Now that's what I call a MAN!

blame biology.

If a guy is fugly a woman might marry him because he can provide for her financially providing a direct fitness benefit (ie.donald trump) however woman still want a male with good genes (indicated by what we deem "hot") in order to give their genes the best chance to survive. If you look at all the cheating ever done (at least for females anyways) its always with a hotter guy.

Originally Posted by manap3000

blame biology.

If a guy is fugly a woman might marry him because he can provide for her financially providing a direct fitness benefit (ie.donald trump) however woman still want a male with good genes (indicated by what we deem "hot") in order to give their genes the best chance to survive. If you look at all the cheating ever done (at least for females anyways) its always with a hotter guy.

Blame biology? Our biology tells us the goal of sex is to have children and impregnate a woman, yet the majority of us choose to use condoms and birth control. My point is we as humans can go past our biology and consciously choose not to be a worthless sack of sh*t and choose not to cheat. So no, don't blame biology, blame the coward that cheats.

Originally Posted by manap3000

blame biology.

If a guy is fugly a woman might marry him because he can provide for her financially providing a direct fitness benefit (ie.donald trump) however woman still want a male with good genes (indicated by what we deem "hot") in order to give their genes the best chance to survive. If you look at all the cheating ever done (at least for females anyways) its always with a hotter guy.

Just becasue a person's hot doesn't mean they have good genes. I mean, yeah, they have good genes in the sense that their kid will likely be good-looking, but that's only in one sense. There are many other ways in which they may NOT have good genes. And also, "good genes" (in the terms of being hot) does not make it more likely for that person's partner and said mate's genes to survive.

Originally Posted by lizziepizzie

Just becasue a person's hot doesn't mean they have good genes. I mean, yeah, they have good genes in the sense that their kid will likely be good-looking, but that's only in one sense. There are many other ways in which they may NOT have good genes. And also, "good genes" (in the terms of being hot) does not make it more likely for that person's partner and said mate's genes to survive.

Im going to take a stab in the dark and assume you're not a biology student...

Originally Posted by Tailsnake

Im going to take a stab in the dark and assume you're not a biology student...

I saw no errors in her post insofar as you implied; elabourate.

on the topic of good genes=attractive: My Bio prof presented to us the theory that we find the absolute average of all phenotypes attractive. That is to say the theory is that the most average person, rather than the top of the spectrum, is the most attractive. There are actually many experiments that involve taking thousands of photographs of faces and having a computer average them out, and the result is oddly beautiful, here is an example of what I am talking about:

tl;dr best genes =/= attractive?

Originally Posted by RyanC

I saw no errors in her post insofar as you implied; elabourate.

Basically, attractiveness is a measure of gene quality since things that are generally considered attractive indicate health; high indicators of health would mean that individual is better able to exploit or obtain resources in the environment and thus more likely to survive. Therefore, if attractive people are more likely to survive, then thier offspring, who carry thier genes should also be more likely to survive, justifying parental effort. Hence, it is best to mate with the most attractive mate possible to increase the survivability of your children. That's why evolutionarily attractiveness is a measure of gene quality.

Both my parents were really attractive. The blend made average looking kids. What does that mean?

Originally Posted by crazyfree

Both my parents were really attractive. The blend made average looking kids. What does that mean?

That the random nature by which genes are inherited will not always result in the ideal offspring despite having fairly ideal parents.

It's all chances really. You are more likely to have a healthy/attractive child with a healthy/attractive partner, but that doesn't guarantee it.

Originally Posted by REPLEKIA/.

That the random nature by which genes are inherited will not always result in the ideal offspring despite having fairly ideal parents.

It's all chances really. You are more likely to have a healthy/attractive child with a healthy/attractive partner, but that doesn't guarantee it.

I mean, what about in terms of attractiveness indicating ability to survive though.
If attractive=better able to survive, despite the fact that their blend made average looking kids, wouldn't the average looking offspring still have those genes that would make them capable of surviving well?
So basically, there may be better genes out there, but hiding in a mask of ugly?


...
Totally talking out of my ass right now
/knows lil-to-none about genetics

Frankly, the whole survivability concept doesn't even matter anymore. The first world countries sort of broke natural selection with health care. Even the frail and weak get to live long happy lives now.

Originally Posted by crazyfree

I mean, what about in terms of attractiveness indicating ability to survive though.
If attractive=better able to survive, despite the fact that their blend made average looking kids, wouldn't the average looking offspring still have those genes that would make them capable of surviving well?
So basically, there may be better genes out there, but hiding in a mask of ugly?


...
Totally talking out of my ass right now
/knows lil-to-none about genetics

The simplest explanation is that the offspring picked up reccessive traits that weren't as attractive or thier parents had features that were attractive on one gender that ended up expressed in a child of the opposite gender (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php... d=2105#comic). There also other things at play like societally defined attractive traits and eugenics, but I don't wanna get into a super long explanation.

Originally Posted by REPLEKIA/.

on the topic of good genes=attractive: My Bio prof presented to us the theory that we find the absolute average of all phenotypes attractive. That is to say the theory is that the most average person, rather than the top of the spectrum, is the most attractive. There are actually many experiments that involve taking thousands of photographs of faces and having a computer average them out, and the result is oddly beautiful, here is an example of what I am talking about:

tl;dr best genes =/= attractive?

There's only room for one average looking woman in my life.

Originally Posted by siefer1322

Hmm.. how did a private detective get a picture of them having sex?

Did he break into their house during the deed?

The detective was one of the guys having sex with his woman.