Talk:Physical attractiveness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
Physical attractiveness was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}} |
 Archives |
| Talk:Physical attractiveness/Archive 1 Talk:Physical attractiveness/Archive 2 |
[edit] Obesity?
Why does it always say that being thin is "judged as being attractive in Western culture". Is there ANY culture in the world where obesity is considered attractive? If no one defends this I'm going to go ahead and be bold by removing the POV dogshit. 76.223.237.10 16:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Define "obesity". Refer to the Rubenesque period in English history. There are many local tribes that do not share westerner's newfound love of thinness.--Loodog 22:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Check out "steatopygy" as well, a highly attractive feature in some cultures. __Just plain Bill 01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pictures, again.
I do not believe there should be pictures in this article at all. To put a picture'in an article about physical attractiveness is POV. I say someone is attractive, you do not. You say someone is, I agree, someone else does not. Just because the person in the picture may meet statistical evidence of what some polled people consider attractive does not mean that person is attractive. So I propose we remove all pictures. i said 04:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, we've been through this. I personally don't find any of the people posted in image form attractive; they function as visual aides in demonstrating characteristics that have been shown to be attractive cross culturally.--Loodog 05:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Would you mind giving me sources that show a large majority of the human race find certain attributes attractive, one for both men and women, and then sources that say the subjects of these photos meet them? i said 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- The sources are all over the page.--Loodog 14:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd have to second this, much as sexual attraction this article should be without any pictures, people have different preferences. I for one don't find a skinny, blonde model with what are most likely fake breasts, and enough make-up to shame Mimi Bobeck, attractive, and I'm sure many other people don't as well. Revrant 02:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, let me just quote myself since you've ignored it: "I personally don't find any of the people posted in image form attractive; they function as visual aides in demonstrating characteristics that have been shown to be attractive cross culturally.--Loodog 05:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)"--Loodog 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, I did not, and I'd appreciate refraining from such veiled insults in the future, blonde, over-tanned, make-up lathered, and quite possibly anorexic women are not considered attractive cross-culturally, how do I know this? They may just be in a short supply across Asia and many other places in the world. Also, deeply tanned men with exaggerated muscles are not considered attractive cross culturally, again most notably in Asia, though extending to places such as Africa and Europe.
- Hi, let me just quote myself since you've ignored it: "I personally don't find any of the people posted in image form attractive; they function as visual aides in demonstrating characteristics that have been shown to be attractive cross culturally.--Loodog 05:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)"--Loodog 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I reiterate, this article simply should not have pictures, what society and magazines feel is acceptable and attractive has little bearing on the reality of things, which is quite subjective and open to debate, and I'd fully support removing pictures if it was put up to a vote. Revrant 05:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Let me try again: "I personally don't find any of the people posted in image form attractive; they function as visual aides in demonstrating characteristics that have been shown to be attractive cross culturally."--Loodog 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I won't be replying to you again, when you can find a less insulting tone, you get back to me. Revrant 06:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is: Don't misconstrue every trait and appearance in the picture as something held or asserted to be universally attractive. The caption doesn't even mention Michelle Merkin or her skinniness or whatever trait you are repulsed by. It says "Features such as a symmetrical face, full lips, and low waist-hip ratio are commonly considered attractive." If I showed you a picture of Buffalo City Hall, to demonstrate the concept of Art Deco, you wouldn't think that its being tall makes it an example of Art Deco.--Loodog 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for moving towards intelligent discussion, I fully understood what you were trying to relay, but that's entirely too subjective, Art Deco is heavily defined, and it's quite easy to find present examples of it in architecture, physical attractiveness varies wildly, and there is simply no logic in providing pictures for it. Revrant 06:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- "physical attractiveness varies wildly, and there is simply no logic in providing pictures for it". If you honestly believe this, then this article can't be written at all.--Loodog 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it can, there simply must be some kind of separation, between the article itself and the perception of the topic at hand, if pictures simply must exist, they cannot exist as examples of physically attractive people, but under their own section, and could logically include what other cultures perceive to be physically attractive under this section. Right now, as it is, there is very little separation between the perception and the fact, which is extremely subjective and varies wildly, I think that is a viable solution. Revrant 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then, insofar as attractive traits can be specified, they can be demonstrated. The pictures make no claim about attributes the pictured people have that have not been shown cross culturally to be attractive.--Loodog 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good gracious, yes they have, simply by being featured so prominently, and I think the two should be separated for the sake of perception, what magazines and some of society feel is physically attractive has little sway with the public at large, and are extremely subjective. Listing what might be considered attractive versus pictures demonstrating models is a rather large gap, especially with pictures having such a wide appeal versus words, which allow people to fill in the gaps themselves. There is absolutely no argument for having pictures without attaching them very directly to being merely what might be "perceived" as attractive, and considering the vast array on ethnicities present on, well, Earth, the fact of the matter is, a thin, white, tan, blonde model cannot be attractive cross culturally in any meaningful way. Revrant 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reread my last point.--Loodog 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good gracious, yes they have, simply by being featured so prominently, and I think the two should be separated for the sake of perception, what magazines and some of society feel is physically attractive has little sway with the public at large, and are extremely subjective. Listing what might be considered attractive versus pictures demonstrating models is a rather large gap, especially with pictures having such a wide appeal versus words, which allow people to fill in the gaps themselves. There is absolutely no argument for having pictures without attaching them very directly to being merely what might be "perceived" as attractive, and considering the vast array on ethnicities present on, well, Earth, the fact of the matter is, a thin, white, tan, blonde model cannot be attractive cross culturally in any meaningful way. Revrant 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then, insofar as attractive traits can be specified, they can be demonstrated. The pictures make no claim about attributes the pictured people have that have not been shown cross culturally to be attractive.--Loodog 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it can, there simply must be some kind of separation, between the article itself and the perception of the topic at hand, if pictures simply must exist, they cannot exist as examples of physically attractive people, but under their own section, and could logically include what other cultures perceive to be physically attractive under this section. Right now, as it is, there is very little separation between the perception and the fact, which is extremely subjective and varies wildly, I think that is a viable solution. Revrant 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- "physical attractiveness varies wildly, and there is simply no logic in providing pictures for it". If you honestly believe this, then this article can't be written at all.--Loodog 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for moving towards intelligent discussion, I fully understood what you were trying to relay, but that's entirely too subjective, Art Deco is heavily defined, and it's quite easy to find present examples of it in architecture, physical attractiveness varies wildly, and there is simply no logic in providing pictures for it. Revrant 06:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is: Don't misconstrue every trait and appearance in the picture as something held or asserted to be universally attractive. The caption doesn't even mention Michelle Merkin or her skinniness or whatever trait you are repulsed by. It says "Features such as a symmetrical face, full lips, and low waist-hip ratio are commonly considered attractive." If I showed you a picture of Buffalo City Hall, to demonstrate the concept of Art Deco, you wouldn't think that its being tall makes it an example of Art Deco.--Loodog 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I won't be replying to you again, when you can find a less insulting tone, you get back to me. Revrant 06:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Let me try again: "I personally don't find any of the people posted in image form attractive; they function as visual aides in demonstrating characteristics that have been shown to be attractive cross culturally."--Loodog 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- sorry to butt in, but all the pictures are of white people. I think that if pictures are necessary, it might be better if they represented more types of people. 24.74.141.22 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. If you can find free pictures of attractive people of other races, you are welcome to change the images, though, keep in mind, that between three images, you're not going to get a mirror of American demographics here.--Loodog 02:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Listen up. This fraction is from the talk-page of the Michele_Merkin picture:
