attractiveness

attractiveness

elijah
elijah

May 8th, 2005, 12:36 am #1

this is only loosly related to breast freedom, but we did earlier discuss peoples' perception of attractiveness and the importance (or lack) of it.

this article is about a study on how parents treat their children differently based on their children's attractiveness.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7721095/?GT1=6542


Reply
Share

JB
JB

May 8th, 2005, 1:32 am #2

Interesting article, but I think it is quite a leap to suggest that Darwinian behavior is involved; the researchers speculated that the more attractive children represent the best genetic material. I think this is a learned behavior on the part of parents.

I think that if biology were to blame for the observed favorable treatment received by more attractive children, biology would then be "smart" enough to also prevent the birth of unattractive children. Also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, some people like red-haired children and others do not, for example.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

May 8th, 2005, 1:52 am #3

I think its absurd to think "attractive children represent the best genetic material". How "attractive" was Albert Einstein? Or Steven Hawkins? Or Nikola Testla?

or even me-

And I know many "attractive" people who are complete airheads.
Reply
Like
Share

Adelle
Adelle

May 8th, 2005, 2:05 am #4

Interesting article, but I think it is quite a leap to suggest that Darwinian behavior is involved; the researchers speculated that the more attractive children represent the best genetic material. I think this is a learned behavior on the part of parents.

I think that if biology were to blame for the observed favorable treatment received by more attractive children, biology would then be "smart" enough to also prevent the birth of unattractive children. Also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, some people like red-haired children and others do not, for example.
Hardwired (Darwinian) behavior is something that would have developed over millions of year in order to insure the survival of the species. So I guess that it is posible that more attention would be provided a child that had a greater chance of survival and success at passing on the genes (making babies)than one destined to be tiger snacks (dumb, inattentive, weak, slow, etc). The science types say that this is where sexual attraction (strong, agressive males; healthy wide hipped, big brested females) also comes from, affecting our society even today. It is not all that we are and individuals can vary but down deep, at the basic level, we all have a little monkey in us. Banana's anyone?
Reply
Share

Mike
Mike

May 8th, 2005, 3:06 am #5

this is only loosly related to breast freedom, but we did earlier discuss peoples' perception of attractiveness and the importance (or lack) of it.

this article is about a study on how parents treat their children differently based on their children's attractiveness.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7721095/?GT1=6542

I wouldnt think a child of mine would be ugly no matter what they looked like but even if they were ugly *by other people's standards* id still treat them the same. Looks dont mean much to me, its the person inside that does. If a parent treats a child bad just based on how they look then that parent has issues and id really question their ability to bring that kid up saftely and healthy. A parent should love their child reguardless of how they look and make the best of their looks no matter what.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

May 8th, 2005, 3:19 am #6

Hardwired (Darwinian) behavior is something that would have developed over millions of year in order to insure the survival of the species. So I guess that it is posible that more attention would be provided a child that had a greater chance of survival and success at passing on the genes (making babies)than one destined to be tiger snacks (dumb, inattentive, weak, slow, etc). The science types say that this is where sexual attraction (strong, agressive males; healthy wide hipped, big brested females) also comes from, affecting our society even today. It is not all that we are and individuals can vary but down deep, at the basic level, we all have a little monkey in us. Banana's anyone?
But aren't we confusing "attractiveness" with survival? A very attractive offspring could have some health condition that limits his life and productivity while not effecting his physical "attractiveness" at all.

Likewise, a rather homely looking boy may be an intelligence talented asset to society and live to be 90. As I noted above, many smart people who have contributed much to our society are not what you call physically "attractive". Testla was a very gaunt looking man and pretty much a social outcast, yet our whole electric power industry is predicated on his development of alternating current. (He was, in my opinion, much smarter than Edison, who got all the credit.)
Reply
Like
Share

Adelle
Adelle

May 8th, 2005, 4:20 am #7

Its a left over from ancient knuckle-draging days and isn't really valid in modern, industrial, times with all our medical knowledge keeping the even the weakest alive to procreate. Since Ancient Greece our species has been becoming more brain oriented rather than brawn oriented but the same triggers are there in the background making us twitch. There is less chance now that not having the brawn will get your brains smeared on a rock. The Rule of Law does have it's benifits. Of course now the rock may be nuclear so a lot of our hidden triggers are becoming more sublime and benign, like choosing an attractive mate or doting on an attractive child.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

May 8th, 2005, 5:19 am #8

Well I'm a little confused here. Are you equating brawn and attractiveness? I don't see the correlation. Sure you can have a good looking muscular body builder, but I've seen plenty of pretty ugly musclebound gymrats as well. It may even be that a unattractive socially dysfunctional person is more apt to spend his time in a gym bulking up hoping to compensate for his failings.

I think in our push-button computerized age, the amount of emphasis placed on muscles (even resorting to steroids to get them) doesn't make sense. We have machines to do grunt work. Who would a smart woman marry- a bulked up high school dropout who will spend his life doing menial labor jobs or a whimpy looking engineering student that will be making $100K/year?

I wonder how many girls now kick themselves for dismissing a scrawny young man name Bill Gates.
Reply
Like
Share

tam
tam

May 8th, 2005, 2:43 pm #9

this is only loosly related to breast freedom, but we did earlier discuss peoples' perception of attractiveness and the importance (or lack) of it.

this article is about a study on how parents treat their children differently based on their children's attractiveness.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7721095/?GT1=6542

What I feel was lacking in this "research" is that.. it didnt say whether or not these parents also had "cute" children. As I read it, it just said ugly vs. cute... not how it was reflected when a parent had a supposed child of each. It could be just that parents of the "ugly" children were lax to begin with and has nothing to do with the looks of the child.
I know as a parent of three, their looks have had nothing to do with how they were treated. In my opinion they were all beautiful.
Reply
Share

JB
JB

May 8th, 2005, 6:21 pm #10

I think its absurd to think "attractive children represent the best genetic material". How "attractive" was Albert Einstein? Or Steven Hawkins? Or Nikola Testla?

or even me-

And I know many "attractive" people who are complete airheads.
I don't know about Tesla, but Stephen Hawking has had ALS for many years and that affects a person's appearance.

Brains trump looks any day of the week.
Reply
Share