Hubbry Logo
Sexual attractionSexual attractionMain
Open search
Sexual attraction
Community hub
Sexual attraction
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Sexual attraction
Sexual attraction
Sexual attraction
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Flirtation (1904), by Eugene de Blaas

Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest.[1] Sexual attractiveness or sex appeal is an individual's ability to attract other people sexually, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice. The attraction can be to the physical or other qualities or traits of a person, or to such qualities in the context where they appear. The attraction may be to a person's aesthetics, movements, voice, among other things. The attraction may be enhanced by a person's body odor, sex pheromones, adornments, clothing, perfume or hair style. It can be influenced by individual genetic, psychological, or cultural factors, or to other, more amorphous qualities. Sexual attraction is also a response to another person that depends on a combination of the person possessing the traits and on the criteria of the person who is attracted.

Though attempts have been made to devise objective criteria of sexual attractiveness and measure it as one of several bodily forms of capital asset (e.g. erotic capital), a person's sexual attractiveness is to a large extent a subjective measure dependent on another person's interest, perception, and sexual orientation. For example, a gay or lesbian person would typically find a person of the same sex to be more attractive than one of the other sex. A bisexual person would find either sex to be attractive. Asexuality refers to those who do not experience sexual attraction for either sex, though they may have romantic attraction or a non-directed libido.[2] Interpersonal attraction includes factors such as physical or psychological similarity, familiarity or possessing a preponderance of common or familiar features, similarity, complementarity, reciprocal liking, and reinforcement.[3]

The ability of a person's physical and other qualities to create a sexual interest in others is the basis of their use in advertising, film, and other visual media, as well as in modeling and other occupations. In evolutionary terms, the ovulatory shift hypothesis posits that female humans exhibit different sexual behaviours and desires at points in their menstrual cycle, as a means to ensure that they attract a high quality mate to copulate with during their most fertile time. Hormone levels throughout the menstrual cycle affect a woman's overt behaviours, influencing the way a woman presents herself to others during stages of her menstrual cycle, in an attempt to attract high quality mates the closer the woman is to ovulation.[4]

Social and biological factors

[edit]

Human sexuality has many aspects. In biology, sexuality describes the reproductive mechanism and the basic biological drive that exists in all sexually reproducing species and can encompass sexual intercourse and sexual contact in all its forms. There are also emotional and physical aspects of sexuality. These relate to the bond between individuals, which may be expressed through profound feelings or emotions. Sociologically, it can cover the cultural, political, and legal aspects; philosophically, it can span the moral, ethical, theological, spiritual, and religious aspects.

Which aspects of a person's sexuality attract another is influenced by cultural factors; it has varied over time, as well as personal factors. Influencing factors may be determined more locally among sub-cultures, across sexual fields, or simply by the preferences of the individual. These preferences come about as a result of a complex variety of genetic, psychological, and cultural factors.

A person's physical appearance has a critical impact on their sexual attractiveness. This involves the impact one's appearance has on the senses, especially in the beginning of a relationship, among them:

As with other animals, pheromones may have an impact, though less significantly in the case of humans. Theoretically, the "wrong" pheromone may cause someone to be disliked, even when they would otherwise appear attractive. Frequently, a pleasant-smelling perfume is used to encourage the other person to more deeply inhale the air surrounding its wearer,[citation needed] increasing the probability that the individual's pheromones will be inhaled. The importance of pheromones in human relationships is probably limited and is widely disputed,[unreliable source?][5] although it appears to have some scientific basis.[6]

Some people exhibit high levels of sexual fetishism and are sexually stimulated by other stimuli not normally associated with sexual arousal. The degree to which such fetishism exists or has existed in different cultures is controversial.

Pheromones have been determined to play a role in sexual attraction between people. They influence gonadal hormone secretion, for example, follicle maturation in the ovaries in females and testosterone and sperm production in males.[7]

High anxiety

[edit]

Research conducted by Donald G. Dutton and Arthur P. Aron in the 1970s aimed to find the relation between sexual attraction and high anxiety conditions. In doing so, 85 male participants were contacted by an attractive female interviewer at either a fear-arousing suspension bridge or a normal bridge. Conclusively, it was shown that the male participants who were asked by the female interviewer to perform the thematic apperception test (TAT) on the fear-arousing bridge, wrote more sexual content in the stories and attempted, with greater effort, to contact the interviewer after the experiment than those participants who performed the TAT on the normal bridge. In another test, a male participant, chosen from a group of 80, was given anticipated shocks. With him was an attractive female confederate, who was also being shocked. The experiment showed that the male's sexual imagery in the TAT was much higher when self shock was anticipated and not when the female confederate shock was anticipated.[8]

Enhancement

[edit]

People consciously or subconsciously enhance their sexual attractiveness or sex appeal for a number of reasons. It may be to attract someone with whom they can form a deeper relationship, for companionship, procreation, or an intimate relationship, besides other possible purposes. It can be part of a courtship process. This can involve physical aspects or interactive processes whereby people find and attract potential partners, and maintain a relationship. These processes, which involve attracting a partner and maintaining sexual interest, can include flirting, which can be used to attract the sexual attention of another to encourage romance or sexual relations, and can involve body language, conversation, joking, or brief physical contact.[9]

Sex and sexuality differences

[edit]
Part of a series on
Sex differences in humans
Biology
Medicine and health
Neuroscience and psychology
Sociology and society

Men have been found to have a greater interest in uncommitted sex compared to women.[10] Some research shows this interest to be more sociological than biological.[11] Men have a greater interest in visual sexual stimuli than women. However,[12] additional trends have been found with a greater sensitivity to partner status in women choosing a sexual partner and men placing a greater emphasis on physical attractiveness in a potential mate, as well as a significantly greater tendency toward sexual jealousy in men and emotional jealousy in women.[13]

Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, and Gladue (1994) analyzed whether these results varied according to sexual orientation. In general, they found biological sex played a bigger role in the psychology of sexual attraction than orientation. However, there were some differences between homosexual and heterosexual women and men on these factors. While gay and straight men showed similar psychological interest in casual sex on markers of sociosexuality, gay men showed a larger number of partners in behaviour expressing this interest (proposed to be due to a difference in opportunity). Self-identified lesbian women showed a significantly greater interest in visual sexual stimuli than heterosexual women and judged partner status to be less important in romantic partnerships. Heterosexual men had a significantly greater preference for younger partners than homosexual men.[14] People who identify as asexual may not be sexually attracted to anyone. Gray asexuality includes those who only experience sexual attraction under certain circumstances; for example, exclusively after an emotional bond has been formed. This tends to vary from person to person.

Sexual preferences and hormones

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Sexual attraction

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Sexual attraction is the innate, often involuntary psychological and physiological response prompting toward specific individuals, predominantly those of the opposite sex, as shaped by evolutionary pressures to promote through selection of mates exhibiting cues of genetic quality, , and . This manifests through heightened triggered by multimodal signals, including and bodily —which correlate with developmental stability and resistance to environmental stressors—as well as secondary like waist-to-hip ratios in women (signaling reproductive potential) and muscularity in men (indicating resource-acquisition ability). In humans, empirical surveys across diverse populations indicate that approximately 90% of individuals report predominant heterosexual attraction, underscoring its adaptive normativity while variations such as or occur in a minority, with origins involving complex interactions of genetic, hormonal, and early developmental factors rather than purely social constructs. Sex differences are pronounced: men typically exhibit stronger responses to visual cues of and , reflecting higher baseline sex drive and a reproductive favoring quantity of partners, whereas women prioritize indicators of status, , and provisioning ability alongside physical formidability, aligning with greater demands. Neurobiologically, attraction involves reward pathways, pheromone detection via the (though vestigial in adults), and hormonal modulation by testosterone and , which amplify mate-seeking during peak windows, such as in women when subtle shifts in , voice pitch, and facial appearance enhance perceived desirability. Controversies persist regarding the fluidity or malleability of attractions, with some longitudinal data challenging claims of widespread or orientation change in adulthood, emphasizing instead relative stability post-puberty and cautioning against overinterpretation of self-reported fluidity amid cultural shifts. Despite cultural overlays, core mechanisms remain conserved across societies, as evidenced by convergent preferences for and in mate selection, which first-principles analysis attributes to causal links with heritable fitness rather than learned alone. Understanding sexual attraction thus illuminates broader human behavioral evolution, informing fields from to while highlighting tensions between empirical reproductive imperatives and modern ideations of desire decoupled from .

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition and Components

Sexual attraction refers to the subjective experience of desire for sexual activity with a specific , characterized by physiological , motivational drive, and cognitive focus on sexual cues from that person. This phenomenon is distinct from general or , as it involves targeted responsiveness to stimuli signaling potential reproductive or pleasurable outcomes, often manifesting as increased , genital , and toward erotic features. Empirical studies, including , link it to activation in regions like the and , which integrate sensory inputs with reward pathways involving release. Core components include directionality, which specifies the sex or gender of preferred partners—predominantly opposite-sex in heterosexual individuals (observed in over 90% of populations across cultures), same-sex in homosexual individuals (2-10% ), or both in bisexual cases—shaped by prenatal hormonal influences and genetic factors rather than solely environmental learning. Another component is intensity and selectivity, varying by individual traits like hormone levels (e.g., higher testosterone correlating with stronger visual attraction cues) and contextual factors such as in females, which heightens preference for masculine features. Selectivity often prioritizes physical indicators of health, such as (correlating with genetic heterozygosity) and (e.g., 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio in females signaling ), as measured in surveys of over 10,000 participants. A third component encompasses multimodal sensory triggers, including visual (e.g., neotenous features like large eyes evoking caregiving instincts in males), olfactory (pheromones like enhancing female attraction), and auditory (higher-pitched voices in females indicating ). These cues are evolutionarily calibrated for mate assessment, with empirical data from speed-dating experiments showing physical accounting for 60-70% of initial attraction variance, overriding until prolonged interaction. While psychological factors like similarity in values can modulate it, core sexual attraction remains primarily cue-driven and dissociable from emotional attachment, as evidenced by cases of high without romantic interest. Sexual attraction, defined as the specific urge to engage in sexual behavior with a particular individual based on perceived sexual cues, differs from romantic attraction, which entails a desire for emotional , companionship, and long-term relational investment without necessarily involving sexual interest. These can overlap, as in many heterosexual pairings where physical desire aligns with emotional attachment, but dissociation occurs in cases like aromantic individuals experiencing sexual pull without relational yearnings or romantic asexuals seeking partnership absent sexual motivation. Empirical studies, such as those examining split attractions in sexual minorities, confirm that and operate as semi-independent axes, with sexual attraction more closely tied to reproductive signaling than to pair- mechanisms. Unlike , which manifests as involuntary physiological responses—such as increased , genital , or triggered by stimuli—sexual attraction precedes and directs such responses toward a targeted , involving cognitive of their traits as sexually appealing. can arise spontaneously or from non-specific erotic cues, as documented in paradigms where neutral or abstract stimuli elicit genital responses independent of personal desire, whereas attraction requires person-specific appraisal rooted in evolved preferences for , indicators, or markers. This distinction underscores causal realism: arousal reflects proximate neural and vascular mechanisms, while attraction integrates distal evolutionary pressures, explaining phenomena like responsive desire in long-term relationships where initial attraction wanes but arousal persists under contextual facilitation. Sexual attraction also contrasts with general sexual desire, or , which denotes an undirected for sexual activity irrespective of a particular partner, often fluctuating with hormonal cycles or stress levels. Attraction specifies this drive by orienting it toward individuals exhibiting mate-value cues, as seen in cross-cultural data where men report higher baseline desire but women show more partner-selective attraction modulated by . , frequently used interchangeably in colloquial , amplifies attraction into an intense, sometimes objectifying impulse prioritizing immediate gratification over relational or selective considerations, though empirical boundaries remain fuzzy without clear neurochemical demarcation beyond shared . Infatuation, characterized by obsessive idealization and emotional highs driven by novelty and surges, may incorporate sexual attraction but extends into cognitive distortions like overvaluation of traits, rendering it transient and less grounded in empirical mate assessment compared to sustained sexual attraction based on verifiable fitness signals. Longitudinal relationship studies indicate peaks early (typically 6-18 months) before resolving into attraction or disillusionment, whereas sexual attraction persists as a stable evaluator of sexual viability absent such idealization.

Biological Foundations

Genetic and Heritable Factors

Twin studies provide evidence for a heritable component in , a core aspect of sexual attraction. Monozygotic twins exhibit significantly higher concordance rates for homosexual orientation compared to dizygotic twins, with one study of 38 monozygotic twin pairs reporting a 65.8% concordance rate. Another analysis found 52% concordance among identical twins versus 22% for fraternal twins, indicating genetic influence beyond shared environment. estimates from such studies vary but typically range from 30% to 40% for sexual orientation, with lower figures for females, suggesting polygenic contributions rather than single-gene determination. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) further support a polygenic basis, identifying multiple loci associated with same-sex sexual . A large-scale GWAS of over 470,000 individuals revealed five genetic loci linked to ever engaging in same-sex , collectively accounting for 8-25% of variation in such , though no single variant predicts orientation reliably. Earlier GWAS on male sexual orientation in European-ancestry samples identified suggestive markers but emphasized the complexity, with genetic factors interacting with non-genetic influences. These findings underscore that sexual attraction arises from numerous genetic variants of small effect, not a deterministic "gay ," and environmental factors explain the remaining variance. Sex differences in heritability are notable, with stronger genetic signals in males than females, potentially tied to X-chromosome influences or differing evolutionary pressures. However, studies consistently reject full genetic , as discordance in identical twins highlights roles for prenatal hormones, early environment, and gene-environment interactions. Overall, while contribute substantially to patterns of sexual attraction, they do not fully account for individual outcomes, aligning with broader evidence of multifactorial causation.

Hormonal and Neurochemical Mechanisms

Hormonal influences on sexual attraction primarily involve gonadal steroids such as and , which modulate desire and responsiveness to potential mates. In men, circulating levels correlate positively with the intensity of attraction to feminine features and overall , as evidenced by studies linking acute elevations to heightened visual attention toward sexually appealing stimuli. In women, peaks during the fertile phase of the are associated with increased sexual attraction to masculine traits and visual sexual stimuli, supporting the where higher relative to progesterone enhances mate preferences indicative of genetic fitness. also plays a facilitatory role in female , with exogenous administration boosting responsiveness in hypogonadal states or alongside therapy, though effects vary by baseline levels and context. Conversely, elevated , as in hyperprolactinemia, suppresses desire and attraction, reversible upon normalization. Neurochemically, drives the motivational aspect of sexual attraction through activation of reward circuitry, particularly in the and , where it sustains pursuit of sexual cues akin to other reinforcers. confirms underpin the hedonic evaluation of attractive partners, with subconscious processing of sexual stimuli enhancing activity modulated by availability. Oxytocin contributes to affiliative attraction and pair-bonding, facilitating recognition and preference for familiar mates via interactions with systems, though its role is more pronounced in attachment than initial . Serotonin exerts a modulatory influence, often inhibitory on desire; reduced serotonergic tone correlates with heightened sexual and attraction, while excesses dampen responsiveness. Norepinephrine, alongside , amplifies during early attraction phases, integrating stress responses with reward to prioritize potential mates. These mechanisms interact dynamically: steroid hormones like sensitize circuits, amplifying responses to sensory cues of and , as seen in animal models extensible to humans where hypothalamic integration gates behavioral output. Disruptions, such as deficiencies, impair both hormonal signaling and downstream release, underscoring causal links from periphery to in attraction. Empirical data from hormone assays and pharmacological interventions affirm these pathways' specificity to sexual over general motivational systems.

Physiological and Sensory Cues

Visual cues play a dominant role in sexual attraction, with empirical studies consistently identifying and body as indicators of genetic health and developmental stability. Bilateral in features correlates with higher attractiveness ratings across cultures, as it signals resistance to environmental stressors and parasites during development. Body similarly predicts mate preference, with more symmetric individuals eliciting stronger attraction due to inferred reproductive fitness. In women, a low waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) of approximately 0.7 is rated highly attractive by men, serving as a cue for levels, , and absence of , though body mass index (BMI) also modulates perceptions independently of WHR. Olfactory cues contribute to attraction, though evidence for pheromones remains inconclusive and debated. Men show preferences for the scent of women at peak , detecting subtle shifts in linked to via volatile compounds in sweat. Applications of putative pheromones like increase sociosexual behaviors in both sexes, but replication issues and lack of identified specific limit causal claims. Women report greater reliance on olfactory information for partner selection and compared to men, who prioritize visual cues. Auditory cues, particularly voice pitch, influence attraction by signaling hormonal status and dominance. Lower (F0) in men's voices correlates with perceived , strength, and sociosexual behavior, enhancing attractiveness to women. In women, higher-pitched voices during fertile phases increase male ratings of sexual attractiveness, though voluntary pitch modulation can artificially boost appeal. amplifies these effects, as congruent visual and auditory traits heighten overall mate evaluation. Physiological responses such as genital , pupil dilation, and skin conductance provide cues detectable in close interactions, though less emphasized in initial attraction compared to overt sensory signals. Men exhibit stronger visual-driven , while women's responses show greater contextual sensitivity across modalities. These cues underpin cross-sex differences, with empirical consistency from speed-dating and rating studies affirming their role in rapid mate assessment.

Evolutionary Explanations

Sexual Selection and Mate Choice

, a process distinct from , operates through differential arising from for mates or preferences in , as articulated by in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871). In humans, sexual attraction functions as a proximate mechanism guiding toward partners exhibiting traits indicative of genetic quality, fertility, and resource-holding potential, thereby shaping evolutionary outcomes. Empirical studies confirm that human mate preferences consistently favor signals of reproductive fitness, such as physical and health markers, which correlate with lower and higher offspring viability. Cross-cultural research provides robust evidence for evolved criteria. A landmark study involving 10,047 participants from 37 diverse cultures found that women universally rated financial prospects and higher than men did, reflecting selection for providers capable of supporting offspring under conditions of greater female . Conversely, men placed greater emphasis on and —proxies for and reproductive value—demonstrating a pattern replicated in subsequent analyses across 45 nations as of 2020. These preferences persist despite cultural variations, underscoring their likely genetic basis over purely social learning. Mate choice in humans also targets heritable indicators of fitness, including cognitive and behavioral traits that signal underlying genetic quality. Preferences for and , for instance, align with costly signaling models where such traits reliably indicate genotypic superiority, as supported by experimental data linking perceived mental acuity to appeal. and bodily averageness, associated with developmental stability against environmental stressors, further exemplifies selection for low-mutation-load phenotypes, with meta-analyses confirming stronger attractiveness ratings for average, symmetrical features across populations. Intrasexual complements these choices, amplifying traits like male dominance hierarchies that enhance access to high-quality mates. Overall, these mechanisms illustrate how sexual attraction drives adaptive by prioritizing causal determinants of over superficial or culturally imposed ideals.

Indicators of Reproductive Fitness

Physical in and body features serves as a cue to developmental stability and genetic quality, reflecting resistance to environmental and genetic stressors during growth. Studies have shown that symmetrical individuals are rated as more attractive and exhibit higher , as symmetry correlates with lower , a marker of heritable fitness. For instance, bilateral symmetry in traits like position or finger length predicts mate preferences across cultures, suggesting an evolved mechanism to detect low loads and resistance. In women, a low waist-to-hip (WHR) of approximately 0.7 is consistently preferred and linked to indicators of and , such as optimal levels and lower risk of gynecological disorders. This signals reproductive capability independent of overall body size, with evidence indicating that deviations from this value reduce perceived attractiveness and correlate with reduced . Empirical data from diverse populations confirm that WHR predicts regularity and offspring viability more reliably than alone. In men, analogous cues include a high shoulder-to-waist , which signals upper-body strength and testosterone-driven traits associated with resource acquisition and protection, thereby enhancing indirect fitness benefits to offspring. Facial attractiveness integrates multiple signals of reproductive fitness, including averageness (proximity to population prototypes), (e.g., large eyes and full lips in women, prominent in men), and clear texture, which collectively indicate and low parasite load. Research demonstrates that these traits predict actual reproductive outcomes, with attractive faces linked to higher numbers of offspring in longitudinal studies. Optimal (BMI) around 18-20 kg/m² for women and 23-25 kg/m² for men balances signals of nutritional status and metabolic without excess fat that impairs or mobility. These preferences persist despite modern nutritional abundance, underscoring their adaptive origins in ancestral environments where such cues maximized .

Sex Differences in Attraction

Patterns in Male Attraction

Men consistently prioritize in potential mates, valuing cues associated with and such as , clear skin, and low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR) around 0.7, which signal reproductive health across diverse populations. In Devendra Singh's foundational studies from the , replicated in subsequent research, men rated female figures with a 0.7 WHR as most attractive regardless of overall body size, attributing this preference to evolutionary adaptations for detecting ovarian function and childbearing capacity. This pattern holds in both Western and non-Western samples, with minimal variation by , underscoring a biological basis over cultural malleability. Age preferences further highlight fertility-driven attraction, as men across 37 cultures in Buss's 1989 survey of over 10,000 participants expressed a strong desire for partners younger than themselves, ideally in their early 20s when peaks, contrasting with women's preference for older, resource-holding males. A 2020 extension of this work across 45 countries confirmed the robustness of these sex differences, with men's ratings of and youth remaining paramount even as rose, while prevalence showed negligible moderating effects. Functional MRI evidence supports this visual emphasis, revealing stronger activation in men viewing images of women compared to neutral stimuli, indicating heightened neural responsiveness to opposite-sex visual cues absent or weaker in women. This responsiveness manifests in initial encounters, where many men experience an immediate spike in sexual desire upon first seeing physically attractive individuals; visual cues play a strong role, with psychological arousal potentially beginning within minutes if strong chemistry is present. Unlike women, who integrate status and more heavily, men's attraction patterns show lesser weighting of long-term provisioning traits, with and physical appeal dominating short-term mate evaluations in experimental speed-dating and rating tasks. Longitudinal data from personal ads and profiles corroborate this, where men disproportionately emphasize body type and age over education or income. These preferences persist despite cultural shifts, suggesting innate mechanisms rooted in rather than , though individual variation exists due to genetic and experiential factors.

Patterns in Female Attraction

Women exhibit distinct patterns in sexual attraction compared to men, with empirical studies consistently showing a stronger emphasis on prospective mates' , ambition, and resource-acquisition potential. In a study across 45 countries involving over 14,000 participants, women rated "good financial prospects" as significantly more important in an ideal long-term partner than men did, with an average indicating a moderate difference (b = -0.30). This preference aligns with findings from Buss's seminal 1989 analysis of mate preferences in 37 cultures, where women universally prioritized cues to resource holding, such as earning capacity and , over . These patterns persist in modern contexts, including data, where women select partners signaling higher earning potential and ambition, even when controlling for physical traits. Physical preferences among women include a marked toward taller , with research indicating that women on average seek partners 8-10 cm taller than themselves. A study of over 10,000 participants found women consistently preferred taller than average, associating with perceptions of dominance and protection. Age preferences also show women favoring slightly older partners, typically 2-3 years senior, as evidenced in surveys where women rated maturity and stability higher in older males. However, these traits are context-dependent; during the ovulatory phase of the , women's attraction shifts toward more masculine facial features, muscularity, and behavioral dominance, reflecting heightened preferences for genetic fitness indicators when conception risk is elevated. This is supported by experiments where fertile-phase women rated masculine voices and scents as more appealing, with effect sizes ranging from small to moderate across meta-analyses. Women's selectivity is higher overall, particularly for long-term mating, where they demand combinations of resource cues and emotional stability. Meta-analyses confirm women reject a larger proportion of potential partners based on multifaceted criteria, including dependability and sociability, compared to men's focus on physical cues. In short-term contexts, such as speed-dating events, women still prioritize status signals but show cycle-modulated flexibility, increasing acceptance of high-testosterone traits mid-cycle. These patterns hold across socioeconomic strata but intensify in resource-scarce environments, underscoring adaptive responses to reproductive costs. Despite ideological pressures in some academic circles to minimize sex differences, replicated findings from diverse methodologies—questionnaires, behavioral assays, and hormonal assays—affirm their robustness.

Empirical Evidence and Cross-Study Consistency

Meta-analyses of mate preference studies, spanning decades and thousands of participants, reveal robust sex differences wherein men consistently prioritize —particularly cues of , , and like low waist-to-hip ratios—over other traits, with effect sizes (Cohen's d) ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 across paradigms such as self-reported preferences and behavioral choices. Women, in contrast, place higher value on indicators of resource acquisition and provisioning, including earning potential, ambition, and , with similar moderate-to-large effect sizes persisting even after controlling for self-reported attractiveness ratings. These patterns hold across stated preferences, speed-dating outcomes, and selections, indicating behavioral manifestation beyond mere survey responses. Cross-cultural investigations underscore the consistency of these differences, with a 2020 study across 45 nations (N > 14,000) showing women rating financial prospects as more essential than men in 36 of 37 samples, while men universally emphasized physical appearance more highly, regardless of local gender equality indices or economic development levels. Replications, including a 2016 study mirroring earlier designs two decades later, affirm temporal stability, with sex differences in preferences for looks versus resources remaining statistically significant and directionally identical. Physiological evidence further aligns: men display stronger and more category-specific genital arousal to visual erotic stimuli featuring opposite-sex individuals, as measured by plethysmography in multiple lab settings, whereas women's responses are less differentiated by stimulus gender or explicitness. Eye-tracking paradigms provide convergent data on attentional biases, with heterosexual men allocating greater visual fixation time to women's facial , breasts, and regions—key signals—compared to non-sexual body areas, achieving up to 20-30% higher dwell times in controlled viewing tasks. Women, however, direct more toward status cues in male profiles, such as occupational indicators, with high-status men capturing 54% of viewing time versus 42% for low-status counterparts in mock scenarios. These attentional patterns replicate across age groups and attraction contexts, from short-term flings to long-term partnerships, with minimal moderation by phase in meta-analytic syntheses. Despite critiques questioning of hypothetical vignettes, real-world analogs like mate-tracking in naturalistic settings yield effect sizes comparable to lab findings, suggesting underlying causal mechanisms rooted in differential reproductive costs rather than alone.

Variations in Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual Norms and Deviations

Heterosexual attraction, defined as predominant or exclusive romantic and sexual interest in individuals of the opposite biological sex, represents the statistical majority and evolutionary default in populations, facilitating essential for species propagation. Population-based surveys indicate that 90-97% of adults report heterosexual orientation, with U.S. estimates from combined 2020-2021 data showing approximately 94.5% non-LGBT identification among adults. This norm aligns with empirical observations across cultures and historical records, where opposite-sex pairing predominates in mating behaviors. Deviations from heterosexual norms include homosexual orientation, characterized by primary same-sex attraction (prevalence 2-3% in adults), (4-5%), and lesser categories like (0.4-1.8%) or "mostly heterosexual" identities involving minor same-sex elements (3-10% depending on thresholds). Homosexual identification rates are higher among males (59% of /lesbian adults) than females, while skews female (66%). Surveys reveal discrepancies between identity, attraction, and behavior; for instance, up to 20% of adolescents report some same-sex attraction versus 9% non-heterosexual identity, suggesting broader latent deviations. These deviations exhibit relative stability into adulthood, though sexual identity fluidity occurs, particularly among bisexuals and females, with longitudinal data showing shifts in 10-20% of young adults over time. Evolutionarily, heterosexual norms confer direct reproductive fitness, rendering non-heterosexual deviations kin selection puzzles or neutral variants, as exclusive same-sex attraction does not yield absent assisted . Empirical consistency across self-report, physiological arousal studies, and genetic correlations underscores heterosexuality's primacy, with deviations comprising small minorities unlikely attributable to alone given heritability estimates of 30-50% for orientation.

Biological Underpinnings of Non-Heterosexual Attraction

Twin studies indicate moderate for orientation, with monozygotic twins showing concordance rates of 30-52% for males compared to 0-22% for dizygotic twins, suggesting genetic factors account for approximately 30-50% of variance. These findings, replicated across multiple cohorts, imply shared genetic influences but also substantial non-shared environmental or effects, as full concordance is absent even in identical twins. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) further support a polygenic basis, with variants collectively explaining 8-25% of variation in same-sex sexual behavior, though no individual loci exceed small effect sizes and overlap partially between sexes. A 2021 GWAS in males identified novel loci, reinforcing complex genetic architecture without a singular "gay gene." Prenatal hormonal influences contribute asymmetrically by sex. In males, the fraternal birth order effect robustly predicts increased likelihood of , with each additional older brother raising odds by about 33%, attributed to maternal immune responses against male-specific antigens (e.g., NLGN4Y protein) progressively sensitizing subsequent pregnancies. This effect, observed in diverse populations and unaffected by adoptive or paternal brothers, implicates perinatal neurodevelopmental alterations rather than postnatal rearing. For females, (CAH), involving elevated prenatal androgens, correlates with elevated rates of non-heterosexual orientation (up to 30% bisexual or lesbian versus <5% in controls), linking androgen exposure to masculinized attraction patterns. Evidence from digit ratios (2D:4D, a proxy for prenatal testosterone) shows inconsistent but suggestive patterns, with some studies indicating atypical exposure in non-heterosexual individuals. Neurological differences manifest in brain structure and function. Postmortem and MRI studies reveal that gay men exhibit hypothalamic nuclei (e.g., INAH-3) smaller and more female-typical in volume, alongside altered cerebral asymmetry and amygdala connectivity resembling heterosexual patterns of the opposite sex. A 2021 MRI analysis of over 2,000 participants confirmed sex-atypical features in cortico-subcortical regions linked to sexual orientation, independent of gender identity. Lesbians show reduced gray matter in perirhinal cortex and other areas compared to heterosexual women, with functional responses to pheromones and sexual cues differing by orientation. These innate variations, evident early in development, underscore biological substrates but interact with multifactorial etiology, as no biomarker fully predicts orientation and replication challenges persist due to small effect sizes and sample heterogeneity. Overall, evidence converges on developmental origins, challenging purely volitional or social constructivist accounts while highlighting polycausal interplay.

Evolutionary Puzzles and Hypotheses

Same-sex sexual attraction poses a central evolutionary challenge, as exclusive homosexuality correlates with reduced direct reproductive output, yet persists at rates of approximately 3% for homosexual identification across global adult populations. Twin studies and genome-wide association analyses indicate a heritable component, with genetic influences estimated at 8-25% for males and 8-19% for females, implying that alleles linked to non-heterosexual orientations have evaded elimination despite fitness costs. This "Darwinian paradox" arises because natural selection favors traits enhancing survival and reproduction, yet same-sex attraction appears to confer no direct reproductive benefit and may reduce lifetime offspring by up to 20-30% in affected individuals. Hypotheses attempt to resolve this through indirect fitness gains or balancing mechanisms, though empirical support remains inconclusive and contested across studies. The kin selection hypothesis posits that genes promoting same-sex attraction persist by enhancing the reproductive success of genetic relatives, akin to eusocial behaviors in insects where non-reproducers aid kin. Proponents argue homosexual males ("gay uncles") invest more in nieces and nephews, with some cross-cultural data from Samoa (fa'afafine) and Indonesia showing elevated resource allocation to kin. However, large-scale tests in Western populations find no consistent evidence of greater generosity or altruism toward relatives among gay men, contradicting predictions and suggesting the effect, if present, is culturally variable or insufficient to offset reproductive deficits. Critics note that kin-directed benefits would require improbably high levels of investment to maintain prevalence, and recent reviews highlight failures to replicate avuncular effects robustly. Sexually antagonistic pleiotropy offers an alternative, proposing that genetic variants increasing same-sex attraction in one sex confer reproductive advantages in the other, maintaining polymorphism via balancing selection. For instance, alleles associated with male homosexuality correlate with higher fecundity in female relatives, as evidenced by mothers and sisters of gay men averaging 1.3-1.5 more offspring than population norms in UK and US cohorts. Genomic analyses support this, identifying variants with sex-differentiated effects where female carriers exhibit elevated opposite-sex partner counts or fertility, potentially outweighing male fitness losses under pre-modern conditions. A 2023 study modeling ancestral environments found such alleles viable until modern contraception disrupted the balance, reducing selective pressure. Yet, familial fertility patterns do not universally hold across datasets, and some analyses fail to confirm compensatory gains sufficient for equilibrium. Balanced polymorphism extends this by suggesting heterozygote advantage, where carriers of homosexuality-linked alleles (without expressing SSA) gain fertility boosts, akin to sickle-cell anemia's malaria resistance. Evidence includes polygenic scores predicting both SSA and elevated reproductive traits in heterosexuals, but the mechanism's scale remains debated, as required effect sizes exceed observed genetic influences. No single hypothesis fully accounts for the paradox, with recent syntheses emphasizing multifactorial origins involving polygenic, epigenetic, and developmental interactions rather than a unitary adaptive explanation. Empirical resolution awaits larger genomic and longitudinal data, unconfounded by cultural shifts.

Psychological Dimensions

Cognitive and Emotional Processes

Cognitive processes in sexual attraction involve rapid perceptual evaluation of potential mates, often prioritizing cues associated with reproductive fitness such as facial symmetry, body proportions, and behavioral indicators of health. Attentional biases direct gaze toward sexually salient features, with studies showing faster detection and prolonged fixation on attractive stimuli compared to neutral ones, mediated by the brain's reward system including the orbitofrontal cortex and amygdala. This initial appraisal is largely automatic and preconscious, reflecting evolved heuristics that filter mates efficiently under time constraints, though conscious deliberation can override in long-term contexts via working memory integration of traits like kindness or status. Emotional processes underpin the motivational drive of attraction, transforming perceptual cues into feelings of desire, arousal, and attachment. Positive emotions, such as joy or excitement elicited by reciprocal interest, amplify sexual motivation by enhancing dopamine release in mesolimbic pathways, fostering approach behaviors and pair-bonding hormones like oxytocin. Conversely, negative emotions like anxiety or disgust suppress attraction, as evidenced by reduced genital arousal responses in laboratory settings when fear or sadness is induced prior to stimuli presentation. These emotional valences interact dynamically with cognition; for instance, high arousal states impair inhibitory control, leading to impulsive mate pursuit, while secure attachment styles promote sustained emotional investment over transient lust. The interplay between cognition and emotion manifests in phenomena like excitation transfer, where residual emotional arousal from non-sexual sources—such as thrill from danger—intensifies subsequent sexual attraction, explaining patterns in misattributed passion. Empirical data from event-related potentials indicate that attractive faces evoke enhanced P300 responses, signaling deeper emotional encoding and motivational relevance, which correlates with self-reported attraction intensity. Disruptions, such as cognitive distractions during encounters, diminish emotional engagement and functional outcomes, with women reporting higher interference from intrusive thoughts linked to performance anxiety. Overall, these processes align with evolutionary adaptations for mate selection, prioritizing efficiency in detecting and responding to fitness signals amid environmental variability.

Influence of Personality Traits

Individuals exhibit assortative mating for personality traits, preferring partners with similar profiles across the Big Five dimensions—openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism—with meta-analytic correlations typically ranging from 0.10 to 0.20, indicating moderate but consistent similarity beyond chance. This pattern holds across cultures and suggests that perceived compatibility in behavioral tendencies drives initial attraction and pair formation. Among the Big Five, conscientiousness emerges as the most consistently preferred trait in potential mates, signaling reliability, self-control, and long-term investment potential, with both sexes rating it highly in preference studies. Emotional stability (low neuroticism) ranks similarly, as high neuroticism correlates with relational instability and reduced satisfaction, deterring attraction in long-term contexts. Extraversion and agreeableness also attract, fostering social harmony and positive interactions, though preferences weaken for extreme levels that may signal impulsivity or submissiveness. Openness shows weaker and more variable effects, often linked to similarity in intellectual curiosity rather than absolute highs. Sex differences modulate these influences: Women tend to prioritize conscientiousness and agreeableness more strongly in men, associating them with provisioning and emotional support, while men emphasize low neuroticism in women to minimize conflict and ensure relational steadiness. These preferences predict not only initial attraction but also marital satisfaction, where dissimilarity—particularly a partner lower in desirable traits—forecasts dissatisfaction and dissolution. Empirical data from large-scale surveys confirm that such trait alignments contribute to sustained sexual and relational attraction over time.

Sociocultural Modulations

Universal vs. Culture-Specific Elements

Sexual attraction displays robust universal patterns across human societies, alongside variations shaped by cultural contexts, with empirical evidence favoring a biological foundation modulated by environmental factors. Large-scale cross-cultural investigations, such as David Buss's 1989 study involving 10,047 participants from 37 cultures spanning six continents, revealed consistent sex differences in mate preferences: men prioritized physical attractiveness and indicators of fertility like youth (preferring partners approximately 2-3 years younger on average), while women emphasized earning capacity, ambition, and social status as proxies for resource provision. These patterns held irrespective of cultural differences in economic development or gender equality, supporting evolutionary hypotheses over purely sociocultural explanations. A 2020 replication across 45 countries with over 14,000 participants confirmed the persistence of these preferences, with multivariate effect sizes indicating stronger universality in women's resource-seeking than variability from local norms. Perceptions of physical attractiveness also exhibit cross-cultural universals, particularly in facial features signaling health and genetic quality. Studies rating facial composites from diverse populations find high agreement (inter-rater correlations around 0.6-0.8) on averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism—men favoring feminine traits like large eyes and full lips in women, and women preferring masculine jawlines in men—evident in samples from Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. Body shape preferences show similar consistency, with men across cultures rating female waist-to-hip ratios near 0.7 as most attractive, linked to fertility and health cues independent of local body ideals. These universals align with evolutionary predictions of mate choice favoring reproductive fitness, as opposed to claims of pure cultural construction, which lack comparable cross-societal support and often stem from ideologically driven interpretations in less rigorous outlets. Culture-specific elements overlay these foundations, influencing secondary traits without overriding core drivers. For instance, preferred body mass index (BMI) varies: resource-abundant Western societies favor lower BMIs (around 18-20) signaling youth and restraint, while in subsistence economies like parts of Africa or Pacific islands, higher BMIs (22-24) indicate nutritional status and wealth accumulation. Adornments and modifications, such as tattoos, piercings, or elongated necks in certain ethnic groups (e.g., Padaung women in Myanmar), serve as culturally enforced signals of status or group identity but do not alter fundamental preferences for symmetry or vitality. Skin tone ideals differ regionally—lighter skin preferred in East Asia for associations with indoor work and status, darker in some Latin American contexts for vitality—yet these remain subordinate to universal health indicators like clear complexion. Recent analyses (2020-2024) affirm that while culture amplifies variability in such peripherals, sex-differentiated universals in resource and fertility cues explain over 70% of preference variance in meta-analyses, underscoring causal primacy of evolved psychology over environmental determinism.

Critiques of Environmental Determinism

Critiques of environmental determinism in sexual attraction emphasize empirical failures of conditioning models and highlight robust genetic and prenatal influences that cannot be reduced to postnatal learning or cultural shaping. Attempts to induce lasting changes in sexual orientation through behavioral therapies or exposure have consistently failed, with meta-analyses showing no reliable evidence for voluntary reorientation despite decades of effort; for instance, a 2009 American Psychological Association task force reviewed over 80 studies and concluded that sexual orientation is resistant to deliberate modification efforts. This immutability challenges the notion that attractions are malleable habits acquired via reinforcement, as laboratory conditioning experiments on humans and animals—such as those pairing stimuli with arousal—produce only transient responses without altering core preferences. Twin studies provide quantitative evidence against purely environmental causation, revealing heritability estimates for non-heterosexual orientation ranging from 30% to 50% across large cohorts. In a 1991 study of 56 monozygotic twin pairs where at least one identified as homosexual, concordance reached 52% for males, compared to 22% in dizygotic pairs, indicating shared genetics elevate risk beyond familial environment alone. Similar patterns hold in female twins, with a 1993 Australian registry analysis of 38 monozygotic pairs showing 65.8% concordance for homosexual orientation, far exceeding fraternal twin rates and underscoring that identical genetic material predicts alignment more than shared upbringing. Even after accounting for potential ascertainment biases in self-selected samples, meta-analyses of seven major twin registries confirm moderate genetic influence, with non-shared prenatal or developmental factors explaining discordance rather than postnatal determinism. Prenatal biological markers further undermine environmental-only models, as digit ratio (2D:4D), a proxy for intrauterine androgen exposure, correlates with sexual orientation independently of rearing conditions; gay men exhibit ratios more similar to heterosexual women, evident from birth. Brain imaging reveals structural differences, such as hypothalamic asymmetries in the INAH-3 region, present in homosexual men akin to heterosexual women, which emerge before postnatal influences and persist regardless of lifestyle. Cross-species observations of same-sex behaviors in over 1,500 species, untutored by human culture, suggest innate mechanisms conserved evolutionarily, not artifacts of social learning. These findings collectively argue that while unique environmental triggers may interact with predispositions, sexual attraction resists explanation as a deterministic product of external conditioning, with biological substrates setting durable parameters.

Research Methods and Advances

Assessment Techniques and Validity

Self-report questionnaires represent a primary method for assessing sexual attraction, typically involving participants rating their subjective feelings of desire toward specific genders or stimuli on scales ranging from exclusive heterosexual to exclusive homosexual attraction. Common instruments include multi-item surveys querying past experiences, fantasies, and identities, such as adaptations of the or the Sexual Orientation Scale, which categorize attraction along a continuum. These measures are cost-effective and scalable for large populations but are prone to inaccuracies due to recall biases, social desirability effects, and cultural influences on self-perception. For instance, individuals may underreport non-heterosexual attractions to align with prevailing norms, as evidenced by discrepancies in anonymous versus non-anonymous surveys. Physiological measures provide objective indicators by recording bodily responses to erotic stimuli presumed to reflect attraction, with penile plethysmography (PPG) for males detecting penile tumescence via strain gauges or volumetric changes, and vaginal photoplethysmography for females measuring vaginal blood volume or pulse amplitude. These techniques expose participants to audio-visual cues varying by gender and elicit differential arousal patterns, such as stronger responses to same-sex stimuli in homosexual individuals. PPG demonstrates moderate test-retest reliability (r ≈ 0.70–0.90 over sessions) and discriminant validity in distinguishing heterosexual from homosexual arousal profiles, though it requires controlled lab settings and can be suppressed or faked through cognitive distraction or suppression techniques. Pupillometry, tracking pupil dilation to stimuli, offers a non-invasive alternative with similar patterns of gender-specific arousal but lower reliability due to extraneous factors like lighting. Indirect behavioral measures, such as viewing time paradigms, assess attraction by measuring latency to rate or dwell on images of potential mates, with longer gazes toward preferred genders indicating attraction; tools like the Affinity 2.5 software automate this for forensic and clinical use. These yield convergent validity with PPG (correlations up to r = 0.60) and predict behavioral outcomes better than self-reports in some contexts, though they capture implicit preferences potentially divergent from explicit attraction. Eye-tracking extends this by quantifying fixations on body regions, revealing automatic attentional biases aligned with stated orientations. Validity is supported by group differences (e.g., heterosexuals fixate more on opposite-sex features), but individual variability and stimulus standardization challenges persist. Concordance between self-reported attraction and physiological responses varies by gender and context, with a meta-analysis of 132 studies (N > 2,500) finding low overall agreement (r = 0.24 for women, r = 0.66 for men) when stimuli match or oppose reported preferences, suggesting genital responses may reflect preparatory mechanisms rather than subjective desire. Women's lower concordance raises questions about category-specificity, as they often show non-specific to both sexes regardless of orientation, potentially due to evolutionary adaptations for broader detection rather than targeted attraction. Multiple measures improve validity by triangulating data—e.g., combining self-reports with PPG reduces false positives in clinical assessments—but no single technique fully captures the multifaceted nature of attraction, which integrates cognitive, emotional, and biological elements. Ethical concerns, including invasiveness of genital measures and potential for misuse in legal contexts, necessitate and validation against behavioral criteria like partner choice.

Recent Empirical Findings (2020–2025)

Empirical research from 2020 to 2025 has advanced understanding of sexual attraction's stability, with longitudinal indicating that while most individuals maintain consistent patterns of attraction over time, a minority shifts, particularly in identity labels during young adulthood. A 2023 analysis of a large U.S. national (N > 10,000) found that sexual identity fluidity persists into adulthood, with approximately 2-5% of participants reporting changes between waves, more commonly among women and those with bisexual attractions, challenging strict categorical models of attraction. Similarly, a 2025 prospective study of adolescents and young adults (ages 15-24) reported that about 10% experienced shifts in sexual orientation identity over a 1-2 year interval, with higher rates among baselines, though the majority (over 90%) remained stable. These findings underscore that while attraction is predominantly enduring, fluidity occurs empirically, often linked to behavioral experimentation rather than profound rewiring. Genetic and evolutionary investigations have identified polygenic influences on same-sex sexual attraction, building on prior genome-wide association studies. A 2024 review synthesized twin and molecular data, estimating of same-sex behavior at 20-30%, with no single "gay " but rather distributed variants across the genome influencing traits like and risk-taking, which may confer indirect fitness benefits via or heightened sociability. Complementing this, a 2025 examination of the fraternal effect—where each older brother increases the odds of by ~33%—reaffirmed maternal immune responses against male-specific proteins as a nongenetic causal factor, observed in datasets from multiple cohorts and consistent across cultures. X-linkage hypotheses, positing Y-chromosome inactivation effects, received partial support from pedigree analyses but require further validation against polygenic models. Neurobiological correlates of attraction have been elucidated through imaging and hormonal assays, emphasizing in reward processing. A 2025 synthesis linked mesolimbic activation to initial across orientations, with variations in receptor density predicting attraction intensity; for instance, higher ventral responses to opposite-sex cues in heterosexuals versus same-sex in homosexuals. meta-analyses from this period confirmed robust trait differences, such as non-heterosexual individuals scoring higher on (d ≈ 0.5) and , derived from 35 samples aggregating over 50,000 participants, suggesting modulates attraction expression independently of socialization. These patterns hold after controlling for cultural confounds, indicating innate dispositions over purely environmental shaping.

References

  1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/a0020451
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302219300585
  3. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1999.0866
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271667729_Reviews_of_Science_for_Science_Librarians_The_Evolutionary_Basis_of_Human_Sexual_Attraction_and_Competition_for_Mates
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7031179/
  6. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13558358.2020.1818541
  7. https://ejop.psychopen.eu/index.php/ejop/article/view/290/290.html
  8. https://med-fom-brotto.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2023/05/The-Role-of-Sexual-and-Romantic-Attraction-in-Human-Mate-Preferences-2023.pdf
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6908863/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5591294/
  11. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94479-9
  12. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/2/2/1081
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513898000087
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8133465/
  16. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199304/the-biology-of-attraction
  17. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2023.2176811
  18. https://www.healthline.com/health/healthy-sex/lust-vs-love-signs
  19. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/202102/is-it-love-or-sexual-attraction
  20. https://www.verywellmind.com/types-of-attraction-how-they-impact-relationships-5218956
  21. https://dame.com/blogs/sexual-wellness/attraction-arousal-desire
  22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21095066/
  23. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/sex/sexual-attraction-and-desire
  24. https://www.businessinsider.com/reference/lust-vs-love
  25. https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/love/infatuation-vs-love-whats-the-difference/
  26. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8494487/
  27. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.10a23
  28. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7082777/
  30. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15736-4
  31. https://www.science.org/content/article/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-analysis-reveals
  32. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0018506X07001870
  34. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1067487/full
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4720522/
  36. https://academic.oup.com/smr/article/13/4/433/8163608
  37. https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article/14/Supplement_4b/e211/7021644
  38. https://www.nature.com/articles/npp201219
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4911849/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7507403/
  41. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/andro.2021.0034
  42. https://joe.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/joe/186/3/1860411.xml
  43. https://www.livescience.com/7023-rules-attraction-game-love.html
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4050298/
  45. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1999.0624
  46. https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/hiqvc9/research_suggests_that_men_can_distinguish/
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301211504004749
  48. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2019.0262
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886908002250
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9680725/
  51. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1200065/full
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892199721000710
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513819301850
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9559228/
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10851294/
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225106584_Differential_use_of_sensory_information_in_sexual_behavior_as_a_function_of_sex
  57. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219729/
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2702796/
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233470833_The_Evolutionary_Psychology_of_Human_Mate_Choice
  60. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/sex-differences-in-human-mate-preferences-evolutionary-hypotheses-tested-in-37-cultures/0E112ACEB2E7BC877805E3AC11ABC889
  61. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2015/10/buss-1989-sex-differences-in-human-mate-preferences.pdf
  62. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2020/03/Sex-Differences-in-Mate-Preferences-Across-45-Nations-2020.pdf
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000370
  64. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/a0034391
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232251330_Mate_Choice_in_Human
  66. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi6308
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1690211/
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513899000148
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389094448_Facial_Symmetry_as_a_Genetic_Health_Indicator_Evolutionary_and_Psychological_Perspectives_on_Human_Attraction
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886999001154
  71. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-74265-z
  72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257492163_Waist-hip_ratio_and_attractiveness_New_evidence_and_a_critique_of_a_critical_test
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3000557/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3130383/
  75. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39731
  76. https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/24/4/914/219755
  77. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0156722
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809000270
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6563790/
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886922004263
  81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32196435/
  82. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15004563/
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4983547/
  84. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29871054_International_Preferences_in_Selecting_Mates_A_Study_of_37_Cultures
  85. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022022190211001
  86. https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/MatePrefs_FINAL6-5-07_000.pdf
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10496482/
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513801000654
  89. https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/what-do-women-want-depends-on-249813
  90. https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-10-19
  91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1388281/
  92. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2021.1115
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8292757/
  94. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8046577/
  95. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-38948-001
  96. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298906131_Sex_Differences_in_Mate_Preferences_a_Replication_Study_20_Years_Later
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2739403/
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10426851/
  100. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-024-02950-1
  101. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351725569_Sex_differences_in_sexual_attraction_for_aesthetics_resources_and_personality_across_age
  102. https://news.utexas.edu/2013/06/18/review-of-research-calls-into-question-sex-differences-in-face-to-face-mate-preferences/
  103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128002223000085
  104. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/adult-lgbt-pop-us/
  105. https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/2/257/htm
  106. https://news.gallup.com/poll/332522/percentage-americans-lgbt.aspx
  107. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/06/28/for-pride-month-6-facts-about-bisexual-americans/
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735823000922
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2936979/
  110. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.03.06.23286850v2.full-text
  111. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2023.2289517
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4439540/
  113. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9549243/
  114. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1843
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X19304660
  116. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-021-00341-7
  117. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1719534115
  118. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/04/15/1243861703/sexuality-birth-order-gay-siblings
  119. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2907
  120. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3296090/
  121. https://bsd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13293-015-0022-1
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5786378/
  123. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84496-z
  124. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1942120/
  125. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0805542105
  126. https://news.ki.se/differences-related-to-sexual-orientation-found-in-the-brain
  127. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-06/LGBT%2520Pride%25202021%2520Global%2520Survey%2520Report_3.pdf
  128. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168952524003007
  129. https://glreview.org/article/evolutionary-origins-of-homosexuality/
  130. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29797146/
  131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513801000745
  132. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-evolutionary-perspectives-on-human-behavior/kin-selection-and-the-evolution-of-male-androphilia/18EA02B2E12BBFEC8174F4EF285D7468
  133. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02780-7
  134. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38177607/
  135. https://gwern.net/doc/genetics/selection/natural/human/2021-zietsch.pdf
  136. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2303418120
  137. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824001259
  138. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1001836320541
  139. https://theconversation.com/born-this-way-an-evolutionary-view-of-gay-genes-26051
  140. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12180867/
  141. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00436/full
  142. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11614904/
  143. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050052121000895
  144. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6879181/
  145. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.665967/full
  146. https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/files/94749161/Schippers_2022_Excitation_transfer_between_sexual_arousal.pdf
  147. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251074
  148. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341293137_The_Role_of_Cognitive_Processing_Factors_in_Sexual_Function_and_Dysfunction_in_Women_and_Men_A_Systematic_Review
  149. https://oxfordre.com/psychology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-302
  150. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.03.19.484997v1
  151. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229006412_The_Role_of_Personality_and_Intelligence_in_Assortative_Mating
  152. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X25000661
  153. https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00108
  154. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14075590_Personality_and_Mate_Preferences_Five_Factors_in_Mate_Selection_and_Marital_Satisfaction
  155. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-022-00893-2
  156. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809000610
  157. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29878796/
  158. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4079334/
  159. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-32735-008
  160. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-56607-z
  161. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513822000472
  162. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285329852_Neither_genes_nor_choice_Same-sex_attraction_is_mostly_a_unique_reaction_to_environmental_factors
  163. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9171406/
  164. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK581037/
  165. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/10/1/125184/203797/A-Comparative-Investigation-of-Indirect-Measures
  166. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bsl.2453
  167. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2673137/
  168. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02324-5
  169. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5243&context=etd
  170. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5834571/
  171. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2811244/
  172. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8873603/
  173. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-63328-001
  174. https://gmr.scholasticahq.com/article/136400-exploring-biological-theories-of-homosexuality-a-focus-on-the-x-linkage-theory-and-the-fraternal-birth-order-effect
  175. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/behavioral-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2025.1574713/full
  176. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342025030_Personality_and_Sexual_Orientation_New_Data_and_Meta-analysis
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.