|
evolutionary nonsense
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
SCIENTISTS say they have carried out the first study that confirms that evolutionary pressure - the drive to have more children, in short - is what causes the typical age gap among couples.
Researchers explored the theory that men go for younger, sexually attractive women in order to boost their chances of reproductive success, while women prefer older, successful men to provide the resources and security that increase their offspring's chance of survival.
The investigators trawled through a Swedish population database, covering 11,500 men and women born between 1945 and 1955, to see at what age these individuals became parents.
Among couples who stayed together, the most children were born in households where there was an age difference of four to six years.
When couples split up and mated again, they each opted for partners who were younger than the first.
That was especially so for older men, who went for women who were much younger. Women looking for a new mate generally chose a male who was slightly older than herself.
"The age preference for the partner increases the individual reproductive fitness of both men and women,'' say the authors, who speculate that this trait has been acquired through millennia of evolution.
The study, which appears in the British journal Biology Letters, is written by Martin Fieder, an anthropologist at the University of Vienna, and Susanne Huber, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna. |
bull. we go for younger mates coz theyre hotter and firmer with everything still in the right place. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| cor version: Men like to fcuk young girls. |
|
|
| Oreoh142 |
| yeah um i wanna know what kind of guys they were using in that study |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
hotter and firmer |
... = healthier = capable of having more children. Usually.
...or so the reasoning goes. |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
... = healthier = capable of having more children. Usually.
...or so the reasoning goes. |
So.............. hot = healthy?
Sheeeit. I'm immortal. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by david.michael
So.............. hot = healthy? |
Supposedly the physical characteristics considered "hot" (clear skin, facial symmetry, good skeletal and muscular development, facial features neither very big nor very small) also indicate relatively good genetics and health. The famous waist to hip ratio in women is another example; low ratios are considered attractive by men pretty much universally, while high ratios (in both men and women) can indicate obesity or a tendency to develop heart disease. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Supposedly the physical characteristics considered "hot" (clear skin, facial symmetry, good skeletal and muscular development, facial features neither very big nor very small) also indicate relatively good genetics and health. The famous waist to hip ratio in women is another example; low ratios are considered attractive by men pretty much universally, while high ratios (in both men and women) can indicate obesity or a tendency to develop heart disease. |
that theory is completely undermined by the transient nature of concepts of beauty throughout history. there certainly wasn't any "universality" until modern media. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
If you can find a culture where facial symmetry, clear skin, statistically average facial features, and women with a waist-hip ratio of about .7 are considered unattractive, I'd be interested to know.
There are superficial things that have changed: types of clothes worn, body piercings, tattooing, skin tone (although it's very common for cultures to prefer that women be lighter-skinned, even among those who have had little contact with Westerners), and some less superficial ones like preferences for thinness or fatness. But other things have stayed pretty much the same, as far as I know. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
If you can find a culture where facial symmetry, clear skin, statistically average facial features, and women with a waist-hip ratio of about .7 are considered unattractive, I'd be interested to know.
There are superficial things that have changed: types of clothes worn, body piercings, tattooing, skin tone (although it's very common for cultures to prefer that women be lighter-skinned, even among those who have had little contact with Westerners), and some less superficial ones like preferences for thinness or fatness. But other things have stayed pretty much the same, as far as I know. |
Cultures in colder climates have been known to prefer larger women. Take Mongolia circa 1300, for example. Skinny women would have been considered gross and unhealthy.
It coincides with your statement about evolution determining sexual preference for an area or time period, and also coincides with the fact that there are different strokes for different folks. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Cultures in colder climates have been known to prefer larger women. Take Mongolia circa 1300, for example. |
Or Europe during the Renaissance, which happened to coincide more or less with the "Little Ice Age":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Just a coincidence? Who knows. |
|
|
| SuspicionVandit |
I've been dying to know why I can't get off to fat chicks.
cure for cancer, wait your turn. |
|
|
| AustralianGQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
bull. we go for younger mates coz theyre hotter and firmer with everything still in the right place. |
that response makes u come off as a typical male pig, not that u care of course. |
|
|
|
|
