Is it true handsome men prefer tall women? Typically tall women are considered attractive by the media (models, most actress), so wouldn't tall UGLY women be more likely to be homosexual?

Where is Kanazawa's evidence that gay men are shorter and ulgier that heterosexuals? I am disturbed that this is presented as scientific fact.

As for his reference to Dan Nettle that short women are more attractive than tall women. This may or may not be the case in contemporary populations, but in tradional, nutritionally stressed, populations (and so like the ancestral environment where presumably these preferences evolved if we follow the evolutionary psychology perspective that SK promotes) the evidence clearly shows that tall women are of higher reproductive value (the short ones are generally less healthy). See for example:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/emtrp8t0unwr3lwa/

This blog is routinely offensive for the sake of it, the science seems to be an after thought.

So according to this- in todays day and age wouldnt more attractive men have a harder time reproducing?! Meaning, i have personally had the experience of being in a club, of having a woman take a look at me and saying that "You are gay, arent you?" even when i am surrounded by women whom are with me. (I realize this might contribute to the fact seeing as the woman sees it highly unlikely that a large amount of women would feel comfortable in my presence unless i was homosexual.)
So wouldnt more attractive men, by this logic, have a harder time of reproducing since women would see these men as homosexual and need the men to "prove" otherwise?!

I think the stereotype isn't that attractive men are gay it is that attractive men are more likely to be actors and actors are more likely to be gay. Anyone who has dabbled in theatre will have a hard time disputing this and even actors who do blockbuster movies often claim thier true love is "the stage." I would be interested in knowing why gay men are so over-represented in the dramatic arts.

As the author notes, shorter men are more likely to be homosexual. Do you have any idea how short Tom Cruise is? Uh, shorter than the average American male height, by at least 3 inches. Perhaps that's why speculation runs rampant on Tom Cruise's sexuality!

Plus, how can one be "extremely" handsome? That's an unecessary embellishment. If you're handsome, you're handsome. You cannot be extremely so.

John. thats like saying that a girl cant be incredibly hot, she can only be hot! Of course one can be incredibly handsome...it means more aesthetically pleasing to the female eye.

I have never heard so many stupid things.

I thought that it wasn't handsome men that were thought to be "gay", but men who pay attention to their physical appearance. Men are more attracted to the visuals, so gay men (and straight women) tend to make themselves look better.

There isn't anything wrong with paying attention with a mans appearance. In fact, it's all about impression management. Its like calling a guy gay for dressing well for his wedding.

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-of-small-talk/200807/all-s...

I can't believe this article/blog is seriously up here. It feels more like a women's gossip subject than anything of scientific importance. Seriously, women always say that "the good ones are either gay or taken". I'm assuming that the term "good ones" is only supposed to mean the physically attractive ones? No. This seems kind of like a lame excuse for complaining about one's inability to find a good guy.

Wow, reading the other comments makes me realize that only someone with an interest in evolutionary psychology can appreciate the observations.

The stereotype isn't that attractive men are more likely to be homosexual but that homosexual men are more likely to be attractive. If one in ten heterosexual men are considered attractive and fully half of all homosexuals are, there are still nine attractive heterosexuals but only five attractive homosexuals in every 100 men on average (give or take a few based on the estimates of the rate of homosexuality). I would further point out that the stereotype isn't necessarily about facial attractiveness and that the author glosses over the fact (supported by experiments) that homosexual men find homosexual men more attractive than heterosexual men while women find heterosexual men more attractive than homosexual men.

The real problem here is that evolutionary psychology doesn't offer evidence; it just offers hypothetical explanations that can't be fully tested. We don't know why homosexuality evolved in humans; it may have been an accident or a side effect of some disease resistance. It's possible that some historical STD wiped out all the human tribes without homosexuals at some point. Evolution tends to be characterized by long periods of diversification followed by events that cause the extinction of all but those with a few select traits, so the author's explanations make little sense to me, especially considering that homosexuals have not historically refrained from mating with members of the opposite sex until very recently. In fact, even now, when some societies reasonably accepts homosexual unions, many homosexuals still prefer to have their own genetic children with members of the opposite sex.

I feel that this article contains less evidence than usual and more conjecture, which is ultimately all that evolutionary psychology arguments are, especially in the absence of a lot of supporting experiments. The author's explanation may be plausible but so are all the explanations I hint at here as well as an infinitum of other possibilities.

And blond people are more likely to be less intelligent, and old men are better at fishing. Good grief people freaking grow up.

I'm quite tall, reasonably attractive and very gay. Watcha gonna do about me?

I have to agree, the science behind this article seems specious at best.The claims about sexuality relating to things like height and attractiveness are questionable. And the notion that better looking people really do have better genes seems downright dangerous.

Moreover, it seems fairly unsophisticated to measure evolutionary advantage only in terms of how likely an individual is to mate successfully. Childless, healthy adults often make substantial contributions to the survival of a species particularly in the case of social animals like wolves, apes, humans, etc.

In wolves, most often it is only the alpha pair who produce pups. Meanwhile the rest of the pack is actively involved in caring for the young and maintaining the general well-being of the group. Childless adults contributing directly to the survival of the species.

Remove childless adults from human history - gay or straight - and much of the innovation, exploration and invention that marks human progress would be removed as well. Childless adults contribute to the species' success in countless ways. And as the world becomes increasingly over populated, the evolutionary desirability of non-reproductive individuals would only seem to increase. By this articles own guidlelines, this would seem to suggest that homosexuals should grow increasingly more attractive, while heterosexuals would grow less so.

Of course I don't think there's any direct like between attractiveness and sexuality. My point is simply that the article doesn't hold up - even on its own term.

Just realized this article originates from the "Scientific Fundamentalist" and not from Psychology today. That explains so much.

In addition to the flaws in the article's theories I mentioned in my earlier post, another one occurs to me: How unattractiveness may actually reinforce the reproductive success the author finds so key in understanding attraction and sexuality.

Sure, being attractive - whatever that means at the moment - may make it more likely to attract a mate. But once the pair bond has been formed, what explains the all too common phenomenon of a couple "letting themselves go"? We see this in domestic partnerships time and time again. Surely there must be some genetic advantage to becoming less attractive once a mate has been found.

By decreasing one's lack of desirability, extra-marital (or extra-relationship) activity become less of a threat. If the happy couple sits on the sofa stuffing their faces and blowing up like a balloons, it is far less likely that the errant Jack or Jezebel will try and tempt them out of their fidelity. Therefore the couple remains in tact and they are more likely to raise their young successfully. By the article's own logic, unattractiveness at different phases of one's life may prove more beneficial to the survival of the species than attractiveness.

A silly theory, I admit. But no sillier than the one proposed in the article.

Gay men are used to be more attractive and handsome than straight ones e.g. Brandon Stoughton

What a ridiculous theory. One could just as well argue the exact opposite: that handsome men need to put less effort into finding a copulation pair and therefore can afford to be more bi-sexual or homosexual yet still promulgate their genes.

It'd be nice to have actual evidence rather than unjustified opinion clogging the internet with misinformation.

Yes it makes sense. Attractiveness to the opposite sex is the evolutionary ideal so an anomaly would exist if homosexuality, a behaviour with a high cost to fitness, was linked to being rated handsome; or even average looking come to think of it.

I'm not sure about any genetic link to being gay.
It has been said that would be as likely as a genetic link to 4% of geese flying north for the winter.

I am totally agree that " V " is really SUPERSTAR.....and i am agree with it.....
Psychology says true.....Soon all know HIM well...!!!

Given the probability that Evolutionary Psychologists have a greater chance of relating to each other, their offspring would have a greater chance of inherting their brain capacity. Given the higher probability of offspring adopting the same profession as their parents, could this mean that by the third generation one starts developing such concepts?