I've posted before about how I hate adages. In particular I hate ones that are just comforting myths begging to be debunked. A prime example is "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." It is not. And any smoking hot chick could attest to this. She knows from all the ogling, leering and propositioning she's subjected to daily. Likewise a homely chick to whom no one every gives the time of day knows there is such a thing as objective beauty. It just isn't her.
I've been researching the matter in the course of writing Splashing in the Gene Pool. Turns out that there have been numerous studies of what traits constitute hotness, as well as what having those traits means in terms of acceptance, popularity, performance appraisals and overall success in life.
The research is done in an objective way and includes people from various cultures so there really isn't any such bias. (Everyone knows, for instance, that African-American men prefer more meat on the bones. Baby got back!) Anyway, this is what they found:
1) With women the biggest thing is waist to hips ratio. Across cultural and ethnic lines, a .7 ratio is considered optimal.
2) Symmetry of features. You want eyes, elbows, ears, tips of mouth, breasts, legs and everything else that comes in twos exactly the same.
3) Lustrous and uniquely styled hair. The latter is likened somehow to peacocks strutting their plumage.
4) White, symmetrical teeth. A winning smile.
5) In men being at least a few inches taller than the woman and better yet than the norm.
6) A healthy physique.
7) In women, large, evenly spaced eyes. Also, contrasts like dark eyebrows on light skin or vice versa. A lack of facial hair.
Of course they go into a bunch of pseudo-evolutionary hooey to support why we dig what we do. Then again, they also included a photo of a women who was voted as the most beautiful 2005. Though in kind of a multiethnic kind of way, I'd agree she is pretty hot. Unfortunately I left the article at work so no link, kids.
The weirdest thing was no mention of what American men seem to mention and obsess over the most: tits and ass. I have no idea why that doesn't enter into the equation. Nor does it allude to how men in Muslim countries go about assessing potential mates. Hard to tell about her waist to hips ratio or symmetry of features or lustrous hair or white teeth when she's covered head-to-toe in a burqa you can't remove till the wedding night. Judging by what I see strolling the streets these days, odds are she turns out to be a hideous pig. (Put your damn burqa back on, woman!!) Which may be why they are allowed up to three wives.
Men in Muslim countries do not assess potential mates. I talked to a man from Saudi Arabia once, and he said that if he wants to get married, he goes to his family. His mother and sisters will look for a wife for him. After that, I think they meet a few times (definitely supervised interactions) and aren't allowed to touch each other (in any way... no hand-holding) until their wedding night.
And T & A are addressed in number 2 above. They must be symmetrical. No B-cup left boob, C-cup right-boobers allowed. Same goes for asses.
by Leaffin at August 11, 2005 12:24 PM
Yeah but I meant size. And might I add that in this age of ridiculous Pam Andersonian implants that too much can indeed be too much.
by anna at August 12, 2005 4:58 AM