tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post113100276921789900..comments2024-03-01T16:32:41.076+08:00Comments on Sun Bin: Pretty girls are more fertile!Sun Binhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08093210384069958083noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1131036866286948902005-11-04T01:54:00.000+09:002005-11-04T01:54:00.000+09:00Move :)Yes, movable features attract more attentio...Move :)<BR/><BR/>Yes, movable features attract more attention, and contain more "effective signals".Sun Binhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08093210384069958083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1131036788674687932005-11-04T01:53:00.000+09:002005-11-04T01:53:00.000+09:00:) This is very preliminary research results.They ...:) This is very preliminary research results.<BR/><BR/>They have only listing the more common feature, big eye, small jaws (I think Chinese prefer small lips), I guess maybe symmetric features as well.<BR/><BR/>I think healthiness (symmetry and reasonable fat) as well, as a separate criteria.<BR/><BR/>Breast should also be related to ostroegen and health good hormone level.<BR/><BR/>I think the key point is, there is a rationale in evolution terms.<BR/>Because those who are not selected to mate have already lost in the evolution race.<BR/><BR/>Today, we choose slim over fat mates, because slim people live longer than fat ones. So our criteria also shift according to evolution needs.Sun Binhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08093210384069958083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1131024665780984852005-11-03T22:31:00.000+09:002005-11-03T22:31:00.000+09:00Breasts don't move? ;)I don't think the definitio...Breasts don't move? ;)<BR/><BR/>I don't think the definition of beauty is as universal as people think, though. In 16th century Europe, fat women were considered beautiful, since only the rich could get fat, generally speaking. Beauty is definitely tied to culture, although there are some common themes across cultures.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com