Tendency of Ideal Racial Mating Choice

[Theowne]

Originally Posted by Cipher

at least the the trait of being human is universally considered a requirement for attraction.

You clearly haven't stumbled onto the same scar-you-for-life websites that I unfortunately have.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Cipher

I can't quite agree with this. Understanding you meant standard of beauty, at least the the trait of being human is universally considered a requirement for attraction.

Here's where I should make a joke about robots and 2D girls.... but anyway, we've already made a fairly lightweight thread quite ponderous

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

No, it isn't. Universal means that every single person alive feels that way.

Ah! Then my vocabulary is at fault. Universal meant "Most" not "All" to me. So it would be correct to say that there is a majority(not universal) definition of human beauty? If so, please share a list of what today's most men or women consider beautiful. Indeed, that would be difficult but just please share some educational opinion. I've heard of how much it varies but I'm clearly positive that if everyone's opinion is ranked, one would be more popular than the other.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Ah! Then my vocabulary is at fault. Universal meant "Most" not "All" to me. So it would be correct to say that there is a majority(not universal) definition of human beauty? If so, please share a list of what today's most men or women consider beautiful. Indeed, that would be difficult but just please share some educational opinion. I've heard of how much it varies but I'm clearly positive that if everyone's opinion is ranked, one would be more popular than the other.

I think it's more likely you'd end up with a number of popular "schools of thought" - just look at the whole "cute vs. hot" debate. Or even whether people prefer short or tall mates - I prefer short girls, and I kind of doubt that preference is consistent with a natural selection derived ideal.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Ah! Then my vocabulary is at fault. Universal meant "Most" not "All" to me. So it would be correct to say that there is a majority(not universal) definition of human beauty? If so, please share a list of what today's most men or women consider beautiful. Indeed, that would be difficult but just please share some educational opinion. I've heard of how much it varies but I'm clearly positive that if everyone's opinion is ranked, one would be more popular than the other.

I'd dare say the eventual result of following that thought process would eventually point to the globally most popular standard of beauty being Western in origin. The reason for that would be simple; globalization and the export of Western ideas, as well as the dominance of Western cultural ideals in post-industrial societies.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

I'd dare say the eventual result of following that thought process would eventually point to the globally most popular standard of beauty being Western in origin. The reason for that would be simple; globalization and the export of Western ideas, as well as the dominance of Western cultural ideals in post-industrial societies.

I'm already acquainted with globalization and other ethnic intrusions on the population's impression. But what I'm having trouble finding out is that natural commonality of people's preference over their mate's appearance.

[radioIzzy]

I want my bebe's to be all asian haha. Or robots... But we all know the latter won't happen for another 100+ years...

[C.A.]

Yes, there will never be a universal standard, because no 2 humans are the same. In order to have a universal standard, all humans must be the same to be able to choose something similar.

Can you agree with the standard beauty of long neck tribes or lip plates?

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by radioIzzy

I want my bebe's to be all asian haha. Or robots... But we all know the latter won't happen for another 100+ years...

you could always try to dock your dongle in its port if you get what I mean.

Well the only real universal standards that ever existed were the evolutionary ones, but now when children easily survive to adulthood these traits no longer become as valuable, and like many have said universal beauty will never exist because to have something to agree with 6+ billion people is just not going to happen.

[npcomplete]

I was watching a NOVA program a while back where an anthropologist sculpted some model heads reconstructed from some very old skulls discovered at some site in order to get a better idea of ethnicity and how they would look like in real life.

It was interesting how you can model archetypal genetic racial features without the features we typically associate with such races. The anthropologist had heads representing the nominally pure Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and one other. And with no eyes and no skin color, it was still very clear which head was of which race. It all comes down to the geometry of the face and shape of various features (cheek bones, chin, nose, eye brows, forehead, etc).

There are some traits that are shared across various races but some just have more of it than another, such as the double folded eyelids vs epicanthic fold. Many East Asians and some Africans have epicanthic folds of varying degree for eyelids and those who have the less common double folded eyelids instead are usually considered more attractive and do end up coincidentally looking more European (or Middle Eastern, Hispanic, etc), even when the actual slant of the eye remains the same.

In fact there's huge trend now for eyelid surgery among Asian women to pull the epicanthic fold into a double fold. Many girls have it done to them unknowingly when they are small children by their parents.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Well the only real universal standards that ever existed were the evolutionary ones, but now when children easily survive to adulthood these traits no longer become as valuable, and like many have said universal beauty will never exist because to have something to agree with 6+ billion people is just not going to happen.

The mentioning of evolutionary biology in terms of beauty is terribly overrated, I think. Have you ever watched animals trying to mate? If you're in the city, take a look at pigeons - males seemingly run after any and every female around them. It doesn't seem to be much different with other animals, either - the second a male finds a female that is in heat (biologically in the time frame to reproduce) and/or willing to have sex, they jump at the opportunity. Males aren't concerned with whether the young will survive or not. That concept (where one sex chooses a member of the other, presumably based around viability of the young) is more common, if not exclusive, to females choosing males. Even there, the female doesn't usually pick from a calm line-up - the female takes whoever is left standing (or whoever hasn't been chased off). Whether the young die or survive to reproduce - that is evolution in action, and has nothing to do with standards of beauty.

As I've said before, human beauty and its various concepts really don't stem from aspects that make biological sense. Rather, they may be "evolutionary" in the sense that you can track them to some original purpose, but it's "societal evolution" rather than biological.

The best example I can make of that is: breast size. It seems like the majority of people are crazy about breasts, and the bigger the better. It would seem like this makes sense - large breasts must mean that the woman is able to produce more milk for her babies, and thus the babies stand a better chance of survival, right? Except that there are a few problems with this: 1) some men (seemingly in the minority) prefer smaller breasts to larger ones; 2) the fascination with breasts is largely limited to western and westernized cultures; and the best one of all, 3) milk production is not dependent on breast size, which completely disproves the idea that there's some biological component to it. (If anything, biologically speaking, large breasts would impede a woman's mobility - that's arguably a survival disadvantage.) Why the fascination, then? Probably because western society has deemed breasts to be something exclusive, taboo, off-limits, and has sexualized them - thus they're a point of attraction.

Society strikes again.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

It seems like the majority of people are crazy about breasts, and the bigger the better.

I think the market proves you wrong here. Think of those professions where outer appearance is most important: models, actresses, singers. Larger than average, yes. "The bigger the better", no. A cup size beyond a certain limit only helps you in the porn business - and only to serve one special fetish among many others.

Beautiful women are typically underweight though. That might be a better example.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

I think the market proves you wrong here. Think of those professions where outer appearance is most important: models, actresses, singers. Larger than average, yes. "The bigger the better", no. A cup size beyond a certain limit only helps you in the porn business - and only to serve one special fetish among many others.

An interesting point! You're probably right that there is an upper limit (or at least, a limit in terms of other body proportions), but perhaps the appeal isn't just size, as I've generalized, but size and shape. If we consider the ideal shape to be rounded and self-supporting (the appearence that bras provide, and that plastic surgery attempts to produce) then larger is often less shapely, and the trade-off is not appealing.

But maybe I shouldn't delve too far into the psychology behind breast appeal, lest we take this too far off-topic... (I'd be plenty interested to read other opinions behind that, though. Either way, the point is that the modern-day appeal, at least as it exists in westernized societies, is societal in origin rather than biological.)

I should probably also throw it in that not all westernized societies are fascinated with breasts, either. My (temporary) high school Spanish teacher, who was from South America, was puzzled with the male infatuation with breasts here - according to her, men in South America were more interested in a woman's butt than chest. (As you can probably imagine, my Spanish skills didn't advance very much that year. Any South Americans, feel free to remark.) Although, I'm not sure that South America technically counts as western/westernized society, although it seems to fit the description to me.

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Beautiful women are typically underweight though. That might be a better example.

That would be a good example, but I don't feel that it's quite as universal even within westernized societies as the breast example. There was a period where ultra-thin was beautiful, but it seems that now there's a backlash forming against that concept. Regardless, you're right that it would stand as a valid example.

[Vexx]

Ultra-thin wasn't actually ever that popular..... except with the fashion designers hiring women models (who I suspect kind of hate women anyway). Now, I do think their choices misled some women into thinking guys liked the skeletal concentration camp look... but most guys seem to like a reasonable X+/X-/X+ shape.

[ChainLegacy]

Admittedly I'm just an armchair evolutionary biologist, but I would assume sexual selection has some effect on our mating preferences, sometimes perhaps not even in a manner that is advantageous to survival. The peacock is the classic example here. It is also hard to separate human culture from our hard wiring since our culture is inherently human as well.

For the the original question, though, I'm pretty torn. I'm attracted to every race in some way.

[Nosauz]

subconscious cues do influence in why we choose certain mates over others, its not just "love" there is something more primitive, much like why women like to choose mates who are similar to their fathers, fathers that generally were able to provide for them, so therefor if a mate is similar to their father he will be able to support her.

@Ledgem

If you look at monogomous animals then selective breeding becomes more and more apparent. Because again primal instincts refer to humans back when paternity tests were not readily available.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Admittedly I'm just an armchair evolutionary biologist, but I would assume sexual selection has some effect on our mating preferences, sometimes perhaps not even in a manner that is advantageous to survival. The peacock is the classic example here. It is also hard to separate human culture from our hard wiring since our culture is inherently human as well.

I would not say that evolutionary biology isn't responsible for some points of attraction, but I'd imagine that they're very few compared with what society and culture have imprinted on us. It also becomes a bit difficult when you try to make comparisons with other animals, as you and I have both done, because there is no one mechanism that animals follow. Take a male mouse and throw it in a cage with a few females, and you'll find it sexing each and every one, seemingly with no particular preference for any one (as far as I can discern; mouse experts, feel free to chime in). On the other hand, there's the peacock example that you've mentioned, where there are "rituals" and displays to be followed, and the male who does it best is selected. Those are only two examples; there are other behaviors among animals, of course.

Where do humans fit in? It's hard to say, and perhaps that question is made even more difficult to answer by the fact that different societies seemingly resemble different animal behaviors more closely (as I'll partly show in my response below). Partly for this reason, I make the claim that when we try to find an explanation for some particular belief or feeling within society (at least when it comes to aesthetics and expectations), cultural imprinting is a more important/valid factor to consider than evolutionary biological factors.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

subconscious cues do influence in why we choose certain mates over others, its not just "love" there is something more primitive, much like why women like to choose mates who are similar to their fathers, fathers that generally were able to provide for them, so therefor if a mate is similar to their father he will be able to support her.

The idea that women choose people who resemble their fathers (and that men choose women who resemble their mothers) is a commonly held belief, but is there really truth in it? It seems like an oversimplification that at the same time is terribly vague and hard to pin down. Anyone could look at their significant other and pick out traits that resemble their parents... just like anyone can look at their zodiac's forecast and find elements that match their life. I don't know that it makes it true.

However, I do agree that there are subconscious cues. Knowing that someone is interested in you tends to pique your interest in them, and vice versa (although how high the interest goes can depend on other factors). That isn't necessarily a conscious decision.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

@Ledgem

If you look at monogomous animals then selective breeding becomes more and more apparent. Because again primal instincts refer to humans back when paternity tests were not readily available.

Am I right in stating that you've made the assumption that humans are monogamous? I might be tempted to agree with you that in animals that form monogamous relationships, selective breeding comes into play. However, it is debatable whether or not that's true in humans.

Westernized society dictates that humans should be monogamous, but that's it. Other forms of society find polygamy to be perfectly acceptable. Some of the closest animal relatives to humans, the apes, form polygamous groups where a harem of females are bound to one dominant male. If I remember my monkey psychology correctly, the harem does not choose the male. It forms around the male, and if the male happens to be killed by another dominant male, then the harem is inherited by the new male. In such a case, I can't currently see how primal instinct could play into selective breeding pressures when it comes to choosing a mate. If that's what humans arose from, it can't explain why people are attracted to certain other individuals from a biological standpoint.

That aside, even among monogamous animals there is nothing technically preventing the individuals from breaking out of their monogamy. That is, a male doesn't fuse with a female (aside for some species of fish) or lose all chances of reproduction with another female (aside for some insects, notably some spiders) - if the female can't produce offspring, or if the male can't produce offspring, both members are free to mate with another member of the opposite sex. And again, if I remember correctly, breakages of monogamous relationships were observed within penguins (animals frequently cited as being monogamous), which shows that it can happen. All of that basically boils down to say that, aside for those spiders and fish that get one shot at reproduction, there really isn't a hard biologically-based evolutionary pressure that determines mate selection.

Remember, success in evolution just means that you reproduce the most. Humans care that their children are successful and happy, but in nature it's debatable to say that all or even most other animals have a similar sentiment. As long as an animal reproduces, it doesn't care about the viability of the young. The environment ("forces of nature") ultimately take care of that. Those that survive are viable and can reproduce; those that die, can't. In many ways, the selection of mates available isn't often carried out by the individuals, but by nature. You mate with what's available to you, as opposed to holding out for some subconsciously held ideal of perfection (although some people prefer to hold out, but this is more likely due to societal influences rather than biological ones ).

[Nosauz]

No, success in evolution sense is whether or not your offspring reproduce, and the way humans have been able to do that is through monogamy whether it be state sponsored or done through a community raising the child. The whole idea of love and its value is based in monogamy why would say that yes a certain percentage of the population of humans are monogamous creatures which inherently gives credence to the evolutionary traits that women seek out in men.

Even if some members don't prescribe to monogamy many still do which does mean that there is something that keeps us connected to others than just solely evolutionary success, because if true evolution would dictate that we would leave our mates once they where unable to reproduce yet this clearly not the case.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

No, success in evolution sense is whether or not your offspring reproduce, and the way humans have been able to do that is through monogamy whether it be state sponsored or done through a community raising the child.

Success in evolution, at its core, is whether you reproduce or not. If you reproduce, it means that you're likely viable (compared to those who do not live to or have the opportunity to reproduce). You pass on your genes. Your children have those genes, which should be an advantage. If it's really an advantage (or advantageous at that point in time - remember, the environment, along with what can be considered advantageous or not can change) then they'll reproduce... and so on. The traits that are transmitted through genetics are culled through natural selection. That's evolution.

In bringing up how children are raised, you're now discussing something different from evolution. Within reason, the selective pressures on people within society are no longer physical or even genetic in nature, thanks to technology and medicine. Also, you're mentioning monogamy as if it's universal to all human society. As I've mentioned before, it is not, nor has it been throughout time.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

The whole idea of love and its value is based in monogamy why would say that yes a certain percentage of the population of humans are monogamous creatures which inherently gives credence to the evolutionary traits that women seek out in men.

Er... well, that's a pretty bold statement, that the concept of love is based around monogamy. I disagree with it, as you probably guessed, but don't have any specific examples to bring up. However, I don't even think that the concept of love is quite the same thing between monogamous societies.

As for your statement that a certain percentage of the population is monogamous - that's due to culture within society. As I've said, not all societies are monogamous. In particular, the more primitive societies are often (but not always) linked with polygamy. Even within our society that expects monogamy, many people find it difficult to remain monogamous - I'd make the claim that such a thing shows that monogamy is a societal demand and goes against what is "biologically hard-wired" in most/all of us, but that's mostly speculation on my part.

And to what women seek out in men - women didn't seek out anything in men. For much of human history, men have been the ones to choose women (plural), not the other way around. Gender inequality still exists in much of the world, mind you. I may be wrong in stating this, but given how apes and a number of monkeys organize, it seems that such inequalities derive from nature, as well.

If that's true, it's "unnatural" for women to choose men, as far as humans are concerned. But clearly it happens (in the societies where it is permitted), and clearly women have preferences in their attraction. Why? Society. You can only take the biological explanations so far - once you move beyond the individual, and begin to consider society (which can be thought of as a "superorganism"), biological roots become very difficult to discern, and in some cases aren't applicable at all.

[escimo]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Ultra-thin wasn't actually ever that popular..... except with the fashion designers hiring women models (who I suspect kind of hate women anyway). Now, I do think their choices misled some women into thinking guys liked the skeletal concentration camp look... but most guys seem to like a reasonable X+/X-/X+ shape.

There's actually a bit simpler and very practical explanation to the fashion designers preferences. As far as conceptual clothing is concerned (protos and haute couture) the rule of thumb is that one size fits all. That doesn't mean that the clothes would fit anybody but the models better fit the clothes. Thus the measurements of an "ideal" model tend to be very uniform. Now here's where the problems begin to emerge. While you can find people with relatively similar skeletal structure with relative ease, people gain weight very differently and thus it's better that the models just don't. Putting a bit of padding here and there during a fashion show or a photoshoot is far easier than removing something "excess" or for that matter fixing the clothes to fit. Bad fit simply isn't an option when you're trying to sell the collection. You may notice that for swimming suits designers tend to favor models with ever so slightly healthier proportions.

To the actual topic at hand.
I think the poll is missing no preference option. While I tend to lean towards caucasian and asian, I consider race a non issue.