The discussion about women and makeup made me want to start this thread.
To begin with, we all think we have unique tastes in partners, but we don’t. Beauty is not really in the eye of the beholder, it is objective, and we all pretty much find the same looks attractive.
It is also a fact that liberals tend to be less attractive than conservatives – which makes a lot of sense as the notion that beauty is fake or does not matter always comes from the Left. Unsurprisingly, the less attractive people would be emotionally invested this idea and they would demand society focus on other factors they might have – which explains 90% of feminism – it is simply ugly women demanding to accepted for something besides their looks.
The problem is none of this is the fault of some hostile cultural overlords, it is nature. We evolved to be this way and there is nothing we can do about. So what direction do you Leftists take now?
Do you read articles to the end. They say the opposite of what said
Of course, the conclusion is very broad, and the researchers emphasize that their findings are not suggesting that all Republicans are attractive, or even that all Republicans live in a bubble that protect them from the hardships of life
Our attractiveness greatly shapes who we partner with. Attractive people almost always mate with other attractive people, while unattractive people mate with other unattractive people. The more unattractive people are, the less they value physical attractiveness in potential mates. Instead, they focus on emotional characteristics like kindness, sense of humor, and dedication.
Over decades of research, they’ve explored what makes men and women attractive. Muscularity, facial symmetry, facial hair, jaw shape, height, and youthfulness all factor in to male attractiveness, while breast fullness, facial symmetry, youthfulness, waist-to-hip ratio, a rounded butt, hair length, and eye size can make women more attractive.
One can be attractive and focus on intelligence or so.
That’s part of the individuals, not the full persons.
I know that for me one of the most important criteria is the sharing of values. the woman can be very attractive physically for me, if we don’t share basic values, there will be no match.
What is true is that if you have time and money, it is easier to care for appearance.
And, may be liberals care less for their appearance, not because they are less attractive, but because it is less important for them.
Here’s a nice overview of theories on instincts. I like this as a working definition:
But what qualifies as an instinct? In his book Exploring Psychology , author David G. Meyers suggests that to be identified as an instinct, a behavior "must have a fixed pattern throughout a species and be unlearned."5 In other words, it must occur naturally in all organisms of that species.
The annualreviews.org article is getting an error, and the bigthink article says this
Furthermore, Ariely found that the more unattractive people are, the less they value physical attractiveness in potential mates. Instead, they focus on emotional characteristics like kindness, sense of humor, and dedication.
You have somehow taken that to mean that it’s bad to focus on kindness. You’ve reduced a trait that we have that is superficial, that doesn’t engage our highly evolved cortex, and put it up on a pedestal, exaggerating its importance.
I’m using “trait” very loosely here. It is not universal, it is not related to survival, or to other traits like intelligence. It isn’t even that easy to define. Here’s the list from your link, which I don’t dispute
Muscularity, facial symmetry, facial hair, jaw shape, height, and youthfulness all factor in to male attractiveness, while breast fullness, facial symmetry, youthfulness, waist-to-hip ratio, a rounded butt, hair length, and eye size can make women more attractive.
What is the perfect number for any of those, and how many people have the right look for all of them?
Where do I say it’s bad to focus on kindness? In my earlier response to Morgankane I said personality matters, but I’m talking about physical attractiveness. As for overestimating the importance of looks – not true. Physical attractiveness indicates reproductive fitness, which is why we evolved to find good looks attractive.
?? I don’t understand this question. What do you mean by “the right” to look for attractive traits?
You say emotional investment in dealing with bein unattractive is 90% of feminism. So where does having important values like being nice fit in? How about eqal pay or having a credit card?
The question is, what do you mean? You say that beauty can be defined, but it changes with time, there are cultural differences, and even the listed traits aren’t equally weighted or easily identified. It sounds like a purposely vague list from the WEIRDs to me.
