The article presumably (I’m not payin’ to read it) says there’s MORE agreement among men than women. The research was done with photos skewed to the very young (18-25), which certainly has an effect on outcome.

Preferred (idealized) age, for me, would be 30s, this over the studied age range in the photos. And a more medium build. And it does negatively influence perceived attractiveness if she’s observed looking at a photo book of kittens dressed in sailor suits.

While I don’t have a definite type, myself, I wouldn’t be too surprised to find I have a tendency to favor a broad subset of traits which might be regarded as desirable. If my selections were evaluated on the basis of photos of young people who would certainly not be future partners, *I* would expect them to be rated differently.

Still, I would wonder if these folks were measuring what they thought they were there, and also whether this is the first social studies experiment which is actually being portrayed correctly in the press.

Another post on hot guys and I’m not mentioned. There goes my self-esteem.

I don’t think we women are less predictable in our choices than men are. I think that many men are afraid of expressing their own opinions because their friends do immediately jump on them for it. A lot of men prefer women who are a little more–shall we say zaftig–than the Hollywood standard, but none of them dare say so, because they’d be abused by their buddies. Even if the buddies secretly agree with them.

I know I’ll be laughed at, but I judge a woman more by what she has between her ears than by what she has between her legs. Or on her chest.

Don’t get me wrong: I like to ogle (subtly!) as much as the next guy. What keeps me engaged is wit.

A comedienne long ago (Joan Rivers, IIRC) had some schtick that God only had so much clay to make a woman. If He put it all into making her centerfold-class beautiful, there was no clay left over for brains. But if He used some of the clay for brains, then she wouldn’t be as beautiful.

I’ve always found the latter to be more attractive. Most of the women I’ve found attractive certainly weren’t centerfold material. In fact, beauty-wise, some of them might even be called mousy. Yet they caught my eye!

Finally, I make a distinction between “beautiful” and “attractive.” The former is only physical, the latter adds in the intangibles. Thus, a mousy woman can indeed be attractive.

I think this actually has as much to do with the way men and women answer questions differently as it does actual sexual attraction. Granted, we already know that men are not just extremely visually oriented vis-a-vis sexual attraction, but also see it as a call to action, while women may be just as intially attracted, but see this attraction as one of several criteria that must be met. (What idiot green-lighted the funding for this study, anyway?)

As far as the question itsel goes, as a man, I have found a tremendous amount of women attractive(and I didn’t just think it–I proved it!…sometimes), but if asked the question, I’d answer the same as almost every other man did. For women, though, this question demands not an answer, but several more questions.

Wasn’t there a study a few years that said women were far more likely to want to date within their own race. The only group of women who did date another race were Asian women dating white guys. This could have an affect on results maybe. I didn’t read the article so I don’t know how they structured the study.

It don’t think it is so much that women might have more varied tastes; it’s that men make up their mind on the matter so much faster. Most men have a more pronounced tendency to consider seperately whether a woman is physically attractive, and whether they would like to carry on a relationship with them.

The contrast between the two is important because the first one is going to be decided in the first 10 or 15 seconds that the man meets the woman in question. A man makes up his mind on this that quickly for virtually every woman on earth that is not his grandmother, mother, daughter, or sister. It is simply what we do. And it isn’t “will we”, or “should we”, it’s “would we, if no other factors presented a problem”.

Meanwhile most women I know seem not to ask themselves this, anymore than they decide whether or not they want to pursue a relationship with someone. I wish I had $5 for every time I got a phone call along the lines of “so and so has asked me out, and I don’t know what to do!” First question – do you like this person? Answer, 99% of the time: “Oh. I don’t know”. This usually gets the ball rolling towards a course of action. They’d been too busy getting hung up on possible repercussions that they didn’t stop to think what they wanted.

As for who likes what sort of person and why, well, there is no accounting for taste.

It is important to note that humans have representations of human genitalia on their faces. The nose recalls the penis. The lips recall the vulva. The chin recalls the scrotum.
In that respect the human is like a baboon.

Attractiveness is based on primitive notions of health, and current notions of what the face implies about gentitals. When over large penile endowment were a risk of damage and infection to women, thin noses were attractive. Larger chins imply larger scrotum, larger testes, and greater sperm count. Women with thicker lips imply greater sexual availability.

These notions are used by casting companies when they select actors for parts.

I figured out what women want a long time ago, and why it’s different than what men want.

It all comes down to those strategies that result in successfully raising children. And not just any children. Children that carry your genetic material into the next generations. And men and women in ages long past needed different strategies to be successful at this.

Getting to the point, the central issue is that what men bring to mating is cheap because it’s so plentiful. Men can crank out genetic material many times daily.

But women only have one shot a month and once they bring it, they’re completely out of commission for 9 months.

This simple fact requires that women be substantially more careful in their approach to mating. They need to have their mate stand with them through the pregnancy and especially after the birth. Those women that indiscriminately picked losers generally weren’t able to pass this feature of themselves into the gene pool in large numbers.

Men’s strategy has to be to push it. As they say, nice guys finish last. We need to be aggressive, or we’re not even in the game. This requires that we need to know what we want instantly. We just need to see it.

And. let’s face it. What men are after from women is sex. You look attractive and act sexual and you’ll have no trouble getting dates from us. There’s no mystery. We are largely, but not entirely visually oriented.

Women trade that sex we want for the support, strength, and stability they want. They generally take a while to pick one of us, but once they do, they hold on for all they’re worth.

This is what makes it so confusing for men guessing what women are after. They’re after strength and support, and it takes different forms in different women. Some like money, some like physical strength, some are drawn to the natural leader.

But, lest you ladies get all superior about how you are not into the superficial, let me recount the sad tale of a friend of mine. On his way to a PhD in the sciences at around 21, he was fluent in several languages, a private pilot, a gourmet cook, was decent looking, and was really fun to be around. But he couldn’t get a date to save his life.

Because, you see, he was really short. Maybe 5-5.

You women are just as driven by biology as we are and you’re every bit as superficial. It’s just about different stuff, that’s all.

Now, this is all nature. It a biological drive and not all of these needs are still even relevant.

But, if you’re really lucky, you get someone that satisfies all your weird little biological imperatives, but ends up being your best friend too. That’s, of course, the best.

Dr. Clouthier, you disparage the study, referring to it as “shaky science” and “shoddy” – but have you read it? What is shaky or shoddy about it – method? Statistical analysis? Operationalization of the relevant variables? I have read it and it seems quite straightforward to me.

Here’s the basic idea behind the study: it has been established that dating and married couples on average are similar to each other on a variety of dimensions, such as physical attractiveness, education, values, and personality. The question is why is this so? The question is not trivial: to say “people just like to be with others who are similar to them” is not to explain the observation, it’s simply a re-statement of the observation.

Two possible answers to the question are: 1. the differential preferences hypothesis, which says that people are different from each other in what they seek in a mate. As a result, since we all want different things, we don’t face much competition and can have roughly what we want, which turns out to be someone who shares our characteristics.

2. The alternative view is the market force theory, which says that people with desirable characteristics attract other people with desirable characteristics, and people with less desirable characteristics get what’s left – other people with less desirable characteristics.

Both these views explain why people often end up with someone to whom they are similar. But the two views differ on the issue of consensus: if there is little consensus on who is attractive, that supports the differential preferences view (because there won’t be much competition for mates if everyone is looking for something different). On the other hand, if there is significant consensus on who is attractive, that supports the market forces view. The study in question attempted to measure consensus in an objective way. It found more consensus among heterosexual and homosexual men than among heterosexual and homosexual women in attractiveness ratings for young people shown in photographs.

It’s one thing to disagree with the interpretation of the results the authors of this paper offer – but why the insults? Why call it shoddy and shaky?

A few years back when the website amihotornot was popular I ran a little semi-scientific experiment.

I picked several pictures – some from the internet and some of my friends that could easily be manipulated based on a few criteria.

For the most part the males rating the females scored the same no matter what. There were instances where it was not so – a head shot may score different from a full body one but after that point they pretty much stayed the same.

Not so with the females. Head shots to full body rarely changed yet background made a HUGE difference. For instance, a head shot of myself usually garnered a whopping roughly 5.5-6, a full body did a 5-5.5 (expected, I’m on the heavy/fat side). Yet that same photo that included me with a background that showed wealth (in this case standing in front of really high dollar electronics during the dot com boom or with a high dollar vehicle) scored as high as a 7.0. Since it was me I could photo myself my self in “poor” situations too – say same clothes, same day, same everything else except now standing in front of an old clunker of a car and get a 4.0. Men scored women scored pretty much the same no matter what. yet it was easy to manipulate at least an extra point or two consistently from the females rating the men.

So, yes I would say females tend to be MUCH more variable than males. But I doubt that many here would like the conclusion I drew from that. Indeed, I’m the consummate geek that is easily led astray and could talk for hours on how a microwave cooks food over a skillet (and the differences between dry meat and oiled meat when on the hot metal). When I was young and poor I can’t tell you how many glazed over eyes I saw. As a mid thirties male I can’t tell you how many glazed over eyes suddenly come to life when I say my position at work (and that pretty much kills everything I might have been feeling).

When I was unemployed many would not even look at me, mention I’m a now Senior Software Engineer and you can immediately see the eyes and face change attitude. I shudder at that thought and detest it – in the presence of unknown females I almost *never* mention what I do for a living, always have and always will. I’m sure it’s not much different than females who feel they are only liked for their breasts. I prefer to be “poor” when I first know any females and only allow it to be known what I do after I see the glazed eyes/trying to get away or they like me for who I am.

“When you think of leading men, they all look differently.”

It’s “look different.” It’s an adjective complement. Like “look hot.”

Here’s how I see it: Women, from age about 13 to about 50, are hormonally different each week of the month. One week you’re pretty and flirty, two weeks later you’re zitty and bloated. Two weeks later you’re pretty and flirty again. Thus it’s not surprising that “reality”–be that opinions, tastes, appetites, etc.–is a fluid thing. So if something’s true and great one day and unappealing and ridiculous two weeks later, I believe that, in part, this is a reflection of physical/mental cycles that seem normal to many women. Needless to say, this drives us guys crazy; we like the “machine” analogy–each revolution of the engine the same sequence of events occurs. And that’s good!

http://www.livescience.com/culture/090630-hot-or-not.html

Men Agree Who’s Hot, Women Don’t

By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer

posted: 30 June 2009 12:22 pm ET

Thin and seductive, that’s what men find attractive in women. But the ladies are less in agreement over what makes for a hot guy, new research finds.

The news is good for guys who might think they’re not the hottest hunks. But it also means more competition for the hottest chicks, scientists say.

“Men agree a lot more about who they find attractive and unattractive than women agree about who they find attractive and unattractive,” said study researcher Dustin Wood, assistant professor of psychology at Wake Forest University in North Carolina.

The study included more than 1,300 heterosexual men, about 2,700 heterosexual women, about 125 homosexual men and about the same number of homosexual women. The average age of participants was about 28 years old, and ranged from 18 to more than 70.

Participants each rated nearly 100 photographs of either men or women, depending on the participant’s gender and sexual orientation. They scored how attractive they found each photographed individual on a 10-point scale from “not at all” to “very” attractive.

Previously, the researchers had judged each of the photos for various factors of attractiveness, including how seductive, confident, thin, sensitive, stylish, curvaceous (women), muscular (men), traditional, masculine/feminine, classy, well-groomed, or upbeat the person in the image looked.

What men want: Despite another recent study that found modern men are more interested in intelligent, educated women than in decades past, in the new study men tended to base their attractiveness ratings on women’s physical features, giving stellar marks to those who looked thin and seductive. Most of the men in the study also rated photographs of women who looked confident as more attractive.

What women want: Women showed some preference for thin, muscular men. But they also disagreed over the hotness factor of many men, with some women giving a guy high attractiveness ratings while others scored the same guy as not attractive at all.

Do men actually agree more on what makes a person attractive or was there something about the photos that caused men to rate them in certain ways? To figure this out, the researchers turned to the homosexual ratings. Sure enough, gay men showed a greater consensus about attractiveness levels of photos of men than did straight women of those same photos.

And straight men also showed more consensus than lesbians in terms of attractiveness ratings of the photos of women.

The results, published in the June issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, have implications for the dating scene.

For instance, with varying ideas of which men are attractive, women may face less competition from other women on the prowl. Men, on the other hand, might face stiff competition from other guys who all have eyes for the same handful of potential mates. Men, therefore, may need to invest more time and energy into attracting and guarding their mates from other potential suitors, the researchers said.

Oh, and they do: After eons of evolution, men are hardwired to overspend and max out credit cards to attract mates, a study last year concluded.

“The limitations were sample size and age range of those sampled. FuturePundit noted the age range. He also noted that what women find appealing changes during their cycles based on hormones.”

OK – reasonable issues to raise, Dr. Clouthier, though I think one could disagree with choices made about age range and sample size without condemning the study as shoddy or shaky science. As it is, the sample size seems to me to be a strong point of the study – over 4000 people participated. To me, that is a pretty big number given that the effect the study focuses on is likely to be biological – that is, to be a consequence of evolution and therefore relatively consistent across people (so much so that sexual orientation, for example, was irrelevant).

I don’t agree that the age range is a problem, given the purpose of the study, which is to learn more about assortative mating. The average age of participants was 28. That means that the average respondent was clearly in the age range associated with seeking and finding a mate. The age range of people in the photos that were rated was 18 – 25. Again, this seems appropriate for a study of assortative mating. While it is undoubtedly true that people in their 40s, 50s, and older ranges seek mates in our society, few of them do so for the purpose of having children. Mating strategies of people in their 20s are likely to have evolutionary consequences, and thus are of interest for a study such as the one we are discussing. The age distribution may be a problem if one wants to draw inferences from the data on issues other than the extent of consensus, which was the focus of the study – but that is not a criticism of the study.

The idea that women use a differential preference strategy while men respond to market forces is interesting. I don’t think the study results suggest that this is a clear-cut difference between men and women, and I did not mean to imply such a conclusion. The results do suggest that men lean more to market forces than women do and women lean more to differential preferences than men do. That seems to me to make sense when you think about the relative commitments of time and resources required of each sex to produce children. One could argue that a man’s genetic interests are advanced by having as many mates as he can, since the contribution he makes to each birth is small in terms of time and bodily resources. That being the case, if during evolution each man tried for the strategy of having mating opportunities with multiple women, that would engender serious competition among men, assuming that the numbers of women and men were equal. Such competition would not arise for women since they would not seek so many mating opportunities.

Anyway, thanks for the reply, and the discussion of this study.