nobody gets into the ridiculous position of advising men to "Learn to love that unemployed guy sprawled on the couch!"

I am guessing that those guys are not heterosexual so this article doesn't seem to apply.

Too hot to handle? While the direct link works, the article does not appear on the homepage. Nor can I find it using the search box on the Psychology Today website.

@TheFormerBanker: huh?

Well done, darling. I especially liked the part that I haven't seen addressed in your column, specifically, the tendency of women who look 50 to desperately try to look like schoolgirls instead of attractive, mature women.

The makers of anti-aging creme are going to want your dismembered head on a pikestaff, you know.

Really good article. Those shots of you aren't too bad either...

It's important to figure out the standards for beauty in your social circle and to go for them.

I wouldn't necessarily say movie looks=good looks, though. I took a film acting class once, and there was this girl who looked totally fake and trashy IRL... but on screen... WOW!!! A lot of stuff that looks good on screen doesn't necessarily translate well off-screan.

In anycase, standards are different in different groups. The thing to do is to figure out what the standards are and go for them.

N.O.W. and the feminists crack me up. They advertise that they are for equality (false) what they really are is probably one of the largest hate groups on the planet. I rate them just under Muslim terrorists. They are for preferential treatment for all women even if it comes at the expense of men, period.

They falsely promote the fantasy that every woman shold have everything just by the fact that they were born a certain gender.

"Loving that woman in the mirror" is a good idea. We take care of people and things we love. So loving yourself means presenting yourself in the best light possible, which means maintaining a reasonable weight, bathing regularly and keeping yourself groomed.

I don't understand. On the one hand you say: The features men evolved to go for in women--youth, clear skin, a symmetrical face and body, feminine facial features, an hourglass figure--are those indicating that a woman would be a healthy, fertile candidate to pass on a man's genes.

But on the other hand you say: In cultures where food is scarce (like in Sahara-adjacent hoods), blubber is beautiful, and women appeal to men by stuffing themselves until they're slim like Jabba the Hut.

So what happened to the evolutionary imperative there?

Former Banker, see the preceding reference to the mirror (in the article). The unemployed couch-dweller is the beholder, supposedly being urged to adore his slack and smelly outer child.

Unfortunately, MonicaP, while you are correct in the traditional use of the term, the ones Amy is talking about use it to mean, "unconditional love", in the sense that there is no need for upkeep, just acceptance.

Certainly, people who are overweight or unattractive can have high self-regard. If they want to love themselves, great. I don't think people should hate themselves for being overweight. They just need to realize that no one else is compelled to love them unconditionally.

Hilarious and true. Love "Jump on my hook, already!"

The odd thing is that so many people are so out of touch with human nature that they would find any of this controversial, offensive or startling. I guess denial is easier than dieting.

I'm asking that if the evolutionary imperative is toward slim, hourglass-shaped women, then it should apply as well in the sands of Arabia. The fact that it does not strikes me as a contradiction.

@kishke- I think the hourglass preference is universal, slim not necessarily

What I see in many women is that they don't realize that men think differently. They have their criteria in what they find attractive and expect men to have the same criteria. They think that because an overweight man with a great job may be attractive to many women the overweight woman with a great job should be attractive to men. It doesn't work that way.

Imagine a 40 year old woman meeting a 40 year old man who is great looking and works as a store clerk earning a fairly low income. How many women would jump at the chance to marry him?

Reverse that and I'll bet a lot of men would not care about her income as long as they were attracted to her looks.

There is an old joke about a couple getting a divorce due to incompatibility. He lost his income, she lost her patibility.

I've always assumed that the 'beauty is a construct ergo you are beautiful' argument is intended as a palliative, and an attempt to shame men.

Do women actually believe this?
How do they explain their own attraction to handsome men?

----

One point of disagreement that I have w/ Amy is towards her assertion that 'Men's looks matter to heterosexual women only somewhat. '. In my experience, men's looks matter to women a great deal. Women are more willing to forgo looks for money and status, but I suspect that if you were to measure their attraction to handsome men by other means (e.g. physiological), that the response to handsomeness is on par w/ the male response.

That research deals w/ mating, but there are several factors to mate selection and pursuit strategies. Physical attraction, based on appearance, is one. My point was that women are more willing to discount physical attributes than men are, though they seem to react to them similarly. Consider the behavior of women when they are selecting men for recreational sex. Here appearance rules. Their strategies will change when selecting husbands, but this fact does not mean that their preference for physical attractiveness has changed.

Amy, what does the research say about women who choose looks and money, but in different men? (Say, marrying the average-looking guy with a big bank account and shagging the hot construction worker?)

It would seem that evolution should have women having sex with the most appealing men to create the strongest babies. The richest, most powerful men in terms of status might offer their own kind of bonus to survival, but not necessarily a genetic one.

"...healthy and parasite free."

Unless he has an ex wife. Sorry, couldn't resist that one. :)

see, this is easy...

What people need are EXTERNALY visible mating cues...
I can't tell that you are beautiful on the inside, any more than you can tell I have a wealth of wisdom, from a distance. That's why beauty, and wealth displays need to exist. So that a person can decide in a moment if a person is worth getting to know.

The problem that modern people have is that we worry a LOT about what seems fair. I think for women the big issue is that they can't run away from their genes, and that seems more important than for men. Because it ISN'T clear how much genetics plays in overall material success, but it is clear that you inherited a large nose and large hips. But the truth is a bit more complex.

there are guys out there that are quite plain, but have the killer instinct to start and run business after business, making their way up the ladder of success. Do I get to moan because I'm not one of them, because I'm not the kind of guy to take such risk?

I've been called 'boring old mr. normal' by a very plain woman I once knew... but she was constantly throwing various undergarments at guys who had that success edge to them. Guys who ended up with lovely trophy wives [maybe mistresses too]. What's wrong with ME? is the lament... but she was comparing looks to looks. She didn't think those guys were out of her league, but they were. Because they had the wealth signals to pull in a woman with beauty signals.

Sucks not to be at the top of the genetic totem pole, but there it is. You have to find exceptions to a rule like that if you can't accept the people in your tier... The problem is that comparing peaches to gold is difficult, and people hate it.

Well, hourglass does not mean fat.

In any case, don't the differences between regional and cultural preferences argue against the idea they are hard-wired in us through the evolutionary process?

"Unless he has an ex wife. Sorry, couldn't resist that one. :)" MonicaP

THAT needed a spew warning...

