Talk:Sexual attraction/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Many people exhibit high levels of sexual fetishism, and are sexually aroused by other stimuli not normally associated with sexual arousal." this statement is contradictory...

Behavior and habits should be included! Some women 'emanate sexuality' and self-confidence in men attract women.

I think a more accurate description would be physical SEX! attraction is a necessary first step to sexual attraction. Often it is all that is necessary, especially for men. However, most of the type personality and self-confidence is also needed.

This article should state more clearly that 'attractive' characteristics differ between individual, culture and times. Popular culture tends to ignore it, promoting that there is one ideal of man or woman.

This makes any hypothesis SEX! unlikely (eg. that sexually attractive characteristics are those which are associated with health).

For example, fat women were considered attractive in many cultures, and are still fattened in Mauritania. Men with hairy torso were considered attractive at least until 1980's, nowadays waxed torso is considered sexually attractive.

In opinion of most women I know, males practising bodybuilding are not attractive. This is, again, in contrast to what many young men think, and prompts dangerous steroid use in some.

Jurek

---

I do not like the following statement in the first couple of sentences: "This type of attraction is often important for the survival of a SEX SEX SEX SEX! sexually reproducing species". Although strictly not wrong, it is misleading and seems to suggest sexual attraction evolved for the good of the species, whereas anyone who understands evolution well will know that evolution is not aware of species and is simply operating at the level of the individual (or more accurately the individual gene). I suggest it should be rephrased more along the lines of (although I welcome a change to this): "This type of attraction often occurs amongst sexually reproducing species and quickly gains self-fulfilling momentum."

---

In my opinion, this article is written from the point of view that everyone finds the exact same people attractive from a purely physical level, which is simply not the case. - anonymous user

I added a sentence on this. - Patrick 09:19 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Patrick and Karada I have been adding things to Physical attraction, but I think that article should be merged with this one and that Physical attraction should, then, be deleted. I think Physical attraction is just a synonym for Sexual attraction. Perhaps there should be a redirect from Physical attraction to Sexual attraction after we are done. KeyStroke

OK, fine with me.--Patrick 21:25, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Agree. -- Karada 08:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Strongly disagree.

Physical attractiveness has influences beyond sexual or romantic relationships. People choose their friends and acquantances based on physical attractiveness, at least initially. People are more willing to compromise with physically attractive people. Physically attractive people are typically better paid.

Sexual attraction includes more than just physical attractiveness, since personality and social status play a huge role in sexual attraction.

I think the best example of where physical attractiveness and sexual attractiveness are clearly different is in children. Children can be very physically attractive (cute), particularily because of the relative size of their eyes. But they are not sexually attractive, because they don't have the defined cheekbones, breast or hip development (women) or deep voice and facial hair (men).

I propose that there be a separate physical attractiveness article that covers the determination of physical attractiveness in people, and its effects socially.

--Johnkarp 12:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK - put your keystrokes where your mouth is, Johnkarp, Physical attraction is all yours. KeyStroke 14:07, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

Look good to you? Physical attractiveness

--Johnkarp 23:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

absolutely disagree that they should be merged, they are not at all the same as each other. Plus both articles are of significant length, hence it wouldn't be a good idea to merge them from that point of view either. there wasn't been any recent discussion about mergering recently, and absolutely NONE on the physical attraction page (plus there was no strong support before anyway). thus i'll remove now the tags from both page. Mathmo ^Talk 09:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The golden ratio is about .618. That can't be about the width ratio; maybe the writer meant girth? Even with girth, that's asking for a lot, or should I say a little. lysdexia 09:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I intended to "run some experiments" measuring the ratio between the width of the waist and the width of the hips in attractive women, but my wife wouldn't buy the idea that the reason I wanted to go to the internet site of Fredrics of Hollywood was because of scientific research. (LOL) Anyway, go ahead and remove the reference until I have some research to back it up. KeyStroke 11:48, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

This article might not need to be here. All aspects of this article, as far as I can tell, could be covered by other articles. This page could maybe be a redirect or something Maratanos 21:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Attention

I added the attention tag to this article. From what I can see, it is a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions. Among other things, there needs to be references for many of the statements made in this article. gK ¿? 20:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The assertion about the efficacy of pheromones is a little too credulous. From what I've read, pheromones play a very limited role in human sexual relationships, naturally being crowded out by more "sophisticated" factors such as the dominant importance of human emotional and social relationships. This article pooh-poohs the idea, while apparently these researchers claim to have found a link. Regardless, the importance of pheromones in human relationships is not a settled issue. I'm altering the pheromones piece. Mr. Billion 21:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to suggest that fat people are more attractive. How many fat strippers are there in male and female strip clubs?

A leisurely stroll in conjecture land

Does the paragraph:

"Sociological and genetic studies in developed nations have indicated that in general females tend to mate with males of a slightly higher socioeconomic status. Therefore there are several loci of female attraction to male body hair "chasing" each other through society in a roughly vertical direction. Thus particular male attitudes to their body and facial hair within a social stratum are generated largely by the attitudes extant within women of a slightly lower socioeconomic status."

...make any sense at all to anyone, because it looks pretty opaque and entirely fuzzy headed to me.--Deglr6328 05:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he is trying to say body hair in males is a function of testosterone levels: Males with high testosterone are the real desire, the hair is a signal. He then goes on about the feedback such a system exhibits, i.e. the males maintain thier hair, sexual attraction generates grooming. 81.86.114.91 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Bold textBobbi Lynn Jordan is the sexxxiest chick on wikipedia!!! *wootwoot*

Headline text

BOBBI LYNN JORDAN IS THE SEXXXIEST CHICK ON WIKIPEDIA! *wootwoot*

Improvement drive

Flirting is currently listed to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. You can vote to support the article if you are interested.--Fenice 09:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"Physical attractiveness" article--content coordination

Physical attractiveness, as does Beauty, has a large section on features correlated with attractiveness. I suggest that this is a violation of the no duplicate articles rule of Wiki and producing a waste of effort on two projects which should be combined (somehow) as one. Should some kind of merge be done? --Dpr 05:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Dominance in males

What type of Dominance in Human Males? Different people dominate in different settings and under different conditions.

---

The article used to read:

It would be preferable if the man is at least a little above the average in height in the given population of males. This implies that women look for signs of social dominance and power as factors that determine male beauty.

I've removed the second sentence. Although it may be true that women look for signs of social dominance, that they look for height does not imply this -- unless men grow taller when they gain social dominance and shrink when they lose it? --Ptcamn 14:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I read once in a New Scientist (I think) of a study that found taller men *were* more likely to be in positions of power in the workplace, and earn more money. Based on my experience, I'm pretty sure height does add to percieved dominance. But I'm not offering anything referencable, am I? ;-) matturn 11:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically, height would be an asset in this regard, as it adds an element of being physically imposing for many (height is explicitly mentioned as intimidating in many anecdotes on being on the receiving end of physical intimidation). Further, it could have a biological basis, as the dominant children would be more likely to win the contest for food, care and attention from the parents (appearance has been shown to be a factor in this in humans, btw). Proper nutrition increases mean height. Aggressiveness and intimidation appears to play a vital factor in species where the alpha position is always determined by competition or only in the absence of a "true" alpha; it remains to be shown conclusively which of these is the case in humans. Zuiram 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon

First of all, fat. There is a key biological difference between healthy fat and unhealthy fat. Exessively voluptious can be just as gross as excessively muscular, and once again, one can be fat and be unvoluptious. Fat accentuating proportion is beautiful.

I have to agree with the bit about accentuation. Many renaissance pictures depict women that would be nagged into dieting in modern western culture. This has varied throughout the ages, as it has and does vary across cultures. In the medical sense of the word, the situation is somewhat different, however, and this should be pointed out; the current text may end up looking offensive, since not everyone considers obesity to be a medical term. (Not watchlisted) Zuiram 06:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Male physical attractiveness is not based on the asthetic physicality of height. All physical attraction is based on proportion, height is irrelevent to proportion (you can look "stocky" and be tall, and look "athletic and graceful" and still be short). Height plays a large role in building the attitude which makes males attractive. This is confidence and dominance. In general taller men are more confident because their height plays a larger functional role with other males. Taller males will usually be better at sports and other confidence building physical activity. In male-male social situations a taller male has an easier time intimidating and therefore dominating other males, he will then find it easier to build social dominance skills (a short male can find ways to do this as well). Pure physical attraction, in general, is based on proportion, when a guy says nice ass, nice legs, nice body he's unconsciously looking at proportion, a women can be proportional like this regardless of her height, so can a male. Look at the media for example, many famous men who are short are seen as especially sexually attractive based on their physical appearance, a male needs to be confident and have good posture to accentuate his physical appearance. Look at Tom Cruise for example, he is probably confident because of his fame, his wealth, his popularity, his skill, his good looks, but not his height, he can dominate with those things behind him. A socially inexperianced or very superfical women may think that height is a huge factor in attraction, this is because of her observing taller men as on average being more confident that shorter men. A taller man is usually more confident because of height's uses in the male world, not because of its appeal to women. A women is confident about her own good looks because it gives her a competive advantage to finding mates, and it does, height does not mean mates it means having an easier time building the confidense and dominance which is attractive. Height does matter in the sense that a man who is shorter than his wife will seem strange because it is a social taboo for a woman to date a visibly shorter man. A man who is say 5'5 will naturally figure out that it is extremly diffult to form physical relationships with the taller 50% of women, however his chances with shorter women, regardless of their level of attracion, is equal assuming he has no other visibily negative traits (fat, ugly etc). Anyways, it is true that male physical attraction is based on confidence, dominance (without being intimidating to the woman), and proportion (including facial features). A proportionate, dominant, confident male who meets all the "basic" requirments is what women will allow themselves to be sexually attracted to based on just looks.

Where is the history behind attraction based on height? Studies have been shown that secondary sexual characteristics (high testosterone) do not matter for male facial attraction, height is a secondary sexual characteristic as well and is thus cooralated with "male" facial features. Someone should find a source of information to prove the assumption. The psychology of physical attraction is different in women then men, more subliminal concepts come into play.

For the record, Tom Cruise is 5'7", between one and two inches below the average height.

-anonymous

This is basically trolling. While your theory is certainly plausible, plausiblity ≠ truth. Empirical data states that women are more attracted to taller men. Unless you can empirically back up your complicated explanation of this with good data, we should go with the simplest explanation for the data: taller men are more attractive.

Daniel Leavitt 01:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Racism and Homophobia

First of all the picture, and only picture, for this article is a straight white couple. The article goes on to state: "It is thought that sexual attraction to a man by a woman, is somewhat determined by..." leacing out homosexual attraction between two males. Only europeans (which aren't a distinct genetic group anyways) are given in height differences between males and females. Is that somehow evident of other populations? Also the article says "At various times in history and throughout various cultures and sub-cultures...a display of masculinity in general...has been considered a primary characteristic of sexual attractiveness." Well logically then at other times a display of feminity (and no hair and no muscles) has been seen as sexually attractive in males. So what is this statement saying? Nothing, it is simply reinforcing our current cultural conceptions of what is considered attractive in men as 'objective,' scientific and historical 'fact.' No where in this article does it even suggest homosexual attraction exists, which is in fact quite common. Instead the article adopts a mock scientific tone, providing anecdotal 'facts' (if providing anything at all) to justify a largely ignorant and unsubstianted view on our sexuality. I propose this article be eliminated all together until it a)it substatiates its assertions, b) it doesn't use pictures of whites and examples of whites in making claims to a 'universal' definition of sexual attraction, and c) includes homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, transgendered and intersex sexual attraction.

I think you mean 'ethnocentric,' not racist.--Nectar 03:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The article may be focused on people of European decent and heterosexuals, but then so is primary use of the English language. The people writing (and reading) this article are by far more likely to be part of these groups than others, which likely explains the article's present composition. If you think there should be mentions of forms of attraction presently unmentioned, and feel compintant to write about them, I urge you to do so. As for the lack of a gay picture, you might like to add one if you've got one. matturn 11:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

don't be such asshole and stop trying to find a problem everywhere you god damn sucker. homosexualism is not natural so you can't want everyone to remember about it all the time. and i think that picture MUST be removed. who the fuck cares about a stupid couple with a guy sucking a girl's neck? that's not sexy. TAKE IT OFF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.228.14 (talk • contribs)

You shouldn't be homophobic here. Its your right to disapprove of it, but not to be offensive to people. I added some words about fetishism and homosexuality as not being important to sexual reproduction, but equally valid. Could someone clean them up a bit though as I didn't write them well. Also I'm not gay so I don't really know what gay men and women find attractive in each other! Mostly Zen 00:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very attracted to my male partner, but I guess that isn't a genuine attraction because this enyclopedia is only for some peoples definition of "natural" attractions. He is far more attractive than any straight guy or girl I've seen though, so feck off JayKeaton 14:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

WHR and phi? No.

"Some studies suggest that one source of physical attraction of a human male to a human female is dependent upon a proportion between the width of the hips and the width of the waist (aka waist-hip ratio) (see Golden ratio)."

Phi is 1.618

1/phi is .618

The "ideal" waist hip ratio is .7

There is no relationship between the golden ratio and waist hip ratio. The above quote is misleading.

Bold textSara blandin is

Same wording of the article found in another website. Check http://www.whatis.tv/Sexual_attraction.html. Plagiarism.

 That page takes content from Wikipedia, not the other way around - 85.145.148.191 22:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There should be little question in anyone's mind that there is a positively strong correlation between desirability and waist-hip ratio. Though the 'golden mean' may not dictate EXACTLY what proportion is, in fact, ideal, the philosophy underpinning the 'golden mean' is true. That is why the author of the statement put "(see Golden ratio)"; the idea behind proportion and beauty is still the same, even though 0.618 does not equal 0.7. The margin of error seems negligible, anyway. In the future, please do not use the dubious tag unless the statement has no logical justification and or empirical support. You would have been better off revising the statement which accurately reflects the point the author was trying to make. Instead, you added a dubious tag that was essentially meaningless. --Neocarpetbagger 04:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to add some clarity to the reference, as I was quite confused when I first saw it. It definitely lead one to believe that the waist-hip ratio was the golden ratio.--69.123.177.197 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The picture

Seems like the whole article needs a rewrite, but i have a little suggestion; maby the picture should be of someone more widly known to be a sex symbol - such as Marilyn Monroe, Cleopatra or someone like that.

I got rid of it, as it doesnt seem relevant to this article. Jcc1 07:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Factors determining sexual attraction to human females

Currently there is a topic regarding: Factors determining sexual attraction to human males. So shouldn't there therefore be a topic regarding human females?

• • Yes, there is no reason there should be a section about males if there isn't one about females. --...::: DietCoke119 :::... 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Better disambiguation would be between attraction and beauty. Change the title of "Physical Attraction" to "Physical Beauty", then shift content dealing with attraction (lust) to this article while leaving beauty issues in beauty article.

A Physical and Sexually Attraction

Throughout everyday life and time, physical and sexually attraction have been either two or many things that matter when people are trying to be in a relationship. In other words, some people go for what they see physically while others are after what they experience sexually. One person might say, "I go for the sex because the sex has to be good." while another person will reply, "I look for appearance."

Why not trace the events back to the dawn of time to the modern day we live in. Back in the old days of many years ago, social status was more important than how physical or sexual was viewed. As the years rolled on, human nature changed that and went to what they view as physical appearance like the muscle man or the perfect woman with the right body such as: Hips, legs, face, hair, and breasts. As much as I know for today's way of thinking, it is now about how good a person looks where as the sex is the least factor for some to worry less about; however, there are people who prefer the sex to be better than what they see in appearance.

In the final view of everything I know, it is either the sexual attraction that draws people to each other by how they look while the physical attraction is the less value.--Zhang Liao 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

An affectionate Couple

hmmmm... looks like one of the couple is being affectionate... looks like the other one is cringing or at least nervous about having her picture taken while her other half is being 'affectionate'.

Perhaps the image should be entitled 'woman being groped by affectionate other half'. The caption also implies couples who aren't affectionate in public aren't affectionate. Which of course is a load of crud....

So perhaps we can get a better picture and change the caption to 'a couple showing/displaying affection'? Factoid Killer 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Might we not change it back to "A couple being sexually attracted"?172.191.162.44 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can actually use a picture of my girlfriend and I if she's okay with it. :P Yanksox 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Get a wiki-room you two! - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)`

LOL! Well, we have one in RL, just distance keeps us apart for once or twice a week. Yanksox ^(talk) 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a picture containing me might be a good idea. I think my waist to hip ratio is 1:1 at this point. =P I'm also not sure if affection is quite what's being showcased by a guy groping his girlfriend...maybe something more tame? Just a thought. Srose 18:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hip to waist ratio? What? You look fine, seriously. Yanksox ^(talk) 18:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is just my opinion, but I am in favor of the removal of this picture. It doesn't add anything meaningful to the article, and it could be interpreted just as subtle exhibicionism. In my humble opinion, it's just a picture of a couple, and it is not depicting sexual attraction in any way. I am for the inclusion of a classical painting related to sexual attraction, or for the inclusion of photos of sexually attractive persons (as deemed by experiments, by beauty contests or by world renowned magazines). Another Wikipedian 01:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest a picture with several people with significant variability between them? I mean, how hard can it be to pull together some wikipedians in a country and get them to pose together with clothes on? I mean, depicting what the average female will find attractive will not leave the males any the wiser without a section explaining it (most women I know look for different things than the men, save for the buttocks: that seems universal), and depicting what the average male finds attractive runs a risk of being illegal (according to double-blind penile plethysmographs, 14-24 is the prime interval) and/or crude. Note I'm talking about the lowest common denominators here. Really, a dozen wikipedians with nice dress and makeup (yes, the men too, don't you know? ;)) posing fully clothed yet in a manner meant to engender that kind of attraction... what could be more illustrative, collaborative and generally in-spirit for WP? Zuiram 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think pictures should be kept off this article and others relating to it. Attractiveness is so highly subjective and dependent on so many different factors, we should just let people use their imaginations. One person's trash is another person's treasure, and vice versa. CerealBabyMilk 07:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Appearance of Genitalia

I removed this paragraph because the appearance of genitalia does not typically play a role in attracting partners towards each other. Guava 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed the wording of the first paragraph to get rid of the "group-selection" ring. Iffykid 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Guava. Even if the appearance of genitalia does not typically play a role in attracting partners towards each other, it does however matter for sexual arousal and the expected sexual attraction. Libido 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What determines attractiveness?

Considering how humans are just a mass of electrons, neutrons & protons, what makes them attractive?

---

A large number of the claims made in this article seem very dubious to me.

Loop

In the attractiveness of females bit, it mentions neotenic, and then gives a real breif description. Which is fine. The problem is, on the neotenic page it gives a brief description that says the same thing said here, and then links here for further description. The pages just point at each other so if someone could actually go in and fix that so there was a full description on one page or the other that would be great. Cerevox 01:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does Sexy redirect here?

Shouldn't it redirect to sexual slang or something? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it should, or ikt should redirect to my user page, ow. --Metal to the Max! 07:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

---

19dan46 08:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC) This article is so subjective, innacurate and poorly set out that it should be removed entirely from Wikipedia. It does the Wikipedia project a dis-service to allow articles like this to remain. An expert in the field might be kind enough to write a properaly researched and objective article on the subject.

Hi. There is no way you can add a disputed tag based on criticisms so vague. Please take the time to point out specific shortcomings if you wish to be afforded any consideration. Thanks. El_C 09:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"childs chances" or "child's chances"?

In the article, it has:

which is likely to greatly increase a childs chances of survival.

Should "childs" be "child's"?

which is likely to greatly increase a child's chances of survival.

DRA 23:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, whoever wrote half of this page is a biased idiot. It is very poorly written.

merge with physical attractiveness

I've read above arguments that sexual attraction is different from physical attractiveness because nonphysical things can cause sexual attraction. That may be true in your minds and reality, but not in the article you've created. What's been made here is a completely redundant copy of physical attractiveness. I propose a) deleting this article since the two articles became the same thing or b) completely replacing this article with "Sexual attraction has physical and nonphysical components. For the physical part of sexual attraction see physical attractiveness." and then proceed with something that isn't COMPLETELY THE SAME. Volunteer your comments here, then I will make the nomination or put the tag up. The end result will be

• Deletion
• A complete rewrite

--Loodog 04:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

semi-protection

Anon vandalism, in slow-motion but persistent, restarted upon the previous protection (3.5month + 2week) ended. I'm semi-protecting for another, longer, period. - Nabla 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Still no content added except the daily silly entry. Semi-protected, again. - Nabla 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Link to striptease video?

The "External link" to Youtube.com is a video of a striptease and contributes nothing to the article. It ought to be removed (by someone who can do so despite the current protection). --70.237.144.112 10:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone get rid of this crap: In Chicago, the gangster term for attraction is "wannin dat chick". This is used in situations in which one sees the possibilities of their relationship. TRUE DAT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.117.2 (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

personal?

the whole page does not have anything to do with how or why people find attrractivness in others because of their personal qualitys, i mean i love my girl because of her and find her attractive because of how she is, not just her physical look. --Deathtopplintheir40s 11:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

too short

that's what she said. no, i mean the article. i cannot offer any expert research but this is a big topic! much love to all the contributors -128.12.108.20 05:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1