Hacker News Reader

Unconvincing.

Why did the authors select the face as the determinant of attractiveness? AFAIK the human female focuses on the upper body in general, with nothing in particular. Cultural variations exist, obviously.

This (upper body strength, generally) would make sense for evolutionary reasons. It makes more sense than the (male) peacock's tail, for example.

View on HN

It's a meta study. Meta studies generally choose a scope for which there are many studies. I assume that there exist more studies of facial attractiveness than of upper body attractiveness. 30 seconds of googling agrees, but is, of course, 30 seconds.

Never met a single human female that would actively select upper body strength over a face they like the look of, but I guess YMMV.

Just look at the cover of “mom porn” books at the dollar store. They are mostly body builders with muscular bodies.

On forums where women talk about attractive male actors, there's a heavy emphasis on shoulders and arms. It's definitely a thing.

That's not to say they don't care about the face or other features, but those don't get nearly as much attention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com