The study you linked does not cover the evidence, it assumes previous studies are correct and uses that assumption in its analysis. It says it does, right here
Sexual selection is the theoretical framework for much work and a thorough discussion of this topic in general is beyond the current review.
This is common in scientific studies. It’s the downside of peer review. Some reviews pass a low bar and go on to get cited and create a cascade of bad science. I don’t know if the studies that this study refers to are good or not, I would have to read them. I would have to find if they were referenced often, or if there is consensus. If I don’t do that, then I’m cherry picking.
IMHO, conservative men are not at all handsome. I find liberal men more attractive. You can’t take these articles as gospel. Also, just because a woman is attractive and has curves and crap, doesn’t mean she has “reproductive fitness”. In fact, the more svelte she is, the more likely should could die during childbirth, because in order to keep that shape, she might not be eating right, for starters. I see this article as feeding the macho male’s ego.
My husband likes curves and while mine aren’t as prominent as they were when I was younger, I still have some, so he says. Then again, I try to watch my weight and get exercise for health reasons.
it’s an interesting topic, and one I suspect someone else will try to spring on me someday, so I clicked through to the citation within the study that was linked. The study linked is pretty much correlation, so nothing that says pretty people are more successful and better for the species, or whatever theme it is supposed to be. The citation that says it goes deeper into selective sexuality seems to be about animals in general. I’m not going to buy the book for $79 unless or until I find something more compelling about it. Seems like a huge leap that would require knowing what butterflies think about how pretty other butterflies are.
It’s curious that no one mentioned the importance of smell in finding that special someone for you. I’m not saying visual beauty isn’t important, it most certainly, absolutely, positively is, but, but like with so much we humans do, too many are unaware of half the symphony.
SCENTS AND ATTRACTION: THE NOSE KNOWS - May 09, 2022
A continuous journey, tied in so closely with memory — scents carry you back in time or take you forward. For thousands of years, we’ve turned to scents to uplift our mood, allow us to dream, make us feel at home or evoke sensorial experiences. Smell and memory are deeply intertwined — triggering a rush of fond emotions, memories and romantic attractions, like the smell of an old love. …
Smell of Love
… When it comes to attraction, scent is a crucial element beyond the physical, mental, emotional and intellectual factors of what attracts us to someone. When you’re attracted to someone, you’re more likely to be drawn to how they smell. Our olfactory senses are our most primal senses — alluring and captivating. Often known as the love hormone , we release pheromones (oxytocin), when we’re attracted to someone, causing one to be drawn to someone’s smell. …
Physical beauty. It is attractive as the thread title states. But it can be very temporary. Of course this applies to men and women, straight, gay, or otherwise.
Who hasn’t been attracted to someone they initially found beautiful yet after a short time of getting to know them, found the beauty to fade beyond recognition. It’s all too common.
So, what does physical attractiveness mean? Simply, it is a warning to not assume the physical attractiveness matches the dream in your head. Attractiveness works in advertising because nobody gets to know the actor. Beyond this, physical attractiveness means nothing. It’s a random mix of DNA.
Recently I read I think it was in
*** Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin’s Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives**
*** By: David Sloan Wilson**
About a study that studied attractiveness from another angle.
It had students that were going out for extended digs, and such cooperative work projects, to rate each other after the first orientation meeting and before they knew each other.
Then gave the students the same questionnaire at the end of their adventure.
Go figure, helpful, interesting, cooperative people became better looking,
while the people displaying the opposite, became less attractive.
I’ve often noticed, and bet you have too, how the inner glow, enthusiastic smile and demeanor can turn the “plainest” looking woman into a dazzling beauty.
For the 3rd time, personality matters in a relationship – more so for men – but this is about PHYSICAL attractiveness.
This isn’t correct. I mentioned this at the beginning of the thread because it’s very important to understand this topic, but the traits that make someone look good are pretty much the same everywhere. Even babies seem to prefer good looking adults. You have a problem with my earlier links, so here are more: