I'm dubious, why is it a function of evolution in women but merely social effects with men?
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/27/women-attractiveness-study-markets-faces-science.html
QuoteBeauty Fades? Ha!
Parmy Olson, 07.27.09, 01:10 PM EDT
A new study shows evolution is making women more attractive over time. Men, not so much.
LONDON -- Women are apparently becoming more attractive over time, and it's not because plastic surgery has become more popular or men are drinking more beer.
A study by the University of Helsinki has found that women are actually becoming more beautiful over time, thanks to the evolutionary process. University researcher Markus Jokela collected his data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, a long-term examination of a random sampling of 10,317 men and women who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957.
Nearly five decades later, people in a separate survey were asked to look at the yearbook photos of around 3,250 of the Wisconsin participants and rate them as attractive or extremely attractive, on a scale of 1 to 11. The women who were rated attractive on average had 16% more children than their less-attractive counterparts.
There was less of a discrepancy when it came to men. The least-attractive men simply tended to have fewer children than their more-attractive counterparts, but Jokela suggests that might have more to do with the social effects of finding a spouse than evolution.
Why is beauty increasing in women over generations? It may come as no surprise to some that physical attractiveness is more important to men than to women. "Women's attractiveness functions as a marker or signal of fecundity and gives some indication about health," Jokela explains. "Men, when they are selecting a mate, are more interested in physical attractiveness in women."
Jokela's study suggests that even as attractive women tend to have more children than their plainer peers, more-attractive men tend to have more daughters than sons. The cycle thus continues over time, suggesting that modeling agencies in the year 3000 will have a glut of applicants and cosmetic surgery will be a more-subtle affair, if it exists at all. "The effect is very small and over several generations," says Jokela.
Some caveats to consider: Jokela's study is based mainly on white high-school graduates from a single U.S. state; also, the study rated "attractiveness" in photographs, so it couldn't take into account things like voice and general mannerisms. Even so, it suggests that women today have a lot less to complain about in terms of what they inherit physically than their ancestors did.
So attractive women are defined by the number of kids they pop out? :yeahright:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 10, 2009, 01:02:13 PM
So attractive women are defined by the number of kids they pop out? :yeahright:
G.
QuoteNearly five decades later, people in a separate survey were asked to look at the yearbook photos of around 3,250 of the Wisconsin participants and rate them as attractive or extremely attractive, on a scale of 1 to 11
He even bolded it for you.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 10, 2009, 12:12:02 PM
Jokela's study suggests that even as attractive women tend to have more children than their plainer peers, more-attractive men tend to have more daughters than sons
Other studies have concluded the opposite. Women are more likely to give birth to males when the father is extremely attractive, and females if he is unattractive. An alpha male is likely to have the opportunity to pass on his genes many times, but even an ugly female will find someone to reproduce with.
Quoteon a scale of 1 to 11
:bleeding:
Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2009, 01:03:57 PM
Quoteon a scale of 1 to 11
:bleeding:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gossipgamers.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F06%2F10-8-08-spinal-tap.jpg&hash=f5922b7397e482549ceaf65d9a34ff0fc32ffc16)
Make up and plastic surgery are making women more attractive. For men, as always, it's money that makes them more attractive :p
*edit* lol, "men", not "me" :D
That'd because handsome men are gay and do not pass their genes. :P
Anyway, I haven't read the article but I disagree that men are uglier than women - quite the contrary. Women however know better how to keep their looks (because men are largely focused on looks so that's the way to keep the men interested) while straight men let themselves go after they marry and get a child (because then the woman can't just leave them despite them becoming nasty slobs).
This also explains why gay men care about their looks and gay women don't - everybody knows their audience. :P
Smells like bullshit to me.
Observable evolutionary change in humans over 50 years? That sounds pretty damn fast.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 10, 2009, 12:12:02 PM
Jokela's study suggests that even as attractive women tend to have more children than their plainer peers, more-attractive men tend to have more daughters than sons
:huh:
So attractiveness in men is linked to having more/faster sperm with x-chromosomes? :yeahright:
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...
