home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!saundrsg
- Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:22:20 EST
- From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
- Message-ID: <93022.212221SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
- Newsgroups: soc.singles
- Subject: Re: what is attractive ?
- Distribution: usa
- References: <C16EsB.ME7@portal.hq.videocart.com>
- <1993Jan21.162830.15905@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
- <ewright.727736220@convex.convex.com>
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <ewright.727736220@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V.
- Wright) says:
- >In that case, "physiology" must change very rapidly indeed. Even
- >a brief study of history will show that there are enormous changes
- >in what is considered physically attractive. During the Italian
- >Rennaissance, the ideal woman was quite rotund by today's standards.
- >In China, up until the beginning of this century, women bound their
- >feet to make them appear smaller and more attractive. In the United
- >States, just 20 years ago, it was generally accepted that women should
- >be soft, rather than the "hard bodies" popular today. Muscles on women
- >were considered unattractive.
-
- The 'fashionable ideal' changes very rapidly, yes, but how much of
- a corelation is there between the fashionable ideal and what people
- actually find attractive?
-
- Getting good data on this would be a horrid problem in experiment
- design, too, since 'attraction' is exceedingly subjective.
-
- Graydon
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- saundrsg@ "Praise then Darkness and Creation unfinished"
- qucdn.queensu.ca - U. K. LeGuin
-