4 ms·

The desire to be attractive is hard-wired into female biology. Fundamentally, we exist to survive and reproduce. Millions of years of evolution have evolved vis

by ctek 15y ago

The desire to be attractive is hard-wired into female biology. Fundamentally, we exist to survive and reproduce. Millions of years of evolution have evolved visual cues that signal health - especially reproductive health in both men and women however women's interest in successfully advertising their reproductive health is absolutely essential to what they have evolved over millions of years to do - which is bear children. High intelligence is not necessary to survive and reproduce successfully even in today's world which explains why most women (and probably most - but less men) would rather be "hot" than "smart". In general, during the reproductive phase of their lives (and long after that as well), women focus advertising their reproductive health, and men - their status. High intelligence however is key to acquiring status - which is much more important for men than for women which in my mind explains why more men than women are interested in being smart.

Jem 15y ago
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that looking attractive for women is basically a biological imperative? The problem, as I see it, is that the evolved visual cues signalling good reproductive health are not in the slightest bit similar to what the media purport to be attractive today. Look for example at Neolithic figurines... women with large bellies, ample bosoms, wide hips. That's not what's plastered all over magazines and TV.
- 127 15y ago
  I'm thinking that the fertility symbols where the woman is fit and thin far outnumber the ones where the woman is visibly obese. Wide hips, large bosom, healthy layer of fat, most certainly. But obesity? Rare. India, Egypt, Rome. All those sculptures look to be in the confines of healthy weight. I doubt that people living in that age had access to TV or magazines. Looks to me like you're quite obviously cherry-picking.
  - Jem 15y ago
    Not deliberately cherry picking, simply picking a time before great royal families and extravagant emperors had an impact on fashions and culture. Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert on this (just a passing interest) so happy to be informed otherwise. Side note: there's an interesting theory in Ann Sinnott's Breastfeeding Older Children about fertility / female symbols and their relation to patriarchy and our 'progress' from nomadic hunter gatherers. The theory goes that as we settled down into working the land / raising animals, where women were obviously needed more, they became less valued for child birth / child rearing and consequently these fertility symbols not only got slimmer, but started to be replaced by a greater quantity of male / phallic symbology. Only vaguely related to the topic at hand but hugely interesting (to me, anyway!)
- ron_di 15y ago
  I read an interesting reply recently on Reddit about this. Essentially, the poster says that in what you refer to as Neolithic times, women with large bellies, ample bosoms, and wide hips were generally women who were healthy and had access to food and the ability to get it for themselves. Men were biologically attracted to this display of "wealth". Contrast that to today, where having wealth means having the disposal to hire personal trainers, time to exercise, and not having to eat processed foods. Women of wealth will typically go to lengths to look a certain way (tan, skinny, etc.). I know that wealth is different from being in good reproductive health, but being wealthy definitely plays an important role in determining mates. As the definition of wealth changed, so did men's interest in women. Sorry about the lack of citations, but it was a while ago and from a secondhand source, so I would take it with a grain of salt. It does sound reasonable though.
  - Jem 15y ago
    This was true of more modern times (thinking Tudor times - Henry VIII etc), but not Neolithic times.
Egregore 15y ago
Actually men also consider intelligence when looking for mates, for example for 2 equally attractive female most males will go for the smartest one. Anecdotal evidence: I've been told that a lot of females get more attention from males when they use gadgets.
antihero 15y ago
Is there any substance or is this just what essentially amounts to the conjecture of a high school student?
michaelchisari 15y ago
The desire to be attractive is hard-wired into female biology. Well, that certainly fails to explain the Woodabe.

by ctek 15y ago

Jem 15y ago

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that looking attractive for women is basically a biological imperative? The problem, as I see it, is that the evolved visual cues signalling good reproductive health are not in the slightest bit similar to what the media purport to be attractive today. Look for example at Neolithic figurines... women with large bellies, ample bosoms, wide hips. That's not what's plastered all over magazines and TV.

127 15y ago
I'm thinking that the fertility symbols where the woman is fit and thin far outnumber the ones where the woman is visibly obese. Wide hips, large bosom, healthy layer of fat, most certainly. But obesity? Rare. India, Egypt, Rome. All those sculptures look to be in the confines of healthy weight. I doubt that people living in that age had access to TV or magazines. Looks to me like you're quite obviously cherry-picking.
- Jem 15y ago
  Not deliberately cherry picking, simply picking a time before great royal families and extravagant emperors had an impact on fashions and culture. Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert on this (just a passing interest) so happy to be informed otherwise. Side note: there's an interesting theory in Ann Sinnott's Breastfeeding Older Children about fertility / female symbols and their relation to patriarchy and our 'progress' from nomadic hunter gatherers. The theory goes that as we settled down into working the land / raising animals, where women were obviously needed more, they became less valued for child birth / child rearing and consequently these fertility symbols not only got slimmer, but started to be replaced by a greater quantity of male / phallic symbology. Only vaguely related to the topic at hand but hugely interesting (to me, anyway!)
ron_di 15y ago
I read an interesting reply recently on Reddit about this. Essentially, the poster says that in what you refer to as Neolithic times, women with large bellies, ample bosoms, and wide hips were generally women who were healthy and had access to food and the ability to get it for themselves. Men were biologically attracted to this display of "wealth". Contrast that to today, where having wealth means having the disposal to hire personal trainers, time to exercise, and not having to eat processed foods. Women of wealth will typically go to lengths to look a certain way (tan, skinny, etc.). I know that wealth is different from being in good reproductive health, but being wealthy definitely plays an important role in determining mates. As the definition of wealth changed, so did men's interest in women. Sorry about the lack of citations, but it was a while ago and from a secondhand source, so I would take it with a grain of salt. It does sound reasonable though.
- Jem 15y ago
  This was true of more modern times (thinking Tudor times - Henry VIII etc), but not Neolithic times.

Egregore 15y ago

Actually men also consider intelligence when looking for mates, for example for 2 equally attractive female most males will go for the smartest one. Anecdotal evidence: I've been told that a lot of females get more attention from males when they use gadgets.

antihero 15y ago

Is there any substance or is this just what essentially amounts to the conjecture of a high school student?

michaelchisari 15y ago

The desire to be attractive is hard-wired into female biology. Well, that certainly fails to explain the Woodabe.