societies became industrial societies, and working people spent more time indoors, tan became good: it suggested the wealth required Not to have to work all the time; you were rich enough to go on vacation and have fun in the sun. The pale skins were the poor who were always inside working.

Now we have a marvelous capitalistic society were everyone is equal. So what standard of beauty do you set?

Well...the goal of a capitalistic society is to sell.
You can't sell unless people have need. Real need is best.
However, if there isn't any real need (or "not enough", you create need.
And the more need you can instill in people, the more you can sell.

Now with regard to women: if women are happy with their appearance--with how normal women look--they have no need.
You create need by enforcing the mindset that "normal" is not good.
You set a difficult/impossible ideal, reinforcing it as "good" by associating this ideal with things people value (like wealth, but in modern times, also fame and overt sexual desirability).
The more extreme the ideal of beauty you can enforce (the further from normal you can successfully take it), the more need you can create in the average, normal woman.
And the more she needs, the more you can sell her.

Hence: our modern standard of female beauty, which includes (but is not limited to): thighs as thin as one's calves, boy-hips, a concave lower abdomen, a skeletal face; and just in case you can't grow boobs on such a malnourished frame, you buy fake ones.

It is an interesting idea, but the early female sex symbols were often voluptuous, I would assume that the changes occurred when sales increased following the presentation of a specific feature. Instead of corporate control, as I believe you are suggesting, an evolution of the figure due to demand?

Originally posted by Regret
It is an interesting idea, but the early female sex symbols were often voluptuous, I would assume that the changes occurred when sales increased following the presentation of a specific feature. Instead of corporate control, as I believe you are suggesting, an evolution of the figure due to demand?

Good point, and the first thing that comes to my mind is the feminist revolution, begun in the 1960s (post-Mae West / Marilyn Monroe / Sophia Loren). Likely, this also had something to do with women getting thinner. Demanding to be treated same as men, women thought perhaps they had to "look more like men" (?) They wanted to get away from that full-figured, maternal look, to be "built for speed, not for comfort" (and corporate America was then all too willing to exploit this 'look-like-a-man ideal'? For example, the "Big Shoulder" look of the 1980s).

Thinness is also associated more with youth, another ideal which our culture worships and tries to market as attainable if "you call within the next ten minutes!"

No doubt, the answer is more complex than just a few elements.

Originally posted by Mindship
Good point, and the first thing that comes to my mind is the feminist revolution, begun in the 1960s (post-Mae West / Marilyn Monroe / Sophia Loren). Likely, this also had something to do with women getting thinner. Demanding to be treated same as men, women thought perhaps they had to "look more like men" (?) They wanted to get away from that full-figured, maternal look, to be "built for speed, not for comfort" (and corporate America was then all too willing to exploit this 'look-like-a-man ideal'? For example, the "Big Shoulder" look of the 1980s).

The change from skirts to pants could explain some of the change as well. I think the 70's and 80's were more thin than other periods. The 90's is where the athletic look started to become popular. Are we moving back towards a more feminine figure in the media?

Originally posted by Mindship
Thinness is also associated more with youth, another ideal which our culture worships and tries to market as attainable if "you call within the next ten minutes!"

Are there examples of perception shift in physical attraction prior to the past few centuries? Did the Egyptian images portray women as thin?

Originally posted by Mindship
No doubt, the answer is more complex than just a few elements.

I do believe that it is more complex. I do however feel that there are specific things that are viewed in a negative manner and others that are viewed in a positive manner. I think that attraction is the sum of these things, although the values for each item probably varies depending on the individual observing. In this group of items there are probably fairly common subsets that can be considered nearly constant (i.e. some item will have similar value to the majority of observers.)

Originally posted by Regret
The change from skirts to pants could explain some of the change as well. I think the 70's and 80's were more thin than other periods. The 90's is where the athletic look started to become popular. Are we moving back towards a more feminine figure in the media?
God I hope so. Certainly it is more ethnic, which is good. But these days, what is considered "curvy" (eg, Salma Hayek) is still thinner than the pre-60s ideals (I, personally, will always worship Sophia Loren ).

I believe there were some studies done recently, were men were given photos of variously-figured women and were asked to rate what they considered most attractive. Apparently, boyish was Not #1, though neither was fat. A forget what the exact ratio was, but men wanted a significant difference, for example, between waist and hip girth, perhaps suggesting a certain level of fertility yet still appearing healthy overall.

Are there examples of perception shift in physical attraction prior to the past few centuries? Did the Egyptian images portray women as thin?
Funny you should mention that. My understanding is that Cleopatra was about 5' to 5'3 and weighed about 170-190 lbs. Same with Helen of Troy. Perhaps this fullness represented being rich enough to have plenty of food? And even more ancient are some robust, prehistoric fertility figurines...though this is hardly universal. There are thin ones too. Perhaps ancient peoples went through cycles as well, maybe depending on availability of food.

I do believe that it is more complex. I do however feel that there are specific things that are viewed in a negative manner and others that are viewed in a positive manner. I think that attraction is the sum of these things, although the values for each item probably varies depending on the individual observing. In this group of items there are probably fairly common subsets that can be considered nearly constant (i.e. some item will have similar value to the majority of observers.)

Agreed. I vaguely recall other studies done on beauty, and important--I believe fairly cross-cultural--factors were symmetry (perhaps suggesting overall health, freedom from disfiguring disease), and (not surprisingly) youth, or features which suggested youth.

Originally posted by Mindship
A forget what the exact ratio was, but men wanted a significant difference, for example, between waist and hip girth, perhaps suggesting a certain level of fertility yet still appearing healthy overall.

I found this quote at Supercrawler



I have heard similar statements before, it would be interesting to test various images of "beautiful" people for adherence to the golden ratio, to see if this is accurate.

Originally posted by Mindship
Funny you should mention that. My understanding is that Cleopatra was about 5' to 5'3 and weighed about 170-190 lbs. Same with Helen of Troy. Perhaps this fullness represented being rich enough to have plenty of food? And even more ancient are some robust, prehistoric fertility figurines...though this is hardly universal. There are thin ones too. Perhaps ancient peoples went through cycles as well, maybe depending on availability of food.

I found an interesting article on line, it has some reference to appearance back to the middle ages, but I cannot be sure of its credibility. It is on the History of Sexy Lingerie, and emphasises the silhouette through history. Here is the link to The History of Sexy Lingerie

I've seen a documentary on this subject on TV a while ago. Basically, you will be attracted to someone who has similar facial appearance than you, but who smells totally different. The smell part is important, apparently, you won't date anyone who smells the same as you do.

Originally posted by Regret
I have heard similar statements before, it would be interesting to test various images of "beautiful" people for adherence to the golden ratio, to see if this is accurate.
Here's a fun site:
http://www.intmath.com/BasicAlg/mathOfBeauty.php

As a sidenote, regarding "beauty" in mathematics: physicists often talk about "beauty" in equations describing theoretical phenomena. All the pieces fall into place so well; the equation explains things wonderfully. It just "feels/looks right." Problem is, it's all math; there's no experimental verification. So as tempting as it is to think, "Well, this works out so well, it must be true," one can not automatically draw that conclusion.

I found an interesting article on line, it has some reference to appearance back to the middle ages, but I cannot be sure of its credibility. It is on the History of Sexy Lingerie, and emphasises the silhouette through history.
If this Is credible--and offhand, I don't see why not--my God what women have gone through! No wonder they take it out on men every chance they get. (j/k).

Wonderer
Yeah, fascinating stuff. And one of the most potent aromatic messengers: stale male sweat.

Originally posted by Mindship
Here's a fun site:
http://www.intmath.com/BasicAlg/mathOfBeauty.php

As a sidenote, regarding "beauty" in mathematics: physicists often talk about "beauty" in equations describing theoretical phenomena. All the pieces fall into place so well; the equation explains things wonderfully. It just "feels/looks right." Problem is, it's all math; there's no experimental verification. So as tempting as it is to think, "Well, this works out so well, it must be true," one can not automatically draw that conclusion.

Interesting site.