Great list! But not a single fat woman on it. Most fat women are blob-shaped, not hourglass-shaped.

"Apparently, women need only open a page of Vogue and they're under it's spell - they sleepwalk to Sephora to load up on anti-wrinkle potion, then go on harsh diets, eating only carrots fertilized with butterfly poo"

You're in fine form, as usual.

I think we evolve to be attracted to what gives us status. In a culture where food is scarce, a fat wife would be a status symbol. Totally reverse in ours.

So, I'm not sure it's hardwired, since those norms vary from culture to culture.

Then again, what gives us status in a mate may not be what we're actually attracted to, at least physically. That happens a lot with beautiful women who marry ugly men of high status. They're not necessarily sexually turned on by that man just because they marry him.

I tend to believe there is a physical ideal, in terms of proportion, that's universally appealing. We were taught that in art school - how to approve any subject's appearance by applying these rules of proportion...it's called the golden something or other (long time since art school).

Yet, who we find most appealing isn't always who we marry or mate with...either because we can't (due to our own lesser appearance) or choose not to because they lack status or certain qualities, such as strong maternal instincts or virtues, like intelligence, that we want to pass on to our offspring.

It's called the golden ratio or golden mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Oh, I didn't mean to imply it was the same. A person's face is more attractive when golden mean proportions exist, and we could actually make portraits better by using the golden mean (we'd lay it out on a grid and stretch features as best we could). You could make almost anyone more beautiful.

Hip to waist ratio would be more sexual. The hottest women, of course, have both facial symmetry and hip to waist ratio.

Amy is absolutely right. She's got the science; I've got the anecdotal evidence. My waist-to-hip ratio is .73 uncorseted, and I'm fat by just about anyone's standards. I've also been panted over by more than my fair share of men.

This is OK as far as it goes - but

1) Obviously a lot of non-hourglass genes are being passed on. Does anyone really think humans are evolving to be more beautiful?

Or is the female preference for power constantly reintroducing schlub genes?

2) Beauty is a lot more than sexual attractiveness. In cultures that value wisdom and experience, there are other definitions of human beauty.

First I am a male and I find to me looks are more like a filter. Kinda like the little height stand at the entrance to a roller coaster. You must be this beautiful to garner dating status.

Now I don't really hold my standards very high so a good number of women fall into this category. However, over a certain size I am no longer interested. You could be friend material but not mate. I need to be able to feel a little lust in the loins every now and then. If you can't get that in the dating phase then there is no point.

However, I don't care how good looking you are, if you are a horrible person then screw you. I give little latitude on the personality even if you are good looking. Might stay for a short time but I would be looking elsewhere. Surely would not marry.

Personality counts for a lot and would go for a plainer woman over a prettier one if the right personality metrics are met. But both women still need to pass through the original filter first.

Personality counts for a lot and would go for a plainer woman over a prettier one if the right personality metrics are met. But both women still need to pass through the original filter first.

Attractiveness is like a good resume. It may get you an interview, but if you suck at that interview, you're not getting the job.

I do think male physical attractiveness and power count for more than material power for a lot of women. It's why firefighters get so much play.

"Attractiveness is like a good resume. It may get you an interview, but if you suck at that interview, you're not getting the job."

But you may get a second date.

I can't see any comments at that link? Am I doing something wrong?

"The problem that modern people have is that we worry a LOT about what seems fair."

Fortunately, since this is the USA and not Afghanistan, women don't actually need to have a mate to survive.

It's true, it takes a certain amount of genes to look good, and if you were born without "pretty" genes, well, (as Zach illustrated above quite well) you aren't going to make it through anyone's filter. Which sucks and isn't fair, but that's how it is.

But that doesn't mean you have to live with your parents for life - if you're homely, hit the books and go get a job as an engineer. You'll have a nice house all to yourself and your own whirlpool, and when you listen to all your friends bitch about their husbands, you'll be glad you don't have a man underfoot.

True, this isn't a common viewpoint among young women, but I hear it a LOT among older women. Guess which viewpoint has more experience and wisdom behind it.

>>"And, just like women who aren't very attractive, men who make very little money or are chronically out of work tend to have a really hard time finding partners."

I just don't see this. In my circle of friends, it is almost universally the woman who is the breadwinner. And out-of-work losers seem to have no problems finding girls to take care of them. Especially if they have the added bonus of being "artists".

Increasingly, I'm seeing this in low-income communities (ghettos & trailer parks). There are these layabouts that can bang every other girl they see, and have no trouble attracting these women. However, damn few of 'em have a job that's not entirely in their heads. ("I'm a musician" or "I'm a DJ" or "in-between gigs as a [insert job here]")*. So where's their status? Is it in the fact that every girl wants them? That doesn't make sense, because how can every gal want a piece if they've got no status.

I'm not trying to poke holes or anything; I'm genuinely curious. Is this a cultural shift? Is it something that has occurred in low-income communities throughout time? Is it something I've misinterperted and there's no evidence for? I dunno. But it's something that's coming to my attention more and more.

* = This is not to dis actual musicians, DJ's, or those actually in-between jobs. But I think we all know someone who by "musician" they really mean "I sleep on my friends couches and strum my guitar constantly" and who are in a permanent state of "in-between".

It's true, it takes a certain amount of genes to look good, and if you were born without "pretty" genes, well, ... you aren't going to make it through anyone's filter. Which sucks and isn't fair, but that's how it is.

I don't think unattractive women have to give up on finding a mate if that's what they want. (Women who don't want partners, whether they're pretty or ugly, don't need to concern themselves with any of this.) Just about any woman can be attractive enough to make it through someone's filter with a little work.

So where's their status? Is it in the fact that every girl wants them? That doesn't make sense, because how can every gal want a piece if they've got no status.

In some communities, the fact that he's not currently in prison can be enough.

cornerdeamon how old are these women? Because I've seen that sort of thing among younger women, but not so much among mature women. If anything older women go to the other extreme and become too fixated on his money.

Cornerdemon, it may be a shift due to women having more financial power, and some preferring to retain the control in the relationship. Trading up for status is appealing, but the trade off is usually that the one who has the status has most, if not all, of the power. And, as Pirate Jo mentions, more women are realizing that they don't need a man to create a comfortable life for themselves. So, when they do have a guy around, he doesn't have to be well-off, just romantic or good-looking or great in the sack....or, preferably, all three.

