Why the butt? (1 Viewer)

[EugeneR]

This rather scotches the belief that there is an inherent biological drive to find certain features attractive (if this were so then every culture would have the same list)

Also not quite true. It has been found that while there is some difference between cultures as to what is considered beautiful, the same people, of different races and creeds, are judged as beautiful by people from a variety of cultures. There is a common denominator for what is considered beautiful--for example, the more symmetrical the left and right sides of the face, the more beautiful a person is considered to be. There is a "perfect ratio" (I forgot what it was) of eyes to nose to mouth that is considered beautiful the world over. Even more surprisingly, recognizing a beautiful face appeart be at least to some extent innate--infants a few days old prefer looking at pictures of beautiful people (an infant's "preference" is measured by the relative length of time an infant looks at something).

A lot of what we consider beautiful translates to "healthy and able to make lots of babies (female)/strong and able to protect and provide for the family (male)" on a biological level. That doesn't change all that much across cultures.

 

[Max Leung]

I'm afraid all talk about buttocks being sexually attractive is rather ethnocentric. They are considered a point of especial attraction in some cultures but not others.

You mean to say that the emphasis on particular body parts is different between cultures, right?

The latest evidence suggests that there are universal indicators of physical attractiveness. Emphasis on perfect skin complexion seems to be a culturally universal indication of beauty (tattoos on nice skin is very appealing to the eye too). There is also strong evidence that hip-to-waist ratio is another universal indicator. Witness the popularity of the classical paintings of slightly overweight-but-curvaceous women found in museums of Western art. The hips on these women are always of greater circumference than their waists. The Victorian-era corsets are a perfect example of this. And consider the artwork of ancient Egypt, Sumeria, India, China, etc. Healthy eyes are also considered very attractive. Reumy, bloodshot eyes full of gunk is just not attractive in any culture I know of!

Ethnocentric standards of beauty are merely a difference of emphasis on the different body parts, and often arise because of a restriction imposed by a warlord, religious group, or pure environmental factors. A population with a high parasitic load would clearly have different standards of beauty than a population who does not -- this would go a long way to explain why highly technological societies would emphasize very specific beauty traits such as anorexic supermodels (as a sidenote, Kate Moss has a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio), while those that are barely surviving may find people with healthy eyes the pinnacle of beauty (Afghanistan, anyone?).

At any rate, it should be pretty clear that there is a boundary to cultural interpretations of beauty. It is not completely arbitrary, despite its flexibility.

 

[Max Leung]

Hey Eugene, you started this thread, and there you go answering your own question.

 

[andrew markworthy]

In reply to the last couple of posts - it depends which authors you read (and believe). However, it is a matter of report that different cultures have different 'prime areas' of attractiveness, which does cut out a strong 'biological constant'.

Furthermore, even if you can demonstrate that people in different cultures have similar tastes, this does not indicate a biological drive, since simple pragmatics mean that similar tastes will develop in different cultures. For example, there is no culture in which a seriously handicapped person would be taken as a paragon of beauty. Finding that different groups like unblemished skin, for example, can be merely an effect of learning that clear skin indicates health. In other words, you do not have to invoke a strong genetic determinist argument.

 

[Max Leung]

The fact that people are attracted to other healthy people would indicate a clear biological drive! The mechanism to determine how healthy a person is not determinist in the way you imply, but the underlying urge for a healthy mate would be.
The more complex the organism, the more variance you will see in mate selection behavior.
There is very strong evidence that healthier animals (those with low parasitic load) have more success in the mating game because their displays of sexual fitness are very obvious to the opposite sex. There is a direct correlation between the length of plumage of a peacock and its success with the peahens, for example. And those peacocks with the healthiest and longest plumage are those that have the least parasites!
Ditto for virtually all bird species...the color and extravagence of a male bird's plumage is a definite chick-magnet!
Mice, instead of having colorful fur or big breasts or large pecs, use their noses to sniff out the most attractive mate.
The more complex animals, such as humans, obviously don't just use physical beauty as a criteria. Sure, they may do so for one-night stands, but when it comes to the potential of raising a family, different criteria is used: Is she/he a spendthrift? Will he/she cheat on me? Can he/she help provide for the (potential) family? Does s/he have a mental illness?
(More ominously, the female human can play it both ways: Have an affair with a physically attractive male specimen, conceive a child, and have her rich smart "sugar-daddy" husband raise the kid! Ditto for the two-timing giggolo...)
A mind that is quick of wit and full of humor would arguably demonstrate that the person is healthy and vigorous...a potential desirable mate! Just look at Stephen Hawking. Despite his condition, he has had at least two wives. What attributes do you think they found attractive in him? His body? Or his mind? (And not to mention the royalties from his book sales! ) His physical condition wasn't a factor to these women because of the wonders of modern medicine and technology. Women are pretty damn smart, while us neanderthal men are drooling over the latest issue of Maxim. *drool sputter*
Keep in mind that I am not posing any kind of "strong genetic determinist argument". Genes are influenced by the environment, and in turn the environment can be influenced by a species' genes. It's an extraordinarily complex feedback loop. Determinism doesn't stand a chance!

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Kate Moss' hips are smaller than her waist? Yuck...

Tattoos on perfect skin? Yuck....

 

[chung_sotheby]

As for the original question of "why the Butt?" I have only two words:
Salma Hayek

 

[Max Leung]

Kate Moss' hips are smaller than her waist? Yuck...

Whoops, my post was supposed to say "0.7 waist-to-hip ratio" (waist smaller than hip). Edited accordingly...

 

[Aaron Silverman]

And here I always thought that the butt evolved for use as a Home Theater accessory!!! (Mine did, anyway. Who wants to stand for 2 hours???)

 

[Max Leung]

The butt is a multi-functional device. Kinda like an amplifier/receiver combo!

So, if "buttocks" refers to the cheeky pair, and "buttock" refers to one member of that pair, then why do people say "Hey nice butt" instead of "Hey nice butts"?

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Max Leung wrote:

It's an example of what's called a plurale tantum, that is, a plural form used for something that's really taken by speakers as a unit, as is evidenced here by the singularity of the short form. In any event, nouns in the "thing class" can, under certain circumstances, be taken as singular, even when formally plural, in modern English.

 

[Max Leung]

Is that similar to "pants"? I gotta put on some pants, versus putting on a pant.

 

[chung_sotheby]

Kind of like moose. Or, if you want to sound edumacated, like me, you can make moose plural as meese.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Max Leung wrote:

Quote:

More interesting in that regard is meeces, as in "I hates you meeces to pieces", a quite clever analogy for its creators.
[$64,000 trivia-question: Who says this?]

 

[Brad Porter]

Mr. Jinks the cat.
Private message me for where to send the $64,000.
Brad

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Brad Porter wrote:

Sorry, can't confirm. That's not where I heard it.

 

[Danny Tse]

This kind of reminded me of an episode of Magnum PI when Magnum and Higgins were arguing about the plural form of mongoose: mongooses vs. mongeese.

By the way, the plural form of mongoose is mongooses.

 

[LaMarcus]

I think that when it comes to being attracted to a women's butt changes among race and culture. I think it's become apparent that black men (generally speaking) like big butts. White men on the other hand (generally speaking) don't like big butts. I could see a girl with a nice big butt and think it looks really good, but my white friend would say yuck, it's too big.

I HAVE to have a woman with a nice round butt, it doesn't have to be huge, but it has to not look like some one hit it with a paddle and it stayed pressed in. Now there is a difference between a fat butt and a big butt. I want the ladder.

 

[Max Leung]

I must be very picky about women's butts. Not too big, not too small, just "perfect". Actually, I'm more attuned to shapely butts, particularly the heart-shaped kind. Playboy playmate butts are nice, although I do prefer them to be a teensy weensy bit bigger. Personally, I think Beyonce Knowles' butt is close to ideal, but on the other cheek er um hand, I've seen plenty of mall babes that have even nicer assets.

Rex, you should write a book on the entymology of butts. I'd suggest a partnership with Playboy Enterprises, as I'm sure they'd have the know-how to market it properly!

 

[Kevin M]

White men on the other hand (generally speaking) don't like big butts.

"Generally speaking" or not, that is pretty presumptuous of you.