Debate and Discussion

The scientific analysis of attraction and evolution...
kyupol at 7:17PM, June 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006

Look… Why are girls with big boobs and hips considered “attractive”… And guys with square jaws and wide shoulders and height considered “attractive”?

Is that an evolutionary concept?

Like… back in the caveman days, a woman with big boobs and hips is considered better-equipped for childbirth and feeding the child with milk…

And guys with a square jaw and wide shoulders… makes them better-equipped for fighting. Be it rival males or the wild animals… Those pre-historic bears and tigers are fuckin huge… and scarier than the present day versions of these animals. And dont forget the diseases and poor medical knowledge.


Now fast forward to the modern era… that hardwired “program” is still there. Even when there is no need to fight the wild animals… Even with better advances in agriculture and medical technology.


What do you think about this?

Is this also the reason why religion adamantly opposes social darwinism and evolution? Notice how they invented arranged marriages in the first place? Could it be as a counter-effect against the “evolution”… because darwinism and that evolution stuff… is the stuff of the devil!


And now in the modern era, religions are looked down upon… so the more primal urges of humanity are coming out again… with little to get in their way.

Or is this really God's way of enacting evolution and stuff… Survival of the fittest. The strong live, the weak die. Nature punishes the “weak” by denying the “weak” the right to pass on the genes for the next generation.

That is why there is a need to “evolve”. In body and in doctrine. In order to survive. This dog-eat-dog world.


NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
lothar at 7:48PM, June 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
kyupol
And now in the modern era, religions are looked down upon… so the more primal urges of humanity are coming out again… with little to get in their way.



but, i thought religion Was one of the more primal urges of humanity !
religions concept of dark and light , right and wrong, black and white ; it's the source of racism , oppression and War ! religion gives the evolved human mind a way to dehumanize whole groups of other humans. if you look at the way relligions have provided rationalization for some of the most barbaric acts in human history, i would say Religion Is in fact a Very primitive aspect of this modern era .

as far as the sexiness is concerned , you forgot BIG BUTTS ! that's where the fat is stored for the lean times , it's an essential aspect to mate selection !
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
StaceyMontgomery at 8:17PM, June 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
Actually, it looks to me like standards for “attractive” and “unattractive” vary a lot in different cultures.

And even if patterns of attraction are genetically hard wired - it's a a mistake to assume that they are based on things that are logical or useful. Look at the glorious tail of the male Peacock - a great example of how evolutionary competition actually works.

Also, I do not think that “social darwinism” means what you think it means. Many religions are very obviously very much in favor of “social darwinism”, regardless of how they feel about Darwinian Science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
lothar at 9:16PM, June 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
StaceyMontgomery
Many religions are very obviously very much in favor of “social darwinism”, regardless of how they feel about Darwinian Science.

i agree , just look at the Spanish/Catholic conquest of the Americas , that was pure social darwinism at work , centuries before the Beagle sailed !!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
ozoneocean at 1:48AM, June 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,020
joined: 1-2-2004
… Stacey posted what I was going to post…? Pretty much exactly. Wow, I don't think that's ever happened before. I'll have to think up something different to reply now.

Yes, she's right. Square jaws and huge great breasts etc are a pretty modern thing and mostly in Western culture (there are some African tribes with very long ones though), historically big boobs aren't really seen all that much, and big square jaws are more of an ape-lake feature, never really been that desirable in the past. This is probably the first time since Cromagnum man that such a primitive feature has had a come back actually. :)
There must have been a reason it went out of style rather than stayed in.

Survival of the fittest and dog eat dog isn't how evolution really works, as Stacey says. It's a lot more complicated… But your take on it Kyupol is very interesting anyway. It'd be nice to hear more. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
Tantz Aerine at 5:52AM, June 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,618
joined: 10-11-2006
I think in attractiveness nowdays there is an element of rarity or being socially special.

