>While self-selection is unlikely to explain the GAP, another potential artifact of data collection could be systematic differences in grooming practices between genders. Women typically invest more time and resources in grooming than men (Das & Stephen, 2011). However, most studies follow standardized photo-shooting protocols requiring participants to remove makeup and other enhancing accessories (e.g. Ebner et al., 2018; Kleisner et al., 2024; Torrance et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2019). While some grooming practices, such as eyebrow shaping or long-term skincare routines, may not be entirely controlled by these protocols, their impact is likely minimal.

I disagree with their premise that this impact is "likely minimal". I also would want to know what percentage "most studies" refers to.

Did the authors take into account that humans have 'culture' (and structures of (male-dominated) power associated with it) whereas other species don't to any great extent?

I don't think a cross-cultural meta-analysis properly controls for the cultural effect of gender attractiveness given we live in a (progressively more) globalized, interconnected, world.

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.

I read a claim that most male to female transitions are about wanting to become an object of desire, and most female to male transitions are to avoid being an object of desire.

I've never knowingly even met a trans person and have no basis to judge. Does this ring true or false?

I think it may be because humans have a higher intelligence than other animals. This makes it possible for men to display genetic fitness in other ways than looks.

For women, in constrast, the most important thing to signal is their capability of carrying a baby to term, and the primary way they do that is through physical traits. Though with plastic surgery and cosmetics subverting the signal on the one hand, and with better medical science capable of saving mother and child from many issues on the other, it is becoming less relevant.

Edit: Though keep in mind that this is my speculation, and furthermore a broad strokes picture and there is huge individual variation.

My theoretical explanation for the gap is that women are sensitive to much more than physical appearances when selecting a mate. When men select a mate, they over-index on physical characteristics, relative to women.

So, women will take into account a man's physical appearance, but also his social standing is also very important, plus perceived intelligence and dependability and so on.

When men look at women, physical beauty is paramount. Intelligence and so on is a plus, but not nearly to the extent that it is for women looking at men.

The other part of the explanation is menopause. Humans live long past the age of sexual fertility, which is somewhat unusual in the animal kingdom. Presumably, ancient human social structures made it beneficial to have grandparents around, in a way that does not exist for most other animals. Relative to other species, this puts more evolutionary pressure on human males to seek out females that are of reproductive age, and ignore older women.

The combination of these factors means that female physical appearance comes out as a prime selector in humans, in a way that it doesn't for other animal species. Male physical appearance is also significant, but relatively less important because of other factors, especially a male's status in the social hierarchy.

Anyway, that's my explanation, but I wouldn't hold any of this as a firm belief. Coming up with evolutionary psychological explanations for sex differences is easy. Actually testing them is much harder.

> Outside academia, our findings highlight how culturally embedded norms and gender-based expectations shape aesthetic judgments and influence societal perceptions.

> We propose that these biases stem from cultural norms linking femininity with beauty

This is probably it. The "beauty" industry, which almost entirely targets women and girls with its predatory messaging, is a multi-billion dollar market and they do everything they can to promote this as an ideology. To the point where it's become embedded in culture.

When incels write white papers.

My take is that, biologically, creating an attractive female is easier than creating an attractive male, specifically regarding facial attractiveness. A symmetrical female child is almost guaranteed to grow up to be attractive, whereas the same isn't true for a boy. The "right" hormonal profile needed to develop attractive male features is rarer than what women require. A symmetrical girl who doesn't develop pronounced secondary sexual traits (such as full lips or prominent cheeks) is still generally considered attractive to both men and women. In contrast, masculine faces that lack strong jawlines or brow width usually aren't. Additionally, high testosterone can backfire in men, leading to overdeveloped brows or nose bridges, which may reduce attractiveness.