|
Fat
Sept 30, 2009 5:36:41 GMT -5
Post by catgirl on Sept 30, 2009 5:36:41 GMT -5
Its true that men tend to like women with small waists, pretty looking, smaller than them. And women like tall (or taller) men with high incomes ;D
I also heard that both men and women tend to choose mates that have about the same beauty rate as themselves. So chubby women want chubby men and vice versa? Or it can be other factors about their looks.
Men with high testosterone levels tend to be more attracted to women with high estrogen levels = small waists (usually) and vice versa.
Women with high estrogen levels are said to be serial monogamists, like always having a boyfriend or something like that (not one night stands!)
Fat men produce more estrogen, so maybe it decreases their chance for the small waisted women to choose them?
|
|
|
Fat
Sept 30, 2009 9:47:35 GMT -5
Post by milkman's baby on Sept 30, 2009 9:47:35 GMT -5
Of the two of those, I would say the tall man beauty standard is more primitive and natural than the lean woman standard. It's rather recent (within the last couple hundred years?) that women were expected to be thin, whereas I can only assume tallness in a man was ALWAYS desirable, especially in hunter-gatherer cultures. Let's think about desirable. When you think of desire, you think of fitness. When you examine fitness, you must examine environment. Modern humans are no longer under the same pressures as hunter gatherer societies--and when they were, environment did not always favor tallness. The very fact that we have disorders such as giantism go to show that there has always been a such thing as being too tall, and after a particular height, it is no longer attractive. True, a tall man, like a blond man, would run the risk of being spotted easily by predators (other humans and large, carnivorous animals). Nevertheless, tallness was also associated with physical maturity. Physical maturity, before it becomes geriatric, is associated with good health. Perhaps some cultures had different standards for what constitutes tall, but I still think the taller man in the group would have always been seen as more attractive. On the flip side of that, studies have also shown that men are instinctively attracted to blonde women with blue eyes, because the fair features are characteristic of youth. A woman's good health was always marked by youthful features, while a man's were marked by maturity (without being downright old and decrepit). Our beauty ideals today have become rather distanced from primitive reality so facial hair on men isn't quite that popular today, but a scruffy beard by unofficial protocols of nature is attractive on a man.
|
|
|
Fat
Sept 30, 2009 12:20:01 GMT -5
Post by rob on Sept 30, 2009 12:20:01 GMT -5
Of the two of those, I would say the tall man beauty standard is more primitive and natural than the lean woman standard. It's rather recent (within the last couple hundred years?) that women were expected to be thin, whereas I can only assume tallness in a man was ALWAYS desirable, especially in hunter-gatherer cultures. Let's think about desirable. When you think of desire, you think of fitness. When you examine fitness, you must examine environment. Modern humans are no longer under the same pressures as hunter gatherer societies--and when they were, environment did not always favor tallness. In anthropology, two rules govern human body size and proportions: Bergmann's rule: The body mass to surface area ratio of humans and other mammals increases with colder climates. (heat storage capacity) Allen's rule: Height and shape of appendages with conform to minimize the surface area in colder climates. (rate of heat loss) So if humans in cold climates were to grow in height, they would would also have to grow in mass (fat) and reduce their surface area (short appendages) to not be at an greater disadvantage. g [/img][/quote] ... then how do you explain a$s hair? Why does it exist?
|
|
|
Fat
Oct 1, 2009 2:54:41 GMT -5
Post by Subuatai on Oct 1, 2009 2:54:41 GMT -5
Blonde hair and blue eyes? Pffft. To each his own I guess. Do note that many beauty standards are far from universal however. And a lot of such "attractions" has to do with social bias from media; for example from what I've seen of Anglo-American and Australian culture, having a typical blonde barbie-type girl is more of a social trophy then let's say, unfortunately, a black woman. Personally I prefer to go for what I like, not what society says I should like. During my youth however, I remember not being able to introduce my 2nd girlfriend to my mates as she was 'aboriginal'. The few I eventually introduced her to, put me in total social disfavor and spread quite a lot of racist comments behind our backs. Racism is just part of Anglo culture I guess. My point is, society can inspire a particular look, which may even transcend one's own individual tastes if it conflicts with social/cultural tastes. catgirlI've always prefered a woman I can stand side by side with, look eye to eye with. The most elevation she should need to kiss me is a tip toe, no more then that. This preference is consistent with all my cousin brothers as well. Maybe this is a cultural trait, traditionally in steppe culture older or strong women are prefered as wives.
|
|
|
Fat
Oct 1, 2009 7:48:42 GMT -5
Post by milkman's baby on Oct 1, 2009 7:48:42 GMT -5
Personally I prefer to go for what I like, not what society says I should like. During my youth however, I remember not being able to introduce my 2nd girlfriend to my mates as she was 'aboriginal'. The few I eventually introduced her to, put me in total social disfavor and spread quite a lot of racist comments behind our backs. Racism is just part of Anglo culture I guess. Weird how some people care so much about who their friends date, as if the appearance of that friend's SO is going to affect their own friendship. I have many friends who are very racist toward black people, but I don't think they'd give a damn if I dated a black guy. They might tease me about it, but they wouldn't get angry over it or stop talking to me. The family is usually the one to display discontent with those situations.
|
|
|
Fat
Oct 1, 2009 10:52:51 GMT -5
Post by palaver on Oct 1, 2009 10:52:51 GMT -5
The hairs on your ass means you're a Neanderthal--that your ancestors spent to much time butt-naked in cold climates. The very fact that we have disorders such as giantism go to show that there has always been a such thing as being too tall, and after a particular height, it is no longer attractive. Gigantism is a pituitary disorder. Due to circulatory and skeletal health problems associated with the disease, they usually have shorter life spans along with physical handicaps. In this case, the ability to successfully produce offspring would be inhibited more by health than attraction. Great Danes, for example, have a short life span and suffer from much of the same health problems that afflict people with gigantism. Great Danes, however, are not a product of natural selection but of selective breeding. Unlike many other dog breeds, they are unfit to survive even as scavengers. Tall, emaciated, asymmetrical, and poor? Decisions on attraction are made within context and weighted accordingly. There are some adaptions that benefit the individual, but harm the species overall. Examples include the plumage on peacocks or the hammerheads on hammerhead sharks. Because of the mating/status game, the peacock lacks camouflage and the hammerhead has inhibited his swim characteristic--and so they must demonstrate greater fitness in other areas. But these are animals living in natural environments. For modern humans, selection is more social in nature.
|
|
|
Fat
Oct 1, 2009 14:04:48 GMT -5
Post by catgirl on Oct 1, 2009 14:04:48 GMT -5
Let's think about desirable. When you think of desire, you think of fitness. When you examine fitness, you must examine environment. Modern humans are no longer under the same pressures as hunter gatherer societies--and when they were, environment did not always favor tallness. The very fact that we have disorders such as giantism go to show that there has always been a such thing as being too tall, and after a particular height, it is no longer attractive. True, a tall man, like a blond man, would run the risk of being spotted easily by predators (other humans and large, carnivorous animals). Nevertheless, tallness was also associated with physical maturity. Physical maturity, before it becomes geriatric, is associated with good health. Perhaps some cultures had different standards for what constitutes tall, but I still think the taller man in the group would have always been seen as more attractive. On the flip side of that, studies have also shown that men are instinctively attracted to blonde women with blue eyes, because the fair features are characteristic of youth. A woman's good health was always marked by youthful features, while a man's were marked by maturity (without being downright old and decrepit). Our beauty ideals today have become rather distanced from primitive reality so facial hair on men isn't quite that popular today, but a scruffy beard by unofficial protocols of nature is attractive on a man. I think its more like blonde or lighter hair and lighter skin, because this represents youth. Not blue eyes??? I havent heard that anyway. On the other hand this is true for nearly all cultures, because estrogen (again!) makes the skin lighter, and men (no matter what culture) are attracted to these "feminine" features. So black men for example are usually darker than their female relatives. Animals usually have lighter fur when they are younger, that darken with age. I read in some articles that men are just slightly more attracted to blondes on average, but brunettes are not far behind. Redheads are least attractive, so they say. But you cant just go by hair alone can you? There is a face there too! Long legs are attractive because it signals youth, during puberty the legs grow quicker and one is slimmer etc.
|
|
|
Fat
Oct 1, 2009 14:16:34 GMT -5
Post by catgirl on Oct 1, 2009 14:16:34 GMT -5
Blonde hair and blue eyes? Pffft. To each his own I guess. Do note that many beauty standards are far from universal however. And a lot of such "attractions" has to do with social bias from media; for example from what I've seen of Anglo-American and Australian culture, having a typical blonde barbie-type girl is more of a social trophy then let's say, unfortunately, a black woman. Personally I prefer to go for what I like, not what society says I should like. During my youth however, I remember not being able to introduce my 2nd girlfriend to my mates as she was 'aboriginal'. The few I eventually introduced her to, put me in total social disfavor and spread quite a lot of racist comments behind our backs. Racism is just part of Anglo culture I guess. My point is, society can inspire a particular look, which may even transcend one's own individual tastes if it conflicts with social/cultural tastes. catgirlI've always prefered a woman I can stand side by side with, look eye to eye with. The most elevation she should need to kiss me is a tip toe, no more then that. This preference is consistent with all my cousin brothers as well. Maybe this is a cultural trait, traditionally in steppe culture older or strong women are prefered as wives. Or same height I assume isn't the same as if the man were smaller and woman taller. Many tall women and short men have trouble finding a partner and some may have bad esteem because of this. But ofcourse there are exceptions!
|
|
|
Fat
Oct 1, 2009 14:37:33 GMT -5
Post by Subuatai on Oct 1, 2009 14:37:33 GMT -5
milkman's babyErm, it's not all their fault actually. The point I was trying to make was that social favor can determine one's preferences despite his/her own individual tastes. You want to be proud of walking down the street with your bf/gf, not be the subject of ridicule. 'Aboriginal' women unless they are mixed and look Anglo tend to be very much disregarded. As such this shameful Anglo attitude of mine in my youth I ended up rejecting as I grew older. catgirlPlease, beauty standards in western countries do not represent universal preference. I'm hoping someone from an Asian country would step forward and post a rebuttal in this. Heh that's true, you're right I guess. Similar height is one thing, a taller woman and a shorter man is another. One of my mates in the past had a cousin sister who is 6'1, she ends up having to arch her back because her height is intimidating. I tried to hook her up with one of my single cousins who is 6'5 but he speaks extremely poor (and funny) English. To be honest I find this rather sad actually.
|
|
|
Fat
Oct 1, 2009 16:02:43 GMT -5
Post by milkman's baby on Oct 1, 2009 16:02:43 GMT -5
Please, beauty standards in western countries do not represent universal preference. I'm hoping someone from an Asian country would step forward and post a rebuttal in this. The pitiful truth is, it's usually folks from Asian countries that buy into the "white is right" beauty standard the most, especially the more homogeneous northeast countries (northern China, the Koreas, Japan). Pale skin, big eyes, light hair - come on, don't act like you don't know this is popular out there. This is part of the reason why Asians have a history of racial tension with black people in the US. They never liked dark skin. Don't shoot the messenger, though. I'm just spitting out what I've read from "experts" and what I've observed in social settings. As for the blonde business, here it is: www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-natureRead for yourself.
|
|
|
Fat
Oct 2, 2009 6:40:33 GMT -5
Post by Subuatai on Oct 2, 2009 6:40:33 GMT -5
Yes I am fully aware of certain preferences that some folk do indeed have.
However from my travels around Asia early this year I found myself rather disappointed. The preferences you have brought forward (in which in the past I would have actually agreed to) - turned out to be a minority amongst Asians.
Some findings perhaps, were more 'consistent' with my past impression of East Asians. Notably the South Koreans, Japanese, as well as past-colonised countries in SE Asia. The Japanese I have met however argued that the preferences for big eyes and light hair amongst their youth is due to the desire to be akin to Anime characters. I don't know whether to believe those specifics however, nonetheless it can also be said that one shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the social phenomenom brought about by K-POP and Anime as well.
Nonetheless my impression of Asians nowadays is very different to what I've seen of the Asian-Australians here or Asian-Americans I've seen on the net (A rather 'interesting' bunch amongst the youth I must add)
|
|
|
Fat
Oct 2, 2009 17:26:30 GMT -5
Post by catgirl on Oct 2, 2009 17:26:30 GMT -5
I think you misunderstood. The lighter skin for women than men included all races, as they said in the study that estrogen made skin lighter in women than their male counterparts. It does not mean WHITE skin, just lighter skin in men than women. But I assume its just a GENERAL thing, and not true for all.
My mum always comments that the black women on Ricky Lake are lighter than the men, so maybe its the reason?
|
|
|
Fat
Oct 2, 2009 17:43:37 GMT -5
Post by catgirl on Oct 2, 2009 17:43:37 GMT -5
I think there is a universal beauty standard: what people are programmed to find attractive (on one side), and a cultural beauty standard: whats fashionable now (on the other side), like fat, thin, white, black, super big boobs etc
|
|
|
Fat
Oct 2, 2009 18:16:23 GMT -5
Post by Groink on Oct 2, 2009 18:16:23 GMT -5
What, huh? Hello? What'd I miss?
|
|
|
Fat
Oct 2, 2009 20:39:27 GMT -5
Post by milkman's baby on Oct 2, 2009 20:39:27 GMT -5
I think you misunderstood. The lighter skin for women than men included all races, as they said in the study that estrogen made skin lighter in women than their male counterparts. It does not mean WHITE skin, just lighter skin in men than women. But I assume its just a GENERAL thing, and not true for all. My mum always comments that the black women on Ricky Lake are lighter than the men, so maybe its the reason? I don't know, the article did claim that all areas of the planet find blondes attractive. But yes, you are definitely right about the lighter skinned women phenomena. I've actually had many of my black friends tell me they could never date a man lighter-skinned than them, because it would make them feel masculine in comparison. lol Odd thing is, some of these girls are actually pretty intelligent otherwise. But skin shade is a far bigger deal amongst the black community than for white people.
|
|