I mean that what is beautiful is usually something that culturally or racially is rare among the population. In Greece blonde hair is considered more beautiful than dark brown (which is the norm unless you dye it.. hehe) whereas in other cultures the opposite holds. Or other cultures find red hair appalling while still others consider red hair a sexual attraction.

Also there is another element in beauty which is purely an indication of social supremacy in the population. In older times there was an exaltation of women with milky white skin. This was usually a trait of the upper class because simply those women were always indoors or using parasols and the like, and were never called to work in the outdoors, like peasant women for example. (Actually they were never called to work, period). Still in other times, being fat (having a double chin) was considered a sign of beauty, because it meant you could afford to eat enough to grow one.

What I mean to say is that beauty is much more a social tag than a natural one- though there is of course the element of physical attraction (chemistry as we call it), many times what is considered beautiful or sexy is simply what society decides is the farthest right side of a bell shaped curve ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:07PM
subcultured at 7:58AM, June 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
all those things you mention are western constructs…not really having to do with evolution.

humans really don't subscribe too much with the laws of evolution anymore, since we control a lot of how we live. skin color especially is used more politically than evolutionary trait. more people are able to live even if they were prematured because of a congenital disease using technology.

we begin to wear clothes, so we don't need a lot of body hair.
it's all thanks to our big bad ass brains that we are able to hinder evolution for a bit.

it's good because more humans are living, but it's bad because we are stressing the planet's resource with overpopulation.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM
StaceyMontgomery at 8:17AM, June 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
Actually, you never get out of evolution - you just change the rules.

For instance, in much of the world, we've stopped selecting against poor vision. You can safely predict that if the genes for bad vision are not selected against, they will spread and flourish. In a generation or three, the average person in many parts of the world will have very, very bad vision. Amazingly bad.

The same thing applies to things like diabetes and other things that we used to select against.

And it's worth it - we get to have lots of people who could not have survived in the old days. And most of them turn out to be really nice.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
lothar at 3:38PM, June 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
StaceyMontgomery
Actually, you never get out of evolution - you just change the rules.

For instance, in much of the world, we've stopped selecting against poor vision. You can safely predict that if the genes for bad vision are not selected against, they will spread and flourish. In a generation or three, the average person in many parts of the world will have very, very bad vision. Amazingly bad.

The same thing applies to things like diabetes and other things that we used to select against.

And it's worth it - we get to have lots of people who could not have survived in the old days. And most of them turn out to be really nice.

i don't think evolution works that quickly , as far as eyesight goes , the human population may indeed be headed the way of the mole , but not in 3 generations . vision has prolly not been a factor in weeding people out of the gene pool for thousands of years . i meen , prolly since the adaptation of agriculture , you can be nearsighted and still farm . peoples eyesight has prolly been getting worse since the time of the pharohs, and is likely linked to the rise in monotheism !

and i like the way you smoothly distance yourself from eugenics in the last line there !
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
kingofsnake at 8:58AM, June 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
kyupol
Is this also the reason why religion adamantly opposes social darwinism and evolution? Notice how they invented arranged marriages in the first place?

Arranged marraiges is a social construction not a religious construction.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
StaceyMontgomery at 11:51AM, June 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I'm hoping that doesnt happen, and here's why.

A woman gets pregnant - she goes to “Supergenics!” (they have one at the mall) and has her unborn child “improved.” She goes for the full “HighQ” intelligence upgrade! She's pretty happy - her daughter, Amy, will be very, very smart.

The following year, another woman get's pregnant. She goes to “UltraGene!” down at the mall (across from Supergenics). They have a whole new process they just rolled out. Baby Thomas will be really smart - smarter than little Amy.

Amy is obsolete. Amy may have trouble getting jobs - Ultragene kids are just smarter! Why hire one of those Supergenics kids?
And of course, those “Macrogenics” kids are coming along - they're much nicer to have around! And Amy? She's just not smart enough to keep up.