"Hardly. It's featured on her page, glamour photography, beauty, and physical attractiveness. " See anything wrong here?! Its so wrong to promote modelism as beauty, and to promote any living model. I say go for something.. tastefull, historic. Something that actually shows what the text says about the picture, and illustrates. - Alex
I personally think the picture of Michelle Merkin on this page is really ugly. How many agree with me? I know it's impossible to find a consensus here but I think that pic is so ugly that it makes the whole page look almost like a joke. Cazort (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Abdominal muscle tone/adiposity: indicators of pregnancy
Not sure "adiposity" is even a word, but I believe that (straight) males are biased toward females with flat tummies, to avoid hooking up with a pregnant mate, and thus supporting someone else's genes. Pretty sure there is a reference or two to be found for this. Am guessing this would fit in the "Proportion of Body Mass" section.
Went looking for references and found this, which points out that the pregnant female form was considered an "ideal of beauty" at some times in some places, to the extent that there was a brief fashion of women padding their abdomens...
For now, given that complication, I'll just leave this as a note on the discussion page. __Just plain Bill 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ugly people
If we're going to keep the photos of models, can we also have some pictures of ugly people, in order to illustrate physical features that studies have shown people find repellent?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- The title of this section made me laugh. I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. Anyway, to the question, I'm not so sure. I mean, that would be better-suited in the article Ugliness. But for either article, adding pictures of people and stating that they are found to be ugly would seem more off without a source, and even with a source, would seem in bad taste. Especially if the images are of famous people. Flyer22 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merkin image and other images
The image of Michele Merkin has a POV description, the image itself is clearly retouched and a photoshopped composite, so we'll need a decent source identifying that this individual is considered an archetype of Western ideas of physical attractiveness before it goes back in. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't think it is a composite. I think it got that effect by using sunlight behind and a flash gun in front. Man with two legs (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- The description of Merkin should probably be changed, but that image is a featured image, and I don't see anything wrong with that image itself being the main (lead) image of this article. This article is already sourced with what people find physically attractive, and these images are displaying what this article already says is considered physically attractive, such as full lips, abs, etc. If we should provide valid sources within these image descriptions that reference these people as being considered physically attractive, then that should be easy enough. Flyer 18:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've been down the picture road so many times on this article, I don't care anymore. Originally, this article had no pictures, and someone put up a "request for picture" template. I put up Jessica Alba as someone who obviously has big youthful lips, long thick hair, the appearance of clear skin, and also verifiably has the pan-cultural desirable characteristic WHR of .70. The image was her on the cover of Playboy with the cover stating that she was one of the "hottest" people. There were objections and the image was fair use instead of free so the image was changed to Merkin. I don't think she's particularly attractive, though I concede that she demonstrates the qualities discussed.
-
- That's when people came here and started misconstruing what this article is about and viscerally objecting to the idea of putting an objective wrapping on the irrefutably subjective concept of beauty. Others said that putting any image up implies that person to be the ultimate standard of beauty in spite of the caption explicitly mentioning the picture as a demonstration of the qualities discussed, thusly imposing an ethnocentric standard of beauty on the world. Do what you will.--Loodog 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Loodog, it may be inappropriate to say, but this post of yours made me want to clap, and yell, "Tell it like it is!" It sounds like you know that there is nothing wrong with having Merkin as the main image within this article, or having the other images exist within this article. And if so, you know that I agree with you. I just don't see the problem with Merkin or any of these images being examples, when it is clear that all they are doing is demonstrating features that this article already states (with valid sources) are physically attractive. Flyer22 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's when people came here and started misconstruing what this article is about and viscerally objecting to the idea of putting an objective wrapping on the irrefutably subjective concept of beauty. Others said that putting any image up implies that person to be the ultimate standard of beauty in spite of the caption explicitly mentioning the picture as a demonstration of the qualities discussed, thusly imposing an ethnocentric standard of beauty on the world. Do what you will.--Loodog 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I would recommend adding lots of images. There are famous iconic images of beauty from a variety of civilizations though out history from a famous African statue to ancient Greek depictions of icons of beauty to Indian sacred art depicting classic beauties etc. WAS 4.250 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not a bad suggestion, of course. Flyer22 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would recommend adding lots of images. There are famous iconic images of beauty from a variety of civilizations though out history from a famous African statue to ancient Greek depictions of icons of beauty to Indian sacred art depicting classic beauties etc. WAS 4.250 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] children
Children are by definition beautiful. And since many people (pedophiles) are atracted to them in a physical way, shouldn't be at least one picture of a child? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.73.179.226 (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Uh...not if it's because pedophiles are attracted to them. And if it's not about the pedophiles, this article is more so focusing on physical attractiveness as being sexually or romantically attracted to a person. When most people think of physical attractiveness, they think in terms of sexual/romantic feelings, not on the simple basis of cute, such as a child being cute. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- We need a source for that, dude. Without a source your comment is invalid. - Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.185.54 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
Physical_attractiveness#Waist-hip_ratio i don't think this image really meets the article's criteria, but to some she might be beautiful. Just.. Not me. 72.77.93.122 (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're talking about the woman in the Signals of youth section. Well, it's mainly just pointing out how her youthfulness is a desired physical trait. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Focus of eyes during porn watching
Cheeser, I will reiterate what I said in my edit summary. The focus of men and women's eyes during the viewing of sexual activity is far from a "Social effect of attractiveness". Take a look at the rest of that section. It is also not relevant to physical attractiveness in general. Try human sexuality, sexual intercourse, human sexual behavior, sexual stimulation, or even pornography.--Loodog (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- So move it to another section. I also find it interesting that when some of the erotic images include sexual intercourse, you immediately speciate this to "where people look during porn." This article isn't censored, nor is its scope. This paragraph seems to follow smoothly from the previous one, and its context and content are just fine. Why do you insist on deleting it? Create a new section in the article, change the heading for the existing one, do something (besides edit-warring by repeatedly deleting perfectly good material). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that there is no place in this article, nor could there be created one, that is appropriate for this piece of information. It is possibly appropriate to one of the above article I've mentioned. If you'd like this piece of information included (and it is interesting), look there instead of randomly dropping it into where it clearly doesn't belong.--Loodog (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Don't look at me - that info's been in here for a while and I didn't put it here. It seems to be properly contextualized by other information in the article. You may say "there is no place" but you haven't explained why. You just say so, and that's that. But I disagree, as does the rest of consensus, which allowed that paragraph to become a part of the status-quo version of this article. If you want to remove it, you'll need a reason besides "it doesn't go here." --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, fine. Surrounding section, outlined:
- Being attractive is linked to being a better adjusted person.
- Being attractive is linked to earning more.
- Being attractive gets you societal benefits.
- Being attractive is linked to being more promiscuous.
- Gender differentiation appears when people are exposed to erotic imagery.
- Yeah, that fits right in.--Loodog (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it doesn't fit its section. How about the article? We have entire sections on how men and women are perceived, physically. Gender differentiation fits right in. So be bold and move it to a new section or subsection, instead of cutting it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- So we leave it in randomly? What's the point of leaving it in a place you concede it doesn't fit in? I personally can see no section in this article it is suitable for since this is about the reception of a sexualized situation, rather than what visual stimulus a person puts out in sexual and nonsexual interactions. I'm removing it because it improves the coherence of the article. If you want it included so badly, you are welcome to spend the time to find a better place for it rather than reinserting it in the admittedly wrong place.--Loodog (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, did you just say (excuse the paraphrasing) "forget the consensus-building process, I'm going to do whatever I want"??? --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- As of right now, the concensus is me and you, both of whom have agreed that the piece in question does not fit where it is. This means we have both agreed to remove it from that section. The point on which concensus has not been reached is if we want to put it somewhere. Fine. We remove this piece as per agreement. It will be reinstated when you propose where it goes and it makes sense to me.--Loodog (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense. You've already been trying to force your deletion onto the article. Deleting it again and saying "if you want to fix it, do whatever else you want to undo my forced deletions" in the name of consensus... well then you need to reread WP:CONS. Until consensus is established, you absolutely should not delete it again. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of which. I've seen your recent move and do not agree. The entire article is about outward attractiveness, not human response to sexual depiction, which is (again) more appropriate to human sexuality, sexual intercourse, human sexual behavior, sexual stimulation, or even pornography.--Loodog (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Says you. But since you haven't built a consensus to delete this paragraph, you don't get to delete it. Anyone else care to comment? I'm done feeding this discussion for now. The content has been moved. It fits the article. You want to cut it because you "do not agree" and don't want it there?? Well, until you build a consensus to do so, it stays. Comments from anyone else? --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of which. I've seen your recent move and do not agree. The entire article is about outward attractiveness, not human response to sexual depiction, which is (again) more appropriate to human sexuality, sexual intercourse, human sexual behavior, sexual stimulation, or even pornography.--Loodog (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense. You've already been trying to force your deletion onto the article. Deleting it again and saying "if you want to fix it, do whatever else you want to undo my forced deletions" in the name of consensus... well then you need to reread WP:CONS. Until consensus is established, you absolutely should not delete it again. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- As of right now, the concensus is me and you, both of whom have agreed that the piece in question does not fit where it is. This means we have both agreed to remove it from that section. The point on which concensus has not been reached is if we want to put it somewhere. Fine. We remove this piece as per agreement. It will be reinstated when you propose where it goes and it makes sense to me.--Loodog (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, did you just say (excuse the paraphrasing) "forget the consensus-building process, I'm going to do whatever I want"??? --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- So we leave it in randomly? What's the point of leaving it in a place you concede it doesn't fit in? I personally can see no section in this article it is suitable for since this is about the reception of a sexualized situation, rather than what visual stimulus a person puts out in sexual and nonsexual interactions. I'm removing it because it improves the coherence of the article. If you want it included so badly, you are welcome to spend the time to find a better place for it rather than reinserting it in the admittedly wrong place.--Loodog (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it doesn't fit its section. How about the article? We have entire sections on how men and women are perceived, physically. Gender differentiation fits right in. So be bold and move it to a new section or subsection, instead of cutting it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, fine. Surrounding section, outlined:
- Don't look at me - that info's been in here for a while and I didn't put it here. It seems to be properly contextualized by other information in the article. You may say "there is no place" but you haven't explained why. You just say so, and that's that. But I disagree, as does the rest of consensus, which allowed that paragraph to become a part of the status-quo version of this article. If you want to remove it, you'll need a reason besides "it doesn't go here." --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that there is no place in this article, nor could there be created one, that is appropriate for this piece of information. It is possibly appropriate to one of the above article I've mentioned. If you'd like this piece of information included (and it is interesting), look there instead of randomly dropping it into where it clearly doesn't belong.--Loodog (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
So what is your point? "Outward physical attractiveness"? How the male and female form is perceived has nothing to do with physical attractiveness? That's patently false. Why must this offending paragraph be removed, because all I see is "I think it does not belong" without a serious or believable explanation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- First, it's not even necessarily about the perception of attractiveness. The subjects may not even find the participants attractive. The crucial thing being tested is sexual behavioral reaction. The article, if you read its entirety at one pass, is serving as a description of what makes a person attractive. Second, we already have articles about Sexual arousal, Sexual attraction, Erotica, and Sexual stimulation (including visual stimulation).--Loodog (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- So we have extensive explanations of which parts are considered attractive, and in what ways. A section on how each part is perceived when judging physical attractiveness... this is irrelevant? Why exactly? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The subjects exposed to erotic images are not judging physical attractiveness. They are responding to a sexual situation.--Loodog (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Try wikt:erotic. To say that sexual attractiveness has nothing to do with physical attractiveness would be pretty naive. Erotic may mean of a sexual nature, but hell, the picture in the lead of this article has a topless woman. Let's not play the semantics game. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do not believe this is a semantical point. If I dangled a piece of meat in front of a tiger and watched its reaction, I wouldn't put in an article on how tiger's judge nutritional value.--Loodog (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, but if someone who studies animal behavior did, they'd publish a paper that would be a suitable source for such an article. And they do. Because that's how they study such things (not to put it to simplistically, but it is). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I would gladly concede that it is relevant to this article and the topic if, in the study in question, participants were asked to rank the attractiveness of the persons in the erotic imagery. Then, where they looked would be indicative of how they judged attractiveness. Where they look now is only a measure of how a person takes in erotic visual stimulus, regardless of attractiveness--Loodog (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and in this article we establish which features of the body are a part of physical attractiveness. This study provides an explanation as to how these features are perceived. Do you want this to be in an article "perception of physical attractiveness" or something? It's clearly and obviously related. The fact that the study does not encompass the entirety of the content in this article doesn't mean the content is not relevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'd like it to be in Sexual arousal, Erotica, or Sexual stimulation. My vote is for sexual stimulation. This isn't people responding to attractiveness so much as responding to visual sexual stimulus, which fits perfectly in with "Mental sexual stimulation".--Loodog (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- And you can add it to whatever other articles you like. It can go in more place than one. It is still relevant to this article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't people responding to attractiveness so much as responding to visual sexual stimulus. If a person came up behind you and rubbed your dick, you'd have a reaction, regardless of the attractiveness of the person. This is sexual stimulus, not attractiveness judgement.--Loodog (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nice strawman, but I've already explained how this study is relevant (graphic allusions to my sex organs aside). The paragraph itself explains the relevance, making note of how attractiveness relates to what features each sex tends to judge attractiveness by. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- "I've already explained how this study is relevant" and that was rebutted since the the focus of the eyes is irrespective of attractiveness. Please explain how a reaction irrespective of physical attractiveness belongs in an article about physical attractiveness.--Loodog (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nice strawman, but I've already explained how this study is relevant (graphic allusions to my sex organs aside). The paragraph itself explains the relevance, making note of how attractiveness relates to what features each sex tends to judge attractiveness by. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't people responding to attractiveness so much as responding to visual sexual stimulus. If a person came up behind you and rubbed your dick, you'd have a reaction, regardless of the attractiveness of the person. This is sexual stimulus, not attractiveness judgement.--Loodog (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- And you can add it to whatever other articles you like. It can go in more place than one. It is still relevant to this article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'd like it to be in Sexual arousal, Erotica, or Sexual stimulation. My vote is for sexual stimulation. This isn't people responding to attractiveness so much as responding to visual sexual stimulus, which fits perfectly in with "Mental sexual stimulation".--Loodog (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and in this article we establish which features of the body are a part of physical attractiveness. This study provides an explanation as to how these features are perceived. Do you want this to be in an article "perception of physical attractiveness" or something? It's clearly and obviously related. The fact that the study does not encompass the entirety of the content in this article doesn't mean the content is not relevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I would gladly concede that it is relevant to this article and the topic if, in the study in question, participants were asked to rank the attractiveness of the persons in the erotic imagery. Then, where they looked would be indicative of how they judged attractiveness. Where they look now is only a measure of how a person takes in erotic visual stimulus, regardless of attractiveness--Loodog (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, but if someone who studies animal behavior did, they'd publish a paper that would be a suitable source for such an article. And they do. Because that's how they study such things (not to put it to simplistically, but it is). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do not believe this is a semantical point. If I dangled a piece of meat in front of a tiger and watched its reaction, I wouldn't put in an article on how tiger's judge nutritional value.--Loodog (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Try wikt:erotic. To say that sexual attractiveness has nothing to do with physical attractiveness would be pretty naive. Erotic may mean of a sexual nature, but hell, the picture in the lead of this article has a topless woman. Let's not play the semantics game. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The subjects exposed to erotic images are not judging physical attractiveness. They are responding to a sexual situation.--Loodog (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- So we have extensive explanations of which parts are considered attractive, and in what ways. A section on how each part is perceived when judging physical attractiveness... this is irrelevant? Why exactly? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Both of you have brought up some valid points. However, from what that information is particularly dealing with, I agree with Loodog that it is better suited in the Sexual arousal, Erotica, or Sexual stimulation article. It most definitely would be better placed in one of those articles than here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- So copy it there. Since when is information relevant to two articles allowed only in the one "better" for it? --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wrapping it up
Motion for the material under discussion to be removed from this page as per above arguments.--Loodog (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Motion? What is this, parliament? You want to cut it because you believe it's "not in the scope of this article." The person who added it, the people who allowed it to remain a part of the status-quo version of this article, and I who've objected disagree with this assessment. If you want a "motion" to do something, I suggest you submit a request for comment. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please stick to content and kindly respond to my point, that it is not in the scope of this article. Its endurance on the page is a moot point. It's been around for a little over a month now, and only because I didn't catch it before. You know that appeal to wikipedia existence means nothing. Second, if you would like to continue debating as if other people were here, I invite you to notify them so they may speak for themselves.--Loodog (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're the one who wants a change. Establish your consensus that this material is not relevant (despite appearing to be, at least to the people I've mentioned). The onus is on you to establish a consensus that which parts people consider attractive is somehow irrelevant. As far as I can tell, it's relevant prima facie, regardless of what kind of rhetorical distance you can put between this paragraph and other parts of the article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stop ducking my points and respond:
- Please explain how a reaction irrespective of physical attractiveness belongs in an article about physical attractiveness.
- The existence of this piece of information for a month on wikipedia proves nothing because it's wikipedia.
- The presupposition of a concensus or lack thereof is invalid since, as of now, the only participants are you, me, and Flyer, the majority of which disagrees with you, not me.
- --Loodog (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- 4. You've already changed it, without somehow the onus being on you.
