Talk:Human physical appearance

Comments

VfD 17 September 2003:

• Human physical appearance -- No useful content. Page needs a complete rework or delete. - 200.141.91.15
  • Keep: even if you do not call it an article but just a list without further content, it is a useful overview of the topics related to human physical appearance and the articles we have on these topics. - Patrick 20:58, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Current content seems trivial. Perhaps would be better at Simple English? It maybe could be un-trivialized here though.... (genetics, evolution from protohumans, symmetry, role in sexual selection, abnormalities etc) if someone has the time, energy and skill. Pete 14:06, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • [Simple English] will not welcome trivial content any more than this Wikipedia will do. This is just a collection of vaguely related links and I see no point in keeping the page. Angela 06:05, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • The links are very much related, they are topics affecting how people look, in some cases the topic is specifically about one aspect of it, in others it is something that has change of appearance as a notable side-effect. - Patrick 08:35, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I've tried to have a go at encyclopedicizing the article at its talk page. Unfortunately, although the subject is big and interesting, I just don't know enough about it. The bit about embarassing erections has not been retained :). Pete 13:12, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I'd say keep, though what exactly it should be is debatable. -- Jake 06:20, 2003 Sep 21 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason to get rid of useful articles. -- Taku

-> consensus to keep

---

This article has been listed on VfD because, it is claimed, it contains no useful content. Below is an attempt to address that concern. I have not replaced the main article with this alternative and the change is quite significant, removes content and the author of the current page is a vocal supporter of the page

--Begin proposed alternative--

Variations is the physical appearance of humans is believed by anthropologists to be an important factor in the development of personality and social relations. There is a relatively low sexual diamorphism between human males and females in comparison with other mammals. However humans are acutely sensitive to variations in physical appearance for reasons of evolution. Some people have traditionally linked some differences in personal appearance such as skelatal shape with race (but this is a controversial and sensitive matter).

Some differences in human appearance are genetic, others are the result of age or disease, and many are the result of personal adornment.

==Changes in human appearance throughout evolutionary history== Just from the 1930-1940's to now. There has been a change. Humans just look a little different than they used to. I can't put my finger on it. Not so much bigger, taller or anything like that. Just facially different.

The current picture doesn't illustrate differences between males and females and is distorted because different human races have, on average, different levels of dimorphism. Here is a source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=V0JheWC85h4C&pg=PA85&dq=sexual+dimorphism+and+race&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kSSLU5OjBYjIlQWJ4IC4Cw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sexual%20dimorphism%20and%20race&f=false

I think that in that picture, both sexes should be comparisons of either both male and female asian ancestry or male and female european ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.224.208 (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The role of appearance in sexual selection

About 10

years ago in europe there were a lack of males and the females needed to attract a male for survival. Males were more inclined to "go for" women who stood out. At this time just about everyone had brown hair and brown eyes. Mother nature helped some women stand out by creating blond hair and blue eyes, and because they stood out men chose them. So even 10,000 years ago blondes had more fun.

Physiological differences in human physical appearance from individual to individual

• Height, weight, skin color, sexual organs, moles, hair color and type, body shape, somatype (ectomorph, mesomorph, endomorph), body deformations, mutilations and other imperfections such as amputations, scars, and wounds.

Long-term physiological changes in an individual

• Aging

Short-term physiological changes in an individual

• Blushing, crying, fainting, sexual arousal, reddening of the skin due to increased blood flow due to exertion. Sweating, Shivering, skin colour changes due to sunshine

Clothing and personal effects

• clothing, including headgear and footwear. Some clothes alter or mold the shape of the body (e.g. corset,bra)
• Style and colour of haircut, (See also dreadlocks, braids, pony tail, wig, hairpin, facial hair, beard and moustache]])
• cosmetics, stage makeup, body paintings
• body modifications, such as body piercings and tattoos
• Decorative objects such as a necklaces, bracelets, rings
• Medical or body shape altering devices (e.g. tooth braces, bandages,hearing aids, calipers, cervical collar, glasses gold teeth)

See also

• Beauty, Fashion, Social role of hair, Vanity, human sexual attractiveness

References

• A discussion of the possible effect of physical appearance on personality development at personalityresearch.org
• Page with a list of links to discussions of the role of physical appearance in sexual selection and evolution. We need to link to their links directly, having read them, as this page is a blizzard of pop-up ads

Dandy Section

Should the "dandy" section at the head of the page be moved elsewhere within the page or to another page? Perhaps less than pertinent (perhaps eflective more of cultural studies than physical and social anthropology). . .The original sentence was less than NPOV (or less than historically/regionally-culturally clear)

Irrelevent and possibly unverifiable info

I was going to copy-edit, trim for relevancy, and insert links into this paragraph:

In the 1968 film entitled "Style is Everything" directed and produced by David Moor, It is pondered that style as an attribute is mainly thought of as 'human physical appearance'. The idea that style can build on itself is discussed when Andrew Morton and Samantha Ryan (the most stylish people in the plot line as thought of by the world in the movie) propose that "Style is everything, our style styles itself, and inturn our style grows". In conclusion to the movie, it is agreed that sammy and andrew are the pinicle of style.

but upon conducting Wikipedia, IMDB, and Google searches, I was unable to find any information about this film. Thus, I am removing this paragraph, but feel free to put it back in if you can provide references. Thanks, Rundquist 00:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Very suspect

This article is potential unverifiable, POV, OR...perhaps should be deleted--71.111.229.19 (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Duplication

Most of "Other functional objects, temporarily attached to the body" is a duplication of the section above it. 69.150.11.68 (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Illustration (picture)

As much as everybody is allowed to do whatever they want with their own body, is it really the best choice to display a fully (legs, genitals) shaved woman and a partially (genital) shaved man? Biology doesn't care about human trends Nanaki13 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Physical appearance

Idk 172.194.163.239 (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead image cultural bias

The lead image shows a man with no pubic hair, and a woman with no body hair at all (presumably shaved). This is skewed towards a particular cultural standard for physical appearance, and I believe should be replaced with an image more representative of human appearance in general. anna328p // talk 16:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)