Bag the stock, not the barrel
--- End of line (MCP)
I would've thought the same thing.My first date with my husband was driving from Alexandria, VA to Calvert Co to see the house he was building. The way he described it, I figured I'd see at least the framing done. Got there and there was just a huge hole in the ground. He told me to come down in the hole so he could describe where all the rooms were going to go but I stayed where I was. I told him years later that I thought once I got into the hole, he'd kill me and build his house on top of my body.
Nah. I like raisins.
Just to clarify for Jen's sake.... I really meant raisins, in that her avatar is the Sunmaid Raisin Girl. I did not intentionally imply anything of a sexual nature, including euphemisms for female anatomy.You misspelled boobs.
Your assumption however, is that beauty in males follows a normal distribution.When I think average, above average & below average, I put average at around 50%. Then use a bell curve with a 33%, 66% splits for the various categories.
Think in terms of this:
The bulk of the men would fall around just short of average to slightly above average. The other 33% are divided between the much better looking and the extremely unsightly guys. Just 2.5% would be considered mega attractive or what ever word they are using to describe the best looking males.
It's easy to skew results. What if North American women were only shown pictures of Syrian refugee males? Might that affect how attractive they viewed those men?
It's been a while since I took classes on this but if I recall correctly in this example the findings would be invalid. What would happen is the the qualifier for attractive would need to shift to include more until distribution more closely resembles the chart above.