Talk:Physical attractiveness/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Skin Tone and Skin Radiance

The opening paragraph of the section on Skin Tone and Skin Radiance seems unreliable. The paragraph appears to be drawn solely from the work of anthropologist Peter Frost; whose book "Fair Women, Dark Men," (2005) is the only work cited. The publisher for that book Lisa Loucks Christenson Publishing is a non-academic publisher, that seems to specialize in collections of nature photography, and Popular Christian Fiction, produced by the publisher's owner and namesake.

Per WP:Due weight "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

So the concept of Due Weight incorporates standards for WP:Reliable sources.

Per WP:Reliable sources, sources should generally be secondary, recent and from peer-reviewed academic or mainstream publications. Frost's book is thirteen years old, original research, from a non-academic, non-mainstream publisher, with no history of publishing in the field. It simply doesn't qualify as reliable; and therefore should not be considered a significant viewpoint, unless other, more reliable sources can be brought to bear to support it.

While it is true, as Flyer22 Reborn noted, that Human skin color addresses the question of aesthetic preferences for various skin tones, using a variety of reputable scholarly sources, that article addresses the topic contextually, noting cultural variations, and the history behind them. Whereas, the first paragraph of this section makes sweeping, universal claims, with very weak scholarly basis. It would be appropriate to copy and paste some of the material from Human skin color here, but as is, this paragraph doesn't pass muster.70.110.19.81 (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how I'd classify Frost's book according to our rules, but it is a poor source. I do consider WP:Questionable sources. I obviously agree that the section should summarize the preference for lighter skin across various cultures. You had the section beginning with some random study about the Bikosso tribe in Cameroon. I rearranged the material in the section. It's full of poor sourcing: News and other media sources, and WP:Primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I improved this section using better sources, and rearranged it a bit. The Bikosso study did seem to be oddly positioned. But I've left it as is, in the interest of balance (even though it is a study done on a very small population). —Srid^🍁 15:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Leg-to-body ratio

How can the article have a section on leg-to-body ratio that is completely empty apart from an incomprehensible drawing. Most basically, it doesn't even define the term. The same issue arises at Body proportions where at least the article has some content but falls at the first fence: define your parameters. I have listed some possibilities at Talk:Body proportions#Leg-to-body ratio --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Swami and others have an updated paper on perceptions of female attractiveness, but fails (at least in the main text, it may be in the Appendix that requires subscription) to define its most basic terms. But the paper addresses many of the shortcomings of the 'male attractiveness' study.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Finally an academic paper that defines its terms:

The present study investigated the relationship between LBR, defined as the height to perineum divided by total height, and perceived attractiveness.

— Kiire, S. Effect of Leg-to-Body Ratio on Body Shape Attractiveness. Arch Sex Behav 45, 901–910 (2016).

so 'leg' is defined as floor to perineum (crotch), not greater trochanter (major hip bone, head of femur), illiac crest (pelvic rim) or even waist, all of which I have seen. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

References

More examples of male physical beauty needed

Hello

Right now, there are numerous images of females, both photographs as well as drawings, while the examples of male beauty only consist of a statue depicting Adonis and a drawn picture of two male bodies, which is not balanced by far when there are so many more examples available.

The female section, for example, lists previous Miss India Aishwaria Rai and has a photograph of her, but the male section does not have a photograph of - or even mention - the male equivalent, Mr. India, Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, who was titled Mr. World and "The world's most desirable man", which should be done for balance.

Another good example for the male section would also be the model Sean O'Pry, who some years ago was ranked as the most successful and highest paid male model.

In short, the male section is currently just way too meager and need to be filled out.

Thank you. Okama-San (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The only problem is (a) to find copyright-free images and (b) evidence that they epitomise male attractiveness. So if you want it done, go ahead and do it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Historical/Cultural Section?

I feel like this article would benefit from having a section that talks about how the standards of physical attractiveness change over time and are influenced by cultures. An example of this could be how the celebrities in the United States often set the standard for defining beauty. Joh18060 (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead, make our day! Obviously you will need to go back a lot earlier than Hollywood/Bollywood and take a worldwide perspective. You will have hours of fun :-^ finding the citations before you can write anything. Enjoy! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Masculine Physical attractiveness

Hi! I see that there is no good reference for masculine Physical attractiveness. Does anybody find this odd. please let me know your views. Thank you(Purplecart (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC))

There are references in the section Male physical attractiveness. Was that what you were looking for? --bonadea contributions talk 11:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Thank You for Acknowledging my concern. What I mean to Highlight is that the Feminine section has references Like Jessica Alba, Namie Amuro and Aishwarya Rai. How ever there are No male references. Shouldn't there be some modern male references as well. Moreover Skin color is also a factor and should be considered. Should there not be a discussion regarding these factors. (Purplecart (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC))

Hmm, I see what you mean. Do you know of any scholarly references about specific examples of perceived male attractivenss like the ones used in the mention of Jessica Alba and Namie Amuro, or reliable journalistic sources like the one used in the mention of Aishwarya Rai? As for skin colour, there is some discussion in this article, and more in Human_skin_color#Social_status,_colorism_and_racism, although I think that is mostly focused on female skin colour. Again, if there are good scholarly or journalistic sources, this could probably be developed further! --bonadea contributions talk 18:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Unfortunately Im not aware of any scholarly references about specific examples of perceived male attractivenss. But yes again there is the discussion of what should be the basis of these inclusions. Because there are some journalistic articles that talk about Masculine appeal but again vague terms such as Most Handsome Men, Sexiest Men and Hottest Men are used in these articles. Moreover to be honest I am from India. The only good reliable source is the GQ magazine. But then that only speaks of Indians. An article like this should have a Holistic approach. Do you suggest and mechanism to zero down on 3 to 4 personalities. Because I am not very sure about the parameters used for the female references. they again being media sources. Please let me know your views. (Purplecart (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC))

@Bonadea: So these are a some articles.

http://www.thestorypedia.com/entertainment/list-of-10-most-handsome-men-in-the-world-2018/
https://www.topbestproreview.com/most-handsome-men/
https://www.findhealthtips.com/most-handsome-men-in-the-world/
https://www.trendrr.net/27004/most-handsome-men-hot/
There are some common name in all these lists Probably we can use those
(Purplecart (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC))

Poor sources. See WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I am new to this Wikipedia page, so bear with me! This article did not have enough information in the Male-specific factors section. In some of the subsections, there were only a few sentences describing one feature. For example, the subsection 'Flat Abdomen' had one sentence that said it has been found that women prefer men with flat abdomens. Even if this is true, there should be more information as to why this is the case. In the section of Women-specific factors, there was a lot of information in every subsection presented. There were also many visuals that demonstrated what men looked for and what they preferred. There were no images like this in the men's section, though. There should be images included in that section talking about and showing what women in general prefer or what they look for. This section of the male-specific factors just needs more information and detail. I do not feel that there is enough. --Whitmjb (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Whitmjb:,the reason it is not there is because nobody has taken the time to dig out wp:reliable sources and write them up. I think you just volunteered. "If you want anything done right around here, you have to do it yourself". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Views vs Western Views on Physical Attractiveness

I noticed that there wasn't much in the way of specifically discussing the differences in cultures in a singular section. I know variations were mentioned in separate sections such as breasts, body hair, and others - but I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to work towards creating a section that goes over the variations in cultural standards of attractiveness. Let me know if I missed something that could be a starting point for that. Therapyman (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There may be variations of beauty standards even within the same country. I doubt we can find a unifying perspective for either the Eastern world or the Western world. Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a big risk of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH so you will need to find reliable sources that discuss this difference (rather than doing your own compare and contrast between RSs that describe each in isolation).

Male jawline: reads like an Oral and maxillofacial surgery textbook

I recognise that common parlance doesn't have names for every element of the face but the section on the male jawline reads like a Oral and maxillofacial surgery textbook. I have tagged as {{technical}}, which doesn't actually solve anything except that it lets visitors know that we are aware of the problem. Can anyone translate into English? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"Desirability" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Desirability and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 19#Desirability until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Intra-/interracial groups

The 'Skin color' section seems to require significant clarification. Its general premise as of now is that lighter skin colours historically reflected more successful people and they "act as indicatiors of good health". The cited source refers to differences "within racial classifications on the basis of skin color" ('colorism'), which seems like a detail that should very much be specified in this article. Its present revision doesn't clarify at all what claims or sources refer to intraracial groups and what refer to interracial groups, despite linking to the Wikipedia article about human skin colour and the section about judgements of social status made based on it. I would be happy to fix this myself, but I'd like to get the opinions of other editors first in this case. --SeparateTitan92 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

You may have to consider a wholesale rewrite. Older sources are likely to be inherently unreliable because of historic "scientific racism". There is also a serious cause/effect problem over perception. Yes, it needs to be done; will it be easy? No chance! Good luck, you'll need it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)