3 ms·

I don't think that is true at all. If wealth was taken away, physical attributes would simply become more important. It's true that culture has effects on what

I don't think that is true at all. If wealth was taken away, physical attributes would simply become more important. It's true that culture has effects on what is considered attractive. That doesn't mean it is arbitrary, though. And I don't think any culture managed to make unhealthy people attractive, for example.

int_19h 7y ago
It's pretty common for societies to do exactly that. For example, if you look at the descriptions of beautiful women in the Victorian society, it overlaps pretty well with the symptoms of tuberculosis - obsession with unhealthy levels of thinness, or pale translucent skin. And whenever you look at what underpins it, it almost always has to do with class and wealth - basically, physical traits that correlate with lack of need to perform hard menial work become a mark of belonging to the upper class. Better yet when it's physical traits that make it impossible to perform such work from birth, or close to it. When they didn't exist, they would sometimes be invented, such as foot binding.
- adventskalender 7y ago
  All explained by signalling theory - signalling status, which is useful for survival of offspring. That's what I mean by it isn't arbitrary. And it isn't all about wealth, either. Walking in high heels proves a certain level of fitness, for example. And most things that are seen as attractive in women are simply signals of youth, as young women can have more children than old women. You can't remove that with socialism. As for descriptions of women in Victorian society, they may just be caricatures, or something like modern fashion photography might be going on - the women displayed in fashion photography (artificially thinned) are not actually the ones men find the most attractive. It might be more of an intersexual competition between women. And again status - in our world thinness proves status, because it is difficult to be thin. In scarcity worlds, some fatness proves you are rich and can afford to eat. (Peacocks signal with their tails that they are healthy and strong, even though they have no society they live in, so no inequality and class struggles).
  - aalleavitch 7y ago
    > (Peacocks signal with their tails that they are healthy and strong, even though they have no society they live in, so no inequality and class struggles). And yet many animals have very little sexual dimorphism and exhibit very little sexual competition or selectiveness, so it would clearly seem to be a result of their evolutionary niche or environmental factors that lead to one behavior or the other. The most common example being the differences in form/behavior between the chimpanzee and the bonobo. The difference being that the bonobos live in relative abundance because they are not subject to competition with the gorillas. Likewise if humans did not face the intense artificial scarcity imposed upon us by strict social hierarchy and economic inequality, we might see our society shape itself much more like bonobos than chimpanzees.

int_19h 7y ago

It's pretty common for societies to do exactly that. For example, if you look at the descriptions of beautiful women in the Victorian society, it overlaps pretty well with the symptoms of tuberculosis - obsession with unhealthy levels of thinness, or pale translucent skin. And whenever you look at what underpins it, it almost always has to do with class and wealth - basically, physical traits that correlate with lack of need to perform hard menial work become a mark of belonging to the upper class. Better yet when it's physical traits that make it impossible to perform such work from birth, or close to it. When they didn't exist, they would sometimes be invented, such as foot binding.

adventskalender 7y ago
All explained by signalling theory - signalling status, which is useful for survival of offspring. That's what I mean by it isn't arbitrary. And it isn't all about wealth, either. Walking in high heels proves a certain level of fitness, for example. And most things that are seen as attractive in women are simply signals of youth, as young women can have more children than old women. You can't remove that with socialism. As for descriptions of women in Victorian society, they may just be caricatures, or something like modern fashion photography might be going on - the women displayed in fashion photography (artificially thinned) are not actually the ones men find the most attractive. It might be more of an intersexual competition between women. And again status - in our world thinness proves status, because it is difficult to be thin. In scarcity worlds, some fatness proves you are rich and can afford to eat. (Peacocks signal with their tails that they are healthy and strong, even though they have no society they live in, so no inequality and class struggles).
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  > (Peacocks signal with their tails that they are healthy and strong, even though they have no society they live in, so no inequality and class struggles). And yet many animals have very little sexual dimorphism and exhibit very little sexual competition or selectiveness, so it would clearly seem to be a result of their evolutionary niche or environmental factors that lead to one behavior or the other. The most common example being the differences in form/behavior between the chimpanzee and the bonobo. The difference being that the bonobos live in relative abundance because they are not subject to competition with the gorillas. Likewise if humans did not face the intense artificial scarcity imposed upon us by strict social hierarchy and economic inequality, we might see our society shape itself much more like bonobos than chimpanzees.