Body matters a significant amount in dating less than face but it matters a lot

[reptiles]

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=967131d0ca8ba10b2169eeb011db48a3c4e17cfb

According to a study using a General Linear Model (GLM), researchers examined how much variance in attractiveness could be attributed to facial and body characteristics for short-term and long-term mating preferences, across genders. The GLM modeled variables including short-term and long-term effects for both men and women, as well as the impact of body and facial attractiveness, both independently and combined.


For men, the GLM explained 50% of the variance in the dataset, meaning it accounted for half of the factors influencing attractiveness. The remaining 50% was not studied and could include non-physical factors like personality, or other physical attributes such as height, scent, or vocal pitch.


For women, the GLM explained 42% of the variance, which was surprisingly lower than for men. This difference might reflect the study’s limitations, such as not comparing highly muscular bodies to exceptionally attractive faces (e.g., a male model’s face). The study also didn’t explore how traits interact or compensate for one another—for example, whether a strong physique could offset an unattractive face, or how a combination of great height, body, and face might amplify attractiveness.


A significant limitation of this study is the lack of transparency: the researchers didn’t share the specific body or face images used, provide supplementary data, or include the GLM equations. Additionally, the study is 16 years old, which is nearly a generation. Since then, societal standards of attractiveness have evolved significantly due to the rise of dating apps, Instagram, and TikTok, which have heightened public perceptions of “average” and “handsome.”


Based on the study, of the 42% variance explained for women, 19% is attributed to the face and 13% to the body. To break this down into a pie chart: if 42% of the total variance is explained by face and body combined, the face in isolation accounts for 1942×100≈45% \frac{19}{42} \times 100 \approx 45\% 4219×100≈45% of the explained variance, while the body in isolation accounts for 1342×100≈31% \frac{13}{42} \times 100 \approx 31\% 4213×100≈31%. This suggests that, within the explained variance, the face is more influential than the body, though the body still plays a significant role.


The remaining 58% of the variance (100% - 42%) was not explained by the study, and the researchers didn’t provide equations to model these unknown factors. If I’ve misinterpreted the study, please clarify. I used grok to generate a pie chart but it seems to help visualize it massively

 

[Incognito]

Water

 

[reptiles]

Water

It's water i just wanted percentages I wanted to know cause your 6 1 as well as a combination how much do the 2 traits interact in single image shots

 

[97baHater]

yeah no shit n***a, we, YES WE, all want big booty bitches

 

[iflookscouldkill]

All that matters for guys is a decent height, a defined jawline, and abs.

Anything else is a bonus.

And proportions are more important than mass.

 

[reptiles]

yeah no shit n***a, we, YES WE, all want big booty bitches

I was more interested in the women rating men part

 

[reptiles]

All that matters for guys is a decent height, a defined jawline, and abs.

Anything else is a bonus.

And proportions are more important than mass.

this didn't height and it didn't mention how the 2 interacted with each other it also didn't mention how 1 could compensate for the other it only looked at still shots in isolation

 

[Barbie]

Rabbi I thought this was gonna be a shit post tbh

 

[reptiles]

Rabbi I thought this was gonna be a shit post tbh

Unfortunately my dear goy my autism went peak the water is ganga saar

 

[Barbie]

my dear goy

is this how Jews flirt

 

[Incognito]

It's water i just wanted percentages I wanted to know cause your 6 1 as well as a combination how much do the 2 traits interact in single image shots

Personally, I’d still say the face does the most heavy lifting overall. It’s the first thing people focus on and it carries way more detail in terms of symmetry, emotion, etc.

That said, height and a good body definitely change how the face is perceived. A decent face on a tall, well built guy will come off way more attractive than a better face on someone shorter or skinny. But none of these traits work in isolation. A good face won’t carry you if you’re 5’4” and built like a twig, and a great body won’t save you if your face is subhuman.


So I don’t think it’s about ranking them 1-2-3 in a clean way, it’s more like, they stack. They either boost each other or expose each other depending on how they line up.

