With typical reductionism they were trying to limit the subjectivity of their variables. Some of the later NS articles went into some of the more physiological aspects of "attractiveness". One described the effect of attractiveness on how much semen was "stripped" (I kid you not) from men during intercourse and ejaculation. Without going into boring detail, they found that no matter how attractive the males rated their female partners for such activities (even using hip:waist ratios) it was the more Rubenesque ladies (ie, slightly overweight to "modern" eyes) that routinely stripped the most semen from their partners.

The inference drawn from this was that, despite any 'conscious' deliberations by the male, the women with just that little bit extra subcutaneous fat (already known to be a marker of higher fertility) were better able to get their partners to "deliver" in the fertilisation stakes. All very Darwinian!

Just thought you'd like to know.

Cheers, Rowan