I don't know. I have nothing against using technology to improve ourselves. Imagine a whole generation that's immune to cancer!But we're going to have to be careful when we turn our kids into products and commodities. It might not work out the way we want it to.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Aurora Moon at 12:12PM, June 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
StaceyMontgomery
I don't know. I have nothing against using technology to improve ourselves. Imagine a whole generation that's immune to cancer!But we're going to have to be careful when we turn our kids into products and commodities. It might not work out the way we want it to.

I totally agree!! and the scary part? There's people already using children as commodities without the help of techology.

There's people who want to have children just simply because they already planned out the children's future. Become a doctor or lawyer, or marry one of those two… get really rich enough to be able to take care of thier parents in the future. After all, if the parents can't be super-rich on their own they'll use thier children to try to get that kind of life!

Or for those people who thinks that the perfect life isn't being just rich.. just having an surububan house with an white picket fence, an nice car… a couple of kids and a dog/cat. Those people who thinks that way just HAS to have all of them in order to seem like the perfect couple, with the perfect everything.

In this, their kids becomes nothing but an accessory to be used to attain that kind of life they want.

And don't even get me started on those creeps who uses that whole government child-support system as the only reason to get pregant and stuff. They don't want the children because they really wanted one, they only wanted the children because of the money that comes along with the kid.

I predict that Eugenics would only make such views worse.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
kingofsnake at 12:48PM, June 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
StaceyMontgomery
And of course, those “Macrogenics” kids are coming along - they're much nicer to have around! And Amy? She's just not smart enough to keep up.

If I learned anything from Metal Gear Solid, it's that genetics only start you off, it's up to the individual to meeet or surpass their base potential.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
Kohdok at 11:08PM, June 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
I've actually heard an interesting theory about how attraction to breasts evolved, and it goes all the way back to when we were monkeys. I can't remember where I found it, but I'll try to tell the story just the same.


Now, all living things need fat to survive, so some fat moving to the area of the chest isn't all that strange. Now, when an animal is pregnant or nursing, their breasts grow to provide for the growing child, and thus most males will be “Turned off” at the sight of them, like most dominant males would. So, most dominant males would be into flat-chested individuals and would take them all for themselves, not letting the less-dominant males have a chance.

But if there's one thing we know about boy monkeys, it's that they're pretty horny. So, the wimpier males would try to get some with the girl monkeys that have breasts by offering them food. Simple enough, and quite a few of the females would be enticed. Now, like I said before, a female's breasts grow while they are pregnant or nursing. Also, a female needs much more nutrition while pregnant or nursing but, due to the circumstances, they can't get enough food. Enter the wimpy males again. Attracted more by the larger breasts, they give the females more food, so more females stay healthy and raise healthy kids, which in turn pass on the booby-gene. Doesn't take long for this to become a survival tactic, folks.

And that's the story of why women have boobies and men are called “providers”. I mean, all you dads out there have had to go and buy your wife sixteen pounds of lima beans in the middle of the night during her pregnancy because she said so, right? And all you girls out there had better love your wimpy guy-friends, because they're the pinnacle of evolution!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
StaceyMontgomery at 4:44AM, June 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
hmm - but according to your theory, the monkeys actually having kids are the dominant males and the “flat chested” females - so those are the genes that would be passed on. How do the “wimpy” males get to be the pinnacle of evolution if they aren't the ones breeding? Or did I misunderstand the story?

Also, if the modern/western fascination with women's chests arose in this way, then why is it so recent? After all, there have been thousands of human cultures… and it's hard to identify any of them as having the modern Hugh hefner style attraction to women. Ask yourself this question - for instance, what other culture invented the push-up bra or the padded bra? I cant think of one, can you? if you go to a local art museum and look at pictures of women throughout the ages (as drawn by men, mostly) you wont see a lot of focus on breasts until, oh, the 1950s.

I'm guessing that this theory was invented by by a shy guy who wanted to impress large-breasted women. All science aside, i can only hope it worked for him.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Kohdok at 8:20AM, June 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
StaceyMontgomery
hmm - but according to your theory, the monkeys actually having kids are the dominant males and the “flat chested” females - so those are the genes that would be passed on. How do the “wimpy” males get to be the pinnacle of evolution if they aren't the ones breeding? Or did I misunderstand the story?

The idea is that yes the wimpy males ARE breeding with the females they can entice with food, like I said. Perhaps I should have been clearer. Also, the dominant males aren't helping feed the more flat-chested nursing females, so they don't remain as healthy while raising their children. The wimpy males continue to feed the pregnant females with larger breasts.(The ones they got pregnant) who have larger breasts and help them remain healthier and raise healthier kids, increasing the chances of their survival.

Granted, it's the excessively large ones that have been noticed recently, but as to your theory of no focus on breasts:

Yakshi from the early first century B.C. has got quite a rack on her.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
wyldflowa at 8:40AM, June 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 142
joined: 4-20-2006
StaceyMontgomery
if you go to a local art museum and look at pictures of women throughout the ages (as drawn by men, mostly) you wont see a lot of focus on breasts until, oh, the 1950s.
This is kinda true… but the image of a curvecous, ample-built woman has long been considered “beautiful” throughout art history. You don't often see women painted or sculpted to look underweight or flat chested - most of them have great healthy curves, even rolls of extra fat around their midriff, big bottoms and good bosoms. The focus isn't on the breasts but rather the whole package of a healthy, well-nourished, woman at the peak of her fertility.

Also, breasts grow and hips expand when a woman reaches sexual maturity - it makes sense that men would be attracted to these things because they signify when a woman is ready to have babies. If these things are exaggerated then it must signify somewhere in a man's mind that that woman is more fertile than her less developed sisters.

StaceyMontgomery
I don't know. I have nothing against using technology to improve ourselves. Imagine a whole generation that's immune to cancer!
I think a scarier thought is the idea of a civilisation where all babies are screened for genetic abnormalities at birth and those are put on record for the rest of their life… Imagine you have a child and you screen their genes to find out that they have a high risk of heart disease or cancer or something. Now later on in life when that person goes to apply for jobs employers take one look at their genetic profile and decide they're too high risk and don't employ them. When they go to get life insurance the insurance guys hike up the prices because they know this person could keep over at any second. When they go to find a partner they find themselves left of the wayside because the opposite sex are unwilling to set up a life and have children with someone carrying those undesirable genes… In the future, if things carry on as they are, I can see this sort of “genetic racism” happening - rather than people who look nice having children, it'll be people with the best genetic profile who get to sow their wild oats as it were. So people will modify their children to make them more genetically perfect so they can have success in their lives~ selecting desirable characteristics and weeding out all the bad stuff.

“Attraction” will soon be less about physical beauty and more about the pursuit of genetically “perfect” offspring. I sorely hope people keep their primal urges for big breasts and broad shoulders because the idea of people selecting partners for something they have no power over (such as their genes) is just… scary. D:
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:52PM
lothar at 10:36AM, June 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
the theory i heard as to why big boobs are so popular is because they look like a butt (sort of) . if you can imagine our monkey ancestors prolly walked all hunched over and would most likely aproach their prospective mate from the rear , most primates don't get down missionary style ! so now fast-forward to 2007 , most people stand upright , but somewhere in the primitive corridors of the human brain (possibly the pennial gland) still hangs the desire to see that familiar shape as you move in for the action !
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
mlai at 8:39AM, June 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Actually chimps copulate in missionary style as well. Saw it on Nature.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
lothar at 8:45AM, June 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
mlai
Actually chimps copulate in missionary style as well. Saw it on Nature.
Facinating ! i wonder if that's a new style for them , just give ‘em a few million years and we’ll have some chimps with big racks filling up the zoos , that will realy confound the puritans !!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved