Attractive fathers do not pass their looks on to sons

[Insert witty user name here]

Psychologists have found that while both parents influence the attractiveness of their daughters, male attractiveness is not inherited.

Handsome men with masculine looks are likely to pass on masculine features, but not facial attractiveness.

Prof David Perrett and Prof Elisabeth Cornwell, of the University of St Andrews, also said that a mother's beauty made no difference to the attractiveness of her sons as adults.

The theory suggests it is not unusual for attractive parents to produce a beautiful daughter while failing to pass on the same good looks to a son.

While many celebrity mothers produce stunning daughters - such as Goldie Hawn and her daughter Kate Hudson or Jerry Hall and her daughter Georgia - the same is not necessarily true of celebrity fathers.

Sean Stewart, the son of Rod Stewart and his first wife Alana, would probably be judged less attractive than his model sister Kimberly.

Prof Perrett said it has previously been suggested that a woman could increase her own reproductive success by choosing a "sexy" mate whose genes would be passed on to male offspring, making them irresistible to the next generation.

But the new study, published in the current edition of the journal Animal Behaviour, contradicts the theory.

He said: "We checked to see if male and female facial traits are inherited. For the male line, we find that facial masculinity conforms to the rule 'like father - like son'. Masculine dads have masculine sons.

"But we did not find any evidence that facial attractiveness is passed from father to son.

"We are perplexed as to why we did not find any evidence for the inheritance of attractiveness in males, through either the female or male parent.

"The answer may be because women vary considerably in the extent to which they find masculinity attractive.

"We know that attractive feminine women show a strong preference for masculine male faces for long-term partners."

The researchers studied the family photo albums of students, collecting images of over 100 females and 100 males and their respective biological parents taken over several years.

The photos of each student, father and mother were rated separately for attractiveness, and for femininity/masculinity.

They found evidence that attractiveness passed from both father and mother to daughter, and also that attractive fathers were more likely to produce attractive, feminine daughters, whether the mother was attractive or not.

Earlier research in America found that attractive parents were 26 per cent more likely to have a daughter than a son as their first child - a statistic apparently borne out by Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's first child.

In that study the researches concluded that "beautiful parents have more daughters than ugly parents".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3279653/Attractive-fathers-do-not-pass-their-looks-on-to-sons.html

[Crowley]

Sean Stewart, the son of Rod Stewart and his first wife Alana, would probably be judged less attractive than his model sister Kimberly.

Sounds like son Sean is taking after father Rod.

[Ahknaton]

Handsome men with masculine looks are likely to pass on masculine features, but not facial attractiveness.

Prof David Perrett and Prof Elisabeth Cornwell, of the University of St Andrews, also said that a mother's beauty made no difference to the attractiveness of her sons as adults.
So, if not from the father and not from the mother, where does male attractiveness come from?

My guess is that aside from "masculine features" which can be objectively measured (and according to the study, attract women), male attractiveness doesn't exist, and just a kind of hallucination that women perceive in the appearance of high-status males.
The answer may be because women vary considerably in the extent to which they find masculinity attractive.

"We know that attractive feminine women show a strong preference for masculine male faces for long-term partners."

[Susan]

I really hope my tax money isn't being spent to fund this bullshit.

[Insert witty user name here]

I really hope my tax money isn't being spent to fund this bullshit.

Are you a British citizen? If not then the answer is no.

To learn about ourselves is not bullshit. I know ranting about Jews and Negroes a million times without saying anything new is more productive, but allow the rest of us interested in simpler things be amused with learning more about humanity. We proles need something to do with our time.

[Susan]

While I may have missed the fact that this research was done in England, apparently, earlier research was done in America, so my tax money probably was used to fund this bullshit.

No one is saying they are against research that really benefits humankind in some meaningful, substantial way Master Witty. What I do object to, ad nauseum, is tax money used for research that doesn't really benefit humankind in a significant way or have any serious meaningful implications that amount to more than a hill of beans for people with too much time on their hands wondering how to spend other people's money.

[Jett]

"We know that attractive feminine women show a strong preference for masculine male faces for long-term partners."


Is it any wonder we have so many bland or manly looking females today?

I never understood why a female would want to breed with a hyper-masculine gruff male, her daughters would be inheriting some of those traits.

Then again, females are only concerned with the attractiveness of the male sex, so when you let females choose their mates you end up with society of masculinized individuals of both sexes.

[Insert witty user name here]

While I may have missed the fact that this research was done in England. Apparently, earlier research was done in America, so my tax money probably was used to fund this bullshit.

It's two studies with different aims.

Lets recap:

The British one is about:

Handsome men with masculine looks are likely to pass on masculine features, but not facial attractiveness.

The American study is about:

Earlier research in America found that attractive parents were 26 per cent more likely to have a daughter than a son as their first child

I fail to see how the American study is a waste of money, but that's because I'm a curious fellow. I, unlike some, attempt to understand, to the best of my ability, every aspect of mankind. Who knows what this bit of information may lead to down the road.