However, this often changes once kids are in the picture. Women, who may have been content with a freeloader before, are usually interested in a man who pulls his weight as a father, and that means being a provider.

Do I love the Advice Goddess? Yes, I do. Telling the truth to a truth-averse audience takes some serious chutzpah. Rock on, Amy.

cornerdemon, the answer to your question is that like slimness, wealth and beauty, status (which is what attracts for a man) is relative. If a guy gives the cues of someone who has status - which can include extremely nonintuitive or subtle things - he'll get lots of attention, assuming there isn't someone else with more, or more real, status sucking up the alpha-dog oxygen in the room.

if you're homely, hit the books and go get a job as an engineer. You'll have a nice house all to yourself

Oh please. Lots of homely women find husbands.

That wasn't Pirate Jo's point, kishke. She was suggesting they may not want to. No woman just wants to find a man just to have one.

One issue that hasn't been discussed is the happiness found in the unions. There was some study recently (might've been posted here?) that showed that women were happier when they were with a man who was less attractive than they were.

They studied these couples, and had observers rate their attractiveness levels, and the men who were less attractive than their partners were far more attentive, less condescending, and just, overall, more eager to please and work through problems than couples where the man was better looking. The more attractive women also reported a much higher level of satisfaction in their relationships.

In general, I suspect less attractive or "homely" couples are happier because they know that what holds them together isn't something transitory like looks.

I'm pretty sure my husband and I count as a homely couple. We were both a lot cuter when we met almost 18 years ago! Sometimes I feel like I shouldn't have let myself go so much. On the other hand, if I suddenly dressed up and wore makeup all the time, I think it would actually make my husband suspicious and insecure, like it means I'm trying to attract other guys.

Here's an article about the study:

http://www.livescience.com/health/080410-couples-beauty.html

"They studied these couples, and had observers rate their attractiveness levels, and the men who were less attractive than their partners were far more attentive, less condescending, and just, overall, more eager to please and work through problems than couples where the man was better looking. The more attractive women also reported a much higher level of satisfaction in their relationships."

I'd have to agree there. My DH isn't a looker. I'm not drop-dead, but got plenty of attention prekids and haven't packed on weight (yeah, I have the mom-do. And mom clothes. But that's easily changeable) His status to me is being securely employed and a hard worker, and a great dad (really wanted kids, that's a plus!) and good to me. Oh yeah, and that love thing, but we're not talking about that here.

And while Amy has the facts on the ratios men like, what people call attractive DOES vary widely. Some boob men love women who are frankly fat, cause they have the boobs. SOme men love a woman who cakes on the make-up, cause she's glamorous. Some love the natural look, because you can be sure what you see is real. There are relatively few women (and probably men) who can't find someone who sees their fine points.

what people call attractive DOES vary widely.

This seems like it would be important for a genetically diverse population, too.

That wasn't Pirate Jo's point, kishke. She was suggesting they may not want to.

No, she was saying they can't, and suggesting alternatives for them. Here's what she said:

It's true, it takes a certain amount of genes to look good, and if you were born without "pretty" genes, well, (as Zach illustrated above quite well) you aren't going to make it through anyone's filter. Which sucks and isn't fair, but that's how it is. But that doesn't mean you have to live with your parents for life - if you're homely, hit the books and go get a job as an engineer. You'll have a nice house all to yourself

Pretty clear, no?

M'kay, I'll be happy to clear this up.

I'm referring to women, here. Let's say you are born with no "pretty" genes whatsoever. It doesn't mean you can't still eat right and stay in shape, wear enough makeup to look female, and dress like you don't live in an alley, with all your belongings in a shopping cart. Women do have SOME control over these things.

Yet that will only go so far. If you're just naturally homely - clean and decent-smelling, but homely - you aren't going to get noticed on a day-to-day basis. (Again, refer to Zach's comment above.) Men, as he put it, want to feel some lust in the loins, and there is not a damn thing wrong with that.

For the homely woman, that means you have to count on a guy getting to know you in some sort of non-pick-up setting and finding that he loves what's inside your heart and head. That MAY never happen. (A lot of guys might "friendzone" you from the beginning, and never consider you a romantic option.) Or it might happen, but not until you are 60. Who knows?

(I interrupt this clarification for an anecdote, shared by a co-worker of mine this very day. He said one of his sons works in a nursing home and shared the wisdom that there isn't a single good-looking woman there. Good point.)

But when I look around at marriages, and see half of them failing, and half of what's left carrying on in shared misery, well, so WHAT if you don't find a partner and get married? You're better off than 75% of the population, so is being ugly really that much of a curse? It's being stupid that you should be worried about.

And yes, I see homely couples who are happy together. I think these people were effective at managing their expectations. They knew they wanted a partner, weren't going to score one of the "hot" ones, and started playing in their own leagues. Even then, though, there are never any guarantees. Ordering up a partner isn't like going on Amazon and choosing a book. Even the most attractive people can have a hard time finding someone they're happy with. (They just have to sort through a lot more chaff, and spend more time dating.)

But the thing is, so what? I think the main thing in life is that you've got to find people to love in this world. (Or dogs!) Don't narrow it down to just having a romantic partner, stick your stake in the sand, and then let your own happiness be dependent on something that, no matter what you look like, is largely outside of your control.

Very well-put, Pirate Jo. But I do agree with kishke that a homely woman - if she wants to - can find a partner. It may be a homely man, but that also, may, in fact, be better and longer lasting. The problem is when you try to go through somebody's "filter" who is better-looking, which most of us do at some point because we don't adequately guage our attractiveness level.

It seems to me that of the couples I've known who've lasted, few have been really attractive. Especially when the man is more attractive than the female (a situation that tends to arise, even if they started out equally attractive because women have kids, which ravages the body, and men tend to age better), the odds are not very good. That man will usually start to see greener pastures. A 40ish yr old man is considered more attractive than a woman of the same age. Men like variety anyway, and if he believes himself to be in a higher league of attractiveness than his wife, he'll feel he "deserves" better. Many marriages fall to that line of thinking.

So, the moral to women is if you want to be happy, do like M4 and find a guy a few notches below you in looks but who treats you really well. In the end, the looks disparity evens out.

Dark and cynical, lovelysoul, but I haven't been able to poke holes in it yet.

I say find someone who loves you. If someone really loves you, they're going to be there, holding you in an upright position to pee, during the time a disc in your back turns into squashed jelly and you can't even stand up, let alone walk to the bathroom and take a leak while sitting upright without support. Yes, this happened to me.

(Note to readers: Change the chains on your bicycles every two years, if you ride a lot, and you can avoid the accidents that lead to these injuries. WTF did I know.)

So I'm sticking by him, in good humor I might add, while he works toward his degree and struggles with a hectic internship, and I'm not complaining about the lack of vacations or "us" time. I make him a nice breakfast sandwich on Saturday mornings and keep his coffee refilled, and the occasional bj isn't out of the question either. He doesn't give a shit what I look like. But *I* do. This gives him fewer things to feel bad about.

Pirate Jo! lol A good bj changes all these equations.

I'm just a realist. I mean, Zach is right. There are many guys who won't let you through their filter. We're talking about first impressions/weeding in and weeding out. But, in the end, after you're a couple, the deep love develops and looks are less important than someone who will help you to the toilet when you're incapacitated.

And that will ultimately be all of us who live long enough. It often saddens me that many couples who break up over the very issues I described above, would have, had they been able to survive the middle-aged crazy years, would've likely been that kind of support for each other. So many ultimately regret leaving their partners for something else that "looks" better.

While I think Singh was on the right track with his WHR studies, there have been some methodological criticisms (which I don't think are compelling enough to link up) leveled against his 1993 paper. The following studies add a bit of nuance to the understanding of waist size/ratio to the beauty concept. The article titles give a pretty good idea what they're about.

Oh... it looks like there are PDFs available through Google Scholar, but I'm not sure about the copyright so I won't link them directly...

Rilling, J.K., T.L. Kaufman, Eo Smith, Rajan Patel, and C.M. Worthman. “Abdominal depth and waist circumference as influential determinants of human female attractiveness.” Evolution and Human Behavior 30, no. 1 (2009): 21–31.

Rozmus-Wrzesinska, Malgorzata, and Boguslaw Pawlowski. “Men’s ratings of female attractiveness are influenced more by changes in female waist size compared with changes in hip size..” Biological psychology 68, no. 3 (March 2005): 299-308. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15620796.

The truth is, was and hopefully always will be that men select women (consciously or not) that appear healthy enough to carry children. Women prefer at least normal looking men capable of providing for these children. It's not so sinister really.
Most women probably don't find Stephen Hawking sexy, despite his brains, status, income and accomplishments. There has to be some physical attractiveness. Are these women shallow? Nope, just programed by eons of selection to find an optimum mix of looks and ability.
I dated a woman who wanted me to fix up some of her friends with some of my friends. When I asked "Jodi" what type of guy she was looking for she said: he had to be over six feet tall, nice - but not too nice, college educated, preferably professional, at least six figure income, funny, cultured, sensitive, fun, no issues with exes or mom and own his own home preferably in Boston or nearby burb. Oddly enough, I did have two or three friends like this and "Jodi" asked why I couldn't fix her up with "Ian". I explained that he was dating a woman he was crazy about. The next question out of her mouth was, "Is she pretty?" Well, yeah she is. As pretty as a Ivy League educated green eyed German and Filipino gymnast with an amazing rack can be. She went on and on for 20 minutes about how men are shallow. I had to break the news to her that the men she was looking for were not looking for her. In fact, men like that can pretty much get whoever they want and often do, as do Ivy League educated, green eyed, German and Filipino gymnasts with amazing racks.

now Amy, don't be bustin' on the Celebrety, Sex, Fashion website for women... which, last I checked Celebrity and Fashion are all about looks, which leads to... well, you know.

Amy, have you read the 3-article exchange on Darwinian feminism between Rebecca J. Hannagan, Griet Vandermassen, and Laurette T. Liesen in the journal Sex Roles (2008, vol. 59)? I refer back to it from time to time after overdosing on the browbeating rhetoric some segments of the anti-evolutionary psychology set breathlessly employ.

Anywho... It's a much more insightful piece than the comments in that Jezebelian nightmare. ...Reading Lassek & Gaulin now. Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6wJl37N9C

"Because the list doesn't include fat women with hourglass figures doesn't mean they don't exist."

Search for "Rubenesque" and you'll find plenty.

I read through the Jezebel comments and the general opinion seems to be "this article is BS because my husband loves me in sweatpants and no makeup" or "well I wouldn't want a man who only cares about my looks anyway." And you know what? That's their experience and priorities and it's perfectly valid. Their approach might not work for 90% of women, but for them it seems to, and this type of women probably wouldn't even like the guys she would attract by wearing more makeup. Plus it's hard to convince someone who's found love and happiness that their approach is wrong. It's like advising a supermodel-esque vegan to go on the Atkins diet-if your strategy works, why rock the boat?

One comment that I found particularly astute was this:

"Being pretty helps you get your foot in the door, but it doesn't help you find a fulfilling career or keep a dream job. Being pretty helps you attract attention at bars and when you're walking down the street, but it doesn't help you find a committed, kind boyfriend who won't cheat on you, hurt your feelings, or hit you. It gets your drinks bought, but it doesn't necessarily help you find people who are going to care about you after the night's over."

I think this statement is incredibly accurate to what I've observed in real life and I'm willing to bet most people would say the same.

Now do I apply any of this to myself? Hell no. I love getting attention from guys and free drinks at bars, I will leverage my looks as much as I can to climb the career ladder, and I want to marry the type of guy who cares about my looks. So of course I'm going to take care of myself and spend a lot of time on my appearance. (And based on these comments I guess I should thank god I have an hourglass figure, although I don't think it matters thatttt much.)

But the average feminist/Jezebel reader doesn't have the same priorities or values that I (or most of the readers on this blog) do, and spending hours in the gym or wearing tons of makeup probably isn't going to make them any happier or land them the type of guy they like. Again, nothing wrong with that. Different strokes for different folks, you know?

"You show a man respect by prioritizing what matters to him -- physical beauty."

In this comment (as in this disgusting "article") not only do you insult men by proclaiming they prioritise "physical beauty" above much more significant and human attributes such as intelligence, compassion and intimacy in a relationship, you perpetuate the notion that no matter how intelligent a woman is, no matter how much she achieves, how she cultivates her talents, cares for others or indeed expresses herself in a creative / different way, she will never be good enough for your "beauty" ideals.

You may be telling it how it "is," but it only is this way because of narrow, sexist, and frankly outdated opinions like yours which continue to make women feel they fall short. Why not use this article to challenge society's assumptions about what gives a woman value?

Lastly, the men you write about need to grow up and appreciate women as human beings.

I re-post from above, please enjoy : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6wJl37N9C Katie Makkai on rejecting the ideal of being "pretty"

Goddess:
I get a lot of letters from husbands whose wives don't respect them enough to look after their looks -- and not because the husbands are blissfully happy in their relationships. You show a man respect by prioritizing what matters to him -- physical beauty.
- - - - - - - - - -
I think the core problem is the lack of respect, not the lack of maintenance.

I also think that generalizations always have their limits - all your statistics are generalizations, lotsa waistless, homely gals get married - and not all men have perpetually roving eyes or sexual feelings motivated solely by (still somewhat theoretical) evolutionary motives.

Men value loyalty and intimacy, and are also capable of being realistic about their own and their spouse's looks over time - so there are a lot more factors in the equation, especially after marriage.

You do no service to the core truths you put forward by stretching them into a grand theory that explains everything.

Thanks for your reply and for making that link work (I freely admit, not one of my skills). Thanks also for the condescending attitude, however while I appreciate your argument I feel you too narrowly define what evolution proscribes men to search for. Not only does your argument disregard the men who prefer very very thin women (clearly not the most suitable to have children), but it disregards the thousands of men who find overweight women, or those not subscribing to conformist views of beauty, very very sexy. And while many women who read your article may understand the (questionable) science behind your logic, many will just feel attacked by yet another woman telling them society is against them living fulfilled lives in the way they feel is right.

PS Your comments towards the poetry make me very sad for womanhood.

I somewhat agree with Shannon's comments. Many of the Jezebel posters genuinely seem confident and secure in their own skin, and, like Pirate Jo, they're not necessarily looking for a guy. If one comes along who accepts them just as they are, they'll be happy, but also without it.

When fishing, the type of catch you get is contingent on the sort of bait you use, and they don't even want the type of man who would respond to lip gloss.

And that's ok...as long as it truly is. Amy gets many letters from women who may pretend to be ok about it, but are, deep down, disappointed by their unfulfilling romantic lives.

All Amy is saying (and the Jezebel posters seem to agree) is that not "prettying up" is going to drastically narrow a woman's prospects. If the woman is fine with that - knowing she is likely to get a lot less attention from men - then there's no problem.

It doesn't mean a woman won't find a good mate. In fact, he may be the better mate because he will be more accepting of who she is. But she's fishing in a much smaller pool for a rarer species.

And also, one usually gets what one gives. If a woman is unattractive and unfit, she can't expect to lure a fit, attractive man.

Again, as long as the woman is ok with that, it's not a problem, but if she's trying to attract a fit, attractive, higher status man - while willfully remaining out of shape and making no effort with her appearance - this will be endlessly frustrating.

When fishing, the type of catch you get is contingent on the sort of bait you use, and they don't even want the type of man who would respond to lip gloss.

I didn't mean that SPECIFICALLY, that you MUST wear lip gloss, but that you should not let yourself go.

PJ: What do bicycle chains have to do with slipped discs? My wife rides a bit; I'll fill her in.

So, Margeret I take it your man while kind considerate and intamate also never shaves or showers and has a job collecting trash for the coin deposits?

What's apparent is that it's very important for women to feel that they're attractive. So they've concocted this whole line of argument to justify that belief. But it requires that you posit a fictional male. Some guy who will never find you less attractive than you desire him to. It's narcissistic projection, but it's relatively harmless, and makes women feel better about themselves, so men typically keep their mouths shut.

I'd recently gotten out of a two year relationship partly due to this issue. My ex has gotten into a condition that I don't find physically attractive. She's not really willing to do anything about it, and I think that it's probably only going to get worse.

What I think that a lot of women don't get is that men need to be physically attracted to a woman to get aroused sexually. At least I do. There seems to be a pervasive attitude among women that men are 'dogs' and so we'll sleep with anything. We might prefer a hot woman, but will make do with whatever we have. So there's no need to maintain your appearance. Men are just being 'selfish' by wanting you to look nice. But that's not true for me. I can't just flip a switch and make myself perform.

Lastly, the men you write about need to grow up and appreciate women as human beings.

This seems to be the crux of the issue -- that our physicality is not part of what makes us human, but something else separate.

My husband appreciates many things about my personality and character, and he loves me even when I am in sweatpants and no makeup. The part of him that likes to have sex prefers it when I shave and wear something nice.

Nick, did you tell your ex why you were unhappy, or did you just leave? I think a lot of women really don't understand how this affects men because the men don't tell them. They'll make other excuses, or have an affair. Not that this is justified, but then, it usually becomes all about what a jerk he is, rather than the woman taking an honest look at her appearance.

lovelysoul I'd be willing to bet good money your confused lady freinds were told exaclty why a guy was leaving - mabey not in one consise statement at the door on his way out, but we men are fairly simple and easy to please.

Also unlike women we usualy make declaritive statments about who we are and what we want, we dont drop subtle hints and expect our partners to be mind readers

I don't know, Luj. I can certainly see how you would be brave enough to address it, but I suspect many guys are afraid to touch that one.

I mean, we women are afraid to discuss it honestly with each other. I'd rarely tell a girlfriend she was gaining weight. If a friend brings it up, like, "Omg, I've gained so much weight lately!", we usually downplay it. "But you still look good. You can't really tell," etc.

That's because women friendships are based on being supportive, and a lot of women will cut you off if you aren't being a good cheerleader, even when they know they've gained weight...or suspect their husband/partner is unhappy...but it's usually glossed over, like that can't possibly be the MAIN reason. There must be something else going on.

One of my best friends is very overweight, and I'm pretty sure her husband is miserable, but we never discuss it in those terms. It's always, "He's depressed...or drinking too much...or won't communicate..." (wonder why?). Still, I just can't bring myself to say, "Maybe it's because you've let yourself go?"

Well that video was pointless - and commnts require aproval - here is what I wrote

Anyone else notice how she has styled and dyed her hair? And wearing form sliming black? With enough buttons undone to show the necklace which draws the gaze down to her breasts? For a woman bitching about "pretty" she sure doesnt try and avoid it

Also, why the blaming of men for her mommies psycho drama? Why is it always some how a mand fault feminist ladies?

