Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Parental investment hypotheses regarding mate selection suggest that human males should seek partners featured by youth and high fertility. However, females should be more sensitive to resources that can be invested on themselves and their offspring. Previous studies indicate that economic status is indeed important in male attractiveness. However, no previous study has quantified and compared the impact of equivalent resources on male and female attractiveness. Annual salary is a direct way to evaluate economic status. Here, we combined images of male and female body shape with information on annual salary to elucidate the influence of economic status on the attractiveness ratings by opposite sex raters in American, Chinese and European populations. We found that ratings of attractiveness were around 1000 times more sensitive to salary for females rating males, compared to males rating females. These results indicate that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men much more easily than in women. Neither raters' BMI nor age influenced this effect for females rating male attractiveness. This difference explains many features of human mating behavior and may pose a barrier for male engagement in low-consumption lifestyles."
I'm not sure this is substantive data to support the claim, hands down, without a doubt.
Keep in mind the statement "may pose a barrier". So maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't.
Also, mating doesn't necessarily translate to "long term romantic relationship". Women may find successful men more attractive sexually, but my fiance is marrying me and not the 275 lb, geriatric, millionaire bachelor down the street either.
I'd certainly be curious to see more studies as time goes on.
I'd certainly be curious to see more studies as time goes on.
There are many studies out there regarding females and their attraction to men who signal "provider" status. This isn't just a human propensity, but observed across the majority of species.
Here's a study that disagrees with your assertion. Apparently, after showing several hundred women pictures of men, they rated the men's attractiveness. Then, the researchers added salary information to the pictures and the men who earned more were rated more attractive.
You have to register to get the article. So I'm assuming you registered and read the entire article. How old were the women? What was their own socio-economic background? How did the researchers come up with the 1000x number? Did the women self-report on some sort of numerical scale? IOW, was it literally like "rate this guy from 1-10" ? They were using the same guys, the same woman viewed the same guy at a higher number without even realizing she'd looked at him a few minutes earlier? This is hard to envision without reading the whole abstract.
You have to register to get the article. So I'm assuming you registered and read the entire article. How old were the women? What was their own socio-economic background? How did the researchers come up with the 1000x number? Did the women self-report on some sort of numerical scale?
I posted the summary excerpt of the study in an above post, in full text. It explains how the observations were quantified.
While some guys are obsessively poring over study after study of what women find attractive, other guys are busy getting to know actual women, interact with them, date them, sex them, live with them, and marry them.
There are many studies out there regarding females and their attraction to men who signal "provider" status. This isn't just a human propensity, but observed across the majority of species.
Those studies are outdated and unreliable. The new age women do not mind being the main provider in most relationships. It doesn't matter if you have a career or ambition or live at home or with a bunch of roommates in your 30's. What a man earns means nothing in the dating world. It's all about connection.
I posted the summary excerpt of the study in an above post, in full text. It explains how the observations were quantified.
No, it didn't answer the questions I posed. Can you skim your copy of the full abstract and look up those couple/few things? I made edits, sorry. Please see above.
While some guys are obsessively poring over study after study of what women find attractive, other guys are busy getting to know actual women, interact with them, date them, sex them, live with them, and marry them.
If I were a man, I'd prefer to be the latter.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Scientists get laid.
Obsessing over study after study of what women find attractive does not a scientist make.
If it were a hard science, then there'd be no debate on it.
Ever wonder why aren't debating whether planes can fly or if boats can float? Because the hard science told us so.
This little study hasn't told us anything for certain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
