|
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)
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)
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 (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_206.html) pooh-poohs the idea, while apparently these (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007F9B4-B6D4-1C60-B882809EC588ED9F&sc=I100322) 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)
| 
