Here's a study that'll launch a cadre of 13-year-old boys into careers in evolutionary psychology: British researchers "discovered" that men are most attracted to petite women with long legs and big boobs.
The Daily Mail reports that in the study, both men and women found "symmetric" bodies more attractive than "asymmetric" ones. However, scientists say we don't notice body symmetry directly; instead we look for cues of symmetry, such as height and the length of the legs.
I call bullshit on studies like this -- and Daily Mail articles like this. What qualifies as "attractive" -- whether it's a big butt or peroxide-blonde hair -- is totally cultural, even regional. What's attractive in L.A. may not be attractive on an ice floe in northern Canada or a village in South Africa. All this study proves is what's allegedly attractive to a small sampling of Brits -- which conveniently for Hollywood, sounds exactly like women they put on TV and in movies.
Besides, attraction is totally subjective. What's "petite" or "a big bust"? Surely men are attracted to Scarlett Johansson's body, but since so few women actually look like Scarlett, men have little choice but to be attracted to lots of other women's bodies. So many factors go into attraction, like smell, level of inebriation, lighting, and even timing!
What a silly "study."