Hot Chicks, are they worth it?

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Hot Chicks, are they worth it?

I have a question for those of you who understand Evolution (or at least think you do).

Why are some people physically more attractive than others? Why aren't ugly people just bread out of existence? Is it just that ugly people breed with other ugly people, so we have no end to ugliness in the human race? It has been proven that ugly people have economic and social disadvantages besides just mate selection, so one might think they would be naturally selected away. Why is there such a wide range of attractiveness?

Could it be that ugly people have other advantages that the physically attractive don't have? This question comes up because as us guys know, the hotter the chick, the more effort we have to put into getter her and keeping her. The more crap we're willing to put up with from her if she's hot. So many of us ask, "Hot chicks, are they worth it?"

I read this article from Christopher Hitchens on "Why women aren't funny":

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701

I know it's very sexist, but it makes a lot of sense. Hot women don't need to be funny, they can just bring their looks to the relationship. This is how it seems to be with better looking women, they just bring their looks that's it. I have to be funny, rich, interesting, pleasant, etc... It's also interesting how he says women get funnier with age, their looks fade, so then women develop other qualities to attract people. I find this to be true, more mature women are generally better for a relationship.

So, is the problems with hot chicks just that they know they're hot so they can treat men badly and still have men treat them like a princess? Or is it evolution? Has nature give some women looks, but then to balance things out given less attractive women other qualities to attract and keep a man? Is physical beauty just a trick nature plays on men to get us to waist our time and money on women that are otherwise bad mates?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I have a question for

Quote:
I have a question for those of you who understand Evolution (or at least think you do).

For me?

Quote:
Why are some people physically more attractive than others?

The simplest answer is that's what recombination does.  It spreads the genome out in all sorts of directions.  Some, by chance, will not be as "attractive" as others.

Quote:
Why aren't ugly people just bread out of existence?

A few different things contribute to this.  First, recombination.  There are literally trillions of possible combinations from one genome, and during outcrossing, you're combining two.  No matter how many pretty people you put together, there will be some ugly children.

Second, physical attractiveness is not the only feature humans select for.  Like it or not, Bill Gates could, in theory, be one of the most successful reproducers on the planet.  It has always been so.  The male that can provide the best resources is not always the most attractive.

Third, natural selection is not a race to a goal.  It's a million treadmills running against each other.  Without looking it up, I can't remember the name of the principle I'm thinking of, but as everyone becomes attractive, nobody is.  In other words, women (the selectors) are looking for a man who can stand out, whether it's physically or intellectually, or whatever.  Suppose that blonde hair and blue eyes is the most attractive thing today.  If, in two hundred years, two out of every three people are blonde and blue, that will be mundane, and women will start going for something else -- perhaps brown hair and hazel eyes.

When something becomes a selection criteria, a couple of things can happen.  First, you can experience runaway selection, and end up with something like a peacock's tail.  It's so extravagant that it's a detriment to the male's survival, but tails just keep getting bigger because that's what peahens like.  Usually, you reach a point of diminishing returns, where there is no longer any advantage to selecting for bigger tails, or whatever.  Or, the environment can change, including new predators, new parasites, climate or ecological change... whatever.

The last thing to consider is that with humans, our incredible diversity also gives us an incredibly wide set of parameters to cover the word, "attractive."  It's not just culture, either.  When we do brain scans on people who are being shown different kinds of faces, we find that people really are neurologically attracted to different types.

With all this in mind, it should be easy to see that breeding ugly out is completely impossible.

Quote:
Is it just that ugly people breed with other ugly people, so we have no end to ugliness in the human race?

No.  Pretty parents have ugly children, and vice versa.

Quote:
It has been proven that ugly people have economic and social disadvantages besides just mate selection, so one might think they would be naturally selected away.

Ugly people do suffer disadvantages, but have you noticed that very few are celibate?  They just don't often mate with the 10s.  We're not like some of the primates, where only the top males get to mate.  All human males get to mate within our social structure (theoretically.)  The "aesthetically disadvantaged" can either make lots of money, be very funny, learn a valuable skill... whatever.   A disadvantage for humans is not a death sentence for the genes.

Quote:
Why is there such a wide range of attractiveness?

Primarily because of our adaptiveness.  We have lived in so many different environments with so many different survival needs, it would be a surprise if we didn't have a wide range.

Quote:
Could it be that ugly people have other advantages that the physically attractive don't have? This question comes up because as us guys know, the hotter the chick, the more effort we have to put into getter her and keeping her. The more crap we're willing to put up with from her if she's hot. So many of us ask, "Hot chicks, are they worth it?"

Not necessarily, but sure, it happens.  Some autistic people can do math up to fifty decimals in their heads.  Some ugly people are really, really smart.  Some very shy people have rich parents.

Of course the better looking a girl is, the more work it's going to take to get her.  Unless you happen to be a 10 yourself, you're towards the bottom of her list of available mates.  Mate selection is somewhat two-way in humans.  You're like a beta male trying to mate with an alpha female.  It's not impossible, but you have to make it worth her while not to select one of the 10s, who, as you've astutely pointed out, tend to have better jobs, especially if they're tall and symmetrical.

Realize, too, that mating isn't like an all you can eat buffet.  It's more like everyone rushing the kitchen and grabbing the best cut of meat they can because the cook isn't making any more.  When you're 25, you're looking for the best deal you can find in a mate, but so is every other 25 year old.  Everyone realizes they're working with a time frame, so everyone "settles" in a sense.  They take the best deal they can get right now, which is almost certainly not the best deal out of all of the mates that would have them -- if only they knew each other.

Quote:
I know it's very sexist, but it makes a lot of sense. Hot women don't need to be funny, they can just bring their looks to the relationship. This is how it seems to be with better looking women, they just bring their looks that's it. I have to be funny, rich, interesting, pleasant, etc... It's also interesting how he says women get funnier with age, their looks fade, so then women develop other qualities to attract people. I find this to be true, more mature women are generally better for a relationship.

True.  Very good looking women don't have to be funny or interesting, but remember, attractiveness is not our only mating criterion.  Funny, intelligent men like funny, intelligent women very often.  Almost everyone is looking for a package deal, where they get some of at least several things they're looking for.  Most people recognize that you usually have to settle in one area to gain in another.  For men whose primary goal is a beautiful wife, no.  Intelligence is not important for hot girls.  For men who want a longtime companion, past the "pretty years" it isn't nearly as important.

(This, by the way, is another way of explaining why ugly isn't bred out.)

Quote:
So, is the problems with hot chicks just that they know they're hot so they can treat men badly and still have men treat them like a princess?

No, hot chicks don't have a problem.  Men who are bitter because they weren't born beautiful have a problem when they get mad at women for their own evolutionary deficiencies.

Quote:
Or is it evolution?

Of course it's evolution.

Quote:
Has nature give some women looks, but then to balance things out given less attractive women other qualities to attract and keep a man?

Natural selection spreads everything around... looks, intelligence... everything.  Some people win the lottery.  Some lose.

Quote:
Is physical beauty just a trick nature plays on men to get us to waist our time and money on women that are otherwise bad mates?

No.  They're good mates if they make children who live and make children of their own.  Natural selection doesn't care if you feel used, so long as your dick works.  Most attractive women do reproduce well.  (One of the main things humans find attractive is symmetry.  Symmetry is indicative of good health in the past, as well as a good chance of producing attractive children.)

 

Quote:
Stop global whining.

How apropos.

 

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
It is extremely unfortunate

It is extremely unfortunate that individuals/groups think that prejudice is therefore justified if physical/sexual attractiveness has biologic/evolutionary underpinnings. Individuals have rights which should never be violated under any circumstances. Prejudice is a violation of those rights. As per Steven Pinker, a biologic explanation or even a cultural explanation of traits will always be misused by some person/group to oppress another person/group but that does not make it right.

I have friends who are both "attractive" and "unattractive" but all are equal. Once you acknowledge the golden rule (which also has biologic origins), then a person's physical attractiveness are merely a personal preference and not a tool for judging another.

Also, an individual who is physically attractive today may be unattractive in the future and vice versa. And idiocy pervades both camps. Some of the good looking dumb fucks on TV who wish to reproduce and spread their IQ barren genome or their dumb memes to their offspring makes me puke.

As a final point, I should end with sexiness. An individual who is "unattractive" with the right evolutionary derived dimensions (eg. low waist to hip ratio in a woman) and a sexy attitude will likely arouse another individual's libido.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:No matter

Hambydammit wrote:

No matter how many pretty people you put together, there will be some ugly children.

But in general, ugly people have ugly children. Attractive people have attractive children. The ugly to me seem to have a different set of advantages to ensure their survival. Can you think of a characteristic in another species where a deficiency in one area is not counterbalanced with advantages in other areas? German Shepherds have many advantages making them attractive as guard dogs, but many people pick poodles for pets because they see advantages in poodles that Shepherds don't have.

I don't see where the rich and attractive have more children or their children survive any better. I'm still inclined to believe that ugly people develop other qualities to ensure their survival that the pretty don't have.

Hambydammit wrote:

In other words, women (the selectors) are looking for a man who can stand out, whether it's physically or intellectually, or whatever. 

I think you have a North American bias in this matter. Throughout our evolutionary history,  things like money, food, shelter, clothing, etc... have been traded for sex. I think this trading has been a driving force in the development of technology and civilization. Men have also been the one's to select which women get the goods in exchange for sex. Our history has been more like a brothel than a monastery. Because the USA has been relatively prosperous, you don't see the trading as much as has been the norm.

I'm not sure if looking for a man that stands out is an advantage. Because human children require so much money, time and energy to raise well, women should also look to get a male that can help in this effort, which is why humans invented marriage right? The woman that picks the man that "stands out" to be the sperm donor can often end up a single mother raising children without any help from the father. So maybe she should go with the uglier, less talented, poorer man that would be more faithful. But this would be a rational decision, rather than following instinct.

You know the nail that sticks up the most is the one to get hammered first. So people that stand out have disadvantages too. In corporations, if you just act normal and don't try to stand out, you don't make any enemies, you don't make anyone jealous of your success. So you can do better by not trying to stand out sometimes.

I think what I'm getting at is that humans have this unique feature for rational thinking. It seems to be in very deep conflict with our primordial instincts. My choice in women when I was young was pretty much the instinct for beauty. But now, it needs to be based more on rational thinking about what will make my life fulfilled. I want to be a rational person rather than a slave to my hormones.

Hambydammit wrote:

They're good mates if they make children who live and make children of their own. 

So you think it's possible to have my cake and it too? So the concept of a high maintenance woman is irrational, made up by bitter men? It's possible to have just as good a relationship with a hot woman as a not so hot woman?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The ugly to me seem to

Quote:
The ugly to me seem to have a different set of advantages to ensure their survival.

Not quite.  They just rely on the other desirable factors that they do have.  If beauty were the only factor in mate selection, yes... ugliness would probably be virtually eliminated.  Since the vast majority of people, by definition, are average, only a very few people are above average, and (for scientific precision) beautiful.

Don't conflate beautiful.  "Everyone is beautiful to someone" is great philosophy, but it's not scientific.  To be considered beautiful, you must be above average, and we know what humans find innately beautiful.  Don't you see that no matter how much you raise the bar, most everyone will be average or below average? 

Quote:
Can you think of a characteristic in another species where a deficiency in one area is not counterbalanced with advantages in other areas? German Shepherds have many advantages making them attractive as guard dogs, but many people pick poodles for pets because they see advantages in poodles that Shepherds don't have.

You're explaining very well why beauty is not the only selective factor.

Quote:
I don't see where the rich and attractive have more children or their children survive any better. I'm still inclined to believe that ugly people develop other qualities to ensure their survival that the pretty don't have.

You're welcome to your opinion.  It's unscientific.  And subtly xenophobic.

Quote:
I think you have a North American bias in this matter. Throughout our evolutionary history,  things like money, food, shelter, clothing, etc... have been traded for sex. I think this trading has been a driving force in the development of technology and civilization. Men have also been the one's to select which women get the goods in exchange for sex. Our history has been more like a brothel than a monastery. Because the USA has been relatively prosperous, you don't see the trading as much as has been the norm.

I think you're forgetting that our written history only goes back approximately 2% of our existence.   You're also forgetting that I'm not speaking of North American models.  I'm speaking of sociobiology, which takes any bias out of the equation.  Women are the primary selectors in humans, but we have a much more complicated system than that of less intelligent animals.  All post-agricultural societies have experienced the shift in power.  It's only a matter of degree.

Quote:
I'm not sure if looking for a man that stands out is an advantage.

Ok... seriously... read all of these essays before continuing:

What Science Says About Human Sexuality

What's So Great About Sex?

Female Sexuality and Origins

What Does Sugar Have To Do With Murder?!

Quote:
Because human children require so much money, time and energy to raise well, women should also look to get a male that can help in this effort, which is why humans invented marriage right?

Oh yeah.. this one, too...

On Myth, Sexuality, and Culture

Quote:
You know the nail that sticks up the most is the one to get hammered first.

And the one that survives the hammer is a damn good choice for a mate.  This is the logic behind a peacock's tail.  Any mail who can carry that gaudy thing around and still survive is a very strong suitor.

Quote:
I think what I'm getting at is that humans have this unique feature for rational thinking. It seems to be in very deep conflict with our primordial instincts.

I sure wish you'd take a couple of hours and really read all those essays.

Quote:
So you think it's possible to have my cake and it too?

If you're really attractive and smart and funny.

Quote:
So the concept of a high maintenance woman is irrational, made up by bitter men?

Nope.  Bitter men think that natural selection had their happiness in mind.  It didn't.  Biologically, we're very expendable.  All natural selection cares about in the end is whether the child lives.  High maintenance women can demand more of suitors, so they do.  It's their biological right.

Quote:
It's possible to have just as good a relationship with a hot woman as a not so hot woman?

Yes.  But, you're right to say that on average, the best looking women are going to be higher maintenance.  That's never going to change, at least until men lose the natural desire to have the hottest woman they can.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
"Ugly" and "attractive" are

"Ugly" and "attractive" are highly subjective terms. Even whole societies that agree on some basic common precepts by which to define both will inevitably be countered by others who judge things quite differently, and both extremes will themselves have evolved their viewpoints from other viewpoints in the past that contradicted the modern norm. We can only assume that this process is ongoing - and one only has to look at what constituted a "photogenic model" or "sexy lady" over the years since photography was invented to see how dynamic the process really is.

 

When you throw in the conceivably large minority of people, even in western society, who use private and very personal criteria to decide whether or how they find others "attractive" (or for that matter repugnant) then you can readily see that normal evolutionary biological and chemical processes cannot be invoked to explain much of anything here at all.

 

But you're not the first person to ask that question, and there have even been some small fortunes made by certain authors who have attempted to answer it (I can think of Desmond Morris, for one), but the whole concept comes unstuck when one stands back and takes an honest look at how individuals habitually fly in the face of conventional attitudes towards beauty and attractiveness when selecting breeding partners. And when you think about it from an evolutionary point of view, it's a good job they do.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"Ugly" and

Quote:
"Ugly" and "attractive" are highly subjective terms. Even whole societies that agree on some basic common precepts by which to define both will inevitably be countered by others who judge things quite differently, and both extremes will themselves have evolved their viewpoints from other viewpoints in the past that contradicted the modern norm. We can only assume that this process is ongoing - and one only has to look at what constituted a "photogenic model" or "sexy lady" over the years since photography was invented to see how dynamic the process really is.

hambydammit wrote:
Don't conflate beautiful.  "Everyone is beautiful to someone" is great philosophy, but it's not scientific.

As you see, I've already hinted at this.  Beauty is scientific, but personal philosophy is not.  In other words, when we hook someone up to the right devices, we can see what turns them on, what turns them off, and how they really feel about a particular person.  While beauty perception is individual, it does follow very specific and non-subjective patterns.  All humans like symmetry.  People whose faces and bodies are more symmetrical are perceived by more people as attractive, as an example.

Because there has been so much made of "personal beauty for everyone" we often conflate the term beauty.  For a sociobiologist, studying the effects of attractiveness in mate selection involves making concrete statements about what females find attractive.  This is done by observing what they do, not what they say they believe.  In the real world, attractiveness does matter. 

Where a lot of people get lost is in thinking that attractiveness is an on/off switch.  If you're not "attractive" you're ugly.  A classic experiment proves why this is not so.

Fifty people, twenty five males and twenty five females, are given numbers from 1 to 25.  (Like that drinking game where you put a card on your forehead and everyone but you knows your number).  They are then given fifteen minutes to pair up with the highest number they can of the opposite gender.  Immediately, the female 25 is swarmed.  She knows she is worth a lot, and will not pair with anyone less than a 24 or 25.  Because of the time limit, however, the pairings will not be exact.  Some 20s will pair with 15s.  Interestingly, the 1s and 2s almost always end up with each other because they're the last ones left.

Also, consider that some people may undervalue themselves.  Perhaps a 20 pairs with a 15 because of anxiety over the time limit.  Now, there's a 20 out there that is forced into pairing higher (which is difficult) or settling for someone lower. 

This happens based on only one matching criterion.  For humans, there are dozens, maybe hundreds.  Each person has their own set of objectives in finding a mate.  Imagine that there are say, fifty categories, each with a score of 1 to 20.  People have thresholds, not only based on what they want, but based on what they believe they can get. 

So, beauty is objective.  That is to say, we cannot help what we find beautiful.  Also, there are things that are so pervasively perceived as ugly that we have to admit that they really are.  Our individual goals weight beauty differently, and accounting for individual differences, it appears as if beauty is completely subjective, but it is most definitely not.

Quote:
When you throw in the conceivably large minority of people, even in western society, who use private and very personal criteria to decide whether or how they find others "attractive" (or for that matter repugnant) then you can readily see that normal evolutionary biological and chemical processes cannot be invoked to explain much of anything here at all.

And just where, do you suppose, people developed the propensity to have private values?

Would that be.... biological and chemical processes?

You cannot separate human mating from biology or evolution.  It is literally the goal of evolution.  We have an incredibly complex society, but why?  Because we evolved that way.  Why?  Because it helped us reproduce better.

Quote:
but the whole concept comes unstuck when one stands back and takes an honest look at how individuals habitually fly in the face of conventional attitudes towards beauty and attractiveness when selecting breeding partners.

It only seems to come unstuck if you misunderstand evolution.

Quote:
And when you think about it from an evolutionary point of view, it's a good job they do.

Quite the contrary.  From an evolutionary point of view, it's damn good that we have differing tastes.  If you do some honest searching, you'll find that our sense of beauty is far from arbitrary, and the subjectiveness everyone claims is not real.  Each person has his own objective tastes which cannot be changed, only reasoned around.  (In other words, you can convince yourself that the woman you find unattractive is good enough to be a wife, but you will never look at her and have the same neurons fire as when you look at someone you do find physically attractive.)  We use the word "beautiful" to mean a combination of factors, involving intelligence, sincerity, compassion, physical attractiveness, and others.  Our perceptions of physical attractiveness can be altered by other factors -- in other words, a woman can become more beautiful when we get to know her -- but in a strictly scientific sense, physical beauty is not arbitrary.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:It is

ragdish wrote:

It is extremely unfortunate that individuals/groups think that prejudice is therefore justified if physical/sexual attractiveness has biologic/evolutionary underpinnings. Individuals have rights which should never be violated under any circumstances. Prejudice is a violation of those rights.

I agree with you, but I think we have to understand who we are and how we arrived at this point in our evolutionary history. I am not not trying to promote prejudiced, I'm a product of the same evolutionary forces that formed all of us. I raised this topic to help me understand things.

I read scientific studies where they ask people to pick candidates to interview for a job. In one case they show a picture, the other they don't. People will consistently pick the more attractive people to interview when they see the picture and then claim they have no bias against the ugly. It's not a mean thing, it's just who we are and we need to understand this.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I read scientific

Quote:
I read scientific studies where they ask people to pick candidates to interview for a job. In one case they show a picture, the other they don't. People will consistently pick the more attractive people to interview when they see the picture and then claim they have no bias against the ugly. It's not a mean thing, it's just who we are and we need to understand this.

There's a scientific formula for height, too.  Above a certain height, every inch (or maybe two, I can't remember) accounts for so many thousands of dollars that your salary will be above your peers in the same positions.

Also, big boobs will get you hired.

Also, computers can predict who you will find attractive given just a few pieces of information.

You can go on for hours showing objective data that proves that we treat pretty people better than ugly ones.  We need no philosophical justification for saying that bias exists.  In fact, it usually takes some kind of philosophy to convince us otherwise.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but take a bunch of young children and show them an ugly person and a pretty person, neither of whom they've met, and all things being equal, you'll have proof that we're inherently prejudiced towards beauty.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
"So, beauty is objective. 

"So, beauty is objective.  That is to say, we cannot help what we find beautiful."

 

Isn't it paradoxical to call beauty objective?  Granted, one does not necessarily have direct control over what one finds attractive but this does not mean everyone finds the same things attractive since that is ultimately dependent on the individual's own desires which, at most, only the individual knows.  Not to mention that civilized society has a habit of imposing an objective idea of beauty on a population that many individuals more than likely reject becuase of their own personal  beliefs (based in their desires) on whats attractive.  For instance, the idea of beauty being imposed now, at least on women, is the notion of thiness as attractiveness.  Of course, many people here disagree with that idea but it doesn't change the fact that this "objective" idea of beauty is being imposed upon the public.  Nevertheless, many people in here find different physical qualities attractive and I'm sure many could easily get in heated debates over what is more attractive (in fact I get in debates all the time with guys becuase I think Avril lavigne is incredibly hot whereas most guys, whom I talk to in person, simply do not).   The point I am getting at is, you seem to want it both ways, namely, that beauty, or hotness, is not subjective, yet,  everyone has their own particular  qualities that they, despite whatever ideas they might have about beauty, find attractive.  The most you can claim is "You cannot determine what you find attractive" which is not the same thing as "beauty is objective" since one is a claim about the individual whereas the other implies that everyone, regardless of their own beliefs and desires, find the same thing attractive. 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:German Shepherds

EXC wrote:

German Shepherds have many advantages making them attractive as guard dogs, but many people pick poodles for pets because they see advantages in poodles that Shepherds don't have.

 

...what advantages? (yes, out of that whole post... )

What Would Kharn Do?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Isn't it paradoxical

Quote:
Isn't it paradoxical to call beauty objective?

No.  Objective doesn't mean absolute.

Quote:
Granted, one does not necessarily have direct control over what one finds attractive but this does not mean everyone finds the same things attractive since that is ultimately dependent on the individual's own desires which, at most, only the individual knows.

So, you find Picasso's work beautiful.  You can't help it.  It's objective.   I don't.  I can't help it.  It's objective.  The perception of Picasso's work as beautiful is objective locally but not absolute globally.  The evaluation of Picasso's work is subjective, since there are multiple valid conclusions.

Quote:
Not to mention that civilized society has a habit of imposing an objective idea of beauty on a population that many individuals more than likely reject becuase of their own personal  beliefs (based in their desires) on whats attractive.

Why do you suppose society does that?

Quote:
For instance, the idea of beauty being imposed now, at least on women, is the notion of thiness as attractiveness.  Of course, many people here disagree with that idea but it doesn't change the fact that this "objective" idea of beauty is being imposed upon the public.

Several points.  No insult intended.  If anyone is insulted, blame science, not me.

* Individuals (not just humans!) "settle in" to a model of attraction that coincides with their ability to attract a mate.  In other words, we are designed to be ok with what we can get.

* You seem to think that society is removed from natural selection.  Isn't it obvious that we are naturally selected to live in societies?  Blaming society for human perceptions is equivalent to blaming humans for human nature.  Interesting philosophy, but it doesn't really say anything meaningful.

* Societies, like individuals, are adaptable.  There are six billion humans.  Clearly, our society is very good at promoting fecundity.  Would we not expect societal norms to change as our environment changes?

Quote:
The point I am getting at is, you seem to want it both ways, namely, that beauty, or hotness, is not subjective, yet,  everyone has their own particular  qualities that they, despite whatever ideas they might have about beauty, find attractive.

Once more.  Use your terms properly.

Humans individually have objective standards of beauty.

There are multiple valid answers, so removed from an individual, the standards for beauty are subjective.

Standards for beauty are not arbitrary.  Nobody finds a face covered by giant oozing boils attractive.

Taking humanity as a whole, there is no single absolute measure for beauty.

Quote:
The most you can claim is "You cannot determine what you find attractive" which is not the same thing as "beauty is objective" since one is a claim about the individual whereas the other implies that everyone, regardless of their own beliefs and desires, find the same thing attractive.

Give me some equipment, a few photos, and some scientists, and I'll determine what you find attractive.

Am I having trouble making words?  I'm the one saying that beauty is individually objective, collectively subjective, and decidedly non-absolute in the species.

I'm also saying, with lots of empirical evidence that there are distinct patterns in human perception of beauty.  It's far from arbitrary.  Though standards of weight have gone up and down, there is a threshold for thinness and obesity.  Morbidly obese people have never been considered the societal norm for beauty.  Similarly, no society has ever collectively valued massive asymmetry.

Imagine a box with say, a thousand different qualities in it.  You find 1, 293, 714, 715, 792, 803, and 920 to be ridiculously attractive, while I find 7, 644, 790,791, 792, and 998 to be equally attractive.  We each have objective tastes, which belong to an objective set {1,1000} that objectively encompass all human perceptions of beauty.  Within the set of humans, each individual has tastes which he cannot control, but are mathematically subjective, since each of the 1000 is valid as a description of beauty.

It's not quite that simple, of course.  Supposing that shiny hair is number ten, virtually all males are going to find it attractive in a female, while number 333, a small birthmark on the tip of the nose, is only going to be considered attractive by one or two percent of the population.   We can objectively say that shiny hair is, on average, much more attractive than birthmarks on the tip of the nose. 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Quite the contrary. 

Quote:

Quite the contrary.  From an evolutionary point of view, it's damn good that we have differing tastes ...

 

... from Hambydammit

 

 

You seem to have completely misunderstood my post and corrected me by stating what I thought was the point I had made myself.

 

Strange ... but probably my bad.

 

Fashionable notions of beauty bear no substantial correlation to how attractiveness for the purpose of mating is defined in the evolutionary process, where biological and chemical attributes to the process do indeed play a fundamental role.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:EXC

The Doomed Soul wrote:

EXC wrote:

German Shepherds have many advantages making them attractive as guard dogs, but many people pick poodles for pets because they see advantages in poodles that Shepherds don't have.

 

...what advantages? (yes, out of that whole post... )

Well if you look at the publications of dog breeders, they will have a list of advantages and disadvantages of each breed. You don't see a breed with all disadvantages and no advatages over other breeds, these dogs would never be bred, right? So Shepards are great dogs but pretty high maintainence compared to a poodle. What makes Shepards great is often what makes them a problem.

So, why shouldn't one think the same is true in humans? There is nothing particularly special about our species. If being ugly has it's disadvantages perhaps one advantage is that of being lower maintainance. If ugliness didn't have some advantages, I think evolution would have eliminated it. Instead we see lots of ugly people have lots of ugly children, generation after generation.

So a man may pick at a less attractive woman for being lower maintenance. A woman may choose a man that is less attractive because he may be less likely to cheat on her. So a less attractive woman may be better a demonstrating she's low maintainence. A less attractive man may be better a demonstrating he's a faithful husband.

Where do we see a feature in a species only being a big disadvantage? Often we see a feature that is a creature's best advantage is sometimes a big liability(i.e. the peacocks tail).

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Fashionable notions of

Quote:
Fashionable notions of beauty bear no substantial correlation to how attractiveness for the purpose of mating is defined in the evolutionary process, where biological and chemical attributes to the process do indeed play a fundamental role.

I'll agree to "no direct correlation" since there is a substantial correlation.  As I've mentioned, it has never been fashionable to be wider than tall.  Though fashion is fickle, it does correlate generally to evolutionary models of mating attractiveness.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I've mentioned, it

Quote:

 

I've mentioned, it has never been fashionable to be wider than tall.

 

 

Then you show remarkable ignorance of tastes in these matters traditionally exhibited by several very distinct societies - including ones as diverse as North African Arab peoples and some Australian Aboriginal cultures, in which extremely stout females were considered the height of beauty (and still are, though dual standards seem now to apply thanks to cultural influence from without).

 

And all explicable from an evolutionary perspective of course (before you correct me with my own point).

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If ugliness didn't

Quote:
If ugliness didn't have some advantages, I think evolution would have eliminated it.

It's not like an on/off switch.  Beauty is a sliding scale.  Ugly is "less beautiful."  From the point of view of a gene, an ugly person who happens to be very smart is like someone who rolled a 20 on INT and a 4 on CHA.  (Yes... D&D reference.)  Are they "better" than someone who rolled a 12 on each?  Depends on your point of view, but aesthetically, yes, the beautiful person is better looking than the ugly one.

You need to wrap your head around the idea that recombination creates incredible diversity, and that beauty is a relative concept.*  Suppose you have a consistent generation size of 100.  There are 1s through 10s in beauty, but none of the ones mate.  Next generation, there are also 100, but they are all 2s through 10s.  Ugly is being weeded out, right?

Wrong.  Beauty is a relative scale.  The 2s are now 1s.  Oh, and the 10s are getting prettier, since 10 + 10 often makes an 11.  Next generation, there will still be 1s through 10s.

Quote:
So a man may pick at a less attractive woman for being lower maintenance. A woman may choose a man that is less attractive because he may be less likely to cheat on her.

These things definitely do happen, but they're part of a larger group strategy.  Seriously.  Read those essays I wrote.  I explain it in detail.

Quote:
So a less attractive woman may be better a demonstrating she's low maintainence. A less attractive man may be better a demonstrating he's a faithful husband.

You're doing a good job of explaining why ugly isn't bred out.  It's not that there's an advantage to it so much as there being advantages to other qualities besides beauty.  You don't pick an ugly wife because she's ugly.  You pick her because she's more likely to be faithful.  (If you found a woman who was pretty and also very likely to be faithful, she'd be the better choice, right?)

 

 

 

*Relative: measured on a scale that is dependent on the outer limits.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Then you show

Quote:

Then you show remarkable ignorance of tastes in these matters traditionally exhibited by several very distinct societies - including ones as diverse as North African Arab peoples and some Australian Aboriginal cultures, in which extremely stout females were considered the height of beauty (and still are, though dual standards seem now to apply thanks to cultural influence from without).

No, I'm familiar with them.  In a previous post, I said, "morbid obesity."  I was making reference to that.  I'm aware that short and stout has been fashionable.  Look, it's not important what the boundary is.  The point is that there is a boundary.  There are things that humans have never found attractive culturally, wouldn't you agree?  If that is so, then there is a boundary to the human perception of beauty.  Sure, it's a big set, but it is a closed set, nonetheless.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Morbid obesity, as we now

Morbid obesity, as we now understand the concept, could have accounted for many a perceived "stunner" within these cultures in the past, just as the long held fashion of a "wine glass" figure led to some poor females' agonies and early deaths in the past as internal organs became ever more compressed by what would now be considered torture devices. Chinese girls with painfully deformed feet are another manifestation of how beauty as a fashionable concept can lead to extremes. You know what I'm referring to here and the list is almost endless when it comes to self-inflicted deformity.

 

So when you say that there is a boundary to the human perception of beauty and sexual attraction you had better acknowledge just how "big a set" is contained within it, and how malleable it is regarded both by individuals and whole societies at times.

 

My original point however was not to confuse subjective estimations of what constitutes beauty, even ones that gain currency as social norms for a period, with the rather more objective fact that attraction - be it based on aesthetic values that are generally or privately held - is a crucial factor in the mating process. Whether one can eventually find a "boundary" outside of which attraction will never become an issue for the unfortunate concerned the evidence is that those outside the "boundary" are of such an insignificantly small number that they do not hamper the species' reproductive ability in the slightest.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:My original point

Quote:
My original point however was not to confuse subjective estimations of what constitutes beauty, even ones that gain currency as social norms for a period, with the rather more objective fact that attraction - be it based on aesthetic values that are generally or privately held - is a crucial factor in the mating process. Whether one can eventually find a "boundary" outside of which attraction will never become an issue for the unfortunate concerned the evidence is that those outside the "boundary" are of such an insignificantly small number that they do not hamper the species' reproductive ability in the slightest.

Well stated.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Great - but now, having

Great - but now, having established just how virtually boundless the boundary is I'm off to contemplate how I apparently managed to stray outside it!                

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC on hot chicks

             Three storys;  all are true,  you decide on evolution or not.     Story one;  I am happily married for twenty years,  I  am 52,  you do the math.   In my single days I use to frequinte singles bars  trying to get lucky;   I could walk in early, see some hopless chick at the bar waiting to get picked up, and feeling sorry for her,  she even had red dots on her chest where guys were poking her with ten foot poles. YET somehow magic happens,   right when the bartender  yells  "last call" she turns into Cinderell'.            In my single days I never once went to bed with an ugly chick;  NOT ONCE!.   But I woke up with a few.     Story two;   I Frequintly go to Guyana South America; for buisness, pleasure, family matters (wife is Guyanese) when alone I go to the finnest restaurants and bars (I can live like a King for nothing)  I am surrounded by the most beautiful single women;  all eager and willing, all because of my white skin.   All I do is sit down and the girls are at the table, giggleing, asking about America(I have to point out I'm Canadian) they want me to buy them an I.P.R. then  demure ( I dare anyone to ask me what and I.P.R. is).  Even when my wife is standing beside me;  hot chicks run their hands down my arm and say "remember me, when she not able".     Believe me this never happens to me in Canada; is this evolution or culture?     Story three; Nigeria, when I was there (1984) was much like Guyana, but Africans are much different then South American,  in the restaurants and bars, hot chicks  (I was 29 then) gathered around me, hugged me, and held (swung) my hand to show off to all and sundry, but when it came to sex they say,  "no I will save for husband" but I hornily countered; what if your just the third or fourth wife?,  they said  "No I am staying clean for my husband"; I never got laid in Nigeria.

   I never had sex in Africa in '83, maybe this was a good thing; no AIDS.  But is this evolution or culture?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Believe me this never

Quote:
Believe me this never happens to me in Canada; is this evolution or culture?

Culture is evolution.  Evolution has designed us to be attracted to the exotic.  Notice that American women go apeshit for a foreign accent?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

             Three storys;  all are true,  you decide on evolution or not.     Story one;  I am happily married for twenty years,  I  am 52,  you do the math.   In my single days I use to frequinte singles bars  trying to get lucky;   I could walk in early, see some hopless chick at the bar waiting to get picked up, and feeling sorry for her,  she even had red dots on her chest where guys were poking her with ten foot poles. YET somehow magic happens,   right when the bartender  yells  "last call" she turns into Cinderell'.            In my single days I never once went to bed with an ugly chick;  NOT ONCE!.   But I woke up with a few.     Story two;   I Frequintly go to Guyana South America; for buisness, pleasure, family matters (wife is Guyanese) when alone I go to the finnest restaurants and bars (I can live like a King for nothing)  I am surrounded by the most beautiful single women;  all eager and willing, all because of my white skin.   All I do is sit down and the girls are at the table, giggleing, asking about America(I have to point out I'm Canadian) they want me to buy them an I.P.R. then  demure ( I dare anyone to ask me what and I.P.R. is).  Even when my wife is standing beside me;  hot chicks run their hands down my arm and say "remember me, when she not able".     Believe me this never happens to me in Canada; is this evolution or culture?     Story three; Nigeria, when I was there (1984) was much like Guyana, but Africans are much different then South American,  in the restaurants and bars, hot chicks  (I was 29 then) gathered around me, hugged me, and held (swung) my hand to show off to all and sundry, but when it came to sex they say,  "no I will save for husband" but I hornily countered; what if your just the third or fourth wife?,  they said  "No I am staying clean for my husband"; I never got laid in Nigeria.

   I never had sex in Africa in '83, maybe this was a good thing; no AIDS.  But is this evolution or culture?

Are you asking, 'Are these women's behaviors in their DNA or is it there culture?' I think it's probably both in all case. I think maybe ugly women have it programmed into their DNA to be 'easy'. The Guyana women were prostitutes just tring to use you for short term survival, the Nigerian women were prostitutes with long term goals.

Humans have evolved this complex ability for rational thought, so we can sometimes override what our DNA tells us. For example your DNA produces a body that tell you to eat high calorie food whenever you're hungry. But your rational mind now tells you to diet, so you can have the disipline to override your instincts with rational thought.

So is the choice between attractive and not attractive women like the choice between eating junk food and dieting, between a sports car and an economy car? Does one necessarily need to make this choice? Do hot women just have it in their DNA to be high maintenence? I'm not sure on this question.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
WTF is an IPR?

WTF is an IPR?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
WTF is IPR

  I should have know it would be MattShizzle who would ask first.    the first time I asked  the five Guyanese girls at the table snorted and giggled before one shyly told me.

        I.P.R.   =    Instant Panty  Remover !!!!

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
evolution

Aren't a lot of things that are attractive based on evolution though? Like wide hips=good for birthing children. But also symmetrical features are a sign of healthy development, big boobs=more milk for baby, and a lack of rashes/nasty scars/giant moles are all signs of health indicating the person would bear healthy children which would then also be more likely to reproduce. I know some of it comes down to culture and personal preference but I think most things are basically genetic. Like one thing I've noticed in high school: if a girl thinks I'm hot, her sister usually does too. Aside from all the dirty thoughts that gives me, it also makes me think one's perception of beauty is genetic.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I think it's more

I think it's more cultural/environmental - look how in medieval times and how in extremely poor areas (ie Africa) being morbidly obese is considered attractive, while here it is seen as extremely unattractive. Notice in modern abundant societies the poor are much more likely to be fat than the wealthy or middle class. Also how certain other things we see as hideous are considered attractive other places (some places in Africa see the front teeth as ugly and pull them - which is ugly to us.) There was a picture of a woman from Africa somewhere in a magazine - consider attractive there - I thought it was a man and so did the majority of people writng letters there. Also notice how people from one race can have a hard time telling people of a very different race apart - I notice most black people use exact shade of skin while I (and I suspect many other white people) rely strongly on hair color and hairstyle.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Well yeah, but I think

Well yeah, but I think that's mostly specifics.  I'm talking about overall things, symmetry and lack of signs of disease, etc. that indicate a healthy mate.  But I guess from a historical perspective, it looks to me like since the beginning of society we're just attracted to whatever the upper classes are doing, even if it's a small society with a small upper class. So it would definitely seem power is universally sexy.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Do hot women just

EXC wrote:

Do hot women just have it in their DNA to be high maintenence?

 

I'm not high maintenance!

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Ugly" and "attractive"

Quote:
Ugly" and "attractive" are highly subjective terms.

Only to moralists.

The 'ugly' can most certainly attest to the objective nature of partner selection. 'Bad luck' only goes so far in explaining the obstacles they tend to get the business end of (no slef pity intended).

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
hot and no so hot

It all depends on how they grew up, if a hot looking woman is brought up to believe she is a princess well then, you get high maintenance and selfish women, however a hot woman brought up to believe that looks aren't just everything, but brains and manners are required, well then that's different now and her outlook is different as well, especially if she didn't get everything she wanted strictly on her looks, as well, some women become better looking as they age (Angelina Jolie is a prime example of this if you look at her teenage year pictures). Now for the not so hot well again beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but generally I find (my opinion) that the non pretty women, can also have charms that pretty ones don't have, more intelligence/knowledge or something to make up for the fact that they are not the exactly on the top level of beauty. However with that said, you can also get spoiled rotten ugly women, self, and of course insecure or angry non pretty women, again it really comes to how they are brought up and how they view themselves. My personal experience is that it is mainly the parents fault for bringing up selfish, pain in the ass good looking women, because they praise them and reward them for their looks over their intelligence and actual acomplishments.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:EXC

greek goddess wrote:

EXC wrote:

Do hot women just have it in their DNA to be high maintenence?

 

I'm not high maintenance!

 

 

How much beautiful GODDESS ? I AM buying  


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
The "debate" here on the

The "debate" here on the part of many of its contributors simply proves, Kevin, just how subjective the terms "ugly" and "beautiful" are, and not only to moralists (whatever that means).

 

The species' desire to reproduce causes individuals to act quite independently of whatever subjectively specific values are applied to the concepts, but that does not mean that the "attraction" factor which plays such an important role in the process is diminished. One poster pointed to his own experience of finding himself judged attractive based purely on economically based cultural differences, and also drew attention to something most of us can identify with - the combined effect of alcohol and disposition in creating an attraction that lasts only long enough to satisfy the desire to mate. Other examples of incidental, highly individual and temporary aberrations that operate outside the standard concepts of "beautiful" and "ugly" but contain no less an element of "attraction" abound, so much so that they could almost be said to be the standard that applies and that the consensus on what constitutes "beautiful" is the true variable here.

 

Other posters alluded to those physical characteristics that suggest a good female breeding partner - child-bearing hips, full breasts, symmetry indicating good health, even ugliness which can indicate potential to be faithful. These are indeed factors that can play a role in an individual assessing (even unconsciously) the likelihood of success of a breeding relationship, and as can be seen from the last example inform that calculation much more than they inform a universal recipe for deciding what is female "beauty" since the last example depends very much on the subjective evaluation of the female as ugly to be applied.

 

The poster who refers to "hot women" and assumes that we all share the same view of the concept sums up the problem here between distinguishing subjective terminology from objective fact. We are conditioned culturally (and after a long history as a species in which this culture-specific influence was not only very strong but very localised) to conform to social conventions when assessing beauty much more than we are to acknowledge the so-called "universal requirements" described above. And it makes sense that we are in a world where Innuit physiology and clothing requirements based on climate, for example, disguise to the point of obliteration most of these visual attributes, or where population sparsity and consequent lack of opportunity in other areas demotes these requirements to less than secondary when assessing attraction and attractiveness.

 

Or to put it another way, not having a universal concept of beauty and ugliness is, in my view, proof of how attraction functions as an overriding element in human reproduction. In fact, if such a highly subjective concept should ever be applied to the species as a necessary precursor to deciding attraction, our very survival would be immediately threatened.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:EXC

greek goddess wrote:

EXC wrote:

Do hot women just have it in their DNA to be high maintenance?

 

I'm not high maintenance!

 

Do you come with a warranty?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Girls Girls Girls  ! SOME

Girls Girls Girls  ! SOME DUDES took notice ....  and even sang a "song"  

motley crue - girls, girls, girls

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMLy6B9teEw

       YUP,  so it IS !   we  lucky guys ..... 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
First,greek goddess

First,

greek goddess wrote:

I'm not high maintenance!

You're for sure high maintenance.

Second,

I'm conducting a large-scale research project on this very problem. It should take no longer than a few more years of dating hot chicks to come up with a statistically significant answer. All I can ask is for your patience in the mean time.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:I'm not

greek goddess wrote:

I'm not high maintenance!

So you say.

HisWillness wrote:

I'm conducting a large-scale research project on this very problem. It should take no longer than a few more years of dating hot chicks to come up with a statistically significant answer. All I can ask is for your patience in the mean time.

Your dedication to research is admirable. Thanks for taking one for the team! We look forward to reading your results.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:EXC

greek goddess wrote:

EXC wrote:

Do hot women just have it in their DNA to be high maintenence?

 

I'm not high maintenance!

 

If you're both attractive AND low maintenance, you probably aren't single. I couldn't possibly imagine such a woman remaining alone more than 3 or 4 seconds.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If you're both

Quote:
If you're both attractive AND low maintenance, you probably aren't single. I couldn't possibly imagine such a woman remaining alone more than 3 or 4 seconds.

As a total threadjacking aside, there are two kinds of single where I live.  There's regular girl single and really hot girl single.  Regular girl single means she's not seeing anyone, and sleeps alone every night.  This, by the way, is what most people mean when they say "single girl."  Then there's Really Hot Girl Single, which means that if she chooses, she has a list of guys in case she gets particularly lonely on any given night, or just wants to be "with someone" at an event.  None of these guys are her boyfriend.  They're her "close friends."  None of them has any chance to be her actual boyfriend, because she's waiting for someone better than any of them.  They are, however, good enough for whatever they're good at from time to time, whether it's listening to her gripe about some other guy, a booty call, or treating her to dinner.

Really Hot Girl Land is another universe.  It's very strange.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote:They are, however,

Quote:

They are, however, good enough for whatever they're good at from time to time, whether it's listening to her gripe about some other guy, a booty call, or treating her to dinner.

I would call a girl who can and would use guys in such a manner a) lucky she was born that way, and b) VERY high maintenance. She's getting literally every intimate need she could ever want fulfilled by a variety of partners. I'm guessing they probably buy her stuff, too. Sounds like the definition of high maintenance.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I'm

HisWillness wrote:

I'm conducting a large-scale research project on this very problem. It should take no longer than a few more years of dating hot chicks to come up with a statistically significant answer. All I can ask is for your patience in the mean time.

Well, I'm announcing too that I'm converting back to Christianity. God has called me to start a ministry to witness to lingerie and swimsuit models. Sorry to turn my back on atheism, but when God (or booty) calls one must answer.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
In answer to the question

In answer to the question posed at the start of the thread. "Ugly" can't be wiped out in humans. Humans don't have the same selective pressures as animals, because we're probably "too good" at surviving. We don't have to contend with the prospect of getting eaten on a daily basis by predators. As for sexual selection there is a distinct property of human beings that allows less attractive people to procreate: self-reflection. People generally know if they're attractive or not, those who are less attractive won't go after attractive mates. Hot fucks hot, ugly fucks ugly.

As for myself. I'm well aware I'm not the most attractive guy in the world. I'm not ugly, I'm just more of a beta male than an alpha male. I think many less attractive people don't actually want to be with a super attractive person because they would be too self-conscious and feel like the inferior partner. I know myself, that I actually find super attractive women actually undesirable. This brings me to a question: what is attractiveness anyway?

I think it's safe to say that it not down to one thing. Part of it must of course be genetic, in our evolutionary psychology; that is, our minds automatically equate facial symmetry, certain body proportions, appearance of health with increased fertility, and with that the likeliness that they could bare our children. But that is not all there is to it. Another part of it is memetic/ cultural. Today, our society's view of the perfect woman is skinny. But this is in contrast to many other views of the perfect woman throughout the world and throughout history. The same goes for men, like how the moustache is now seen as being extremely unattractive when up until 30 years ago it was very much normal.

In my own opinion, I dislike skinny women. I prefer women more fleshed out. I dislike ditzyness, and prefer geekiness. I may have the same evolutionary psychology when it comes to facial symmetry etc, the things that are just attractive, but have not found that my culture's view of attractiveness is suitable to me. I also don't like absolute perfection, but little imperfections, things that make them seem more real. At the end of the day, I find some pristine magazine girl undesirable because they aren't the kind of girl who'd want to be with me, or probably that I'd really want to be around. I don't have fantasies about what I'll never have but desires for what I could feasibly have.


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Am I the only one attracted

Am I the only one attracted to mental instability? Not stupid, but downright crazy. I don't know why. Maybe that self-reflection thing.....

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd wrote:Am I the only

pyrokidd wrote:

Am I the only one attracted to mental instability? Not stupid, but downright crazy. I don't know why. Maybe that self-reflection thing.....

Sigh. It's the terrible thing about crazy bitches - they're the best in bed.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd wrote:Am I the only

pyrokidd wrote:

Am I the only one attracted to mental instability? Not stupid, but downright crazy. I don't know why. Maybe that self-reflection thing.....

No, you're not alone there. As long as they aren't actually going to murder me in my bed. I find, geeky, slightly mental women extremely attractive.


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Well I'm glad I'm not the

Well I'm glad I'm not the only one. But that makes me wonder; is it a evolutionary or a cultural thing? Or maybe they really are just the best in bed. Yeah, probably that one.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:pyrokidd

HisWillness wrote:

pyrokidd wrote:

Am I the only one attracted to mental instability? Not stupid, but downright crazy. I don't know why. Maybe that self-reflection thing.....

Sigh. It's the terrible thing about crazy bitches - they're the best in bed.

Or maybe they'd necessarily have to be crazy to sleep with you in the first place??? I honestly found that to be true in my case.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Or maybe they'd

Quote:

Or maybe they'd necessarily have to be crazy to sleep with you in the first place??? I honestly found that to be true in my case.

Nah, I've had a few "normal" ones like me, but I never felt the same way......now that I think about it, they just weren't that interesting to me. One thing to be said for the mentally unstable: there's never a dull moment.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


Blind_Chance
Blind_Chance's picture
Posts: 124
Joined: 2008-01-09
User is offlineOffline
First at all nobody

 

First at all nobody understands evolution.

Second, saying that physically attractiveness condemns girls or women to grow up as dull dolls without personality and IQ<100 is not true. There is not such thing like a balance in genome poll, only because she is ugly, he is fat, it doesn't mean they have interesting personality.

Some people compensate their lack of attractiveness with personality, some attractive ones will grow up dull and selfish, but...

...do you really want to say that ONE variable decides about all other things like personality, sense of humour, knowledge, relationship attitude WHICH actually develop for years and are influenced by thousands of variables, life experiences and upbringing ?

Lets stop asking a question: “hot chicks,are they worth it ?” and ask a question: ”Is she worth it ?” Generalisation can work with cars, but not with people damn it.

Edit:

EXC wrote:

This is how it seems to be with better looking women, they just bring their looks that's it. I have to be funny, rich, interesting, pleasant, etc... It's also interesting how he says women get funnier with age, their looks fade, so then women develop other qualities to attract people. I find this to be true, more mature women are generally better for a relationship.

So, is the problems with hot chicks just that they know they're hot so they can treat men badly and still have men treat them like a princess? Or is it evolution? Has nature give some women looks, but then to balance things out given less attractive women other qualities to attract and keep a man? Is physical beauty just a trick nature plays on men to get us to waist our time and money on women that are otherwise bad mates?

 That quote says how you perceive (wrongly)  women and relationship. There is however one true statement: "more mature women are generally better for a relationship" Stick with it and stop dating dolls if you want something more then sex.

And I can assure you there are attractive, intelligent, funny and caring women out there. And fact we ( women as well ) expect from potential partner ALL that virtues makes them so rare. More expectations less potential partners.

Ecrasez l'infame!


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:No.

Hambydammit wrote:

No.  Objective doesn't mean absolute.

Not really what I meant.  Now, I understand, I think, that your point is we as human beings find things beautiful and pursue these beautiful things while rejecting the not so beautiful.  However, all I'm saying is, while finding things beautiful is an objective fact (even those you value ugliness do so because they find it beautiful), the particular interpretation of beautiful is, by definition, subjective since it is dependent on each individuals genetic make-up rather than some sort of external standard that applies to everyone equally.  That's what I meant by it being paradoxical.

Quote:
Why do you suppose society does that?

Its an attempt to keep things orderly and simple.

Quote:
For instance, the idea of beauty being imposed now, at least on women, is the notion of thiness as attractiveness.  Of course, many people here disagree with that idea but it doesn't change the fact that this "objective" idea of beauty is being imposed upon the public.

Quote:
Individuals (not just humans!) "settle in" to a model of attraction that coincides with their ability to attract a mate.  In other words, we are designed to be ok with what we can get.

Do not see how this relates.  My point was how individuals very often reject the "ideal" image of beauty being imposed not so much becuase they feel they cannot get the "ideally" beautiful, rather, these individuals have a different "ideal" which they pursue in spite of it possibly being unattainable.

Quote:
You seem to think that society is removed from natural selection.

Nope. 

Quote:
Isn't it obvious that we are naturally selected to live in societies?

Yes, there are numerous advantages to living in a society.  Do not know why you would think I am trying to say this.

 

Quote:
]Blaming society for human perceptions is equivalent to blaming humans for human nature.  Interesting philosophy, but it doesn't really say anything meaningful.

I am not blaming anyone or anything.  I am simply describing what society does and how certain individuals react to it and how this reaction presents a potential problem to your earlier claim.

Quote:
Societies, like individuals, are adaptable.  There are six billion humans.  Clearly, our society is very good at promoting fecundity.  Would we not expect societal norms to change as our environment changes?

I was not comparing the Marlyn Monroe paradigm to the Gisele Buschen paradigm of beauty I was comparing the current "ideal" of beauty with current reactions to this "ideal".

Quote:
Humans individually have objective standards of beauty.

Using this logic I can say pepperoni pizza is objectively better then any pizza which is not pepperoni since my individually objective standard for good, if not perfect pizza, is pepperoni pizza.

Quote:
Standards for beauty are not arbitrary.  Nobody finds a face covered by giant oozing boils attractive.

Thats more a health issue than beauty issue isn't it?

Quote:
Taking humanity as a whole, there is no single absolute measure for beauty.

Again, it seems your argument is beauty is objective because each individual has their own objective standard and that, in a larger context, it is subjective because there is no real external standard.  You might accuse me of using terms wrong again but, doesn't objective imply some sort of external standard that applies to everyone instead of an internal standard that is regulated by each individual person?

Quote:
The most you can claim is "You cannot determine what you find attractive" which is not the same thing as "beauty is objective" since one is a claim about the individual whereas the other implies that everyone, regardless of their own beliefs and desires, find the same thing attractive.

Quote:
Give me some equipment, a few photos, and some scientists, and I'll determine what you find attractive.

To quote the conclusion of the classic exchange between Hollywood and Wolfman in the first briefing scene with Viper in Top Gun "Don't tease me".

Quote:
Imagine a box with say, a thousand different qualities in it.  You find 1, 293, 714, 715, 792, 803, and 920 to be ridiculously attractive, while I find 7, 644, 790,791, 792, and 998 to be equally attractive.  We each have objective tastes, which belong to an objective set {1,1000} that objectively encompass all human perceptions of beauty.  Within the set of humans, each individual has tastes which he cannot control, but are mathematically subjective, since each of the 1000 is valid as a description of beauty.

Perhaps I am finding trouble reading your perfect and infallible words again but are you  saying that because we have  narrowed the number of attractive combinations to 1000 that beauty is objective?  It seems to me that if someone were to only find 1 combination out of the thousand attractive (in turn rejecting the other 999 combinations), its still subjective.  Furthermore, by collecting emprical evidence that suggests that these 1000 different combinations are attractive (albeit, it is not necessarily the case that many people would find all 1000 combinations attractive) you have accomplished nothing more but finding a way to justify imposing ideas of beauty to others since "Well, test group B found combination 234 attractive, therefore, this combination will be deemed attractive". 

Quote:
It's not quite that simple, of course.
 

I shall hope not.

Quote:
Supposing that shiny hair is number ten, virtually all males are going to find it attractive in a female, while number 333, a small birthmark on the tip of the nose, is only going to be considered attractive by one or two percent of the population.   We can objectively say that shiny hair is, on average, much more attractive than birthmarks on the tip of the nose. 

So you are working with a "majority rules" notion of objective?

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff