Psychologists in Scotland are not politically correct. While Americans are loathe to state the obvious, in Scotland it is okay to just speak some plain truth – if you weren’t fat, maybe men would not need a chemical boost to be interested.
Writing in Archives of Sexual Behavior (where else?!?) two psychologists did some surveys (what else?!?) and then declared that because previous surveys found a similar result the consensus was in. In this case, it is so obvious even an evolutionary psychologist agrees: men think slimmer women are more attractive than fat ones.
And then they proved it by creating a ‘tangible measure of perceived sexual attractiveness’ by matching the waist size of women and how often their men had sex with them and a vague ‘sexual satisfaction’ rating. Being younger and having thinner women were both linked to better sexual performance, outside the obvious.
They picked a smart country to do this study; in Czech Republic women are crazy hot when they are young, then they hit 30 and it’s all babushkas and sweat pants.
Their representative sample (699 men and 715 women, aged 35-65 years) found that intercourse frequency was independently associated with women’s younger age and slimmer waist while sexual satisfaction for both sexes was associated with men’s younger age and slimmer waist for both sexes. Better erectile function was associated with women’s slimmer waists, regardless of ages for men or women. The ‘sexual satisfaction based on waist size’ idea is obvious – aesthetics matter – but they also try to science it up and think invoking evolutionary psychology will do that: namely, that women’s abdominal body fat decreases their own desire through neuro-hormonal mechanisms a while men find them less attractive due to evolutionarily-related reasons.
Are they correct? Our surveys show that when Veronika Varekova is offered as evidence, this holds up.
Paper: Stuart Brody, Petr Weiss, “Slimmer Women’s Waist is Associated with Better Erectile Function in Men Independent of Age”, Archives of Sexual Behavior December 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0058-9