@ nick
That is a lot of what my earlier post was about. My filter will block out those women that I cannot find attractive enough to sleep with. Now men's filters come in different sizes. Some are like fishing trawler nets, some chicken wire, some HEPA filter. So most women can find a guy that they can get through the filter. Problem is, they don't want guys to have a filter so they can have a shot at the guys they most want, but under normal circumstances would filter them out.

As for how wonderful women are, it doesn't matter to me when it comes to my filter. Knew a lady at work who was rather heavy set. Perky, funny, giving, WONDERFUL person. Loved to have her as a friend. However, she couldn't make it through my filter as she was far to gone. So liked her much but not girlfriend/wife material.

2 things... first is about attracting a guy to begin with.

2 wome are walking down the street, and from a distance I see them. Which one is more intelligent? Which one is kinder? Which one is great with kids?

Yeah, I don't know either. Because all I can tell is that one has hips that make my heart race. Which one am I going to concentrate on? I have a TARGET, my brain if flooded with a bunch a' chemicals that say "acquire target."

the other woman might have hips in there somewhere, based on the clothes she is wearing I can't tell...

OK, back to target.

'bu-bu-but you have to get to know them FIRST before you judge!!!!1111!'

No, everyone has attractions, and they base judgement on that. I like brunettes with long hair. Am I being unfair to blonds? This is only attraction we are talking about, yes?

OK, second thing ONCE YOU ARE TOGETHER WITH SOMEONE. Now we are talking about a different KIND of attraction. The initial is past, and now he knows that you have a cutting wit, make the best brownies in the known universe... and you fit together... well.

Except. That wonderful long brunette hair? Gone after the honeymoon. "It was a bother." You've gained 100# because you are "stressed-out" and the brownies? "make your own."

A fair minded man has loved you through many things, and might have come to accept that the woman he married is in there somewhere, so he loves you without reserve.

Amy talks the disrespect of letting yourself go, but it's not like he mighn't have gained 25#... but the letting yourself go is symptomatic of something deeper. That isn't "happy-weight"... you actually don't care because you don't have to. You don't wear the rings anymore, because they don't fit, and having them sized will just prove to everyone what's happened. So they sit in a safe deposit box, out of mind. Maybe you berate him for not working enough, and also not paying enough attention to you. When he takes the kids swimming, you just make fun of his thinning hair while refusing to go with them.

And eventually you just don't have anything good to say. You are a different person, an you don't really care what he thinks.

Letting yourself go, OFTEN isn't just about looks. Men are hardwired on certain aspects of attractiveness, but they are also often quite loyal, and feel responsible for the decisions that they make... which can easily trump lessening of attraction. When a woman lets herself go because she just isn't interested in him anymore, because she got what she wanted, and it didn't actually include him...

It isn't the looks that are the problem, and you will find this lament quite common with men. When he says she changed, he's talking about the reason she decided to cut her hair, not the fact that she cut it.

>> Nick, did you tell your ex why you were unhappy, or did you just leave?

Yes, believe me I tried to address it. And it wasn't just her appearance. The basic problem was that we have very different ideas about what settling down entails. She's on a trajectory to becoming like her sisters, and friends, who've thrown it in and are just vegging out in the suburbs.

Interesting point, SwissArmyD -- that the change isn't as bad as the reason for the change.

I recently dyed my hair red. I talked about it with my husband first, since he married me with light brown hair and I didn't want to pick a color he'd hate. Not because I need his permission to dye my hair, and I wouldn't dye it something I hate just because he liked it, but he's going to spend a long time looking at it, so I care what he thinks about it.

Without our ability to make snap judgments about people, we'd all be far worse off. It's why no one chooses to sit next to the rank-smelling homeless guy on the train, no matter how shiny his soul may be.

>>"cornerdeamon how old are these women? Because I've seen that sort of thing among younger women, but not so much among mature women. If anything older women go to the other extreme and become too fixated on his money. "

That was where I first started noticing it. In people my age (mid-to-late twenties). But as I begin to work more with low-income families (and I'll be blunt and say single-mother families); these women are dating. And the men they are dating are layabouts! It appalls me to see that they don't mind taking care of full-grown men while unable to provide lunch and breakfast for their kids without the school's help. But boyfriend will get whatever he needs.

These guys don't work! What is their "status" that makes it so easy for them to catch these women? These women, who for the most part are working moms! Why do they feel the need to support these LOSER guys!?

If it's all about status, then what makes these dudes so status-full?

In this comment (as in this disgusting "article") not only do you insult men by proclaiming they prioritise "physical beauty"...

Hi. I'm a man. I'm not insulted in the slightest.

There's something you're not getting about the male sex drive. You don't get turned on and want to have sex with a women you don't find sexy.

Women in general have a huge problem understanding the male sex drive. It's understandable, they don't really need to, to get the things they want in life.

Lastly, the men you write about need to grow up and appreciate women as human beings.

Sure. Now what? You're still unattractive and I don't want to have sex with you. I know many women like this, great people, no physical attraction.

I really hope they find a guy who is turned on by them.

If it's all about status, then what makes these dudes so status-full?

Maybe it's as much about perceived status, or different standards for what constitutes "high status."

My brother is a loser who can't support the two kids he has (and the countless kids he probably has somewhere), but women fall all over him. One even left her husband, the father of her children and the man who was paying all the bills, to shack up with him. His ex wife still pines for him. It's baffling, since he hasn't held a steady job in about a decade.

The only reason I can come up with is that my brother is handsome and confident, and very good at convincing women with low standards that they need him more than they do, and that he provides more he does. He's also skilled at beating people up like the petty thug he is, and many women interpret this as protectiveness and strength.

These guys don't work! What is their "status" that makes it so easy for them to catch these women? These women, who for the most part are working moms!

It might be that single working-class moms have a hard time finding anyone else. Other men most likely are not interested in the baggage.

Less-attractive women often earn my affection through a sense of humor.

Seriously. (Metafilter)

"In this comment (as in this disgusting "article") not only do you insult men by proclaiming they prioritise "physical beauty"...

Hi. I'm a man. I'm not insulted in the slightest.

There's something you're not getting about the male sex drive. You don't get turned on and want to have sex with a women you don't find sexy."

There's something you don't get about the female sex drive. We don't get turned on and want to have sex with a man we don't find sexy. However, after we get to know a person, we may find out that he's sexy in ways that count way more than the outward appearance.
If (some) men are not able to do that in regards to the women they get to know, then those women are MUCH better off without them.
And no, I don't need a wealthy man to take care of me. It's never been a priority, even when I was earning much less money than I do now.

