h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Something I've always wanted to ask: what are the guidelines for "attractiveness" in males (there are certain generally accepted guidelines for females though males will, when pressed, admit that these are not as stringent as it may seem)? For that matter, can anyone pin down the guidelines for females as well?

Eight word: 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

There are no rules. A lot of women wouldn't find Richard (my husband) attractive, and even I would admit that he wouldn't win Mr. Universe, but I find him attractive. Similarly, I wouldn't win Miss World, but Richard finds me attractive.

In general, though, 'attractive' men seem to be above average height (around 6' is good), dark haired, small buttocks (it's a myth that women like men with big pecs), no beer-gut, fit (or look like they are), good head of hair. Age doesn't seem to matter. Having said that, I can think of two actors that I find attractive who are thin on top, and one of them is below average height (assuming average height is around 5'10").

According to a mate of mine (beautician), attractiveness depends a great deal upon symmetry, and this applies to both sexes.

Most of the make up advice she gives out is therefore based around this, with tones or features emphasised/de-emphasised accordingly.

At least regarding the attractiveness of women, I'd start by saying that the majority of women of breeding age are _potentially_ attractive to the majority of men, (though from an evolutionary point of view, I that's highly predictable).

Working on from that default positive bias, I think lack of major offputting qualities can be as important as the presence of particular positive qualities. Much of that is a matter of taste. Whilst I find intelligent, independent, funny, liberal women attractive, those qualities would make some men, who find snobbishness, sumbissiveness, conservatism, or relative dimness to be attractive, run a mile.

On the physical side, I think as long as there's nothing obviously suggesting bad health (extreme thinness or weight, patchy or thinning hair, plentiful skin lesions), I suspect positive physical qualities may be less rigidly fixed on a simple scale (ie tall=good, short=bad) when it comes to men thinking of women than vice versa.
For instance, considering female friends (which levels things down a bit, as on the personality front, I think they're all pretty fine people), I could think of the tallness of one as being attractive, but also the cute petiteness of another. One may be gorgeously curvaceous, while another is athletically slim. One may have a particularly female shape of the face around the eyes (top of nose widening out as it blends smoothly into a brow-ridge-less forehead), another less so, but with amazing eyes. One may look wonderful with a suntan, whilst another looked enchantingly pale, etc. Even if I could define a 100% perfect female body, which I can't, a woman very different in many features might could still be indistinguishably close to 100%.
That said, wise eyes, and a warm smile do tend to make me weak at the knees (especially if the woman happens to be in a bookshop, but I think that may be specific to me).

On the subject of first impressions, having pondered it for a while, I'd reckon one of the most important things that decides whether a given woman looks attractive in a particular set of clothes is whether she looks comfortable in them, whatever they may be.

(Which rather begs the question, why do many fashion models appear to go out of their way to look unhappy in photographs - I suppose the industry's legendary appetite for cocaine abuse plays a significant part, but who on earth would want to buy something that someone else looks miserable in? Though I admit, I'm hardly unbiased, and I really wouldn't understand why anyone with brains who earned their own money would buy the talent-free rubbish, however skillfully it was promoted.)

Regarding the fashion industry, I occasionally used to watch 'The Clothes Show' reports on the various fashion shows around the world, and I can't think of a single one where the models smiled as they walked down the catwalk. Mind you, I also have trouble thinking of a single item modeled at the fashion shows that I would want to wear.

I don't know what makes a woman attractive to men, but the ultra-tall, stick-thin, flat-chested super-models are a complete turn-off as far as I am concerned, and Richard tends to agree.

My definition of what makes a man attractive are based on the reactions of friends, colleagues and assorted other females to film/TV stars, rock/pop stars and men in general. They should not be taken as gospel. There will always be women out there whose idea of 'attractive' bucks these trends. Richard, for example, is short, fair(ish)-haired, not terribly fit, but I love him and think he's gorgeous. But then, he does have a great sense of humour, shares similar opinions on most things, is kind, caring, considerate, generous ...
I'm off to give him a big hug - he deserves one!

Even pretending for a moment that the models actually _were_ every man's dream of physical perfection, it doesn't say much for the skill of the jumped-up dress designers that the fraction of their creations that they pretend are vaguely realistic clothes still have to be shown off on such women. Surely, a good designer should be able to make an normal, even plain, women look good.?
Mind you, I suppose cars usually get shown driving on deserted roads, make-up is advertised by women who would look fantastic without it, and anti-ageing cream is usually shown being used by 25-year olds.

Back on the fashion front, does anyone know why even the Guardian, generally a sensible paper not dominated by glossy fashion adverts, seems to accept such a high proportion of talentless and technically appaling photographs for the fashion section of Weekend magazine. Frequently, there'll be a cliched, blurred picture showing some sulking teenager from the navel up, where you can't even make out what's covering her torso, yet the caption will mention some £300 pair of trousers or shoes she's alleged to be wearing.
What gives - are the photographers all friends or relations of the editors, is the inability to take a properly lit picture showing what the clothes actually look like a job requirement these days, or is there some gullible bugger high up in the paper who actually thinks these piss-poor pictures qualify as 'art'.

I was about to end with 'Most 10-year olds could take better pictures.' Then, I just happened to look in today's Weekend, where there's an article on childrens' photographs. I was right.
They can.

Nine words: Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

I am psychologist and we did some scinetifical research on attractiveness. To summarize the results that are a little more detailed in some of the books that were written about the subject, attractiveness is different for men and women.
The attractiveness of women and I just talk about the faces! is determined by not having anything the eye can focus on. We compared pictures of different women to find out which one is the most attractive. The results show, that if you electronically blend as many faces as possible, the face becomes more blured, but the test persons find it more attractive. If you think about it, the whole beauty industry works on hiding anything that could stand out, like zits, freggles, complection spots etc.

For male attractiveness, the story is totally different. Female test persons found that the more distinct a male face looks, the more attractive it is. So there was always something out of the norm in the more attractive pictures, like a long nose, a big chin or something of that kind. A blending of different pictures does not lead to more attractive results.

Some other research shows, that when people are trying to find a mate, they are looking for the same kind of attactiveness as they have themselves. In this context not only physical attractiveness is considered, but an allover impression consisting of things like social competence, status in society, physical attributes. So one partner could compensate a lack of status in society by physical beauty. The result is Donald Trump and his model wifes. The better those attraction patterns match, the higher is the likelihood for the relationship to long endure.

A few anecdotal items:

An intelligent female friend when asked to pick the sexiest of the three male actors in "Friends" picked ... Chandler. OK, she says, he's cute, but he's smart! (Of course, Chandler never has a bunch of girlfriends, that's Joey, the - slightly dim - Italian Stallion). For my vote, the most attractive female is Jennifer Anniston, hands down (now if she'd just dump that dorky boyfriend ... Brad somebody?) Whereas my buddy likes the Ross' sister, who's name escapes me. So beauty is in ... Yeah, I know, all of 'em are media creations ...

Also, IMHO the least attractive thing a woman can do is fake boobs. They look like a blowup doll, something I never found attractive.

Finally, I read somewhere (besides above?) that the first thing most people notice about another's looks is the hair. Go figure.

- Steve K.

Is there any male who would consider these attractive?

Only in the shape of a sheep.

... a sheep wearing black fishnet hose ...

You mean a black fishnet hose that wears sheep?

I'm Intrigued.

Getting away from sheep for a while...

Regarding real-life people, I find the way someone animates their face is much more important than the way the face looks in the first place. Also, there are many women I can think of with some noticable feature, perhaps a larger than average nose, a particularly firm jawline, or whatever, who are no less attractive for all that. In fact, many women I can think of that one might call strikingly attractive are a very long way from any average face. (That's not to say that a cute little nose is any less attractive.)

How did you do the test - did everyone see all the originals and all blends, or a random selection, or what?

Also, especially if you were just using frontal still photographs (no profiles, stereo shots or video), I would have thought that at least part of the reason for your results could be that the more unidentifiable a face looks, the easier it is for a man to project his own idealised woman onto it. What he's responding positively to could be his own fantasy, and not the picture.
There's a phenomenal amount of subconscious processing (or should that be guesswork) involved in vision. Guesses that don't clash with real input can be (and often are) taken as confirmed, so in a way, the eyes could be seen as more of a reality check on our internal world model than the objective source of our mental imagery.

You are seriously weird for a potholer.

SAYING OF THE DAY
A fish a day
Keeps the fishermen busy.

The _really_ scary thing is, I'm not. You should see some of my mates.

Further tests that have been carried out with photos include the following :

Women selected men as more attractive while carrying a baby (politicians have relied on this for years).

Men selected women as more attractive if they were smiling.

Some studies are just too pointless for words.

It _is_ possible to make some valid conclusions from showing people a load of pictures, but unfortunately, those conclusions may only be entirely applicable with confidence to situations where you show other people a load of pictures.

Psychology, like any other field that isn't _very_ solidly science-based, can suffer from the problem that its practicioners may believe they're being much more objective than they actually are, and such overconfidence can sometimes lead to the lack of a search for other explanations. (or the lack of a realisation that everyone's going to say 'But everybody knows THAT!') I think every psychologist should have to employ a professional cynic. (If anyone's hiring, I'll accept £20/hour, and throw the sarcasm in for free.)

While we're at it, I'll place my services at your disposal as well.
Perhaps we could start some sort of cynic's guild...

Naaah - It'd never work