Male attractiveness genetic, not gym

I was shocked.

Abstract only, you can read the rest.

Human mate choice is influenced by limb proportions.

So far, so obvious.

Previous work has focused on leg-to-body ratio (LBR) as a determinant of male attractiveness and found a preference for limbs that are close to, or slightly above, the average. We investigated the influence of two other key aspects of limb morphology: arm-to-body ratio (ABR) and intra-limb ratio (IR). In three studies of heterosexual women from the USA, we tested the attractiveness of male physiques that varied in LBR, ABR and IR, using figures that ranged from −3 to +3 standard deviations from the population mean.

Good method.

You win a cookie.

We replicated previous work by finding that the optimally attractive LBR is approximately 0.5 standard deviations above the baseline.

Two cookies.

Health advantage (fitness) over mean.

We also found a weak effect of IR, with evidence of a weak preference for the baseline proportions.

All the cookies.

You didn’t fake anything.

In contrast, there was no effect of ABR on attractiveness,

Gym doesn’t change your ultimate genetic value.
Bicep curls won’t save an ugly mug, sorry.
And if they did, they’d still complain and call women shallow.
Like evolution is something superficial?

and no interactions between the effects of LBR, ABR and IR.

See, this is how you science.


Our results indicate that ABR is not an important determinant of human mate choice for this population,

straight women, regular straight women

if you wanna pick up lesbians, your results may vary

and that IR may exert some influence but that this is much smaller than the effects of LBR. We discuss possible reasons for these results, including the limited variability in upper limb proportions and the potentially weak fitness-signal provided by this aspect of morphology.

Thank you!

Gym also means you throw off ratios with circumference and other noise. Optical illusions tend to operate on this principle. Women adapt out of being fooled.

A peacock can’t exercise into better plumage, LBR is the human genetic equivalent.
This is a solid finding, LBR is the male version of female WHR.

It’s nice to see someone take a male study seriously. We need more data so men aren’t pointlessly chasing a marketing dream of abs and pecs. Homoerotic fantasies pushed by gay designers won’t attract women.

I want to see a study in preference for the artificial look of gym bodies (both sexes) against likelihood of personality disorders.

Liberals sexually select the ingroup too

Liberals and conservatives are looking for the same thing when they join online dating websites, according to new research co-authored by University of Miami political scientist Casey Klofstad. The study, published in Political Behavior, shows that both liberals and conservatives are looking for a partner who is like themselves.

Most of the shit women do is for the benefit of other women

Klofstad says that the tendency to seek out partners that are like us could contribute to the increasing political divide between liberals and conservatives. “Parents pass their political preferences on to their children. So, if we are more easily able to find someone like ourselves by ‘shopping’ for a partner online, Internet dating could hasten this process of political polarization. Of course, this process would occur over generations, not overnight.”

So close to calling it genetic. Well if it’s inherited, by definition it becomes genetic.

I mean…

Researchers find a ‘liberal gene’

People are attracted to the body odor of others with similar political beliefs

The term you’re looking for is microbiome and it’s inherited.

May I suggest testing levels of Staphylococcus hominis?

“What are the best approaches and methodologies toward a scientific study of politics?” write guest editors Rose McDermott and Kristen Renwick Monroe. “We do not mean to reactivate a no longer productive debate about nature versus nurture, since it now seems clear that both forces operate in tandem. Rather by encompassing both facets — nature and nurture — into an integrated perspective, we believe it is possible to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of human political behavior.”

back to work

Political party identification (PID) is among the most studied concepts in modern political science. Scholars have long held that PID was the result of socialization factors, including parental socialization. The possibility that partisan identification could be transmitted genetically rather than socially was not considered and largely left untested.

The SCIENCE in Political Science!

Politics and genetics have traditionally been considered non-overlapping fields, but over the past decade it has become clear that genes can influence political behavior, according to a review. This paradigm shift has led to novel insights into why people vary in their political preferences and could have important implications for public policy.

“We’re seeing an awakening in the social sciences, and the wall that divided politics and genetics is really starting to fall apart,” says review author Peter Hatemi of the University of Sydney. “This is a big advance, because the two fields could inform each other to answer some very complex questions about individual differences in political views.”

It even varies by sex:

In a recent study, researchers from the National University of Singapore (NUS) have shown for the first time that not only do genes affect our social beliefs, but that Singaporean Chinese females who possess a particular variant of the Dopamine D4 receptor gene lean more to the right, according to a press release.

Contrary to popular belief, sorry appears to be the magic word is coming.

Does intra-racial bias on dating websites amount to racism?

A study in clickbait, this journalist hardly deserves the title but this mirrors a previous article from Slate so I’m posting it as part of a theme. Note the theme of control? Prove you aren’t X by Y? Do what we want or we’ll call you names? The tactics of children.

Replies for online dating? That is polite. Very polite.

A new study by OKCupid suggests that such behaviour is more prevelant than ever. The website looked at research from five years ago – which showed most people prefer to date within their own race – and compared it to current data. It found that racial bias has increased.

So it’s natural, you’re arguing against nature.
I scoffed at the idea of an Indian, whose own race has an infamous caste inter-cousin marriage system, has the temerity to be infuriated by the notion of racial preference when it comes to one’s own children (and that’s where the money really is on these stories). She (sorry, her ‘friend’) thinks she is entitled to a white man. Why? Am I entitled to early 90s Brad Pitt? I bet her ‘friend’ has an “I deserve…” list, because men are like slaves you can just pick them up like handbags, completely to your specifications, they have no say in the matter whatsoever.

As an aside, if we could eliminate romantic biases, Brave New World’s “everybody belongs to everyone else” would apply and there would be no such crime as rape. Use that one against a feminist. It would apply to all humans, regardless of sexuality and age…

To quote a few choice comments;

You ask: “Why does racial bias come into dating?”
I ask: “Why does height bias come into dating?”

I think that sums it up for us guys. Everyone have preferences. Get over it.


Mixed race relationships are uncommon. There’s actual data on this subject; the author of this piece just clearly can’t be arsed looking into. It’s just a bunch of vapid anecdotes.


Cultural Marxism is a mental illness. When it comes to dating everybody is different, get over it. Extremist takes on equality are as frightening as they are deranged.


There was a programme on Channel 4 some years ago – ‘I won’t Marry White’. Asians in England who were looking for an Asian partners. There seems to be a double standard when it comes to what is seen as racist.


I think he’s homophobic as he’s only interested in chicks.


Why on earth should we be obliged to have a discussion on this issue. Surely personal relations are as personal as you can get – that is “personal” not the business of the State? The fact that the State, through quite disproportionate pressure from the “liberal left” has forced the imposition of Political correct legislation on us in so many areas, does not mean that they should be allowed to trespass further.

It is about time that legislation reflected the obligations of the majority, not the entitlements of minorities.

Homophobia study shows people subconsciously associate gay men with germs

Facetious politically-correct abhorrently biased Guardian coverage here;

“Let me explain what the researchers at Goldsmiths University found.”

How about no. You’re just a journalist with a spin to sell.

Studies’ press release here.  Also very biased, only useful section;

“We undertook four studies with a variety of different people to investigate whether this idea of contamination and prejudice applied to homosexuals as a social group. And we were shocked to find that all studies overwhelmingly demonstrated that prejudice was expressed through the desire to cleanse oneself after only an imagined contact with homosexuals.”

How is that a prejudice, wanting to be clean? I know their ‘theory’ but every healthy person wants to be clean and it’s arguably innate. Even the Guardian calls it ‘deep-rooted’.

The actual paper, behind a paywall here; abstract in full;

“The results of four studies suggest that contamination concerns involved in prejudice towards male homosexuals may be expressed in the increased need for physical cleansing after an imagined contact with a homosexual man. Participants in Study 1 completed word fragments according to the theme of cleansing, and in Study 2, they chose a cleansing wipe more often after imagining using a mobile phone of a homosexual (vs. heterosexual) man. The need for cleansing was specific to the body parts engaged in the contact [DS: almost like a pathogen phobia]. In Study 3, participants evaluated hand and mouth [sexual body parts] cleansing products as more desirable after imagining using a mobile phone of a homosexual (vs. heterosexual) man. The specific need for cleansing, but not the accessibility of cleansing related words, was more pronounced among political conservatives (Study 4). [wait, so they weren’t primed and they still had the association?] The results are discussed with reference to the behavioral immune system hypothesis, research on moral disgust, and the embodiment literature.”

They’re calling it purely cultural in cause to get it past censors, but the raw results speak for themselves to anyone who’s heard of the Germ Hypothesis covered there and here. Good evidence going forward to get other studies along the same lines funded.