Well, Amy, you may find Henry K. hot but I certainly don't, nor have I ever known any women who do.
Your article is about the "truth" as YOU want it to be (for whatever reason). Men's looks matter to most women I have ever known about as much as women's looks matter to most men I have ever known. And those to whom looks matter more than anything else are those who are not worth knowing.

Oh, and BTW... that "disgusting article" comment was from another commenter who I happened to quote... thus the quote marks. Although, I do happen to agree with that part of the quoted material. No, the truth doesn't disgust me. What disgusts me is people who write up articles about junk science and try to pass it off as the truth.

Amy, if you encourage women to think they are good enough looking without trying, then maybe those of us who know better will look better by comparison :)

I think it is an article filled with ignorance about the complexities of attraction, beauty, and relationships. I also find it shallow. I know many people who have found wonderful mates based on something far deeper then looks.

I wish I had the energy to go through so many things in this article that I find disturbing but one thing I know is wrong... "No man will turn his head to ogle a woman because she looks like the type to buy a turkey sandwich for a homeless man or read to the blind." I don't exactly know what a person like this would look like, but I know guys who would find these kinds of act of kindness to be beautiful in a woman. My husband happens to be one of them.

And if I, hypothetically were to get a terminal illness, look sickly, have weight change, loose hair maybe, and feel comfortable in sweats…then I should fear that my husband would leave according to your article. Well thankfully that is not the case and I know he is not shallow and fiercely committed to me. And he is in love with my straight, not hourglass figure. I also have a round, soft midsection and he has always embraced, with no disgust about it. He is not fazed by cellulite, acne, sweats, leg hair, imperfect eyebrows, smaller chest, small hips, or anything like that. He also thinks that as long as I’m being healthy then size does not matter.

You say “To understand what it takes to be beautiful, we need to be very clear about what being beautiful means—being sexually appealing to men.” First off that is a very narrow, bad definition of beauty. I would also like to see how you feel about this topic after menopause and a more apple shape is developed by many women, not an hourglass figure. I wonder how you might see beauty differently. Or after multiple pregnancies and your body has seriously changed. But there is a beauty there. Or when you reach 80 and your face is wrinkled and worn, your metabolism is completely different, and your priority is spending time with your family. And your hypothetical grandchildren see beauty in your wrinkled hands and face. Then beauty might be completely different.

I think you are also misunderstanding/misrepresenting feminism.

Good for you that you stand by it. What else are you going to say? Of course my emotions are turned on when I see an article like that. I'm human, that's a given. It is very clear that your emotions are also turned on in your response!

Beauty IS much more subjective then your studies claim. And much more expansive.
And using Hollywood for examples is not very scholarly. They are not representative of the everyday person.

You also have NOT found the truth about beauty. You may have bits of truth floating around in your article but you really have not captured truth about beauty. I also pity you that you think all this. Your life is seriously missing out.

And how did you end up in Psychology Today? I guess it cares about $$ and not being scholarly and using actual professionals in the helping profession. Because no one in the helping profession would write an article that is so unhelpful to women.

Short quiz for Elizabeth and anyone else who might be invested in "love me like I am":

What do you weigh now?

Add 100 pounds.

Do you find yourself more or less the center of attention?

Add another 100 pounds.

Now what kind of attention are you getting?

Add another 100 pounds.

Have the comments turned cruel? Do people wonder what is wrong with you and give unprompted dietary advice?

Why do they do that?

Do you think your personality has not changed with a gross weight increase?

Can you cite the advantages of being overweight?

Reason and emotion are both highly important. We would be lost without both.

Studies are an interesting tool. Good studies with internal validity can have very sound results for the study. They did everything right! But it is important to find a balance between internal and external validity. A major obstacle to the balance is the artificiality of many experiments (Schram, 2005). Many times to achieve internal validity, “abstraction and simplification” need to be utilized for a study to be more manageable (Schram). This can allow for superior internal validity but poor external validity (Schram). The research may be done perfectly but at the expense of making it pertinent to “real-world” people and situations. These are important things to remember when clinging too close to findings from studies.

One cannot make broad claims about complex and abstract ideas such as attraction simply from studies. And just because any study finds anything does mean that it then should be regarded as absolute truth. The real world is so different from the simplified, sterile environment of a study. In the real world, individuals can often change people’s minds of what is attractive. Sometimes a certain look for may be held as highly attractive ideal. But sometimes people find themselves being attracted to far different looking people then they would have imagined. People’s looks can often “change”, if you will, when you meet them and get to see the whole package.

Anyways…back to studies…There are many schools of thought concerning something like attraction, depression, anxiety, and so on. Different points of view come at it different ways. Even people in the same school of thought may find different things. And the method, tools, sample, statistics, etc all make a huge difference and often explain why one study may say one thing and another may say something else.

For instance there are studies that suggest that the hip to waist ratio is not actually that important to attractiveness:

Rozmus-Wrzesinska & Pawlowski (2005) found that “(1) women with the same waist to hip ratio (WHR) but manipulated either by waist or hip size are perceived differently by men; (2) men’s ratings are more sensitive to change when WHR is altered by waist size and this indicates that in western society waist size can be more important for men’s perception of a woman’s body shape attractiveness than her hip size; (3) there is no difference in assessing woman’s body shape attractiveness from the front or the back; (4) men’s age should be taken into consideration in studies on woman’s body shape attractiveness.” They also said specifically concerning the waist conveying more information of attractiveness that “in westernized societies where there is no risk of seasonal lack of food, the waist may carry more important information…” (Rozmus-Wrzesinska & Pawlowski, 2005).

Other studies say that BMI is much more important in judging attractiveness then waist to hip ratio. Toveé, Miasey, Emery, and Cornelissen (1999) found that their results showed that “BMI is the primary determinant of the attractiveness of female bodies. It accounts for more than 70% of the variance in our analyses, whereas WHR accounts for little more than 2%”. They go on to very interesting findings that “the linkage of waist hip ratio (WHR) with fertility is far weaker than that of BMI with fertility, and this may be one of the reasons that WHR ( waist to hip ratio) may be such a poor predictor of attractiveness. For example, there is a considerable overlap in the WHRs of populations of normal women and anorexic patients (Toveé et al. 1997). The latter are amenorrhoeic. So a woman with an effective fertility of zero can have the same WHR as a woman with normal fertility” (Toveé et al).