But if I had to rank it, I’d rank it:

Face> Height > Body,

but the effect isn’t linear, it’s conditional and interactive.

 

[rand anon]

Idk if body matters for teramanlets, but we’ll see, I’m starting my gymmaxxing arc this summer

 

[reptiles]

Personally, I’d still say the face does the most heavy lifting overall. It’s the first thing people focus on and it carries way more detail in terms of symmetry, emotion, etc.

That said, height and a good body definitely change how the face is perceived. A decent face on a tall, well built guy will come off way more attractive than a better face on someone shorter or skinny. But none of these traits work in isolation. A good face won’t carry you if you’re 5’4” and built like a twig, and a great body won’t save you if your face is subhuman.


So I don’t think it’s about ranking them 1-2-3 in a clean way, it’s more like, they stack. They either boost each other or expose each other depending on how they line up.

But if I had to rank it, I’d rank it:

Face> Height > Body,

but the effect isn’t linear, it’s conditional and interactive.

Where would you say best on your expert opinion a low tier normie with a good body ? My face is my main flaw tbqh

 

[reptiles]

Idk if body matters for teramanlets, but we’ll see, I’m starting my gymmaxxing arc this summer

I don't think it is if you have the face

 

[Incognito]

Where would you say best on your expert opinion a low tier normie with a good body ? My face is my main flaw tbqh

An LTN with a good body and tall height can become MTN, or even high MTN depending on how exceptional their physique and height are. If the person has average height and only a good body, it depends, if they’re truly ugly LTN or borderline LTN/MTN. A good body combined with short height and a bad face is unfortunately a tough combo to recover from.

 

[reptiles]

An LTN with a good body and tall height can become MTN, or even high MTN depending on how exceptional their physique and height are. If the person has average height and only a good body, it depends, if they’re truly ugly LTN or borderline LTN/MTN. A good body combined with short height and a bad face is unfortunately a tough combo to recover from.

Yeah i'm 185 does that count as tall i'm taller than most when i go outside and my body is wider without training but my face is like a 4 out of 10

 

[Incognito]

Yeah i'm 185 does that count as tall i'm taller than most when i go outside and my body is wider without training but my face is like a 4 out of 10

Send me a pic in PM so I can get a better idea, I doubt you’re really a 4/10.

 

[TaiWay]

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=967131d0ca8ba10b2169eeb011db48a3c4e17cfb

According to a study using a General Linear Model (GLM), researchers examined how much variance in attractiveness could be attributed to facial and body characteristics for short-term and long-term mating preferences, across genders. The GLM modeled variables including short-term and long-term effects for both men and women, as well as the impact of body and facial attractiveness, both independently and combined.


For men, the GLM explained 50% of the variance in the dataset, meaning it accounted for half of the factors influencing attractiveness. The remaining 50% was not studied and could include non-physical factors like personality, or other physical attributes such as height, scent, or vocal pitch.


For women, the GLM explained 42% of the variance, which was surprisingly lower than for men. This difference might reflect the study’s limitations, such as not comparing highly muscular bodies to exceptionally attractive faces (e.g., a male model’s face). The study also didn’t explore how traits interact or compensate for one another—for example, whether a strong physique could offset an unattractive face, or how a combination of great height, body, and face might amplify attractiveness.


A significant limitation of this study is the lack of transparency: the researchers didn’t share the specific body or face images used, provide supplementary data, or include the GLM equations. Additionally, the study is 16 years old, which is nearly a generation. Since then, societal standards of attractiveness have evolved significantly due to the rise of dating apps, Instagram, and TikTok, which have heightened public perceptions of “average” and “handsome.”


Based on the study, of the 42% variance explained for women, 19% is attributed to the face and 13% to the body. To break this down into a pie chart: if 42% of the total variance is explained by face and body combined, the face in isolation accounts for 1942×100≈45% \frac{19}{42} \times 100 \approx 45\% 4219×100≈45% of the explained variance, while the body in isolation accounts for 1342×100≈31% \frac{13}{42} \times 100 \approx 31\% 4213×100≈31%. This suggests that, within the explained variance, the face is more influential than the body, though the body still plays a significant role.


The remaining 58% of the variance (100% - 42%) was not explained by the study, and the researchers didn’t provide equations to model these unknown factors. If I’ve misinterpreted the study, please clarify. I used grok to generate a pie chart but it seems to help visualize it massively

Put this in short terms for a iqcel like me

 

[reptiles]

Put this in short terms for a iqcel like me

The study, conducted 16 years ago, used a statistical model to evaluate the effect sizes of face and body preferences for both short-term and long-term relationships across genders. Both genders preferred the face over the body in both the short and long term, except men showed a slight preference for the body in the short term. The study explained 42% of the variance through face and height, with other factors remaining unknown. It suggested men valued looks slightly more, but as an older study predating social media, its results should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[TaiWay]

The study, conducted 16 years ago, used a statistical model to evaluate the effect sizes of face and body preferences for both short-term and long-term relationships across genders. Both genders preferred the face over the body in both the short and long term, except men showed a slight preference for the body in the short term. The study explained 42% of the variance through face and height, with other factors remaining unknown. It suggested men valued looks slightly more, but as an older study predating social media, its results should be taken with a grain of salt.

Love you bhai

 

[reptiles]

Love you bhai

Thanks if i made mistakes correct me ngl i'm new to learning stats

 

[TaiWay]

Thanks if i made mistakes correct me ngl i'm new to learning stats

I don't know anything either but make more of these. Very interesting to read.

 

[reptiles]

I don't know anything either but make more of these. Very interesting to read.

Thanks i haven't really seen any 1 on .org going over the stats or they miss place what the study is saying

 

[aguachento]

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=967131d0ca8ba10b2169eeb011db48a3c4e17cfb

According to a study using a General Linear Model (GLM), researchers examined how much variance in attractiveness could be attributed to facial and body characteristics for short-term and long-term mating preferences, across genders. The GLM modeled variables including short-term and long-term effects for both men and women, as well as the impact of body and facial attractiveness, both independently and combined.


For men, the GLM explained 50% of the variance in the dataset, meaning it accounted for half of the factors influencing attractiveness. The remaining 50% was not studied and could include non-physical factors like personality, or other physical attributes such as height, scent, or vocal pitch.


For women, the GLM explained 42% of the variance, which was surprisingly lower than for men. This difference might reflect the study’s limitations, such as not comparing highly muscular bodies to exceptionally attractive faces (e.g., a male model’s face). The study also didn’t explore how traits interact or compensate for one another—for example, whether a strong physique could offset an unattractive face, or how a combination of great height, body, and face might amplify attractiveness.


A significant limitation of this study is the lack of transparency: the researchers didn’t share the specific body or face images used, provide supplementary data, or include the GLM equations. Additionally, the study is 16 years old, which is nearly a generation. Since then, societal standards of attractiveness have evolved significantly due to the rise of dating apps, Instagram, and TikTok, which have heightened public perceptions of “average” and “handsome.”


Based on the study, of the 42% variance explained for women, 19% is attributed to the face and 13% to the body. To break this down into a pie chart: if 42% of the total variance is explained by face and body combined, the face in isolation accounts for 1942×100≈45% \frac{19}{42} \times 100 \approx 45\% 4219×100≈45% of the explained variance, while the body in isolation accounts for 1342×100≈31% \frac{13}{42} \times 100 \approx 31\% 4213×100≈31%. This suggests that, within the explained variance, the face is more influential than the body, though the body still plays a significant role.


The remaining 58% of the variance (100% - 42%) was not explained by the study, and the researchers didn’t provide equations to model these unknown factors. If I’ve misinterpreted the study, please clarify. I used grok to generate a pie chart but it seems to help visualize it massively

looksmaxxing 2018