5 ms·

In general, any trait associated with a given gender is more attractive the more "saturated" that trait is in a representative of that gender. Men generally hav

In general, any trait associated with a given gender is more attractive the more "saturated" that trait is in a representative of that gender. Men generally have deeper voices, are taller, more muscular than women, so the more of that trait a man has, the more attractive it is. In woman, I'm sure you can fill in some traits. Of course, there is an upper limit on any such trait where at a certain level it becomes grotesque. Women like men who are manly, and vice versa. In general.

novosel 5y ago
Disregarding completely your original argument, but the "saturated form" concept is a strike of genius.
- andrei_says_ 5y ago
  Barry White being a perfect example of “saturated form.”
  - novosel 5y ago
    Yes, yes. Culturally speaking, but I was (am) aiming at the more formal aspect of the concept. Like a fractal side-kick.
- laurent92 5y ago
  It’s also very American, and more broadly related to the English language. French people speak with a more similar voice between men and women; US people, to me, seem to accentuate their deep voice to borderline ridiculousness when their voice saturates “a la Barry White”. The only conclusion I could make was that it gives authority in this culture.
hh3k0 5y ago
> Men generally have deeper voices, are taller, more muscular than women, so the more of that trait a man has, the more attractive it is. That's a nice non-explanation. Article states: > “There is so much attention in evolutionary literature on height, and selective pressures on height, and that’s only an 8 percent difference [between men and women]. In voice pitch, we are looking at more like 60 percent. That just doesn’t come about by accident,” Hodges-Simeon says. Instead, she believes, such differences are the result of sexual selection. Suggesting that deep voices must've been under positive sexual selection pressure for men back when they weren't perceived representative for their gender.
- im3w1l 5y ago
  I think his idea is that first there is an initial sex-difference in some trait which could have happened basically randomly. Then sexual selection starts amplifying the difference.
- drekipus 5y ago
  > Suggesting that deep voices must've been under positive sexual selection pressure for men back when they weren't perceived representative for their gender. I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time parsing this sentence. are you saying that the deep voices in males has developed due to other sexual selection, and only now shows up as a difference?
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    I think the point is like this: initially, at some point, males and females of some hominid species had the same voice pitch. Then some individual males were born with a deeper voice by some accident. Now, the question becomes: why did the very first deep-voice males have any kind of positive selection pressure? At the time, this wasn't a male-specific trait, it was just some mutation that one individual who happened to be male had, so the initial explanation can't be sexual dimorphism. There must have been either some survival advantage, or some coincidence where this mutation happened to match a trait that was already sexually attractive for some deeper reason. Like, imagine if 10,000,000 years from now, human-descended males have a characteristic tale, while females do not. Today, no humans have a tail, so you have to wonder, why did women start looking for a tail in their men?
    - glouwbug 5y ago
      We’re already chasing tail
    - drekipus 5y ago
      > that one individual who happened to be male had I don't think it works like that. I've heard it put like this: evolution is a conservative force, it keeps the genes that work, and remove what doesn't. I would probably think of it like this: (it's all speculation, we'll never know). Bigger mammals have bigger lungs and stomachs and deeper voice (because bigger) - thus females are the one who selects that, regardless of if they themselves are big or small (males don't care) - size trend downwards, but still selecting "upwards", so now humans are a bit smaller, male and female, size doesn't change outcome. But voice is still tied to aggression, intimidation, fighting, etc, which males are needed for to protect the females. So we keep the vocal traits while the species trends downwards in size. The "choose the voice" and "make the voice" strategy has worked for us, so keep doing that. IE: the mutation happens to both sexes, that we get smaller. It doesn't happen to one sex, "grow a deeper voice". Males would procreate with female deep voice or not. For us to develop a tail, we'd need to lose our ears (balance) and it would happen to both sexes, unfair for males to have balance and females not.
vikingerik 5y ago
I'm not so sure; there are a fair number of counterexamples to that. Men have more body hair, more baldness, larger Adam's apple, but women aren't really attracted to any of those. Women are attracted to the male characteristics that correlate with reproductive fitness. That includes height and muscle, and a deep voice gets in there because it (accurately or not) projects a signal of strength and confidence.
- mise_en_place 5y ago
  In my anecdotal experience, low and slow is the name of the game. Take your time with speech and enunciate as much as possible. You will be amazed at how willing people are to follow you and obey without question.
  - SamPatt 5y ago
    I find the same. I suspect having a large frame helps as well. I'm guessing there's some genetic hardwiring from our past that shows deference to outward signs of strength. Seems like a plausible survival mechanism.
- ungamed 5y ago
  > Men have more body hair, more baldness, larger Adam's apple, but women aren't > really attracted to any of those. Different attributes are attractive to different people. I don't imagine man women would 'actively' say they are attracted to these things due to society pressure but that doesn't mean its fundamentally untrue.
  - dehrmann 5y ago
    I'm far from an expert on what women find attractive, but the burly man is one type I can picture women being attracted to. There are also a lot of bald men who make it work just fine.
- brnt 5y ago
  I have found that assumptions about what people are attracted to are almost certianly incorrect. Especially some of those stereotypical ones 'everyone knows'. Also, they're not really coupled to reproductive fitness. More fat tissue in breasts has no consequence for mamalian function. Male baldness is correlated with high testosterone, so theoretically positively correlated with fitness. And so on. As with so many human preferences, they're far more personal or cultural than we think.
chrischen 5y ago
So does that mean women with squeakier voices, shorter, and less muscular are more attractive? I don't think that's true. The height stuff at least has more to do with nutrition/non-stunted growth.

