|
|
|
|
|
| | Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beautyPage 2 of 3 (1, 2, 3) |
"It appears that people from different cultures share the same standards of beauty because they are innate; we are born with the knowledge of who’s beautiful and who’s not.
Here is another perspective on how and why we like somethings.
Dan Dennett: Cute, sexy, sweet, funny
Why are babies cute? Why is cake sweet? Philosopher Dan Dennett has answers you wouldn't expect, as he shares evolution's counterintuitive reasoning on cute, sweet and sexy things
Relevant info starts at 2:20 (although watching is suggested.)
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_cute_sexy_sweet_funny.html | |
|
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/3/2010 12:47:51 AM | If you are talking about women, then there are a few measures. Beauty is subjective in the sense that not everyone, everywhere, and at every time will agree. However, there are objective measures that, statistically speaking, men find more attractive.
With respect to the body, the researched conclusion is the waist to hip ratio of approximately 0.7 (for instance, measurements of 36-25-36). This varies slightly by culture in terms of the apparent ratio depending on whether you are looking front on or from the side. Some cultures like wider, flatter bums while other like thicker behinds.
There is also the matter of bust size. For instance, a 36A and 34C have the same bust measurements, but different cup sizes.
Another measure that has not been studied as far as I can tell is the height to hip ratio. The ideal seems to be between 0.5 and 0.6 (a 5'4" woman - average height - with 36" hips would be 0.5625). However, there is more cultural and personal variety than with the waist to hip ratio. Western fashion models tend to be 34-24-34 and 5'8" or taller, which is 0.705 waist to hip and hip to height of 0.5 or slightly less.
Symmetry is a factor in beauty. Bilateral symmetry is generally considered pleasing to the eye. Bust and hip symmetry is what differentiates the hour glass and banana figures from the apple and pear figures. In other words, a woman with the same bust and hip measurements will appear more attractive than if one or the other is significantly smaller or larger.
Symmetry is also important in facial features, although certain asymmetries can differentiate the good looking from the down right gorgeous.
Oddly enough, a person with facial features that are all average will appear better looking than average, but not exceptionally so. Statistically, western men are attracted to woman with narrower chins and larger eyes. | |
|
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/3/2010 1:38:53 AM | I've noticed that for every guy I know, there are women who I find attractive, that they cannot understand why I am attracted to them, and vice versa, that there are women that I am totally unattracted to, that they are very attracted to.
I've also noticed that about the 1900s, what was considered attractive, was a pasty-faced woman, who was slightly podgy, and had very small breasts, practically the opposite of what is considered attractive today.
So, if there is a biological basis for human definitions of attraction, it seems to me that it changes so much from century to century and from person to person, that's it's dependent on who you are, and what values you have at this moment in your life. | |
|
| |
| |
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/3/2010 8:01:21 PM | Its all down to genetics...... Mostly!
You see we are still animals and are atracted to certain features regardless of what is comon. For example, men are naturally and universaly atracted to larger, rounded porn star style breasts, even those who say they are not.
Atraction is not just a mesure of how you rate someone but of your bodys reaction to them, so we should actually clasify atraction into two types to simplify things a bit. Lets call them phisical and emotional atraction.
Now with phisical atraction, it is entirely down to our genetics, which granted do vary slightly from person to person but across the species are pretty much the same everywhere. We can mesure phsical atraction in several ways, pulse, blood flow, breath rate, brain activity, ect. And without fail, normall healthy hetrosexual men, find the perfectly perky round e cup breasts of your typical porn star to be phsically atractive. This has been shown to be true een of people who (like myself) claim to prefer smaller more natural breasts.
The reason is beacause for those people claiming to prefer smaller breasts, they are folowing thier emotional atraction. There may be phisical atraction, but it is over riden by the brains capacity to make choices. You see the brain is a remarcably plastic thing, it can be trained to do many things that it is not naturally programed for. There was a study one on london cabies showing that they structure of a certain area of thier brain had actually become fundamentally difrent to the brains of normal people, granting them an almost 3D street plan in thier heads.
So anything can be made into an emotional atraction by simply ataching the right mental cues to it, and anything can be made to seem unatractive by the same process. Which explains why some tribes extend thier earlobes and some people find masivly fat or skiny women atractive when the brain is not hardwired for these things. In all casses, the brain overides the body, so what we percive to be atractive phsically, can be denied by the mind, and what we would deem to be unatractive phsically can be forced upon the body by the brain.
This also explains certain cultural difrences, as well as why there is a percived idea of beauty universal to all humans.
(Edit)
It should be noted that every one of the phsical components to phisical atraction can be put down to genetic reasoning. Symetry shows stronger genetics. 7/10 ratios show good growth genes. Body proportions show good hormone balances. Weight shows the ability to gather suficinet resources to care for yourself. Every phsical trait without exception can be shown to be mate choice bassed on genetic grounds. It is only the emotional atractions that do not necicerily corispond to genetics. :fish: | |
|
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/3/2010 8:09:49 PM | There are computer programs that can take two people and combine them....... If you feed a whole lot of pictures of ladies into the program, what it does is average out all of the parameters..........
The result is usually a very stunningly beautiful lady. The problem is that technically speaking, she is just the average of a lot of ladies.
Now in the computer age, beauty is only average.........
Paul K | |
|
| |
az109
| | Joined: 7/3/2010
Msg: 34 | |
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/3/2010 9:38:08 PM | The flaw in theories about attraction of males to females being based on the form of the female is that all the male needs in order to be attracted is to recognize that the form is female at all. Further, the quality of availability is more important than even the quality of femaleness. Men are sexually opportunistic, and go looking for someone or something to mount. If a healthy, young and fertile woman is there, great, in go the sperm. But if she's out gathering berries and her grandma is the only one home, chalk one up for the toothless team; she takes delivery. The reason why they had to put laws on the books prohibiting bestiality is because some guy, somewhere, acted on a sexual impulse that was totally unrelated to the results of any beauty pageant. You have to keep in mind what it is to be a young male, on that urgent mission. The only explanation for why women would have to go out of their way to be identified by males as preferable sex targets is to make sure at least some of those ejaculations could be effective in terms of human reproduction.
Women may like to think of sexual attraction as being all about women being beautiful. That's harmless and I don't mind. The reality is that all a woman needs do to become pregnant is remain in the general area of a male long enough, and that could be as little as three minutes.
Men are horny because of the hormones they have. Women can get noticed by horny men. The signaling women do is about availability only. The idea that a woman can look a certain way to attract men and gain a successful match is propaganda for selling beauty products, clothing and those little clips for your bra straps that hike your boobs up. When a man sees a woman dressed to kill, he is seeing an invitation to have sex.
Socially there is a value to having a trophy mate, for both sexes. That is a social phenomenon not a matter of attraction related to evolution.
The sexual instinct is to have sex and the impulses happen variously. It is the consumer mentality that imposes some grand shopping scheme onto mating. There is none naturally, although nothing much happens naturally, so it matters little.
You might as well study the role of climate in sexual attraction, since as any young man knows, standing naked in a breeze results in an erection. | |
|
| |
| |
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/5/2010 12:00:25 AM | Considering the facts, here are some pieces of information:
1) I have considered if breast size might affect breast-feeding ability. So I looked it up:
Small breasts can breastfeed just as well as big ones
It is the amount of fatty tissue that makes some breasts bigger than others. In other words, the milk producing apparatus is about the same in both small and big breasts. Therefore breast size is not linked to the ability to produce breast milk and breastfeed per se. Even flat-chested women, who don't have practically any fat cells in their breasts, can breastfeed. Besides, you really don't know your final breast size until after your first pregnancy, because the milk-producing cells and milk ducts grow and branch out a lot during the third trimester. http://www.007b.com/breast_size_breastfeeding.php
It seems that large-breasted women are actually worse for breast-feeding:
However, breast size does affect the breastfeeding relationship in at least two different ways. First of all, many times the babies of large breasted women have some difficulty in latching on in the beginning because they have such a tiny mouth in comparison to the areola they are supposed to take into their mouth and suck on. This problem usually goes away as the baby grows older. A lactation consultant can help with the initial problems; for example, the mother can pump the milk during the early weeks while the baby is learning a proper latch, and the pumped milk can be fed to the baby in a bottle. Ibid.
2) If we were more attracted to large-breasted and large-hipped women on a genetic basis, then all types of societies, in all eras, would be attracted to the same types of women. When we look at primitive societies in South-East Asia in our time, we see that they often have hanging breasts, which men in the West don't generally like. Yet we don't hear of any of these women finding it hard to get a husband. We see in African societies that fat women are considered more attractive. Primitive societies seem to go against the Western idea of genetic attraction.
3) Nowadays, Western society isn't that keen on having lots of kids. Many Westerners believe in Malthusian ideas, that the world is over-populated, and avoid having kids. In general. Western affluent families have a negative population rate. The rise in population in the West is mostly down to immigration from less-developed countries, those immigrants having lots of kids, until they integrate and adopt Western values, and poor people having kids. So we would expect that Western affluent men would prefer small breasts and small hips. But we see the reverse.
4) A friend of mine likes small breasts, and I prefer large ones. He commented that the men he knows that want kids, have a desire for large breasted-women, and the men he knows that don't want kids, prefer smaller-breasted women. Needless to say, he doesn't want any more kids. I found this eerily accurate, as I want kids.
Conclusions:
1) Larger breasts is an indication that the woman WANTS kids
I think emotional attraction plays far more of a factor than we think. I am inclined to believe that in the West, we can see a polarisation of breeding habits. Women are largely either avoiding having kids, in favour of dating and having a career, or are having kids and focussing on child-rearing, but are not much interested in a career or dating. Women do often do both, but mostly at different points in their lives.
I can also observe that women who already have kids, have large breasts, as the breasts expand during pregnancy, to prepare for breast-feeding.
It might be a subconscious choice on the part of Western men. Western men's subconscious might be looking at women, to see who is in a frame of mind to want to raise kids or not, at that point in their life. If the woman looks like she's putting on weight around the breasts and the hips, that indicates that subconsciously, she is adding fat to those areas, in preparation for having kids, which indicates that subconsciously, she wants kids. Or, if she looks like she already has that weight around her breasts and hips, she already has kids and is breast-feeding, and so is devoted to child-rearing, which indicates that she would be willing to have more kids with a new permanent partner.
It might be that then, Western men who want kids, would make a subconscious choice to go for the women who have larger breasts and hips, as they are putting on weight there, indicating a desire for kids. Western men who don't want kids, would make a subconscious choice to go for the women who have smaller breasts and hips, as they are losing weight there, indicating a desire for not having kids.
2) Pinning everything on genetics is part of self-validation for technology-dependent people
A lot of this is connected to genetics. But men don't prefer tall women, even though being short is generally an indicator of malnourishment, and height is an indicator of good health. So I think things are not that clearly connected to genetics as we like to believe.
So why do we like to pin so much on genetics? Well, again, that could be down to the subconscious. We know from psychology that our subconscious will stop us from contradicting the memes of our self-image. It's very popular today to explain everything in terms of science, even those things that scientists say cannot be explained scientifically. The infrastructure of Western society is very highly based on science and technology. Our infrastructure is so integrated into our daily lives, that we would find it very, very difficult to survive without it. The idea of a massive climate change terrifies us, because we'd have to live by our wits in nature, and most of us have no clue how to do that. So our lives are very reliant on the science and technology in our infrastructure. So we have a great need to believe in the strength of science and technology.
If all of existence is down to science and technology, then we can know that the infrastructure of nature is down to science and technology as well. So then adapting to that is just as easy as adapting to Western society, which we are already adapted to. So Nature doesn't require any change from us. But if that's not true, then we are going to have to adapt to rules that we aren't used to, and don't understand.
So I think that we like to claim that everything is down to science and technology, to pretend that the way we are used to, is everything, and so, we can feel safe that we are prepared for all eventualities. It's a lie. But it's better to believe a lie, than be living in fear all the time, and suffer a nervous breakdown. So we lie to ourselves.
There is a very interesting article on how we lie to protect ourselves, in the New Scientist, 19th June 2010, pages 28-29, if you get it often. Very interesting reading. | |
|
| |
| |
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/10/2010 10:51:27 AM |
1) Larger breasts is an indication that the woman WANTS kids
I think emotional attraction plays far more of a factor than we think. I am inclined to believe that in the West, we can see a polarisation of breeding habits. Women are largely either avoiding having kids, in favour of dating and having a career, or are having kids and focussing on child-rearing, but are not much interested in a career or dating. Women do often do both, but mostly at different points in their lives.
I can also observe that women who already have kids, have large breasts, as the breasts expand during pregnancy, to prepare for breast-feeding.
yes, this 'scientific analysis' should help my dating a LOT........NOT.
"well my dear, you see I am attracted to you because you have small titties and as I am not interested in fathering children at this time.."
OR:
"well my dear, you see I am attracted to you because you have those hugmongous fun-bags and as I am currently interested in fathering children at this time.." | |
|
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/11/2010 3:10:05 AM | RE Msg: 40 by sarniafairyboy:
yes, this 'scientific analysis' should help my dating a LOT........NOT.
"well my dear, you see I am attracted to you because you have small titties and as I am not interested in fathering children at this time.."
OR:
"well my dear, you see I am attracted to you because you have those hugmongous fun-bags and as I am currently interested in fathering children at this time.." Well, I wouldn't advise answering the question: "Does my bum look big in this?" with "Not to anyone who wants to knock you up."
 | |
|
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/11/2010 6:26:06 AM | 1) Larger breasts is an indication that the woman WANTS kids
If the woman looks like she's putting on weight around the breasts and the hips, that indicates that subconsciously, she is adding fat to those areas, in preparation for having kids, which indicates that subconsciously, she wants kids. Or, if she looks like she already has that weight around her breasts and hips, she already has kids and is breast-feeding, and so is devoted to child-rearing, which indicates that she would be willing to have more kids with a new permanent partner.
hmm..other than primitive!? sth east asian societies, you missed the whole of modern-day eastern boobies altogether. suppose because it doesn't fit with your argument. but if eastern men have little choice, what can they do huh. i assume they also prefer the big'uns if they can get them. i disagree with the quote above. genetic/nutritional differences affecting anatomy have nothing to do with women wanting kids. china is testament to that. a woman can't choose to put on weight in the breast and hips..she gets what nature gives her. some women are straight up and down like a man (no hips) but have big boobs.. hmm thwarts that argument somewhat eh. the male subconscious level possibly is another matter. however what you describe is akin to saying men with small penises don't want kids whilst more well-endowed men do. and well hey that must be true for women wanting kids, women prefer bigger willies after all don't they! better reach. human nature has more complexity to it. for men at least, i think it just comes down to male horniness.. breasts being a physical attractant, an erogenic visual marker..marked differentiation of the female to the male..'womanly curves'.. as for the willy argument..hmm i might be onto something  | |
|
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/11/2010 8:57:55 AM | actually ilovefriedeggs, women do chose men based on penis size when looking for potential fathers.
There have been several studies showing that simply stufing a sock down the pants is enough to make women that are ovulating, rate men as more atactive. A bigger penis shows higher testosterone, shows greater repoductive health.
As for the breast argument, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that women put on weight around the hips and breasts faster than around the rest of the body, no mater what the nutrtion levels. This dose not mean a women will have big breasts, just that her biology will lay down more fat cells in breasts that it will on the arms.
Men look for women with larger breast to waist ratios because during the fertile period, womens breast tisue sweals by as much as 50%. This is one of the only indicators in humans of ovulation, and so is one of the few phisial factors looked for by all men regardless of race. A chinease woman with small breasts still goes through the same swelling of the chest during ovulation as a big breasted Nigerian and men naturally look for this increased chest to waist ratio to tell them a woman is fertile. | |
|
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/19/2010 1:56:08 AM | actually ilovefriedeggs, women do chose men based on penis size when looking for potential fathers.
There have been several studies showing that simply stufing a sock down the pants is enough to make women that are ovulating, rate men as more atactive. A bigger penis shows higher testosterone, shows greater repoductive health.
if it takes stuffing a sock down there, that tells u a man's bulge isn't usually noticeable. if we presume the woman doesn't view the goods until such point as she has commenced a r/ship with a guy, my guess is she isn't going to toss him overboard just becoz she prefers a kransky and he has a frankfurt. unless searching for speedo-clad men at her local pool or beach is how she searches for a potential mate, i think that research is a bit faulty -> might be more indicative of the erection aspect. women dislike men ogling their bust.. somehow i don't think a man's groin is where a woman directs her gaze when she's dating a guy. if she's dating several and has seen all their packages.. that may have some impact but the guy losing out would have 2 be kinda small..and that isn't even considering the overall qualities we seek in a mate. | |
|
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/19/2010 2:55:58 AM |
somehow i don't think a man's groin is where a woman directs her gaze when she's dating a guy
You are free to think that if you wish. Your eyes tell a difrent story though. Did you know we have cameras that can track the movement of your eyes to find out where you are looking? When they were used on men the results were pretty inevitable. Without fail, all men (straight and gay) look at the same things in a typical order.
Face, Breasts, Face, Breasts, Pelvis, Face, Legs, Crotch, Hips, Waist, Breasts, Face, Shoulders, Feet, then scan up to face.
Now the surprise came when they repeated the test with women, and found that the results were almost the same.
Face, Chest, Face, Shoulders, Crotch, Face, Legs, Crotch, Hips, Waist, Shoulders, Feet then scan up to the face.
In addition to the typical order, which tends not to vary teribly much, there is a tendancy to linger on certain areas longer than others. One surprising fact is that women linger about three times as long looking at the crotch as men do. Unsurprisingly men spend far more time looking at the chest than women do.
An intresting note is how gay men tend to resmble women in thier gaze patern, lingering longer on the crotch, even with women. The same is also true of gay women, they tend to spend more time focusing on mens chests than straight women do.
if it takes stuffing a sock down there, that tells u a man's bulge isn't usually noticeable.
The test invloved men wearing trousers, with a piece of cottin aproximatelly two foot long wraped around the penis to give a slight bit more bulk to the crotch. When asked to identify a difrence between the two images, people were unable to identify the slight difrence in the bulge, but on a subconcious level women were able to detect the slightly increased bulk and rated the images with the padding as more atractive, clearly showing that women do select mates bassed on penis size. A further intresting note, is that women that were ovulating were more likely to selct the bulkier male.
There are many studies like this. We now know that women select men based on smell, from a similar study where identical photgraphs were swabed with the sweat of a man before and after exercise, and most women went for the exercise sweat photo, again more women that were ovulating picked the exersie sweat photo.
The fact is, no mater how much you might want to think you are making a concious choice, your selection is being shaped by thousands of biological markers... however, ultimately, the choice still comes down to you. Your biology only INFLUENCES how you chose a mate, it dose not DEFINE it. | |
|
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/19/2010 11:38:25 AM | The following story will esplain beyond a shadow of a doubt that attraction is biologicl........
A very wealthy man has 3 girlfriends, and wants to get married, but can't decide on which lady to marry, so he gives them each $100K, and says, I will see you in a month. The first lady invests it all, and in a month gives him back $200K. The second one goes out and buys him all of the things he always wanted, but didn't get for himself. The third lady goes out gets a boob job, lipo, etc, and is looking stunning at the end of the month.......
Which one did he marry?
Silly rabbit, the one with the big tits.........................
Paul K | |
|
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/19/2010 1:18:12 PM | I read a study in my psychology class where a baby under the age of 1 was placed in a room where there were two photos in eyesight: one of a young woman, and one of an elderly woman. They tracked the baby's eye movement and found that the baby looked at the picture of the young woman more often than the elderly one. I can't remember what the results revealed about human psychology, now, lol.
Also, I haven't read the article posted yet FrankNStein, but I'm looking forward to it. I think I remember hearing something once about why babies are cute: so that the parents will want to play, love and nurture them... This is an interesting topic OP.
And I know some things do seem universal, but there are some major differences from culture to culture in what is considered attractive. I read something once about how chinese men were more attracted to women with pale faces that had a round shape "like the moon." Once upon a time, heavier mates were preferred because it was a sign of wealth. Now (at least in America) skinnier woman are preferred... possibly for the same reason? Healthy food is more costly than junk. | |
|
| |
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/21/2010 4:05:50 PM | RE Msg: 45 by Bright1Raziel:
Did you know we have cameras that can track the movement of your eyes to find out where you are looking? When they were used on men the results were pretty inevitable. Without fail, all men (straight and gay) look at the same things in a typical order.
Face, Breasts, Face, Breasts, Pelvis, Face, Legs, Crotch, Hips, Waist, Breasts, Face, Shoulders, Feet, then scan up to face.
Now the surprise came when they repeated the test with women, and found that the results were almost the same.
Face, Chest, Face, Shoulders, Crotch, Face, Legs, Crotch, Hips, Waist, Shoulders, Feet then scan up to the face.
In addition to the typical order, which tends not to vary teribly much, there is a tendancy to linger on certain areas longer than others. One surprising fact is that women linger about three times as long looking at the crotch as men do. Unsurprisingly men spend far more time looking at the chest than women do.
An intresting note is how gay men tend to resmble women in thier gaze patern, lingering longer on the crotch, even with women. The same is also true of gay women, they tend to spend more time focusing on mens chests than straight women do. Love it. I live and learn.  | |
|
| Scientific reasons for physical attraction/opinions of human beauty
Posted: 8/21/2010 4:51:30 PM | You are free to think that if you wish. Your eyes tell a difrent story though.
maybe! i do need a new pair of specs. i will be expecting ayers rock proportions tho 
Without fail, all men (straight and gay) look at the same things in a typical order.
Face, Breasts, Face, Breasts, Pelvis, Face, Legs, Crotch, Hips, Waist, Breasts, Face, Shoulders, Feet, then scan up to face.
Now the surprise came when they repeated the test with women, and found that the results were almost the same.
Face, Chest, Face, Shoulders, Crotch, Face, Legs, Crotch, Hips, Waist, Shoulders, Feet then scan up to the face.
In addition to the typical order, which tends not to vary teribly much, there is a tendancy to linger on certain areas longer than others. One surprising fact is that women linger about three times as long looking at the crotch as men do. Unsurprisingly men spend far more time looking at the chest than women do.
we're all perves to some extent, a bit more in some circumstances than others.
An intresting note is how gay men tend to resmble women in thier gaze patern, lingering longer on the crotch, even with women. The same is also true of gay women, they tend to spend more time focusing on mens chests than straight women do.
sounds like crotch (of women) and chest envy! | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
