Women are getting more beautiful

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: JS80

good-looking parents were far more likely to conceive daughters

interesting

That would explain why I have two daughters and no sons.

pics of the mother (and daughters, assuming at least jailbait age)?

 

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: JS80

good-looking parents were far more likely to conceive daughters

interesting

That would explain why I have two daughters and no sons.

pics of the mother (and daughters, assuming at least jailbait age)?

The kids are still in the single digits. Ask again in 15 years.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: JS80

good-looking parents were far more likely to conceive daughters

interesting

That would explain why I have two daughters and no sons.

pics of the mother (and daughters, assuming at least jailbait age)?

The kids are still in the single digits. Ask again in 15 years.

ok, but you can still post pics of the mom

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: z1ggy
Have we even been alive to evolve that much? Doesn't something like evolution take like hundreds of thousands of years to actually have happen?

I am not a biologist, but no; not at all. Some changes probably do, but other changes can happen very rapidly. When a species highly adaptive to change encounters a rapidly changing environment, you can have sweeping changes in just a few generations.

When highly attractive parents have such a huge (26%) predisposition to having daughters, and attractive women have so many more children (13%) than less attractive women, you will see the change.

I actually think this is very exciting; yes, on a superficial level it's bad for women, but look how sophisticated our biological understaning has become. It's aboslutely amazing what evolution is teaching us about our nature.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: JS80

good-looking parents were far more likely to conceive daughters

interesting

That would explain why I have two daughters and no sons.

pics of the mother (and daughters, assuming at least jailbait age)?

The kids are still in the single digits. Ask again in 5-10 years.

Fixed.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure
FOR the female half of the population, it may bring a satisfied smile. Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors.

Full Story

Discuss

a facebook link?

alright, i clicked through, and i don't agree.... plenty of hot men amongst us.
and if women are becoming ever more beautiful it's because we have make up.

Quit it, you're making me blush

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Ok so if good looking women have more children than their uglier counterparts and they're most likely to give birth to girls than boys, wouldn't that mean the gender ratio will be thrown out of whack?

I'm gonna try to answer this. It's my own hypothesis which may not be true but here goes:


Beautiful people/couples generally take good care of themselves(which is why they are beautiful). As a result of their self-maintenance they are thus relatively responsible with how they manage their lives. Responsible couples have 1-2 children. They are more likely to have daughters[according to the article]

Now ugly people... they don't take good care of themselves. They eat unhealthy, let themselves go and have no control in regards to moderation. And in this regard, they generally squeeze out more children than they can afford, neglect them and they grow up to do the same. Perhaps they tend to have more males.

This could balance the gender ratio.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: darkxshade

Originally posted by: Phokus
Ok so if good looking women have more children than their uglier counterparts and they're most likely to give birth to girls than boys, wouldn't that mean the gender ratio will be thrown out of whack?

I'm gonna try to answer this. It's my own hypothesis which may not be true but here goes:


Beautiful people/couples generally take good care of themselves(which is why they are beautiful). As a result of their self-maintenance they are thus relatively responsible with how they manage their lives. Responsible couples have 1-2 children. They are more likely to have daughters[according to the article]

Now ugly people... they don't take good care of themselves. They eat unhealthy, let themselves go and have no control in regards to moderation. And in this regard, they generally squeeze out more children than they can afford, neglect them and they grow up to do the same. Perhaps they tend to have more males.

This could balance the gender ratio.

But it says that beautiful women have more children than their uglier counterparts, so that contradicts your point

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: Phokus

But it says that beautiful women have more children than their uglier counterparts, so that contradicts your point

And that's true, women have more children than men since men can't get pregnant.


However, ugly women have more children than beautiful women.


You got trixed by the article

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: darkxshade

Originally posted by: Phokus
Ok so if good looking women have more children than their uglier counterparts and they're most likely to give birth to girls than boys, wouldn't that mean the gender ratio will be thrown out of whack?

I'm gonna try to answer this. It's my own hypothesis which may not be true but here goes:


Beautiful people/couples generally take good care of themselves(which is why they are beautiful). As a result of their self-maintenance they are thus relatively responsible with how they manage their lives. Responsible couples have 1-2 children. They are more likely to have daughters[according to the article]

Now ugly people... they don't take good care of themselves. They eat unhealthy, let themselves go and have no control in regards to moderation. And in this regard, they generally squeeze out more children than they can afford, neglect them and they grow up to do the same. Perhaps they tend to have more males.

This could balance the gender ratio.

Not sure how serious this post is, but people are not beutiful because they take care of themselves. Yes, a healthy person is much more attractive to a potential mate than an unhealthy person, but the type of beauty that this article is talking about is very objective and based on facial feature arrangements and ratios etc.

 

[shiner]

There's always an exception

 

[Train]

Well that was kind of a no-brainer.

Men are attracted to women who are HAWT. Men want to do women who are hot. Men make babies with women who are hot. Hot women's genes get passed on, fugly women fade out.

Women on the other hand are attracted to money. Money and looks are not inclusive, therefore both good and bad looking men pass thier genes on.

/puts on flame suit.

 

[SunnyD]

This is subjective - only because the scientists involved were all horny men.

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Not sure how serious this post is, but people are not beutiful because they take care of themselves. Yes, a healthy person is much more attractive to a potential mate than an unhealthy person, but the type of beauty that this article is talking about is very objective and based on facial feature arrangements and ratios etc.

If not so great looking person A(with a fixed facial feature) decided to persue a more responsible lifestyle. That person will age more gracefully and the children will reap those benefits. Some people are ugly to begin with but that doesn't mean they can't change how their offspring will look by changing some habits. Women are more likely than men to take care of themselves. You don't see a guy spending hours in the bathroom putting on makeup. While this may not mean much, it's the habit that changes the way we look over time, not the actual application of makeup.

But yea, I wasn't very serious to begin with, like I said, it's just a hypothesis.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: darkxshade

Originally posted by: Phokus

But it says that beautiful women have more children than their uglier counterparts, so that contradicts your point

And that's true, women have more children than men since men can't get pregnant.


However, ugly women have more children than beautiful women.


You got trixed by the article

wtfbbq

I don't think that's what the article says:

The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

take a stroll through your local wal mart and tell me with a straight face women are getting prettier

 

[KeithTalent]

I get better looking every day!

KT

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: darkxshade

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Not sure how serious this post is, but people are not beutiful because they take care of themselves. Yes, a healthy person is much more attractive to a potential mate than an unhealthy person, but the type of beauty that this article is talking about is very objective and based on facial feature arrangements and ratios etc.

If not so great looking person A(with a fixed facial feature) decided to persue a more responsible lifestyle. That person will age more gracefully and the children will reap those benefits. Some people are ugly to begin with but that doesn't mean they can't change how their offspring will look by changing some habits. Women are more likely than men to take care of themselves. You don't see a guy spending hours in the bathroom putting on makeup. While this may not mean much, it's the habit that changes the way we look over time, not the actual application of makeup.

But yea, I wasn't very serious to begin with, like I said, it's just a hypothesis.

i don't see how putting on makeup will change your egg/sperm to produce prettier children

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: z1ggy
Have we even been alive to evolve that much? Doesn't something like evolution take like hundreds of thousands of years to actually have happen?

it's not evolution. It's mostly a result of natural selection at its finest. A Darwinian theory, that does go hand in hand with the theory of evolution, but is not quite the same. Evolution tends to require the realities of natural selection in order to allow evolution to occur, but natural selection doesn't always lead to evolution. We aren't changing as a species, it's simply natural selection taking place.

It's natural eugenics to sum it up. Those with the best genes tend to have better chances of reproducing, and those good genes get passed on to potentially a larger group of offspring.
In most species, this process would be extremely quick. However, we have these things called ethics. People who wouldn't normally be seen as fit to reproduce, find others who are equal, and those segments of "bad genes" get to live on. Not that there is really anything wrong with that, because we don't have the natural challenges that force us to fight for the survival of the species in this modern day. Just an observation that notes how greatly different we have behaved in comparison to the history of other species.

 

[Fritzo]

We will soon all be fat bald men with open shirts, hairy chests, and gold chains hanging out with hot babes.

I see nothing wrong with this.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure
FOR the female half of the population, it may bring a satisfied smile. Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors.

Full Story

Discuss

a facebook link?

alright, i clicked through, and i don't agree.... plenty of hot men amongst us.
and if women are becoming ever more beautiful it's because we dress like whores.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
We will soon all be fat bald men with open shirts, hairy chests, and gold chains hanging out with hot babes.

I see nothing wrong with this.

:thumbsup:

 

[Kadarin]

Article ignores the fact that many people settle for less desirable mates, and reproduce.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Article ignores the fact that many people settle for less desirable mates, and reproduce.

:music:If you want to be happy for the rest of your life,
never make a pretty woman your wife!:music:

KT

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: z1ggy
Have we even been alive to evolve that much? Doesn't something like evolution take like hundreds of thousands of years to actually have happen?

it's not evolution. It's mostly a result of natural selection at its finest. A Darwinian theory, that does go hand in hand with the theory of evolution, but is not quite the same. Evolution tends to require the realities of natural selection in order to allow evolution to occur, but natural selection doesn't always lead to evolution. We aren't changing as a species, it's simply natural selection taking place.

It's natural eugenics to sum it up. Those with the best genes tend to have better chances of reproducing, and those good genes get passed on to potentially a larger group of offspring.
In most species, this process would be extremely quick. However, we have these things called ethics. People who wouldn't normally be seen as fit to reproduce, find others who are equal, and those segments of "bad genes" get to live on. Not that there is really anything wrong with that, because we don't have the natural challenges that force us to fight for the survival of the species in this modern day. Just an observation that notes how greatly different we have behaved in comparison to the history of other species.

I'd attribute it more to sexual selection myself. Except instead of males developing bright plumage we have females developing fuller lips, big eyes and facial symmetry.