The next generation of fembots will make this possible. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/78krbfy9hh0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/78krbfy9hh0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Yeah seriously. All I need to do to confirm this is to look at the tastes of my fellow Clutchfans posters whenever a "Rockets Powerdancers" thread comes along. All I can do is shake my head and chuckle at some of those women and how they made it on there, but sure enough the ones I find least attractive seem to be getting tremendous run on this board. Somebody has to be wrong somewhere. There's just no legitimate way to figure out who that is.
if chicks are getting better looking, then does that mean at the same time they're becoming less hard-working in the sack too?
Damn you guys are stupid if there are more beautiful women around the planet than men, then that automatically increases your odds of landing a much better chick than 50 or 100 years ago. Women are allready at a 3 to 1 ratio to men on this planet. Now that means abundance of women and increasing scarcity of men. Now there are 2 ways to look at this. 1) you could work a little bit on yourself and land those 9s and 10s you always dreamed about. 2) Stay ugly and the odds are still in your favor of getting to hookup with atleast an 8 at worse. That is a win win situation for all men and god forbid if your are a cream of the crop guy then you're in heaven enjoy! Salut!
This makes sense. Has anyone noticed the more old school the pawn the less attractive the women. (The dudes of course, remain FUGLY at all times.)
It goes back to wondering the criteria of what defines beautiful. I dont see how fertility would naturally be higher in beautiful women than plain looking women. I think a plain faced 100 lb woman and a pretty faced 100 woman can produce the same amount of offspring. There's gotta be a bit more a spectrum than just Beautiful/Plain. If its opposite ends of the spectrum as in haggard obese woman and slimmer beautiful woman than yeah definitely the HEALTH advantage goes toward the beautiful woman. OR, beautiful women dont exactly have to have all their children from just 1 partner. A divorced beautiful woman with 3 kids stands a chance of still attracting another guy. While a plain/ugly woman in the same situation might be seen as "having baggage" and get passed over. It still means beautiful people are spreading their beauty seeds around more than others. But it doesnt necessarily mean they're more fertile.
True, but only among the isolated. They fear change and haven't been able to acclimate to it, so why would they see beauty in things that are foreign or different to them (slimmer bodies, sharper features)? To them a nice plump body with a solid set of hips looks ripe for breeding, so that fits their perception of beauty. A nice rack can also make tribal men (who are we kidding - all men) look past a lot of things. I think people are evolutionizing to fit the norm of beauty. Going through the lineage of a family you can't help but notice how genes are passed down from mother, to daughter, to granddaughter, and so on. Genetics are improving, kids are healthier and better looking with sharper features and tighter bodies. Whether this is because we are becoming a more health conscious society, have the ability to take care of ourselves better, or are evolutionizing - one can't say for sure. Based on historical trends you could say men are getting smarter, women are getting prettier... we're mutating into a superior race. Things like television, prescription medication, isolation, fast food and obesity related complacency keep us from realizing our true potential. Take Helen of Troy for example. If you look at various artistic interpretations and portraits of her from her time, she was an average white girl with bland features. But she was healthy and plump and this appealed greatly to the people of that day. Nations went to war for this woman. Both those features are taken for granted now, so we hold our timeless beauties to higher standards. 50 years ago this woman ruled the entertainment industry due to her "striking" beauty and sex appeal. Today you have girls like this interning at every other agnecy in LA and walking around the business districts of New York trying to make a living. Times are changing my friends.
Cmon... this thread should have more replies than the phone number thread where people talk about their mechanical game. This is history in the making!
Meh, I watched a re-run of a reality TV show an hour ago where a "beautiful" woman said "I can't tell time if someone tells me a quarter til something...so I ask again until someone tells me 7:45 or something". If this is the future of womankind, I'll stick to the heavy, smart ones the alpha males want no part of.
I dont mind being wrong on ANY of this I dont think 50 years can produce drastically noticeable visible results in the slow process of natural, physical human evolution. From the Helen of Troy days, sure. Though at the same time, athletes in all sports are bigger, faster and stronger since then. So I guess it can be the same in the beauty sport. There's more EXTERNAL manipulation and cosmetic enhancement now like going to the gym, nutrition, hygiene, clothing attire, beauty products, hair styles, etc....CONSCIOUSLY making an effort to fit the "Hollywood image". And thats before getting to plastic surgery. Women are looking better than just 20 years ago even. Plus women just put themselves out there more, meaning they walk around more comfortable in more revealing clothing. But it ends up being the same thing, more beauty out there I think you give young Sophia Loren a modern talk show makeover, a gym pass and a bad drug habit like starlets of today and she'd be good to go.
wow... that's one of the biggest misconceptions i've read in a while. no disrespect, but most of your "examples" are pseudo science, based on your own perception (the current social norm) of beauty. first of all, there is no physical proof that genetics are getting "better". there's proof that humans are healthier and living longer due to better diet and technology, that the genetics are still the same. i would be VERY hard pressed to believe you've found proof that genetics are the reason we're living longer. as for you troy example. that's more proof of my case. in her time, she was considered beautiful, just as during medieval times small breast and plump bodies were considered more attractive. what's considered "bland features" for us maybe considered beautiful to them and vice versa. Cleopatra was considered beautiful by her contemporaries but ugly by today's social standards. conversely, if you transplanted a rail thin model with concave bone structure back middle ages, she would be considered ugly (think mona lisa). as for the girl in that picture... she had a striking because her features were the social norm for "beauty" back then. megan fox would be considered a freak with her tatoos and big ass back then. you should read Peter Berger's "Social Construct of Reality". he's considered a genius in his field and i had to read it in my sociology class during college. he would argue that what your wants, desires... hence what consider beautiful are social constructs since humans are born with ZERO instincts (hunger and horniness aren't instincts).
hmm.. my previous post is a little wordy.. let me put it this way: in order for your argument to be true, the perception of beauty needs to be objective, meaning it has to be constant throughout history. we know from historical paintings and writings that this is not the case. however, i will give this to you. youth and health (or the perception of health) seems to be a common factor in determining beauty throughout the ages and we are looking younger and healthier. but that's through knowledge and technology, not through genes.
