Right, so depending on how it was set up, that study is subject to age bias. We know most cultures prize virginity. Subsequently, it follows that men will be attracted to young "unspoiled" women as a result of that because you don't find virginity in a lot of older women.

So following that train of thought, if it just so happens that the desirable WHR is also found in teenage girls and you've asked a bunch of men to choose attractive women, are they choosing actual physical attributes or are they choosing virginity and/or youth?

I'm curious as to how they were asked this question and how the results were interpreted to mean preference for WHR. Seems kind of sketchy to me. I'm skeptical that all cultural and social biases could be accounted for especially since it's noted that the perfect ratio is different from one culture to another. That suggests the results are more cultural/social conditioning than biological or evolutionary, wouldn't you think?

Maybe one way to check those results against potential bias would be to compare percentages of women who are not young but have the magic WHR and are labeled as attractive in this study with the the percentages of young women with magic WHR labeled as attractive. If there is no age bias and it's truly just the WHR, then the percentages should fall with standard statistical deviation, right?

Another way would be to look by separate cultures since they're reporting slightly different WFH preferences. Again, if there is no other bias at play, then you would expect to see the same variation matching against other groupings. Like, if it's truly a magical WHR and 30% of overweight women have the ratio then 30% of overweight women should be listed as attractive. Same if 70% of teenagers have the ratio, then 70% should be found to be attractive, within acceptable statistical variance. Same for height, hair, teeth, whatever. But, if only 60% of young women have the ratio but 90% of young women are described as attractive, that suggests some other reason, doesn't it? Or at least more than one factor.

I keep seeing this study being referenced as validation for all sorts of nonsense, usually in MRA or red pill type articles from guys in low level IT. Most of them could desperately use a course in general statistics, evolution, and understanding scientific writing.

I digress. I should take a look at that and see if they give any raw data, what it actually says, and whether or not the study design was sufficient to eliminate bias. I'm guessing it's got some serious design flaws or it doesn't actually claim what all these writers say it claims.

I'm really tired, so I hope this made sense. I kinda feel like I'm rambling. I might look into that study this weekend if I can find the actual study rather than someone's reporting on it. It's probably behind a pay wall though.