Women long for the classic Barbie figure with big boobs, long blonde hair and blue eyes because it makes men want to impregnate them, an evolutionary psychologist has proclaimed. London School of Economics reader Satoshi Kanazawa has successfully manipulated the more malleable and shameless news outlets into excitedly …
" ... has successfully manipulated the more malleable and shameless news outlets into excitedly regurgitating the provocative theories contained in his book ... "
Re: Glass houses?
Yeah, I'd say the reg is pretty shameless. It's actually one of the things that makes it's articles interesting. (also the fact that there are the odd completely crazy articles that makes it possible to survive the day without resporting to violence)
I spy one teensy problem with this hypothesis
evolutionarily speaking, skinny flat-chested brunettes with brown eyes should be outcompeted by the curvaceous buxom fair-haired baby-bluers. A hasty sampling of the population I just conducted through the window suggests that this is not the case, which I'm going to use instead as evidence for my own theory that evolutionary psychology is not an overwhelming factor in the behaviour of homo sapiens
Blonde hair and blue eyes are recessive genes
This keeps them relatively rare in the gene pool.
This one is old as the world. The attractiveness of the "different". The reason why a hawk will invariably attack a white pidgeon in a flock of black and vice versa.
The level of "Pavlov's dog" response to Barbie dolls is inversely proportional to the distance from the tropics. What will make everyone turn around and look on a street in Naples will be barely noticed walking down the street of Stockholm or Helsinki and vice versa.
Downvoted for a simple statement of fact? C'mon, if you want to be blonde that badly, there's stuff in bottles you can buy....
A recent(ish) study concluded that the genes for blondness are only 7 thousand years old or so (or was it 11, I can't remember for sure, but it was something quite recent like that). If that is correct, or at least close, then it would be no surprise that the blonds haven't taken over yet -- these things take time (in generations, more than in years, mind).
All that considering the theories of the evo-psycho have any merit, of course. Which they probably don't, since it's pretty obvious (by seeing those prehistoric statuettes of grotesquely obese women as presumably symbols of fertility) that beauty standards are hardly stable.
Obvious choice for an icon, really.
(DISCLAIMER: My points here are entirely theoretical, as I'm already married to a nice, ample, "healthy" blonde)
While I find blonde hair and blue eyes attractive in an aesthetic sense, the lack of same isn't necessarily a deal-breaker for me. What _is_ a deal-breaker is a body that makes me hesitant to jump on a woman's bones for fear of breaking them all.
I won't speak for all the guys here, but breasts, hips, asses, thighs and curves are important to me; it's what makes a woman's body sensual and graceful. Mind you, I wouldn't necessarily pass on a woman who didn't have _all_ of the above, but I _do_ generally prefer a woman who doesn't look like she just escaped from Dachau.
I feel sorry for the last two or three generations of American guys who've been brought up to believe that a woman who weighs more than a hundred pounds soaking wet is a "fat chick". I blame Hollywood, and the fashion industry.
I also think that these days, blondes are overrated, their "value" inflated owing to the fact that the state of the art in cosmetics now allows pretty much any woman to become a classic California Blonde. Besides -- just between you and me, guys -- I've always thought that redheads were waa-aaay hotter... and by this, of course, I mean a _natural_ redhead, like an Irish redhead, not flourescent-painted "punk rock" red.
(I'm sorry... IT Angle? Well, let's see... a lady named Sarah Bee moderates these comments in this very same IT rag, and I've seen her in the fotos posted here of the big Reg staff get-together a year or two ago, and if I weren't married I'd totally ask her out. OK, granted, a weak IT angle, but an IT angle nonetheless.)
Ever consider that the "strongest, and most fit males that have the male-equivalent evolutionary 'ideal' traits to attract women" are those ones that get those buxom blondes? The rest of us "normal" folk have to resort to those "more average" brown-haired, flat-chested types (or any "lesser" variation thereof).
You mean I'll have to make do with Keira. Heartbroken!
A ray of hope.
As one of the "fugly" and "bumping-along-the-bottom unappealingness" types, I can only draw the author's attention to what I think of as the Merton effect:
"So what first attracted you to the multimillionaire Paul Daniels?"
cart before horse?
But, do women actually *want* to look like MM, or is it just (some*) men who want them to? While there are several postulates here, they don't appear to add up to the headline claim.
Of course, just because we're genetically predisposed to a certain form of behaviour, that doesn't make it right. That's what (allegedly) makes us human.
* I liked her in Some Like It Hot.
(Anon 'cos I should be working, but I'm watching the snow & reading El Reg instead)
Postulation can lead a girl into drugs and sex slavery.
Science is wrong...
there's plenty of pregnant chavettes in this city...
One of the many, many problems with this bloke's theories is his failure to account for the 'any hole's a goal' types who would cheerfully shag a labrador if nothing else was available.
If anything, humanity is more likely to degenerate to something that resembling flabby neanderthals with hypertrophied eyes from staring at daytime TV.
Something women have trouble getting their head around
Quite a lot of blokes don't actually like big tits. Ask around, you'd be surprised.
As for eye colour, it doesn't matter a damn.
A smile wins every time.
there was a title here but it left
Yeah but they're all secretly gay.
Whilst not averse to the larger bosom, a nice rounded bum, proper hips and shapely legs attract me the most (plus nice face too obviously) . As the great Spinal Tap said 'The bigger the cushion...'.
Mind you having only ever been with shapely legged, rounded bummed ladies with proper hips I've never managed to bag one with large lady bumps as well so I've no idea whether I've missed out or not. I'd like to find out but I think the wife would disapprove.
You have missed out .....
It is just not possible for them to be too big.
There's more to life than big breasts
Even though I'm especially keen on a decent handfull of bosom, you're not necessarily missing out. What looks good in clothes does not necessarily mean more fun in bed, and neither does age seem to make that much difference.
In short, personality and knowing how best to use what you've got still rules. The women I've dated have had lots of different body shapes, and I wouldn't rule out any out of hand.
Mate, you work in IT...
...nobody's buying this "women I've dated" line.
No more than a handful, please. I dinnae care what colour their eyes are, only that every now and again they light up with a smile. I prefer a lady not for her looks…but for the twin facts that she can a) put up with my constant rambling and b) likes to cuddle. I’ve done the whole “super-sexy-but-stupidly-overworked-and-never-sits-down-for-a-second” thing. “Frenetic” is not for me. I’ve done the “super-sexy-but-constantly-depressed” as well as the “super-sexy-but-hates-cuddling-with-anyone” thing.
I gots me a lady now who enjoys nothing more than curling up on the couch to watch Battlestar Gallactica followed by several hours of debating every topic in existence at such lengths as to make internet nerdrage threads look tame.
Who cares what she looks like; that lady’s for me!*
Less is more
As my father used to say "Anything more than a handful or mouthful is a waste".
Personally, i've had girls with all different sizes from A to G.
The smaller ones honestly feel and look better, more shapely, less stretched.
That's my two cents :P
Beer- because it usually leads to seeing a few.
There's always one, isn't there?
In my experence whilst working in IT is a disadvantage to dating, but there's other factors that are far more common reasons of being turned down (which are none of your business, but being very averse to ever having children is a particularly notable one). Certainly I've never been involved with someone and then split up because I was into computers.
Why is it
I have this image of Sarah reading this thread like the woman in Dilbert - "Must restrain fist of death...."
Re: Why is it
Not especially. You're all so predictable. And no one's being particularly offensive. It's just another day at the office...
"The smaller ones honestly feel and look better, more shapely, less stretched."
But you can't go motorboating in A's...
A nice smile and a dirty laugh beats any body shape.
But the larger ones float better in a hot tub, or Jacuzzi.
> A nice smile and a dirty laugh beats any body shape.
In other news...
Ursine defecation in deciduous-based ecosystem.
The dominatrix obviously feels the need to rejects lots of comments...this wee article will keep her busy for a while.
Re: In other news...
If you're referring to me, dear, I wrote the thing. So I'm braced for whatever you may have to say.
Mind and Body
Let me summarize:
The male population gets uglier and smarter by the generation, witness the successful procreation of genius masterminds like Gates.
The female population turns increasingly babelicious, dropping the occasional brain cell along the way (your words, not mine!).
So on average the gene pool should be stable, until the masterminds discover cloning and thereby make the female gender obsolete! Or maybe they discover cloning and create an army of über-babes? Gotta think that through...
Re: Mind and Body
Er, whose words?
Sometimes getting the low hanging fruit is fun
'Women long for the classic Barbie figure with big boobs, long blonde
hair and blue eyes'
Doesn't sound like a problem to me - can't be more than about twenty quid from Toys 'R Us, surely ;)
Barbie isn't my idea of an sexy woman, and I'm not sure what evolution would say about the unnatural hair colours of several of my partners.
Thos confounded ratios
"Big boobs are supposedly indicative of fertility, along with a large waist-to-hip ratio."
A large waist-to-hip ratio is indicative of fertility in the sense that it suggests that the woman in question is pregnant.
Even so, I think most men would go for a large hip-to-waist ratio, or a small waist-to-hip ratio.
Either way of putting it (fnarrr), it is the waist to hip ratio, and I seem to remember reading that around 0.7 (i.e. the 'hourglass' figure) was both most attractive to men, and also good for child bearing.
The latter being a good evolutionary reason for men linking it. Or more precisely, the reason that men who like curvy hips tended to have partners who had children successfully in pre-successful Caesarean operation days, who presumably inherited the tendency to also like it.
The good news for women is it is not the size of your bum that matters, but the proportion. And ignore the women's fashion magazines, who are not actually targeting men.
Wait a minute, why am I bothering? this is an IT site!
Marilyn Monroe wasn't blonde
Well, not naturally anyway. But even as a blonde she was nothing like Barbie.
Sarah, I think you've hit the nail on the head: the guy is very good at getting his post-pub philosophising well publicised. There are so many things that you can take apart:
* sex and, therefore, libido is not just about procreation. Largely about making babies, yes, but not entirely. Building trust is also important.
* smut films aren't made with real people
* I've read elsewhere but please don't ask for the citation that it's the women who choose their men and their preference changes over the cycle
* long legs and big "boobs" (why the female preference for the synonym for mistakes?) don't generally go together. So it's kind of difficult to idealise both Marilyn and Barbie. Personally I do find the images of Marilyn Monroe jaw-droppingly attractive and Barbie rather asexual. I've read somewhere that Barbie's appeal is related to her as role model - powerful woman. BTIYW
* what women think men find attractive and what men think is attractive are often very different things. We don't notice haircuts, jewellery, the myriad shades of pink and especially not shoes. Personality does count a bit.
* at the end of a long night it's any port in a storn, innit
But, at the end of the day, I'd like to being paid to do this kind of research. More fun than web 2.0!
Re: Marilyn Monroe wasn't blonde
I think the idea is that you don't have to be *naturally* blonde - it's just the colour that suggests youthfulness.
But yeah, of course you can pick all this stuff apart, we're not such simple creatures. Well, mostly.
Boobs is a good word. Others are either coy, clinical or bordering on offensive in many contexts.
I think we should popularise 'Ingrids' as a term now, in honour of recently deceased horror actress Ingrid Pitt.
Don't think it's that offensive, not coy, and definitely not clinical.
i prefer the term
"long legs and big "boobs" (why the female preference for the synonym for mistakes?)"
Back in the eighties I remember hearing that this was a succesfull piece of feminist agit prop perpetrated in the '70s. Hard to imagine nowadays when people say 'my bad' tater than 'I boobed'.
Paris, cos she did.
But then if I admitted that I liked Little Ingrids, I'd get locked up...
Unfortunately, the first Ingrid I think of is Bergman.Still phwoar, but not, erm, overly gifted on the bosom front. Not that that matters, but it somewhat spoils the link.
Where would you like me to post him to?
That is the first I've heard that that delicious pair have gone to meet their honker. That is sad news!
Meanwhile, while the Monroe type - but with a bit more on top, ideally, and not in her 90's when she does gather her shit together for one last final farewell from beyond the long cold grave, will distract me so much it's all I can do to stay alive - even if it is just someone vaguely reminiscent of Marilyn and not, say, http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Monroe,%20Marilyn/Annex/Annex%20-%20Monroe,%20Marilyn%20%28Some%20Like%20it%20Hot%29_06.jpg - the real aphrodisiac for me is a sharp intellect and equivalent sense of humor. Not to the point that I could do it with another guy, I grant, or a ginner - but anyway at least you can see that being turned on by the deep stuff rather than the shallow is something I resisted for as long as I was able! Am I an aberation or what?
"long legs and big "boobs" ... don't generally go together."
I have a friend with both. She does have to fight them off with a shitty stick.
I think you mean a shinty stick'
Gates was driven?
...to make the most of his abilities earlier in his life, when it would get him laid, and having successfully made a family and conquered the universe, the impetus was no longer there.
More likely he only got laid when he learned to relax and stop worrying about operating systems.
According to that logic, women should be getting constantly more blonde/beautiful, and must have been doing so for centuries. By 2010, we should be walking with angels. Not so. Kanazawa is a daft 'apeth, and to reach register "boffin" status, will will have to up his game beyond the perusal of sweaty and much-surfed internet pages.
This is pretty low grade boffinry. In most parts of the world there just are no blondes, blue-eyed or otherwise. The idea that the human species could have evolved to favour genes that aren't in the pool of most populations (including the ancestral East African one where the first million years of our evolution happened) is, um, let's see if I can be nice about this, um ... total bollocks?
Going back a lot of years (ahem) to Biology and Zoology days at school, we were taught that brown hair and brown eyes were the dominant (ooer, missus!) gene...
@A ray of hope: You sir, owe me a new keyboard...