>>14227302Hell no, for most of human history only the healthiest and most robust women have been those who could bring multiple children to full term in spite of poverty. Traditionally the features we consider 'attractive' have been correlated to health.
>>14227318What this anon is referring to is directly related to the obesity epidemic, infant mortality is higher than ever. Children from the lower classes can make it to adulthood because even if they are poor they will still receive enough calories not to die of starvation or be infertile. Poor people in western countries tend to be overweight because food is so cheap it is the only luxury/indulgence they can afford. In our modern culture, overweight is not seen as attractive. Not only that but advances in medicine multiplies these effects. There is also a presumption (although it's very rare in actual fact) that attractive people from lower social classes "marry up".
So you have a situation where the poor are over-represented in the fertility rate, where marginally less healthy (i.e. less attractive) people are able to have more children reach adulthood because of improved access to food, water, and medicine.
