NialScorva

Rick, I think you're confusing actual health with the perception of health. A supermodel with cancer is still hot, while a perfectly healthy woman with scars, hairy moles, and random growths is still not attractive. That would be the type of selection that Oolon is refering to. In addition, even though we may conciously know the difference in health, the appeal is still going to be there.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: NialScorva ]</p>

Dr Rick

I don't think I'm the one that is confused. Being underweight by 15% is a sign of clinical malnutrition, not health, and yet we consider these unhealthy women to be the epitome of the Western ideal of beauty.

A woman who is 85% or less of IBW is less fertile and more susceptible to disease and premature death than one that approximates IBW. If evolution had shaped our concepts of beauty, natural selection should have favored an instinct that rejected a malnourished appearance.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

NialScorva

Exactly, because we have a fixation on fat being bad, thin being healthy, and thus over-thin is the opposite extreme from the "unhealthy" fatness. Never mind that it isn't really healthy, it's *perceived* as healthy, and thus attractive to many.

Do you see the difference between perception and actuality? No one's arguing that we have a innate ability to determine people's health and be attracted to it. Rather, it's being argued that beauty is based upon the obvious clues as to what is healthy and what is not. The learned knowledge of "healthy" plays a part, but there's a definately predisposition torwards "healthy".

Dr Rick

Thinness is not a sign of health, and particularly in the wild, obesity would be a sign of superior fitness, not illness. Mild to moderate obesity is healthier than mild to moderate thinness, does not adversely impact the immune system as severely as malnutrition can, protects against periods of famine better, and does not adversely affect fecundity as malnutrition does. The epidemic of obesity-related morbidity and mortality is a relatively new phenomena, and our aversion to it in the Western world is also a relatively recent phenomena; There has been no evidence presented on this thread to suggest that our preferences in body habitus are genetically imprinted upon us, nor has any been presented that supports the contention that "there's a...predisposition torwards 'healthy'" appearance preferences.

If these "healthy" clues are so "obvious," why do they 1) mislead Westerners so much as they do now with our current obsession with thinness, and 2) why do some cultures, and particularly those of the past, not consider thinness attractive, and 3) what selective advantage would imprinting a preference for these misleading clues confer upon humans? It should be the other way around; if we are inherently attracted to unhealthy mates because we misconstrue their appearance as representing good health, the inherited trait would be a disadvantage.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Lycius

I agree with the idea that it is culturally defined. Humans can fabricate their own concepts of what is and isn't attractive regardless of quality, what foods do and don't appeal to them regardless of health benefits, what music they love, what music they abhor, etc., etc.

The roots of these concepts are legion, I'm sure. Media has played a large role in that, as you have a relative few promoting what their idea of what is and isn't likeable for reasons ranging from marketing to political election ploys. "This is in," "This is yesterday's news," "This will make you sexy," "This will keep your kids occupied."

Whatever was genetic impetus kinda gets lost in the flux, but the desire to be and the desire to possess that which is sexually attractive, whatever that has been considered to be in any given culture, in any given timeframe, has been pretty constant.

From what I hear, the whole "thin" thing is beginning to fall out of fashion lately, and healthy, though it may fall at the low end of the body fat percentage, is becoming the more attractive factor. Just look at all the Calista Flockhart jokes that go around

NialScorva

Rick, you still are not on the right page. "Obvious", as in "readily apparent" or "easily seen", in my quote refering to that which is seen easily, not that which is an accurate representation of medical health. In simple words:

Humans are instinctively attracted to "perceived health cues".

"Perceived health cues" is heavily influenced by societal and intellectual training, but the attraction itself, *and* certain aspects of it (symmetry), are instinctive. The cues and definitions of "healthy" may change, but the attaction always remains.

What is and is not medically healthy is irrelavent to this issue.

cricket

Yes, in this culture, in this day and age, women feel this pressure, particularly those who model for a living. But in the "evolutionary eyes" of men, an attractive woman can be thin or not, so long as she is fertile.

What matters isn't weight, it's HIP TO WAIST RATIO. This is why Rubenesque models were considered attractive; it's why Playboy models are considered attractive. To be attractive, a woman must

A) meet cultural criteria
B) must have a waist-to-hip ratio of less than .7.

IF a woman satisfies the cultural standard for attractiveness in the eyes of men, then she will always satisfy the waist-to-hip ratio requirements. If a woman meets criteria A, then I guarantee she meets criteria B.

Dr Rick

Then I respectfully submit that your speculation is neither verifiable nor falsifiable and subsequently has no predictive value nor utility. You appear to be arguing that "We are instinctively attracted to that which we instinctively perceive to be attractive."

Rick

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Kachana

Interesting topic. I found some abstracts from articles that may shed some light on the question of whether there are predispositions towards certain facets of what we collectively term beauty, if anyone is interested in some (I hope relevant) reading.

TI: Putting beauty back in the eye of the beholder.
AU: Little,-Anthony-C; Perrett,-David-I
SO: Psychologist. 2002 Jan; Vol 15(1): 28-32.
PB: England: British Psychological Society.
PY: 2002

AB: .........The authors note that although there is a belief that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', facial attractiveness research has found a high degree of agreement both within and across cultures regarding which faces are attractive and not attractive. These studies suggest that people everywhere are using the same, or at least similar, criteria in their judgements of attractiveness. The authors discuss evolutionary theories of attractiveness, looking particularly at universal preferences for facial symmetry and the proposed evolutionary root of this phenomenon. The authors then examine factors that may lead to individual differences in the perception of facial attractiveness, and they speculate on how such differences may arise from learning and differences in life history..........

TI: Brain and face: Communicating signals of health in the left and right sides of the face. .
AU: Reis,-V-A; Zaidel,-D-W
SO: Brain-and-Cognition. 2001 Jun-Jul; Vol 46(1-2): 240-244.
PB: US: Academic Press Inc.
PY: 2001

AB: In human communication and mate selection the appearance of health sends signals regarding biological fitness. We compared the appearance of health in the sides of the face to previous results on left-right facial asymmetry in the appearance of beauty. The stimuli were created by aligning the left and right sides of the face each with its own mirror image. 24 right-handed Ss viewed 38 pairs of left-left and right-right faces and judged which member of the pair looked healthier. No significant interaction emerged between decision (health vs. attractiveness) and face side. Rather, in women's faces right-right was significantly more healthy and attractive than left-left, while in men's faces there was no significant left-right difference. In biology and evolution, health and beauty are closely linked and the findings here confirm this relationship in human faces.

And here's some more stuff in line with Rick's thinness abstract.

TI: Weight and shape ideals: Thin is dangerously in.
AU: Owen,-Patricia-R; Laurel-Seller,-Erika
SO: Journal-of-Applied-Social-Psychology. 2000 May; Vol 30(5): 979-990.
PB: US: Bellwether Publishing.
PY: 2000

AB: Thinness as an ideal of feminine beauty is nowhere more evident than in the popular media. The trend toward an increasingly thinner standard and a more tubular body shape been documented in Playboy centerfolds from the 1960s to the 1980s. The present study provides information about body standards into the 1990s............Two groups of models were compared: contemporary Playboy centerfolds and ready-to-wear and commercial print models advertising on the Internet. Results revealed that thinness is increasing for centerfolds, many of whom meet weight criteria for anorexia. Results also showed unhealthy levels of thinness in the Internet models. Body shape for cohorts is curvaceous, results which do not support prior research indicating an increase in the tubular body. Discussion focuses on the role that both the media and the health industry play in contributing to Western culture's adoption of an unhealthy body ideal.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Kachana ]

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Kachana ]</p>

cricket

Might I mention.... the phrase "evolutionary eyes" is one I coined myself. &lt;preen&gt;