Body attractiveness: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Body attractiveness (edit)

Revision as of 14:35, 30 April 2021

7,695 bytes added ,  30 April 2021
no edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:640px-Michelangelo's David-Galleria dell'Accademia.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Michelangelo's famous statue of David. Several features of his body, such as his broad shoulders, slender waist, low body fat and his relatively high muscularity have been found by modern attractiveness research to be attractive to women, though many modern women may express a greater preference for a greater level of musculature in the upper body.]]
'''Body attractiveness''' refers to the perceived aesthetic quality of an individual's body or group of people's bodies as distinguished from their face's attractiveness. Among men, bodily attractiveness is primarily determined by cues related to perceived upper body strength and overall physical vitality, such as broad shoulders,<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01542671</ref> and a lower waist-to-chest ratio. WCR is the circumference of the waist divided by the circumference of the chest; therefore, a lower ratio denotes a larger trunk and a narrower waist, i.e., the classic 'V-taper' torso shape.<ref>https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(99)00438-9.pdf</ref>
'''Body attractiveness''' refers to the perceived aesthetic quality of an individual's body or group of people's bodies as distinguished from their face's attractiveness. Among men, bodily attractiveness is primarily determined by cues related to perceived upper body strength and overall physical vitality, such as broad shoulders,<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01542671</ref> and a lower waist-to-chest ratio. WCR is the circumference of the waist divided by the circumference of the chest; therefore, a lower ratio denotes a larger trunk and a narrower waist, i.e., the classic 'V-taper' torso shape.<ref>https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(99)00438-9.pdf</ref>
Muscular arms and a general level of lower body musculature that is not grossly disproportionate to the upper body ('chicken leg syndrome') also appear to play some role in women's judgments of male bodily attractiveness.  
Muscular arms and a general level of lower body musculature that is not grossly disproportionate to the upper body ('chicken leg syndrome') also appear to play some role in women's judgments of male bodily attractiveness.  
Line 25: Line 26:


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>
Regarding the more minor traits associated with male bodily attractiveness, it has been demonstrated that a narrow waist by itself is also considered an attractive trait in males. Interestingly, a lower waist to hip ratio is attractive in males (like it is in women), even when controlling for waist size. Thus, proportionately large hips in males are an undesirable trait.<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340497679_Preferences_for_Sexually_Dimorphic_Body_Characteristics_Revealed_in_a_Large_Sample_of_Speed_Daters</ref>


==Relative contribution of face and body to attractiveness==
==Relative contribution of face and body to attractiveness==
In the [[incelosphere]] and elsewhere, there is an often furious debate that rages regarding how much bodily attractiveness contributes to overall physical attractiveness in men, especially compared to the contribution of facial attractiveness to holistic physical attractiveness ratings.
In the [[incelosphere]] and elsewhere, there is an often furious debate that rages regarding how much bodily attractiveness contributes to overall physical attractiveness in men, especially compared to the contribution of facial attractiveness to holistic physical attractiveness ratings.


Currie & Little (2009) tested this by presenting photos of the bodies and faces of various individuals to separate raters in randomized order and then together. The pictures were not rated not as a full-body image, so the experimenters could mask the faces to control for the potential confounding effects of hair, accessories, and so on regarding ratings of faces. <ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809000580</ref>
Currie & Little (2009) tested this by presenting photos of the bodies and faces of various individuals to separate raters in randomized order and then together. The pictures were not rated not as a full-body image, so the experimenters could mask the faces to control the potential confounding effects of hair, accessories, and so on regarding ratings of faces. <ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809000580</ref>
The raters were instructed to evaluate the desirability of these images in the context of both long and short-term relationships. The whole body photos of the individuals were then presented to a distinct group of raters to determine if presenting the faces and bodies together in such an unnatural way reduced the validity of the ratings (it was later found it didn't to any significant degree).
The raters were instructed to evaluate the desirability of these images in the context of both long and short-term relationships. The whole body photos of the individuals were then presented to a distinct group of raters to determine if showing the faces and bodies together in such an unnatural way reduced the validity of the ratings (it was later found it didn't to any significant degree).
 
