6,480
edits
Body attractiveness: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
In this study, the relationship between the women's ratings of attractiveness of the men and their actual measured strength was relatively weak, from r = 0.25-.038 depending on the angle of the photo used. | In this study, the relationship between the women's ratings of attractiveness of the men and their actual measured strength was relatively weak, from r = 0.25-.038 depending on the angle of the photo used. | ||
This weak correlation suggests, firstly, that ratings of strength are not identical to ratings of attractiveness. Ratings of attractiveness likely capture facets that contribute to ratings of attractiveness but not strength, such as body fat percentage. Secondly, a portion of the perceptions of physical strength appears determined by factors that are only weakly related to actual strength. | This weak correlation suggests, firstly, that ratings of strength are not identical to ratings of attractiveness. Ratings of attractiveness likely capture facets that contribute to ratings of attractiveness but not strength, such as body fat percentage. Secondly, a portion of the perceptions of physical strength appears determined by factors that are only weakly related to actual strength. | ||
These features could include traits that contribute to the desired male 'v-taper' shape, such as narrow waists and wide clavicles, traits that are unrelated to actual strength or perhaps detrimental to it in some instances. | These features could include traits that contribute to the desired male 'v-taper' shape, such as narrow waists and wide clavicles, traits that are unrelated to actual strength or perhaps even detrimental to it in some instances. | ||
Wide clavicles, in particular, represent one sexually dimorphic trait<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22138028/</ref> that could have conceivably been subject to [[Fisherian runaway|Fisherian sexual selection]] throughout humanities evolutionary past. While women generally find this trait attractive in a male partner (and wide clavicles contribute to the width of one's shoulders exclusive of soft tissue, which is associated with greater physical attractiveness)<ref>https://www.unm.edu/~abryan/articles/femalehipratio.pdf</ref> it seems there is no relationship between clavicle length (in relation to the humerus) and throwing ability in men. This lack of a relationship indicates that this trait is primarily ornamental (not serving a direct adaptive function apart from increasing sexual attractiveness to the opposite sex).<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267812769_Clavicle_length_throwing_performance_and_the_reconstruction_of_the_Homo_erectus_shoulder</ref> | Wide clavicles, in particular, represent one sexually dimorphic trait<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22138028/</ref> that could have conceivably been subject to [[Fisherian runaway|Fisherian sexual selection]] throughout humanities evolutionary past. While women generally find this trait attractive in a male partner (and wide clavicles contribute to the width of one's shoulders exclusive of soft tissue, which is associated with greater physical attractiveness)<ref>https://www.unm.edu/~abryan/articles/femalehipratio.pdf</ref> it seems there is no relationship between clavicle length (in relation to the humerus) and throwing ability in men. This lack of a relationship indicates that this trait is primarily ornamental (not serving a direct adaptive function apart from increasing sexual attractiveness to the opposite sex).<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267812769_Clavicle_length_throwing_performance_and_the_reconstruction_of_the_Homo_erectus_shoulder</ref> | ||