Quote from: Jacob on August 10, 2009, 01:45:24 PM
Observable evolutionary change in humans over 50 years? That sounds pretty damn fast.
The experiment was not designed to capture evolutionary change itself, it was designed to capture a mechanism of evolutionary change.
Quote from: Jacob on August 10, 2009, 01:45:24 PM
Observable evolutionary change in humans over 50 years? That sounds pretty damn fast.
Well, it can happen but usually it takes something like a plague to do that. Sex selection is powerful but not that powerful. For example blue eyes are only 6,000-10,000 years old.
However this theory finally gives us an explanation why the women in Crusader Kings are so damn ugly.
ehh.....I'd agree with their conclusion but the way they got to it sounds very iffy.
Quote from: Grallon on August 10, 2009, 01:02:13 PM
So attractive women are defined by the number of kids they pop out? :yeahright:
G.
no, they are defined by the number of kids that manage to reproduce :dawkins:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 10, 2009, 01:52:15 PM
However this theory finally gives us an explanation why the women in Crusader Kings are so damn ugly.
:lol:
It's funny because it's true
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 10, 2009, 01:51:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 10, 2009, 01:45:24 PM
Observable evolutionary change in humans over 50 years? That sounds pretty damn fast.
The experiment was not designed to capture evolutionary change itself, it was designed to capture a mechanism of evolutionary change.
What they did was take a single data point - that women labelled as "attractive" in a single survey had, as point of historic fact, slightly more children than women labelled "not attractive" - and extrapolated most mightily from that.
Interesting that the class they chose was from 1957. Perhaps it is worth noting that the ethos of late 1950s Wisconsin towards such matters as feminine beauty and child-rearing is not a universal norm ... for example, I highly doubt that a similar survey in 1967 (a mere decade later) would of necessity produce the same results: attitudes towards such topics as feminism and the pill would correlate more potently with numbers of children than beauty, I suspect ... and in 1857, the class and rural/urban status of the woman at issue.
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2009, 02:03:56 PM
What they did was take a single data point - that women labelled as "attractive" in a single survey had, as point of historic fact, slightly more children than women labelled "not attractive" - and extrapolated most mightily from that.
Interesting that the class they chose was from 1957. Perhaps it is worth noting that the ethos of late 1950s Wisconsin towards such matters as feminine beauty and child-rearing is not a universal norm ... for example, I highly doubt that a similar survey in 1967 (a mere decade later) would of necessity produce the same results: attitudes towards such topics as feminism and the pill would correlate more potently with numbers of children than beauty, I suspect ... and in 1857, the class and rural/urban status of the woman at issue.
I didn't see any extrapolation in the article, mighty or otherwise.
Whether this observation is robust is for future testing to determine, of course. That's how science works.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 10, 2009, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2009, 02:03:56 PM
What they did was take a single data point - that women labelled as "attractive" in a single survey had, as point of historic fact, slightly more children than women labelled "not attractive" - and extrapolated most mightily from that.
Interesting that the class they chose was from 1957. Perhaps it is worth noting that the ethos of late 1950s Wisconsin towards such matters as feminine beauty and child-rearing is not a universal norm ... for example, I highly doubt that a similar survey in 1967 (a mere decade later) would of necessity produce the same results: attitudes towards such topics as feminism and the pill would correlate more potently with numbers of children than beauty, I suspect ... and in 1857, the class and rural/urban status of the woman at issue.
I didn't see any extrapolation in the article, mighty or otherwise.
Whether this observation is robust is for future testing to determine, of course. That's how science works.
:huh:
The whole article was a giant case study in extrapolation. They took one data point and simply announced that it was constant over time, without the smallest shred of proof that this was the case.
QuoteWomen are apparently becoming more attractive over time, and it's not because plastic surgery has become more popular or men are drinking more beer.
A study by the University of Helsinki has found that women are actually becoming more beautiful over time, thanks to the evolutionary process.
...
QuoteJokela's study suggests that even as attractive women tend to have more children than their plainer peers, more-attractive men tend to have more daughters than sons. The cycle thus continues over time, suggesting that modeling agencies in the year 3000 will have a glut of applicants and cosmetic surgery will be a more-subtle affair, if it exists at all. "The effect is very small and over several generations," says Jokela.
The effect extends"... over several generations"? Really? Is there even the slightest bit of evidence cited that this is true?
Doesn't basic evolutionary theory suggest that if a trait results in a 16% increase in children it would be an effect that would be extend "...over several generations" even if the effect is "very small"?
I could see a critique of their methodology as being not representative - I don't understand your objection based on the conclusion not following from the observed data. IE, I think you can argue that their data sucks, but if their data is accurate, it would seem that their conclusion is not all that extrapolative.
However, I suspect that extrapolative may not be a word. It should be though.
You're right Malthus, the Forbe's writer did not qualify his statements very much.
Evolution might as well give women a tramp stamp, since it seems every goddamned woman has one nowadays.
Save everybody the time,money and pain.
Even if we assume beautiful women have more children, it doesn't follow that women will become more beautiful and men won't. They'd still have a normal assortment of boys and girls and the boys would inherit traits from their beautiful mothers.
The article mentioned a correlation between good-looking fathers and greater proportion of daughters but I'm quite skeptical.
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 02:28:22 PM
Doesn't basic evolutionary theory suggest that if a trait results in a 16% increase in children it would be an effect that would be extend "...over several generations" even if the effect is "very small"?
I could see a critique of their methodology as being not representative - I don't understand your objection based on the conclusion not following from the observed data. IE, I think you can argue that their data sucks, but if their data is accurate, it would seem that their conclusion is not all that extrapolative.
However, I suspect that extrapolative may not be a word. It should be though.
It's a single data point. There is no evidence that what was true in 1957 would also be true in 1967 or 2007 (or
was true in 1857, much less 1957 B.C.). Indeed, the advent of feminism and the pill most probably paid hob with the demographics - suddenly attractive women were fucking like crazy and having no kids at all; just as in former times, ugly farm wives were having kids by the litter ...
It is the same objection as is raised to those making sweeping conclusions from and single demographic bit of data. "OMG! the birth rate for 2006 in Barrie, Ont. is down 3% from 2005! At this rate, in 2300 the last human will die out!"
Well, no ... not necessarily. It
could be the case that the rate goes up and down in accordance with changes in fashion and society, is not constant over time and place, etc.
Similarly, the fact that a single year-cohort in a single state of the union had more kids when "attractive" doesn't mean that all women everywhere over time are more likely to have more kids when attractive. The evidence that it happened
once doesn't at all prove the thesis.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2009, 02:36:17 PM
Even if we assume beautiful women have more children, it doesn't follow that women will become more beautiful and men won't.
It does if the traits that make men attractive to women and women attractive to men are not the same traits, or if there set of those traits does not have a complete overlap.
If genes A-L determine "attractiveness" for women to men, and genes G-R determine attractiveness for men to women, then it could certainly be the case that attractive women having more children could, over time, create more attractive women while not creating more attractive men (or at least not as measurably).
Of course, this assumes that "attractiveness" is a strictly biological function, rather than cultural, which is something of a whopper of an assumption (which Malthus already pointed out).
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2009, 02:39:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 02:28:22 PM
Doesn't basic evolutionary theory suggest that if a trait results in a 16% increase in children it would be an effect that would be extend "...over several generations" even if the effect is "very small"?
I could see a critique of their methodology as being not representative - I don't understand your objection based on the conclusion not following from the observed data. IE, I think you can argue that their data sucks, but if their data is accurate, it would seem that their conclusion is not all that extrapolative.
However, I suspect that extrapolative may not be a word. It should be though.
It's a single data point. There is no evidence that what was true in 1957 would also be true in 1967 or 2007 (or was true in 1857, much less 1957 B.C.). Indeed, the advent of feminism and the pill most probably paid hob with the demographics - suddenly attractive women were fucking like crazy and having no kids at all; just as in former times, ugly farm wives were having kids by the litter ...
It is the same objection as is raised to those making sweeping conclusions from and single demographic bit of data. "OMG! the birth rate for 2006 in Barrie, Ont. is down 3% from 2005! At this rate, in 2300 the last human will die out!"
Well, no ... not necessarily. It could be the case that the rate goes up and down in accordance with changes in fashion and society, is not constant over time and place, etc.
Similarly, the fact that a single year-cohort in a single state of the union had more kids when "attractive" doesn't mean that all women everywhere over time are more likely to have more kids when attractive. The evidence that it happened once doesn't at all prove the thesis.
No argument from me - I find the data set rather suspect as well.
Quote from: Jacob on August 10, 2009, 01:45:24 PM
Observable evolutionary change in humans over 50 years? That sounds pretty damn fast.
Well, it's not really a significant change, and calling it 'evolution' is probably overstating things. Cosmetic changes in animals can happen very quickly. Just look at the sorts of wacky shapes we can twist dogs into.
The argument, to me, falls apart, because the study only asked people TODAY to rate women from 50 years ago.
Beauty does evolve, but it does so in the eye of the beholder as well.
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.
I havent' seen any of these pictures, but my belief is if you get these women from the 50s and "modernize" them somewhat, they'd probably be as beautiful.
Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 02:40:14 PM
It does if the traits that make men attractive to women and women attractive to men are not the same traits, or if there set of those traits does not have a complete overlap.
If genes A-L determine "attractiveness" for women to men, and genes G-R determine attractiveness for men to women, then it could certainly be the case that attractive women having more children could, over time, create more attractive women while not creating more attractive men (or at least not as measurably).
Of course, this assumes that "attractiveness" is a strictly biological function, rather than cultural, which is something of a whopper of an assumption (which Malthus already pointed out).
Ok, you're right in a sense. It's likely to produce more Colin Farrells and less Robert Mitchums.
I hate to be the bearer of "well, duh" news, but attractive women probably have more kids because they get laid more often.
beauty is a social definition that varies by era. smarter people have already pointed this out, some in this very thread.
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 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 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 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?
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 ... ;)
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 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.
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
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?
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.
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 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?
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 from: garbon on August 10, 2009, 04:07:34 PM
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.
Yeah well...color me unconvinced by that. I bet there are some unattractive women in Angelina's family whose similar features don't work for them either.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 07:50:42 AM
Yeah well...color me unconvinced by that. I bet there are some unattractive women in Angelina's family whose similar features don't work for them either.
I was just answering to your question of how that is possible. I'm not trying to convince you of something I'm not convinced by.
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2009, 10:18:49 AM
I was just answering to your question of how that is possible. I'm not trying to convince you of something I'm not convinced by.
Gotcha.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 07:48:56 AM
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?
Doesn't Darwin's theory of natural selection, or something, explain this? Aren't bad genes discarded along the way?
Probably because human males, like most primates, do not depend on looks to pass up their genes, but on being Alpha males, thus good on gathering resources to rear offspring and their leadership qualities to defend their territores.
Which is why totally ugly men, but with alpha qualities and/or lots of money, still attract sexy chicks despite Hollywood and WB series depicting otherwise.
Quote from: Valmy on 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?
Yeah, that's the question you should have been asking in the first place.
I don't know but I'd imagine they could be quite different. For example square jaws and big noses can make men attractive but women not so. And from a purely anecdotal experience (having seen a number of siblings of different sexes), it seems that in many cases they share common appearance traits irrespective of their gender.
Quote from: Josephus on August 11, 2009, 10:20:59 AM
Doesn't Darwin's theory of natural selection, or something, explain this? Aren't bad genes discarded along the way?
Only if you consider genes that keep you from reproducing as much as "bad" and in that sense yes.
What makes you think there are ugly genes and pretty genes anyway? Surely attractiveness is more than a simple sum of the parts.
Quote from: Maximus on August 11, 2009, 11:21:31 AM
What makes you think there are ugly genes and pretty genes anyway? Surely attractiveness is more than a simple sum of the parts.
Symmetry is a fundamental feature of attractiveness, more than the sum of the parts. If the sum is asymetrical, unless it is corrected the person is less likely to attract a partner than if he or she is symmetrical. Also, "ugly" and rough features are also part of evolution, as it makes a male more intimidating, and thus help him defend his territory and his resources against aggressors.
It is a very modern evolution of thought-process that imposed a model of "attractive males" which serve as a reference, from with women reject non-corresponding males outright as unattractive. Passivity among males is now encouraged. Males are not expected to defend physically a territory where they gather resources anymore. Now they sell off their force of work to gather money and provide for their families. That is a very, very fundamental change for evolution in sexual roles.
Also, male aggressivity and intimidation is nowadays discouraged except in necessary self-defence circumstances. Even when AMOGs attempt to steal a girl you are attempting to pick up, it is now discouraged to physically intervene to prevent it, while in the past it would be a bloody battle until of the males was beaten to a pulp or dead, and the female would go with the winner without even lifting a eyebrow.
Just as, for females, only recently (like since the last century) have males started to reject curvy, well-in-flesh women as being fatsos, when in the past they were considered the most healthy and fertile women and, thus, the most attractive. In contrast, skinny women were considered as useless because their body couldn't be expected to handle numerous pregnancies, and they hadn't the physical force to handle working around the house and help raising the kids without being sickly all the time.
Quote from: Drakken on August 11, 2009, 10:21:52 AM
Probably because human males, like most primates, do not depend on looks to pass up their genes, but on being Alpha males, thus good on gathering resources to rear offspring and their leadership qualities to defend their territores.
Which is why totally ugly men, but with alpha qualities and/or lots of money, still attract sexy chicks despite Hollywood and WB series depicting otherwise.
Haven't we heard enough of your relationship theories?
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2009, 11:35:26 AM
Quote from: Drakken on August 11, 2009, 10:21:52 AM
Probably because human males, like most primates, do not depend on looks to pass up their genes, but on being Alpha males, thus good on gathering resources to rear offspring and their leadership qualities to defend their territores.
Which is why totally ugly men, but with alpha qualities and/or lots of money, still attract sexy chicks despite Hollywood and WB series depicting otherwise.
Haven't we heard enough of your relationship theories?
Just don't read, then. No one is forcing you.
Quote from: Drakken on August 11, 2009, 11:36:10 AM
Just don't read, then. No one is forcing you.
Lies. :(
And I'm just tired of the seduction community propaganda.
Quote from: Drakken on August 11, 2009, 11:31:37 AM
Just as, for females, only recently (like since the last century) have males started to reject curvy, well-in-flesh women as being fatsos, when in the past they were considered the most healthy and fertile women and, thus, the most attractive. In contrast, skinny women were considered as useless because their body couldn't be expected to handle numerous pregnancies, and they hadn't the physical force to handle working around the house and help raising the kids without being sickly all the time.
Ok skinny women are now some sort of ideal, which is sad, but men hardly reject curvy women. That is bullshit we love us some curvy women but they just are not on the cover of Vogue. Who cares? What dude reads Vogue? Comic book fantasy girls have ridiculous tits and hips (and absurdly tiny waists) and the whole deal. We love it baby.
Also skinny women got lots of play back in the day. Heck people were far far far faaaaaar more skinny back in the 19th century so that kinda shits all over your theory. If women are becoming skinnier then why are they, in fact, becoming far faaaaar fatter?
Besides if we loved our women so fat why did we make them wear corsets?
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
Quote from: Drakken on August 11, 2009, 11:31:37 AM
Just as, for females, only recently (like since the last century) have males started to reject curvy, well-in-flesh women as being fatsos, when in the past they were considered the most healthy and fertile women and, thus, the most attractive. In contrast, skinny women were considered as useless because their body couldn't be expected to handle numerous pregnancies, and they hadn't the physical force to handle working around the house and help raising the kids without being sickly all the time.
Ok skinny women are now some sort of ideal, which is sad, but men hardly reject curvy women. That is bullshit we love us some curvy women but they just are not on the cover of Vogue. Who cares? What dude reads Vogue? Comic book fantasy girls have ridiculous tits and hips (and absurdly tiny waists) and the whole deal. We love it baby.
Also skinny women got lots of play back in the day. Heck people were far far far faaaaaar more skinny back in the 19th century so that kinda shits all over your theory. If women are becoming skinnier then why are they, in fact, becoming far faaaaar fatter?
Besides if we loved our women so fat why did we make them wear corsets?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF9QI18-Bpo :punk:
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
Ok skinny women are now some sort of ideal, which is sad, but men hardly reject curvy women. That is bullshit we love us some curvy women but they just are not on the cover of vogue. Who cares? What dude reads vogue?
Women read Vogue, which is more than enough. Just look at the crazy diets and the shock therapies, or bogus pseudoscientific bullcrap like MonaVie. We have to work with the influence these chick magazines have on women because many of them give creditence to what they spew.
Vogue and Cosmo write what the demand wants to read and believe. For many hip or wannabee-hip women, what Vogue says goes, and being very intra-competititive, they all wanna look the bestest to be the most attractive, thus the higher in social hierarchy and power. So women who do not correspond are, for better or for worse, deemed unattractive by the bitch leagues and ostracized, just like many, many, many HBs or very attractive women are put down as Beta females by the mother hens and queen bitches of this world.
We know that what is in Vogue is bullshit, yes. But even males are no better, as the object of our dreams, the hot babe, is 99 out of 100 corresponding to the current criteria of beauty: lithe bodies, symetrical, long legs, proportional to big boobs, etc. But they are rare, so most men go (or attempt to go) for what is the best and most attractive women around, many of them are not skinny at all. And it's okey like that, as long as the attractiveness is there.
Quote
Also skinny women got lots of play back in the day. Heck people were far far far faaaaaar more skinny back in the 19th century so that kinda shits all over your theory. If women are becoming skinnier then why are they, in fact, becoming far faaaaar fatter?
Well, like you said, fatter women at the time were rarer. And thus they were valorized at least among the poorer, rural communities in which having lots of children was a necessity. And even in the Western society, many unions were a match organized in great part by the future in-laws (and sometimes directly arranged by the parents).
That didn't mean that skinny women didn't get any, on the contrary, just like today fatter women get as much any. But the ideal of beauty and fertility as changed, with the latter taking the backburner now that having lots of children is something of a kink frowned upon.
As for corset, keep in mind the target audience in which corsets were imposed: the courts and social salons, with their own closed standards of attractiveness (and social hierarchy) which wasn't dependent on multiple child-rearing as a factor of social success. No one in rural communities wore corsets, however.
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2009, 11:41:07 AM
And I'm just tired of the seduction community propaganda.
Propaganda, you say? ;)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crestock.com%2Fuploads%2Fblog%2F2008%2Fpropagandaposters%2Fus_propaganda-25.jpg&hash=07e9fc47df02b2821d98e537cf948f7927e346b8)
Yeah, and now with your most recent post, you've recast some vintage feminism...for a purpose that is most unclear to me.
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2009, 12:29:02 PM
Yeah, and now with your most recent post, you've recast some vintage feminism...for a purpose that is most unclear to me.
Well, you said propaganda. I was just kidding you about it with this horrible piece of vintage misogynistic (and, arguably, could be used as Conservative retro anti-seduction community) propaganda. :hug:
It was all deadpan, of course.
And doesn't it resemble the kind of argument used in "sex eds" classes in the Bible Belt, like "sex is going to kill you and you save your live by abstining" kind of nonsensical argument?
Sorry by most recent, I actually meant your text diatribe before that image. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2009, 12:29:02 PM
Yeah, and now with your most recent post, you've recast some vintage feminism...for a purpose that is most unclear to me.
By arguing that women themselves are as much faulty as men for remaining slaves to the current criterias of beauty, because of their group intracompetitiveness?
I don't understand your point. That's certainly a point someone like Camille Paglia would agree with. :mellow:
Quote from: Drakken on August 11, 2009, 11:56:33 AM
As for corset, keep in mind the target audience in which corsets were imposed: the courts and social salons, with their own closed standards of attractiveness (and social hierarchy) which wasn't dependent on multiple child-rearing as a factor of social success. No one in rural communities wore corsets, however.
Um...wouldn't the cities and the salons and the courts be a place where what is considered fashionable be defined?
Besides I see pictures of my 19th century ancestors on Iowa, Alabama, Texas, and Arkansas farms and they are wearing corsets (and hats...big hats...what was up with those hats?)
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2009, 12:29:02 PM
Yeah, and now with your most recent post, you've recast some vintage feminism...for a purpose that is most unclear to me.
Well still anything that keeps Americans from becoming obese, even unrealistic body images, cannot be all bad.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 12:52:59 PM
Besides I see pictures of my 19th century ancestors on Iowa, Alabama, Texas, and Arkansas farms and they are wearing corsets (and hats...big hats...what was up with those hats?)
I was up in the Klondike last week, looked at lots of old gold rush pictures. In every single one people were wearing hats. All of them.
Oh how I miss those days. :(
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 12:52:59 PM
Quote from: Drakken on August 11, 2009, 11:56:33 AM
As for corset, keep in mind the target audience in which corsets were imposed: the courts and social salons, with their own closed standards of attractiveness (and social hierarchy) which wasn't dependent on multiple child-rearing as a factor of social success. No one in rural communities wore corsets, however.
Um...wouldn't the cities and the salons and the courts be a place where what is considered fashionable be defined?
Besides I see pictures of my 19th century ancestors on Iowa, Alabama, Texas, and Arkansas farms and they are wearing corsets (and hats...big hats...what was up with those hats?)
I wasn't speaking about the 19th century, but more of the 16-18th century era in which the gap between social classes, and even gaps in education, made the standards easier to keep separated. Corsets were part of the elite. To have corsets, you had to actually afford them. ;)
In the 19th century, however, with the appearance of more population-wide media and publicity (at least in ads and newspapers), I agree with your point. Cities became more important as points of fashion reference as its means became more accessible.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 12:56:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2009, 12:29:02 PM
Yeah, and now with your most recent post, you've recast some vintage feminism...for a purpose that is most unclear to me.
Well still anything that keeps Americans from becoming obese, even unrealistic body images, cannot be all bad.
But morbidly obese is beautiful: It's the inside beauty that counts. :cry:
Quote from: Barrister on August 11, 2009, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 12:52:59 PM
Besides I see pictures of my 19th century ancestors on Iowa, Alabama, Texas, and Arkansas farms and they are wearing corsets (and hats...big hats...what was up with those hats?)
I was up in the Klondike last week, looked at lots of old gold rush pictures. In every single one people were wearing hats. All of them.
Oh how I miss those days. :(
Even the bordello girls? :lol:
Quote from: Drakken on August 11, 2009, 01:02:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 11, 2009, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 12:52:59 PM
Besides I see pictures of my 19th century ancestors on Iowa, Alabama, Texas, and Arkansas farms and they are wearing corsets (and hats...big hats...what was up with those hats?)
I was up in the Klondike last week, looked at lots of old gold rush pictures. In every single one people were wearing hats. All of them.
Oh how I miss those days. :(
Even the bordello girls? :lol:
They wore hats and only hats. :contract: