Go to any bar in any city at any given time and you’ll likely see the same pattern: hordes of Katherine Heigls making small talk with rows of Seth Rogans (pre-weight loss, of course). Perhaps this was why Knocked Up struck such a reverberating tone and enjoyed so much success—afterall, how many times (a day!) do we see attractive women giving schlubby (but lovable) men a shot?
Well, it looks like science (once again!) is behind this phenomenon. New research suggests that evolution is making women more attractive and leaving men as frumpy as they’ve always been.
While we’ve always assumed women are so much hotter now due to gym memberships, breast implants and gift certificates to Sephora, several studies suggest that stunning ladies are not only more likely to have more children, but also more likely to have daughters. Thus gifting the world with more good-looking women.
Markus Jokela, a researcher at the University of Helsink, followed 1, 244 women and 997 men throughout four decades and found that beautiful women had 16% more children than average-looking ones. Previous studies, by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, say pretty women are 26% less likely to have sons.
All you boys ever think about is sex.
In your dreams, guys.
Don’t be diss’n Rodney. If memory serves his last wife was young and milf-fee.
Transitioning our society to mimic that of the bee. QUeen and all her worker bees.
Being a evolution theorist has to be the best gig in science.
You get to basically make crap up and release it to the press who don’t know crap about science.
Duh, the good-looking men are gay.
Didn’t Tom Leykis build a whole career over this world view?
Chicks got sex.
Guy’s got money.
Everything beyond that is negotiation.
Leykis has a sad personal life but he’s still a guru to a certain crowd.
The pictured woman clearly didn’t get those boobs from evolution.
What percentage of the hot chicks got that way naturally. Not many over 25, I’d guess.
“And this, once again, barely qualifies as news” – Kent Brockman
I would say this barely qualifies as science, and that stuff you call …. evolution….
Come on! Evolution showing natural selection based on observation over 40 years!?? On rats and insect perhaps, but with HUMANS??? DAMN, would it be more of a nurture than a nature thing, I mean money whores raise their children to be money whores, nothing evolutionary with that.
Sell that to the muslims and their veiled wifes. I get it that it is summertime and a lot of beer is involved into any activity, but this is like the Sarah Palin of science… geesh where is the bullshit o meter when we need it
highaman,
I believe in evolution but these theorists who apply it to history or future trends strike me as the shysters of the science world.
Completely make up some goofball evolutionary hypothesis about women’s boobs and you get to go on TV and be treated as a legitimate scientist.
Human’s have been evolving for about half a million years so any evolutionary theory about why dumpy guys on TV get hot chicks lately simply has to be pure bull cr^p.
You also make a good point about Muslims — a huge percentage of the human race still has some form of arranged mating.
#10, right on highman.
According to the latest 2005 statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), released in 2007, there are 1,600,000,000 overweight adults (age 15 and over) in the world. That number is projected to grow by 40% over the next 10 years.
Fat is beautiful now?
Boobs == Page Views
Simple math, really.
Evolution? Ridiculous.
People look better because of increased health due to eating better, more frequently vaccination and trips to the doctor and better hygiene.
And yes, men look better too.
Go to any high school and look at the class pictures from every year from 1960s to present and the kids keep getting better and better looking.
Plus in the 1960s and 1970s, people wore very unattractive clothes and had bad hairstyles.
Evolution can’t do a thing in 40 years, that’s a little over 1 generation of change.
Seems like our ideal is frail and fragile looking. Not real consistent with strong survive.
#10 One of the things about Palin that should bother you is that she does seem to have a better brain than some of her critics you being a case in point.
The article does not suggest the species has been transformed. It suggests a process is on going that is transforming the race along certain lines at least in the population studied.
It should shock nobody that attractive women land rich husbands/attract males and can afford more children if they want them.
Every study ever done suggests that what males see as hot does translate into a female that has high fertility. They will get pregnant unless they take steps to prevent it. They may also crave babies. Some women certainly do and the bases should be genetic.
The really shocking number is the 26% fewer sons born to these women. That suggests that male zygotes are being shed, failing to implant, something.
I haven’t checked out this claim but I have read that the genes for attractive women and attractive men aren’t the same genes to some degree. Maybe if you pass on genes for hot boys you should have sons and if you pass on genes for hot daughters you should have daughters and selection is acting on it.
The kicker here is manly guys should marry ugly chicks in order to have manly sons. ?8^) That ought to leave room for the rest of us assuming we can get an manly guys to buy it.
We should all recognize the REAL import of this valudable study. “Looks” are on the outside and yes TOTALLY governed by evolution. But so is the INSIDE or intellectual emotional life/outlook of our species.
So what do we have?
Shallow money grubbing wymen selecting money grubbing men. Keep this up and in another million years, there will be no science and no religion too (Imagine!). Will this inbreeding damage the breed?
Stay tuned.
As long as hot chicks are attracted to bald, fat men who drive Porsches, then evolution will continue down it’s current path, resulting in hotter looking chicks, and fatter, balder men driving faster Porsches.
Women – 1* potential offspring in 9 months with 270 lovers.
Men – 270* potential offspring in 9 months with 270 lovers.
The cold hard fact is less men are needed than women for reproduction. Which is kinda sad for the women that like to cuddle.
* Withstanding Octomoms.
Look at it this way. We need fat/ugly chicks in the world because they make the attractive ones look all the more attractive. If every woman was hot then no one would stand out above the rest.
The study got it all wrong. Women aren’t getting better looking, people are finding it harder to call others ugly. Everyone is “special” or “beautiful” in some way.
A woman isn’t a fat ass, she is a BBW and so on..
No no no this article starts at the bar… It says” Go to any bar in any city at any given time and you’ll likely see the same pattern: hordes of Katherine Heigls making small talk with rows of Seth Rogans (pre-weight loss, of course).” It’s clear that he has his bear glass on.
Evolution? I think that’s kind of a stretch.
It sounds like it has more to do with the intelligently guided & purposeful process of sexual selection (which Darwin later championed, instead of his highly flawed & dubious process of natural selection).
Either way, it’s a bonus. (I chose that word carefully)
#22 jay
If he has his bear glass on he has lots of other problems.
😉
#19 GF
Large scale genetic studies have shown that women are far more successful at spreading their genes more widely and successfully through subsequent generations. Go figure.
Intelligent Design
Wouldn’t this be selective breeding not evolution?
Sometimes I wonder.
Cursor_
WHO CARES? Talk about off topic. It’s an observable fact there are more hot women than there used to be. Look at them and enjoy it. Who cares what the reason is as long as the trend continues?
hehehehehehehehe
Here Catherine, c’mon girl!