¿Female beauty?

[beginsub]

I, like a lot of other men (I suppose), have been thinking a lot of times of the reason why we are atracted to women (overmost to the younger). I have reached an hypotesis but I do not know if I am the first or if I have too much imagination. It was by chance that I came across vitamin B12 (or the B complex). I was allways very stressed by abrupt noises and I reached a moment when I could not calm myself in these cities crowded by so many explosion motors.

 

Then I got to B12 and after taking it I noticed myself more calm, but after it the next progression was slow. I suppose my brain had done a lot of associations between some stimulus and the stressing noises. Then I began to think and I reached to the conclusion that testosterone made us men more insensible to physical harm than women. But at the same time that testosterone more or less indirectly affected our blood B12 level making us more sensible to noises.

 

This way each sex would posses a natural armour against one of the two possible external harms: physical and noise. This would make the union between women an men a good alliance against the "external agents". Then, we would be attracted to women because they can defend us from the noise harm and the contrary for women.

 

Think about it: Pherormones have been proven not to work in humans. Our external aspect is not so different as other animal species. Our face is very similar in spite of our efforts to find only the differences, etc. We have not so many instincts as other animals.

 

Apart from this, female voice is designed so it generates more variability in volume and is more strident because it has a higher pitch. On the other hand, the men's one has the Adam's apple and other features that make it deeper and vibrating but less strident and with less variability in volume (it's more difficult to understand). The men's weapon is their brute force while the women's one is the voice.

 

And from this simple basis develop all the phsycological strengths of each sex, and differences between them. Younger women have, I suppose, a higher B12 blood level because of their better absortion and metabolism and perhaps this is why they are more "voice dangerous" (but more sensible to physical harm) and men feel most atracted to them.

 

Young men with low IQ have been proven to have a low testosterone level (more B12). This could make them less sensible to female voice and this could demotivate them to learn because they could not be so punished. At the same time too much testosterone could cause very aggressive behavior and social problems. Both sex are the responsible to motivate the other one with the help of our own weapon and armour.

 

In this world of noisy cities perhaps the evolution could be selecting the less "male" men.

 

Perhaps is not B12 the key but finding the way to remove that noice greater sensibility could end with women beauty and open a pandora box.

 

¿What do you think?

[iNow]

I, like a lot of other men (I suppose), have been thinking a lot of times of the reason why we are atracted to women (overmost to the younger).

They tend to be more fertile and have the ability to have a greater quantity of children than older woman. Evolution has selected for this.

 

Then I began to think and I reached to the conclusion that testosterone made us men more insensible to physical harm than women.

I think this is false. Have you looked into adrenaline instead?

 

 

But at the same time that testosterone more or less indirectly affected our blood B12 level making us more sensible to noises.

Can you show something which supports this premise?

 

 

This way each sex would posses a natural armour against one of the two possible external harms: physical and noise.

Those are the only possible external harms?!?

 

This would make the union between women an men a good alliance against the "external agents".

Why? I haven't seen too many tribal hunting societies where a man and a woman were considered the best combination against danger. Usually, in fact, it's large groups of males together.

 

Then, we would be attracted to women because they can defend us from the noise harm and the contrary for women.

I'm still really confused why you think noise is so harmful. Maybe a few broken cilia and some other minor nerve receptor damage, but that doesn't prevent me from eating or mating to any great extent.

 

Think about it: Pherormones have been proven not to work in humans.

When did this happen? Can you prove this or show work being done on the topic which supports this?

 

Our external aspect is not so different as other animal species. Our face is very similar in spite of our efforts to find only the differences, etc.

What does this mean?!?

 

 

We have not so many instincts as other animals.

Can you prove this or show work being done on the topic which supports this?

 

 

Apart from this, female voice is designed so it generates more variability in volume and is more strident because it has a higher pitch. On the other hand, the men's one has the Adam's apple and other features that make it deeper and vibrating but less strident and with less variability in volume (it's more difficult to understand). The men's weapon is their brute force while the women's one is the voice.

What? So, women are out there slaughtering cattle with their voice alone? That sounds cool, and I'd really like to see it. Those opera singers must be great hunters.

 

Also, why the use of the term "designed?"

 

 

And from this simple basis develop all the phsycological strengths of each sex, and differences between them.

It actually doesn't sound so simple. It sounds rather convoluted actually.

 

Younger women have, I suppose, a higher B12 blood level because of their better absortion and metabolism and perhaps this is why they are more "voice dangerous" (but more sensible to physical harm) and men feel most atracted to them.

Again... pretty convoluted.

 

 

Young men with low IQ have been proven to have a low testosterone level (more B12).

When did this happen? Show us.

 

This could make them less sensible to female voice and this could demotivate them to learn because they could not be so punished.

What does? Low IQ? Low testosterone? Low ability to make any sense?

 

In this world of noisy cities perhaps the evolution could be selecting the less "male" men.

Again, how is sound relevant? Prove that, and then we can discuss further extrapolations rooted in that comment.

 

Perhaps is not B12 the key but finding the way to remove that noice greater sensibility could end with women beauty and open a pandora box.

 

¿What do you think?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[SkepticLance]

I agree with iNow. That is a pretty unlikely hypothesis. Easy to test by making suitable predictions, and applying the falsification principle. Has anyone done that?

 

My wife and I have opposite reactions to that you describe. She is easily stressed by loud noises. I am much calmer and accepting. How does this fit the theory?

 

Pheromones may indeed be part of human sexuality. The 'smelly Tshirt' test is a classic of research into human sexuality, and appears to be a part of sexual attraction. Odours - even some that are not consciously perceived - are clearly part of sexual attractiveness.

 

As a male, I know what makes me attracted to a woman - her beauty. I can describe in detail exactly what physical characteristics make up that beauty, and I suspect any heterosexual of either gender could do pretty much as well as me. I was reading the other day an article which described Jessica Alba as having exactly the ideal waist to hip ratio - 0.7. I think anyone can agree she has a stunning figure.

 

We do not need strange theories about Vitamin B12.

[pioneer]

A male's perception of female beauty is a combination of instinct and cultural conditioning. For example, back in the 1950's the ideal woman was full figured. Within a few decades this changed to females who were a lot slimmer. The one parameter that didn't change was a pretty face. Although, in the 1960's the natural looking face was considered beautiful, while now the pretty face has more make-up, ie., extra pretty.

 

Women are sort of moving back to the full figure, where a little extra weight and maybe breast enhancements are added to the affect. This is a little different in the sense that males traditionally set the parameters. In this case, the parameters are being set by the women for the men. The choice is being narrowed down until this is considered beauty. The males are still in the game, trying to maintain the movie star ideal.

 

There may be a biological reason for this male ideal. If you think about it logically, the natural fertility of females and males is connected to youth. Very few 21 year olds are worrying about their biological clock. During youth almost all people are slimmer compared to what they will be as they grow older. It is just a fact. So a male's instinctive ideal would be projected onto youthful fertility; slim looking increases those odds.

 

Beside being slimmer while we are young, a pregnant female will put on weight. If a male was even a dumb animal, this bigger looking woman would be a dead end, with respect to possible procreation at that time. Slimmer also means she is not pregnant and more likely to be fertile.

 

This is only the male's instinctive impression of beauty, since after one meets woman, one can get hard data with respect to potential fertility. Often other parameters, like someone who would be a good mother and mate, can weigh higher than a quick instinctive first assessment. But it remains. This male instinct appears induced by instinctive software connected to natural male desire. Culture can influences this, changing the parameters. Now both males and females are setting parameters.

[Wormwood]

A male's perception of female beauty is a combination of instinct and cultural conditioning.

I disagree. I realize that there are somethings which might not be as attractive from one culture to the next (like stretched lips or ears or other aquired tastes), but over all I would say the mechanism is pretty constant. Men are attracted to physical beauty in symmetry and proportions. The desire for the full figured gal in the 1950's can still be attributed to the proportion of waist to hips and breasts. There were no obese women as objects of beauty as far as I know, just women that would be heavy by today's standards. Proportionally they were close to the ideal men have always looked for.

 

Women look for shapes too, but they prefer hard lines and angles to the softer rounder features men prefer. Women look at the proportion of the chest to waist, they typically prefer a "V" shaped torso, and they also look at how square the jaw is and how it is proportioned. However, when seeking a long term mate, women will usually go for men with less testosterone and softer features.

 

My point is, I think most of what we find attractive is actually hard wired into us. It might be more pleasant for some people to think they are unattractive because the media promotes unrealistic expectations, but in reality what we find attractive is largely out of our control.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/04/dating.mating.ap/index.html

 

 

Strong correlations between attractiveness and particular physical properties have been found across cultures. Despite significant variation, there nonetheless exists a tremendous degree of agreement among cultures as to what is perceived as attractive when it is associated with human health. Healthier looking skin is universally associated with attractiveness. Infants, who presumably have not yet been affected by culture, tend to prefer the same faces considered attractive by adults.[3] These findings are used to imply that a large part of attractiveness is determined by inborn human nature - not nurture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

[iNow]

Beside being slimmer while we are young, a pregnant female will put on weight. If a male was even a dumb animal, this bigger looking woman would be a dead end, with respect to possible procreation at that time. Slimmer also means she is not pregnant and more likely to be fertile.

Errmmm... Isn't the pregnant woman likely to be more fertile?

 

 

Physical beauty? Cues to fertility and health. That's it. Often measured with bilateral symmetry, waist-to-hip ratio, facial proportion, and radiance in skin and hair.

 

 

Hahaha... Twiggy is more fertile because she's not preggers. Brilliant.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow.

 

A pregnant woman is less desirable for two reasons.

 

1. She cannot be immediately made pregnant again.

 

2. Humans have this habit of forming 'pair bonds', otherwise known as marriage or long term commitment. Often such a bond is made a pre-requisite for sex. If the woman is already pregnant, that means the male partner has to devote a massive amount of his lifetime resources to raising another man's child. Not an attractive prospect. Devoting resources to that other man's child reduces the resources available for his own kids.

 

Thus the male of our species is programmed by evolution to find pregnant women less attractive.

[iNow]

SkepticLance, you are absolutely correct. A woman carrying child tends to be less appealing because she cannot conceive. Any resources devoted to her would be to assist with the already gestating child. I do understand this, and appreciate you calling it out in case others did not. However, my reference was to the comment specifically about "fertility." A woman being skinny is actually counter to fertility, and it is the fertile ones who get pregnant. Perhaps I could have chosen my words more carefully, and I thank you again for clarifying.

 

 

To the OPs point, youth tends to be more attractive due to the number of children a younger woman is still able to have. As she ages, she cannot birth as many children, so technically males are programmed to be attracted to a female who is just old enough to conceive. In today's society, this is strongly counter to accepted norms, but in archaic times, it was the 12 to 15 year olds that the men went for.

 

To borrow from SkepticLance's point, all of this is rather disgusting in context of pair bonds and social connections which go beyond coitus, but the evolved circumstances of attraction described above are valid all the same.

[SkepticLance]

iNow said :

 

A woman being skinny is actually counter to fertility

 

This statement is a perfect illustration of the general principle that nothing has meaning except in relation to something else - or more simply - everything is relative.

 

If you go into a small town, and want to find the women who are most physically attractive, find the local gymnasium and watch an aerobics class (or the squad of cheerleaders). Maximum health and fertility is there on display, and by no coincidence, maximum physical attractiveness. Those highly desirable young ladies have youth, muscular development (female style) and slimness.

 

On the other hand, if you check out the denizens of the anorexia clinic, who are much skinnier, you get the combination of low fertility and low physical attractiveness.

 

To say skinny women are low in fertility, you must define 'skinny.'

[iNow]

To say skinny women are low in fertility, you must define 'skinny.'

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

 

Random fact: Did you know that Dev Singh has a bunch of naked Barbie dolls in his office? Strange place to go for office hours.

[carol]

I have read these points in a magazine all about psychology. The title of the article is something like ten politically incorrect... about human nature (i can't remember the whole title). It is argued in the article on why men are attracted to blond women or to women who look like Barbie. It has something to do with looking healthier and appearing to have a greater capacity to have children.

 

I think I have found the article...

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

Psychology Today

[Firefly]

Well I am a vegan so i lack vitamin B12 so what your trying to say is that men are not attracted to me!?

 

I dont like that theory.

 

Everyone has different ideas on what they consider to be beautiful. I however read something once that said that your more likely to be attracted to someone who has physical qualities of your opposite sex parent however i dont know how true that is.

 

However with females men are supposivly attracted to women with the perfect waist to hip ratio. It doesnt matter how skinny or large they are, if they have that ratio then they are attractive.

 

weird...

[SkepticLance]

To firefly

 

If you look anything like your icon, you got nothin to worry about.

 

Just as an irrelevent aside. I once went to a lecture by a female psychologist, Ph. D. qualified. She stated that the reason men liked slim women was that when women are anorexic or famine reduced, they are weak and easy to control. Weird!

 

I guess this just shows that no female can truly understand males, even with a Ph.D. Conversely, no male can truly understand females.

 

She also said that the reason men liked women in high heels was that they lose their balance making them weak and easy to control. Anyone see a consistency in her fallaceous beliefs! I mean, its not as if the high heels make women seem to have longer, sexy legs, or anything.

[dichotomy]

A male's perception of female beauty is a combination of instinct and cultural conditioning. For example, back in the 1950's the ideal woman was full figured. Within a few decades this changed to females who were a lot slimmer. The one parameter that didn't change was a pretty face. Although, in the 1960's the natural looking face was considered beautiful, while now the pretty face has more make-up, ie., extra pretty.

 

I don’t agree at all about about the 'a lot slimmer' preference.

 

Why? Models are supposedly the skinny attractive women that men desire. This is not true. Models are great for, well, modeling fashions, clothes horses, and facial shots. While penthouse and playboy girls are generally fuller figured (and freakin’ delicious) in comparison to the fashion girls. The vast majority of men would desire the playboy type girls, and not the boney fashion models, with no arse and no tits. Just ask Heffner, “The unexplored wife is not worth living”. And I always thought it was,” The unexplored life is not worth living."

 

cheers.

[SkepticLance]

I find myself agreeing with dichotomy.

A while back, I was walking into a shopping mall. It had just run a fashion catwalk thing. As I walked in, by chance, two of the models were walking out and walked past me. When I saw them in the distance, my testosterone started to dance a little jig in my bloodstream. They looked good!

 

Then they came close. The hormones rapidly dived under cover. They were so skinny that, instead of curves, they had angles. Pipestem arms and legs, and ribs sticking out. They looked like escapees from a National Geographic special on famine. The yecch factor took over, and I actually had to look away, they were so ugly, and so pitiful.

 

I have since discovered that a lot of these women who starve themselves to that extent are actually infertile. Thus, my aversion ties in with the theory that attractive = fertile.

 

It is also not widely known that the opposite is also a way to lose fertility. Moderately plump women are fully fertile, but very obese women are also frequently infertile or low in fertility.

[Paralith]

She stated that the reason men liked slim women was that when women are anorexic or famine reduced, they are weak and easy to control. Weird!

...

She also said that the reason men liked women in high heels was that they lose their balance making them weak and easy to control. Anyone see a consistency in her fallaceous beliefs! I mean, its not as if the high heels make women seem to have longer, sexy legs, or anything.

 

There is actually a reason for men to desire tractability in a mate. Human males, unlike most other mammals, put a lot of commitment and resources into their children. And if a male is going to expend all that commitment and resources on one female and her children, he needs to be damn sure that the children are his, and not some other male's. If all he was doing was expending his sperm and little else on lots of different females, then it's not such a big deal.

 

In most human cultures, the males are the dominant gender. This is why many cultural practices are so strict on women - the more controlled and contained they are, the less likely it is they'll have *ahem* extra pair copulations. This becomes especially important when families are bequeathing land and other large estates - they don't want all this wealth to go to some other family without them realizing it. One hypothesis for the origin of foot binding in Asia is based on this idea. Small bound feet became erotic - the smaller, the better. But also the smaller, the harder it is for the woman to walk. And the more her movement is controlled by her mate and his family.

 

I'm guessing this is also the grounds for the statements made by the professor you mention. Men have evolved to desire to control their mates, to avoid being cuckolded, so women who are more easily controlled would probably be more desirable. As far as heels go though, it's probably a little bit of both. It's definitely hard to run in them, but learning to walk in them correctly requires a lot of hip swinging.

[Firefly]

I can understand how fertility could be a factor to female beauty but shouldnt personality be more so?

 

Some one who smiles and is a lovely person is way more attractive compared to someone with the same physical looks but pouts, frowns and complains. Personalitys shine through. Like i dont know what men think but in my opinion you can have a good looking guy who has a terrible personality and they just seem so not as hot as you thought they one were.

 

I think personality is a more likely thing guys are attracted to rather then a fertile looking woman. Whats does a fertile woman even look like? Everyone has had such different opinions which makes me unsure if that can be a factor towards female beauty.

[Paralith]

I can understand how fertility could be a factor to female beauty but shouldnt personality be more so?

 

Some one who smiles and is a lovely person is way more attractive compared to someone with the same physical looks but pouts, frowns and complains. Personalitys shine through. Like i dont know what men think but in my opinion you can have a good looking guy who has a terrible personality and they just seem so not as hot as you thought they one were.

 

I think personality is a more likely thing guys are attracted to rather then a fertile looking woman. Whats does a fertile woman even look like? Everyone has had such different opinions which makes me unsure if that can be a factor towards female beauty.

 

In modern human culture, you're probably right - personality counts a lot towards forging relationships. But we still have the genetic influences that we evolved for thousands to millions of years before human society became what it is today, and those influences often affect us more than we realize.

 

And the description of a fertile woman really isn't that mysterious. What we've been doing here is arguing the fine points. In general women who look healthy (slim/fit), young, have a good waist to hip ratio (appropriate curviness, in other words), and are more symmetrical will be considered more attractive. Fertility is a desirable mate characteristic in ALL animals, so to try and say that it doesn't affect mate choice in humans is really rather silly.

[iNow]

Additionally, I'd suggest that personality and "inner beauties" are what keep two people together, not necessarily what attract them initially. We don't go to strip clubs because we think there are a lot of happy, warm, compassionate girls there with whom we'd like to pair bond for life.

 

 

Look at all of the pretty feathers on that peacock. My goodness, he must be strong and fertile if he is able to survive with a lush, vibrant plume like that.

[Paralith]

Additionally, I'd suggest that personality and "inner beauties" are what keep two people together, not necessarily what attract them initially. We don't go to strip clubs because we think there are a lot of happy, warm, compassionate girls there with whom we'd like to pair bond for life.

 

That's a really good point, actually. If you can't control your mate's movements, then forming a lasting pair bond is another good way to keep them from mating somewhere else, and in that sense personality could evolve to be very important.

[YT2095]

indeed!

 

in fact some are complete Babes! right up until the point they open their mouths and Say Something!

[gcol]

The qualities I would look for in a one-night stand or a quickie behind the bike shed are not the same as I would look for in a lifetime partner and mother of my children.

 

So which set of criteria are we talking about?

 

To see what the average male wants for a quickie or wet dream stimulator can be seen in any girlie mag. If those pics weren't of the right type, the mags would not sell. Q.E.D.

[SkepticLance]

Paralith said :

 

There is actually a reason for men to desire tractability in a mate.

 

Don't get tractability and fidelity mixed up. A woman does not need to be some kind of 'slave' to be faithful. Nor does it follow that a woman who does the 'yassuh, mastah' thing very convincingly is necessarily faithful. I have known a few who kowtow to their husbands and play when he is not looking. Males have been trying to force fidelity on their mates for a long time, and the women betray them most successfully. My own view is that fidelity comes with a good relationship, which follows when the guy is kind, considerate, loving and trustful.

 

I also know from my own reactions that skinniness to the point where it physically weakens a woman is most unattractive. The most attractive degree of slimness comes with youth, health, vigour, fitness etc.

 

Firefly said :

 

I can understand how fertility could be a factor to female beauty but shouldnt personality be more so?

 

Speaking as a red blooded male, I have to say that while maybe personality should be a prime attractor, it just aint so. Nothing compares to a glorious visage and a hot body.

 

There have been a number of experiments run by psychologists on this, using quick dating techniques. Male meets female for 2 minutes. Then meets second female etc. They are asked to rate which female they would like to meet for a prolonged date. All males pretty much agree, and all agree on the 'hot babes'.

 

Other studies have shown that when people get married, and if the woman is good looking, the chances of the man instigating divorce is massively reduced.

 

Face it gals. Sorry about this, but personality is definitely secondary.

[Paralith]

Paralith said :

 

There is actually a reason for men to desire tractability in a mate.

 

Don't get tractability and fidelity mixed up. A woman does not need to be some kind of 'slave' to be faithful. Nor does it follow that a woman who does the 'yassuh, mastah' thing very convincingly is necessarily faithful. I have known a few who kowtow to their husbands and play when he is not looking. Males have been trying to force fidelity on their mates for a long time, and the women betray them most successfully. My own view is that fidelity comes with a good relationship, which follows when the guy is kind, considerate, loving and trustful.

 

I also know from my own reactions that skinniness to the point where it physically weakens a woman is most unattractive. The most attractive degree of slimness comes with youth, health, vigour, fitness etc.

 

 

I'm not saying that tractability and fidelity are the same. I'm saying that a more tractable female's fidelity will be easier for her mate to control - and all the more reason to desire such a thing, since as you say, females have always been finding ways to be unfaithful when such a thing benefits them, as it often does in nature. But things like anorexia or other visible traits that might represent an actual weakness of will and not just the appearance of tractability, could become attractive to some males. Not all males, but some of them. This is just one of the strategies by which you could help ensure your mate's fidelity. Another could be, as has already been mentioned previously, by forming a loving and respecting pair bond, enforced by pleasant and honorable personalities. Perhaps a male who isn't so good in the interpersonal department is more likely to go for the controlling strategy, where his mate may not be as fertile, but at least he can ensure through his own methods that all her children are his.

 

Another strategy is the cultural indoctrination of beliefs about the characteristics a good and desirable woman should have - such as chastity and obedience, or tiny bound feet, or always wearing a veil that covers up those lovely fertile curves that would incite desire in other men. When the females themselves are convinced that this is how they should behave, then enforced slavery is most certainly not required.

 

I know a lot of what I'm saying here sounds awful harsh - and a lot of times, the realities about what kinds of behaviors net greater reproductive success can be. I'm trying to say that these are the types of behaviors that would have been selected for during our evolution, not that these are good or right behaviors. But it's important to acknowledge their influence on modern human interactions.

[SkepticLance]

Paralith said :

 

I'm saying that a more tractable female's fidelity will be easier for her mate to control

 

Not wanting to be rude and nasty - but my reaction to this comment is : "Yeah, right. And pigs can fly also."

 

Short of locking women in prison and setting highly paid eunuchs as prison guards, it is not possible to control women to that extent. They are independent and lateral thinking people, and will find a way to escape from such an overbearing husband. Any woman who has an emotional reason to be unfaithful, will succeed in doing so. Any any man who thinks he can control women is likely to end up unknowingly raising bastards.