Re: Bi-racial people are more attractive
Greg Stevens (stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu)
Fri, 3 Feb 95 23:04:46 GMT
In <D3G0Mx.952@nntpa.cb.att.com> rrp@daxrrp.tbu.att.com (R R Patel) writes:
>In article <3gs1f5$pm2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Sima Desai <sd9236@ehibm5.cen.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>Background: This thread started when I made the comment that I beleive
>>bi-racial people are more attractive because various genetic forces
>>prefer out-breeding and accessing a wider genepool. For example,
>>mutts are healthier than purebreds.
>Stop. Take this crap back to soc.couples.intercultural. What a bunch
>of shit!
Well, Rakesh, your tone bespeaks of some strong emotions attached to this
issue.
But I'm not entirely sure I agree with the idea that it is a "bunch of
shit."
First of all, it would be interesting and not TOO hard to verify this
claim in terms of cultural norms. The first statistic that comes to
mind is that 80% of models photographed in 1994 were burnette. For
someone very gung-ho on defining "race" and "racial characteristics"
this could be an indicator of racial mixing. One could simply trace
back family histories of some supermodels and see if the trend over a
small sample set looked promising, to see whether it might warrent a
greater statistical investigation.
Second of all, this issue certainly is justified on sci.anthropology.
Anthropology deals with cultural constructs such as sultural beauty
norms, and how they vary across different cultures.
So I'm not sure what your objection is, really.
Greg Stevens
stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
|