nature of attraction

Post Reply New Topic

[mod note: this discussion was off-topic so it has been moved to start a new topic]

It's human nature. What a lot men find attractive or unattractive is a reaction triggered by our Darwinian mindsets.

it's not human nature to get drunk, have a one-night stand, then trash your partner on the internet.

tastes are highly individual, so the girl that the OP found unattractive may be hot to someone else. that's part of what makes it sad.

Marriage didn't exist until year 3000-4000 B.C and originated as an Egyptian tradition. Monogamous relationships became the norm with the expansion of The Roman Empire.



Tastes are individual to a certain degree; some may find the goth chick irresistable while someone else is head over heals about the cute and innocent chick. Having said that, some traits are almost universally agreed to be unattractive (typically features which imply lack of fertility and/or femininity).

i just did a large amount of research on monogamy. monogamy was originated in Egypt. it most likely arose part and parcel with agricultural societies. anyway it has nothing to do with what i said about human nature.

and... about universal traits... not really. a couple of years ago it was all about symmetry. scientists were convinced that symmetrical faces are considered better looking because they denote health. turns out too be false - it is asymmetrical faces that are considered most attractive (which is not actually a sign of health).

also, if it were largely only femininity and fertility determining attractiveness, then cultures would not value different traits, and trends would not determine which body types and facial features are most attractive. but it DOES change.

it seems as though people feel better about putting down others' appearance if they think they can blame it on evolution or biology (or both). but very little is truly hardwired. if it was, then there would not be so much variation in tastes in a population and people's tastes would not change over a lifetime.

EDIT: also, it has nothing to do with putting people down after they've had sex with you.

Still proves my point. Casual flings are what's natural.



Certain features are universally attractive, though. Tests have shown symmetrical faces to be the most attractive, this had been known for centuries.



In all cultures, less body hair on a woman is considered more attractive than more; in all cultures with enough food, a healthy level of body fat (i.e. not enough to stall fertility) is considered the most attractive; in all cultures, big eyes are considered beautiful.

Studies have also shown that both Europeans, Americans and Africans find mulattoes more attractive than someone from their own ethnic group.



There are only slight variations in what's attractive and what's not.

I get the impression that visual preferences are more hardwired when it comes to what men like and more influenced by the media when it comes to what women like--which is why women have a more diverse taste.

Compare Marilyn Monroe in the mid 50's to a modern female sex symbol and there's not much of a difference.

Edit: Studies have also shown that attractive women have higher estrogen levels and are more fertile than unattractive women.

Versus:

*searches for a modern sex symbol... I don't really know many that are SFW)

AH, here:



That's Miss America 2011. I see plenty of differences.

noooooooo you are wrong. the newest tests have shown ASYMMETRY to be more attractive. the MOST attractive faces are the ones with a strong asymmetry.

and what is considered attractive varies widely, otherwise only certain looks would be considered good looking across a person's lifetime. most people do not find exactly the same type of people attractive across their whole life span. and again, it varies across cultures... and across time periods.

there is a massive difference in between Marilyn Monroe and modern sex symbols. not only was she larger than the average idol... she was older. see above, for abacacus' comparison.

also... most people find love and get married (or some obtain casual sex, as per their preference) yet they do not look like superstars.

i didn't ever say that flings were not natural, so i am not sure where you are going with that. it has absolutely nothing to do with what i said.

One test has shown or many tests have shown?



People are often attracted to the same through their entire lifetime, but many men are forced to "settle". Studies regarding what's considered attractive are often cross-cultural, and many similarities are found in every culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_a ... te_note-80



Not really. The key differences are the haircut and the makeup. I'd say that the difference between Steve Reeves or Marlon Brando and Robert Pattinson or The Jonas Brothers is much bigger.

Marilyn Monroe's meassurements were 36-23-37, that's still an applicable standard for sex symbols today. There are also plenty of sex symbols in their mid 30's today, but due to heavy drug use and heavy drinking, many formerly attractive girls turn into washed out hasbeens in their late 20's.



I never said most people looked like superstars. You still haven't commented on why women considered attractive have a higher estrogen level than women considered unattractive.

Last edited by Kurgan on 11 Apr 2012, 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

about the concept of "settling" - i don't buy it and there is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. again, you are projecting your own thoughts onto everyone.

people are highly individual. on OKCupid, it was found that the females who got the most messages were the ones that polarised male opinion - the most popular females are the ones who are considered beautiful by one subset and ugly by another subset. that points to the fact that there isn't a universal standard. one person will think a female is beautiful, but another will think she is ugly.

everything from waist to hip ratio, to height, to skin colour, to facial proportions, to weight, is differently appreciated across cultures and time periods. here are some links that show some changes across time:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 0754.x/pdf
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15098830/ns ... 4XsPKuNPJ0

you are incorrect - Marilyn Monroe's hip measurement was too large for a modern star. and she looked too old.

here are some links about how asymmetry is considered more attractive than symmetry:

http://asia.haifa.ac.il/staff/kovner/Kowner-1996.pdf
http://cogprints.org/4601/1/Zaidel_&_Co ... 5_SENT.pdf
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/print/5387

and even a link about stars that are markedly asymmetrical:

http://www.redgage.com/blogs/eata/beaut ... ities.html

estrogen levels have not been tested in cultures with markedly different beauty standards.

I'm going Monroe every time.

I'm not one of the so-called nice guys (if a girl tries to make me her emotional tampon, I just cut contact and move on, instead of hoping that she'll give me a chance), but men are genetically engineered to seek out feminine and fertile mates. It's been that way since sexual reproduction arose some 1,2 billion years ago.

What has been considered as femenine/pretty/whatever you want to call it has indeed changed through time.
Most people thought that tans were a no-no and something that meant that you were working on the field and spent too much time at the sun until coco chanel showed up with one due to spending too much time at a yacht and thats just one out of many examples that has changed what "beauty"is through time

Neolithic supermodel:

Sorry to point out(I truly am since I hate current standards of beauty) that current model of whats considered as beauty has little/no resemblance to that.

Agreed.

The only ones who think platina blond hair combined with orange skin is pretty, are the ones who look like that themselves.

The only cultures who consider severly overweight women to be the most attractive, are the ones where food is extremely scarce, because obesity stalls fertility, it's widely considered unattractive in countries where food is plentiful.

Furthermore, in almost every culture, at almost any time period, a small nose, large eyes, small sweat glands, rounded hips, small hands and other signs of a high estrogen production and a high degree of fertility are considered the most beautiful. Studies have even shown that attractive women are more fertile and have a higher production of estrogen.



This picture of Mary Magdalene is almost four centuries old.

A beautiful woman is a woman who carries good genetics, this is how it's always been and this is how it'll always be.