Human Physique and Sexual Attractiveness in Men and Women: A New Zealand–U.S. Comparative Study

Abstract

Men and women living in New Zealand and California completed five studies regarding human physique and sexual attractiveness. In Studies 1-3, women rated images of male stimuli and, in Studies 4-5, men rated female stimuli. In Study 1, women in both countries rated mesomorphic (muscular) and average male somatotypes as most attractive, followed by ectomorphic (slim) and endomorphic (heavily built) figures. In Study 2, amount and distribution of masculine trunk hair (chest and abdominal) was altered progressively in a series of front-posed male figures. In both countries, the image lacking any trunk hair was rated as the most attractive, with a steady decline in attractiveness as hirsutism became more pronounced. Study 3 assessed attractiveness of front-posed male figures that varied only in the length of the non-erect penis. Five lengths were presented: The smallest penile size was rated as less attractive than three intermediate sizes. The largest penile size was not the most attractive, but received higher scores than the unaltered and smallest penile size. In Study 4, men rated the attractiveness of back-posed female images varying in waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) (from 0.5 to 1.0). The 0.7 WHR figure was rated more attractive in New Zealand and the 0.6 WHR in California. Study 5 measured the attractiveness of female skin color; men expressed preferences for lighter skinned female figures in New Zealand and California. Results indicate very similar preferences for sexually dimorphic physical traits among men and women of European extraction, living in two culturally and geographically different environments.

Electrophysiological evidence of perceived sexual attractiveness for human female bodies varying in waist-to-hip ratio

“…Indeed, several studies have shown a significant association between country and WHR preference. For instance, in New Zealand a ratio of 0.7 was evaluated as the most sexually attractive (Dixson, Dixson, Bishop, & Parish, 2009), while in California as well as in China, preference was given to 0.6 (Dixson, Dixson, Li, & Anderson, 2007;Dixson et al 2010). In another investigation (Swami, Caprario, Tovée, & Furnham, 2006) carried out in industrialized societies (e.g.…”

Penis size interacts with body shape and height to influence male attractiveness

“…The only scientific studies to attempt to test experimentally whether flaccid penis length affects male attractiveness asked women to rate five images created by modifying a single drawing of a male figure so that the test figures differed only in penis length (30)(31)(32). These important studies were not designed to quantify directly the relative effect of penis length on attractiveness compared with other sexually selected male traits, such as height and body shape (30)(31)(32).…”

“…These important studies were not designed to quantify directly the relative effect of penis length on attractiveness compared with other sexually selected male traits, such as height and body shape (30)(31)(32). Therefore, it is still unknown whether penis size affects attractiveness when there is substantive variation in other, arguably more important, body traits, or whether interactions between these traits and penis size determine net attractiveness.…”

Immature psychological defense mechanisms and the misrepresentations of some sex researchers

“…A likely explanation is that a longer penis would more easily stimulate the cervix and the proximal vagina. In fact, a larger penis could be a fitness-related attribute, as a moderately larger penis has been cross-culturally associated with higher physical attractiveness of males as judged by women (Dixson, Dixson, Bishop, & Parish, 2010;Dixson, Dixson, Li, & Anderson, 2007;Dixson, Dixson, Morgan, & Anderson, 2007). Greater vaginal distention (that would be caused by penile pressure) increases vaginal electrical activity and muscle contractility leading to greater arousal (Shafik, El Sibai, Shafik, Ahmed, & Mostafa, 2004).…”