High-heeled shoes and evolution theory.

[Ryan_m_b]

and evolutionary wise, women do the peacocking not the males, which is different than majority of animals.

Sexual dimorphism in the animal world is not comparable to human cultural rituals and fashion. For obvious reasons all human behaviours are far more complicated and we should be careful when drawing straight comparisons to animals.

 

[I like Serena]

Sexual dimorphism in the animal world is not comparable to human cultural rituals and fashion. For obvious reasons all human behaviours are far more complicated and we should be careful when drawing straight comparisons to animals.

I tend to disagree. I do believe that humans are generally more distant from there instincts.
But those instincts are there! And they have far more influence than you may acknowledge.
In the end we aren't above those animals that you disparage so easily.
And those complications that you mention are more of illusions that hide what is really going on.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I tend to disagree. I do believe that humans are generally more distant from there instincts.
But those instincts are there! And they have far more influence than you may acknowledge.
In the end we aren't above those animals that you disparage so easily.
And those complications that you mention are more of illusions that hide what is really going on.

You've missed my point and seem to have made one up that I didn't say. I was specifically referring to direct comparisons like the peacock one above to human fashion and behaviour. The wearing of any clothing item is not comparable to biological features whose purpose is mate attraction.

 

[I like Serena]

You've missed my point and seem to have made one up that I didn't say. I was specifically referring to direct comparisons like the peacock one above to human fashion and behaviour. The wearing of any clothing item is not comparable to biological features whose purpose is mate attraction.

My point is that I believe we can draw straight comparisons and I believe it applies just as much to human fashion and behavior.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Does a peacock pluck its own feathers and replace them with fake ones in order to attract a female?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

My point is that I believe we can draw straight comparisons and I believe it applies just as much to human fashion and behavior.

Make your case. How does fashion, a social construct with a variety of purposes, directly compare to sexually selected sexual dimorphism?

 

[dlgoff]

Does a peacock pluck its own feathers and replace them with fake ones in order to attract a female?

Someone does.

 

[jim hardy]

Go into a jumpin' bar around eleven PM. It's like watching a nature show.

You'll see dominant males looking to fight.
You'll see hyenas swiping people's drinks.
You'll see predators looking for easy prey.
You'll see fearful critters hiding behind mirrored shades..
You'll see busy bees buzzing around looking for a flower to pollenate.
You'll see flowers looking to get pollenated.

It's in 'Closing Time', by Leonard Cohen...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Someone does.

That's what I meant. People do that. We hide our natural appearance and replace it with an unnatural one in order to attract the opposite sex. Are there other examples of that in other species.

 

[dlgoff]

That's what I meant. People do that. We hide our natural appearance and replace it with an unnatural one in order to attract the opposite sex.

Exactly.

 

[g.lemaitre]

I thought you weren't allowed to discuss evolution theory on this forum

 

[dlgoff]

Go into a jumpin' bar around eleven PM. It's like watching a nature show.

You'll see dominant males looking to fight.
You'll see hyenas swiping people's drinks.
You'll see predators looking for easy prey.
You'll see fearful critters hiding behind mirrored shades..
You'll see busy bees buzzing around looking for a flower to pollenate.
You'll see flowers looking to get pollenated.

It's in 'Closing Time', by Leonard Cohen...

Jim. High heels don't matter there.

http://www.planetperplex.com/img/6beers.gif http://www.planetperplex.com/img/6beers_expl.gif

 

[Containment]

It's a justifiable reason to have an extra 200 pair of shoes.

 

[lisab]

I thought you weren't allowed to discuss evolution theory on this forum

Evolution is open - creationism is not.

But we're talking shoes. For some reason.

 

[lisab]

Jim. High heels don't matter there.

http://www.planetperplex.com/img/6beers.gif http://www.planetperplex.com/img/6beers_expl.gif

Hmm, linkies don't work for me.

 

[dlgoff]

Hmm, linkies don't work for me.

Probably just as well. I figured a mentor must have removed them.

 

[g.lemaitre]

Evolution is open - creationism is not.

.

What do you mean by open? Is true the same thing as open?

 

[lisab]

What do you mean by open? Is true the same thing as open?

Open means it's open for discussion. Of course the Biology forum is the place for those discussions. And I strongly suggest you read this first :

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=543950

 

[zoobyshoe]

Not being male, I don't understand the attraction. But hey, whatever decreases μ for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOfMO2R7u44

Being male, I don't understand the attraction.

That video is hideous.

Hence proving there is no idea that somebody, somewhere cannot extend beyond the bounds of rationality, practicality or stupidity.

I have to check because it's not clear to me: you guys all realize those shoes in the video aren't intended to be attractive, right, that they're meant to be hideous?

 

[NemoReally]

Hence proving there is no idea that somebody, somewhere cannot extend beyond the bounds of rationality, practicality or stupidity.

I have to check because it's not clear to me: you guys all realize those shoes in the video aren't intended to be attractive, right, that they're meant to be hideous?

Umm .. just a few observations

1. My quote doesn't really care whether the idea is teasingly or unknowingly extended beyond said bounds. However, Murphy's Law guarantees somebody, somewhere will actually think it's a good idea.
2. They're not really high heels so much as ballet points with a shin-connected balancing mechanism.
3. They look a little too well designed otherwise to be deliberately hideous, although that could part of the intent ...
4. Comments about the shoe from this link: http://www.designboom.com/design/leanie-van-der-vyver-scary-beautiful/

leanie van der vyver: scary beautiful
Oct 06, 2012

cape town-based designer leanie van der vyver has conceived and collaborated with dutch designer and shoe fabricator rené van den berg to execute 'scary beautiful', a pair of shoes for women which reverses the expected location of the heels and insole. the user must point their foot to insert into the shoe's modified vamp which is inclined forward and tapers down to the toebox. the foot rests upon a platformed toebox and is stabilized within the glove-like shoe with a brace which wraps the ankle and is secured with buckles. Spreading up the front of the shin, an angled heel projects from a tract of suede to support the individual. these 'high-toed' pumps instead position the leather sole to cover the arch of the foot.

'humans are playing God by physically and metaphorically perfecting themselves. beauty is currently at an all time climax, allowing this project to explore what lies beyond perfection. scary beautiful challenges current beauty ideals by inflicting an unexpected new beauty standard.' -leanie van der vyver

The problem I often have is distinguishing in such cases between somebody's tongue being firmly in their cheek and it being "real" - I refer back to my original point!

5. I bet 'elf and safety would have burst even major artery in their collective bodies for the filming but wouldn't bat an eyelid if your local shoe shop started stocking them. Lawyers, OTOH, would be licking their collective lips like cats given the keys to the creamery waiting for the first stumble.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's what I meant. People do that. We hide our natural appearance and replace it with an unnatural one in order to attract the opposite sex. Are there other examples of that in other species.

There's a huge common fallacy here: that the primary or sole purpose of fashion is mate attraction. Just thinking about it for a short while is enough to show that's not true. Fashion has many purposes related to human social interaction separate from mate attraction. We dress in certain ways for social admiration, comformity, self expression and to look attractive even if we don't want to attract anyone (for example many of my friends dress up beautifully when we go out even though they aren't single and aren't looking to attract anyone).

I'm always concerned when conversation about fashion draws straight line comparisons to animal behaviour because the conclusion that certain items of clothing are mainly worn to attract mates sounds subtly sinister and reminiscent of many rape culture apologetics.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That doesn't answer my question. After all, the fallacy that mate attraction is never the purpose of fashion is by no means a common one.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That doesn't answer my question.

I wasn't attempting to answer one. What was your question?

After all, the fallacy that mate attraction is never the purpose of fashion is by no means a common one.

I didn't say fashion never plays a role in attracting someone, I said that it is not the primary or sole purpose of fashion. This is a very important distinction when trying to compare sexual dimorphism for mate attraction and specifics of human fashion.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I wasn't attempting to answer one. What was your question?

You quoted it yourself.

That's what I meant. People do that. We hide our natural appearance and replace it with an unnatural one in order to attract the opposite sex. Are there other examples of that in other species.

I find no evidence of the fallacy you mentioned.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I wonder, how does one find clothing attractive? The only way I could see it being attractive is if it covers up the faces of people who put on 10 pounds of make - up *shudders*.

 

[zoobyshoe]

1. My quote doesn't really care whether the idea is teasingly or unknowingly extended beyond said bounds. However, Murphy's Law guarantees somebody, somewhere will actually think it's a good idea...
...The problem I often have is distinguishing in such cases between somebody's tongue being firmly in their cheek and it being "real" - I refer back to my original point!

I think you're jumping the gun, though, running ahead to predict some second party's reaction to the shoes. I'm simply concerned whether the people here watching it understood that the maker of the video was presenting a sort of mockery, or caricature, and was absolutely not endorsing the shoes. That was extremely clear to me from the laborious exploration of the model's discomfiture walking in them. The person(s) who planned and shot this film were obviously not trying to sell people on the idea of these shoes.

Whether some fringe group might go on to adopt them for their own reasons (masochism?) is a separate issue.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Just thinking about it for a short while is enough to show that's not true. Fashion has many purposes related to human social interaction separate from mate attraction. We dress in certain ways for social admiration, comformity, self expression and to look attractive even if we don't want to attract anyone (for example many of my friends dress up beautifully when we go out even though they aren't single and aren't looking to attract anyone).

It could be argued, though, that this is a long term mate attraction strategy as opposed to an occasional one. If you have a mate, you'd want to sustain their interest by reinforcing your attractiveness and status when the opportunity arises, and, by extention, constantly maintain your attractiveness in the event you ever need to find a new mate, for whatever reason. "Just thinking about it for a short while is enough to show" this makes sense.

 

[mheslep]

Apropos. Little or no connection to male attraction here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LVptO7o4L8

 

[Norman]

Having been gone from PF for a while, seeing this high heel thread felt like deja vu (all over again :rofl:). I could swear I had seen this discussion before on here so I did a little digging:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=357515&highlight=high+heels

The cycles of PF...

 

[InvalidID]

Having been gone from PF for a while, seeing this high heel thread felt like deja vu (all over again :rofl:). I could swear I had seen this discussion before on here so I did a little digging:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=357515&highlight=high+heels

The cycles of PF...

It's irritating since this isn't the only thread that is recycled.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It could be argued, though, that this is a long term mate attraction strategy as opposed to an occasional one. If you have a mate, you'd want to sustain their interest by reinforcing your attractiveness and status when the opportunity arises, and, by extention, constantly maintain your attractiveness in the event you ever need to find a new mate, for whatever reason. "Just thinking about it for a short while is enough to show" this makes sense.

I don't think this is a sensible approach. It boils down to trying to explain all human/animal social interaction in terms of one facet. It also strikes me as useless because if you attempt to do this you have a theory that can explain everything and thus explains nothing as Popper would say.

 

[nitsuj]

I'm always concerned when conversation about fashion draws straight line comparisons to animal behaviour because the conclusion that certain items of clothing are mainly worn to attract mates sounds subtly sinister...

Does the emotional intent matter?

I would think it is the effect that matters, and is where the action is...so to speak.

Surely a peacock doesn't have that comparatively disadvantaging mass of feathers because it makes him feel beautiful, or 'cause he likes the non-physical attention from the girl peacocks & the envy of boy peacocks. Nope, he has that mass of feathers 'cause the girl likes it., however the boy peacock may feel about his feathers is moot with respect to mating. (although the phrase "proud as a peacock" comes to mind)

Whether or not I find a particular fashion attractive is independent of the intent for wearing such fashion. Such as a bikini or thong, which are of course are worn for utility, much like high heels.

That said I appreciate "straight-line comparisons" being overly general., and not really useful for discussing the purpose of certain items of clothing with regard to mate attraction.

 

[I like Serena]

Having been gone from PF for a while, seeing this high heel thread felt like deja vu (all over again :rofl:). I could swear I had seen this discussion before on here so I did a little digging:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=357515&highlight=high+heels

The cycles of PF...

It seems high heels are a touchy subject.
In that thread 3 members have been banned and the thread was closed!
It's mostly the women that are still here. ;)
How are our chances?
*looks left and right over shoulders*

 

[NemoReally]

Does the emotional intent matter?

I would think it is the effect that matters, and is where the action is...so to speak.

Surely a peacock doesn't have that comparatively disadvantaging mass of feathers because it makes him feel beautiful, or 'cause he likes the non-physical attention from the girl peacocks & the envy of boy peacocks. Nope, he has that mass of feathers 'cause the girl likes it., however the boy peacock feels about his feathers is moot.

Hmm. I would
have thought there is at least the possibility that self-attractiveness is a contributory factor to mating success. It probably forms part of the relative fitness calculations that are (un)consciously performed by animals when they play the mating game - not my field at all, but somebody may be able to express a peer-reviewed opinion () on the contribution it might make to the "Do I take the other guy(s) / gal(s) on ..." decision. Looking from the other side of that equation, intimidation is also likely to be a factor ... the term "power dressing" springs to mind.

 

[nitsuj]

Hmm. I would
have thought there is at least the possibility that self-attractiveness is a contributory factor to mating success.

In people sure, but my reply was to Ryan_m_b in the context of "straight line comparisons" and I doubt male peacocks have insecurity issues or other self-awareness issues.