[IotaNull]

Emphatically NOT anecdotes, because we're working with a grossly biased sample here. I'm trying to find some recent large-scale studies on what women look for in men nowadays (more specifically how important looks, height, intelligence, humour and other misc. personality traits), and not having very much luck. Thanks in advance.

[themuzicman]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Fubudis]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Emphatically NOT anecdotes, because we're working with a grossly biased sample here. I'm trying to find some recent large-scale studies on what women look for in men nowadays (more specifically how important looks, height, intelligence, humour and other misc. personality traits), and not having very much luck. Thanks in advance.

You'll have a hard time finding anything solid regarding personality because of how subjective the terminology is. While I know I've read studies that indicate women like confidence and humor in their man, what's "confident" and what do they consider funny?


Here's a start: Discusses both genders.
[HIDE="Click link in URL for PDF version"]
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[/HIDE]


[HIDE="On Facial Proportions"]
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[/HIDE] (Didn't actually read through this one)


From the unbias reading I've done, tall, high cheek bones, sunken eyes, defined jaw, broad shoulders, facial proportion and symmetry, and at least a bit muscular, seem to be the most deciding factors for the purely physical screening process.

[IotaNull]

Thanks, Fubudis, but I'm also trying to get a measure of how important that physical screening process is in the grand scheme of things.

That list, assuming it's in descending order of importance, sounds about right.

[Fubudis]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That list, assuming it's in descending order of importance, sounds about right.

I honestly have no idea how one might rank the factors in terms of importance, I just threw some out there that I've seen come up repeatedly.

Here's an image I put together that helps focus in on what might be considered attractive in the male face.

On the Left is Brad, who is widely considered attractive, the right is some random from the internet who might be considered average.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Facial angles and feature spacing and proportions should be noted. Brad's more defined jaw and almost vertical "Side of head" line and more porportional features make him more attractive in this case. (Supposedly)

	Thanks, Fubudis, but I'm also trying to get a measure of how important that physical screening process is in the grand scheme of things.

I'll dig up a study I found on this. If I recall, women, on average, put less emphasis on physical appearance than men and more emphasis on social stature and wealth than men. Don't take that as fact until I find the study though. I might be wrong. :X

[Dion]

Why are you researching this?

[ManWithNoName]

	Facial angles and feature spacing and proportions should be noted. Brad's more defined jaw and almost vertical "Side of head" line and more porportional features make him more attractive in this case. (Supposedly)

I would put a huge emphasis on the supposedly. With the importance of photoshop in photography these days It's really near impossible to find a picture of a celebrity that hasn't been doctored and the picture you used of Brad as been doctored for sure. In terms of comparing to the ideal I guess yeah you can use it but in terms of comparing the to actual existence of a handsome looking male I'd say no.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Deonne To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why are you researching this?

Have a guess. Any guess.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Claudus]

This is a very well researched paper on mating, and universal attraction factors.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Fubudis]

Originally Posted by ManWithNoName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I would put a huge emphasis on the supposedly. With the importance of photoshop in photography these days It's really near impossible to find a picture of a celebrity that hasn't been doctored and the picture you used of Brad as been doctored for sure. In terms of comparing to the ideal I guess yeah you can use it but in terms of comparing the to actual existence of a handsome looking male I'd say no.

Yeah this is kind of huge. Photoshop distorts reality to no end. Skin quality also plays a factor in attractivness which can be manipulated like nothing else digitally.

Body angles on women are manipulated the most to give them that elusive hip:waist ratio.

[Dion]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Have a guess. Any guess. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

it seems as though your focus is on attractiveness... In my opinion, it's misguided. No matter how attractive you may be or will become, it won't change the fact that you're a total dick.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Deonne To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	it seems as though your focus is on attractiveness... In my opinion, it's misguided.

Sort of. I'm trying to determine how important it actually is in the grand scheme of things. I think women generally place much more importance on it than anything else, while most forum users seem to disagree.

[Dion]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sort of. I'm trying to determine how important it actually is in the grand scheme of things. I think women generally place much more importance on it than anything else, while most forum users seem to disagree.

It may not be useful to get very generalized information on this subject... Maybe you should ask a small sample of women you are attracted to ... then take their answers as gospel..

[Haumea]

	Why are you researching this?

He's trying to convince himself that he's doomed -- doomed! - with women because of his perceived inadequacies in the looks department. (I think he should research the history of punk rock - he's a male model compared to some of those guys, and they didn't lack for women.)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


A better study for this isn't necessarily what women say they want, but what kind of guys are actually having success with women.

[IotaNull]

Haumea, I'm actively trying to gain facts as opposed to relying on conjecture, primarily because I've realised that the latter isn't good enough for determining truth. It's also why I'm asking others rather than doing the research myself: I know I'm not capable of doing it neutrally.

I'd say "what women look for" covers both what women say they want and what they actually go for. But I agree with you in that in many people they don't match, and what they actually go for is obviously a better indicator.

[Weltschmerzer]

Sorry for piggy-backing on this thread, but does anyone know how these preferences translate across ethnic divisions? Obviously, many of those ideal facial features are more common in Caucasian males. Now, while I realize that there's probably a general preference for Western European features, are there certain preferential idiosyncracies for specific ethnic groups that are broad enough to merit mentioning? Sorry, too, for the poor phrasing of this inquiry.

[Jalex]

I could write so many things.... field study for more than 10 years... I actually know my "couple dynamics".

I should write a book...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


E.g. the difference between ideal and minimal. Imagine height, they want a guy 15-20 cm above their height, but will ask at least for 7 cm above them to consider them as potential partners.

The curve goes down as the height grows or decreases, for example tall and short girls usually don't pay too much attention on height. The short one is confident almost all males are taller than her, the tall one knows that if she is too picky she would end up alone.

And so on...

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Fubudis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You'll have a hard time finding anything solid regarding personality because of how subjective the terminology is.

I think the main problem is the subjectiveness of the actual subjects.

Originally Posted by Weltschmerzer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sorry for piggy-backing on this thread, but does anyone know how these preferences translate across ethnic divisions? Obviously, many of those ideal facial features are more common in Caucasian males. Now, while I realize that there's probably a general preference for Western European features, are there certain preferential idiosyncracies for specific ethnic groups that are broad enough to merit mentioning? Sorry, too, for the poor phrasing of this inquiry.

No, because people have figured out that racial profiling is ridiculous.

Sexual profiling, not so controversial. Why? Who knows.

[Persona]

Any such statistics are likely to be irrelevant to your quest to prove to yourself that love is not worth pursuing, since the types of girls that you like are going to be quirky and eccentric and have weird tastes. Weird tastes that may or may not include people with statistics fetishes :D

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'd say "what women look for" covers both what women say they want and what they actually go for. But I agree with you in that in many people they don't match, and what they actually go for is obviously a better indicator.

Which they? Since we're talking about a couple billion humans here, it might be a good idea to narrow it down just a tad beyond "women".

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Which they? Since we're talking about a couple billion humans here, it might be a good idea to narrow it down just a tad beyond "women".

The set "all women", for which various propositions will be true for various percentages and proportions of that set. That's how statistics work.

If you want to narrow it down, "women who exist in a typical 'Western' culture" seems as good a subset as any.

[mieu]

One of our main concerns was the extent to which women considered male appearance in choosing partners. Women were asked to rank eight factors in selecting a man for a romantic relationship: four personality variables and four physical variables. We asked men to estimate how women would rank these same factors. Personality won hands down. Both men and women rated intelligence and sense of humor as most important, sexual performance and physical strength as least important. This suggests that despite escalating cultural emphasis on male looks, both sexes still believe that women choose men more by character than appearance.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Human physical attractiveness appears to be an important signal of mate value that is utilized in mate choice We argue that performance-related physical fitness (PF) was an important facet of ancestral male mate value and, therefore, that a positive relationship exists between PF and physical attractiveness as well as mating success. We investigated these relationships in a sample of 80 young men. In line with our predictions, we found that (i) a composite measure of PF correlated substantially with body attractiveness (r=.43, after controlling for confounds) but not with facial attractiveness; (ii) PF was positively related to various measures of self-reported mating success (rS ≈ .22); (iii) the relationship between PF and self-reported mating success was partly mediated by body attractiveness. We conclude it is a key function of men's body attractiveness to signal their PF and that men's faces and bodies signal different facets of mate value.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	One factor that becomes important is women’s own height (Fink, et al., 2007). Instead of choosing the tallest of the bunch, many women use a step criteria, requiring that the men they are with are at least taller than they are (Hensley, 1994). Women do not have a exact height preference, but rather seem to be open to a variety of heights, so long as the man is taller than her.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	If you adjust for the height difference of men and women (men are @5in taller), men have an almost identical opposite direction height preference. Adjusting for the height difference of men and women, women would still prefer men .3 to 5.4 inches taller than them (the unadjusted preference range is 5.3 to 10.4 inches taller). Men prefer women 4.93in shorter to 1.65in taller than them.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What role does a man's intelligence play in women's mate preferences? Selecting a more intelligent mate often provides women with better access to resources and parental investment for offspring. But this preference may also provide indirect genetic benefits in the form of having offspring who are in better physical condition, regardless of parental provisioning. Intelligence then may serve as both a cue of a mate's provisioning abilities and his overall heritable phenotypic quality. In the current study, we examined the role of a man's intelligence in women's long- and short-term mate preferences. We used a rigorous psychometric measure (men's WAIS scores) to assess intelligence (the first study to our knowledge), in addition to women's subjective ratings to predict mate appeal. We also examined the related trait of creativity, using women's ratings as a first step, to assess whether creativity could predict mate appeal, above and beyond intelligence. Finally, we examined whether preferences for intelligent and creative short-term mates shifted according to a woman's conception risk. Multilevel modeling was used to identify predictors of mate appeal. Study participants (204 women) assessed the long- and short-term mate appeal of videos of 15 men with known measures of intelligence performing verbal and physical tasks. Findings indicate that both intelligence and creativity independently predicted mate appeal across mating contexts, but no conception-risk effects were detected. We discuss implications of these findings for the role of intelligence and creativity in women's mate choices.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Humorous interaction is a ubiquitous aspect of human social behavior, yet the function of humor has rarely been studied from a Darwinian perspective. One exception is Miller's theory that one's ability to produce high-quality humor functioned as a fitness indicator, and hence, humor production and appreciation have evolved as a result of sexual selection. In this study, we examined whether there are sex differences in attraction to humorous individuals, and whether using humor influences perceptions of humorists' personality traits. We experimentally manipulated how humorous two-stimulus persons were perceived to be by presenting them with autobiographical statements that were either funny or not. Participants chose which person was a more desirable partner for a romantic relationship, and which individual was more likely to have several personality traits. Only women evaluating men chose humorous people as preferred relationship partners. For both sexes, humorous individuals were seen as less intelligent and trustworthy than their nonhumorous counterparts, but as more socially adept. These results are discussed in light of sexual selection theory.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ambrosia]

Caution Iota Null! I believe you may be cherry picking data to support your claims(that you're ugly).

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by ambrosia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Caution Iota Null! I believe you may be cherry picking data to support your claims(that you're ugly).

Which is why I'm getting you schmucks to do my research for me. That way my personal bias is left out of it.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Thanks, mieu. I'll give those a read and respond when I've got more time.

[Persona]

Statistically, the odds of a business becoming successful are quite low. So you should never try, because the success rate doesn't improve with experience and financial ruin awaits anyone who messes up. Also, successful businesspeople always have a particular kind of crazy that you don't.