|
On March 04 2013 10:14 fatfail wrote:
I believe there is no universal standard of beauty. However, is it not true that most cultures tend to prefer pale skin? Having studied a bit of history, the plethora of skin whitening products and methods since ancient times and across cultures seems quite interesting. Take the Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc.
They tend to prefer paler skin, at least. Women are on average paler than men of the same race.
|
Thanks for posting these studies Jibba, they made for interesting reading. I was planning to write a lengthy response, but Demonhunter has made a much more thorough reply than I would have. I'll just limit myself to a few points.
Your studies seem to show that there is some variation (presumably for cultural reasons) around the supposedly ideal .7 waist/hip ratio. But how much variation is there really? Between .6 and .8? I would suggest that that's a pretty narrow band. Of course if you go outside modern societies and look at foraging societies where there is no reliable supply of food then you get some more extreme numbers. But to me this is the exception that proves the rule, because what it illustrates is that the variation is not due to cultural reasons but due to evolutionary logic. W/H ratio is a pretty good proxy for health in modern societies, and a different W/H ratio is a different proxy for health in foraging societies. The ratio changes because of dramatic changes in the environment. Even if this did undermine the significance of W/H ratio, it seems to just reinforce the role of evolutionary psychology in determining what's attractive.
I thought this part of your post was really interesting. Speaking about models/supermodels and their W/H ratios, you said the following:
4. They don't, they've actually steadily risen from .6 to now .7+. You can actually track the rise through Playboy models since the 60's, where "ideals" like Monroe and Welch were much more severe than .7 (closer to .6), to today where it's getting clser to .8. Women like Megan Fox and Kate Upton are perfect examples of it. There's variation all over the place regarding today's most attractive women and their hip-to-waist ratio, which gets to the next point:
I would be really interested in the source for this. It certainly doesn't fit with my personal observations. In thinking about my response I looked at a lot of images of the women you referred to, and I really just don't see it. This article says that Marilyn Monroe had a ratio of 7.0. This site states that Megan Fox's measurements are 32-22-32, which gives a ratio or .6875. This article says Kate Upton's measurements are 36-25-34 implying a W/H ratio of .735. I guess these numbers are not static since a person's waist size can change pretty easily; but the pattern that you're describing is not apparent from what I've seen.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
|
On March 04 2013 10:53 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 10:14 fatfail wrote:
I believe there is no universal standard of beauty. However, is it not true that most cultures tend to prefer pale skin? Having studied a bit of history, the plethora of skin whitening products and methods since ancient times and across cultures seems quite interesting. Take the Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc. They tend to prefer paler skin, at least. Women are on average paler than men of the same race.
Pale(er) skin, maybe. It seems pretty universal, however, to have clear skin.
|
Pale skin has been 'preferred' throughout history (And in some cultures, still) because it represents success/wealth.
Pale skin = you don't work out in the sun all day i.e. farmer, fisherman, construction etc ('low' jobs).
This is why generally in most western countries having a tan is considered beautiful, because it represents success (More free time to be out in the sun  )
Its funny how perception of beauty changes with the lifestyle a skin colour represents during a certain time.
|
On March 05 2013 03:43 Tunedbeats wrote:Pale skin has been 'preferred' throughout history (And in some cultures, still) because it represents success/wealth. Pale skin = you don't work out in the sun all day i.e. farmer, fisherman, construction etc ('low' jobs). This is why generally in most western countries having a tan is considered beautiful, because it represents success (More free time to be out in the sun ) Its funny how perception of beauty changes with the lifestyle a skin colour represents during a certain time.
I dunno how things are in the Netherlands, but farmers, fisherman, and construction workers see a lot of sun here in the States.
|
On March 03 2013 13:00 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 04:08 dreamsmasher wrote:On March 02 2013 23:55 zbedlam wrote:On March 02 2013 23:27 Elurie wrote:On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:
From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children.
Wow, you certainly err on the side of chauvinistic. Yea, taking care of kids is a "woman's job". Men only have to bring home the bacon, and sit back on the La-Z-Boy while the woman fry up the bacon too! :p He's talking about sexual attractiveness from an evolutionary perspective you stupid pleb. This is not an artsy sociology debate. seems like you're the stupid pleb. most of these 'evolutionary theories' relating evolution to other aspects of our life are about as scientific as astrology. Everything about humanity has been determined by evolution. It is pretty dumb to suggest it has nothing to do with our lives... The reference to astrology is quite ironic.
