3 ms·

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

by 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.

by Jem 15y ago

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.