Evolution making women more beautiful, men remain as ugly as ever

Started by jimmy olsen, August 10, 2009, 12:12:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions

DontSayBanana

#30
August 10, 2009, 03:00:05 PM
I hate to be the bearer of "well, duh" news, but attractive women probably have more kids because they get laid more often.
Experience bij!

saskganesh

#31
August 10, 2009, 03:06:35 PM
beauty is a social definition that varies by era. smarter people have already pointed this out, some in this very thread.
humans were created in their own image

Valmy

#32
August 10, 2009, 04:00:11 PM
That doesn't make any freaking sense...why would the attractive women only have attractive girls...why wouldn't their sons also be attractive?
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Valmy

#33
August 10, 2009, 04:02:25 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on August 10, 2009, 03:06:35 PM
beauty is a social definition that varies by era.

The most desireable beauty traits sure...I think what is ugly remains pretty constant.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Valmy

#34
August 10, 2009, 04:04:20 PM
Quote from: Josephus on August 10, 2009, 02:44:10 PM
In other words, 50 years ago women "with a figure"...or a bit on the plump side, would be more attractive then than today's skinny women. Hair styles affect our perception of beauty as well. As do other things.

More attractive yes...but not unattractive.  People still like girls with a figure...they just won't be on the cover of fashion mags.  But it is not like you are either hero or zero here people.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

jimmy olsen

#35
August 10, 2009, 04:04:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2009, 04:02:25 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on August 10, 2009, 03:06:35 PM
beauty is a social definition that varies by era.

The most desireable beauty traits sure...I think what is ugly remains pretty constant.
Isn't it all about symmetry at the most basic level?
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Malthus

#36
August 10, 2009, 04:06:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 10, 2009, 04:04:26 PM

Isn't it all about symmetry at the most basic level?

A 600 pound woman can be perfectly symmetrical ...  ;)
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Valmy

#37
August 10, 2009, 04:06:13 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 10, 2009, 04:04:26 PM
Isn't it all about symmetry at the most basic level?

I think there are a few universal human traits all cultures agree are physically attractive.  If I recall they are things like youth, healthy skin, and perhaps the symmetry thing...
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

garbon

#38
August 10, 2009, 04:07:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2009, 04:00:11 PM
That doesn't make any freaking sense...why would the attractive women only have attractive girls...why wouldn't their sons also be attractive?

Berkut touched upon that. Also as a real life example, Angelina and her brother. Very similar features that some find beautiful on Angelina, but few find beautiful on her brother.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

swallow

#39
August 10, 2009, 04:14:17 PM
Or it could be that the girls who wanted lots of babies got down to making themselves look attractive, while the girls with other things on their minds concentrated their efforts elsewhere.  Relative attractiveness in school photos might also tie in with earlier puberty

Martinus

#40
August 11, 2009, 02:13:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2009, 01:50:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2009, 01:31:09 PM
That'd because handsome men are gay and do not pass their genes. :P

This also explains why gay men care about their looks and gay women don't - everybody knows their audience. :P

I don't think all gay men care about their looks...

You do realize that generalizations are not supposed to be true for every single representative of some category, but rather to denote certain trends and tendencies, right?

Martinus

#41
August 11, 2009, 02:16:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2009, 04:00:11 PM
That doesn't make any freaking sense...why would the attractive women only have attractive girls...why wouldn't their sons also be attractive?

I think it means that natural selection will select for attractive women and not necessarily for attractive men. Which means the genes of attractive men will not necessarily get passed that much more often, thus keeping the number of attractive men at the same level.

garbon

#42
August 11, 2009, 02:37:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 11, 2009, 02:13:22 AM
You do realize that generalizations are not supposed to be true for every single representative of some category, but rather to denote certain trends and tendencies, right?

Yeah but your generalizations about gays are always fucked up and stupid. You hardly know any civilized gays.  Watching Queer As Folk does not make you a credible source on gays.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Ideologue

#43
August 11, 2009, 05:31:14 AM
I share Malthus, Berkut and Josephus' qualms with the method.

I wonder, however, about how attractive women being knocked up more often would affect the males who, naturally, will be produced roughly 50% of the time from their mothers' harlotry.

If attractive women are so because of genes which express the feminine attributes found attractive in women by men, wouldn't it be the case that the instance of men expressing the same traits--I'm thinking particularly skeletal structure--would increase as well, increasing the "femininity" of subsequent males?
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

Valmy

#44
August 11, 2009, 07:48:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 11, 2009, 02:16:28 AM
I think it means that natural selection will select for attractive women and not necessarily for attractive men. Which means the genes of attractive men will not necessarily get passed that much more often, thus keeping the number of attractive men at the same level.

Are the genes that make women attractive different genes?  Why wouldn't the father's ugly genes also make his daughters ugly?  Why wouldn't the mother's attractive genes make her sons attractive?
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions