High-heeled shoes and evolution theory.

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2112rush2112
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evolution Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reasons why women wear high-heeled shoes, exploring various hypotheses related to evolutionary theory, social signaling, and aesthetic preferences. Participants examine the implications of high heels on attractiveness, perceived intelligence, and societal norms, with a focus on both evolutionary and cultural perspectives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that high heels may give women an advantage in attracting taller males, suggesting a selection pressure related to height.
  • Others argue that high heels enhance the appearance of the calf muscles, contributing to aesthetic appeal.
  • Several participants suggest that high heels may imply increased intelligence or capability, as they require balance and poise while walking.
  • Some claim that the prevalence of high heels is driven by fashion trends and societal expectations rather than personal choice or evolutionary advantages.
  • There are assertions that high heels create an appearance of helplessness, which some believe may appeal to men.
  • One participant questions the evolutionary rationale behind wearing high heels with socks, introducing a humorous take on the topic.
  • Discussions also touch on the notion that high heels may signal subservience or a desire to attract attention, with mixed interpretations of this signaling.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the idea that high heels are solely for attracting men, with one noting that men also dress up for similar reasons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a variety of competing views regarding the motivations for wearing high heels, with no clear consensus on the primary reasons or implications. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple interpretations presented.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on assumptions about societal norms and evolutionary psychology that may not be universally applicable. The discussion includes humor and personal anecdotes, which may influence the interpretations of the arguments presented.

  • #91
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #92
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #93
Jimmy Snyder said:
That doesn't answer my question.
I wasn't attempting to answer one. What was your question?
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
 
  • #94
Ryan_m_b said:
I wasn't attempting to answer one. What was your question?
You quoted it yourself.
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
 
  • #95
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*.
 
  • #96
NemoReally said:
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! :smile:
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.
 
  • #97
Ryan_m_b said:
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.
 
  • #98
Apropos. Little or no connection to male attraction here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LVptO7o4L8
 
  • #100
  • #101
zoobyshoe said:
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.
 
  • #102
Ryan_m_b said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #103
Norman said:
Having been gone from PF for a while, seeing this high heel thread felt like deja vu (all over again :smile:). 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*
 
  • #104
nitsuj said:
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 (o:)) 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.
 
  • #105
NemoReally said:
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.
 
  • #106
nitsuj said:
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.
I wasn't particularly thinking that self-attractiveness was necessarily bound to conscious self-awareness, although I am open to that possibility in at least some mammals (and possibly some birds or even cephalopods). However, I do wonder what processes an animal invokes when it "decides" that it can, or cannot, compete with any other given individual.
 
  • #107
Ryan_m_b said:
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.
No, it doesn't attempt to explain anything but dressing up. Mostly, it's meant as an alternative to your explanation which was arrived at by "thinking about it for a short while". If we're using that method, my explanation is a good as yours. You're basing your opinion on your interpretation of the motives of your circle of friends, without even having polled them, much less having conducted some more scientific investigation. By "thinking about it for a short while" I can interpret my circle of friends differently.
 
  • #108
zoobyshoe said:
No, it doesn't attempt to explain anything but dressing up. Mostly, it's meant as an alternative to your explanation which was arrived at by "thinking about it for a short while". If we're using that method, my explanation is a good as yours. You're basing your opinion on your interpretation of the motives of your circle of friends, without even having polled them, much less having conducted some more scientific investigation. By "thinking about it for a short while" I can interpret my circle of friends differently.
No that's not what I was basing it on at all, the "thinking about it for a while" statement was to point out that it doesn't take long to think of a big flaw in the argument.

Also it doesn't matter that you only intend this long term strategy idea to apply to dressing up, it can still be applied to pretty much any social interaction. You are reducing the whole field of fashion and everything it is used for to "it's to get a mate, eventually" (ignoring the fact that people don't stop dressing up once they have a mate).
 
  • #109
Ryan_m_b said:
No that's not what I was basing it on at all, the "thinking about it for a while" statement was to point out that it doesn't take long to think of a big flaw in the argument.

Also it doesn't matter that you only intend this long term strategy idea to apply to dressing up, it can still be applied to pretty much any social interaction. You are reducing the whole field of fashion and everything it is used for to "it's to get a mate, eventually" (ignoring the fact that people don't stop dressing up once they have a mate).
Thinking about it, I wonder if there might be a small flaw in your parenthesized clause? Does the possibility exist that people continue to "dress up" to maintain the "mated" state by continuing to be sufficiently attractive that the other half a) does not feel the need to seek alternatives or b) feels the need to prevent competitors moving in on their mate? In addition, the dresser-up might not have purely monogamous intentions ...
 
  • #110
Ryan_m_b said:
No that's not what I was basing it on at all, the "thinking about it for a while" statement was to point out that it doesn't take long to think of a big flaw in the argument.

Also it doesn't matter that you only intend this long term strategy idea to apply to dressing up, it can still be applied to pretty much any social interaction. You are reducing the whole field of fashion and everything it is used for to "it's to get a mate, eventually" (ignoring the fact that people don't stop dressing up once they have a mate).

Does a peacock lose it's feathers after finding a mate?


I really don't think the situation needs to be made complicated to be an equivalent behavior,
 
  • #111
NemoReally said:
Thinking about it, I wonder if there might be a small flaw in your parenthesized clause? Does the possibility exist that people continue to "dress up" to maintain the "mated" state by continuing to be sufficiently attractive that the other half a) does not feel the need to seek alternatives or b) feels the need to prevent competitors moving in on their mate? In addition, the dresser-up might not have purely monogamous intentions ...

Nearly the point of why these details should and can be ignored.

Is it fair to dismiss a generality with specifics? Pretty sure we'd agree other animals are not humans, so that's settled.
 
  • #112
nitsuj said:
Does a peacock lose it's feathers after finding a mate?


I really don't think the situation needs to be made complicated to be an equivalent behavior,
This is another example of confusing sexual dimorphism with fashion. A peacocks feathers are part of its body and are the product of sexual selection. Choosing what to wear and why is an artefact of a social construct.
 
  • #113
We're a bit off track. Consider the OP:
2112rush2112 said:
I always speculated that the reason why women wear high-heeled shoes (such as pumps and the like) is they give them an advantage (albeit a deceptive one) in attracting the taller male.

There is enormous selection pressure being imposed on the height of our species, with our species getting taller with each millenia; nay, with each generation. Women just want a mate that's as tall or taller than her father, hence the selection pressure. To this end, I hypothesize, women will wear the high-heeled shoe, because the added increase in her height will make her more attractive to the taller male. The deception no doubt works in both the workplace and the nightclub.

But after further and somewhat tedious observation, I noticed it's the tall women--not the short women--who are likely wearing the high-heeled shoe. Why is this? Three out of every four women I see wearing high-heeled shoes are tall women! I can't figure this one out! Why would an already robust woman want to accentuate a physiological quality that's already somewhat abnormal in appearance?

This thread is directed mostly at the ladies. Ladies, is there something about the high-heeled shoe that your taller friends just don't see? Or are they trying to go from Linebacker to Quarterback deliberately? And what of the shorter-statured womanfolk? Why do they not exploit the advantage of the high-heeled shoe to acquire the taller male?

I am utterly confounded by high-heeled shoes! They must represent something, but what?

Seems the consensus among those with significant expertise in evolution is, you're on thin ice if you use evolution to explain complex social behavior. Let's leave it at that.