novosel 5y ago

Disregarding completely your original argument, but the "saturated form" concept is a strike of genius.

andrei_says_ 5y ago
Barry White being a perfect example of “saturated form.”
- novosel 5y ago
  Yes, yes. Culturally speaking, but I was (am) aiming at the more formal aspect of the concept. Like a fractal side-kick.
laurent92 5y ago
It’s also very American, and more broadly related to the English language. French people speak with a more similar voice between men and women; US people, to me, seem to accentuate their deep voice to borderline ridiculousness when their voice saturates “a la Barry White”. The only conclusion I could make was that it gives authority in this culture.

hh3k0 5y ago

> Men generally have deeper voices, are taller, more muscular than women, so the more of that trait a man has, the more attractive it is. That's a nice non-explanation. Article states: > “There is so much attention in evolutionary literature on height, and selective pressures on height, and that’s only an 8 percent difference [between men and women]. In voice pitch, we are looking at more like 60 percent. That just doesn’t come about by accident,” Hodges-Simeon says. Instead, she believes, such differences are the result of sexual selection. Suggesting that deep voices must've been under positive sexual selection pressure for men back when they weren't perceived representative for their gender.

im3w1l 5y ago
I think his idea is that first there is an initial sex-difference in some trait which could have happened basically randomly. Then sexual selection starts amplifying the difference.
drekipus 5y ago
> Suggesting that deep voices must've been under positive sexual selection pressure for men back when they weren't perceived representative for their gender. I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time parsing this sentence. are you saying that the deep voices in males has developed due to other sexual selection, and only now shows up as a difference?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  I think the point is like this: initially, at some point, males and females of some hominid species had the same voice pitch. Then some individual males were born with a deeper voice by some accident. Now, the question becomes: why did the very first deep-voice males have any kind of positive selection pressure? At the time, this wasn't a male-specific trait, it was just some mutation that one individual who happened to be male had, so the initial explanation can't be sexual dimorphism. There must have been either some survival advantage, or some coincidence where this mutation happened to match a trait that was already sexually attractive for some deeper reason. Like, imagine if 10,000,000 years from now, human-descended males have a characteristic tale, while females do not. Today, no humans have a tail, so you have to wonder, why did women start looking for a tail in their men?
  - glouwbug 5y ago
    We’re already chasing tail
  - drekipus 5y ago
    > that one individual who happened to be male had I don't think it works like that. I've heard it put like this: evolution is a conservative force, it keeps the genes that work, and remove what doesn't. I would probably think of it like this: (it's all speculation, we'll never know). Bigger mammals have bigger lungs and stomachs and deeper voice (because bigger) - thus females are the one who selects that, regardless of if they themselves are big or small (males don't care) - size trend downwards, but still selecting "upwards", so now humans are a bit smaller, male and female, size doesn't change outcome. But voice is still tied to aggression, intimidation, fighting, etc, which males are needed for to protect the females. So we keep the vocal traits while the species trends downwards in size. The "choose the voice" and "make the voice" strategy has worked for us, so keep doing that. IE: the mutation happens to both sexes, that we get smaller. It doesn't happen to one sex, "grow a deeper voice". Males would procreate with female deep voice or not. For us to develop a tail, we'd need to lose our ears (balance) and it would happen to both sexes, unfair for males to have balance and females not.

vikingerik 5y ago

I'm not so sure; there are a fair number of counterexamples to that. Men have more body hair, more baldness, larger Adam's apple, but women aren't really attracted to any of those. Women are attracted to the male characteristics that correlate with reproductive fitness. That includes height and muscle, and a deep voice gets in there because it (accurately or not) projects a signal of strength and confidence.

mise_en_place 5y ago
In my anecdotal experience, low and slow is the name of the game. Take your time with speech and enunciate as much as possible. You will be amazed at how willing people are to follow you and obey without question.
- SamPatt 5y ago
  I find the same. I suspect having a large frame helps as well. I'm guessing there's some genetic hardwiring from our past that shows deference to outward signs of strength. Seems like a plausible survival mechanism.
ungamed 5y ago
> Men have more body hair, more baldness, larger Adam's apple, but women aren't > really attracted to any of those. Different attributes are attractive to different people. I don't imagine man women would 'actively' say they are attracted to these things due to society pressure but that doesn't mean its fundamentally untrue.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  I'm far from an expert on what women find attractive, but the burly man is one type I can picture women being attracted to. There are also a lot of bald men who make it work just fine.
brnt 5y ago
I have found that assumptions about what people are attracted to are almost certianly incorrect. Especially some of those stereotypical ones 'everyone knows'. Also, they're not really coupled to reproductive fitness. More fat tissue in breasts has no consequence for mamalian function. Male baldness is correlated with high testosterone, so theoretically positively correlated with fitness. And so on. As with so many human preferences, they're far more personal or cultural than we think.

chrischen 5y ago

So does that mean women with squeakier voices, shorter, and less muscular are more attractive? I don't think that's true. The height stuff at least has more to do with nutrition/non-stunted growth.