Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 369–375 | Cite as

Human Physique and Sexual Attractiveness: Sexual Preferences of Men and Women in Bakossiland, Cameroon

  • Barnaby J. Dixson
  • Alan F. DixsonEmail author
  • Bethan Morgan
  • Matthew J. Anderson
Original Paper


Men and women living in a rural community in Bakossiland, Cameroon were asked to rate the attractiveness of images of male or female figures manipulated to vary in somatotype, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), secondary sexual traits, and other features. In Study 1, women rated mesomorphic (muscular) and average male somatotypes as most attractive, followed by ectomorphic (slim) and endomorphic (heavily built) figures. In Study 2, amount and distribution of masculine trunk (chest and abdominal) hair was altered progressively in a series of front-posed male figures. A significant preference for one of these images was found, but the most hirsute figure was not judged as most attractive. Study 3 assessed attractiveness of front-posed male figures which varied only in length of the non-erect penis. Extremes of penile size (smallest and largest of five images) were rated as significantly less attractive than three intermediate sizes. In Study 4, Bakossi men rated the attractiveness of back-posed female images varying in WHR (from 0.5–1.0). The 0.8 WHR figure was rated markedly more attractive than others. Study 5 rated the attractiveness of female skin color. Men expressed no consistent preference for either lighter or darker female figures. These results are the first of their kind reported for a Central African community and provide a useful cross-cultural perspective to published accounts on sexual selection, human morphology and attractiveness in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere.


Sexual attractiveness Evolution Masculine somatotype Feminine waist-to-hip ratio Secondary sexual traits Cameroon 


  1. Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ecology and Sociobiology, 16, 395–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolonchuk, W. W., Siders, W. A., Lykken, G. I., & Lukaski, H. C. (2000). Association of dominant somatotype of men with body structure, function during exercise, and nutritional assessment. American Journal of Human Biology, 12, 167–180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bramble, D. M., & Lieberman, D. E. (2004). Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature, 432, 345–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M., & Schmidt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheek, M., Pollard, B. J., Darbyshire, I., Onana, J. M., & Wild, C. (Eds.) (2004). The plants of Kupe, Mwanenguba and the Bakossi Mountains, Cameroon: A conservation checklist. Richmond, Surrey, England: Royal Botanic Gardens Kew.Google Scholar
  7. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  8. Diamond, J. (1997). Why is sex fun: The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Dixson, A. F. (1998). Primate sexuality: Comparative studies of the prosimians, monkeys, apes, and human beings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dixson, A. F., Halliwell, G., East, R., Wignarajah, P., & Anderson, M. J. (2003). Masculine somatotype and hirsuteness as determinants of sexual attractiveness to women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 29–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ejepedang-Koge S. N. (1986). Tradition of a people-Bakossi. Yaounde, Cameroon: ARC Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis, B. J. (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms in women. In J. H. Barlow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 267–288). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fessler, D. M. T., Nettle, D., Afshar, Y., de Andrade Pinheiro, I., Bolyanatz, A., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., et al. (2005). A cross-cultural investigation of the role of foot size in physical attractiveness. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 267–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frost, P. (1988). Human skin color: A possible relationship between its sexual dimorphism and its social perception. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 32, 38–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katzmarzyk, P. T., Malina, R. M., Song, T. M. K., & Bouchard, C. (1998). Somatotype and indicators of metabolic fitness in youth. American Journal of Human Biology, 10, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Law-Smith, M. J. L., Perret, D. I., Jones, B. C., Cornwall, R. E., Moore, F. R., Feinberg, D. R., et al. (2006). Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (Series B), 273, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lynch, S. M., & Zellner, D. A. (1999). Figure preference in two generations of men: The use of figure drawings illustrating differences in muscle mass. Sex Roles, 40, 833–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maisey, D. S., Vale, E. L. E., Cornellisenm, P. L., & Tovée, M. J. (1999). Characteristics of male attractiveness for women. Lancet, 353, 1500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marlowe, F. W., Apicella, C. L., & Reed, D. (2005). Men’s preferences for women’s profile waist-to-hip ratio in two societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 371–378.Google Scholar
  21. Mealey, L. (1997). Bulking up: The roles of sex and sexual orientation as attempts to manipulate sexual attractiveness. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (2001). Evidence for unconstrained directional selection for male tallness. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 50, 302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pawlowski, B., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Lipowicz, A. (2000). Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature, 403, 156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Penton-Voak, I. S., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Baker, S., Tiddeman, B., & Burt, D. M. (2001). Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male sexual attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (Series B), 268, 617–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perret, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., & Burt, D. M. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Potts, M. & Short, R. V. (1999). Ever since Adam and Eve: The evolution of human sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Schultze, S., Knussmann, R., & Christiansen, K. (1991). Male sex role identification and body build. Homo, 42, 203–215.Google Scholar
  28. Sheldon, W. H., Dupertuis, C. W., & McDermott, E. (1954). Atlas of men. New York: Harpers.Google Scholar
  29. Short, R. V. (1980). The origins of human sexuality. In C. R. Austin & R. V. Short (Eds.), Reproduction in mammals & human sexuality (pp. 1–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Singh, D. (1993). Body shape and women’s attractiveness. Human Nature, 4, 297–321.Google Scholar
  31. Singh, D. (2002). Female mate value at a glance: Relationship of waist-to-hip ratio to health, fecundity and attractiveness. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23(Suppl. 4), 81–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgments of attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 483–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sodhi, V. K., & Sausker, W. F. (1988). Dermatoses of pregnancy. American Family Physician, 37, 131–138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptions of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature, sexual conflict (pp. 80–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tovée, M. J., Maisey, D. S., Emery, J. L., & Cornellisen, P. L. (1999). Visual cues to female sexual attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (Series B), 266, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Der Berghe, P. L., & Frost, P. (1986). Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism and sexual selection: A case of gene culture co-evolution? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 9, 87–113.Google Scholar
  37. Wetsman, A., & Marlowe, F. (1998). How universal are preferences for female waist to-hip ratios? Evidence from the Hadza from Tanzania. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 228–229.Google Scholar
  38. Wong, R., & Ellis, C. N. (1984). Physiologic skin changes in pregnancy. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 10, 929–943.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yu, D. W., & Shepard, G. H. (1998). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Nature, 396, 321–322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barnaby J. Dixson
    • 1
  • Alan F. Dixson
    • 2
    Email author
  • Bethan Morgan
    • 1
  • Matthew J. Anderson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Conservation and Research for Endangered SpeciesZoological Society of San DiegoSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations