- #1
Yashbhatt
- 348
- 13
It may not be the general case but this is what it seems from experience. But what's the reason? Do looks indicate health or any other desirable characteristics?
phinds said:In humans, bodily symmetry, particularly exemplified by facial symmetry, is known to be a factor in mate selection, and the knowledge/assumption/whatever is that this is because it is taken as an indication of health and the likelihood to produce viable offspring.
Don't know. Just repeating what I have read in several places over the years (and these were things like Time magazine, not scientific journals). It sounds reasonable to me, however.Yashbhatt said:I din't get you. How is symmetry related to health?
Yashbhatt said:I din't get you. How is symmetry related to health?
SteamKing said:That's not to say that someone who appears to be normal physically can't be crazier than a moonbat psychologically.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection#Viability_and_variations_of_the_theory)Due to their sometimes greatly exaggerated nature, secondary sexual characteristics can prove to be a hindrance to an animal, thereby lowering its chances of survival. For example, the large antlers of a moose are bulky and heavy and slow the creature's flight from predators; they also can become entangled in low-hanging tree branches and shrubs, and undoubtedly have led to the demise of many individuals. Bright colorations and showy ornamenations, such as those seen in many male birds, in addition to capturing the eyes of females, also attract the attention of predators. Some of these traits also represent energetically costly investments for the animals that bear them. Because traits held to be due to sexual selection often conflict with the survival fitness of the individual, the question then arises as to why, in nature, in which survival of the fittest is considered the rule of thumb, such apparent liabilities are allowed to persist.
Societies with food scarcities prefer larger female body size than societies having plenty of food. In Western society males who are hungry prefer a larger female body size than they do when not hungry.
Studies based in the United States, New Zealand, and China have shown that women rate men with no trunk (chest and abdominal) hair as most attractive, and that attractiveness ratings decline as hirsutism increases.[76][77] Another study, however, found that moderate amounts of trunk hair on men was most attractive, to the sample of British and Sri Lankan women.
Actually an article from a few years ago in Scientific American found that an overall concept of beauty is nearly universal and disregards geography, culture, and so-called "race". This study was begun as an extension to the phenomenon that averaging creates beauty. IIRC someone in the early 20th Century was trying to come up with a picture of an average criminal (to prove some pet theory able to predict criminality) and was perplexed that by combining features and averaging the results always looked more appealing than any of the originals.DavitosanX said:There is much variation to which traits we as humans find attractive. I would propose that focusing on which traits we find universally unattractive would shed more light on the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_body_shapeA study of the shapes of over 6,000 women, carried out by researchers at the https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/North_Carolina_State_University circa 2005, found that 46% were banana (rectangular), just over 20% pear, just under 14% apple, and 8% hourglass.[18] Another study has found "that the average woman's waistline had expanded by six inches since the 1950s" and that women in 2004 were taller and had bigger busts and hips than those of the 1950s
That's expected. Both men and women in USA are too fat.Evo said:so the clothing is geared towards fat women?
Agreed. And the clothing industry here tends to cater to them. Finding pants with slim hips and thighs is almost impossible.zoki85 said:That's expected. Both men and women in USA are too fat.
That's not true, it's not how much fat you have on your hips, but the spread in the pelvic bones through which the baby is delivered. Although i have very slims hips, the pelvic opening was large, i gave un-assisted birth to a 9lb 6oz baby.Doug Huffman said:As for instance, gracile skeleton and narrow hips are health complications enabled, in the extreme, only by advanced medicine.
The idea that a woman’s hip size has everything to do with her ease of birth is not a new idea. It’s been a way of thinking for centuries, and it’s hard to shake a long standing myth.
Evolution & the Cesarean Section Rate Walsh, Joseph A.
American Biology Teacher, v70 n7 p401-404 Sep 2008
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." This was the title of an essay by geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky writing in 1973. Many causes have been given for the increased Cesarean section rate in developed countries, but biologic evolution has not been one of them. The C-section rate will continue to rise, because the ability to perform a safe C-section has liberated human childbirth from natural selection directed against too small a maternal pelvis and too large a fetal head. Babies will get bigger and pelvis will get smaller because there is nothing to prevent it. In this article, the author examines the possible genetic outcomes of continued C-section deliveries on the future populations.
That has nothing to do with hip size, it confirms what I said about the pelvic width. A woman with huge hips can have a small pelvic opening. I had 28" hips, partly because I have no rear end either. My first husband said he was surprised I could keep my pants up, even with a belt. My older daughter takes after me and her pants do fall off, she's skeletal. Always has been thinner than a twig. Not anorexic, she has a great appetite, she must have a very fast metabolism. Think ballerina body.Doug Huffman said:Sorry, I couldn't find a free full text. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ809040
Evo said:My first husband said he was surprised I could keep my pants up, even with a belt.
Doug Huffman said:Sorry, I couldn't find a free full text. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ809040
Most likely a difficult area of research.The increasing C-section rate has multiple contributors, not all easy to quantify: defensive medicine, financial reward and less stress for physicians, better neonatal outcomes, better maternal outcomes, patient autonomy for elective primary section, older maternal age, maternal obesity with associated diabetes and hypertension, and decreased obstetrical experience in recent graduates are some examples. This article argues that the answer lies at least in part in the fundamental principle guiding all biology--evolution.