It does not take a radical feminist to remind us that women are much more complex and interesting creatures than 'walking hormones' as men are more intelligent than a stereotypical cro-magnon.

If oestrogen does affect bone and skin development - then the entire body plays a role in measuring attractiveness. Furtheremore, the concept of attractiveness [and related concepts of goodness and health] are historically and culturally variant and these contingent factors must be assessed in the light of material evidence.

We cannot reduce human experience to material determinism - not simply because it is unethical but also because, in scientific [or objective or whatever you please] terms, the equation is much more complex than this.

We only have to glance briefly, on the ground, at 99% of couples across the globe to realise that all sorts of partnerships form, often failing to follow the 'evidence' of what is clearly an ethologically invalid [and thus questionable] study. Perhaps the term 'goodness of fit' to which this social darwinism alludes, could well be replaced by 'good enough' [a term favoured within modern child developmenta theory].

Couples find each other 'good enough' for many reasons, be it from physical features, tone of voice, scent, body comportment, fashion and style, personality to mutual political and cultural interests -all these factors making for a complex and much more interesting calculus than can be defined within the rubric of this study.

No doubt this research has noble intentions - but it may well lead us on a dangerous trajectory even if unaware of it's historicity, reflexivity, cultural deportment and intentionality. The biological human in a social world and physical environment - is much more sophisticated than anything confabulated by Sir Francis Galton and Walter Bagehot.