The Psychology Today article states: "So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region . . . Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence." Shortage of women creates violence -- almost certainly true -- but this can be caused not only by polygyny, but by the choice of parents to have boys rather than girls. And modern methods of sperm selection, plus the selective abortion of female foetuses, increasingly gives this choice to parents -- in Asian countries in particular. In addition, China's "one child" policy encouraged the infanticide of many girl babies so that the parents could try again. So: shortage of women, and the resulting violence, can be a product of population imbalance as readily as of polygyny. One has to wonder at the implications of a Chinese nation emerging as the new world superpower at the same time that many tens of millions of its young men are short of a female partner. I suspect it does not augur well for the world. Prostitution has always been big in China, serving the needs of low status males as well as the whims and desires of the wealthy, but can it be expected to operate on a truly massive scale in a country of rising living standards? Will China's violence be contained within its borders? Armies have always been a good way of mopping up surplus males.
The original article has many serious flaws in the reasoning as well as in the facts. The author is just obsessed with controversal looking or "shocking" claims.
From the ridiculous article: They forget to mention that in 15th century Italy (and indeed most of Europe back then) the women weren't really dying their hair blond, they were dying it white. Most people today would think was pretty freakish to see a beautiful 20 year-old woman with hair the color of copy paper. They give the example of women wanting to lose weight in Iran and conclude that this means that the preference for thin women is genetic. But what about the fact that for most of Europe's history plump women were considered more attractive than skinny women? Our preference for thin women is a relatively modern thing. And that's not even getting into some of the really bizarre stuff that some cultures consider beautiful. Most of the data seems to indicate that men will simply be attracted to whatever their culture tells them is attractive. In general the problem with this article is that they simply make an assertion and explain why it makes sense, but then they don't actually provide data to back it up.
Was that due to what men considered sexy or because these huskier women were considered stronger in childbirth? Also the rich ate better so was a fat wife showing off your wealth?
Yeah, those might have been some of the reasons why people throughout most of Europe's history thought that plump women were more attractive than skinny women. The point is that they don't have any evidence to back up their assertion that men are genetically predisposed to prefer skinny women. The fact that people’s idea of attractiveness varies so much throughout history seems to indicate that our preferences aren’t genetic, they’re just cultural conditioning. It’s especially annoying since they try to use the fact that European men have preferred blonds for hundreds of years (although their definition of "blond" is pretty questionable) as evidence that men have a genetic preference for blonds...but then they ignore that fact that during that same era men preferred fatter women when they go on to talk about men's preference for body size. So are we supposed to look at European history as evidence of what men are genetically predisposed to consider attractive, or not? Their answer appears to be "Yes if it supports what we're claiming, no if it doesn't support what we're claiming."
I don't see why a woman who is too skinny can be better at survival than a woman who is strong and with some fat, especially in earlier societies if the article wants to talk about genetics.
was it a sexual attraction or were they just in it for the money, since back then a lot of rich women happened to be plump? actually, i remember seeing a documentary on TV about this african culture that would purposely fatten their women before they could be married. and they weren't just plump either, i'm talking obese. this was supposed to symbolise the fattening of cattle though, so i don't know if there was sexual attraction to fat women in that case either. i think in that case, culture is playing a role, but i think there was a study that showed that most men inherently prefer the hourglass shape because that shape is the most suitable for child birth.
I dislike blonde bombshell's WITH GREAT INTENSITY they are evil bitches who relish on inflicting emotional pain on to others...thats my non pc truth about human nature. as for number 2.. i'm not very sure about that.. maybe number 3...hmm maybe but a man definately does'nt benefit from monogamy number 4.. well no shit? number 5.. no i thought the women not sleeping around reduces the fact of having a divorce. number 6.. beutiful people win because socity is so fucked up. number 7.. lol yeah what are you getting with this? number 8.. everything in life is a myth intil life is explained number 9.. do you seriously think that only male politicions would do it i mean come on. number 10.. OMG belive it or not but WOMEN sexually HARRASS other WOMEN and MEN and KIDS! so GTFO! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
lol as for 1. I don't know who these women are that want to be blonde bombshells......but I gather some of them are the ones with the blonde hair black roots and black eyebrows.....who are they kidding alot of them just look trashy. There are alot more brunette bombshells that look more natural out there.
Except that it's usually not polite to ask about age. Probably people are attracted to whatever is fittest. IE. whatever will mean the children born of their union are more likely to be sucessful. In the old days, fatness showed that the woman had, for whatever reason, been able to eat well, which was a difficult thing to accomplish. Still, even renaissance women weren't obese, just fatter than what we prefer these days. In the modern era, especially in wealthy countries like the USA, thinness is a sign of discipline, determination, and will, because most people have to actually work at it to keep their figure. A fat woman is seen as having a very weak will. Also, poor people in the modern world are more likely to be fat because they eat lower quality food. Rich people have nutritionists and personal trainers, and can afford to buy everything organic.
