Avatar image for life_without_progress
Posted by Life_Without_Progress (24716 posts) 2 months, 16 days ago

Poll: A Heterosexual Human Male or Female: Who have a more believable Evolution Psychology explanation for "attraction" ? (18 votes)

A Heterosexual Human Male (Attracted to Women with a good hip-waist ratio, bust size and youthful face) 67%
A Human Female (Attracted to partners who are highly resourceful and physically and socially capable) 33%

Based on studies by David Buss and Devendra Singh, Evolution psychology points out that a human male is often attracted to women with a good hip-waist ratio, bust size and youthful face, unconsciously for the fact that he wants to make his descendants be better than him.

Women, on the other hand, prefer a partner who have good resources such as wealth and fame and physical attributes like being capable in a fight and an attentive personality that could keep her, her partner and their potential descendants (depending on the biological gender of the partner or in case of a same sex relationship, adopt kids) alive for the long run.

A Heterosexual Human Male or Female: Who have a more believable Evolution Psychology explanation for "attraction" ?

Avatar image for ccthor
#1 Posted by CCThor (1548 posts) - - Show Bio

Female.

Avatar image for wollfmyth209
#2 Posted by WollfMyth209 (16817 posts) - - Show Bio

Technically, the female.

Avatar image for the_thereminist
#3 Posted by The_Thereminist (381 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't think I quite understand the question.

Even tiny babies prefer traditionally attractive women because they recognize good genetics because attractiveness=good genes.

Avatar image for gunmetalgrey
#4 Edited by gunmetalgrey (4749 posts) - - Show Bio

Probably the one with the purely physical, concrete basis.

Wealth and influence can make a 180 at the drop of a hat, and even personalities are hardly set in stone.

Short of sudden, extreme radiation exposure, the off-chance you're both non-expressive carriers of an undesirable trait, or the person having some late-onset disorder, it's hard to go wrong with genetics.

Avatar image for helloman
#5 Posted by Helloman (30115 posts) - - Show Bio

Neither.

Avatar image for purpleperson
#6 Posted by PurplePerson (909 posts) - - Show Bio

They both make sense but boiling down attraction to evolutionary psychology is problematic because there is still quite a lot of factors it doesn't account for. Attraction in humans goes a long way beyond such basic mating preferences, complicated by societal norms and a massive scale of individual differences in who we find attractive. I imagine someone has tried to fit homosexuality into evolutionary psychology theory as well but it also stands out as something incredibly difficult to explain in this context.

Standards for attractive body types differ greatly across both times and cultures as do our relationships. What most people expect out of relationships in current Western society is not so much about reproduction but love, understanding and enjoyment (of course reproduction is still very important too), which is completely different to many other mammals that often don't form any relationships with their partner outside of mating season or live in a harem system.

I'd say the female explanation is more believable but I believe both theories are accurate and play a role in attraction. It's just that attraction expands way beyond those boundaries.

Avatar image for alavanka
#7 Posted by Alavanka (2590 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't understand the question. Both are valid and true?

Hip ratio and bust size is very important evolutionarily speaking. Humans have big giant heads, and we need large hip bones to prevent both the mother and infant from dying in childbirth. Neanderthals actually had larger heads than Homo Sapiens, but we won out in natural selection because they tend to suffer more fatalities in childbirth. So when homo sapiens breed with neanderthals, the sapiens features were selected for. Large breasts also mean food for the baby, so that got selected for too.

Obviously women want men who can protect them. They also prefer men who would stick around and help raise the offsprings, because humans are actually born underdeveloped. Remember what I said about homo sapiens having smaller heads? Well the skull also isn't fused when you are first born. It's in plates to allow room for the head to rapidly grow. Other animals give birth to young that can run in a few hours. We give birth to young that can barely run well after years.

Avatar image for sc
#8 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio

Sorry, the question is a little hard for me to interpret.

Your main text uses terms and language modifiers that deals with degrees, variables and context. Your question/poll reduces this down to just two options, with the emphasis being on believability, which deals with belief, acceptance of an idea as true? Except not necessarily actually believing it as truth? Our subjective interpretation? Or believability as in what we actually deem as true, in a binary yes or no fashion? Or which is more generally applicable, across the human species as speculation... which would be a pretty complex question, dealing with a bunch of different variables, in which case either choice would be oversimplified... there are lots of variables to consider too.

Everyone who is going to see this thread, has probably spent more than a few hours on the internet... which means they have access to the internet, and so they have probably seen more (by a significant percentage) pictures of people, their faces, bodies, than say... an individual who lived prior to widespread availability of printed images. Not to mention the the variables and discrepancies between people in person and images online/TV, magazines.

So while I am very familiar with biological/psychological ideas around attractiveness, I don't think people generally are good at putting such ideas into proper context, unless they are not only familiar with the ideas adequately but also familiar with their own biases and having the ability to view ideas in the proper context as well. Otherwise you lead to some pick up artists pseudo science ideas/books trying to con men and woman by lecturing them about what their preferred partners gender "really" wants. Its usually a lot more complicated, with deviations and exceptions, and of course overlap. Also such variables per individuals often change and develop over the course of an individuals lifetime, then there is sex and then partnership variables, societal variables, age... look at attraction in a species success in continuing versus attractiveness in a species as a perception separated by the species longer term continuation. Think modern day people considered very attractive and sought after who don't have children or adopt. Add in technological variables. Societal attitudes towards reproduction. The influence of educational/occupational opportunities (which affects birthrates) people living longer... (no longer capable of having children by still influencing society at large) so so many variables to consider that are relevant as far as giving more credibility or weight to either... I mean, one is more conceptual and abstract, the other more physical and apparent - we could argue that the further back we go, humans as a whole have understood the more obvious and tangible attraction aspects better. Still, ideas like power/influence and seeking it have existed for a long time too just it can exist as behavior and action without necessarily being articulated well by those valuing or exercising it.

So depending on what you mean with a few terms/applications... it depends. Hell, who am I kidding, I'd probably say it depends regardless.

Moderator
Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#9 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

Um, both are completely believable. You did leave some stuff out that could have been added to both, most definitely.

Should have had both agree, even. And Disagree both, as an option I think. Because I agree with both about evenly, with all the caveats left out of course.

Avatar image for one_upper
#10 Posted by one_upper (1224 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah both. You may want to clarify the OP.

Avatar image for chad_duby
#11 Edited by Chad_Duby (5681 posts) - - Show Bio

Girls are more attractive for me because I am a man/boy(under 18). But speaking of this, we have to look at the group of people who will get attracted to either option. When we look into men we can see that men are fewer in population compared to women’s quantity. Given that woman population is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than that of man’s then it is more likely for a guy to be more attractive than a girl, considering he has more group to be attracted by him.

In historical record, you will find lots of evidence of a playboy man hanging out with numerous girls at once. In Chinese culture, male offsprings are being treated better than femine offsprings because they think it is rare for a man to be born. Even God is considered to be a male even though he is supposed to be genderless because he is everything and everything resides in him.

So clearly males are more exclusive than women, so the answer to your question is more than obvious.

A man is more attractive.

Avatar image for jedixman
#12 Posted by JediXMan (42744 posts) - - Show Bio

@chad_duby:

There are actually more men in the global population than women.

Moderator
Avatar image for chad_duby
#13 Edited by Chad_Duby (5681 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman: I think it applies to current era only.

Avatar image for jedixman
#14 Posted by JediXMan (42744 posts) - - Show Bio

@chad_duby:

Yes. Currently, at this moment, more men walk the Earth than women. By about 60 million.

https://countrymeters.info/en/World

Moderator
Avatar image for chad_duby
#15 Posted by Chad_Duby (5681 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman: Well thanks for that. I am a bit outdated 😭

Avatar image for abstractraze
#16 Edited by AbstractRaze (2752 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, humans are deeply social animals, I believe that human males (including me) are under the illusion that we feel attracted to a good hip-waist ratio, because we think that it looks aesthetically decent and feminine for a woman, this is the same situation with a good buttocks size, a decent breast size and so on, but in reality, those attributes are a symbol of a good maternity, especially when it comes to a decent hip-waist ratio, where the baby grows for 9 months.

It symbolizes fertility, ready for the mating, one thing is that we corrupted our primitive instincts through our complex social development and in order to not regress, we made up fashion, aesthetics, we just created arguments in order to disguise our primitivity, of course, this all happened without truly willing it, this all was shaped through thousands of years of human history.

In the other way, human males are naturally physically stronger than human females, males had the main duty to hunt and move heavy things in order to build primitive shelters against harsh weather, they had to protect their clans from other clans through battles and against other predators, masculinity is a symbol of strength and a very essential component for the survival of the species while females, were the doctors and farmers, females created the first textiles and so on, while men were in battles, hunt and they were the first architects too.

A female feels attracted by a strong, productive and smart male ready to provide safety for the upcoming generation, a good physical shape establishes a better genome too, those contributing to the development of the species through constant natural selection.

Avatar image for aka_aka_aka_ak
#17 Edited by Aka_aka_aka_ak (3211 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah I don't really understand the question as both are believable as they're true, however I would say the female has more cause to place higher emphasis on attraction given that she can only have a child about once a year, whereas a male can play a numbers game, when you have so many chances, who cares if the odd mate makes a poor mother.

Avatar image for lunacyde
#18 Posted by Lunacyde (28253 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

@chad_duby:

Yes. Currently, at this moment, more men walk the Earth than women. By about 60 million.

https://countrymeters.info/en/World

Probably has a lot to do with China, where men outnumber women by approximately 70 million last I checked.

Moderator
Avatar image for jedixman
#19 Edited by JediXMan (42744 posts) - - Show Bio
@lunacyde said:
@jedixman said:

@chad_duby:

Yes. Currently, at this moment, more men walk the Earth than women. By about 60 million.

https://countrymeters.info/en/World

Probably has a lot to do with China, where men outnumber women by approximately 70 million last I checked.

Probably. According to this map, it's mostly Asia, the Middle East, and northern Africa. (blue = female majority, red = male majority, green = roughly equal)

No Caption Provided

Moderator
Avatar image for lunacyde
#20 Posted by Lunacyde (28253 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman: Makes sense. Most of those areas colored red are areas with serious issues with women's rights. In a natural state, births are functionally even between the two sexes, with a few extra males per hundred of each. However, males are more susceptible to death in infancy, so it balances out pretty well.

Moderator
Avatar image for spareheadone
#21 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6313 posts) - - Show Bio

It symbolizes fertility, ready for the mating, one thing is t to not regress, we made up fashion, aesthetics, attributes are a symbol of a good maternity, especially when it comes to a decent hip-waist ratio, where the baby grows for 9 months. we just created arguments hysically stronger than human females, males had the main duty to hunt and move heavy things in order to build primitive shelters in order to disguise our primitivity, of course, this all happened without truly willing it, this all was shaped through thousands of years of human history.

hat we corrupted our primitive instincts through our complex social development and in order

In the other way, human males are naturally p against harsh weather, they had to protect their clans oks aesthetically decent and feminine for a woman, this is the same situation with a good buttocks size, a decent breast size and so from other clans through battles and against other predators, masculinity is a symbol of strength and a very essential component for the survival of the species while females, were the doctors and farmers, females created the first textiles and so on, while men were in battles, hunt and they were first architects too.

A female feels attracted by a strong, productive and smart male ready to provide safety for the upcoming generation, a good physical shape establishes a better genome too, those contributing to the development of the species through constant natural selection.

Yeah I don't really understand the question as both are believable as they're true, however I would say the female has more cause to place higher emphasis on attraction given that she can only have a child about once a year, mans are deeply social animals, I believe that human males (including me) are under the illusion that we feel attracted to a good hip-waist ratio, because we think that it lo on, but in reality, those whereas a male can play a numbers game, when you have so many chances, who cares if the odd mate makes a poor mother.

Avatar image for jedixman
#22 Posted by JediXMan (42744 posts) - - Show Bio

It's more complicated and if I feel like it I will elaborate later. But the short of it is that both sexes are attracted to physical traits. What those physical traits are may vary by culture and time period.

Moderator
Avatar image for alavanka
#23 Posted by Alavanka (2590 posts) - - Show Bio

Spearheadone and his masterclass in trolling wins again.

Avatar image for abstractraze
#24 Edited by AbstractRaze (2752 posts) - - Show Bio
@spareheadone said:

It symbolizes fertility, ready for the mating, one thing is t to not regress, we made up fashion, aesthetics, attributes are a symbol of a good maternity, especially when it comes to a decent hip-waist ratio, where the baby grows for 9 months. we just created arguments hysically stronger than human females, males had the main duty to hunt and move heavy things in order to build primitive shelters in order to disguise our primitivity, of course, this all happened without truly willing it, this all was shaped through thousands of years of human history.

hat we corrupted our primitive instincts through our complex social development and in order

In the other way, human males are naturally p against harsh weather, they had to protect their clans oks aesthetically decent and feminine for a woman, this is the same situation with a good buttocks size, a decent breast size and so from other clans through battles and against other predators, masculinity is a symbol of strength and a very essential component for the survival of the species while females, were the doctors and farmers, females created the first textiles and so on, while men were in battles, hunt and they were first architects too.

A female feels attracted by a strong, productive and smart male ready to provide safety for the upcoming generation, a good physical shape establishes a better genome too, those contributing to the development of the species through constant natural selection.

Yeah I don't really understand the question as both are believable as they're true, however I would say the female has more cause to place higher emphasis on attraction given that she can only have a child about once a year, mans are deeply social animals, I believe that human males (including me) are under the illusion that we feel attracted to a good hip-waist ratio, because we think that it lo on, but in reality, those whereas a male can play a numbers game, when you have so many chances, who cares if the odd mate makes a poor mother.

What is your point on this? this is not the first time you do this, I ignored you in previous times, because I pity you, so, what's your problem? did I make you feel unpleasant about something? if so, I'm sorry if you consider yourself an actual failure in your life, but it's not my problem and being sincerely, I don't give a damn crap if that's the case, especially when it comes from resented people like you and if I casually made you feel bad, well deserved, because out there, we even have people who were born in terrible conditions, actually handicapped people which don't react like this, they have at least some personality.

During our ancient times, we were more instinctively than rational and that's a fact, nature is nature.

Don't be wondered about my answers, I'm not the individual for this kind of engagement, I'm direct and you know it, if you have some problems with me, express yourself with transparency and stop hiding behind this kind of attitude.

PS:

You're welcome to entertain the low IQ folks if that's your favorite hobby, but have at least the brain-cells to do it without involving third persons contributing to the same discussion.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#25 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6313 posts) - - Show Bio

Dear @abstractraze:

I went to Germany and I saw you eating cake in front of a homeless man and laughing at him. Ever since then I have a vendetta against you.

If you want to tease homeless and crippled people that's your problem. Stop trying to off load your guilty conscience on me.

.....or was it the lead singer of The Offspring?...

Yeah it was him ..... sorry about that me old chum me old friend matey buddy boy