Why are good looks coveted / valued?

[betterdeal]

Oh, certainly not all men are followers of the stereotypical beauty trend. It's true that it depends on culture and era, as well. I was simply saying that the stereotypical beauty trends in many cultures defy health and survival, which are what some posters claim to logically drive those trends.

 

Sure. It happens in nature too, although in other species males tend to be the ones evolving to suit their mates rather than to suit day to day survival. The Superb Lyrebird, for example, the Peacock, many flycatchers and birds of paradise males have evolved striking plumage that puts them at a disadvantage with predators, but at an advantage with females.

 

Curiously, robins are not dimorphic - males and females have the same plumage.

[Els]

Yep. Evolution is based on reproduction, not truly health and survival per se. As long as one survives long enough to reproduce, that's good enough evolution-wise.

 

Let's just hope we don't end up with 11'0" men and HHH cup women in the distant future.

[Pierre]

The human brain got larger and the species became more intelligent by simply mating with other humans with symmetric features as well as the hourglass shape in women (also a symbol or fertility).

[Pierre]

Here: Google some of these papers.

 

Intelligence = Body Symmetry = Intelligence?

A recent study measured general intelligence using five different tests and found a significant correlation between intelligence and body symmetry (Prokosch, Yeo, and Miller, 2005).

Other studies have also reported positive correlations between measures of intelligence and symmetry (e.g. Bates, 2007; Furlow, Armijo-Prewitt, Gangestad, and Thornhill, 1997).

This suggests that intelligence could be a reliable indicator of developmental stability and heritable fitness.

[Els]

The first one says: 'For each participant, we used electronic calipers to measure the right and left sides of 10 body features (foot width, ankle width, wrist width, elbow width, ear width, ear length, index finger length, middle finger length, third finger length, and little finger length) to the nearest 0.01 mm' . Also it tested 73 psych undergrads - hardly an unbiased or randomized sample.

 

The second one is not actually a study, but rather a loose grouping of mating studies. Gangestad and Thornhill only correlated facial symmetry with sexual attractiveness.

 

I'm not sure what you intend for the third paper to be, that does not even sound like a study title, are you copy pasting wikipedia quotes? Have you read the papers that you quoted?

 

Even if the first paper's hypothesis was true, it is a far cry from saying 'The human brain got larger and the species became more intelligent by simply mating with other humans with symmetric features as well as the hourglass shape in women (also a symbol or fertility).'. I don't think anyone has dared to postulate that there is a 'simple' reasoning for the development of human intelligence thus far.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Elswyth

[marriagemalpractice]

Just to rain on the parade a little....

 

Yes, we all like beautiful people whether we like to admit it or not. And being with a beautiful person can improve our standing with others, whether we like to admit it or not.

 

Still, in choosing a partner, one would be wise to remember that a beautiful person isn't going to suddenly stop being beautiful to others when they marry you....

 

Well, back to the Infidelity forums I go.

[zengirl]

Oh, yes, total asymmetry is often linked to birth defects that likely affect learning abilities as well. Logically speaking the effect would be null as long as there wasn't 'that' degree of asymmetry, though, ie the most symmetrical model in the world would have no advantage over the everyday person you see on the street. If there had been a direct correlation, the most brilliant scientists and inventors would have all been exceedingly attractive, but AFAIK they are not.

 

Well, many of the most brilliant scientists and inventors had learning disabilities too! The brain is a crazy thing.

 

Anyway, yes, the birth defects asymmetric thing is probably the linkage you mention above that I was thinking of (my goodness that's an awful sentence, but you get my meaning hopefully).

[Pierre]

The first one says: 'For each participant, we used electronic calipers to measure the right and left sides of 10 body features (foot width, ankle width, wrist width, elbow width, ear width, ear length, index finger length, middle finger length, third finger length, and little finger length) to the nearest 0.01 mm' . Also it tested 73 psych undergrads - hardly an unbiased or randomized sample.

 

The second one is not actually a study, but rather a loose grouping of mating studies. Gangestad and Thornhill only correlated facial symmetry with sexual attractiveness.

 

I'm not sure what you intend for the third paper to be, that does not even sound like a study title, are you copy pasting wikipedia quotes? Have you read the papers that you quoted?

 

Even if the first paper's hypothesis was true, it is a far cry from saying 'The human brain got larger and the species became more intelligent by simply mating with other humans with symmetric features as well as the hourglass shape in women (also a symbol or fertility).'. I don't think anyone has dared to postulate that there is a 'simple' reasoning for the development of human intelligence thus far.

 

 

I posted the references so you could google them. However, I know you will not change your mind. However, I am open to change my mind if you can quote studies that associated intelligence with asymmetry.

 

BTW, intelligence is also inherited. Just sayin'

[Untouchable_Fire]

What the heck is the big deal about having a "physically attractive" partner? Or even BEING "physically attractive"? What BENEFITS does that really provide? What is "practical" about it? Or as far as the opposite is concerned, are people who highly value "good-looks" shallow?

 

Don't give me "biological" wiring bull **** please... unless you can explain the attraction to the innumerable contrived "appearances" that are abundant..............

 

I would say that it's part biological, part cultural, and part personal.

 

On the biological level, certain physical characteristics display genetic fitness. Large muscles, big hips, height, large breasts... ect. Face shape and symmetry is supposed to display the chance of genetic abnormalities.

 

However in almost every situation the cultural aspect can trump what is hardwired genetically. Just look at the ancient Greeks, their culture taught men to prefer sex with other men and little boys to women. So what you are taught to like by family, friends, and media can definitely override biological desires.

 

Finally personal preference trumps everything, and often this is decided by experience interacting with both biological drives and cultural influences. This is by far the most complex part of attraction.

 

Now, your question was why our society places so much value on beauty. USMC Hokie has a good point that it's pretty much just a competitive thing, however... I would like to point out that mass media is a very new thing. It has only existed for about 3 generations and has had an enormous impact on our culture and society.

 

Additionally, as a group we are so damn rich that basic survival needs are simply not a priority. That greatly affects our mate selection. 100 years ago I know for sure I would have wanted the biggest strongest woman available to help me run a farm and produce big strong kids to take it over. Today my needs are different... in fact I really don't need anything from a woman beyond emotional support.

[Els]

You appear to be confusing several scientific terms and concepts, Pierre. I had never once claimed that intelligence was associated with asymmetry. Saying that there is no direct correlation between intelligence and symmetry is NOT the same as saying that intelligence is associated with asymmetry. It confounds me how you can confuse the two, to be honest.

 

Secondly, how can you say things so matter-of-factly when you have never even bothered to probe into the validity of the claims you spout as 'facts'? That also boggles the mind. You do know that in science, the burden of proof lies on the person espousing the theory, not otherwise. I don't need to find references to disprove something that has not yet been proven as a theory.

[ShannonMI]

Because beauty is pleasing to the eyes.

This is it right here. And ugliness hurts the eyes:p

[grkBoy]

Physical beauty IMHO is what sets off the hormones and such that make men and women desire others.

 

However, I honestly believe the DEFINITION OF PHYSICAL BEAUTY is dictated by society. Look in the past when we've seen curvy or even fat people seen as "beautiful" while thin folks were seen as "unhealthy" or "sickly".

 

Look at women like Bettie Page or Marlyn Monroe. Back in the 50s men all over the planet wanted to have sex with them. Now if you take their bodies and put them on modern women, many men will see them as "fat".

 

Why do men and women desire physical beauty? Again, it's the hormonal thing.

 

The reality though is physical beauty is only the draw, the inner beauty is what designates someone stays or goes. Look how aged couples can stay together. If it was all about physical beauty, then everyone would always be dumping one another for young/hot people.

 

It says to me there is more to all of this than just physical beauty.

[loversquarrel]

Its not all just about looks. Nobody is perfect. Nobody. Personality traits are what separate all of us and ultimately we strive to meet our match. People who settle for just what's on the surface are missing the boat, there are so many other components involved. If you think about it, its why we date before we enter into a long term relationship. Sure, alot of people would love to be attractive and attract attractive people, but from personal experience....I would rather be with an average looking woman with an unbelievable personality than a hottie with a bad one. My girlfriend tells me all the time that my attractiveness is just a huge bonus and that my personality and character are why she fell in love with me, and I think the same about her. Good looks don't last forever.

[ShannonMI]

(I may regret starting this thread when I am sober........... but for now >D)

 

What the heck is the big deal about having a "physically attractive" partner? Or even BEING "physically attractive"? What BENEFITS does that really provide? What is "practical" about it? Or as far as the opposite is concerned, are people who highly value "good-looks" shallow?

 

WHY do "good-looks" have an "advantage" over "average/atrocious"? looks, despite their being pros and cons to everything?

 

What is the point of "external beauty of the human"?

 

Why does physical beauty have so much "power"? Is it really some unexplained primitive impulse to "desire" it? And do females *genuinely* covet it as much as males *seem* to?

 

Don't give me "biological" wiring bull **** please... unless you can explain the attraction to the innumerable contrived "appearances" that are abundant..............

Because the media loves to shove their idea of beauty down our throats. Magazines, movies, reality shows, etc. etc. The list could go on and on. We are brainwashed into thinking that those men and women we see in the magazines and movies is what we should look like.

 

Back in the dark ages women who were fat were considered far more attractive then their thinner counter parts. Even today other cultures around the world value and covet heavier women. It's what they know as a culture and what is acceptable to their culture. We Americans do not like heavy men or women. Although Marilyn Monroe back in the 60's was a size 12 and fine as f*ck!! Now if she were around we might call her fat because she's not a size 2. It's todays society and what the media puts forth about physical beauty.

[Pierre]

You appear to be confusing several scientific terms and concepts, Pierre. I had never once claimed that intelligence was associated with asymmetry. Saying that there is no direct correlation between intelligence and symmetry is NOT the same as saying that intelligence is associated with asymmetry. It confounds me how you can confuse the two, to be honest.

 

Secondly, how can you say things so matter-of-factly when you have never even bothered to probe into the validity of the claims you spout as 'facts'? That also boggles the mind. You do know that in science, the burden of proof lies on the person espousing the theory, not otherwise. I don't need to find references to disprove something that has not yet been proven as a theory.

 

I agree with your post;).

 

However, there is only so much you can do in an Internet forum.

 

Sometimes observation is useful. Most highly intelligent men and women I know are attractive. I am sure there are exceptions to the rule, but we cannot use an exception to the rule to make a point.

 

I was kidding when i asked you to correlate intelligence with unattractive looks:laugh:.

 

Go to a top university and study the physique of students. Then go to a depressed area and study the physique of those that did not graduate from high school. I bet you find some differences in the phenotypes.

 

Einstein and Newton were symmetric. Steve Jobs was symmetric.

 

In the Armed Forces it is very rare to find a General Officer that is not tall and handsome.

[dasein]

While it is an advantage to be attractive (slim and pretty) it is NOT an advantage to be beautiful in the dating world, as most men are really, really intimidated by beautiful women, and hesitate greatly to approach them. It's even extremely difficult for a lot of men to approach an attractive, but not beautiful woman.

 

Disagree completely. I see many women complaining here and elsewhere that most men want only women with model looks when the men in question don't have model looks themselves. Then I see complaints like the above that men are intimidated by beautiful women and won't approach them. Which is it then? If one is the case, the other one can't really be unless the majority of men don't ever approach women, which is NOT the case, so which?

 

I have had the fortune (good or ill is up in the air) to date and be in mid to long relationships with some exceptionally beautiful women. The best looking of these was way up in near perfection land, perfect face, perfect body, could match anything in Hollywood, Playboy or Sports Illustrated easily, oozing sex appeal, respectability, innocence and athleticism at the same time (crazy as hell but that's another story). Her life was a literal barrage of compliments and good vibes from every angle, men literally poured from the woodwork, when we went to restaurants and clubs where she had never been, the amount of fawning and attention from the staff was outrageous to the point of annoyance and embarrassment. All my male friends, young, old, good looking, ugly, fat, bald, rich, hit on her and flirted with her shamelessly right in front of me, some known for 20+ years who had never ever done anything similar with other more average women I dated.

 

She had men from work calling her daily and asking her out, men from her apartment complex hanging around where they thought she might appear, men everywhere of all shapes, sizes ages and descriptions trying to get close to her. We were together about a year before she upgraded me, so this wasn't some impression I formed over a week or two but over months.

 

Good looking people have it MUCH MUCH easier in every single aspect of life, and the better looking they are the easier they have it. That's a fact, and research backs it up. Before I will go to the trouble of citing it, the people who believe otherwise need to cite to the contrary, because I know of MANY studies that demonstrate this simple fact we all know by common sense in addition to the studies.

 

Now, way back in HS, when people are just post pubescent and getting their sexual grounding, there may be some truth to it, as I remember some of the most beautiful women not getting much attention then, but afterwards, and especially post college, no, men are not intimidated by beautiful women.

 

As to the question why looks are valued? Eeyore had the biological answer down, but there is more to it. The biology answer negates our evolved brains to an extent, and whereas the visceral sexual attraction comes from the involuntary brain IMO, the "I like shiny" comes from the voluntary conscious cerebral cortex, and is moderated by the stimulus we receive via culture. Our culture today is a media driven culture, so we are painting ourselves into a corner by continuing to consume media images of physical perfection that crowd out our taste for other more substantial qualities. If you feel unhappy with your people picker, one solution may be to turn off the tv and remove oneself to the extent possible from media messages for a good long time.

Edited November 2, 2011 by dasein

[azsinglegal]

People date people who look like them.

 

Ever notice how couples are a reflection of each other? So what you see in the mirror and find attractive, you look for in a partner.

 

I notice this alot at the gym. Couples are 100% a reflection of each other. Of course, there are some exceptions. Some folks like skinny, chubby, thick, muscular and they might not have that body type themselves.

 

But I don't believe in the "opposites attract" theory. I believe like is attracted to like.

[Els]

I agree with your post;).

 

However, there is only so much you can do in an Internet forum.

 

Sometimes observation is useful. Most highly intelligent men and women I know are attractive. I am sure there are exceptions to the rule, but we cannot use an exception to the rule to make a point.

 

I was kidding when i asked you to correlate intelligence with unattractive looks:laugh:.

 

Go to a top university and study the physique of students. Then go to a depressed area and study the physique of those that did not graduate from high school. I bet you find some differences in the phenotypes.

 

Einstein and Newton were symmetric. Steve Jobs was symmetric.

 

In the Armed Forces it is very rare to find a General Officer that is not tall and handsome.

 

ROFL not sure if I agree that the General Officers being tall and handsome proves a point about intelligence But anyhow.

 

I'm not sure what measurements Einstein had, but I doubt many people found any of his pictures attractive. Perhaps he really was symmetric but did not do anything to maintain his appearance, and thus the time/effort/money spent on appearance actually matters more than genetics.

 

My experience, regardless of that, has been that highly intelligent people are not usually stereotypically attractive in terms of physique (I'm talking about conventional intelligence of course, so my benchmark is the not-very-accurate but easily-tested acceptance into high IQ societies), but my hypothesis on that was that they spent so much time pursuing the field of their choice that they neglected their physique, so that falls back to 'no correlation'.

[Wolf18]

Because the media loves to shove their idea of beauty down our throats. Magazines, movies, reality shows, etc. etc. The list could go on and on. We are brainwashed into thinking that those men and women we see in the magazines and movies is what we should look like.

 

Back in the dark ages women who were fat were considered far more attractive then their thinner counter parts. Even today other cultures around the world value and covet heavier women. It's what they know as a culture and what is acceptable to their culture. We Americans do not like heavy men or women. Although Marilyn Monroe back in the 60's was a size 12 and fine as f*ck!! Now if she were around we might call her fat because she's not a size 2. It's todays society and what the media puts forth about physical beauty.

 

I'm almost positive Marilyn Monroe would still be considered attractive today. She had somewhat wide hips in a good proportion. If she would've had a gut and been a "size 12" (I bet a size 12 in the 1960's is probably half of that today) then that would've taken points away.

 

The ideal for men has radically changed though, as women have become much more focused on looks and visual stimulation than ever before. Before in movies confidence, talent, and demeanor were more important than male looks when it came to on-screen masculinity. Would you date a lead man like the 5'5 Casablanca era Humphrey Bogart if you didn't know he was rich and famous ? I doubt it.

[somedude81]

People date people who look like them.

 

Ever notice how couples are a reflection of each other? So what you see in the mirror and find attractive, you look for in a partner.

 

I notice this alot at the gym. Couples are 100% a reflection of each other. Of course, there are some exceptions. Some folks like skinny, chubby, thick, muscular and they might not have that body type themselves.

 

But I don't believe in the "opposites attract" theory. I believe like is attracted to like.

Sadly, I'm one of the exceptions.

 

Girls who are of similar looks, height and body type as me don't give me the time of day.

 

If I'm not mistaken, they want somebody better than them.

[dasein]

The ideal for men has radically changed though, as women have become much more focused on looks and visual stimulation than ever before.

 

Agree that the standards of male beauty have changed rapidly, but not that women are more focused on looks. IMO and experience, women have always been as focused as men on looks, even moreso, not just recently.

 

As our culture has become more feminized, the images of male beauty have become more feminine. Will pick James Dean and Jim Morrison as examples as an arbitrary starting point, and conjecture that the older male archetypes had more aggressive, masculine connotations. It used to be that boyish, slenderish male appearance was the domain of "Tiger Beat" aged girls, and it may be the case that the increased purchasing power has been instrumental in translating that look into the adult mainstream. Lots of the men women find extremely attractive blow my mind today. The latest Indiana Jones movie a few years back is a great example. The contrast between Harrison Ford and Shia LeBouef (sp). I have no idea at all what women find attractive in that kid. He certainly isn't going to grow up to look like Ford, Paui Newman or George Clooney. But hey, I guess that he is apparently an icon of male beauty gives all men hope.

[azsinglegal]

Sadly, I'm one of the exceptions.

 

Girls who are of similar looks, height and body type as me don't give me the time of day.

 

If I'm not mistaken, they want somebody better than them.

 

I have to ask, how do the girls who look similar to you not give you the time of day? Are you a jackass?

[azsinglegal]

I'm almost positive Marilyn Monroe would still be considered attractive today. She had somewhat wide hips in a good proportion. If she would've had a gut and been a "size 12" (I bet a size 12 in the 1960's is probably half of that today) then that would've taken points away.

 

The ideal for men has radically changed though, as women have become much more focused on looks and visual stimulation than ever before. Before in movies confidence, talent, and demeanor were more important than male looks when it came to on-screen masculinity. Would you date a lead man like the 5'5 Casablanca era Humphrey Bogart if you didn't know he was rich and famous ? I doubt it.

 

She was actually a size 10, not a 12. Also, sizes were different back then. Most women who are a size 12 have a gut and some fat rolls of some kind (I know, I've been there).

 

More info: http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/mmdress.asp

[somedude81]

I have to ask, how do the girls who look similar to you not give you the time of day? Are you a jackass?

Not all.

 

OK, saying not giving me the time of day is a bit extreme.

 

They're nice and friendly, but wouldn't ever dream of dating me.

[carhill]

For some historical perspective on a couple of people mentioned upthread, regarding appearance, see the following:

 

Albert Einstein, photographed in 1912

 

Norma Jeane Baker, photographed with her "aunt" Ana (near right), around 1939.

 

In general, people want and covet what they want and covet. It's individual and the 'reasons' are manifold and unique to that individual.

 

Regarding like being attracted to like, as an anecdote, of her three husbands, my exW married the most 'like' when she married me. Now she's back to her previous path of opposite. Perhaps I was her grand experiment, IDK. I don't get wound up in all that looks stuff since it's so subjective anyway.