Human attraction. Is it flawed?

[sheogorath]

DO you think that physical human attraction is flawed in the modern age? Personally I do. Personally, I think that physical attraction plays a much larger role than is now needed. For instance, guys are attracted to women with large breasts. At one point, when the only way to feed a babe was via breast feeding, this may have been a benefit. Now, however many people use formula instead, therefor making the feature significantly diminished in value. Same goes for a large waist. This was much more significant a long time ago before C-sections. Then girls are attracted more to muscular male bodies. This is obviously because the male would have to do manual labor or hunt a long time ago, however now those are some of the least paying jobs. This is not something we can change, as it is hormonal, but do you think that this attraction is still significant or do you think that it should be more intelligence based or based on something else?

[Alric]

People get in trouble because of it all the time. Not just physical attraction but emotional as well. Girls fall for the bad boy type, then they get hit and stuff, or the guy is drunk or something. Or people fall for people who appear rich and wealthy, but the person is just living on the edge and has a ton of debt. It is the same reason you are not supposed to sleep with people right away. They are really hot you sleep with them and they are great in bed. Suddenly all you see is that attraction. Hes a bum, oh but he is hot. She sleeps with a ton of other people, oh well its worth it for the sex. Or whatever. Once you are unable to separate sex from the relationship you are doomed. Attraction is a good starting place, but you really need to use your brain. You need to decide what you want from your relationship.

[SkA_DaRk_Che]

Human Attraction is a complicated thing. What one person finds beautiful can be very different from another; like you said there are some common themes like big breasts. I think you are wrong about the human conception of beauty being something that cannot be changed. Not even 300 years ago, a plump overweight woman would have been viewed as beautiful. For in those days a woman who was of this stature would have been seen as wealthy. In those times the only people who could have afforded to be plump and overweight were the wealthy you see. So this trait became an object of beauty. How times have changed; today we view this type of body as an example of a person who does not take care of their body and is unhealthy and unfit. See? How unchangeable is the human perception of beauty? In some parts of the world people often see this as a sign of beauty. Take Mauritania for instance. There, girls at a certain age are buried neck high in dirt and fed cos cos, milk and all sorts of fattening foods so that they may become plump and overweight (and find a husband faster). Why? Because in some communities this is viewed as beauty while in our own communities this would be the exact opposite. It's actually interesting because in Mauritania they are getting satellite channels from across the arabophone world; so their perception of beauty is changing. Over there, many men still see plumpness as the epitome of beauty,but as television access spreads they are seeing (among other things) smoking hot Lebanese pop stars and singers who are very curvy and trim. Thus their image of beauty is gradually changing (and their preferred body type) like it happened in the western world over the last 300 years or so.

[Xei]

It's a very good question, I think. It's something I worry about a lot of the time. In modern society, I think most of us realise there is no pressing reason that we should compete with others for the best of the other sex so as to pass on our genes. That's just something wired into our brains by evolution. In fact we're intelligent enough to see that if anything, we should abstain from passing on our genes, as the planet is overpopulated. But it's still wired in. When we say we are in love with someone, are we in love with the person, or their appearance? The egalitarian morals treasured by pretty much every fair person nowadays tell us we should love somebody for the former reason as physical attractiveness is not something which somebody chooses, but does this happen in reality? I've never known of such a case to be honest. But then again, why not go further; why do we have this aspiration for monogamous romantic partnerships? Isn't that just part of our biological wiring too? I'm yet to be able to answer these questions...

[Caprisun]

Very interesting book: The Mating Mind, by Geoffrey Miller. It's a must read for anybody interested in this subject. Basically there is a natural cause for everything that a man finds attractive in a woman and a woman in a man. The book goes very in depth about sexual selection and how it has shaped the human body. It is very interesting because it argues that many of our physical traits that are assumed to have evolved for survival purposes, such as brain size, actually evolved due to sexual selection. Meaning that it evolved only because the opposite sex found it attractive. The survival benefits of our large brains were a mere by-product of an instrument built for sex. We have civlizations spread across the entire world because somewhere along the line, creative intelligence became attractive to the opposite sex. This is how we got art, music, advanced language etc. We are lucky that our sexual ornaments are conducive to survival. Many animals, such as the peacock, are not so lucky. In most cases, physical traits developed through sexual selection actually hinder survival (bright colors, heavy antlers that are otherwise useless, enormous feathered tail.) The point to all this is that every trait on a human, physical and personality wise, can be traced through evolution. Large breasts, hip-waist ratio, big ass, penis size; Geoffrey Miller covers it all in great detail. You will be happy to know that the reasons we are attracted to these certain body parts are completely involuntary and a lot less superficial than you man think. Keep that in mind the next time you are chastised for admiring a nice set of tits. As for personal preference and the preference of society changing over time, I think that's an interesting question. It is true that a pale, chubby person was considered attractive in the Middle Ages because they were probably rich (keep in mind obesity in the modern world is a whole different ball game, a fat person 500 years ago would probably be considered "curvy" today.) However, people are not attracted to money. They want security and will marry for security, but they don't feel that gut-level, sexual attraction for a person because they offer security. A woman from the stone ages may forge a relationship with a man that can provide security, but when he's not looking she'll get knocked up by a nice strong man that will produce strong offspring. This trend continues even today. There is even evidence that woman do this subconciously. A woman is more likely to get pregnant from a man she is attracted to. They say woman will subconciously squeeze out or block the semen of a man who is not sexually attractive. They are also more likely to conceive when they have an orgasm. Fashion and styles and preferences always change with the times, but there are a few key areas that always remain sexually attractive. You can look at the changing fashions throughout history and they look ridiculous to us today. But you will notice that they always draw attention to certain areas such as a small waist on a woman. Your concious mind will form certain preferences that you look for, but subconciously we are all attracted to the same qualities and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Throw a young woman with a nice rack in front of any straight man and he will get turned on, guranteed. A man can conciously overide this attraction and act disinterested, but look in his pants and you will find the truth.

[Black_Eagle]

IIn modern society, I think most of us realise there is no pressing reason that we should compete with others for the best of the other sex so as to pass on our genes. That's just something wired into our brains by evolution. In fact we're intelligent enough to see that if anything, we should abstain from passing on our genes, as the planet is overpopulated. On the other hand, the procreation of intelligent, kind people is the only way to eliminate the more negative aspects of humanity.

[Photolysis]

In fact we're intelligent enough to see that if anything, we should abstain from passing on our genes, as the planet is overpopulated. Yet, alas, it requires a certain level of intellect, reflection, and foresight to realise that.

[Armistice]

I wish there was a "sort of" option. I despise "yes/ no" polls because you're forced to choose Anyway, I actually started dating my current GF because she was a good friend and fun to be around (actually I liked her friend first, lol). Wasn't until after that I realized how pretty she was. 6yrs later, still together SHe liked me coz she thought I was cute. So she had the physical attraction to me, mine was the mental (?) attraction

[Dreams4free]

My theory is that progressively, as the demand for intelligence increases for survival, the sexual attraction will evolve directly with it. I don't know how long it will take, but for survival purposes, women would be at a defect if they kept going after dumb buff guys. The world would be such a better place if women were attracted to intelligence.... We be hitting Aristotle everyday, rather than the fucking gym. The longer sexual attraction stays under evolved in humans the more class division we will see. As well as economic problems stimulated from such a class division. Give it about a couple more hundred years and physical ability will be completely obsolete, we will just have drugs that make building muscle ridiculously easy. When we hit this point, the change will happen.

[Sylph]

I was just watching this documentary yesterday about the latest findings in hominid fossils (ardipithecus or whatever it is they're calling it) and the scientists reasoned that (unlike apes) we have small canines and are bipedal because females would have prefered males that could carry more food to them than ones that could bite each other's asses off over them. I guess it's not as simple as just brawn or brain. I mean, a strong fellow can walk further and faster to get food, be more fitted to work the fields, be likelier to fend off and\or survive attack and disease, but were would we be if women really only went for "dumb buff guys"? The day some guy came up with the idea of making a bow, how do you think women started looking at him? He suddenly must have turned into best father potencial in the whole tribe. It must have been hell for the other fellows! Also, it occurs to me that guys (even today) living in the "tribal era", if you will, are all usually pretty fit, so muscle would have been the rule and brain would have made a guy stand out.

[mini0991]

I think it's extremely flawed. Those of us severely disadvantaged in physical appearance suffer tremendously while we grapple with something we still need but can't fulfill. I am what most would consider "ugly" or "unimpressive", but yet I still have the need for sexual intimacy; it's just so damn hard to fulfull it when you look like I do. As a result, I've grappled with self-hate, self-harm, extremely low self-esteem, and I've gotten screwed over more than once trying to radically change the way I look just so I can meet the baseline requirement for attraction.

[Xei]

Kind of off topic but you're not remotely ugly.

[Xaqaria]

Attraction is much too complicated to be reduced to 'men like large breasts because of breast feeding'. Large breasts as a stereotypically attractive feature on women does not have anything to do with breast feeding in the first place, breast size does not effect ones ability to breast feed. The reason why large breasts and wide hips (the 'hour glass' figure) are more attractive is because these physical features are correlated to hormone levels that affect fertility. A woman with an hour glass figure is more likely to conceive in the first place. (source) Conversely, women are more attracted to built men who are aggressive because they are exhibiting high testosterone levels which shows that they are more fertile. Anyway, these factors play a surprisingly small role in attraction as a whole process and really are only connected to initial attraction, or first impressions. One's behavior is actually much more important to the human mating ritual than appearance.

[Maria92]

Attraction is much too complicated to be reduced to 'men like large breasts because of breast feeding'. Large breasts as a stereotypically attractive feature on women does not have anything to do with breast feeding in the first place, breast size does not effect ones ability to breast feed. The reason why large breasts and wide hips (the 'hour glass' figure) are more attractive is because these physical features are correlated to hormone levels that affect fertility. A woman with an hour glass figure is more likely to conceive in the first place. (source) Conversely, women are more attractive to built men who are aggressive because they are exhibiting high testosterone levels which shows that they are more fertile. Anyway, these factors play a surprisingly small role in attraction as a whole process and really are only connected to initial attraction, or first impressions. One's behavior is actually much more important to the human mating ritual than appearance. I can testify to this (and as a side note, it's about damn time we agreed on something ). Many times I've seen a cute girl walk by, think "Oh, yeah, it's on!" then come crashing down to earth with the realization that somehow, it will never work out. Either she's a ditz, our political views are too different, I'm a coward, she's a floozy, we'd never want to live in the same place, etc etc etc. Appearances only play a small part compared to the SEA of variables out there. It should also be noted that I myself am not nearly as attracted to the "modern" supermodels and stereotypical definitions of beauty as many of my colleagues...perhaps I am unique in this respect, but beauty and attraction is far from universal. Therefore, I would say that, "no," human attraction is not flawed in our modern world.

[Caprisun]

Attraction is much too complicated to be reduced to 'men like large breasts because of breast feeding'. Large breasts as a stereotypically attractive feature on women does not have anything to do with breast feeding in the first place, breast size does not effect ones ability to breast feed. The reason why large breasts and wide hips (the 'hour glass' figure) are more attractive is because these physical features are correlated to hormone levels that affect fertility. A woman with an hour glass figure is more likely to conceive in the first place. (source) Conversely, women are more attracted to built men who are aggressive because they are exhibiting high testosterone levels which shows that they are more fertile. Anyway, these factors play a surprisingly small role in attraction as a whole process and really are only connected to initial attraction, or first impressions. One's behavior is actually much more important to the human mating ritual than appearance. This is true. It has actually been calculated that a hip/waist ratio of about 0.7 on women, is universally attractive. You can compare the anorexic supermodels of today with the chubby women of medieval Europe, the hip/waist ratio is always 0.7 on the most attractive women. This exact number also happens to be most ideal for bearing children. Our massive brains also happen to be the primary sexual ornament of human beings. Meaning that yes, your behavior and personality are much more important than your body, even if you are a woman.

[Kromoh]

The environment doesn't change the species, the environment selects the species. We will continue to have the exact same tastes as our ancestors until the day we start undergoing natural selection again (it has been halted by what we call "progress"). This all is, of course, without counting the very important factor of the influence of the medium. What you like is by much influenced by your experiences. For those reasons, I don't think human attraction is flawed. I don't even think it's something that can be "flawed", in first place. It just is, and nature will select it favourably or unfavourably in due time.

[Dreams4free]

The environment doesn't change the species, the environment selects the species. We will continue to have the exact same tastes as our ancestors until the day we start undergoing natural selection again (it has been halted by what we call "progress"). This all is, of course, without counting the very important factor of the influence of the medium. What you like is by much influenced by your experiences. For those reasons, I don't think human attraction is flawed. I don't even think it's something that can be "flawed", in first place. It just is, and nature will select it favourably or unfavourably in due time. Heard of evolutionary adaption? Sometimes we are flawed, and therefore must go through change to be fixed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Adaptation

[Kromoh]

You are trying to tell me about evolution? Evolution is not a happening with a purpose. It's just a natural tendency of some things to happen. A population that's not adapted doesn't mean that population is "bad" or "wrong" or "unfit". It's a population like any other. Only difference is, other species that are more adapted have a higher tendency of surviving through time - which doesn't mean those species are "better" or "right". If you had less prejudice you'd know this.

[Caprisun]

The environment doesn't change the species, the environment selects the species. We will continue to have the exact same tastes as our ancestors until the day we start undergoing natural selection again (it has been halted by what we call "progress"). This all is, of course, without counting the very important factor of the influence of the medium. What you like is by much influenced by your experiences. For those reasons, I don't think human attraction is flawed. I don't even think it's something that can be "flawed", in first place. It just is, and nature will select it favourably or unfavourably in due time. Natural selection doesn't stop. It may have variable speeds, it may take unexpected turns, it is certainly influenced by civilization....but it never stops. "The environment doesn't change the species, the environment selects the species." I think better wording for this would be "The environment selects the species that it will change/is changing." Species do change at the hands of the environment. None will be left in suspended animation, including humans.

[Kromoh]

It strikes me that no thing is selecting us any much nowadays. We have schooling, medicine, health, tools, houses without angry lions, no need to run for life. Cancer only kills people after they reproduce. If any selection is currently happening, it's selection of social class, but not of survival.

[Maria92]

The environment doesn't change the species, the environment selects the species. We will continue to have the exact same tastes as our ancestors until the day we start undergoing natural selection again (it has been halted by what we call "progress"). This all is, of course, without counting the very important factor of the influence of the medium. What you like is by much influenced by your experiences. For those reasons, I don't think human attraction is flawed. I don't even think it's something that can be "flawed", in first place. It just is, and nature will select it favourably or unfavourably in due time. So much is wrong with that statement... In reality, humans are still evolving...and surprisingly rapidly, too. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1019162933.htm A recent analysis by Stearns and colleagues turns this idea on its head. As part of a working group sponsored by the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham, NC, the team of researchers decided to find out if natural selection — a major driving force of evolution — is still at work in humans today. The result? Human evolution hasn't ground to a halt. In fact, we're likely to evolve at roughly the same rates as other living things, findings suggest... ..."The take-home message is that humans are currently evolving," said Stearns. "Natural selection is still operating." Just thought I would point that out. Quietly protesting the 10-character limit)

[Xei]

You are trying to tell me about evolution? Evolution is not a happening with a purpose. It's just a natural tendency of some things to happen. A population that's not adapted doesn't mean that population is "bad" or "wrong" or "unfit". It's a population like any other. Only difference is, other species that are more adapted have a higher tendency of surviving through time - which doesn't mean those species are "better" or "right". If you had less prejudice you'd know this. To be honest you were wrong. The environment does change the species (i.e. gene frequencies in a population of a certain species). This is the whole point of natural selection. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the environment 'selects' the species. Also, genetics are not the sole factor in an organism's development. The environment also shapes organisms (an abundance of food gives rise to fat organisms, etc.), so you can't say with conviction that our tastes are the same as those as our ancestors. It could be a social thing.

[Kromoh]

To be honest you were wrong. The environment does change the species (i.e. gene frequencies in a population of a certain species). This is the whole point of natural selection. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the environment 'selects' the species. Also, genetics are not the sole factor in an organism's development. The environment also shapes organisms (an abundance of food gives rise to fat organisms, etc.), so you can't say with conviction that our tastes are the same as those as our ancestors. It could be a social thing. Nah. You just don't know what "to select" means. Just because the weather gets warmer doesn't mean people will start being skinnier for no reason. Nah. Fat people will still be born, but will be naturally selected against. Natural selection is a trial and error process. And that means trial before error. There's no such thing as "human attraction being flawed". Human attraction instincts will be naturally selected with time, like any other characteristic.

[Xei]

So the species has become thinner. So the species has changed. What's the problem?

[Maria92]

Nah. You just don't know what "to select" means. Just because the weather gets warmer doesn't mean people will start being skinnier for no reason. Nah. Fat people will still be born, but will be naturally selected against. Natural selection is a trial and error process. And that means trial before error. There's no such thing as "human attraction being flawed". Human attraction instincts will be naturally selected with time, like any other characteristic. Well, I can certainly think of one way human attraction can be "corrupted." If you look at very strict and sexually repressed societies, you will see many odd fetishes develop...and I do mean odd. Ancient tribal rituals and beliefs can also impact what individuals perceive to be attractive. Society is definitely a determining factor. At the moment, American society is becoming more open to sexuality (sometimes referred to as the sexualization of society). This should, hopefully, result in more "natural" laws of attraction (at least within American society). Quietly protesting the 10 character limit.