Stressed men fancy bigger women....

whatme, I don't think it's 'truth' - you can research something, and even demonstrate it, but this only means it's been demonstrated by you, in those specific conditions.

That's fine, and the arguments for and against can - and should - be had out in the open.

And its a darn sight better that censoring stuff or wanting it stopped because one doesn't like it. I see a worrying "closing of the Western mind" trend in all sorts of areas - like this one.

And fwiw samples above a certain size can be adjusted to overall populations (and even with small ones the area of error can be predicted)

whatme, I don't think it's 'truth' - you can research something, and even demonstrate it, but this only means it's been demonstrated by you, in those specific conditions.

I do not honestly see how you could research this without the stated interests becoming tangled up with all sorts of social conditioning. That's not a criticism of the authors - I imagine they are aware - but I think it's a bit of a misunderstanding of how science works to generalize from these studies and make universal claims like 'men find this' or 'in times of stress, men do this'.

We don't - and cannot - know that.

We can only work out that men from these samples do this, or that.

Because you can't take a human being out of its social environment and use it as a control, there's a limit to how much you can ever exclude that social environment, so you also have to factor it into your conclusion, and add the caveat that your research only applies to the social environments you've studied.

To then take these limited conclusions out of context and see them as making external commentary on 'today's world' isn't tenable.

("they" at the end of my last sentence = "the authors of the study") - based on a quick search for other publications they have co-authored

Hm. It's written up very nicely (PloS One is one of the better open access journals!!) but the photographs of women that were used for doing this study (you can find them at Swami et al., Pers Indiv Diff 2008; 44:563-72) are really horrible IMO. They are all dressed in a nasty leotard-and-tights combo that makes them look almost naked, their legs are spread wide apart, and their arms spread wide too, so they're spreadeagled, only standing up so that all their lumps and bumps hang downwards. Their faces are blacked out by a black circle so they're just bodies. They look like meat, or dolls - not like people.

How any man could find any of these images attractive I have no idea. They are depersonalising, objectifying, yes maybe they have the veneer of "an objective scientific approach" but these are so abstracted they have hardly any relation to reality, or any generalisability.

These findings will be of principal interest to manufacturers of porn and lads mags. I don't think they're generalisable to actual human sexual interactions, or have much relevance to factors driving evolution of the brain, which is I think what they are really interested in.

^^ That's what i was referring to re empirical studies, also one that showed that poat WW2 there has a huge return to curves whereas Size Zero bay-doll looks were popular in the 1920s, 1960s and the last decade or so (the Good Years till 2008).

Sociobiologists believe that people change their view as to what is attractive according to overall conditions, hence the mother earth figurines of early times (a general preference for women with ample fat reserves in poorer cultures)

Thats why to me this research merely confirms stuff that was known empirically or via theory.

I do think its important we know thsese things, even if they upset various beliefs, in todays world there is a worrying tendency to deny truth when it is uncomfortable..

I remember reading a study that reviewed the "pin-ups" of various decades comparing the financial state of the USA.

Apparently in times of recession men find women with sharper features, smaller eyes etc more attractive, and in more affluent times they prefer baby faces, big eyes.

Psychologists seemed to think It had something to do with the level of protection a woman could be afforded. In times of crisis men are attracted to women who look like they are independant, strong willed self survivalists, in safer times men prefer a babyish face that they can protect and care for.

I'll see if I can dig it out.

Hmm.

It's published in an open access journal.

Maybe they're serious scientists who've just sold out to the bbc to boost their 'impact' rating, but I suspect they're twits.

As you say, it seems peculiar and a bit naff. If they could put it to a good use, that'd be lovely, but I am sceptical.

I think the statistically higher body-confidence of non-white women who aren't skinny, and lower reporting of a preference for skinny women in non-white men, seems like a lost marketing opportunity.

Imagine if all women's body confidence could be controlled and exploited by Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, etc how much more dosh could be made?

Its just a nugget of information friom research, whats not to like?. Fwiw it fits empirical observations and sociobiological theses, so its corroboration.

you could ask 'why' to any scientific or anthropological study.

doesnt have to have a strikter meaning or a deeper purpose, we just want to know.

To sell more breast enlargements? Bum enlargements? No?