Unfortunately, this does not work as a pick-up line. Trust me on this.
Regards,
Shodan
Historian Bettany Hughes offers an overview of what the Greeks found beautiful.
I think the obvious answer is that there are both nature and nurture elements in physical attraction. It’s very unlikely that a person is sexually attracted to a naked molerat and no amount of societal pressure is going to change that. We have biological attractions to our own species for good reason. Societal beauty is also something that’s pretty obvious. Look at paintings of ‘great beauties’ from the past and you’ll frequently be left scratching your head. Phillip of Castille who was nicknamed ‘The Handsome’ is one of my favorites to point out. Cleopatra brought down a freaking empire with her beauty and on her coins she looks like she lost a battle with a truck (though the Berlin Cleopatra treats her better, still, I don’t think I’d be marching on Rome for her.) We also know that even what we as individuals consider beautiful changes according to circumstances. Spend a couple of weeks on a mostly single-gendered trip and you’ll find by the end of it, that the one or two opposite gendered people that come with you are looking mighty good. If you were marooned on a desert island with only a single person of the opposite sex, you would likely find yourself attracted to them even if they looked like an orangutan that had been beaten with an ugly stick. Familiarity bias and the endowment effect often cause us to amplify the attractiveness of our partners, particularly if we want to be with them- we’ve all seen people that are 50 years on the wrong side of their prime whose husbands/wives look at them like they are Nefertiti reborn. Bottom line is that there are certainly biological indicators of beauty and there are certainly societal and personal indicators of beauty.
It’s a mix of both. I’d guesstimate that about 80% of attraction is innate and natural and 20% is what society tells us is attractive. After all, there are a substantial number of men who have a secret “fat fetish” for obese women that they are ashamed to admit to (since society opposes fatness) and yet they still feel for it anyway, but just can’t be open about it.
But that 20% is still a big factor, to the point that dark-skinned women in some countries will lighten their skin, curly hair gets straightened, and some people even undergo plastic surgery to make their slanted eyes non-slanted.
This is a “If people can’t get something, it means they don’t want it” fallacy. It’s like saying, “Because I see very few Ferraris and Lamborghinis on the roads, and mostly Toyotas and Chevys, I can therefore conclude that most people prefer Toyotas over Ferraris.”
There is an innate human attraction, generally, towards people who are in the top percentiles of beauty or wealth or status. Sure, you see all kinds of average or below-average people getting married, but that’s out of necessity. The world has limited resources, including high-status/tall/wealthy/beautiful people as a “resource”. After all, many people talk about the issue of “settling” in marriage.
Finally, **Jacquernagy **, are you saying that an ugly person *really *is not at a disadvantage vis-a-vis a handsome/beautiful person when it comes to “breeding?”
No, I’m not saying they’re not at a disadvantage. And just to head off any potential bad blood - I don’t think we’re that far apart in terms of our perspective on this issue. Most of what you’ve said, makes sense to me.
In the thread about incels that spawned this one (I guess incels can spawn something after all) the discussion centered around male attractiveness, and it was and is my position that physical attractiveness matters less for men than for women in terms of sexual success. I know you can’t always generalize and I know there’s a spectrum at play here, but in the main, women - to their credit - seem to place a higher priority on a man’s character, his talents, and generally what he can actually offer to them as a human being (which, yes, includes his money), than on his looks.
It doesn’t mean that women don’t care about a man’s looks at all, or that a 350-pound haggard-looking dude is going to have women flocking to him if he’s really awesome in some other way - just that in general, women seem more willing to overlook mediocrity in a man’s physical appearance if that man can make up for it with other qualities.
Men, in the main, seem to prioritize a woman’s looks over her personal qualities. Whether this is “nature or nurture”, I have no idea; probably a little of both.
Oh OK, gotcha. It is true, across many cultures, that women generally go more for intangibles than men do, while men are highly looks-based.
The theory, I’ve read, is that women are in a position where their mate’s intangibles matter a lot more than the other way around. A woman is more likely to be physically hurt by a man than vice versa, and historically it’s also usually been men who have been providers, so also needs to know that her male mate is someone with the character/qualities to be a suitable mate/provider/protector. Hence women want a mate with confidence, success, high income, status, etc.
Whereas since the reproductive role of a man is really, in truth, nothing more than “put sperm into the woman’s body,” such intangibles are of less importance for the man and he is visually drawn to physical attributes that are of good reproductive value.
It seems to me that men are actually, collectively, more willing to give women a pass for what they might perceive as body flaws, than people give them credit for. Honestly, I can’t recall many instances where I’ve heard guys say anything like, “she’s cute but her hips are too wide/her ass is too big/her boobs are too small” and the like. I’ve heard women say this stuff about other women, but men tend to either just say “she’s cute/hot” or not say anything at all.
Then again, I’m sure there are gross forums out there where men endlessly put down women’s bodies and call them names - I’ve run across that kinda shit on occasion (and it makes me sad to see people wallowing in negativity and loathing like that - this kind of mindset is absolutely a form of self-abuse just like alcoholism or drug addiction, to say nothing of its affrontery to women.) But I can’t say I’ve ever really overheard it, not even in a “locker room” context.
All this amounts to is saying “there’s also some cultural aspect to it”. OK. I’ve not denied that there’s also a cultural aspect to it. All I’ve said is that there’s no basis for assuming that there’s only a cultural basis for it (as some are claiming), since the innate aspect has a plausible basis.
I’ve reiterated this several times already. I don’t think I’m going to keep repeating it.
Women are in competition with other women for men. Men are in competition with other men for women. Therefore it makes sense for women to poor-mouth the competition.
Men do it too, but less verbally. They jockey for status among each other, in part to show off their desirability as mates. The high school quarterback gets the cheerleader. The other cheerleaders tell everyone behind her back that her daddy paid for her boob job.
Regards,
Shodan
That kind of overlaps with the cultural signal of high status. A desire for high-status mates is biological, but how it is expressed is conditioned by culture.
Lighter skin (or, in black people, less weathered skin) means you spend a lot of time indoors rather than outside working in the sun. Thus you, or your family, has enough resources that you can spend time not working in the sun, and is therefore higher status.
Some standards do. Others are pretty consistent across cultures, and genetics seems like a reasonable explanation.
Regards,
Shodan
ISTM that two things are being conflated here.
Women, when discussing the appearance of other women (or their own, FTM) will tend to hone in on specific details of the sort you describe. Men will tend to comment on the overall look. This is separate from the issue of which gender tends to be more critical of women’s appearance.
I think the difference is a practical one. Women, who are familiar with their own efforts to improve their appearance, will be much more familiar with what it is that goes into achieved the look that they find attractive (whatever that might be). So a woman might know that she dresses this way because it helps the shape/appearance of this or that body part, and she knows what her own optimum goal for that body part is. And what she does with her hair and her eyebrows and other aspects etc. etc. So when one women considers the appearance of another woman, she does so from the vantage point of her own opinion on how all these various body parts and features optimally appear, and her critique will naturally be far more detailed.
Men, when considering the appearance of women, don’t have that detailed background. They look at women and think “good looking” or “not good looking”, with maybe some detail for body parts that are of particular interest. But it’s not anything comparable to the amount of detail that a woman will summon up automatically, based on her own focus and knowledge base.
Since you’re not showing how the traits we find attractive impart increased survivability across the board, that’s a big “if”.
It’s easy to argue that tall height, for example, gives men a physical advantage that may have extended their lives back in prehistorical times. It is also very convenient to fit this into a “that’s why women are attracted to tall men” just-so-story. But where does men’s preference for shorter women come from? Do we have reason to believe short-statured women had better fitness than taller ones? I don’t really think so.
Human standards of attractiveness as so malleable that on a practical level, I question how much they really impact reproductive outcomes. The majority of humanity lack the traits that are lauded as ideal. I mean, there are soooo many apple shaped women in this world who could only dream of a 1:3 waist to hip ratio and yet, they are out there getting laid and popping out babies with no prob. Shouldn’t their inferior genes have been outcompeted a long time ago? Same with the 5’7 and shorter so-called “manlets” that incel consider hopeless specimens of aborted masculinity. If it was true that the deck was so stacked against short men, how does one explain their persistence in the population, generation after generation?
They do?
I’m 5’7" (maybe 5’8" if I square myself up well) and have had zero problem getting dates throughout my life (with attractive women by anyone’s standards too). And by “zero problem” I do not mean to suggest I have women waiting on my whim but rather that meeting and dating women has been a pretty normal process for me…same as for most guys. I get turned down sometimes, I get dates sometimes. All-in-all pretty par for the course stuff.
I have met women who absolutely demand a man 5’10" and over (one who was all of 5’ herself insisted she would only date men over 6’). Their loss. There are plenty of women who do not restrict themselves like that.
I may be exaggerating a bit, but just a wee bit. The “manlet” concept is not something I made up; it’s straight from the incel community. It is not unusual to find incels acting like a 5’7 male is doomed to live like a monk, especially if god forbid he’s also slight of build.
I just googled “5’7 manlet” just to see what hits I’d get. The results are rather sad.
I’ve not claimed that every trait is the result of increased survivability. What I said was “it would seem logical that whatever survival advantage spurred the development of these traits to begin with would have the same impact on the development of innate mate preferences”.
So if you believe that the development of white skin itself was the result of some survival advantage in colder climates (a notion that is not particularly controversial AFAICT) then it would follow that an innate preference for that trait would also confer a reproductive advantage.
I’ve also noted that some preferences could be the product of other preferences which give advantages in other circumstances.
Regarding the short women aspect, it’s possible that that particular preference is not innate. But it’s also possible that it is. For example, I’ve noted elsewhere that men are attracted to “feminine” traits, and any trait which is associated with women is going to be attractive to men on that basis alone. It’s possible that being shorter than men is one such trait. If there’s a broad tendency in men to find feminine qualities attractive, then that might provide a basis for an attraction to shorter women as a byproduct of that. In that case, the overall tendency might provide a reproductive advantage, even if not every aspect of it does.
This ignores several important facts. 1) that advantages are not absolute, 2) that all these are measurements are relative, and 3) that there will always be variation within the population.
It would follow from the logic you outlined that no trait could possibly be said to be advantageous unless it was shared in identical measure by every member of the population. This will obviously be the case only very rarely.
The manlet concept was not made up by the incel community. It originated on bodybuilding forums. It was a term of affection/self-deprecation, for the most part. Whatever incels have done to this word in the few years in which incels have existed as a ‘community’ is separate from this origin.