- --Loodog (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Points 2 & 3 are overblown nonsense. It's in the article. You want to remove it. So build a consensus. (A 2-1 "vote" is not a consensus). It's basic policy, although the edit warring you engaged in over this matter indicates you may not be familiar with it. As for point 1, I've explained why it's relevant. I don't need to explain how it's not irrelevant. You're asking questions that have nothing to do with the reason for including it: here's a list of body parts and features that affect attractiveness, and here's a study that explains which parts of the body are of interest during romantic/sexual/erotic situations. Absolutely relevant, a great way to contextualize the content in this article, and I have no idea why you're so hell-bent on removing it from the article. Are you worried about sexual content in this article or something?? Where does your zeal come from? Why are you so offended in that you (wrongly) believe I'm "ducking" your "points"? I'm sure you want the best for this article, but why does deleting relevant (even marginally relevant) content help anyone, ever? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Edit conflict: What are you going on about in point 4?? It appears that you don't understand the consensus building process. I didn't change anything, but the person who added this content in the past - the addition was not challenged, which means it becomes accepted by consensus. Coming around after it has become an established part of the article and demanding it be deleted because you don't think it's relevant requires a new consensus to be built. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, you've done it again and now you're not assuming good faith.
- You write "which parts of the body are of interest during sex". Not which parts of the body are attractive during sex.
- You haven't addressed this point, except dismissing it as "nonsense".
- The point of this was to stop creating opinions of nonpresent people.
- You took the material and moved it to a new section. This is a change you unilaterally performed.
- You speak of my "coming around after it's been established" as if I were doing this to circumvent reaction. To the best of your or my knowledge, there are only two people opposed to my removal, and Siliconov, the user adding it, might agree that upon debate, yes, it shouldn't be there. I came along because it had slipped my notice. Don't believe me? Then you're not assuming good faith.
- --Loodog (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- 6. My single reversion past the original was in good faith and not edit warring. I honestly believed that my edit summary would be sufficient for the differing editor to agree.--Loodog (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- You know, I'm done addressing your laundry lists. You're playing semantics games instead of thinking about what content might be valuable to the article. We both agreed it didn't fit the subsection it was in, so I moved it. You contest that, fine, move it back but don't object to the move just to prove some point about consensus building. You reverted a revert, which is what it is. Edit warring. I'm done dancing around this issue. Build your consensus or don't, but I'm not going to pander to this endless bickering any longer. And please don't play this AGF game with me. You removed the content weeks and weeks after it was added: you need to justify your deletion. My saying so is not a lack of good-faith assumption. Why don't you read up on how you're the one making this personal. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Look, I can't understand your viewpoint and address your points and come to some agreement with you unless you take the bother of addressing any of the points that I've made. If you just say, "I don't agree" without explanation, all you're doing is preventing concensus. Please respond to the above points if you care enough to obstruct removal of the piece of text in question.--Loodog (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- You know, I'm done addressing your laundry lists. You're playing semantics games instead of thinking about what content might be valuable to the article. We both agreed it didn't fit the subsection it was in, so I moved it. You contest that, fine, move it back but don't object to the move just to prove some point about consensus building. You reverted a revert, which is what it is. Edit warring. I'm done dancing around this issue. Build your consensus or don't, but I'm not going to pander to this endless bickering any longer. And please don't play this AGF game with me. You removed the content weeks and weeks after it was added: you need to justify your deletion. My saying so is not a lack of good-faith assumption. Why don't you read up on how you're the one making this personal. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, you've done it again and now you're not assuming good faith.
- Stop ducking my points and respond:
- You're the one who wants a change. Establish your consensus that this material is not relevant (despite appearing to be, at least to the people I've mentioned). The onus is on you to establish a consensus that which parts people consider attractive is somehow irrelevant. As far as I can tell, it's relevant prima facie, regardless of what kind of rhetorical distance you can put between this paragraph and other parts of the article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please stick to content and kindly respond to my point, that it is not in the scope of this article. Its endurance on the page is a moot point. It's been around for a little over a month now, and only because I didn't catch it before. You know that appeal to wikipedia existence means nothing. Second, if you would like to continue debating as if other people were here, I invite you to notify them so they may speak for themselves.--Loodog (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I usually have a significant portion to say in debates, but after reading everything you two have stated about this matter, I really don't have too much more to state concerning this...except that I still agree with Loodog about the above debated text being better off not here. I honestly don't have much more to say on this matter than that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfC
I request indepedent comment in resolving the above content dispute.--Loodog (talk) !!time=23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The two longest sections of this article detail the parts of the body that are considered attractive, and how. Which parts are the object of interest, when someone is attracted to (or aroused by, or judging the attractiveness of) another, is of clear and obvious relevance. What's the problem, is there not enough paper to fit this whole article onto? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I couldn't participate earlier in the debate and I'm sorry I didn't read the entire thread, however I got the main point of this discussion. I, as the author of the material under dispute, agree with both Loodog and Cheeser1, since both opinions make sense: on one hand, information I provided maybe does have too much information on human sexual behavior and sexuality than on mere physical attractiveness, but on the other hand the article does describe parts of human body that are generally considered to be attractive, hence beautiful and sexy. What I provided was information on how men and women react on different erotic images and what they find more attractive. "The results illustrated that women were more attracted to sexual acts in the first place and men would paid attention to faces" - last sentence of my excerpt concludes on what both sexes are more attracted to, physically. Well, this is a tough one... As far as I understood Cheeser1 was more angry with the fact that the information was deleted without any notice and based on one single opinion of Loodog than with the fact that it doesn't belong in this particular article. What are the options? We either move this information to human sexuality, where it might be also deleted, because it would be considered to be more relevant to physical attractiveness, where parts of the body are described that men and women are attracted to or we leave it here in the newly created section. I think we should leave it here, because the piece of information is really very, very controversial and it might fit dozens of other articles, as erotic images, for example, human sexuality, sexual behavior and so on. --Siliconov (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize to Cheeser if my actions seemed needlessly unilateral or obstructionist.
- Actually, I believe there's a perfect non-controversial place for it, under Sexual stimulation#Mental sexual stimulation. This is besides the point: If people would like this piece of information included somewhere, they are free to look at other articles it may be appropriate to, but this article, which Flyer and I have spent a lot of time working to improve would be weakened by the addition of incongruous information.
- Each wikipedia article is not endless because we worry about the "space on the page", but because each has its own scope, which targets a specific concept. We deal with related topics with see also links at the bottom. To include the content of anything peripherally related adversely affects readability and usability of wikipedia.
- Again, I reiterate: location of vision during sexual stimulation is, at best, peripherally related to what makes a person physically attractive. The rest of this article is about what evolution and society has favored to be the ideal in attractiveness, and what being attractive means for you in modern society. Since the study as cited exists merely to evaluate how visual sexual stimulus is taken in, the issue of attractiveness is ancillary.--Loodog (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that Loodog's opinion is simply his opinion. Mine differs from his, in that the focus of people's interest when attracted to or aroused by another party is clearly related to how we perceive physical attraciveness. Furthermore, I am appalled that my opinion is being dismissed because Loodog thinks he's done lots of work on this article, going so far as to label the inclusion of (arguably) relevant content as "adversely affect[ing the] readability and usability of [W]ikipedia." --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you're right and Sexual stimulation#Mental sexual stimulation would be a more appropriate place for this information.
- Cheeser1, I think you should be more objective. I understand that you were angry because one subjective opinion was about to be decisive, but if you look deeper into it it doesn't really belong here and loodog was right: this particular article describes things slightly different from what I added. --Siliconov (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not angry, and would be happy to see consensus (whatever it may be) do right by this article. What's disturbing and quite sad is when a single editor cuts material (without explanation) from an article, and even edit wars over it. When finally brought to the talk page, the editor accuses others of disrupting Wikipedia, acting in bad faith, or making Wikipedia unreadable. That kind of behavior has nothing to do with the content dispute, but is quite inexcusable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, stop it! Both! Maybe it was a mistake to delete the material without a notice, but I think, Loodog rehabilitated by proposing an alternative, which I find to be correct.
- I am sorry for saying that you, Cheeser1, were angry. We're humans and we sometimes act too emotional. Loodog has given a lot of time and effort to write a good article and then someone is interfering with unsuitable material. I think the mistake is understood... The material, in my opinion, should be really transferred to Sexual stimulation#Mental sexual stimulation, as I have said earlier. I hope we agree on this and keep on improving other wikipedia articles, rather than raising dust clouds on this one.--Siliconov (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- If that's the consensus, then I'm fine with it, although I'd hope to get at least one outside opinion first. I think it's relevant, but I guess not everyone is an inclusionist. None of this excuses edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, or deliberate micharacterization of my actions and intent. I would have expected an apology from a mature Wikipedian, but that doesn't seem to be forthcoming. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Outside opinion: There seems to be a compromise on the table that everyone can agree with. I agree that it's a good alternative. For any possible future disputes, I hope everyone can keep this one in mind and avoid edit warring and assumptions of bad faith, as such things unbecoming of an editor and may next time result in blocks. Lara❤Love 16:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think everyone involved here needs to step back and take a deep breath. Oh, and remember that one should do onto others as they would have done onto themselves. --Sharkface217 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lead image
Someone replaced the Michele Merkin image with one of the Venus de Milo. I think replacing a contemporary image with one from antiquity is a splendid idea, but here's the problem: our caption talks about female beauty being associated with a low waist-to-hip ratio, and our friend Venus is built like a tree trunk and thus not a good example at all, I'm afraid. The Fat Man proposes a better idea: one of those semi-erotic Indian sculptures. Some of those Hindu goddesses have crazy waist-to-hip ratios and very pretty faces too--something like this or this (those are just examples, I wouldn't use either image because they are of rather poor quality). I don't want to offend anyone by including a picture of a revered deity, but maybe if there's someone in Hindu mythology who is said to exemplify physical beauty, we include a picture of her without too much of a fuss... --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Female Reproductive Value
The page states, "Since a woman's reproductive value declines steadily with age after twenty" which is factually incorrect. Human females are most fecund in their mid to late 20s. Most hunter-gatherer women (which we were for most of our human history) don't have their menarches until their late teens, early 20s due to the low level of fat in their environments. Infertility and the probability of miscarriage are increased in both the young and the old. Because of this, most non-human primates disdain nulliparous females. Adolescent females often have to badger the more mature males into sex. Females who have already had an infant are much preferred for sexual partners in most mammal species. The human preference for young females is a bit of an evolutionary puzzle based on when peak fertility occurs in human females. Based on comparisons with Hamadryas baboons, the selection for youth in humans is probably due to an attempt to minimize the costs of female choice and/or a method of bonding completely to one female with the hope of remaining with her and producing all of her offspring.
I can give you as many cites as you want on this topic, including information from Evolutionary Biologists who study this subject. If you are interested in learning more about it, I suggest Mother Nature by Sarah Hrdy. 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Define "reproductive value" to mean "number of kids this woman will be able to crank out in her lifetime" and the mystery disappears. Evolution says "pick one with the most reproductive years ahead of her".--Loodog (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] POV
Most of this article seems to be highly POV:
| “ | Large breasts have also been shown to be attractive to men in Western societies, with the explanation that larger breasts will more explicitly show the aging process, hence an "honest" indicator of fertility | ” |
- Which assumes that ALL males find big breasts to be attractive.
| “ | Women seem more receptive to an erect posture than men, though both prefer it as an element of beauty; this fact appears correlated to the preference for males who demonstrate confidence, physical strength, and a powerful bearing. | ” |
- Which assumes that ALL women find "powerful men" to be attractive.
Also this seems to be written mainly from the POV of a heterosexual, and does not comment on what male or female homosexuals find attractive. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 02:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- None of this is POV, but is directly supported by the research in the sources. And you're the one inserting the word "all", though if you like you could weaken the wording to something like "Men tend to be attracted to..." Read the opening paragraph, "Judgment of attractiveness of physical traits is partly universal to all human cultures, partly dependent on culture or society or time period, and partly a matter of individual subjective preference."
- As for heterosexual viewpoint, the second paragraph touches on it, but you're welcome to add more.--Loodog (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Ugliness here
Not much more to say... Equazcion •✗/C • 14:37, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)
- An unsourced stub with a definition for an article?
- Physical attractiveness and ugliness are not simple logical opposites.
- There's not article to merge.
- --Loodog (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Picture again
I have noticed there has been desire to remove the lead image again. Please read the above discussion. This picture is not to be taken as the ideal in Western beauty, but rather to provide an example of several features described in the article. The caption below the image says this. The features in the article are said to be attractive are confirmed through multiple sources on the page.--Loodog (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- In this particular article, an image of e.g. Merkin is for all practical purposes equal to a statement like "Michele Merkin is beautiful". Image captions have nothing to do with this. Loodog assumes ownership of this article and violates policy. Dorftrottel (troll) 17:48, April 28, 2008
- Who's to say what the "most" Art Deco example is? The article WP has shows the Chrysler Building as the first example of Art Deco architecture even though such a choice is not unique. If the Chrysler Building can be invoked to demonstrate an example of Art Deco architecture and characteristics, a person demonstrating the characteristics described in this article can be used to demonstrate physical attractiveness.--Loodog (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- If the characteristics are exactly described in the article, what do we need an image for? Furthermore, where do you have that information (depicted persons have those characteristics) from? Or is it simply original research on your part? Dorftrottel (troll) 18:21, April 28, 2008
- For the same reason a picture is needed in any article. Why do we have pictures in Art Deco?--Loodog (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you both are edit warring here. You should probably take this to RfC or 3O. Tan | 39 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, good piece of advice, done below. Dorftrottel (troll) 20:21, April 28, 2008
- Actually, you both are edit warring here. You should probably take this to RfC or 3O. Tan | 39 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- For the same reason a picture is needed in any article. Why do we have pictures in Art Deco?--Loodog (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- If the characteristics are exactly described in the article, what do we need an image for? Furthermore, where do you have that information (depicted persons have those characteristics) from? Or is it simply original research on your part? Dorftrottel (troll) 18:21, April 28, 2008
- Who's to say what the "most" Art Deco example is? The article WP has shows the Chrysler Building as the first example of Art Deco architecture even though such a choice is not unique. If the Chrysler Building can be invoked to demonstrate an example of Art Deco architecture and characteristics, a person demonstrating the characteristics described in this article can be used to demonstrate physical attractiveness.--Loodog (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfC - images on Physical attractiveness
- This is a content dispute regarding images in this particular article, namely the question whether or not any image in this particular article is equal to the statement that the depicted person is physically attractive, and thus whether or not images added to this article need accompanying reliable sources. See also discussion at WP:RSN (permlink). Dorftrottel (bait) 20:07, April 28, 2008
- This is an interesting problem, and probably a pretty common one for subjective article topics. I think there are two solutions; one easy and one hard. The easy solution is to not include a picture at all. This is the most feasible option and the most fair; while there are general characteristics of beauty as this article states, everyone is obviously going to have different ideas on their own version of the ideal male/female - not only within one community, but worldwide. It is unfair and unrepresentative to simply include one image up of one female from one culture. The second, harder option is to include a picture of ideal beauty for several races/cultures, with adequate citations - they won a major beauty award, they were voted "most beautiful" by some reliable, significant source, or things of a similar vein. Off the top of my head, you would probably have to do this with Western culture, Middle Eastern culture, Indian culture, Asian culture, African culture, and possibly others (this could be limited by editor interest). You also have to display appropriate pictures for both genders. As I said, the first option is definitely easier and less controversial. This should also be the default until someone takes on the challenge of the second option. Tan | 39 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Nothing left to add as far as I'm concerned, except: Thank you. Spot-on and far better than I could ever have put it. Dorftrottel (warn) 20:25, April 28, 2008
- The whole reason we put a picture in here is because it was requested that a photo be provided to demonstrate the characteristics specified, just as examples of the architectural style Art Deco are shown through pictoral examples. I'd prefer pictures because it adds a lot to the article. I don't care who they are of, so long as something is there to demonstrate these abstract descriptions.--Loodog (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with comparing it to Art Deco, Loodog, is that Art Deco is a far, far less controversial topic than physical attractiveness. If you found a pretty spot-on image of something that represented art deco, you probably wouldn't have much debate - scholars worldwide would say, "Yep, that's a good example". You can't do the same with this topic, however. There will probably be whole entire regions of the world who find our (I'm presuming you are part of western culture, my apologies if I'm wrong) example - such as the previous included image - to be a wholly unattractive female. I understand where you are coming from, that we just want an example up there, we don't need to be all-inclusive - but for this topic, I feel it is all or nothing. Represent all the factions, or don't represent any. It's a matter of avoiding constant controversy, ill-will and misrepresentation. Tan | 39 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then include all. Maybe make a mosaic like they did for African American. I'm not trying to include pictures to be controversial or so assert my opinion of attractiveness; I honestly believe it improves and clarifies the article.
- As for Art Deco, the characteristics are uncontroversial, just like whether Michelle Merkin has a low WHR is uncontroversial. This isn't an article about beauty, which is irrefutably subjective.--Loodog (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- A mosaic would be totally appropriate here, but again, someone would have to do the work to make sure all major cultures are included, and that they are probably doubly referenced from solid sources. I agree with you that pictures would improve the article, but it will take some work to make it fair. I don't really agree with you that "physical attractiveness" is an uncontroversial topic (I think that's what you meant, it's a little unclear); perhaps the WHR is statistical but in reality we're going to have major opinion problems on the image. However, that's a small difference when compared to the salient point here. You said yourself, "then include all" - have at it. Tan | 39 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with comparing it to Art Deco, Loodog, is that Art Deco is a far, far less controversial topic than physical attractiveness. If you found a pretty spot-on image of something that represented art deco, you probably wouldn't have much debate - scholars worldwide would say, "Yep, that's a good example". You can't do the same with this topic, however. There will probably be whole entire regions of the world who find our (I'm presuming you are part of western culture, my apologies if I'm wrong) example - such as the previous included image - to be a wholly unattractive female. I understand where you are coming from, that we just want an example up there, we don't need to be all-inclusive - but for this topic, I feel it is all or nothing. Represent all the factions, or don't represent any. It's a matter of avoiding constant controversy, ill-will and misrepresentation. Tan | 39 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Maybe there's a third option. I believe schematic drawings like this one can have truly explanatory power. Dorftrottel (ask) 19:22, April 29, 2008
- Beauty has a subjective and a universal component. The subjective component is bigger. Every culture has a different beauty ideal. But there are cetain features that almost all humans consider beautiful. There is a branch of science that tries to discover the rules behind objective beauty. I oppose the idea of including a picture in this article simply because the user (or some users) considers the subject beautiful. It would most likely represent the narrow view of a just one culture or subculture. A reliable source must consider the person beautiful, and the caption should say something like "this is considered beautiful by X", or "surveys have shown that this is considered most beautiful". I would recommend including a picture like one in this article, along with an explanation in the caption. --Cambrasa confab 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Read the article. This article is not beauty. This article is NOT beauty. This ARTICLE is not beauty. If this were beauty there wouldn't be 60+ sources at the bottom that could objectively describe anything. This article is about the component of physical attractiveness that is found cross-culturally and can be explained through evolutionary psychology as signs of reproductive fitness. Low waist-hip ratio, appearance of youth, preference for shorter women — these are all objective traits backed up by multiple sources. Pictures demonstrating these traits would not constitute OR, bias, or ethnocentrism, and certainly wouldn't be an arbitrary statement of what beauty is.--Loodog (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL. Dorftrottel (troll) 23:48, April 29, 2008
- If the picture focuses on those traits only, and the traits are explained in the caption, then I have nothing against including it. However, we shouldn't have "magazine pictures" of models where the "subjective beauty" component dominates over just displaying the traits. --Cambrasa confab 16:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Read the article. This article is not beauty. This article is NOT beauty. This ARTICLE is not beauty. If this were beauty there wouldn't be 60+ sources at the bottom that could objectively describe anything. This article is about the component of physical attractiveness that is found cross-culturally and can be explained through evolutionary psychology as signs of reproductive fitness. Low waist-hip ratio, appearance of youth, preference for shorter women — these are all objective traits backed up by multiple sources. Pictures demonstrating these traits would not constitute OR, bias, or ethnocentrism, and certainly wouldn't be an arbitrary statement of what beauty is.--Loodog (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- RFC response. Because of the wide variation in perceived attractiveness worldwide, I think that posting a photograph of someone an editor believes is attractive is original research (i.e., one's interpretation of a subject's beauty). I believe this to be true even for Marilyn Monroe because people in some cultures would find her far too skinny (or far too fat). I do agree that it would be great to have several illustrative photographs that have been used in scholarly research (I like the Vitruvian Man too). For example, one body of research has found that symmetrical features lead to higher ratings of attractiveness, and the photographs they give as examples are of Denzel Washington (symmetrical features) and Lyle Lovett (asymmetrical features), see this Newsweek article. I could see adding their pictures to illustrate symmetry because one has solid sources to back up these examples and Newsweek (a reliable source) has already published them as illustrative examples. Another body of research has found that the more "average" one's face is, the higher the ratings of attractiveness. One of the composite photographs the authors use in these studies could be included to show examples of "average" features.Renee (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Spot on.--Loodog (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, good points. (Incidentally, I think Cambrasa's and Reneeholle's comments go in a very similar direction.) Dorftrottel (complain) 09:01, April 30, 2008
Any picture included to illustrate a feature with regard to its supposed attractiveness must be accompanied by a citation from a reliable, written source in which the attractiveness of that feature is discussed with specific reference to the person featured. In other words, if discussing standards by which eyes are judged to be attractive, a picture of an actress with supposedly attractive eyes cannot be used for illustrative purposes unless a reliable source remarks on the particular attractiveness of that actress' eyes. Anything less is original research, since determining whether someone or some feature is attractive involves an inherently subjective judgment. Nick Graves (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No images in this article at all?
That makes no sense, to have removed all of this article's images. Yes, I've read the newest picture discussion regarding this article above, and I certainly do not agree that no images should be used. What are we afraid of, offending someone? Just because beauty is supposedly subjective does not mean that this article should be without pictures. It should not be that difficult to have pictures to represent what is typically thought of as physically attractive among humans in the West, the non-West, and a few other cultures. We may not represent all considered types of beauty, but that still does not mean that this article should be absent of pictures. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that pictures ought to be used. But their selection should not depend on Wikipedia editors' subjective notions about what are examples of attractive people or physical features. That's original research, which is prohibited. A reliable source has to be cited that discusses the subjective attractiveness of the person illustrated. Nick Graves (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ideally, as has been noted above, pictures should not be gratuitous illustrations of beauty even with a reliable source attached to them. They should have explanatory power and focus on particular physically attractive traits, and cite a source for that. Compare for example the very simple and straightforward schematic drawing I included in Cuteness. It explains, and not merely decorates, the article content. dorftrottel (talk)
[edit] Look at the Beauty article
Excuse me for starting a new section, but I'm communicating via the PlayStation 3 at this very moment, which doesn't allow me as much editing freedom.
Anyway, one could say it's subjective to include a few of those pictures that are currently in the Beauty article. However, I don't feel that it's subjective at all to use a picture of a supermodel, like the Beauty article does, which is of someone who has been cited as physically attractive numerous times over. It's not even difficult to judge what is typically thought of as physically attractive in the West. Just look at how many times Brad Pitt has been and still is cited as physically attractive.
Anyway, I can't really have this discussion right now. I'll respond further in a few days, when I actually have the freedom to talk without being restricted to this gaming console. Flyer22 (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well sure, if you have sources showing that Brad Pitt or anybody else is considered beautiful or attractive, it's perfectly appropriate to show a picture of them in the article as an example. But we should leave our own judgments out of it, even if you're certain that most everyone in the West would agree with you. I'm sure this article will have pictures again. It's just a matter of finding the right sources to back up the inclusion of the pictures. Nick Graves (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- See my reply above. I think it's still the weaker alternative, as compared to using images with true explanatory power. dorftrottel (talk)
[edit] And that's what I mean
What, none of the images in this article were backed up with valid references showing that the people featured are thought of as physically attractive? Even, if that was the case, there had to be sources in those subjects' individual articles that point their perceived physical attractiveness.
Brad Pitt? There are two studies in his article (that I put into his lead back in late 2007) that address physical attractiveness, and cite him. The more interesting of the two is the article Men With 'Cavemen' Faces Most Attractive to Women. We could definitely include a picture of Brad Pitt, or any of the men it mentioned (like Will Smith), and note how having a "cavemen face" has made him (them) more attractive to women. While it may not seem flattering to say someone has a caveman face, surely we can explain that article's points clearly.
As said before, I'll come back to this discussion later. Feel free to remove these subsection headings. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Prototypicality as beauty
The section titled "Prototypicality as beauty" is listed under "Determinants of female physical attractiveness", but the text doesn't seem to imply that it's specific to women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.186.169 (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] averageness is shit
The effect is done with photoshopping and other methods that are very deceptive. The studies themselves relied on a website that is not respected what so ever. What is even worse is the use of the study of eurasians. That is simple vanity. I see this article is a great example of wikipornia's systematic bias.YVNP (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- The studies that have been done include all cultures and races. The conclusions are always the same: averaged faces are more attractive.--Loodog (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- But they use photo editing. This can be deceptive as it gets rid of a lot of human flaws.
[edit] Height
That is awesome, about the Cosmopolitan magazine thing that says women prefer a man whose height is 1.1 times their own! I have long known that almost all the guys I'm ever strongly attracted to tend to be 6'2", for some odd reason. What a shock when I saw this here and calculated my height, 5"7.5", times 1.1... and it came out to 6'2.25"! That's crazy! Haha! Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
