Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (17421)	2/17/2004 11:52:05 AM
From: fatty	Respond to of 306849

>The ONLY constant the study could come up with was that men preferred a .6 ratio of waist to hips. The study should have stated that men preferred a 1.6 ratio of hips to waist. 1.6 is also called the golden ratio/divine ratio/etc.

To: GraceZ who wrote (17421)	2/18/2004 5:56:03 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 306849

Grace, RE: "various movies" I wouldn't characterize Hollywood and its movies as something one would call an authority on life for all target audiences, particularly if you're familiar with some of their target marketing studies. One time when I was in a Chaat Restaurant (Indian fast food), where was an equally bad movie from Bollywood, and so I said to the guys at the next table (who looked like they worked in hightech), what do you think about hightech creating a better opportunity for better movies than this typical Holly/Bollywood stuff with sleazy women and stupid guys? Did their eyes light up! Their thoughts on the topic were very interesting. But not to generalize this one incident, since India has incredibly excellent movies and literary figures - they haven't completely fallen to Hollywood's formulistic methods. RE: "studies visuals & male preferences" This is indeed well-known. But what is lesser known is how the visual preferences modify. For example, during the Rubenesque period, fat women were reportedly much more attractive to men than skinny women, because fat denoted "wealth and prosperity." You will also find this preference in certain areas of countries where poverty is high and fat means wealth and well-being, where the guy prefers the fat "healthy" girl, not the skinny girl. You'll also find this here in the USA too, but you have to look deep into the past, into very, very old newspapers on microfilm, where you will see advertisements for "how you can gain weight to look attractive." When fat is perceived as wealth and health, it's attractive, and when thin is perceived as wealth and health, it's attractive. Did you notice how Barbie now has a tan, as of this year? During the Great Depression, many women would use lemon to try to get rid of any tan from a sunshine. In the old days, a tan meant you were on the farm, and tans weren't considered attractive back then. Today, a tan means you might have the wealth for a resort trip. Historically looking, the overall common demoninator seemingly is: whatever body visual may denote wealth at a given time in society tends to be perceived as more attractive for men, according to historical studies that extend beyond just our snapshot in time. On an unrelated note, my highschool biology teacher (male) mentioned a research study whose results showed men preferred women of a certain hip size that was not the right size for childbirth - he used it as an example of how Darwin sometimes doesn't always get it right during snapshots in time. Regards, Amy J