Are Women Getting More Beautiful?

FelxH writes "Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors. The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern." I just thought my standards were changing as I got older, but it turns out it's just science!

Comments

Evolution has nothing to do with it

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

It's called Photoshop.

Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it

[bagboy]

I thought it was called Beer!

Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it

[edmudama]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v_azJv50KQ

Amazing what 4 hours of makeup and 4 hours of photoshop can do.

Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it

[mcgrew]

It's called "getting older". When you're 20, almost all women over 40 are unattractive, when you're pushing sixty most of the 40 year old woman are good looking.

Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it

[Forge]

Which is why I so often chose the beach for 1st dates during my dating years and took soda and fruit juice to those encounters rather than alcohol of any kind.

If you soak her in warm salt water and scorch her in 100 degree heat for for a few hours and she still looks good in a bikini standing under the noonday sun you know that at the very least, she either looks good naturally or has modifications of some permanence.

Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, everybody knows that beauty is in the eye of the beer holder!

Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it

[NeutronCowboy]

Complete nonsense. There are no ligaments in the breast. There is also no muscle tissue.

Does it matter?

[Hognoxious]

Until these females develop an interest in Linux (and know that it's really GNU/Linux) plus a preference for subterranean dwelling, nobody here is likely to notice.

Re:Does it matter?

[von_rick]

Your counter example is as real as square root of -1.

Each sex is defined by the needs of the other

[Colin Smith]

Women get more attractive. Men develop bigger wallets.
 

Re:Each sex is defined by the needs of the other

[__aarzwb9394]

Women's average earnings will stay lower than men's average earnings until there is no difference in the average amount of time spent as primary caregivers to offspring.

Employers pay for (among other things) experience. Spending less time at work in order to be a primary caregiver reduces the amount of experience you can gain and offer to potential employers.

Re:Each sex is defined by the needs of the other

[Deanalator]

Female executives with no concept of work/life balance (living with cats) still get paid less than their male peers. Same thing for brown people, short people, and all sorts of minorities in the US (I am a tall white male that gets paid way more than my peers). The only way any of this will ever change is if companies start publishing payroll data publicly, or at least to their employees. Companies take advantage of the strange social stigma that it's somehow inappropriate to talk about salary with peers, and they use that to underpay as many of their employees as they can get away with.

Re:Each sex is defined by the needs of the other

[Opportunist]

Also a woman is seens as a risk. Yes, I know it's sexist and no employer will ever admit it because he could be dragged to court for it, but there is the "risk" that she will get pregnant and go on maternity leave. Depending on the country you're in, that could well mean not only that you are going to miss an experienced worker but also that she may even be entitled to getting her job back after being away 2-3 years. That in turn means that you would have to hire someone new, train him, then fire him after 2-3 years when he finally reached productivity level, only to rehire someone who has been out of the loop for 2-3 years and maybe has to be retrained.

See why many companies refuse to hire women for any job but the ones that require the least training? And thus also usually have the lowest pay?

news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused, how does this help the average slashdotter? Perhaps you are just reminding the readers that an even higher proportion of women are out of their league. Salt in the wound, my friend.

Are we guppies

[Nf1nk]

This seems like the guppy phenomenon. Under a lack of predation the guppies self select to breed for beauty. Under heavy predation they breed to survive and quickly become plain. We are the guppies. We have no predators. It just takes longer to show up with us because our life cycle takes longer.

Re:As a male...

[Anonymous Coward]

The downside is that unless you are a dirty old man, there is no way to take advantage of the beautification of the female portion of the human race.

What downside? That's what the Internet is for.

Thanks to technology, you can see more boobs in an hour than your dad had in his entire stack of Playboys, and than your grandfather did during his entire life.

Re:As a male...

[snspdaarf]

As a male, let me just say that it is sometimes good to be in the minority. The downside is that unless you are a dirty old man, there is no way to take advantage of the beautification of the female portion of the human race.

Rich. Not dirty, rich.

Re:Bullshit

[Kashell]

Three numbers:

36 - 24 - 36.

Wrong-o on the male-o

[OrangeCatholic]

>while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors.

Really? You mean those 5-foot-1 suits of armor at the museum were worn by the same 6-foot-5 monsters who grace our modern football fields and armed forces?

I guess men from the Renaissance were the same as us, except highly compressible.

I can assure you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in Liverpool. Looking at the women on dating sites for this city is like looking at a freak show. Seriously.

evolution versus creation?

[glebovitz]

If evolution is making women more attractive, does creation have the inverse effect?

The birth part is silly.

[tjstork]

If anything the reasons a woman has a baby has nothing to do with her looks and everything to do with her sense of well being, security along with cultural beliefs. Women are plenty attractive enough to get some sort of a sex partner and I'm trying to identify a time when that has not been the case.

In today's day and age, culture matters for birth more than looks. There are some women out there having nearly 10 children simply because they feel it is a christian thing to do. How does evolution account for that, unless it accounts for obvious social influences. On the opposite end of the scale, you have some green women who are deeply concerned that bringing too many children into the world might somehow compromise the planet.

It's almost like environment plus culture need to be considered as a holistic system in order to really understand human evolution.

Re:Bullshit

[BadAnalogyGuy]

36 - 24 - 36

Only if she's 5'3"

Re:As a male...

[Shakrai]

Thanks to technology, you can see more boobs in an hour than your dad had in his entire stack of Playboys, and than your grandfather did during his entire life.

Speak for your own grandfather. My grandfather was part of the army that liberated Paris. I'm told that the French were most appreciative..... ;)

This thread is useless without pics

[drater]

This thread is useless without pics

my wife is proof of evolution?

[Theolojin]

Huh. I had no idea that watching my wife grow in beauty over 15 years was watching evolution in process. Nice.

This discovery has lead to the solution to a particular slashdot meme.

a. Yes, this post is sappy and sentimental.

b. Yes, I am sending my wife a link to this post.

c. Yes, the kids are going to bed early tonight.

d. Profit!!!

So beauty is measured in pounds?

[Important Remark]

Women aged 20-29 were nearly 29 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Women aged 40-49 were about 25.5 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.

Re:I'm dubious

[furby076]

Except that the standard for "beauty" changes over time. I'm not sure I'm buying this

not really. In magazines they change, but the real beauty does not. There are basic qualities that have withstood the test of time. Also there have been MANY studies using the baby smile test. You take babies ranging from 3 months to 1 year old. These kids are too young to have been influenced by what the media/general public considers to be attractive (e.g. magazine influence). You show them pictures of people of one attractive person and one unattractive person. The babies will gaze and smile towards what they find attractive, and ignore what they don't find attractive. So put up a picture of Rosie O'donnal vs Scarlett Johanson and Rosie won't get more then a glance from the baby. They have found, over the years and even regions, babies find similar things to be attractive. A few of the features I remember
Symmetry (e.g. Chunk from the goonies is not symmetrical)
Smooth/similar colored skin (not black vs white, but your skin color is even colored. If you have a melanoma condition you are screwed)
Developed hips (for women) which helps in child birthing
Healthy weight (anorexia is not healthy, but neither is a person who is 10 lbs overweight)
Developed/Square jaw (for men)
Good muscles for men (yes your abs are important) - it shows you can physically protect and hunt for your mate
Good teeth (shows you get things like vitamin C)
Developed breasts (for women duh)
Smell (yes being clean is a physically attractive trait)

This test has been done over and over since at least the 60's (if not before). It always has the same results (meaning its verifiable and reliable).

What has been considered attractive, for the most part, has been the same over time.

Re:As a male...

[bhsurfer]

This thought makes me want to join the army and start another world war. wow. You just completely derailed my day...thanks.

DEFINE: Subjectivity

[Philip K Dickhead]

"Gee, more women appear to conform to modern standards of beauty, than at any time in the past!"

Mid 19th century beauty can be deduced by portraiture. The pre-raphaelite stuff from Rosetti does a pretty good job of this:
http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/s356.repro.jpg
http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/s536.repro.jpg

They'd have seen Jessica Simpson as a freakishly stretched elf - on the verge of starvation.

Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity

[Stormwatch]

They'd have seen Jessica Simpson as a freakishly stretched elf - on the verge of starvation.

What do you mean, they would? Isn't that what people think about her right now?

Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity

[Lemmy Caution]

What is attractive in a culture is usually tied to what is possible for high-status people to achieve.

As obesity dominates the lower-classes, thinner body types will continue to define beauty. Working- and lower-class people in the US have diets dominated by heavy starches, red meat, high fructose corn syrup, and heavy food additives. The middle and upper classes, especially on the coasts, have diets dominated by fresh vegetables and seafood, and usually can afford the time and energy to go to the gym, etc. As long as body-types line up along class lines in that fashion, thin (and fit) will be in.

Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity

[BrokenHalo]

I too am skeptical, but for a different reason, best summed up by a delightful rhyme I saw on a birthday card recently:

See the mothers in the park,
They're rather ugly chiefly.
Someone must have loved them once,
But in the dark, and briefly.

Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity

[boojum.cat]

Similarly, before the industrial revolution it was unfashionable to be tan, since being tan meant that you were working out in the fields. After the industrial revolution, it became fashionable to be tan, because that meant that you weren't in a factory all day.

Re:As a male...

[morcego]

It is not only attractive women. What you are saying here is actually known as a social disease. Urban centers, overpopulation etc will have the effect of making woman want to have less kids. If you get those same woman and leave them on less populated places for a few years (6+), they will start wanting to have kids again.

As a father, I can say this doesn't happen only to women. Having a child will actually completes you and make you happy. It is natural for men and women to want to have kids. All the other "career" bullshit (given as a reason for men/women not having kids) is a symptom of a social disease.

Re:What's the rate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Should be fairly simple to find out - make off with Michelle Obama and see how many ships get launched. (definitely going anonymous for this one)

Re:As a male...

[cayenne8]

"Having a child will actually completes you and make you happy."

Hey, whatever floats your boat man...I've spent my entire life trying my BEST to avoid having the little 'milstones' around my neck. That's what contraception is for (and abortion if those still fail).

I'm glad people like having kids, but, it just isn't right to say it "completes" you. I've never wanted any, and I feel very complete! I'm not tied down to kids and a wife, I can date as I please, trade to a new 'model' of woman when I feel like it, and I don't have to worry about what I spend my finances on, because little Suzy needs braces. I can come and go as I please, travel, experience life and all it has to offer.

I don't look down on your for your choices, but, to say one must have that 'traditional' home with wife and kids to be a complete person is just plain nonsense. Different strokes for different folks...