There have been many studies about what body part attracts the opposite sex, but few studies that compare the importance of body parts to each other. A new study suggests that people assign more importance to faces than bodies when they are looking for a long-term relationship. For a potential short-term relationship, men assigned slightly more importance to the appearance of a woman’s body, while women cared more about a man’s face.
This only makes sense, as we tend to cover our bodies most of the time, but you have to look at that face a lot. http://www.scitechbits.com/2009/08/31/what-makes-them-hot-body-or-face/ -via Digg
Statistical analysis of men rating women indicated that, even though both the body and face ratings were significant positive predictors of the ratings given to the combined images, the face ratings were stronger predictors of the combined ratings. It was also observed that the ratings for combined images was slightly higher for short term relationships as compared to long term relationships. One other significant observation – when the short term and long term relationship data were analyzed separately, the body ratings stood as more significant predictors to the combined ratings than face ratings, for short term relationships. In the case of females rating men, similar to men – the body and face ratings were both significant predictors with the face ratings being very strong predictors as compared to the body ratings. However, females ratings for men did not show any difference under the short term and long term decisions.
This only makes sense, as we tend to cover our bodies most of the time, but you have to look at that face a lot. http://www.scitechbits.com/2009/08/31/what-makes-them-hot-body-or-face/ -via Digg
Comments (7)
As for the article itself, i suppose it's different things for different people. Sexual attraction is so vast and varied that I wouldn't be surprised if everyone caught something different from the other person.
If you actually knew how science works, you'd realize that to scientists who actually spend their entire lives studying their respective fields, the word "theory" does not mean opinion, as you seem to imply. In fact, a good scientist rarely ever uses the word "fact," because the best that we humans can do is make conclusions based on observations, but rarely can we ever say that something is an absolute "fact."
To a scientist, the word "theory" refers to a PROVEN concept backed by evidence and repeated observation. There is absolutely NO evidence or repeated observation to back up creationism. None whatsoever.
The people who don't vote have the right idea, though not necessarily for their reasons. Voting is irrelevant because of, inter alia:
(a) institutionalized vote fraud,
(b) our problems being commercial in nature, thus being unsolvable via political means--apples vs. oranges,
(c) the foolishness of looking to politicians for solutions to problems we the people are creating,
(d) the citizenship requirement for being eligible to vote, U.S. citizenship being an inferior status, and
(e) etc., etc., etc.
These people don't vote.
You know young people don't exactly have good turnouts to vote, and honestly, do you think an idiot who thought the Titanic was fiction is going to be interested or even AWARE that politics are happening?
The same type of ignorance that believes in creationism and waves off evolution.
For heaven's sake, can you restrain yourself from bashing people's beliefs for one minute?
You can't compare the two at all. Titanic = fact. Creationism/evolution = theories. Not knowing about an incredibly well-known shipwreck does not equate to believing/disbelieving a theory.
Since then nothing can surprise me.
Humanity is doomed.
I wonder if these are the same people who don't believe men have walked on the Moon.