Based on the crop of stories - complete with subsubeditor taglines of excruciating excrebility - awaiting me after lunch, did you have your 1 December drinks today?
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 …
There's no suggestion int he article that the research is based on cultural norms. Men react to female types of beauty they have been trained from birth to desire more, and in the western world, with its global dominance, that apparently means the big-breated blonde barbie type.
But humanity evolved in Africa and the blonde type appears to have evolved in, roughly, northern Russia/Asia, then migrated west to northern Europe and hid away there in closer climes, while the rest of humanity, in many shades of brown, and in many body shapes, enveloped the rest of the world. In no time, from (say) the last Ice Age until the 1800, were the blonde whites in predominance in anywhere but their original habitat. So the data this research has produced is easily confuted. It cannot have been a factor in humanity's long evolutionary history. It is clearly absurd. Men could not and would not have developed a yen for anything other than the desirable, most-fertile, female types of their particular catchment area.
In the rest of the animal population, males develop and compete for female attention. Thus the males get more gorgeous (think peacocks) while the females can stay safely (inconspicuously) drab. Homo sapiens, by their reason and strong social conditioning, seem to have replaced this pattern with a male-dominated selection process, where the females compete for males. But, when push comes to shove (erm...), it is women who choose to copulate. Once the modern busty blonde has the men lining up for her, she chooses the lucky fella.
So... where are the tests that show what women select for, or have selected for, through human history? Based on film, celebs, etc., they like doe-eyed, cute men who are strong-yet-tender. Has this always been true? It seems that beards had a sexual-health function, as do, say, pheasant tails or moose antlers. Funny how researchers never seem to test the population. I guess that would mean thinking outside the cultural conditioning box, i.e. the idea that women hunt men and men have always liked what men like now.
Its a nice thought, thats some form of natural selection goes on with humans.
Its nice that he thinks its got something to do with physical attributes and not "women who cant count to 31 have more kids" and "men with poor cause-and-effect processing" have more kids. Dumb people breed more. poor people breed more because poor and dumb goes hand in hand.
* smut films aren't made with real people
-the smut I watch is. porn stars are funny-lookin.
* 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
-true, but you cant keep a chick unless you can appeal to them for the majority of the 4-week rollercoaster unless you found one with acute short term memory loss.
* 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.
I notice. If you cant dress yourself and look like you were made over by a retarded clown, Im not interested, no matter how stereotypically hot you may be in other areas; persnal appearance is a chance for me to gauge how in touch with reality you are (fitting into a size 6 and being a size 6 are not the same things) whether or not you're colourblind (nice green and purple eyeshadow, there) and whether you have compatible sense of aesthetics : If Im going to be sharing kids and a home with you, you better not be trying to rock lime-green slingbacks encrusted with pink rhinestones. I'm not saying you have to look like a cover girl, Im not even trying to suggest that aiming for that 'would be nice', but to say that guys dont notice when women make an effort is pretty disingenuous.
we all want a nice woman with a warm hands and a good heart! we dont care what she looks like! YMMV, but I prefer a woman who can dress herself, doesnt look or act like a spaz, and when all other non-physical 'needs' are ticked off the list Im going for the hottest woman I can find 'in my bracket', and so far the girls Ive talked to about this do the same.
Give me a brunette any day, preferably with some curves. Boobs anywhere from small and cute to generous but certainly not massive.
It sounds cheesy but to me personality really is way more important, and a smile would melt me faster than any boobs ever could. Given I'm a bisexual man the same goes for a man and his behind as with boobs.
AC because most of the world still seems to think bisexual men are weird even though bisexual women are (if not attention hogging) sexy.
...Albert Eienstein was either the wrinkliest young man in town or he was banging anything that moved till the day he died....
That means there must be at least another 30 years or so left for me to get smart and get laid by bevvies of Marylin's.... ho hum, no rush...
then most women seek a body that has not means of reproduction (unless they do a fully functional Barbie or is that just those funny shops with dark windows in Soho??) seems incredible to me.
As to the rest of his statements, considering the number of dodgy looking women on all those morning tv shows (dad doesn't believe he fathered my empteenth child) I think he is barking. Consider the number of children that Paris has (0 unless you count the dog(s)) versus my wife (who is attractive to me but may not meet the great doctor's demands for the perfect woman) with 2 kids and his theory starts to fall apart.
Me thinks that not being a real genius the good doc is simply trying to get laid by some attractive long legged and well stacked blonde student (with no reproductive parts).
I find it interesting that Marilyn Monroe, is frequently pointed out as the standard of feminine beauty, and I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't place her among the most beautiful women to have ever lived.
But by today's standards she is fat, and would never have had any kind of movie career.
(For the record, I put Marilyn Monroe as the second most beautiful woman to have ever lived.)
(Paris doesn't place.)
Marilyn wasn't fat by modern standards - it's an urban myth. She may or may not have been a size 16, but a size 16 in 1950 is not the same as a size 16 in 2010. A quick google will tell you that she had a small frame with large breasts.
In any case, size 16 is now the average dress size in the UK and if you have big boobs it's usually necessary to go up a dress size to fit them in.
Is this the proof the neo-Nazis need to pronounce the Aryan Race (whatever the fuck that is) is the Real Thing?
But this is not exactly new stuff from the Nipponese Nutter.
I can only assume that Kanazawa woke up in Basildon sometime and thought he'd gone to Valhalla.
Can we have a 'huge load of bollocks' icon, please.
Lots there to think about, Sarah, but about the only thing that's right is that women with big breasts tend to have slightly higher fertility and to produce a significantly greater proportion of female.
A lot of it goes back to the extent of exposure to testosterone in the first three months of foetal life. Females who are exposed to higher levels of testosterone in early foetal life tend to be generally more masculine, have smaller breasts, are more sensitised to respond to any testosterone exposure they may have in later life and are more likely to produce higher levels of testosterone in later life, and, to put it simply, have hair growth a bit more like that of males. They also tend, on average, to produce fewer children and a preponderance of males.
All of which has been known for millennia, which is why, although wedding rings are worn on different hands in different countries, it's on the fourth finger they're consistently worn. Why? Because the relative length of that finger, as compared to the index finger, has long been known to indicate various things about reproductive probabilities in both men and women. That relative length is determined by exposure to testosterone during the first three months of foetal life. The longer the fourth finger relative to the index finger, the higher was the exposure to testosterone during that period.
So if you're looking for a wife who is likely to be able to produce sons and who is likely to approach male levels of randiness, then go for a woman whose ring fingers are longer than her index fingers. She may well, of course, be flat-chested and have a heavy moustache. If you're looking for a woman who's likely to produce a preponderance of daughters, go for the busty one with short ring fingers but long index fingers.
Dumb, busty blondes tend to be pursued by males who, although they may be sharp enough in some very restricted areas of intellectual activity. aren't perhaps all that wonderfully bright themselves in some areas of life.
Streetwise males have known for centuries that flat-chested girls who can grow a moustache often have far more going for them than some people realise.
in that there are other factors come into the equation.
For a start, the pH of the vagina is a relevant factor in influencing which sperm actually make it through that dangerous area and the pH balance of the vagina varies with the testosterone:estrogen balance of the female.
And recent research indicates that females with high testosterone levels produce ova which have an outer layer more readily penetrated by the vital Y bearers rather than by X bearers.
There's more to this than meets the eye.
Paris -- because even she knows there's more to gender than meets the eye.
I can't believe no one has picked up on this yet: if there's research to be done in this area, well, ahem...may I respectfully offer up my services? fnarr, fnarr and all that.
Okay, shall we agree we sum up his life's work with the pithy statement 'Gentlemen prefer blondes'? Now, I'm positive I've heard that phrase well before I heard of him but full marks to him for getting column inches out of rehashing it.
I've got some ideas for his next 'discoveries': Bears have been known to defecate in forested regions & the Pope's reasonably sure he's into Catholicism!
(DISCLAIMER 01: I'm a professional designer and illustrator who attended art school for four years, and spent upwards of four hours a day drawing and painting naked chicks.)
(DISCLAIMER 02: I've been married for nearly twenty years to a healthy, zaftig, Rubenesque blonde woman with an ample chest and wide waist-to-hip ratio.)
All the usual leering, sarcastic jokes and comments about sensationalistic reporting aside, consider some prime examples from the history of art and sculpture. Take first the "Venus Of Willendorf", an early prehistoric sculptured ritual figure. While her body is in no way "babealicious", she exhibits many traits -- large breasts, hips and abdomen -- which are carried down through history as an indication of being fertile and bountiful, and therefore desirable, and internalized in most cultures as a standard for feminine beauty.
Check out the female figures in Classical Greek and Roman sculpture, especially the famous Nike Of Samothrace:
Despite her head and arms being broken off by invading Christians, this figure is pure hotness. Even taking into account the larger-than-life scale, she's obviously a big, healthy, babealicious gal with plenty of hips and curves, a far cry from your modern malnourished runway model.
Consider also most of your female figures in Renaissance and nineteenth-century French painting; again, they're all very large and "healthy" women with full breasts, sensually swelling bellies, great round hips and large thighs... and, by this point in the history of art, are often also babealicious as well.
Paris, because she epitomizes your modern, emaciated bag-of-bones standard for "beauty".
Sounds like an excuse for some sad researcher to hang around bars with beautful women he would otherwise have not chance with, all in the name of some research that, let's face it, is pretty bloody obvious!
Men like beautiful, busty beauty's! Well pass the smelling salts, I think I might faint from the shock of that revelation!
Historically, thin people were poor, they couldn't afford the amount of food to make you socially over weight, hence there were a lot of thin people.
Painting is a job, the rich generally had extra money to get their pictures done, therefore you will see an good amount of paintings with generally large richer ladies on.
Larger ladies were rare and as well as rich, so large ladies were considered beautiful. Times have changed and the thin girls are now rare.
Girls generally get dolled up, not for pulling blokes, but trying to out do other girls when they are out. Its a shame that most of these didn't get trained in applying makeup and slapping it on with a paintball gun doesn't make you look any better.
[assuming he is from where his name would imply!]
I bit young for me <cry> but I could fall for somebody that looked like that. On the other hand, the procession of blondes, the Parises, the Eleniaks, and such that grace the cack on TV... no interest. So either I'm a TrueGeek hardwired to appreciate brown-haired slanty-eyes girls, or that report bounces off the typical traditional stereotype and misses the fact that beauty is a highly subjective thing (ie most "supermodels" := fugly (IMHO)).
Paris icon, out of pity, mostly...
omg you shouldn't have posted that url - drool drool.
Black hair, (dark) brown eyes, somewhat petite figures but most of all the voices just to hear Japanese, Mandarin, Thai, Vietnamese - the languages of paradise when spoken by gentle female voices. Of course, it helps when you understand what they're saying!
"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."
is a pretty stupid and pointless statement.
Women may want to look like MM, and maybe not (looking at the number of painfully stick-thin celebs in the media and the growing cult of girls and women who want to look like them I suspect the evolutionary pshchologist is talking bollocks) but that has nothing to do with being impregnated.
Straight / bisexual men want to have sex with women. I am pretty sure any fertile women could get impregnated pretty damn quickly if she is not bothered about who is doing the impregnating.
If the pshycologist wants to claim that women want to look like MM so that they can get impregnated by their ideal man, who will then stick around to support her and their family then there may be something in it, but in the [paraphrased] words of Reverend Chris Rock:
"'Cause every woman since they were like 13 every guy you met has been trying to fuck you. That's right. Women are offered dick every day. Every woman in here … gets offered dick at least three times a day. That's right, every time a man's being nice to you … all he's doing is offering dick. That's all it is. "Can I get that for you? – How about some dick?" "Could I help you with that? – Could I help you to some dick?" "
I think it's self-evident that most men would probably do most types of women. There's no suggestion that men *only* go for blue-eyed busty blondes. It's just saying that there may be evolutionary advantages to being blue-eyed and blonde and busty.
I think most people have preferred types but there are some attributes that work on the reptile brain stem of pretty much everyone. Busty women are everyone's type, ultimately, on a very base and primitive level.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019