..that is adolescence. And the research on what adolescents find attractive. For a few years. Until they gain the gift of speech and hearing, look up, and find beauty in the mind. Unfortunately, some never do.
Search
Profile
My scientific specialty is chronobiology (circadian rhythms and photoperiodism), with additional interests in comparative physiology, animal behavior and evolution. I am not an MD so I cannot diagnose and treat your sleep problems. As well as writing this blog, I am also the Online Discussion Expert for PLoS. This is a personal blog and opinions within it in no way reflect the policies of PLoS. You can contact me at: Coturnix@gmail.com
Buy the 2009 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2008 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2007 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2006 Science Blogging Anthology:
Recent Posts
- New URL for this blog
- New URL/feed for A Blog Around The Clock
- A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Science Blogging Ecosystem
- Open Laboratory 2010 - submissions so far
- Clock Quotes
- Clock Quotes
- Clock Quotes
- Clock Quotes
- New and Exciting in PLoS this week
- ScienceOnline2010 - interview with Anne Frances Johnson
Recent Comments
- wildanr on A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Science Blogging Ecosystem
- yogi-one on A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Science Blogging Ecosystem
- Alvaro on A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Science Blogging Ecosystem
- Chris Surridge on A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Science Blogging Ecosystem
- Claudia Koltzenburg on A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Science Blogging Ecosystem
- Joerg Kurt Wegner on A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Science Blogging Ecosystem
- Peter McGrath on A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Science Blogging Ecosystem
- Sandra Porter on A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Science Blogging Ecosystem
- cfeagans on A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Science Blogging Ecosystem
- Barn Owl on A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Science Blogging Ecosystem
Archives
- July 2011
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
Blogroll
Find me on...
Make Me Happy
Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!
Make Me Solvent
I Support
Bloggie Stuff

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
« New and Exciting in PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine | Main | Meet Congressman Brad Miller »
Waistland...
Category: Psychology • Sex • Society
Posted on: November 26, 2007 9:25 PM, by Coturnix
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/56629












Comments
The study is weird, weird beyond belief. There are -- and I speak from personal experience spanning several decades -- many visages of females that would leave me howling at the moon, whizzing up and down the corner posts, and groveling at their feet. But to expect me to respond to a silhouette, or an eye color, or a skin tone, would be as loony as asking me to respond to a leg length, arm length, or hair length. From the light to the dark, the tall to the short, the slender to the hefty, not a one of those dimensions stands above any of the others.
There are lovelies very dark, and lovelies very pale, lovelies very tall, and lovelies very small, lovelies very thin, and lovelies showing heft, but not a one of those I lust after would I not want to make babies with on first meeting her.
To be perfectly honest, there is a Russian brunette nude model in her late twenties with a little heft on her, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't yearn to give her a baby just by looking at her pictures. Looking at her pictures wants to make me give up fatherlessness and make a soccer team with her.
From experience, I have next to no faith at all in surveys that try to reduce Me-Tarzan-You-Jane attractions to simplistic one-dimensional realms.
Posted by: Ken Shabby | November 26, 2007 10:20 PM
The conclusions seemed pretty commonsense to me. I'm not surprised that underweight women are seen as less attractive. I'm curious about the assertion that heavier women are seen as less attractive - I'd be curious to know whether "normal" weights are steady over time and across cultures (and thus, likely to be biologically determined) or whether the idea of "normal" is societally determined.
The second set of pictures is also seems like commonsense. If you simply widen hips and keep the proportions the same, they look odd. The proportions are off. But if you widened the hips while maintaining a "trim" appearance, I'm not convinced that the conclusions would have been the same. There's an underlying scaling issue here. In the lower column of the second set of pictures (ratios modified by widen hips, column (b)) the 0.65 aspect looks better than the 0.6 aspect...because the proportions of the hips are more natural.
But then, I grew up in a culture that was a little more "hip-obsessed" than are Americans.
Posted by: IanR | November 27, 2007 12:05 AM
Both interesting comments. To Ken: the thing is, over-simplification is the only way that scientific research on attraction can work, really. The difference between what someone finds physically attractive can be very different when reported by the mind and when reported by the body. Strap on a little apparatus to your genitalia, and it may tell you something very different from what you are actually consciously aware of. But I agree that attraction can also be strongly based on the sum of multiple characteristics in a certain individual, and I'm not sure if we can explain that, yet.
IanR, I'm also inclined to agree that weight categorizations are very much societally determined. Individuals falling into severely underweight or overweight categories will obviously face health and reproductive problems; slightly under/overweight people are both more difficult to identify or define and may not face any overt health problems at all. Who knows how we define these things :)
But I think the overarching idea, that we still seek out and readily identify who we're attracted to based on very general principles of "fitness" (no pun intended), is quite fascinating as, like Ken pointed out, we're often not as aware of it as we might think.
Posted by: kate | November 27, 2007 2:43 PM