Yes, agreed. I believe that the faces on that site were chosen for their ability to match the GR mask they created. It was interesting that they chose William Hung as the only unattractive face. He is an extreme example. Better choices would have been those that were often considered iffy on their appearance being attractive or not. Also, taking a number of faces that had varying degrees of fit to the mask, I would choose 50 or so with similar features, and then have a decent sized n population rate the faces. If this is true, then the closer fits should rate higher by the subjects than those that fit less well. Also, the closeness of fit should provide a decent psychophysical ogive for attractiveness.

My physical attractions have changed as I got older. I identify as Bisexual, so here are my "types":

Women

-feminine or tomboyish, either 1 is ok
-voluptous, not skinny, not fat either
-big eyes, any color will do
-long eyelashes
-big breasts preferred
-big ass
-any skin color, doesn't matter as long as complexion is smooth
-any race, as long as she's hott
-straight or wavy hair preferred



Men

-muscular !!!!!
-Masculine...not macho, but manly...i dont like feminine guys
-taller than me
-developed chest
-any eye color will do
-longer penis preferred
-bigger nipples preferred
-big ass
-smooth hair, don't like nappy or bald




Sidenote- I have always liked both men and women for as long as I can remember. I used to, however, be more attracted to women. But ever since age 15, i Started liking Men a LOT MORE. As of today, i would much rather date a guy than girl, but there are some girls who turn me on just as easily...so i duno.

Why my physical type attractions developed? Don't know....mediadefinately has a part in this ! Not in terms of my sexual orientation, but in terms of which men or women i prefer. I am not racist by any means, but I find that when it comes to men I prefer european, mediterranean, or hispanic. When it comes to women, i am more racially open...i duno y.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally speaking, I prefer curvy, athletic women types. Yum.

I think people seem to go for people who's face is more Asymmetric...well balanced. Of course there is that pheromone thingie, but for me, they have to be bigger than me.......I mean my god, I'm only 5 foot tall.....lol. I like a guy to look like a guy and act like one...It does not really matter what color hair or even if they are in the greatest shape...It comes down to personality in the end. A sense of humour, wit and intelligence, and also like Omega said self confidence.........Chests are nice though....

I like a take charge kind of woman. I don't want a dominatrix, but she needs to know what she thinks and why she thinks it. She needs to know what she wants and be willing to take it. She also needs to be rational, a relationship is give and take, moderate compromise on both ends is the key.

That being said, other than my wife, my family does not have a woman as strong as I like in it. Given this, I have to assume that this attraction must come from one of two areas. Either I took this from the male side of my family or I gained it from exposure to feminism in the media. None of my brothers show signs of similar attraction, and I do not see it in the family farther back, so this I assume is not the impetus for the attraction. I have to assume that media has shaped this view.

I think that the media is a huge contributor to society's definition of beauty. We're constantly being told what is beautiful & what isn't...how can we not be affected by it?

As for what I think's attractive...well...I don't like overly muscular guys...I prefer lean muscle. I tend to like paler skin, but a slight tan is good also. I love broad shoulders & full lips. I like taller men...I've always had a boyfriend who was as tall, or taller than me. (I'm about 5'6, 5'7)

If I found a guy who matched my above description, but had an awful personality, then I would have no interest in him. I think personality is what can either break an attraction, or make it complete.

To me, physical appearance is subordinate to personality.

Originally posted by Storm
To me, physical appearance is subordinate to personality.

Not necessarily. Should be true in the "big picture". But, it is no less than third on everyone superficial "laundry list". Income is the other factor, in addition to physical attractiveness.

Not in my case. Fire and I met on line, and only met in real life afterwards. It' s no secret that I didn' t find him attractive, but I was already won over by his personality. The both of us are without an income, as we' re still studying at university.

Originally posted by Storm
Not in my case. Fire and I met on line, and only met in real life afterwards.

Ditto, as have my fiance and I.....but not first w/o seeing pics of her.

Originally posted by Storm
To me, physical appearance is subordinate to personality.

Yes, it often is. I am speaking about physical attraction. People have an easier time describing the reasons for finding a personality attractive than they do explaining why the consider the appearance attractive. What is it that causes the attraction, what learning influenced it, and are there universal norms in what increases attraction?