They found that, in men, facial attractiveness predicted more of the variance of the ratings of the full-body photographs (β=.427) compared to body ratings (β=.349). However, the effect sizes for both were quite large. Interestingly enough, this particular study indicated that the relative contributions of bodily and facial attractiveness to holistic physical attractiveness might not be additive. None of the male subjects in this study received a mean total body rating higher than the highest rating they received for either their bodily or facial attractiveness.
 
This likely means that the interaction between facial and bodily attractiveness is highly complex, with there likely being minimal thresholds of both that need to be exceeded in order for a man to be considered 'attractive' by women; though it is clear that both, individually, contribute substantially to the variance to women's perceptions of male physical attractiveness.
Further, on this point, many lookism theorists claim that working out in order to increase one's attractiveness to women (which is often dubbed 'gymcelling') is useless if one has a particularly unattractive face. In contrast to this claim, the studies authors found more substantial evidence for an opposite effect, i.e., in some male subjects, their gestalt physical attractiveness was dragged down in a dramatic way when their bodies were relatively unattractive compared to their faces.
 
Conversely, body attractiveness mattered relatively much more to men when evaluating women exclusively for short-term relationships. The mating context-related primes had less influence on women's evaluations of the relative importance of bodily and facial attractiveness, which were stable across both conditions.
 
Another study by Sidari et al. (2021), utilizing a speed dating paradigm, examined the relative contributions of bodily attractiveness and facial attractiveness on the rated physical attractiveness (by their dates) and rejection rates among speed daters of both sexes. They found that bodily attractiveness in men contributed significantly to female ratings of overall attractiveness in men (not just physical attractiveness but truly 'holistic attractiveness,' romantic desirability).<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340497679_Preferences_for_Sexually_Dimorphic_Body_Characteristics_Revealed_in_a_Large_Sample_of_Speed_Daters</ref> They claimed this finding was the first scientific proof of such an effect 'in the field' (not relying on 2D pictures, morphs, or video clips like prior research).
 
Interestingly, even though one would assume speed dates are a strong example of priming people for short-term mating, the researchers found that there was no sex difference in terms of the contributions of bodily attractiveness to the men's chance of being chosen. However, they did find evidence for sex differences in terms of partner's ratings of their date's desirability (with men valuing both facial and bodily attractiveness more than women in their judgments).
This suggests a disconnect between attractiveness ratings and actual, operationalized mate choices. The discrepancy in this study may have been determined by the sample that it was utilizing mainly college students, the fact that people calibrate their actual mate choices based on their own perceived mate value (with people perhaps being sometimes less likely to choose particularly desirable partners that they believe will reject them), and the fact that brief blind dates with strangers do not mirror the natural social contexts in which most mate choice takes place.


They found that, in men, facial attractiveness predicted more of the variance of the ratings of the full-body photographs (β=.427) compared to body ratings (β=.349). However, the effect sizes for both were quite large (as measured by the [https://www.statisticshowto.com/eta-squared/ partial eta squared] statistic).
These findings suggest that bodily attractiveness matters quite a bit in determining gestalt physical attractiveness in both sexes, but particularly amongst men who evaluate women in the context of them being potential short-term romantic partners. The reasons for this may vary; it could be that bodily attractiveness is more associated with pubertal maturity (and thus fertility) or that it is related to perceptions of greater sexual availability on behalf of men with a primarily short-term mating orientation.  
Conversely, body attractiveness mattered relatively more to men when evaluating women exclusively for short-term relationships. The mating context-related primes had less influence on women's evaluations of the relative importance of facial attractiveness, which was stable across both conditions.
In support of the former point, research has indicated that while men generally rate girls in the early stages of puberties facial attractiveness as higher than adult women's,<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Men_rate_the_faces_of_adolescent_girls_as_more_attractive_and_feminine_than_adult_women</ref> they are more equivocal with their evaluations of the holistic physical attractiveness of women, with a tendency towards preferring more pubertally developed girls/adult women.<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274257830_Heterosexual_Men's_Ratings_of_Sexual_Attractiveness_of_Adolescent_Girls_A_Cross-Cultural_Analysis</ref>


This finding suggests that bodily attractiveness matters quite a bit in determining gestalt physical attractiveness. However, there may be a 'minimal threshold' of facial attractiveness needed for bodily attractiveness to matter much. Interestingly enough, though, the researchers in this study found stronger evidence for an opposite effect, i.e., in some male subjects, their gestalt physical attractiveness was dragged down in a dramatic way when their bodies were relatively unattractive compared to their faces.
This suggests that the development of secondary sexual characteristics is used as a strong cue by men in determining fertility, which could explain the discrepancy in the relative contributions of female bodily and facial attractiveness by mating context. An alternate (and not mutually exclusive) explanation could be that men are more drawn to bodily cues of attractiveness, such as pronounced sexual secondary characteristics (enlarged breasts and buttocks) in short-term mating contexts because these traits are honest signals of immediate sexual availability. That is, the women with these traits may indeed be more sexually promiscuous.
Evidence for this assertion, however, is weak and inconsistent.<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Physiognomy#Life_history_theory_and_physiognomy</ref>
 
There is indeed evidence that men who are pursuing a mating strategy that is predominately centered around attaining casual sexual encounters ([[life history|fast life history strategists]]) tend to exhibit a preference for larger breasts, and more sexually restrained men tend to exhibit a preference for relatively smaller breasts, as indicated by the findings Pahoohi et al. which analyzed the effects of various moderating factors on male preferences for breast size, width, and ptosis (2020).<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40750-020-00129-1</ref>
 
This could indicate that more promiscuous men attend more to signs of fertility, nubility, and [[fisherian runaway|sexual ornaments]] more than facial attractiveness. Alternatively, it could be that sexually promiscuous men, due to their extensive sexual experience, have higher sexual self-esteem and consequently believe they possess [[SMV|high mate value]]. This higher self-worth likely drives part of their greater preference for women with a trait associated with physical attractiveness (larger breasts), and the study mentioned above by Pahoohi et al. did find evidence for such an interaction in this direction.  


==Relation of stature to body attractiveness==
==Relation of stature to body attractiveness==
In both sexes, a greater stature (per the male-taller 'norm,' an individual rater's height will be expected to moderate any positive effect of stature on overall attractiveness, i.e., people will have a strong bias to prefer pairs where the man is taller than the women, and this will play a prominent role in determining individuals preference for stature in this regard vis-à-vis the height of the potential partner one is evaluating).<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913000020</ref>  
In both sexes, a greater stature (per the male-taller 'norm,' an individual rater's height will be expected to moderate any positive effect of stature on mating outcomes, i.e., people will have a strong bias to prefer pairs where the man is taller than the women. <ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913000020</ref>
 
However, despite the mail taller norm, there is research that indicates that taller stature is seen as a desirable trait in both sexes to some degree when revealed and not self-reported preferences are considered.<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340497679_Preferences_for_Sexually_Dimorphic_Body_Characteristics_Revealed_in_a_Large_Sample_of_Speed_Daters</ref>
 
This interesting finding could be due to an above-average leg length in proportion to the trunk being a desired trait in both sexes, but particularly in females.<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513807000906</ref><ref>https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171790</ref><ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/p5506</ref> Longer legs are generally associated with greater height. Anecdotal observations of the bodily proportions of female fashion models and the recruitment standards of several modeling agencies<ref>https://www.ukmodels.co.uk/blog/model-requirements-do-you-have-what-it-takes/</ref> do suggest that female models, largely chosen for their physical attractiveness, tend to be both tall and slender with a brachyskelic or hyperbrachyskelic body structure (the legs being proportionately much longer than the trunk).


An above-average leg length in proportion to the trunk is generally seen as more attractive (with the latter being particularly important in determining the attractiveness of female bodies).<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513807000906</ref><ref>https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171790</ref><ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/p5506</ref>
There could also be an innate effect of stature on female attractiveness, or there could even be a direct correlation between female facial attractiveness and height. This study didn't present sufficient evidence of any of this, though. The authors only offered evidence of a significant effect of height on speed dating desirability for women that was not significantly different from the effect found for men in the model.


==See also==
==See also==
Line 51: Line 75:


[[Category:Aesthetics]]
[[Category:Aesthetics]]
{{B}}
{{A}}
{{Lookism}}
{{Lookism}}
{{Redpill}}
{{Redpill}}
Retrieved from "https://incels.wiki/w/Special:MobileDiff/59497"

Navigation menu