[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 62 KB, 400x480, 1298160878661.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2671936 No.2671936 [Reply] [Original]

Why does ugliness exist, /sci/?

I'm constantly being told these two things:
- there is a general defintion of what an attractive female looks like (tits/ass/hips, facial symmetry, cheekbones)
- looking beautiful is part of the female reproductive strategy

if that's true, then why isn't beauty the norm by now? why hasn't relative "ugliness" been eliminated?

>> No.2671941

>>2671936
Because genetics.

>> No.2671942

it exists because genetic variability

>> No.2671943

Because a while ago people didn't care about ugliness. Much like all other animals.

>> No.2671949

>relative
there's your answer

>> No.2671950

Well thats a rather easy question. Ugly people mate with ugly people. If all of the ugly people were unable to reproduce together, then they would die out very quickly

>> No.2671955

attractiveness is not always genetic, but it usually is. even if one has the genes for attractiveness, developmental deficiencies could fuck the whole thing up, to put it quite simply. a girl whose genes coded for hotness could turn up ugly if she was exposed to certain chemicals (or lack of certain nutrients) during childhood or adolescence.

>> No.2671970

>>2671943
even birds display sexual selection for certain traits. the females of one species of finches will only fuck males with redder beaks (a sign of more carotenoids and therefore health). that's the equivalent of humans liking symmetrical faces.

>> No.2671983

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

What I find ugly, you may find extreme attractive.

Thats why.

>> No.2671987

Let's say a father has a wide jaw and broad nose, which is apparently attractive to females. The mom has light blonde hair and thin lips. While this may be attractive to some people, the resulting girl, who inherited a wide jaw, broad nose and thin lips, is doomed.

>> No.2671996

Amongst the reasons already stated: sexually antagonist selection.

Also, whoever pulled me out of the girl in OP's pic would be the god-damn king of England.

>> No.2671998

>>2671941
>>2671942
This is exactly the opposite of the real answer.

It is because "ugliness" or "attractiveness" doesn't only depends of genetics, it also depends of prenatal development, which is more or less random.

>> No.2672013

Ever hear of a willing female who failed to reproduce? Yeah, me either.

>> No.2672017

when it comes to reproduction, males prefer quantity and females prefer quality. this is because females invest more energy into the development of their children.

what this means is that in nature, what a female looks like is irrelevant. the fact that she exists is enough to make her desirable. on the other hand, it's extremely important for males to look beautiful because it's ultimately the female's decision whether or not she mates with him.

female attractiveness didn't become important until the rise of monogamy, i.e. it's a cultural force.

>> No.2672024

when it comes to reproduction, males prefer quantity and females prefer quality. this is because females invest more energy into the development of their children.

what this means is that in nature, what a female looks like is irrelevant. the fact that she exists is enough to make her desirable. on the other hand, it's extremely important for males to look beautiful because it's ultimately the female's decision whether or not she mates with him. he has to prove himself through courting.

female attractiveness didn't become important until the rise of monogamy, i.e. it's a cultural force. we've basically done a 180 from what biology expects us to do.

>> No.2672031

there is genetic variability, people tend to pair off with people roughly of even attractiveness, attractiveness changes between cultures and over time, look at tribes, different periods of countries around the world etc. its a relative thing.

>> No.2672041

>>2672013
Susan Boyle

>> No.2672052

Our culture influences most of what we think is attractive. Like tan, blonde hair blue-eyed bitches with huge boobs is popular today.
Back then, it was pale, dark brown haired, brown eyed skinny waisted bitches who knew how to use manners and speak when spoken to.

>> No.2672064
File: 14 KB, 350x363, 1262021903132.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2672064

>>2672013
>me either
It's "me neither" you unsophisticated moron.

>> No.2672074

>>2672052
But there are ugly tanned, blonde-haired, blue-eyed women. A woman having popular bodily features doesn't necessarily make them beautiful.

>> No.2672093

>>2672074
exactly. i never understood why Paris Hilton et al were so hot. barely gave me a boner. blonde + skinny =/= hot. i think hotness and hair color are two separate phenomena.

>> No.2672127

Because what is ugly now, a while ago was considered super pretty.
Beauty is under evolution just like anything else, and its also relative to how the other people look like.

>> No.2672160

>>2672127

Is it me or does this sound like the desperate rationaliztion of a particularly ugly individual?

>> No.2672243

>>2672160
Just you, im actually very pretty.

>> No.2672281

>>2672127
symmetrical faces have and will always be prettier. Men like boobs. things wont change that much

>> No.2672319

>>2672243

Yknow a person confident in the validity of thier statement wouldn't feel the need to respond in thier own defense like that. But then again you're not confident in your opinion are you?

And why are you not confident in your own opinions and thus yourself as a person? I subit that it is because you are, in fact, ugly.

Incidentally, you so ugly Bob the Builder looked at you and said 'I CAN'T FIX THAT!'

You are so ugly not even goldfish crackers smile back.

You are so ugly if you look out your window, you'd get arrested for mooning.


I am awaiting your rebuttal.

>> No.2672321

>>2672281
That is indeed the base of beauty, being symetrical.
But it isnt the entire concept, someone can easily identify the prettiest face between 2 symetric ones

>> No.2672329

>>2672319
I theorize that shit's going down.

>> No.2672333

>>2672319
Im starting to think you are the ugly one sir
U jelly?

>> No.2672334

Because ugly people have sex.

>> No.2672370

>>2672334

Why? Don't they find each other ugly?

>> No.2672387

>>2672370
Because of the human sex drive and their inability to have sex with more attractive persons

>> No.2672388

>>2672370

They did a thing about this on the discovery channel.

People with the same attractiveness tend to pair up because more attractive mates reject them.

So, they settle for someone like them.

>> No.2672401

Because ugly people mate with ugly people.

>> No.2672420

I've been wondering something lately too. Older paintings, from say the Renaissance, have so called beautiful women painted, but they wouldn't hold a candle to the hot chicks around today. I always figured it was because we've generally evolved to have more beautiful beautifuls?

>> No.2672437

>>2672420

notions of beauty change over time

folk back then might find our women too skinny and rude, or in china's case find normal sized feet fucking disgusting

>> No.2672449

>>2672420
>Renaissance
>now
>evolution

>> No.2672450

According to studies done (which means it is probably bunk), the average human is closing in on the attractiveness singularity (where the 'ugly' combination's are rooted out due to breeding pressure).

Don't get your hopes up, this will probably take tens to hundreds of thousands of years to accomplish, and by that time, odds are we won't exist as a species.

>> No.2672475

>>2672437

I'm talking purely about the face here though. Such bland faces on the Mona Lisa, or on that painting of Venus. Androgynous. I suppose it could be a cultural thing too though.

>> No.2672500

>>2672449

Small changes over relatively few generations is still evolution.

>> No.2672512
File: 44 KB, 455x700, SoScience.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2672512

Because ugly people still look more sexually attractive than a cactus or a panda bear. Ugly people are mated with out of necessity and a genetic sameness in a broad sense. A woman can have the qualities of being a good child raiser and still be ugly. Hence sex. Hence more uglies.

mfw we sex for reproduction

>> No.2672518

Apparently dick size has been a selected trait.

I mean, look at the micro-dong on Michaelangelo's David. Or maybe Michaelangelo just loved little dicks.

>> No.2672529

>>2672518
>dick size selected trait
>micro-dong on David
>Or maybe Michaelangelo just loved little dicks.

I don't even know where to begin.

>> No.2672532

Fun Fact: It's hypothesized that attractive women are more likely to have daughters due to evolutionary principal that animals will more likely birth a certain gender if it has some sort of advantage. I.E. In times of scarce food, deer will be more likely to birth does due to the fact they are smaller and need less food, whereas if food is abundant, more bucks are born.

>> No.2672648

I don't know but I wish I wasn't ugly. What are my options aside from plastic surgery? They are all structural features rather than a need for exercise, diet, or otherwise (I put a great deal of effort into keeping myself in shape and relatively healthy). Basically I'm one of those people on OkCupid that tries talking to everyone and gets back nothing. At least I'm a published academic...right?...right guys?

>> No.2672782

>>2671936
>>2672648
Published in what field?

>> No.2672847

>>2672782

Law. Yeah, not particularly scientific, is it?

>> No.2672854

sauce on OP's pic!!!!!! she looks like a healthy specimen who I would like to reproduce with.

>> No.2673231

any more pics, OP? I may know her.

>> No.2673240

Are you ugly OP?

>> No.2673246

Because of lack of genetic variation and the fact that people eventually settle with what they can get

>> No.2673274
File: 39 KB, 300x461, 1299461466070.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2673274

There are some cultures that consider super big hips or a super long/stretched neck to be attractive.

When someone is unattractive to you, then that just means they are attractive to someone else.

IF not a cultural thing, a fetish thing. Its just a matter of finding someone that finds you attractive.

Secondly, some people legitimately do not care about physical appearance and do not consider it a requirement.

We are all just brain washed into thinking what is beautiful or sexy.

Physical deformities aside

>> No.2673276

>>2673231
Shameless samefagging for moar from OP. I seriously think I know girl in OP's pic.

>> No.2673284

OP, it's because beauty is not the only thing that evolution selects for. For example, strength is obviously a good thing, evolutionarily. So why are we weak compared to other apes? Because there are other things being selected for that compete with strength.

>> No.2674962

>>2672518
Actually, the reason the David statue has a little member is because Michaelangelo was imitating the older greek style of sculpture, and the greeks actually believed that smaller dicks were a sign of virility, a highly desireable trait at the time.

>> No.2674966

>>2674962
But cracked.com says his dick is small because he's about to fight Goliath and he's terrified.

>> No.2674967

>- there is a general defintion of what an attractive female looks like (tits/ass/hips, facial symmetry, cheekbones)
Wrong
>- looking beautiful is part of the female reproductive strategy
Aaaaand wrong.

Beauty is entirely relative, and ugly women have no fewer opportunities to breed than (subjectively) "attractive" women.

>> No.2675004

>>2674967
Wrong. Symmetry means good genes, not at all subjective

>> No.2675025
File: 170 KB, 700x715, 1299682161223.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2675025

Because technology has radically changed the environment we live in. Information technology has allowed us to come to relatively narrow consensuses on what is beautiful in groups larger than a city-state. Natural selection is too slow a mechanism to have caught up.

>> No.2675038

>>2674967
Lol no

>> No.2675056

>>2674967
>ugly women have no fewer opportunities to breed than (subjectively) "attractive" women.
some source on this?

>> No.2675071

Because in the past natural selection was more prevalent than sexual selection. If a woman reached fertility she was paired with a man and started churning out babies.

>> No.2675078

physical ugliness doesn't stop people from fucking.
if two ugly people fuck they will probably have an ugly baby.

notice the probably.

genetics are meant to be randomized, you can have a world full of beautiful people but still have ugly babies.

anyway beauty is mostly subjective so it's not really a screening factor.

>> No.2675082

>>2675056

go to america, visit the south.

>> No.2676385
File: 341 KB, 934x522, bawww.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2676385

>>2671936

OH GOD WOMAN WHY DO YOU NOT CLEAN YOUR MIRROR?

SO DISGUSTING


FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

>> No.2676435

>>2671936
>>2671936
been to walmart lately?