[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're definitely right, and it's sort of amazing that people in a college class (people who are theoretically interested in learning) can be such bad thinkers. But of course they yell and moan and claim strong opinions anyways. You didn't go into much detail, but I feel like I have a good hunch into what types of arguments and attitudes they held.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like you basically have to have a poor intuitive sense for how existence works if you don't think attraction evolves biologically based on very real criteria. Cultural stuff might account for some very superficial differences, but you could raise me anywhere and as long as I'm a human being dog [censored] still smells like dog [censored], and palm trees blowing gently on a calm autumn sunset is still beautiful. And Lindsay Lohan is still really hot even if she's nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is [censored]. Lindsay Lohan is relatively unattractive by most standards. As fury mentioned, fat chicks are normally considered hotter than skinny chicks. Personally, I can't imagine this being the case (and I doubt most of us in the modern world can), so it's clear that culture does have a significant impact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its a bit unfair to claim that we, as a society, find girls like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan to be the apex of beauty. They are POPULAR, they are what we like to read about, but that doesn't mean that they represent the "average American's dream girl." There is a slight difference between the types of girls we glamorize and idolize and the types of girls/women we as a society find to be beautiful.

Obviously there is some cultural variation in this, and as is common in sexual selection, there is a seeming "positive feedback" runaway effect. But I think you'd find that even Rubenesque beauties had very close to "population average" nose widths, "population average" lips, and so on. Symmetry and averageness are beautiful. Outward signs of health are beautiful.

Interestingly, this reminds me of the theory in The Red Queen about why we prefer blondes. Blond hair shows wear and age and damage a lot easier and earlier than dark hair, so healthy blond hair is a much more reliable indicator of youth and health than similarly healthy-looking brown hair. Not sure what that has to do with anything (I prefer brunettes anyway) but I remember thinking that was interesting when I read it.