It may not be the general case but this is what it seems from experience. But what's the reason? Do looks indicate health or any other desirable characteristics?
In humans, bodily symmetry, particularly exemplified by facial symmetry, is known to be a factor in mate selection, and the knowledge/assumption/whatever is that this is because it is taken as an indication of health and the likelihood to produce viable offspring.
Don't know. Just repeating what I have read in several places over the years (and these were things like Time magazine, not scientific journals). It sounds reasonable to me, however.I din't get you. How is symmetry related to health?
I din't get you. How is symmetry related to health?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection#Viability_and_variations_of_the_theory)Due to their sometimes greatly exaggerated nature, secondary sexual characteristics can prove to be a hindrance to an animal, thereby lowering its chances of survival. For example, the large antlers of a moose are bulky and heavy and slow the creature's flight from predators; they also can become entangled in low-hanging tree branches and shrubs, and undoubtedly have led to the demise of many individuals. Bright colorations and showy ornamenations, such as those seen in many male birds, in addition to capturing the eyes of females, also attract the attention of predators. Some of these traits also represent energetically costly investments for the animals that bear them. Because traits held to be due to sexual selection often conflict with the survival fitness of the individual, the question then arises as to why, in nature, in which survival of the fittest is considered the rule of thumb, such apparent liabilities are allowed to persist.
Societies with food scarcities prefer larger female body size than societies having plenty of food. In Western society males who are hungry prefer a larger female body size than they do when not hungry.
Studies based in the United States, New Zealand, and China have shown that women rate men with no trunk (chest and abdominal) hair as most attractive, and that attractiveness ratings decline as hirsutism increases. Another study, however, found that moderate amounts of trunk hair on men was most attractive, to the sample of British and Sri Lankan women.
Actually an article from a few years ago in Scientific American found that an overall concept of beauty is nearly universal and disregards geography, culture, and so-called "race". This study was begun as an extension to the phenomenon that averaging creates beauty. IIRC someone in the early 20th Century was trying to come up with a picture of an average criminal (to prove some pet theory able to predict criminality) and was perplexed that by combining features and averaging the results always looked more appealing than any of the originals.There is much variation to which traits we as humans find attractive. I would propose that focusing on which traits we find universally unattractive would shed more light on the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_body_shapeA study of the shapes of over 6,000 women, carried out by researchers at the https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/North_Carolina_State_University [Broken] circa 2005, found that 46% were banana (rectangular), just over 20% pear, just under 14% apple, and 8% hourglass. Another study has found "that the average woman's waistline had expanded by six inches since the 1950s" and that women in 2004 were taller and had bigger busts and hips than those of the 1950s