Not everything. There is a degree of randomness involved in events which influences evolution but is not influenced by it. Self-awareness has changed the game up a bit, too, allowing humans to do things counteracting their instincts. Funny thing is, if current theories on the origin of life on Earth are correct, then evolution was initiated and driven by the weather to a good extent.
Predisposed to a fatal disease?
Born with an extra finger?
Forever bronze?
Blame the weather 
PS: Astrology does not involve the scientific method. Evolutionary psychology does. There's a vast gulf dividing the two in terms of validity, even if evo psych were less scientific than other branches of science.
On March 05 2013 03:43 Tunedbeats wrote:Pale skin has been 'preferred' throughout history (And in some cultures, still) because it represents success/wealth. Pale skin = you don't work out in the sun all day i.e. farmer, fisherman, construction etc ('low' jobs). This is why generally in most western countries having a tan is considered beautiful, because it represents success (More free time to be out in the sun ) Its funny how perception of beauty changes with the lifestyle a skin colour represents during a certain time.
The trend towards tanning only really applies to people who are white to begin with. Since very few women do manual labor now, being pale doesn't reveal much except that you burn up in the sun more easily. Pale skin is still considered more beautiful in every other culture, and for that matter, Caucasian women were rated more beautiful than those of any other race in studies, while there was no statistically significant preference for any particular hair color (the researches expected blonde hair to be preferred). This is one of those traits I was referring to when I said that some preferences are mostly experientially determined.
On March 05 2013 03:17 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 10:53 Demonhunter04 wrote:On March 04 2013 10:14 fatfail wrote:
I believe there is no universal standard of beauty. However, is it not true that most cultures tend to prefer pale skin? Having studied a bit of history, the plethora of skin whitening products and methods since ancient times and across cultures seems quite interesting. Take the Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc. They tend to prefer paler skin, at least. Women are on average paler than men of the same race. Pale(er) skin, maybe. It seems pretty universal, however, to have clear skin.
I know. I addressed that near the beginning of my wall of text on page 27 
|
On March 05 2013 03:45 farvacola wrote:
I dunno how things are in the Netherlands, but farmers, fisherman, and construction workers see a lot of sun here in the States.
Indeed, thats what I ment. Outdoor jobs tend to be poor man's jobs in a lot of countries (And most definalty were in the old days). Hence having a tan = low class.
In western Europe however having a tan is considered more healthy and beautiful. I argue that this is due to the fact that most jobs are indoors, having a tan equals a more richer lifestyle (Traveling etc).
|
On March 02 2013 23:27 Elurie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:
From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children.
Wow, you certainly err on the side of chauvinistic. Yea, taking care of kids is a "woman's job". Men only have to bring home the bacon, and sit back on the La-Z-Boy while the woman fry up the bacon too! :p
Women being the primary caretakers of children is a statement of fact, in nearly every past and present society. This is an empirical statement, and does not imply that it is a "women's job".
But of course, go ahead and rely on implications of chauvinism instead of actual rational arguments.
|
On March 03 2013 00:12 Jibba wrote:Except there's a whole lot of horse shit in evolutionary psychology. Show nested quote +Unlike art, there is substantial scientific evidence that human sexual attractiveness is objective and consistent across the vast majority of cultures. This is the part that's just patently false. First, it's not true. There are so many examples of this, where the ideal form at one time would be considered ugly today.
The vast majority of men across all cultures are attracted to women who are shorter than they are, have a youthful appearance, and exhibit features such as a symmetrical face, full breasts, full lips, and a low waist-hip ratio.
On March 03 2013 00:12 Jibba wrote:
Two, it's not scientific evidence. Judging by the rest of your posts, I think you have a scientific and statistical understanding deficiency and you're completely misunderstanding how those tools are used.
Citation needed. It's rather obvious that you're arguing based on what you believe should be true, rather than what actually is.
On March 03 2013 00:12 Jibba wrote:
People are attracted to wealth for numerous reasons and it cuts both ways. What studies regarding attractiveness have NEVER been able to cut through are cultural norms, which may in fact be the largest component in determining attractiveness. You can even see examples of this today, in some cultures where fair skin is highly preferred and others were tanned skin is highly preferred. To say there's an ideal form based on evolutionary traits is poppycock. Many fertility characteristics are actually less preferred in the 21st century, and it's because ideal attractiveness changes. The same goes for health characteristics. We have an imaginary idea of what looks healthy based on social norms, but it often doesn't translate into actual health at all.
Citation needed. A number of my posts have included empirical evidence to support them. The same cannot be said for your claims.
|
On March 03 2013 00:49 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:40 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Financial security is one of the components that makes another man a possible rival, yes. hmm, that's not a good answer. take#2 : how high would you rate money as far as your desirability to women goes?. above your genes?, physique?, education?. would you see money as a compensation for the lack of your other skills? Women are primarily attracted to social status. Wealth, physical prowess, education, and skills are simply components of that social status. Measuring their relative values is not that easy, but there's significant statistical evidence from dating sites that money absolutely plays a major role: ![[image loading]](http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/lies/MaleMessageDistributionByIncomeBright.png) On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
That's poor logical reasoning. Would you ask women whether their life goals are to pursue higher and higher physical beauty just to seem more attractive to men?
Women are attracted to financial security. This does not imply that someone who accepts this fact of reality must necessarily react by pursuing wealth for the sole purpose of attracting women, any more than women must react to men's desires by pursuing beauty for the sole purpose of attracting men. for me attraction to financial security (women) and attraction to physical beauty (men) are not the same thing or i wouldn't put them in the same boat. Your personal preferences does not change the reality of the preferences had by the majority of humans. ye sure, feed me VR statistics from people proven to lie in them. (read dAPhREAk) Except it doesn't matter whether or not they lie, because it's not a survey, it's the statistics of which men get the most messages. it's not real, it's like making surveys on people imagination then assume the results apply irl. The number of messages that people recieve are not imaginary. Nor is that data self-reported; the number of messages recieved is measured by the website's records. the age reported is a lie, the income reported is a lie, the pictures are of a younger version of themselfs = lie. i don't think i should go on since the picture is clear. All of your examples of self-reported data. Messages received, on the other hand, is not self-reported data. The only picture you see is the blindfold you deliberately put on. Take the blindfold off and take a look around, and you can easily find tons of data that corroborates the notion that women are attracted to men with wealth. Let me get you started: http://idei.fr/doc/wp/2008/genes.pdfwww.landofangels.de/py1/buss-barnes-1986.pdfhttp://www.popline.org/docs/1239/131493.htmlOn March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
besides, i'm asking here for your personal opinion on this matter. what do you think about money?, how do(if?) they compensate for the lack of (other) desirable evolutionary traits in you. I've already told you what I think the facts, empirical evidence, and science shows. If what you're asking for is normative opinions, then I'm not interested in those. empirical evidence?, facts?, science?, where?. you only have assumptions, other people assumptions, based on what is percieved to be the best for evolution. that says nothing really, or i don't get it. i know it changes but how is the change related to our evolution as a species?. you just praise aestetics and say they're good for evolution. You missed the point. I'm debunking your claim that today's beauty ideal is "media-tainted". The female beauty ideal is, and always has been, a combination of traits indicating youth, health, and fertility, all of which are evolutionarially advantageous. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticsthere was never an agreement (and never will be) about the objectiveness of beauty, especially physical one. You're giving philosophical links on the abstract nature of beauty, which is irrelevant to the discussion we're having on the biological facts of human sexual attractiveness. On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote: On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
also, i do not consider the fear of scarcity driven by a percieved competition in women to be a good enough excuse for them to prioritize money over everything else. It has nothing to do with a fear of scarcity, and everything to do with biological instincts to pursue the potential mate with the highest possible social status. Whether you think that's "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant to reality, but if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with women. it's not about social status then, it's about power as someone else already stated earlier in the thread so if money = power and women can get power(money) by themselfs, why whould they need the men with money for?. it doesn't make sense unless it's easier to get said men, then to get money by themselfs?. Yes, it's easier for women to get wealth men than it is to earn that wealth on their own, and that's part of what's going on. However, you're again missing the main point. Women are attracted to social status, of which wealth is a mere part, rather than wealth itself. And the reason they are attracted to that is not just because access to a man with high social status is advantageous, but because it is biogically advantageous to reproduce with the kind of man who attains high social status in the first place. To put it simply, men with high social status are, on average, contributing higher-quality reproductive material. Women are attracted to that as well as the ability of said men to provide for them. women can attain social status by themselfs. when that hapenss, why wouldn't beauty > social status for them too. when the power shits, your point dies. if your point is valid only in certain scenarios it means it was flawed to beggin with. Because the traits which make a man biologically successful are not the same traits that make a woman biologically successful. From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children. By contrast, the most important things for a man to pass on his genes is his ability to provide for his mate(s) and children. For a social species like humans, this is first and foremost measured by his social status. On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:49 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 06:41 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 03:16 Klogon wrote:On March 01 2013 03:08 sc4k wrote:On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote:On February 28 2013 20:00 sc4k wrote:
I guess on the optimistic side, at least getting money is something all of us can technically be doing. If all women wanted was a huge endowment, dimples or a certain height, we would be much more in uproar!
In many ways guys can be thankful that the things girls are attracted to are often things we can change and get better at. Ie confidence, skills, financial security, humour. I always thought that the people who lose out the most in life are unattractive girls. What can they fall back on? Humour, increased knowledge, confidence? Meh, I when I was single I met plenty of fat and unattractive girls who knew their ways around all my favourite shows, knew plenty of stuff and were funny. While they were good company there would be no way in hell I would ever be attracted to them physically. And I don't consider myself a particularly superficial guy. I use personality to distinguish between similarly attractive girls, but not to elevate an ugly or fat girl into being 'attractive'...which is what women do with guys all the time.
And by the way I know very few women who are just 'in it for the money', ie true gold diggers. The majority of sensible ones, quite understandably, view it as an important element of an eligible partner but definitely not the be all and end all. Suffice to say, if you accumulate plenty of cash but never actually get the rest of your personality up to scratch, you will most likely only attract the worst sort of women whom none of us should really want. How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid. I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes: unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest hot girl + bad personality = no interest unattractive girl + good personality = no interest hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this. If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part. Pretty much. If I did not care about physical/sexual attractiveness and only personality, I would be dating my best dude friends. But I don't. It matters. 'cause you are judged by other males based on the woman you are with, it's that simple. in the man vs man war, a woman beauty is just a mean to an end, it's never the end itself. if ugly women would be in style, you'd date them all. You are incredibly deluded if you think that the only reason men prefer beautiful women instead of men or ugly women is because they're "in style". Go do some research on sexual attraction and physical attractiveness before spewing any more nonsense in this thread. i agree with: "Though attempts have been made to devise objective criteria of sexual attractiveness, and even measure it as one of several bodily forms of capital asset (see erotic capital), a person's sexual attractiveness is to a large extent a subjective measure dependent on another person's interest, perception, and sexual orientation.", from wikipedia. everything standardized about what you should be attracted to, is nurture. there isn't a link proving that beauty/symetry is evolutionary required. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001201#s4"In conclusion, both objective and subjective factors intervene in determining our appreciation of an artwork. The history of art is replete with the constant tension between objective values and subjective judgments. This tension is deepened when artists discover new aesthetic parameters that may appeal for various reasons, be they related to our biological heritage, or simply to fashion or novelty. Still, the central question remains: when the fashion and novelty expire, could their work ever become a permanent patrimony of humankind without a resonance induced by some biologically inherent parameters?" Once again, you're posting bullshit red herrings about art. We're not talking about art here, we're talking about sexual attractiveness. Unlike art, there is substantial scientific evidence that human sexual attractiveness is objective and consistent across the vast majority of cultures. i'll just call you a troll and move on. i made my point. still, you should read your own links" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Social_effects"The study believes this accuracy to be subjective to the eye of the beholder."
This is a willful misinterpretation of the quote's context:
"In another study testing first impressions in 56 female and 17 male participants at University of British Columbia, personality traits of physically attractive people were identified more positively and more accurately than those who were less physically attractive. It was explained that people pay closer attention to those they find physically beautiful or attractive, and thus perceiving attractive individuals with greater distinctive accuracy. The study believes this accuracy to be subjective to the eye of the beholder."
The accuracy with which a person pays attention to attractive individuals is subjective. That does not have anything to do with physical attractiveness being subjective.
Regardless, the point you're trying to make is still wrong. Just because a few people may find old, fat hags to be attractive does not change the fact that the vast majority of people find them to be sexually repulsive. The existence of granny or BBW porn are the exceptions which proves the rule: that most men are attracted to youth and health, and the other men are outliers.
On March 03 2013 00:49 xM(Z wrote:
"Perceptions of physical attractiveness contribute to generalized assumptions based on those attractions"
"Individuals assume that when someone is beautiful, they have many other positive attributes that make the attractive person more likeable. This is also called the 'beautiful-is-good' effect"
.. and so on and so forth.
The "beautiful-is-good effect" has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. All this means is that people have a biased view towards people they find attractive, a point that I've already brought up in this thread, but which has no relevance here.
|
On March 05 2013 11:06 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 23:27 Elurie wrote:On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:
From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children.
Wow, you certainly err on the side of chauvinistic. Yea, taking care of kids is a "woman's job". Men only have to bring home the bacon, and sit back on the La-Z-Boy while the woman fry up the bacon too! :p Women being the primary caretakers of children is a statement of fact, in nearly every past and present society. This is an empirical statement, and does not imply that it is a "women's job". But of course, go ahead and rely on implications of chauvinism instead of actual rational arguments.
What women are the primary caretakers of children? Maybe you should add something like "In general" or "usually".
|
On March 03 2013 04:08 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 03:28 Kyrillion wrote:
I don't see your point. A man expressing his desire for a woman with money won't be judged ? It's not the same. Men don't have the nagging thought of having to lose half a decade, to a decade of their lives career wise if they want to raise a family. Women make that monetary sacrifice.
That is such a generalization. I know plenty of women who are the breadwinners married to stay at home dads.
So if a male want to start a family and be at home with the kid just as much as the female partner or even more then why is it any different?
|
On March 05 2013 11:27 Blurbs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 11:06 sunprince wrote:On March 02 2013 23:27 Elurie wrote:On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:
From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children.
Wow, you certainly err on the side of chauvinistic. Yea, taking care of kids is a "woman's job". Men only have to bring home the bacon, and sit back on the La-Z-Boy while the woman fry up the bacon too! :p Women being the primary caretakers of children is a statement of fact, in nearly every past and present society. This is an empirical statement, and does not imply that it is a "women's job". But of course, go ahead and rely on implications of chauvinism instead of actual rational arguments. What women are the primary caretakers of children? Maybe you should add something like "In general" or "usually".
I don't think you understand what the word "primary" in "primary caretakers" means. In this sense, "primary" means predominant, i.e. "men are the primary victims of workplace casualties" or "african americans are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action".
|
On March 05 2013 11:58 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 11:27 Blurbs wrote:On March 05 2013 11:06 sunprince wrote:On March 02 2013 23:27 Elurie wrote:On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:
From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children.
Wow, you certainly err on the side of chauvinistic. Yea, taking care of kids is a "woman's job". Men only have to bring home the bacon, and sit back on the La-Z-Boy while the woman fry up the bacon too! :p Women being the primary caretakers of children is a statement of fact, in nearly every past and present society. This is an empirical statement, and does not imply that it is a "women's job". But of course, go ahead and rely on implications of chauvinism instead of actual rational arguments. What women are the primary caretakers of children? Maybe you should add something like "In general" or "usually". I don't think you understand what the word "primary" in "primary caretakers" means. In this sense, "primary" means predominant, i.e. "men are the primary victims of workplace casualties" or "african americans are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action".
I understand now but ...
"as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children."
... is very unclear since many men have to be the primary caretaker in their families.
|
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
While some of the general points you've made are semi-accurate, I don't think you have an understanding of basic evolution to properly support your statements. For instance, you assume that women have evolved to see money as a defining characteristic of men that can be linked to proper offspring care. Additionally, while men may be physically attracted to a female, its not necessarily because he is biologically wired to relate having sex with the production of attractive/fit offspring (and eventually offspring of their own). I wish I had time to go in-depth in my explanation but you should take a look at the wikipedia article for secondary sex characteristics in mate selection as a starting point.
|
On March 05 2013 13:02 Blurbs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 11:58 sunprince wrote:On March 05 2013 11:27 Blurbs wrote:On March 05 2013 11:06 sunprince wrote:On March 02 2013 23:27 Elurie wrote:On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:
From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children.
Wow, you certainly err on the side of chauvinistic. Yea, taking care of kids is a "woman's job". Men only have to bring home the bacon, and sit back on the La-Z-Boy while the woman fry up the bacon too! :p Women being the primary caretakers of children is a statement of fact, in nearly every past and present society. This is an empirical statement, and does not imply that it is a "women's job". But of course, go ahead and rely on implications of chauvinism instead of actual rational arguments. What women are the primary caretakers of children? Maybe you should add something like "In general" or "usually". I don't think you understand what the word "primary" in "primary caretakers" means. In this sense, "primary" means predominant, i.e. "men are the primary victims of workplace casualties" or "african americans are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action". I understand now but ...
"as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children."... is very unclear since many men have to be the primary caretaker in their families.
On an evolutionary timescale, the vast majority of primary caretakers in that sense were women. So regardless of how you choose to interpret it, my meaning should still make logical sense in the context of my post.
But yes, my mistake for choosing ambiguous wording, hope that's clear now.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On March 05 2013 13:16 RHGaming wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on. While some of the general points you've made are semi-accurate, I don't think you have an understanding of basic evolution to properly support your statements. For instance, you assume that women have evolved to see money as a defining characteristic of men that can be linked to proper offspring care.
Women didn't evolve to see money as a defining characteristic. Money pays the bills, the food, the house, the car, puts the kids through school. Money is just a determining factor towards what you are able to have in this world.
10 000 years ago it was the guy that constantly brought home the meat and knew how to survive best in the wilderness. The female that lived with him was constantly clothed with animal skin, fed sufficient nutrition, and her kids had the highest chances of survival.
There are many characteristics that obviously go before money. What I'm saying is why is it wrong to have money as "one" of the characteristics.
Additionally, while men may be physically attracted to a female, its not necessarily because he is biologically wired to relate having sex with the production of attractive/fit offspring (and eventually offspring of their own). I wish I had time to go in-depth in my explanation but you should take a look at the wikipedia article for secondary sex characteristics in mate selection as a starting point.
No but being very physically attracted to a female has a lot of biological benefits in terms of more sex. More sex leads to more offspring.
|
This thread has been simply about the biological side of all this, but I'm very sure when I say that there is more to look at than just biological. A lot of the biological look we have is circumstancial, and neglects other sides of why money is attractive. The biological side seems to be very popular here, but cognitive reasons and cultural (societal too) reasons also have an enormous effect. For instance, in societies that don't have money, women can't find men who have more money attractive, so therefore something must be there too (or societies that had existed without money). Furthermore, from a cognitive standpoint, there are other reasons to be attached to a male that makes money, such as percieved ability or other things that women find attractive in men. This isn't all about ensuring off spring, and, in a lot of cases for attractiveness, what humans find attractive has changed so immensely from the times that the biological ideas make sense that I don't know if we make more of them than we should.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On March 05 2013 21:45 docvoc wrote:
For instance, in societies that don't have money, women can't find men who have more money attractive, so therefore something must be there too (or societies that had existed without money).
In my OP I was talking about money / wealth. Money in today's society is "paper", but money in the other societies can be jewels / gold / large amounts of farm land / a lot of live stock.
It's the same concept. The guy with 1000 cows is obviously "wealthy" in a society where money doesn't exist. His assets produce milk / meat. He can trade his milk, meat, cows (this is what money does) for whatever material possessions he can afford in such society.
I have a hard time believing a guy that owns 1000 cows in that society wouldn't be "attractive".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
