Cues of phenotypic condition should be among those used by women in their choice of mates. One marker of better phenotypic condition is thought to be symmetrical bilateral body and facial features. However, it is not clear whether women use symmetry as the primary cue in assessing the phenotypic quality of potential mates or whether symmetry is correlated with other facial markers affecting physical attractiveness. Using photographs of men's faces, for which facial symmetry had been measured, we found a relationship between women's attractiveness ratings of these faces and symmetry, but the subjects could not rate facial symmetry accurately. Moreover, the relationship between facial attractiveness and symmetry was still observed, even when symmetry cues were removed by presenting only the left or right half of faces. These results suggest that attractive features other than symmetry can be used to assess phenotypic condition. We identified one such cue, facial masculinity (cheek–bone prominence and a relatively longer lower face), which was related to both symmetry and full– and half–face attractiveness.

BACKGROUND: Donor insemination programs can include ‘open-identity’ sperm donors, who are willing to release their identities to adult offspring. We report findings from adolescent offspring who have open-identity donors. METHODS: Using mail-back questionnaires, youths from 29 households (41.4% headed by lesbian couples, 37.9% by single women, 20.7% by heterosexual couples) reported their experience growing up knowing how they were conceived and their interest in the donor's identity. RESULTS: Most youths (75.9%) reported always knowing, and were somewhat to very comfortable with their conception origins. All but one felt knowing had a neutral to positive impact on their relationship with their birth mother and, separately, co-parent. The youths’ top question about the donor was, ‘What's he like?’ and >80% felt at least moderately likely to request his identity and pursue contact. Finally, of those who might contact the donor, 82.8% would do so to learn more about him, with many believing it would help them learn more about themselves. No youth reported wanting money and few (6.9%) wanted a father/child relationship. We also discuss differences found among youths from different household types. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the youths felt comfortable with their origins and planned to obtain their donor's identity, although not necessarily at age 18.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of donor insemination (DI) programmes offer ‘open‐identity’ sperm donors, who are willing to have their identity released to adult offspring. We report findings from parents who chose such donors and whose children are now adolescents. METHODS: Using mail‐back questionnaires, parents from 45 households (40% headed by lesbian couples, 38% by single women, 22% by heterosexual couples) reported their experience with using an open‐identity donor and disclosure about it, as well as their child’s plans for donor identity‐release^sm. RESULTS: Almost no parents regretted using an open‐identity donor. Almost all parents had told their child about his or her DI conception early on and reported a neutral to moderately positive impact. Finally, of those who had told, almost all expected their child to obtain the donor’s identity. We also discuss differences found between birth mothers and co‐parents and among single women, lesbian couples, and heterosexual couples. CONCLUSIONS: Families were relatively open and positive about their use of DI and that their child could obtain the donor’s identity. Disclosure did not appear to have a negative impact on the families, regardless of parental sexual orientation and relationship status.