Is the beauty the strongest tool of women evolutionary?

In point of fact man has muscular strengths, and in some cases they still do have and that has given them edge over their counterpart women.

But evolutionarily women too have a strong weapon and that is their beauty.

This may enrage womankind but this is true that women often can dominate men despite they are physically feebler than men. Men become subdued and surrender to women when he comes across pretty women.

This post is something sounding biased.

But this is just an opinion. I may be right or wrong.

I am not rigid over the issue and I have no fixation, and your opinions can mold my patterns of thinking.

I expect you will come across more logical points that may offset my notion.

A perfect example of men conquered by women would have to be the story of Samson and Delilah.

However, I am not of the opinion that beauty is a woman's lone weapon, especially at present time when we are given an equal footing with men. These days, women can be better than men even in supposedly male-dominated fields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

But evolutionarily women too have a strong weapon and that is their beauty.

---

Evolucionary? Hardly, quite on the contrary, when women had no way to compete with men in any other form they used beauty as a weapon, nowadays in some places where women also have a social stand, only the otherwise poor (no talent, no brains) will use their beauty in this way.

Quote:

---

Men become subdued and surrender to women when he comes across pretty women.

---

This is not enraging at all for me, since men can do the same, how many times do you see girls drooling over idiots because they're hot? :lol:

Men and women with no emotional stability and/or little brains will always be easily dominated through such ways.

how is it "evolutionary" i mean, it all comes down to genetics...


if your parents look like they got bashed in to a brick wall, the ugly stick will not show mercy to their kids.
Just the way it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

This may enrage womankind but this is true that women often can dominate men despite they are physically feebler than men.

---

I know quite many a lady who wouldn't comply with this standard of physical feebleness and Shauna Duggins would be a great example of a woman who can kick men's a$$. Well, she's a stunt double after all, but anyhow I wouldn't like my a$$ to meet her kicks... and you wouldn't like it either :p :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Men become subdued and surrender to women when he comes across pretty women.

---

I admit I can drool over a beautiful example of my opposite gender, but my drooling retreats immediately when I find I'm talking to a brainless person. Of course I know people who give no damn about brain, but I do, and I'm not talking about being a genius, what I myself am not. I'm just talking about having a beautiful mind below the beautiful carcass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crystalmoonshin

These days, women can be better than men even in supposedly male-dominated fields.

---

These days and always :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanofdeBeauvoir

only the otherwise poor (no talent, no brains) will use their beauty in this way.

---

True, because they have no other thing to show besides their façade. So it's that or nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanofdeBeauvoir

how many times do you see girls drooling over idiots because they're hot? :lol:

---

As many as the same hot idiots drool over hot idiot girls... so they are all idiots :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

how is it "evolutionary" i mean, it all comes down to genetics...

if your parents look like they got bashed in to a brick wall, the ugly stick will not show mercy to their kids.
Just the way it is.

---

I believe blaze meant "evolutionary" in terms of "social evolution through beauty", like when people climb positions of power in society wielding their good looks as a weapon to make it possible.

On the other hand, not that I really care that much, but sometimes I feel that damn brick wall doing its evil deed upon my face... damn wall! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crystalmoonshin

A perfect example of men conquered by women would have to be the story of Samson and Delilah.

However, I am not of the opinion that beauty is a woman's lone weapon, especially at present time when we are given an equal footing with men. These days, women can be better than men even in supposedly male-dominated fields.

---

Who knows - ancient literature, as well as modern literature was dominated by it - look at Homer's Odyssey for instance. Kalypso, The Sirens, etc. etc.

There is actually a very famous essay on the subject, which deals with the beginnings of Ecriture Femine by Helene Cixous called The Laugh of the Medusa, which celebrates this sort of femme fetale as a form of female, feminist expression.

I was thinking of this last night. The National Youth Orchestra were on telly, consisting of row after row of good looking (and talented) blonde girls. Given that musical talent is evenly spread through the gene pool, where are all the plain musicians? There must be some kind of natural selection going on. Perhaps the pretty ones are given more encouragement, or have a better chance in an audition. I believe this effect is seen throughout society, good looking people (especialy women) achieve status and respect more easily.

Back to the thread subject. Beauty is not much of an advantage when passing on genes, willingness is more important. However "the beauty gene"is protected from dilution by our social mores, beautiful women tend to breed with beautiful men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

I was thinking of this last night. The National Youth Orchestra were on telly, consisting of row after row of good looking (and talented) blonde girls. Given that musical talent is evenly spread through the gene pool, where are all the plain musicians? There must be some kind of natural selection going on. Perhaps the pretty ones are given more encouragement, or have a better chance in an audition. I believe this effect is seen throughout society, good looking people (especialy women) achieve status and respect more easily.

Back to the thread subject. Beauty is not much of an advantage when passing on genes, willingness is more important. However "the beauty gene"is protected from dilution by our social mores, beautiful women tend to breed with beautiful men.

---

Or perhaps they become pretty as they mature as musicians? Think about the psychology of preforming, and needing to appear the best you can be - I bet it has an effect. Either way, for every pretty one there are 10 ugly ones. Deborah Voigt, especially several years ago, was hardly the most beautiful singer in the world, yet as a Wagnerian soprano, she is one of the best. Jessye Norman too is hardly pretty - and Valery Gergiev, when last I saw him preform, looked like he'd been living on the street (they actually gave him a haircut and a shave before he played a live tele-broadcast from the Met the following week). Now, lets take it further - is Radu Lupu the best looking of men - he most certainly is one of the best living pianists though. Perlman is hardly a good looking violinist, so rule him out, do people consider Jean-Pierre Rampal to have been handsome? What about Pavarotti, or Joan Sutherland?

Get my point?


Either way though, it seems the stereotype applies mostly to popular music, especially American popular music, which confuses musician with pinup girl, and music with electronic noise. Perhaps then, or at least in part, the classical scene hasn't been damaged too thoroughly by popular aesthetics, though I've seen a lot of good looking sopranos emerging in recent years, so perhaps things are changing (probably for the worst)

Better off asking, Where are all the attractive athletes though. Boy we have come a long way since ancient Greece no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

However "the beauty gene"is protected from dilution by our social mores, beautiful women tend to breed with beautiful men.

---

This reminded me of a conversation I had in Highschool in Egypt. Like many egyptian schools the building didnt have any windows on the stair case which went around the outside of the building as oppesed to the inside like hey have in wetter colder countries. There were a few of s who prefferd to have our lunch at the op of the staircase overlooking the courtyard where we would be in teh shade and could see almost everyone else in the school and philosphise on life etc ( we were fifteen and full of opinions) anyway, one day my friend points out all the pairs walking around in the courtyard and says have you ever noticed how uneven it is, you get the good looking girl and the 'ugly' guy or vise versa. We spent a couple of weeks after that just watching and noting and I have to say she was for the most part right. I always thought it was because that way the 'beautiful' person knows tare never going to be outshone. And they just look better in contrast to the person they are standing beside.

1 You may have noticed - it takes one of each sort to procreate and continue the human race. Look around you - the species does not consist only of 'beautiful' individuals: there are lots of ordinary, fair to middling, even 'ugly' people out there. Logic suggests, therefore, that even 'ugly' people meet up with someone who finds them attractive, they get together and somehow manage to help the continuance of the human race. Evolution doesn't seem to have worked in favour of the 'beautiful' at the expense of the 'ugly' which suggests that...

2 ...'beauty' is in the eye of the beholder. He/She may not look 'beautiful' to you but to his/her significant other, he/she is beautiful/attractive/the Right Stuff. It's called Chemistry, isn't it?

Poor males, dominated and led astray by Feminine Beauty/Wiles? For goodness' sake, what century are you living in?



(Am I feeling crabbed today? :flare: You bet!)


The lovely young ladies in the NYO? It's called grooming, among other things, maybe even self-respect and respect for people with whom you associate, not to mention that when you succeed at an enterprise (playing an instrument well enough to be in a national orchestra would be a very good example), it does wonders for your confidence and self esteem, you hold yourself better, your eyes shine, you smile - and the glow of your happiness turns heads. Just look out for all those happy youngsters celebrating their A level results in the next few days - they will positively bounce with loveliness.

So - kasie's recipe for instant beauty: wash your face, wash your hair, put on a clean T shirt, remember your successes, walk tall and smile. Easy, isn't it? :)

Do I sound like your mother?

Kasie, JBI. I did think it could just be a confidence and grooming thing with the NYO. But in wider society I am waiting to see a fat spotty newsreader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Kasie, JBI. I did think it could just be a confidence and grooming thing with the NYO. But in wider society I am waiting to see a fat spotty newsreader.

---

I dunno - Canadian News seems a bit different, they deliberately try to make the CBC, for instance, feature more diverse personalities - so fat bald men aren't invisible. Of course though, you do know they all go to make up before they go on air, right? I mean, I've seen some ugly news readers on there. Of course, they don't hire the most disgustingly ugly people, but generally, part of elecution is being presentable, to put forth a good image, so a sort of professionalism in appearance is inevitable anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Either way though, it seems the stereotype applies mostly to popular music, especially American popular music, which confuses musician with pinup girl, and music with electronic noise.

---

As much as I agree. It's not always the case.

Michael Jackson. Nuff said. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homers_child

As much as I agree. It's not always the case.

Michael Jackson. Nuff said. ;)

---

People thought he was hot when he started out. They didn't realize he would deteriorate.

I watched an interesting show on beauty the other day...

it's not just about being in the eye of the beholder. Those with features close to the "golden ratio" and those with good symmetry are far more beautiful than those who don't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

I watched an interesting show on beauty the other day...

it's not just about being in the eye of the beholder. Those with features close to the "golden ratio" and those with good symmetry are far more beautiful than those who don't

---

In theory, but, one cross-examining cultures realizes the lack of truth in that - hell, even people one might think are beautiful from another culture can be seen as hideously ugly by their own culture - even within my own culture, I am certain my aesthetic perception of things is different than most people - there is no golden ratio, that has been debunked since the Renaissance.

Valery Gergiev, when last I saw him preform, looked like he'd been living on the street...

My thoughts exactly. You'd never know what a brilliant musician he is from his looks. Indeed you'd be more likely to pin him as a potato farmer.:lol:

Again with this "symmetry" thing? The human face (and body) by its very nature is symmetrical. Certainly there are slight deviations which can be noticed if you take a photo of the face, split it in half, duplicate that half and flip it... resulting in something that is not exactly right. But the reality is that many of these "deviations" are actually what attracts... are what breaks outside the norm. It is not symmetry but rather the balance between proportions (the distance between the eyes in relationship to the size of the face, the size of the eyes or nose in relationship to other features, etc...) that makes a face more or less attractive. But there is no hard rule. I agree completely with JBI that the so-called "golden mean" has been undermined and ignored for years. Even in art it largely comes down to a question of the eye of the beholder. Certainly some artists employ mathematical formulas and ratios in composing a painting or drawing a body (8 heads high, etc...) but in most instances the artist relies upon gut feeling or intuition... whether it looks better or worse. Many of the most beautiful works of art and indeed many of the most beautiful people as portrayed in works of art would be almost grotesque if seen in real life (and I am not speaking of Picasso here, but Ingres, Van Dyck, even Michelangelo). The same applies to the human form in real life. As JBI suggested, many preferences are a result of culture. Ideal facial features and bodily types change from culture to culture and era to era. They even change as we ourselves grow and age. Girls I might have drooled over at 16 now seem but waif-like little girls who really do nothing for me. At the same time, actresses or singers who I once would have looked upon with as little sense of lust as I might look upon my mother or aunts now seem far more attractive and interesting. I think that the difficulty in defining "beauty" and the realization that "beauty" and other positive attributes (intelligence, passion, "goodness", etc...) do not always go hand in hand, has led to many Modern artists abandoning its pursuit. Or perhaps its just that many in the Modern world have difficulty in discerning "beauty" from mere sexual attraction?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Again with this "symmetry" thing? The human face (and body) by its very nature is symmetrical. Certainly there are slight deviations which can be noticed if you take a photo of the face, split it in half, duplicate that half and flip it... resulting in something that is not exactly right. But the reality is that many of these "deviations" are actually what attracts... are what breaks outside the norm. It is not symmetry but rather the balance between proportions (the distance between the eyes in relationship to the size of the face, the size of the eyes or nose in relationship to other features, etc...) that makes a face more or less attractive. But there is no hard rule. I agree completely with JBI that the so-called "golden mean" has been undermined and ignored for years. Even in art it largely comes down to a question of the eye of the beholder. Certainly some artists employ mathematical formulas and ratios in composing a painting or drawing a body (8 heads high, etc...) but in most instances the artist relies upon gut feeling or intuition... whether it looks better or worse. Many of the most beautiful works of art and indeed many of the most beautiful people as portrayed in works of art would be almost grotesque if seen in real life (and I am not speaking of Picasso here, but Ingres, Van Dyck, even Michelangelo). The same applies to the human form in real life. As JBI suggested, many preferences are a result of culture. Ideal facial features and bodily types change from culture to culture and era to era. They even change as we ourselves grow and age. Girls I might have drooled over at 16 now seem but waif-like little girls who really do nothing for me. At the same time, actresses or singers who I once would have looked upon with as little sense of lust as I might look upon my mother or aunts now seem far more attractive and interesting. I think that the difficulty in defining "beauty" and the realization that "beauty" and other positive attributes (intelligence, passion, "goodness", etc...) do not always go hand in hand, has led to many Modern artists abandoning its pursuit. Or perhaps its just that many in the Modern world have difficulty in discerning "beauty" from mere sexual attraction?:confused:

---

I think the real attraction is in attitude more than on exactly dimensions - for instance, there is something beautiful in Titian's Venus of Urbino, Rubens' The Fur, Raphael's Madonna with Child, and Utamaro's One Woman's Narrative Chanting to the Samisen, yet, all of these pictures are completely different.

I think, in a sense, it is the attitude in which they are drawn which seems to bring out a sort of quality of what we could call the "beautiful". IT has nothing to really do with ratios or formulas, more to do with focalization and gesture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Again with this "symmetry" thing? The human face (and body) by its very nature is symmetrical. Certainly there are slight deviations which can be noticed if you take a photo of the face, split it in half, duplicate that half and flip it... resulting in something that is not exactly right. But the reality is that many of these "deviations" are actually what attracts... are what breaks outside the norm. It is not symmetry but rather the balance between proportions (the distance between the eyes in relationship to the size of the face, the size of the eyes or nose in relationship to other features, etc...) that makes a face more or less attractive. But there is no hard rule. I agree completely with JBI that the so-called "golden mean" has been undermined and ignored for years. Even in art it largely comes down to a question of the eye of the beholder. Certainly some artists employ mathematical formulas and ratios in composing a painting or drawing a body (8 heads high, etc...) but in most instances the artist relies upon gut feeling or intuition... whether it looks better or worse. Many of the most beautiful works of art and indeed many of the most beautiful people as portrayed in works of art would be almost grotesque if seen in real life (and I am not speaking of Picasso here, but Ingres, Van Dyck, even Michelangelo). The same applies to the human form in real life. As JBI suggested, many preferences are a result of culture. Ideal facial features and bodily types change from culture to culture and era to era. They even change as we ourselves grow and age. Girls I might have drooled over at 16 now seem but waif-like little girls who really do nothing for me. At the same time, actresses or singers who I once would have looked upon with as little sense of lust as I might look upon my mother or aunts now seem far more attractive and interesting. I think that the difficulty in defining "beauty" and the realization that "beauty" and other positive attributes (intelligence, passion, "goodness", etc...) do not always go hand in hand, has led to many Modern artists abandoning its pursuit. Or perhaps its just that many in the Modern world have difficulty in discerning "beauty" from mere sexual attraction?:confused:

---

I agree about your comments on proportion, and it does ultimately come down the the eye of the beholder.


Interesting that you mention "sexual attraction"
this show focused on beauty and sexual attraction and linked them together, it was quite interesting..


Apparently a woman's face changes slightly, as she starts ovulating...


(off topic)

Apparently a woman's face changes slightly, as she starts ovulating...


(off topic)

I've never been one for conversation limited to responses to the OP. That's not how discussions evolve in real life.

I think the real attraction is in attitude more than on exactly dimensions - for instance, there is something beautiful in Titian's Venice of Urbino, Rubens' The Fur, Raphael's Madonna with Child, and Utamaro's One Woman's Narrative Chanting to the Samisen, yet, all of these pictures are completely different.

Raphael might have argued for an ideal... based on the best parts of numerous women... but then his "ideal" would have looked nothing like Titian's or Ruben's "ideal"... but then what do I know? I've had enough to drink so that everyone is starting to look good... even you JBI.:ladysman:


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

People thought he was hot when he started out. They didn't realize he would deteriorate.

---

He was hot. I loved Micheal.

I also (as a biology student and a self-proclaimed feminist) hate hate hate this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

In theory, but, one cross-examining cultures realizes the lack of truth in that - hell, even people one might think are beautiful from another culture can be seen as hideously ugly by their own culture - even within my own culture, I am certain my aesthetic perception of things is different than most people - there is no golden ratio, that has been debunked since the Renaissance.

---

Merging that with the original topic, Those beautiful women (ugly to us) from another culture, will have an advantage over their peers. They will be noticed and favoured. Its not fair but it is what happens. For instance during the National Youth Orchestra performance, the seeming preponderence of willowy blonde girls could be due to the camramen and the Direction favouring them.

I completely agree with JBI and StLukesGuild. Beauty is a state of mind and it shouldn't matter if a woman's breasts are triple Ds, double Ds, or just regular old Ds. They're all beautiful. In our cosmetic obsessed era of glamour magazines and airbrushed photographs, age is looked at with such a critical eye, but I say with our advanced knowledge of science and medicine there's no reason a woman shouldn't be able to maintain her looks well into her late twenties. It doesn't matter if she's 26, 27, or even 28. There's still hope she can land a good husband.

I completely agree with JBI and StLukesGuild. Beauty is a state of mind and it shouldn't matter if a woman's breasts are triple Ds, double Ds, or just regular old Ds. They're all beautiful. In our cosmetic obsessed era of glamour magazines and airbrushed photographs, age is looked at with such a critical eye, but I say with our advanced knowledge of science and medicine there's no reason a woman shouldn't be able to maintain her looks well into her late twenties. It doesn't matter if she's 26, 27, or even 28. There's still hope she can land a good husband.

:lol::lol::lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Merging that with the original topic, Those beautiful women (ugly to us) from another culture, will have an advantage over their peers. They will be noticed and favoured. Its not fair but it is what happens. For instance during the National Youth Orchestra performance, the seeming preponderence of willowy blonde girls could be due to the camramen and the Direction favouring them.

---

I agree that television producers and casting directors seem to favour 'attractive' performers. I watch "So You Think You Can Dance", and every year, the executive producer always comments on how the dancers look. Consequently, most of the dancers that are put into the Top 20 are 'TV camera ready'. Most of the equally talented, or even more talented, 'plainer looking' dancers are cut.

I just know that girl "hot for words" www.hotforwords.com. She does these terrible youtube videos on the origin of words. And she knowingly admits that you wouldn't watch her videos if not for her hotness. And people who watch knowingly admit it. And yet she is one of the most popular girls on youtube, and makes a living doing these silly videos. Because her beauty is enough to get people hooked even though they do not really like what she has to offer all that much. Beauty is addictive, and it's strong. It is very persuasive. And it is obvious that women have something over men with their beauty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

And yet she is one of the most popular girls on youtube, and makes a living doing these silly videos. Because her beauty is enough to get people hooked

---

But not intelligent people.

Quote:

---

And it is obvious that women have something over men with their beauty.

---

And only if there were no hot men, *Edward Cullen* rings a bell? Twilight is a book that sells (a lot) having no plot whatsoever, but only constant descriptions of how hot Edward is.

Dumb men and dumb women will always be easily persuaded. That's not because beauty is strong, but because dumb people are weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FanofdeBeauvoir

Dumb men and dumb women will always be easily persuaded. That's not because beauty is strong, but because dumb people are weak.

---

... and weakness is the strongest of all flaws.

beauty smeauty

Yes. It is.