Nataly 38 #51 March 17, 2011 Quote Africa, nice place. Been there. It was fun. The girls of RSA are so beautiful. Rebuttal; Quote For a lack of a better words, you are angry at what I have written. You find it offensive and at odds with your inner view of what you want the world to be and what we all tell each other "it's really what's on the inside that makes you beautiful". You will grab at strands of data far outside of the norm and state that they are "the norm" when in fact they are just that, outlying data points. wow I feel satisfied.... It's not that what you have written makes me "angry" - far from it. It's just not accurate. Again... It's part of the picture, but not the whole picture. The "norms" as you see them are not representative of the global majority. Which means by default that they cannot be hailed as universal biological truths. Which technically means what you are talking about are "outlying data points." What you say may be true of a certain segment of the populace. And in some places may represent a majority view-point. But it's simply inaccurate to apply your theories on a universal scale - they don't stand up to reality."There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield « Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. » - my boss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #52 March 17, 2011 >You will grab at strands of data far outside of the norm and state that they >are "the norm" when in fact they are just that, outlying data points. ?? I'm using all history and all culture as references. You are using the US media and the New Jersey dating scene as yours. I am suggesting that your environment, while surely valid in describing your social life, does not translate well to the rest of the world. In other words, just because something is attractive to someone in New Jersey in 2011 does not make it a "universal biological standard" - even if it feels that way to you. >We are predetermined to be attracted to health, virility and symmetry and a finite >ratio of dimensions that imply such key features. I think you are confusing "we" with "me." That's the point I was making. Science has actually studied this. They've looked at whether there are "universal" characteristics that all people find good looking. And the answer is yes, there are a few. Symmetry is one of them; averageness is another. Health is not; pallor was once all the rage. Big hips, skinny hips, skinny waist, long hair, fat, tall, athletic are not either; again, those attributes have been pluses and minuses throughout the years, and throughout different cultures. >And find beauty in all but...then there is that biological code. And that's my point. It's not a biological code as you are describing it. It may be inherent, and you may find it hard to "turn off" - but it is more due to social conditioning and upbringing than anything hardwired. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #53 March 17, 2011 >I do disagree on the waist to hip ratio thing. That's been proven. for women. ================= A Critical Test of the Waist-to-Hip-Ratio Hypothesis of Female Physical Attractiveness Louis G. Tassinary, Environmental Psychophysiology Laboratory Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3137 Abstract Recent research has led to increasingly sophisticated conjectures as to the roles that genetic heritage, prior experience, and environmental context play in the production and maintenance of complex behaviors. The field of evolutionary psychology was born of such conjectures (Stanley, 1895) and now serves as a niche for a growing number of researchers (Buss, 1995; Kenrick, 1994). One of the more provocative lines of experimental research to emerge from this alembic derives from the linkage of evolutionary theories of human mate selection with definitions of physical attractiveness based on somatic characteristics that simultaneously signal attractiveness and predict reproductive potential (Buss, 1989). The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) has been purportedly demonstrated to be a robust example of just such an invariant perceptual cue (e.g., Henss, 1995; Singh, 1993a). Here, we report that judgments of attractiveness and fecundity can be either unrelated or related, positively or negatively, to the WHR depending on waist size, hip size, and weight, and are thus inconsistent with the evolutionary argument that human physical attractiveness is fundamentally a sign of mate value. =================== >Men - features that indicate being a good defender and strong >provider (tall, strong neck, etc) In the 16th century, an obese, pallid chair-bound man would be that good provider. His weight indicated he ate well, which was an excellent indicator of what he could provide a potential mate. Art of the time exemplifies this. >It's just anthropology in action. Exactly. Which was my point - it's anthropology (i.e. our social environment) and not biology that, to a large degree, determines our preferences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #54 March 17, 2011 It's what's on the inside that matter and every one is beautiful in their own way....and other great things. Satisfied? I will now hold my breath to when size 8+ ladies start replacing all the Victorias Secret models. And my plus sized mail order brides business takes off. Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #55 March 18, 2011 QuoteQuote Come on Shah... You have a narrow view of what "biologically" attracts men to women. A view that is not supported by the wide range of what men actually like across (or even within) different cultures... you bringinig in an African cultural "norm" to rebute a western point of view, about western culture, is pretty much assanine.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nataly 38 #56 March 18, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Come on Shah... You have a narrow view of what "biologically" attracts men to women. A view that is not supported by the wide range of what men actually like across (or even within) different cultures... you bringinig in an African cultural "norm" to rebute a western point of view, about western culture, is pretty much assanine. No, Shah has claimed several times that his views are biological and universal - like you said, I'm pointing out that they are a Western point of view (and not even representative of all Westerners) and therefore NOT universal."There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield « Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. » - my boss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jonstark 8 #57 March 18, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Discuss. Talk about stating the obvious?! One would think. Yet there are an awful lot of people who seem to think that life happens to them. I guess you are right. Just look at Forest Gump and serendipity. jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shah269 0 #58 March 18, 2011 Quote No, Shah has claimed several times that his views are biological and universal - like you said, I'm pointing out that they are a Western point of view (and not even representative of all Westerners) and therefore NOT universal. And then to add insult to injury I then accused her of using outlying data points caused by either unusual environmental circumstances and cultures to justify her argument. Which totally took away from her satisfaction of having her inner model based on years of women's net work specials about "it's all about what's inside that counts" blown out of the water like a baby seal getting taken out by a great white shark. Case in point, back when Seinfeld was on there were actually groups of women who found the character George Costanza to be not only attractive but also highly sexual. Utilizing this outlying data point I could declare "Due to the Costanza effect, the classic view of male aesthetic is overblown and a truly backwards western idea and as such I in my 5'7" 180lbs of shaved headed fuzzy chested sexiness am A PERSIAN GOD!" Boy was that satisfying or what! Nat, slap your ass and call me sexy! Because well....apparently I am Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #59 March 18, 2011 Quote>Exactly. Which was my point - it's anthropology (i.e. our social environment) and not biology that, to a large degree, determines our preferences. My point is that it's a combination. Norms for attractiveness to tend to biological cues that set attractiveness (strength, proportionality, etc). You start there, then it's modified by the cultural cues for superior performance. The 2nd affect becomes stronger, as society become more complex, but the first won't go away. Hunter/gatherer/fecundity have have had millenia to program into the DNA, societal/subjective cues change a couple times per generation - they just can't compete except on a more shallow level. You are stating it's 'primarily' societal. I disagree with that. It's not a close race at all for the subconscious. short answer - 1 - sort of agree with you on an individual basis in the most complex social regions - societal cues can dominate or at least be on an equal basis with more primal cues 2 - disagree with you on a mass population basis - in general, we're still animals ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,396 #60 March 18, 2011 >Norms for attractiveness to tend to biological cues that set attractiveness >(strength, proportionality, etc). Agreed there. However, the only universally valid biological cues that anyone can find are symmetry and averageness. (Proportionality would be a good way to describe both.) Things like hip/waist size attractiveness are common but far from universal. >You start there, then it's modified by the cultural cues for superior performance. Although the term "superior" could be argued (i.e. the cultural desire for women whose bodies look like young boys may not be all that great in terms of reproductive fitness) I agree in principle; basic drives are altered by the environment one grows up in. >You are stating it's 'primarily' societal. Yes, for everything beyond the very basics. The very wide variety of forms we have found attractive - from Rubenesque women of the 16th century to the waifs of today, from the small featured women of Japan to the Amazon ideal, from the pallor of geishas and Shakespearean age women to the tans of the Mediterranean - tends to support that. Now, it may be because we start out with some strong and lots of weaker biological drives, and the strong ones persist while the weak ones are overwhelmed by societal conditioning. That may be true - but would still result in an attraction governed primarily by societal standards/influences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shah269 0 #61 March 18, 2011 Let me step in and satisfy this argument once and for all. We live in 2011 in a world dominated by western values and western views. Yes there were times where given sizes and shapes were more desired than others, yes there are pockets on this planet where given sizes and shapes are more desired more than most. But to reiterate we live in 2011 in a world dominated by western values and views. And as such the idea of "beauty" is governed by western values and views. You can stomp your feet and cross your arms but unless you are willing to travel back in time and or go and live in some far flung part of Africa, get use to it. The current definition of "HOT" is rather straight forward. If you don't like it I'm very sorry, please develop a time machine and travel back in time and or move to where your views are the norm. At the moment were we sit today your perceived notions of beauty based on Rubinesque women just holds no water. Feel free to argue health or culture, but I'm sorry....the days of "full figured" are more or less out. And a hint, even when the women were full figured their dimensions were such that they matched what is considered "Hot" today just increased by a factor or two......thus the hard coding of biology. Satisfied? NO? I thought not. Please write various organizations and media sources complaining about their lack of incorporating "real sized" women in the advertisements which they include in women's magazines. And well...odds are they are just going to file your well thought out well intentioned letter in a circular drawer under the desk for as it stands now the current and long standing view of what is attractive stands. Sure there are voices of discontent but...let's face it marketers know what sells. And based on that, they know what is "hot". And Rubinesque just isn't one of them. I feel strangely satisfied now. Should I be worried?Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWFlyer 2 #62 March 18, 2011 Okay, even if we concede your point about the beauty standard, this whole side argument is a red herring because you've also conceded in post #47 that people outside of said beauty standard can be satisfied with their lives."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites david3 0 #63 March 18, 2011 If you are incapable of finding beauty in anything but runway models or Victoria Secret models (and I am not talking inner beauty) then I don’t hold out much hope for you finding happiness. Attractiveness (and sexiness and beauty) is so much more. Everywhere I look I see beautiful woman, actually to a fault. Yes I know this has been talked to death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shah269 0 #64 March 18, 2011 Quote Okay, even if we concede your point about the beauty standard, this whole side argument is a red herring because you've also conceded in post #47 that people outside of said beauty standard can be satisfied with their lives. Yeah I mean look at me! I was just getting a bit of "Satisfaction".Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,396 #65 March 18, 2011 >But to reiterate we live in 2011 in a world dominated by western >and views. And as such the idea of "beauty" is governed by western values >and views. In the parts of the world we see - agreed. >The current definition of "HOT" is rather straight forward. The current definition of "HOT" varies even within Western culture within broad guidelines. The prepubescent boy form is quite hot now, but there are a number of big-hipped narrow-waisted supermodels who are doing very well. Obese is definitely out. >At the moment were we sit today your perceived notions of beauty based >on Rubinesque women just holds no water. Sorry, to be clear, I do not have a "perceived notion of beauty" based on fat chicks. At one point, they actually _were_ the standard of beauty. Which doesn't mean much today, other than to demonstrate that we do not have some sort of genetic inborn preference for skinny women. That is a learned preference, one we inherit from society - as you mention above. >Satisfied? NO? I thought not. ??? >Please write various organizations and media sources complaining >about their lack of incorporating "real sized" women in the >advertisements which they include in women's magazines. Again - ??? I don't really care what sort of women are in ads in women's magazines. They do not affect what I find attractive, and I don't think that women are 'victimized' or anything by the current standards of beauty. Sounds like your preferences match contemporary standards of beauty pretty closely. If that works for you, great. Just keep in mind that they are YOUR standards, and no one else's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shah269 0 #66 March 18, 2011 Quote Sounds like your preferences match contemporary standards of beauty pretty closely. If that works for you, great. Just keep in mind that they are YOUR standards, and no one else's. Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Nataly 38 #56 March 18, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Come on Shah... You have a narrow view of what "biologically" attracts men to women. A view that is not supported by the wide range of what men actually like across (or even within) different cultures... you bringinig in an African cultural "norm" to rebute a western point of view, about western culture, is pretty much assanine. No, Shah has claimed several times that his views are biological and universal - like you said, I'm pointing out that they are a Western point of view (and not even representative of all Westerners) and therefore NOT universal."There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield « Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. » - my boss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jonstark 8 #57 March 18, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Discuss. Talk about stating the obvious?! One would think. Yet there are an awful lot of people who seem to think that life happens to them. I guess you are right. Just look at Forest Gump and serendipity. jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shah269 0 #58 March 18, 2011 Quote No, Shah has claimed several times that his views are biological and universal - like you said, I'm pointing out that they are a Western point of view (and not even representative of all Westerners) and therefore NOT universal. And then to add insult to injury I then accused her of using outlying data points caused by either unusual environmental circumstances and cultures to justify her argument. Which totally took away from her satisfaction of having her inner model based on years of women's net work specials about "it's all about what's inside that counts" blown out of the water like a baby seal getting taken out by a great white shark. Case in point, back when Seinfeld was on there were actually groups of women who found the character George Costanza to be not only attractive but also highly sexual. Utilizing this outlying data point I could declare "Due to the Costanza effect, the classic view of male aesthetic is overblown and a truly backwards western idea and as such I in my 5'7" 180lbs of shaved headed fuzzy chested sexiness am A PERSIAN GOD!" Boy was that satisfying or what! Nat, slap your ass and call me sexy! Because well....apparently I am Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #59 March 18, 2011 Quote>Exactly. Which was my point - it's anthropology (i.e. our social environment) and not biology that, to a large degree, determines our preferences. My point is that it's a combination. Norms for attractiveness to tend to biological cues that set attractiveness (strength, proportionality, etc). You start there, then it's modified by the cultural cues for superior performance. The 2nd affect becomes stronger, as society become more complex, but the first won't go away. Hunter/gatherer/fecundity have have had millenia to program into the DNA, societal/subjective cues change a couple times per generation - they just can't compete except on a more shallow level. You are stating it's 'primarily' societal. I disagree with that. It's not a close race at all for the subconscious. short answer - 1 - sort of agree with you on an individual basis in the most complex social regions - societal cues can dominate or at least be on an equal basis with more primal cues 2 - disagree with you on a mass population basis - in general, we're still animals ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,396 #60 March 18, 2011 >Norms for attractiveness to tend to biological cues that set attractiveness >(strength, proportionality, etc). Agreed there. However, the only universally valid biological cues that anyone can find are symmetry and averageness. (Proportionality would be a good way to describe both.) Things like hip/waist size attractiveness are common but far from universal. >You start there, then it's modified by the cultural cues for superior performance. Although the term "superior" could be argued (i.e. the cultural desire for women whose bodies look like young boys may not be all that great in terms of reproductive fitness) I agree in principle; basic drives are altered by the environment one grows up in. >You are stating it's 'primarily' societal. Yes, for everything beyond the very basics. The very wide variety of forms we have found attractive - from Rubenesque women of the 16th century to the waifs of today, from the small featured women of Japan to the Amazon ideal, from the pallor of geishas and Shakespearean age women to the tans of the Mediterranean - tends to support that. Now, it may be because we start out with some strong and lots of weaker biological drives, and the strong ones persist while the weak ones are overwhelmed by societal conditioning. That may be true - but would still result in an attraction governed primarily by societal standards/influences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shah269 0 #61 March 18, 2011 Let me step in and satisfy this argument once and for all. We live in 2011 in a world dominated by western values and western views. Yes there were times where given sizes and shapes were more desired than others, yes there are pockets on this planet where given sizes and shapes are more desired more than most. But to reiterate we live in 2011 in a world dominated by western values and views. And as such the idea of "beauty" is governed by western values and views. You can stomp your feet and cross your arms but unless you are willing to travel back in time and or go and live in some far flung part of Africa, get use to it. The current definition of "HOT" is rather straight forward. If you don't like it I'm very sorry, please develop a time machine and travel back in time and or move to where your views are the norm. At the moment were we sit today your perceived notions of beauty based on Rubinesque women just holds no water. Feel free to argue health or culture, but I'm sorry....the days of "full figured" are more or less out. And a hint, even when the women were full figured their dimensions were such that they matched what is considered "Hot" today just increased by a factor or two......thus the hard coding of biology. Satisfied? NO? I thought not. Please write various organizations and media sources complaining about their lack of incorporating "real sized" women in the advertisements which they include in women's magazines. And well...odds are they are just going to file your well thought out well intentioned letter in a circular drawer under the desk for as it stands now the current and long standing view of what is attractive stands. Sure there are voices of discontent but...let's face it marketers know what sells. And based on that, they know what is "hot". And Rubinesque just isn't one of them. I feel strangely satisfied now. Should I be worried?Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWFlyer 2 #62 March 18, 2011 Okay, even if we concede your point about the beauty standard, this whole side argument is a red herring because you've also conceded in post #47 that people outside of said beauty standard can be satisfied with their lives."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites david3 0 #63 March 18, 2011 If you are incapable of finding beauty in anything but runway models or Victoria Secret models (and I am not talking inner beauty) then I don’t hold out much hope for you finding happiness. Attractiveness (and sexiness and beauty) is so much more. Everywhere I look I see beautiful woman, actually to a fault. Yes I know this has been talked to death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shah269 0 #64 March 18, 2011 Quote Okay, even if we concede your point about the beauty standard, this whole side argument is a red herring because you've also conceded in post #47 that people outside of said beauty standard can be satisfied with their lives. Yeah I mean look at me! I was just getting a bit of "Satisfaction".Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,396 #65 March 18, 2011 >But to reiterate we live in 2011 in a world dominated by western >and views. And as such the idea of "beauty" is governed by western values >and views. In the parts of the world we see - agreed. >The current definition of "HOT" is rather straight forward. The current definition of "HOT" varies even within Western culture within broad guidelines. The prepubescent boy form is quite hot now, but there are a number of big-hipped narrow-waisted supermodels who are doing very well. Obese is definitely out. >At the moment were we sit today your perceived notions of beauty based >on Rubinesque women just holds no water. Sorry, to be clear, I do not have a "perceived notion of beauty" based on fat chicks. At one point, they actually _were_ the standard of beauty. Which doesn't mean much today, other than to demonstrate that we do not have some sort of genetic inborn preference for skinny women. That is a learned preference, one we inherit from society - as you mention above. >Satisfied? NO? I thought not. ??? >Please write various organizations and media sources complaining >about their lack of incorporating "real sized" women in the >advertisements which they include in women's magazines. Again - ??? I don't really care what sort of women are in ads in women's magazines. They do not affect what I find attractive, and I don't think that women are 'victimized' or anything by the current standards of beauty. Sounds like your preferences match contemporary standards of beauty pretty closely. If that works for you, great. Just keep in mind that they are YOUR standards, and no one else's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shah269 0 #66 March 18, 2011 Quote Sounds like your preferences match contemporary standards of beauty pretty closely. If that works for you, great. Just keep in mind that they are YOUR standards, and no one else's. Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jonstark 8 #57 March 18, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Discuss. Talk about stating the obvious?! One would think. Yet there are an awful lot of people who seem to think that life happens to them. I guess you are right. Just look at Forest Gump and serendipity. jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #58 March 18, 2011 Quote No, Shah has claimed several times that his views are biological and universal - like you said, I'm pointing out that they are a Western point of view (and not even representative of all Westerners) and therefore NOT universal. And then to add insult to injury I then accused her of using outlying data points caused by either unusual environmental circumstances and cultures to justify her argument. Which totally took away from her satisfaction of having her inner model based on years of women's net work specials about "it's all about what's inside that counts" blown out of the water like a baby seal getting taken out by a great white shark. Case in point, back when Seinfeld was on there were actually groups of women who found the character George Costanza to be not only attractive but also highly sexual. Utilizing this outlying data point I could declare "Due to the Costanza effect, the classic view of male aesthetic is overblown and a truly backwards western idea and as such I in my 5'7" 180lbs of shaved headed fuzzy chested sexiness am A PERSIAN GOD!" Boy was that satisfying or what! Nat, slap your ass and call me sexy! Because well....apparently I am Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #59 March 18, 2011 Quote>Exactly. Which was my point - it's anthropology (i.e. our social environment) and not biology that, to a large degree, determines our preferences. My point is that it's a combination. Norms for attractiveness to tend to biological cues that set attractiveness (strength, proportionality, etc). You start there, then it's modified by the cultural cues for superior performance. The 2nd affect becomes stronger, as society become more complex, but the first won't go away. Hunter/gatherer/fecundity have have had millenia to program into the DNA, societal/subjective cues change a couple times per generation - they just can't compete except on a more shallow level. You are stating it's 'primarily' societal. I disagree with that. It's not a close race at all for the subconscious. short answer - 1 - sort of agree with you on an individual basis in the most complex social regions - societal cues can dominate or at least be on an equal basis with more primal cues 2 - disagree with you on a mass population basis - in general, we're still animals ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #60 March 18, 2011 >Norms for attractiveness to tend to biological cues that set attractiveness >(strength, proportionality, etc). Agreed there. However, the only universally valid biological cues that anyone can find are symmetry and averageness. (Proportionality would be a good way to describe both.) Things like hip/waist size attractiveness are common but far from universal. >You start there, then it's modified by the cultural cues for superior performance. Although the term "superior" could be argued (i.e. the cultural desire for women whose bodies look like young boys may not be all that great in terms of reproductive fitness) I agree in principle; basic drives are altered by the environment one grows up in. >You are stating it's 'primarily' societal. Yes, for everything beyond the very basics. The very wide variety of forms we have found attractive - from Rubenesque women of the 16th century to the waifs of today, from the small featured women of Japan to the Amazon ideal, from the pallor of geishas and Shakespearean age women to the tans of the Mediterranean - tends to support that. Now, it may be because we start out with some strong and lots of weaker biological drives, and the strong ones persist while the weak ones are overwhelmed by societal conditioning. That may be true - but would still result in an attraction governed primarily by societal standards/influences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #61 March 18, 2011 Let me step in and satisfy this argument once and for all. We live in 2011 in a world dominated by western values and western views. Yes there were times where given sizes and shapes were more desired than others, yes there are pockets on this planet where given sizes and shapes are more desired more than most. But to reiterate we live in 2011 in a world dominated by western values and views. And as such the idea of "beauty" is governed by western values and views. You can stomp your feet and cross your arms but unless you are willing to travel back in time and or go and live in some far flung part of Africa, get use to it. The current definition of "HOT" is rather straight forward. If you don't like it I'm very sorry, please develop a time machine and travel back in time and or move to where your views are the norm. At the moment were we sit today your perceived notions of beauty based on Rubinesque women just holds no water. Feel free to argue health or culture, but I'm sorry....the days of "full figured" are more or less out. And a hint, even when the women were full figured their dimensions were such that they matched what is considered "Hot" today just increased by a factor or two......thus the hard coding of biology. Satisfied? NO? I thought not. Please write various organizations and media sources complaining about their lack of incorporating "real sized" women in the advertisements which they include in women's magazines. And well...odds are they are just going to file your well thought out well intentioned letter in a circular drawer under the desk for as it stands now the current and long standing view of what is attractive stands. Sure there are voices of discontent but...let's face it marketers know what sells. And based on that, they know what is "hot". And Rubinesque just isn't one of them. I feel strangely satisfied now. Should I be worried?Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #62 March 18, 2011 Okay, even if we concede your point about the beauty standard, this whole side argument is a red herring because you've also conceded in post #47 that people outside of said beauty standard can be satisfied with their lives."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
david3 0 #63 March 18, 2011 If you are incapable of finding beauty in anything but runway models or Victoria Secret models (and I am not talking inner beauty) then I don’t hold out much hope for you finding happiness. Attractiveness (and sexiness and beauty) is so much more. Everywhere I look I see beautiful woman, actually to a fault. Yes I know this has been talked to death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #64 March 18, 2011 Quote Okay, even if we concede your point about the beauty standard, this whole side argument is a red herring because you've also conceded in post #47 that people outside of said beauty standard can be satisfied with their lives. Yeah I mean look at me! I was just getting a bit of "Satisfaction".Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #65 March 18, 2011 >But to reiterate we live in 2011 in a world dominated by western >and views. And as such the idea of "beauty" is governed by western values >and views. In the parts of the world we see - agreed. >The current definition of "HOT" is rather straight forward. The current definition of "HOT" varies even within Western culture within broad guidelines. The prepubescent boy form is quite hot now, but there are a number of big-hipped narrow-waisted supermodels who are doing very well. Obese is definitely out. >At the moment were we sit today your perceived notions of beauty based >on Rubinesque women just holds no water. Sorry, to be clear, I do not have a "perceived notion of beauty" based on fat chicks. At one point, they actually _were_ the standard of beauty. Which doesn't mean much today, other than to demonstrate that we do not have some sort of genetic inborn preference for skinny women. That is a learned preference, one we inherit from society - as you mention above. >Satisfied? NO? I thought not. ??? >Please write various organizations and media sources complaining >about their lack of incorporating "real sized" women in the >advertisements which they include in women's magazines. Again - ??? I don't really care what sort of women are in ads in women's magazines. They do not affect what I find attractive, and I don't think that women are 'victimized' or anything by the current standards of beauty. Sounds like your preferences match contemporary standards of beauty pretty closely. If that works for you, great. Just keep in mind that they are YOUR standards, and no one else's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #66 March 18, 2011 Quote Sounds like your preferences match contemporary standards of beauty pretty closely. If that works for you, great. Just keep in mind that they are YOUR standards, and no one else's. Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
