How about plastics like BPA affecting fetuses? Dispute remains about the impact of estrogen-mimicking substances like BPA and other plastics on human development. But that could be one element to keep in mind.
When you look at it closely, it’s clear that you’re the one making the semantic argument. You’re tossing up a few undefined media stereotypes that occur in a small percentage of the countries in the world and trying to make the case that this is a fundamental physiological and genetic change.
The only thing we know is true is that the culture of the future will be different than the culture of today. Posters twenty years from now will be taking the superficial generalities they perceive have changed over the past 20 years and try to extrapolate them into the future too. It won’t work then either.
Evolution doesn’t happen that fast. Humans have been essentially the same for tens of thousands of years. A few decades of dumb guys getting laid more often won’t change anything.
I think you’re assuming hormone production would be inherited, which isn’t the case; only genetic physiological characteristics are passed on.
Actually no I’m not. One thing I’m doing is questioning the hormone levels of a pregnant woman affecting her fetus, changing his/her appearance after birth, how that non-genetic change will affect the ability of the children to reproduce, and how those superficial changes in appearance over a span of hundreds or thousands of years will affect the gene pool.
First, we need to determine whether there have been any changes in hormone levels for women in general, or for any large subset of women. Nobody has done that.
Then we need to determine whether these hormone changes will in fact have an affect on a fetus, and what that effect might be. Nobody has done that.
Only after we determine if there is anything at all here to talk about can we even start making our totally unsupported guesses and speculations about what might happen over hundreds or thousands of years, assuming, of course, that other changes don’t turn out to be overwhelmingly more important.
I’m still not seeing a factual answer emerging out of this.
Fair enough. It’s interesting though.
Basically what I am proposing is that hormone levels might be affecting the reproducability of men and women who would otherwise be considered genetically superior.
The outward appearance of a man or woman might not match up with his/her genetics because of the hormone levels in the mother while the child was being formed. Therefore the person who would have had an advantage because he/she would have looked more attractive lacks some of that advantage. I’m not saying he/she would be ugly, but would be an 8.5 instead of a 9. The dis-advantage might not be much, but if 999 out of 1000 of them reproduces where 1000 of 1000 would have before, over time the genetics of humanity will change so the advantage of physical appearance is decreased and humanity will be more uniform in appearance.
I understand that you are proposing this. I’m asking if there is any scientific evidence at all that this is true.
I’m not sure. That’s part of why I’m asking here.
I’ve lived long enough to see the concept of what is beautiful change. We used to feel sorry for “skinny” girls. We whispered about them just as much as we did “fat” girls. “Lean” girls were almost always poor. Cruel, weren’t we? But that was how we saw beauty then. Beautiful women were voluptuous and curvatious.
Women naturally have more layers of fat than a man. It is highly unusual for a woman to be both naturally thin and large breasted. I think most women would choose to be considered beautiful as they are and in a healthy state.
In other words, they are more likely to treat each other as equals.
I think that your question(s) are based on false premises and may not belong in General Questions.
Usually it’s the man that’s required to be hard.
Sorry, couldn’t help it.
It depends what you mean by “thin.” I was using it to mean “not fat” For example, Laetitia Casta or Kim Kardashian.
I would say that given the choice, most women would choose to look like the women in the Maxim 100.
Certainly not the athletes I hang out with.
Who knows? Maybe my sample is biased somehow. I live in a wealthy suburb of a big city. By their behavior and style of dress, most of the women I meet in my town seem pretty much obsessed with looking like hotties. Same thing with most of the women in the city district where I work.
Today, yes. In the 1890s, absolutely not. In 2090 who knows?
One presumes that the Maxim 100 is going to reflect what society at the time considers beautiful. Just look at how Playboy models have changed over time. If 300 pound women are considered the height of beauty in 2090, then the top 10 will likely weigh around 300 pounds.
I did a couple image searches to investigate this. Unfortunately, 19th century clothing isn’t very revealing. However, I did a search on “19th century nudes” and there were plenty of women who were hotties by todays standards.
I agree that standards of beauty can change somewhat over time, but I would submit that these changes fall within certain parameters.
I did a search to see who Maxim’s #1 hottest girl is. Apparently it’s Marissa Miller. Anyway, I think that girls like her would have been considered hot in just about any century you pick.
Possibly. But consider Lillian Russell, one of the main sex symbol actresses of the time and look at her curves.
Both Miller’s height and weight would have been issues. Katharine Hepburn was considered freakishly tall for an actress when she began, and she was 5’7". The majority, and I believe vast majority, of leading ladies in films of the 20s and 30s were 5’3" and under. Extreme petiteness was the ideal.
In addition, women were not supposed to be athletically fit. A very few athletes, mostly swimmers, could have those physiques, but exercise for women was not ladylike.
It doesn’t take much to change norms. Models have became much taller and much thinner just within the past couple of decades.
Obviously, there’s no way to settle this. Nobody can go back and ask. But the female image in culture and the way it has shifted and changed has been much studied. Saying that it has changed and that today’s standards are not the past’s doesn’t seem to me like much of a stretch.
It’s kind of hard to assess her given the clothes she is wearing. In any event, that picture was apparently taken when she was 43.
Here’s a picture of Mariah Carey, by the way:
Are we talking about who would be considered “hot,” or who would qualify to be a hollywood leading lady? Because it seems to me the two aren’t necessarily the same.
As I said before, I agree that standards change. The question is how much.
My claim is that anyone in Maxim’s top 10 in 2008 would have been considered a hottie in 1908; 1808; and so on.
Anyway, it seems like this is turning into a debate, so if you want to talk further let’s open a debate thread ok?