sex
...lly. Nevertheless, those are the people living in the same region, so the result still has no significant in accounting for the physical attractiveness and the gender differences on mate selection for human being generally. In another way, we should find the respondents in different races in a bid to get the comprehensive experimental result to show the rigidity. Furthermore, the result obtained from the survey is not supported by enough evidences, it seems like that he had given out all the results of the survey and quoted some scholars’ citation but explain nothing in details. In the article, we are not hard to see that there are many scholars’ wordings quoted. For example (Eagly and Wood, 1999; Jackson, 1992; Buss, 1987, Feingold, 1990; Kasser and Sharma, 1999; Wiederman and Allgeier, 1992). Those are good references instead, but something that can do more is to give some opinions over the wordings so therefore can make the readers have a more understanding on the topics. Thirdly, the structure of the article is not well-organized enough, we can see there are many small paragraphs but with unclear topic sentences. The writers just gave out the result in an unsystematic way. It made me very confused with the points it stated sometimes. From my point of view, he should clearly stated that what features of traits or which sex’s traits he wanted to explain at the beginning of the paragraphs and also he should explain further about the result in the same paragraph, like he can combine the analysis of the result with the table result together, therefore can make it more consistent and easily to access. Next, I would like to criticize on the format and the content of the survey conducted. In this article, it mainly concern about certain ages group of male and female, although the survey emphasis that they did find some other ages group for interview also. However in the discussion, he only kept on saying the general desirability of trait if male and female. He did not specific any age group or stated the designated target of the result. From my presentation researches, we know that ages, living environment and races all together will have very large impacts on the evolutionary perspective on physical attractiveness. So we can not neglect one of them when we are explaining or analyzing the survey results. For example, we can see that the highly desirability of woman from the survey are faithfulness, sincerity, tenderness, reliability, passion, carefulness. But this is only the general traits of woman and thus we can not know the desirability of the particular age group in details. According to my research, we know that different ages of woman will have different intentions to select their mates. For example, for youngster, they will always have fascination in the relationship because they did not need to care many facts, e.g. economic, future career, offspring. So they will just concentrate on partner’s physical appearances, they will only consider little on faithfulness, sincerity, tenderness, reliability, passion, carefulness. But when they have grown up, they will face a total different reality instead, so that they will change their view on the traits of desirability when selecting partners. They will start to concern the stability of the relationship, for example they will consider the partner’s social status, the ability to earn, the intentionality to share and even the sexual ability. Moreover they will also think of how they can maximize the benefits of their offspring in the future when selecting the mate. For example, is the partner faithful, sincerely and attentive. These significant changes gradually made up the evolution of how human choose their companion in different stages. Since this article was talking about the evolutionary perspective on physical attractiveness, so a clear indication of the trend of age of how female and male in mate selection should be clearly explained. However we can not see any further explanations in the article about these gradual changes so I would say this is a defect that can not bring up the idea of evolution perspective in physical attractiveness in this article. The fourth, as I have mentioned above, this article confined the targets that lived in Serbia and this limit the researched area of evolutionary perspective. We know that evolution varied a lot with the changing environment. In my research materials, we found that the people living in different places with different culture will have their own special intentionality in the desirability of the traits. In addition, a study by Cunningham, Roberts, Barbee, Druen, & Wu (1995) showed that there are a great due of variation in different groups, for example, in Asian, Hispanic, and White judges, there were strikingly consistent in their judgments of what was attractive such as faces with neonate large eyes, greater distance between eyes, small noses and narrower female faces with smaller chins, etc. It is what this article could not cover or ignored. Although some defenders may claim that those culture aspects mentioned above is also related to the physical appearances and that is no differences with the points in the article at all. But I would like to give an example to validate my criticism, in Chinese Culture, people always think that female with a circular hips implied that she will has many offspring and especially a male offs...