4 ms·

Wonder why there's tons of those articles and they talk about fertility cues but never deliver any solid data on this. it's always 'women prefer this mans face

by gcb 17y ago

Wonder why there's tons of those articles and they talk about fertility cues but never deliver any solid data on this. it's always 'women prefer this mans face because of fertility cues', 'man prefers this ass because of fertility cues'.

Groxx 17y ago
This is relatively solid data, actually. They used a fMRI to watch the blood flow (indicative of activity) in the "reward center(s)" of the brain with a higher incidence than without that 0.7 ratio. * shrug * more proof that the super-thin look is horrible for both women AND men.
- Tichy 17y ago
  I'd like to see the data on the hip-waist ratio indicating higher fertility. Seems to me most women are capable of bearing children.
  - pyre 17y ago
    The baby has to fit through the hole in the middle of the pelvis. If a women's hips are narrower I would suspect that there is a higher likelihood of her birth canal being narrower meaning less chance of a successful natural birth. You really have to discount c-sections and such when thinking about 'fertility' since it would stand to reason that a lot of reactions are instinctual. > I'd like to see the data on the hip-waist ratio indicating higher fertility You might have trouble with that if you follow my advice and ignore medical 'intervention' like C-sections since in previous years doctors would do a C-section at the drop of a hat (IIRC, the rate used to be 80% whereas now it's around 60%). [edit] further investigation makes my claims to be a bit 'pie in the sky:' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-section#Incidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-section#Incidence Here is another relevant tidbit I found while investigating: A previously unexplored reason for the increasing section rate is the evolution of birth weight and maternal pelvis size. Since the advent of successful Caesarean birth over the last 150 years, mothers with a small pelvis and babies with a large birth weight have survived and contributed to these traits increasing in the population. Even without fears of malpractice, without maternal obesity and diabetes, and without other widely quoted factors, the C-section rate will continue to rise simply due to slow changes in population genetics.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      Good point about the c-sections, but still, I am not entirely convinced. For one thing, that wouldn't explain waist/hip, or would it? It would then all be hip, and women would get increasingly larger hips? Also, thinking about Asia, I think women are very tiny there, and they still get children. Their babies are probably smaller, too. But making bigger and bigger babies does not seem to be a "goal" of evolution, either. Otherwise a woman's height would be attractive, which I don't think is the case.
  - Groxx 17y ago
    Ah, my mistake. I've seen nothing "conclusive" on that, and I'd highly suspect that the majority of it is just through reasoning. Slim / average (not anorexic, not overweight) is indicative of health, which is indicative of both healthy babies and a more careful lifestyle, thus more likely a better mother (biologically! not implying deeper connection here). Meanwhile, wider hips imply a wider birth canal. Combine the two, and you get the hourglass figure, and a relatively arbitrary (/ personal) choice to use 0.7 instead of, say, the golden ratio. (or e/pi, or any other ratio)

by gcb 17y ago

Groxx 17y ago

This is relatively solid data, actually. They used a fMRI to watch the blood flow (indicative of activity) in the "reward center(s)" of the brain with a higher incidence than without that 0.7 ratio. * shrug * more proof that the super-thin look is horrible for both women AND men.

Tichy 17y ago
I'd like to see the data on the hip-waist ratio indicating higher fertility. Seems to me most women are capable of bearing children.
- pyre 17y ago
  The baby has to fit through the hole in the middle of the pelvis. If a women's hips are narrower I would suspect that there is a higher likelihood of her birth canal being narrower meaning less chance of a successful natural birth. You really have to discount c-sections and such when thinking about 'fertility' since it would stand to reason that a lot of reactions are instinctual. > I'd like to see the data on the hip-waist ratio indicating higher fertility You might have trouble with that if you follow my advice and ignore medical 'intervention' like C-sections since in previous years doctors would do a C-section at the drop of a hat (IIRC, the rate used to be 80% whereas now it's around 60%). [edit] further investigation makes my claims to be a bit 'pie in the sky:' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-section#Incidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-section#Incidence Here is another relevant tidbit I found while investigating: A previously unexplored reason for the increasing section rate is the evolution of birth weight and maternal pelvis size. Since the advent of successful Caesarean birth over the last 150 years, mothers with a small pelvis and babies with a large birth weight have survived and contributed to these traits increasing in the population. Even without fears of malpractice, without maternal obesity and diabetes, and without other widely quoted factors, the C-section rate will continue to rise simply due to slow changes in population genetics.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    Good point about the c-sections, but still, I am not entirely convinced. For one thing, that wouldn't explain waist/hip, or would it? It would then all be hip, and women would get increasingly larger hips? Also, thinking about Asia, I think women are very tiny there, and they still get children. Their babies are probably smaller, too. But making bigger and bigger babies does not seem to be a "goal" of evolution, either. Otherwise a woman's height would be attractive, which I don't think is the case.
- Groxx 17y ago
  Ah, my mistake. I've seen nothing "conclusive" on that, and I'd highly suspect that the majority of it is just through reasoning. Slim / average (not anorexic, not overweight) is indicative of health, which is indicative of both healthy babies and a more careful lifestyle, thus more likely a better mother (biologically! not implying deeper connection here). Meanwhile, wider hips imply a wider birth canal. Combine the two, and you get the hourglass figure, and a relatively arbitrary (/ personal) choice to use 0.7 instead of, say, the golden ratio. (or e/pi, or any other ratio)