No one is saying they are against research that really benefits humankind in some meaningful, substantial way Master Witty.

What you're saying is because you're ignorant of a subject you therefore don't deem it important.


What I do object to, ad nauseum, is tax money used for research that doesn't really benefit humankind in a significant way or have any serious meaningful implications that amount to more than a hill of beans for people with too much time on their hands wondering how to spend other people's money.

This study could tell us much about sexual selection, which some respected figures believe to be important. That being said, I'm not a big fan of taxes and prefer private funding, but I doubt you'd spend your money on anything useful outside the expected: clothing, food, shelter, transportation, and Black on White porn. You certainly don't come across as well read and so books that have merit are out of the question.

Now go talk about kikes and niggers. We all have a role to play.

[Susan]

Ooooooh, I'll bet the ladies find you so charming Master Witty. You obviously find yourself very entertaining. Too bad it's mostly lost on me. But, then, I'm a grown up woman who doesn't suffer smarmy young boys too well.

Now, run along and play in traffic.

[Insert witty user name here]

Ooooooh, I'll bet the ladies find you so charming Master Witty.

Yes.

If you were a lady you'd see my charming side.


You obviously find yourself very entertaining.

No, I find myself boring. It's others that entertain me. You're cheaper than a movie ticket.

Too bad it's mostly lost on me.

That's because you're the butt of the jokes. If you were young and attractive it would be a different situation. Well, perhaps not. You'd still be annoying. I wouldn't be able to accept that for too long.


But, then, I'm a grown up woman who doesn't suffer smarmy young boys too well.

Oh, I should be afraid. Some old wombat is going to put me in my place. I'll bet on myself since you've made attempts before and failed miserably.

Now, run along and play in traffic.

That's it? That's putting me in my place? I was right to bet on myself.

Not long ago you stated you would avoid my threads. We see you can't keep your word. I'd tell you to run in traffic but the real punishment for you is living.

Now, get the hell out my thread and don't come back.

[Insert witty user name here]

So, if not from the father and not from the mother, where does male attractiveness come from?

My guess is that aside from "masculine features" which can be objectively measured (and according to the study, attract women), male attractiveness doesn't exist, and just a kind of hallucination that women perceive in the appearance of high-status males.

But what about homosexuals? I doubt status plays an important role in whether they find another male attractive.

[Crowley]

Of course male attractiveness exists. I would say Mel Gibson is classically attractive. Same with the late Christopher Reeve. There are thousands of examples from Hollywood alone. Regular features, tall, muscular.

[Jake Featherston]

Sounds like son Sean is taking after father Rod.

Yeah, really. I mean, just how good-looking did we expect Rod Stewart's son to be?

[Jake Featherston]

My guess is that aside from "masculine features" which can be objectively measured (and according to the study, attract women), male attractiveness doesn't exist, and just a kind of hallucination that women perceive in the appearance of high-status males.

We may have to call this "the Rod Stewart Rule."

[Jake Featherston]

I really hope my tax money isn't being spent to fund this bullshit.

Yeah, we wouldn't want our tax dollars being used to expand the boundaries of science. Not that this study strikes me as very important either, but I doubt very many individual studies seem important at the time they are conducted. I'd say that for humanity to understand how humanity works, is not the worst investment of funds.

[Thomas777]

My guess is that aside from "masculine features" which can be objectively measured (and according to the study, attract women), male attractiveness doesn't exist, and just a kind of hallucination that women perceive in the appearance of high-status males.

Wouldn't the polestar for pleasing masculine aesthetics traditionally be considered the Classical ideal?

[Jake Featherston]

But what about homosexuals? I doubt status plays an important role in whether they find another male attractive.

Male homosexuality is an aberration, and I'm saying that within a context of moral & aesthetic neutrality. Male homosexuality is divorced from sexual reproduction, and thus seems largely irrelevant to any greater understanding of human mate selection rigors. Male homosexuality is simply the product of men with defective brains, after all.

[Thomas777]

But what about homosexuals? I doubt status plays an important role in whether they find another male attractive.

The measure of what constitutes a pleasing human form is independent of and above base sexual lust.

[Insert witty user name here]

Male homosexuality is an aberration, and I'm saying that within a context of moral & aesthetic neutrality. Male homosexuality is divorced from sexual reproduction, and thus seems largely irrelevant to any greater understanding of human mate selection rigors. Male homosexuality is simply the product of men with defective brains, after all.

Well, they may have an indirect effect.

Andrea Camperio-Ciani and colleagues argue genetic factors favouring homosexual male offspring could make women more fertile. "Our data resolve this paradox by showing that there might be, hitherto unsuspected, reproductive advantages associated with male homosexuality," they said.

They looked at 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall.

The female relatives on the mother's side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side.

This suggests that these women who, in theory, pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile.

In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother's and the father's side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002862.html?entry=2862


But it's inconclusive.

Anyway, this is going off track.

The measure of what constitutes a pleasing human form is independent of and above base sexual lust.

Well that's true. Awhile back that was under discussion between Helios and Mentious, I beleive, when someone posted a photo of a Nordid woman as an ideal some time back.

[Ace Rimmer]

From personal observations IRL I find the study to be quite precise.

[Gummo]

But what about homosexuals? I doubt status plays an important role in whether they find another male attractive.

I guess the longer and thicker the dick, the more attractive the person.
Note that we don't talk about normal people here.

[Susan]

Sure, why fuss about wasting meager funds on useless studies that don't really contribute to the improvement of humankind? I know I'm kept up at night wondering "now just WHAT is it that makes two attractive/unattractive people produce a child that looks unattractive/attractive?" I mean this is really one of those life altering issues that MUST be answered for the good of our RACE.:rolleyes:

And here I have always thought that whatever disappearing research money we will still have in the near future ought to go for treatment and/or cures for illnesses such as alzheimers, cancer, heart disease, or perhaps studies that give us insight into life destroying ubiquitous conditions such as personality disorders or schizophrenia or the like.

No, what we REALLY need to study is what makes people pretty or not pretty or handsome or not handsome. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Susan]

To Master Witty: And if YOU were a gentleman, this discussion could actually be conducted on an adult level. Alas...............

[Jake Featherston]

I guess the longer and thicker the dick, the more attractive the person.

I'm not really sure, but I think there may be a little more to it than that. I think some homosexual males are attracted to some men prior to knowing how large their penis is.

[Jake Featherston]

Sure, why fuss about wasting meager funds on useless studies that don't really contribute to the improvement of humankind? I know I'm kept up at night wondering "now just WHAT is it that makes two attractive/unattractive people produce a child that looks unattractive/attractive?" I mean this is really one of those life altering issues that MUST be answered for the good of our RACE.:rolleyes:

I doubt very much this study is being conducted for the narrow purpose of answering the question it seems to ask. You'd have to ask the professor(s) in charge of it, but I would suspect such people are after this data as part of some larger effort to understand human genetics, rather than because one day they woke up and were curious about this specific question per se. It may be an attempt to eliminate one theory about a larger issue, and thus get one step closer, via process of elimination, to the truth about a much larger aspect of human genetics than is directly addressed in this study. No offense, Susan, but your assumption that this study is just some harebrained thing they cooked up 'cause they were curious, and needed a research topic anyway, is extremely unsophisticated. This is how science works. I'm sure a lot of the stuff they did while they were working on the Manhattan Project seemed pretty pointless to anyone who heard about it as well.

No, what we REALLY need to study is what makes people pretty or not pretty or handsome or not handsome. Yeah, that's the ticket.

You're so right. There's no conceivable basis for the belief that Humanity might benefit from understanding everything we can about Humanity's DNA, and how traits are passed on from one generation to another. Oh yeah, that's all just useless crap. Especially if you're a racialist.

[Jett]

I know I'm kept up at night wondering "now just WHAT is it that makes two attractive/unattractive people produce a child that looks unattractive/attractive?" I mean this is really one of those life altering issues that MUST be answered for the good of our RACE.:rolleyes:



Actually, long ago I had spent nights up contemplating that.


No, what we REALLY need to study is what makes people pretty or not pretty or handsome or not handsome. Yeah, that's the ticket.

No, what we really need is some field research.

[Insert witty user name here]

Sure, why fuss about wasting meager funds on useless studies that don't really contribute to the improvement of humankind? I know I'm kept up at night wondering "now just WHAT is it that makes two attractive/unattractive people produce a child that looks unattractive/attractive?" I mean this is really one of those life altering issues that MUST be answered for the good of our RACE.:rolleyes:

So you don't find sexual selection interesting, or important. I didn't realize that until you repeated yourself again. However, as pointed out by myself and another poster, it's possible that this information will lead to something that even you will find valuable.


And here I have always thought that whatever disappearing research money we will still have in the near future ought to go for treatment and/or cures for illnesses such as alzheimers, cancer, heart disease, or perhaps studies that give us insight into life destroying ubiquitous conditions such as personality disorders or schizophrenia or the like.

All of those are heavily funded. Throwing only a bit of money, which no doubt the study I posted about cost in comparison, won't help cure an illness any quicker. Are you so daft to believe that this study, and the American study, and any other of the same type, amount to even 0.1% of the total spent on curing cancer, alzheimers, etc.?

No, what we REALLY need to study is what makes people pretty or not pretty or handsome or not handsome. Yeah, that's the ticket.

So far no one posting in this thread has agreed with you. Perhaps they view your posts in this thread here as being simplistic, as are most, if not all, of your posts at this forum. But how about posting your reservations a third time just to make sure?

03-11-2009 11:52 AM Susan Is that you in your avatar?

Yeah, that's me. Ain't I handsome?

To Master Witty: And if YOU were a gentleman, this discussion could actually be conducted on an adult level. Alas...............

You came into my thread saying the study is bullshit. That's all you said. You didn't start off wanting to discuss anything. If you had you would have explained why you thought it was bullshit in your initial post. So cut out the act because you're not smart enough to pull it off.