Dark skin consumes more energy, fair skin evolved to save energy for other organs (?)

Tomenable

Elite member
Messages
5,419
Reaction score
1,336
Points
113
Location
Poland
Ethnic group
Polish
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b-L617
mtDNA haplogroup
W6a
An interesting new theory:

Dark skin provides better protection against things such as microbes, sun, or water loss, but consumes more energy - energy that could otherwise be used for development of other organs (such as for example brain, perhaps?):

http://phys.org/news/2016-06-paper-current-gain-loss-heavy.html
 
I think fairness amongst modern Eurasians has been arrived at mostly through sexual selection, honestly.
 
Why do people so often assume that their own sexual preferences are universal?
 
Why do people so often assume that their own sexual preferences are universal?

Or preferences in general. I liked the ewoks in episode 6....smart little guys. They took down big towering walkers using nothing but ropes and logs...

Seriously though, we need evidence to confirm white skin was a common sexual preference.
 
Why do people so often assume that their own sexual preferences are universal?

Why do you assume this is the case? I neither proffered my own preference nor suggested anything "universal." That aside, it's hardly a novel idea.
 
Why do you assume this is the case? I neither proffered my own preference nor suggested anything "universal." That aside, it's hardly a novel idea.

I was just musing and asking a question, Athiudisc. It wasn't an accusation of any kind. I obviously wasn't clear enough.

I just think "sexual selection" is a theory some researchers throw out when they don't really know the cause for a change of phenotype. These researchers also rarely define what they mean by it, and yes, I think there's a certain assumption that attractiveness is not relative, but rather that "European style fairness" has some sort of absolute worth. It's ironic in a time where people pride themselves on not believing in absolutes.

As I've said before, I do think certain characteristics are rather hard-wired to be considered attractive because they signal health in both partners, perhaps strength in men, and fertility in women. So, thick, shiny hair, clear skin, lustrous eyes, a certain body type, a certain regularity of feature will be considered sexually attractive.

It doesn't seem to me that a certain hair and eye color and skin color are in that category. "Ethnic" groups tend, I think, to prize their own coloring. There are a lot of "fables" that show that like the Native American stories about how they were left in the oven the exact right amount of time, or from writings from the Greeks, for example, where they congratulate themselves that they're not as dark as the Ethiopians or as "fair" as the Scythians.

That does change if an elite group with a different phenotype takes control of an area, imo. Humans being humans, that "elite" phenotype will very shortly become the preferred, more sexually attractive one. So, I would indeed think that males with the power to choose based on appearance might favor women with this "elite" phenotype. Men being men, however, they obviously spread their favors more widely, or that phenotype wouldn't spread downwards to the lower orders. Perhaps if the society was very patriarchal there weren't enough women with the right phenotypes for males who had more than one mate . Women never had any ability to choose on any basis, far less this one.

I guess you could say that within these parameters "sexual selection" may indeed have had some effect, although hardly to the degree that it used to be proposed. The other factors, such as latitude, diet, and migration have more effect, I think, but that's just my speculation.

There's an interesting work of fiction by John Hersey called "White Lotus" which explores this idea in the context of a Chinese take over of the west. There's soon a large plastic surgery industry to give women "Asian" eyes and flatter noses.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1495461.White_Lotus
 
Why do you assume this is the case? I neither proffered my own preference nor suggested anything "universal." That aside, it's hardly a novel idea.
I'm with Angela on this one. It is easier to assume that sexual preference fallows natural selection. Other words, whatever is healthier, more energy efficient, fitting environment better, survives easier than others will become sexually attractive, for the people of this tribe/race. It might be not be well defined at the moment in Europe, because we are a mixture of 3 major populations (farmers/HGs) which could have had different sexual preferences. Now different sexual preferences wanders around in population like our phenotypes. On top of it this genetic memory of sexual selection is often muffled by learned preferences, which follow fashion in society.
 
Lol

Yes, this is true. When I get a tan I feel lethargic and slow. I'm also irritable and more prone to violent outbursts.
 
Lol

Yes, this is true. When I get a tan I feel lethargic and slow. I'm also irritable and more prone to violent outbursts.

seems like you never saw an angry red head :grin:
 
Statistics from various dating websites usually show the opposite - women of every race more often respond to White men than to Black men. So I don't think that the article cited by Maleth is accurate. It is probably just part of the same anti-white agenda as the recent "Mix yourself, protect yourself" AIDES campaign, which tries to encourage Swedish women to date "German" men:

AIDES%20degeneracy%201.jpg
 
Statistics from various dating websites usually show the opposite - women of every race more often respond to White men than to Black men. So I don't think that the article cited by Maleth is accurate. It is probably just part of the same anti-white agenda as the recent "Mix yourself, protect yourself" AIDES campaign, which tries to encourage Swedish women to date "German" men:
To be pro black or pro any colour doesn't need to be anti white, right? Liking white or black doesn't need to be mutually exclusive feeling, never mind invoking dislike or fear.


I'm not sure why authors of this study have difficulty admitting that white skin was a product of both functions, better vitamin D production and energy saving? More beneficial functions the strongest the selection. All good.
 
Statistics from various dating websites usually show the opposite - women of every race more often respond to White men than to Black men. So I don't think that the article cited by Maleth is accurate. It is probably just part of the same anti-white agenda as the recent "Mix yourself, protect yourself" AIDES campaign, which tries to encourage Swedish women to date "German" men:

AIDES%20degeneracy%201.jpg

That is because most black men are poor, plus most scammers are from Nigeria or other African countries pretending to be white.
 
Statistics from various dating websites usually show the opposite - women of every race more often respond to White men than to Black men. So I don't think that the article cited by Maleth is accurate. It is probably just part of the same anti-white agenda as the recent "Mix yourself, protect yourself" AIDES campaign, which tries to encourage Swedish women to date "German" men:

AIDES%20degeneracy%201.jpg

Internet dating sites are hardly a scientific sample. Plus, there are all sorts of societal reasons for women preferring not to date black men.

Also, you clearly didn't read the article, Tomenable. It had nothing to do with Africans. It was all in a European context. "Tall, dark, and handsome" in that context means this:

06-gregory-peck-theredlist.jpg


gregorypeckcolor.jpeg


The above picture of Gregory Peck is aptly titled "American Dream".

The article was not about these men although they too are "tall, dark, and handsome".

39712-denzel-washington-1990-f7cfe.jpg


shemar-moore-handsome.jpg


Anyone who thinks Shemar Moore isn't handsome needs to have his or her head examined, imo! :)

As for him, I don't know if he's tall but it certainly wouldn't matter to me...he's gorgeous in my book:

0556433250e6bfcbd7d6a233dce8b736.jpg
 
Statistics from various dating websites usually show the opposite - women of every race more often respond to White men than to Black men. So I don't think that the article cited by Maleth is accurate. It is probably just part of the same anti-white agenda as the recent "Mix yourself, protect yourself" AIDES campaign, which tries to encourage Swedish women to date "German" men:

tall dark and handsome is something you hear very much in this case the UK. Not everything in this world has to be seen in the eyes of propaganda (!) some people are just natural. I have noticed time and time again in my experience men attracted to blond and pale women and women attracted to dark men. Its more then just an isolated experience. Probably the opposite is true as well. Dark women prefer fairer looking guys. Not always the case but a common occurrence.

Once we also had an interesting thread of ancient depictions of often Men are portrait as dark and women pale. and anyway Dark does not mean black skin but maybe tanned or swarthy with black hair and brown eyes. (as i found that Angela just said :) )
 
While its possible paler skin was a common preference, it could also be that people had better access to vitamin d rich foods so darker skin wasn't necessary and was eliminated thus saving energy that would've been wasted. That energy was then used to provide for the family and the individual.
Now the caveat in this case is that the energy may have instead gone towards vitamin d digestion instead, so there's not much of a gain in that aspect.
 
thankfully, very few people are "perfect", and there's usually someone for everyone.

I believe that too. Even in extreme circumstances. Its amazing actually
 

This thread has been viewed 39239 times.

Back
Top