TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The attractiveness of one’s partner may play a role in their decision to improve their body image, particularly when it comes to women, a new study finds.
Researchers at Florida State University examined 113 newlywed, 20-something couples in Texas to try to evaluate the importance that attractiveness plays in a relationship.
With previous studies having shown that a marriage is more likely to be successful when the wife is more attractive than her husband, the phenomenon of a more-attractive husband particularly piqued the researchers’ interest.
The experiment conducted by the researchers had multiple components.
First, participants were instructed to take a questionnaire examining one’s desire to diet or have a lean figure. Then, a diverse group of researchers evaluated the desirability of each partner in a couple, basing their evaluations on the individual’s facial and body attractiveness.
Based on their findings, their hypothesis — that less-attractive wives felt compelled to appease more-attractive husbands — seemed to have merit.
Women, for example, were found to be more likely to diet and seek a slim figure when they had attractive husbands.
Men, on the other hand, did not diet based on their partner’s attractiveness — or lack thereof.
“The results reveal that having a physically attractive husband may have negative consequences for wives, especially if those wives are not particularly attractive,” says researcher Tania Reynolds in a university news release.
These findings are critical in that they offer insight into the causes of more grave conditions caused by a desire to become or stay svelte, such as eating disorders.
“The research suggests there might be social factors playing a role in women’s disordered eating,” Reynolds adds.
Future research could look into whether also being exposed to less-judgmental female companions would help reverse much of the self-inflicted stigma that burdens many women.
The study’s findings are published in the September 2017 edition of the journal Body Image.
Obviously, this is a major contributor to global climate change(a.k.a. global warming) Why not? Everything else is…….
Cow flatulence!
😉
Government funding at its finest.
How shallow. If this doesn’t take the cake, nothing does! Hey Buddy, marriage has nothing to do with who is prettier. You pick a mate to raise a family and live together in mutual effort. If you worry about looks, eventually you are going to lose them. If that is the criteria, then marriages will all break down as soon as the people age. Good lord. What on earth would anyone want to partner up with someone who bases their love on looks???
BTW, have you ever noticed how people look so good in their wedding pictures, but later on, they start to age and look like Walmart shoppers?
Looks are fleeting. It is what is inside a person, their character and their drive that makes them attractive, not their temporary looks.
“The results reveal that having a physically attractive husband may have negative consequences for wives…”
Can someone explain to me why this is negative? “Oh jeez, we don’t want women to feel like they have to take care of themselves and not get fat.” It’s not like god or evolution ordained it to be this way. It’s not like long life and heathy mindsets come from thousands of generations of people rejected for reproduction. What’s going on here?
Ah yes, we don’t get to the feminist point till the end of the article = attractive husbands cause eating disorders.
And therefore the song: “When you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife, so from my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you.”
“The results reveal that having a physically attractive husband may have negative consequences for wives….”
Pure speculation, and quite dubious speculation.
Since when is it “negative” to avoid obesity?
It’s just as likely, probably more likely that having a physically attractive husband may have *very positive* consequences for wives. Since obesity is far more common in the US than are anorexia or bulimia, “one’s desire to diet or have a lean figure” may be a *very healthy* attitude. That hypothesis is at least as valid as the opposite one stated in this article.
The failure to consider an obvious, quite probable alternative view undermines the credibility of STUDYFINDS.ORG. Perhaps the “study” was an attempt to prove a preconceived position, to advance an agenda, rather than to discover facts.
Just got back from the store, where half the women I saw were morbidly obese. No wonder they want the men to let ourselves go. Me? I’m hitting the gym this weekend. You waddling feminist whales can watch me strolling down the street with my hot, submissive girl and smolder with rage about it. I want you to.
ya, bit of a hard one here. If u pick your spouse based on looks you might very well find her lacking morals and or wonder where she’s been or where she goes. Or you pick one you want around the house and want to sneak off with all the time. As a pastor I know has said ,’ go ahead and pick you out a pretty one , cuz there all crazy’.
Perhaps the woman was already fixated on outward appearances and that’s why she ended up with an attractive husband in the first place… geniuses…
I am more partial to the study of when beautiful people get married and make each other miserable until the YUGE bitter divorce. There is an entire industry built around it.
It’s called Hollywood, right?
MAGA
So if a wife eats junk food all day, only wears sweat pants and doesn’t stay well groomed, does that mean the husband is fat and unattractive? Asking for a friend.
And , has ‘tats’ all over as if it will hide the blubber and “enhance” ‘Its’ “beauty”?…
See “People of Walmart” …
😉
“See ‘People of Walmart’ ”
No bias there, no negative, denigrating stereotyping there!
Fascinating how prejudiced (“prejudice”, from “pre-judge”) negative stereotypes are uttered so freely (even proudly) when directed toward *some* targets (often those
targets not respected by the preachers of sacred canons of orthodox PC dogma). The Rule appears to be that prejudice must be avoided *except* when directed at “others”, then bias is a virtue. Just add a smiley face after denigrating and smearing an entire group; then it’s OK, even funny?
Negative racial stereotyping, racism, racial denigration and discrimination, etc. have long been universally condemned, but now it’s OK, even virtuous if directed against “People of Walmart”?
So, does our current Newspeak now endorse a new socio-economic (“Walmart People”) bigotry; is that part of “social justice”?
So you haven’t seen it on YouTube then?
“…seen it on YouTube…?”
Of course, a derogatory stereotype is certified, ratified, justified, even cool if and when it appears on YouTube!
Similarly, since both are on film, can one cite Stepin Fetchit and Amos and Andy to justify racial stereotypes and bigotry?
Typically, there are NO narrations on “those” types of YouTube videos, just film footage of REALITY that’s so hard for regressives to accept. REALITY….
What happened to the vaunted, self-appointed “vanguard of the proletariat”?
What happened to the time when liberals, leftists, progressives claimed to champion the poor and downtrodden, rather than gleefully looking down on and denigrating them (as “irredeemable … deplorables” or “People of…”)? Betrayal?
“NO narrations”
So what? Would silent films be “reality” if they had “no narrations”? And, the title “People of Walmart”, is in effect a narration — a comment. The Walmart customers weren’t wearing t-shirts or carrying signs declaring “People of Walmart”. A more honest and accurate title would be “A Few Walmart Customers, Selected and Presented to Denigrate Them All.”
“… film footage of REALITY….”
Quite a claim! Whatever snippet, no matter how selective or contrived, becomes “reality” when posted? If one posted film of a few Japanese residents of Maine, would calling it “People of Maine” be an accurate, honest, realistic representation of the entire population of Maine?
“so hard for regressives”
How persuasive! Those having a rational fact-based argument to make needn’t rely on name-calling, clichés, or ad hominem calumny.
You need to do field research at a larger city Walmart. Until then, you don’t know REALITY.
“must do ‘field research’ ”
I must???
Oh no, it’s your assertion, therefore, it’s your burden of proof. (All caps and Latin quotes aren’t substitutes for proof or evidence.)
You must prove what you claim is “REALITY”; one may not claim that “angels exist unless someone else proves that they don’t exist.”
“Onus probandi” – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. http://www.logicalfallacies.org/
http://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=130751&vt=ngraph&dc=focus
“When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. ‘If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed’.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Misplaced Burden of Proof: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
And notice how you ignore the other issues.
— Denigrating the poor and downtrodden:
Wouldn’t that shock St. Benedict, who was “always mindful of the poor and the needy”?
— No proof or claim to represent all “People of Walmart.”
— One selective snippet is not an accurate, honest, realistic representation of an entire population.
— Why still relying on clichés, personal attacks, name-calling (“a blind eye, or denial of reality in order to feel better”)?
So, given all that, adios!
You should also seek an emotional support group because you are triggered.
Notice how you ignore the issues.
Those having a rational fact-based argument to make needn’t rely on name-calling, clichés, or ad hominem calumny.
You can’t handle the truth (REALITY), and you won’t accept it, even when it’s shown to you. You’re the horse, lead to water, but will never drink. Go thirsty, socialist. Enjoy. MAGA!
Anger is the Internet’s most powerful emotion.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/24/anger-internet-most-powerful-emotion/2863869/
A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger. — Proverbs 15:1
A string of emotional chants, clichés, slogans, and name-calling simply doesn’t merit a fact-based analysis or reply. (St. Benedict didn’t rely upon such lazy, ad hominem attacks!)
When you look at reality (video of “People of Wal-Mart”), and pretend that it is something different than what it is, you are delusional. It is unhealthy for society as a whole NOT to acknowledge when our culture is sick, than to pretend otherwise, and a link was provided for you to view what is seen in public, but you won’t admit it. No one in his or her right mind could look at those videos and think that our culture is NOT in need of great help. (St. Benedict faced reality, and that is why he was inspired to write and live by “The Rule.” It would be a great help for our sick culture, especially for those who believe in socialism/communism, but instead Ora et Labora.) Therefore, until you’re ready to look at life as it is, instead of what you pretend it to be, then you will go thirsty.
You should really read your comments, then reflect on what you wrote about “emotional chants, clichés, slogans, and name-calling…” LOL
Excellent! Actual arguments rather than substantial reliance on name-calling; arguments which can be discussed; factual arguments which reveal significant agreement.
The Challies cite is interesting and very revealing, but it seems to be used in support of a non sequitur. My cite concerned the great number and nature of angry online comments, including “tweets”. Mr. Challis made no attempt to prove that online porn *comments* outnumber angry ones, that wasn’t his point.
“You’re the one who somehow thinks the videos are an indictment of everyone who shops at Wal-Mart….” — svh
Not at all. Rather, I contend that such selective, propaganda videos were produced in bad faith, produced with the intent to misrepresent and denigrate Walmart and all who shop there. As stated above, they’re as unrepresentative of the whole as would be my hypothetical “People of Maine” video.
But that’s *not* a claim that society is free of sickness (nor is it a claim that all Walmart customers meet your lofty standards). So, we seem to agree that 1) societal sickness exists {as evidenced by enraged internet comments, porn, etc.} and 2) Walmart videos don’t accurately portray all or most of its shoppers.
While I agree that our culture is “in need of great help”, I’d refrain from using propaganda videos except as evidence of anti-Walmart animus. A good argument is not well served by poor or suspect evidence.
Discussing, analyzing evidence reveals our positions better than complete reliance upon name-calling. I knew you could do it if you tried!
So, adios — again.
Excellent? Aren’t you so full of yourself, as if you’re grading a “paper?” Do yourself a favor, and get over yourself already. (You’d have more friends that way.) You are long winded, and you get off topic. (That’s constructive criticism, backed up by your long comments on such a simple topic.)
To your detriment, and others, you still deny reality. You should learn to keep it simple, and you’d have an easier time accepting reality. There are countless videos on You Tube (and alike) of public behavior that shows a very sick culture. If you cannot accept it, that’s not my problem, but at least I tried.
P.S. You must have driven your parents (and teachers) insane with always trying to make such elaborate points on subjects that are really so, so simple. Why don’t you take a lead from a great genius, Einstein, and just keep it simple?
“subject … so, so simple.”
If “so simple”, why not stick to that “simple” issue rather than veering off into *distracting* calumny?
And how simple an issue is it; how “sick”? Exactly when was the the Utopian Era of Cultural Health? For example:
Was our pre 20th century culture healthy, with slavery and very limited suffrage? Were we healthier when Jim Crow laws and restrictive racial realty covenants prevailed?
But then, how can a society sanctioning the killing of millions of the unborn be considered even *relatively* healthy? So simple, really?
“Excellent?”
Cheer up, your relapse/return to angry name-calling is probably correctable; focus. I’m just trying to help! (NOTE: the latest issue-free post contains the word “you” almost 20 times!)
“get off topic.”
I’m mostly *replying* to svh posts!
A “sick culture.”
Yes, we *agree* at least in part, as I previously stated. Try taking “yes” for an answer, anger may be reduced.
“Not taking ‘Yes’ for an answer?” – American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/03/jn.aspx
So, lighten up. 🙂
See? You did it again. You have NO idea how to stick to the subject. You cannot accept reality, even when shown to you.
If “so simple”, why not stick to that “simple” issue rather than veering off into *distracting* personal attacks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghrDIQ-K8mg
“… ‘tats’ all over….”
That’s what you see?
I’ll finally sleep better at night knowing this.
This study could just as easily have read “Women obsessed with image are more likely to have attractive partner”. But, of course, nothing could ever be women’s fault.
Onus seems to be forever on the man….
😉
But,but….how does this affect Transgenders?!? I mean , doesn’t the balance of the Universe hing on that ,ever since Obergefell?…..
😉
“They offer insight into the causes of more grave conditions caused by a desire to become or stay svelte, such as eating disorders.” Or conditions like a toned, fit body, more resistance to disease, a healthy heart, stronger muscles, less likelihood of diabetes or stroke, and a longer life, as opposed to becoming a 500 pound pile of cottage cheese riding around Walmart on a scooter and having to stop and wheeze to catch your breath after you have to reach to get that giant pack of Twinkies off the shelf.
“Future research could look into whether also being exposed to less-judgmental female companions would help reverse much of the self-inflicted stigma that burdens many women. ” Good luck to women finding “less judgmental female companions.” From working in offices to social settings, not easy. For example: I have two middle aged, female relatives who fat shame everyone, who are always bringing up uninvited weight issues at every get together. They’re all about outward appearance, and are overt about it.
From my personal experience, many women are verbally worse, gossiping about weight and fat shaming, without any shown compassion for an obese person’s health conditions that could have caused weght.
Why is it that women are the ones who make themselves up (make up, hair color) to look more attractive, but men don’t do half as much? Who’s causing anxiety?
“Maybe the headline should be: When attractive men marry homely women, women hardest hit.” Hee! Hee! That is a much better headline. BTW: MAGA!