But here’s something about beauty…The “supreme” female figure, from a purely cultural standpoint, is slender with a size 4 hip measurement, a size 2 waist, and a size 10 bust (Harrison, 2003). Harrison states that “a focus on the ideal female body as merely thin paints an incomplete picture, however. The size 10-2-4 standard of female beauty suggests that the female body ideal is in fact ‘curvaceously thin’, in that her lower half is proportionately thin compared to her upper half”. This body type is genetically unattainable for the majority of women and deviates from the average female figure (Hamilton et al, 2007).

Research suggests that pervasive media exposure to this unobtainable figure may contribute to considering the curvaceously thin figure as “normative, expected, and central to attractiveness” (Grabe et al., 2008). Since it is practically impossible for most women to obtain this idealized figure without extreme means, it is theorized that accepting it as the true standard of beauty can lead to body dissatisfaction (Grabe et al.). It can also lead to utilizing extreme behaviors in order to achieve the ideal (Stice & Schupak-Neuberg, 1994) It is therefore important for continued research on these topics in order to bring awareness to the issues and know how to best help those who are internalizing cultural standards of beauty to their own detriment.

Studies have found that when people are repeatedly shown distorted faces, it can modify what the participant finds normal in regards to face perception (Glauert et al., 2009). This may be a similar phenomenon in regards to people who are constantly exposed to or expose themselves to “distorted” media images of female bodies (Glauert et al.).
Related to this topic is a procedure called adaptation (Glauert et al.). Adaptation is typically utilized in vision and face processing research (Glauert et al.). The whole process is produced by repetitively showing a specific stimulus to a participant (Glauert et al.) Then the researchers study the effects of the participant’s reaction to a similar but slightly different stimulus after the repeated initial exposure (Glauert et al.). This method has been used in research about body dissatisfaction by exploring how repeated exposure to a specific body type would effect the formulation of what a person would consider a “normal” or an “attractive” body type (Glauert et al.). It has been found that when thinner bodies are shown, by the method of adaptation, they are rated as the norm for body types (Glauert et al.). Conversely, when participants were shown relatively larger bodies, they then rated those as being more of the norm (Glauert et al.). These, however, were only brief exposures to the specific body types (Glauert et al.). Some people experience much more saturation of media that portrays solely the idealized curvaceously thin body. The process of adaption may therefore be happening in everyday life and shifting what men and women see as normal in regards to body size and shape (Glauert et al.).

And here’s the last thing. I am a 20-something. Despite not having the typical hourglass figure and a more straighter one, and having cellulite, and acne, and a little bit of a soft and rounder stomach area, smaller chest, etc etc….I have been actually complimented my whole life (especially adult life) about being beautiful. This is not just from women but men as well. I had to break hearts and turn my fair share of men down. My husband actually deals with me being flirted with by “randoms” (if you will) at the grocery store, BMV, and other such places. And trust me I do everything to not encourage such things. I never initiate conversation, I awkwardly run and hide when it does happen, and I’m not always looking all made-up and “put together” when it happens.

I also am blessed to have a wonderful husband who compliments me all the time about this that or the other. So I’m not worried that he secretly finds other people attractive, etc etc. If he does, he is smart enough to know that curvy, more culturally ideal beauty and persistent grooming (like no sweatpants around your man) does not mean anything when you consider all the important traits in choosing a mate. All that may come off as defensive or conceited but I really don’t have that as my motive here, I’m trying to give a first hand personal experience besides scholarly findings as a counterexample.

Now I don’t know about the whole smarter children from women with large breasts and large hips. I have no exposure to anything about that and have too much to do right now to look into that. I’d like to see how much of a difference there was in intelligence and how many replications of studies were done, etc.

And there’s nothing wrong with looking good and grooming. But the way that your article talks about it is a little more then doing your best in many people’s experience. And sometimes doing your best is just not realistic and is also very subjective. Maybe that is not your personal experience. Maybe you are lucky to only need minimal time for grooming and you look fabulous. But anyways….I think that there is way, way too much of an emphasis on looks in our culture. People have gotten the message already about how much appearance “matters”. Most people don’t need to be told that “looks matter”. I think many people get that message bombarded at them. I think that instead people need to hear that accepting yourself, as you are, is wonderfully acceptable and good. I also think it is possible to simultaneously find the value in taking care of one’s self, being healthy, and performing basic grooming…with the caution that there are infinitely more important things in life then worrying about how you look with the intensity that the article suggests.

In conclusion, Groesz et al. (2001) stated that “through the flashy images of “perfect” female beauty promoted ubiquitously in magazines, television, and films, female and male viewers alike may quickly infer that a female’s body is her most important attribute and thus a lifelong project. This perfect body has flawless skin, a thin waist, long legs, and well-developed breasts”. They also state that the notion of beauty and morality have become synonymous with being the ideal figure (Groesz et al.).

References

Rozmus-Wrzesinska, M., & Pawlowski, B. (2005). Men’s ratings of female attractiveness are influenced more by changes in female waist size compared with changes in hip size. Biological Psychology, 68(3), 299-308. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.04.007.

Toveé, M.J., Maisey, D.S., Emery, J. and Cornelissen, P.L., 1999. Visual cues to female physical attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London series B-Biological Sciences 266, pp. 211–218

Hamilton, E., Mintz, L., & Kashubeck-West, S. (2007). Predictors of Media Effects on Body Dissatisfaction in European American Women. Sex Roles, 56(5/6), 397-402. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9178-9.

Harrison, K. (2003). Television Viewers' Ideal Body Proportions: The Case of the Curvaceously Thin Woman. Sex Roles, 48(5/6), 255. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.

Grabe, S., Hyde, J., & Ward, L. (2008). The Role of the Media in Body Image Concerns Among Women: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental and Correlational Studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 460-476. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460.

Stice, E., & Schupak-Neuberg, E. (1994). Relation of media exposure to eating disorder symptomatology: An examination of mediating.. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(4), 836. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Groesz, L., Levine, M., & Murnen, S. (2002). The Effect of Experimental Presentation of Thin Media Images on Body Satisfaction: A Meta-Analytic Review. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31(1), 1-16. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Schram, A. (2005). Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiements. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

P.s. - I promise this is my last post, ever

Use, whenever possible, visuals like photos, drawings, etc. - they eliminate the need for translation.