Men who impregnated women we consider attractive left more surviving offspring than men who impregnated women we consider unattractive.
Did you read any of it?
Here is some info about age and miscarriage rates.
We’re not talking about age.
Otherwise, yes, I read it. I think it’s a miss as far as your statement goes.
How do attractive women “get pregnant easier” for instance.
Keep searching though.
The whole “gets pregnant easier” angle doesn’t make much sense; it’s much easier to just have sex with all women and see which get pregnant than to guess based on characteristics that may or may not be related to fertility to some degree.
However, it’s fairly important for men to want to have sex with human females roughly of fertile age for the species to continue to exist. As such, it makes sense that they’ll find attractive the attributes that set fertile age human women apart from non-fertile age human women and human women from human men and humans from non-humans. And the more pronounced these attributes are, the more attractive the person becomes.
Having sex with all the women tends to be fairly tricky for most of us. Focusing on one tends to have better results, especially if you want to be certain the kids you help raise are yours.
Attractiveness can be achieved by plastic surgery, but you can’t change the underlying ugly gene. This woman got sued for making herself attractive and then having ugly children (in her husbands eyes). The husband sued her and won because she basically misrepresented herself. Strange but true.
But not true. I’d heard about this about a year ago and never followed up. My bad.
They *are *in large part cultural. Skin tone for example has fuck all to do with good health. Blondes with blue eyes don’t have more children. Stick-thin figures, same (and the opposite used to be true : people *liked *them some rotund). Etc…
[QUOTE=Arrogance Ex Machina]
Having sex with all the women tends to be fairly tricky for most of us.
[/QUOTE]
Username/post combo failure :p.
Symmetry is a sign of general good health, especially during development. Health is not a guarantee of good genes, nor is the opposite - bad health does not indicate bad genes - but it’s as good a marker as we can guess from a superficial look.
But it does in some ways. A person with constant infections, with pock-marked skin from acne scars, etc. - hat is an indicator of poorer resistance to disease, than a healthy, glowing smooth skin. Plus, skin tone deteriorates with age.
Basically, women are looking for good providers, and good social status. Men are looking for good breeding stock. Young is attractive to men, wallets are attractive to women. Money may not be a good indicator of social stature, but like symmetry or health, it’s one of the quickest to evaluate. Younger women have more years of childbearing ahead of them than older women.
(Quick Quiz - how many rich men married women half their age? How many men can you think of (besides Ashton Kutchner) who married women twice their age?)
Yes, tastes change over time; for example, a well-rounded figure used to be an indicator of success in the days when food was scarce and expensive; today, for either sex, it possibly indicates a lack of self-control, a personality flaw in an age of over-supply. The story goes that Marilyn Monroe was a size 12, nowhere near today’s ideal anorexic size 2.
Similarly, women looking for social standing for their choice of mate - in some situations, it’s just the need for someone that stands out from the crowd. As one article on this topic once pointed out - when the choice is a bunch of high school kids, the one with his own car (used to be a big deal) or motorcycle stands out. When the choices are a bunch of boring accountants, the mechanic with the prominent tattoo stands out. And so on…
Plus, like anything else psychological, the human mind is very flexible and unconscious and conscious thoughts can affect choices. Nothing in human behaviour is 100% guaranteed.
It works well enough for many other animals.
My point is that it makes no sense for attractiveness to be purely explained by fertility.
Also, since we humans do tend to pair up for sizeable chunks of time, it makes sense to do so with someone you can actually stand to be around. Although not everyone seems to subscribe to that notion.
I have wondered this myself. Since a man can physically have sex with several women in rapid succession, why do women compete with each other to be the most attractive. I’m sort of imagining a stone age tribe where there are 10 women and only 6 or so men because the other men were killed doing risky things. All 10 women would presumably be getting plenty, even the uglier ones.
This may have something to do with why women synchronize their menstrual cycles with each other. This means that if several women are sharing one alpha male, that man can only impregnate a couple of them each month.
That’s not much of a limit, though - presumably the alpha male would not have sex with the women once they pregnant enough to show.
I don’t know how much the attractive = genetically fit theory holds weight. You have men attracted to grossly obese women, men attracted to women with missing limbs, men attracted to prepubescent women and men attracted to other men.
That such attractions have not been bred out of the gene pool indicates there’s something far more complicated with attraction going on than just maximizing reproductive fitness.
Let’s start with the fact that most female secondary sex characteristics are defined primarily through body fat - thighs, hips, buttocks and breasts especially. (The hips are also wider thanks to the bones, which is also a plus for successful child-bearing). A person with a healthy amount of body fat reserves is more likely to do everything you mention. In fact, at a certain point of malnourishment, a women stops ovulating altogether, and a higher body weight promotes both an earlier menstruation and a later menopause (on average).
Now, certain cultures have placed different values on the exact level of fat that’s desirable. Even with that wide variation, you actually see more agreement than disagreement. +/- 50 lbs is about the leeway you see through cultural preferences. You’re going to be hard pressed to find an entire culture that prefers women at 80 lbs or at 300 lbs. The disagreement will be more like whether the “average man” prefers his partner to weigh 120 or 170.
My understanding is women compete for the best men. The best men have the best genetics, the best capital resources (financial, political, social) that can be devoted to the young, and are the most likely to stick around and help take care of the kids.
I’ve heard that there are several mating theories among women. Not sure if they are based on animal models or what. But one mating theory is to breed with several guys at once over a short period, that way if you get pregnant no guy can be sure if he is the father so they all devote time/resources to helping the young.
Another is women marry the beta male with stable resources but get impregnated by the alpha male. I saw this a lot with women I knew in high school.
But we’re in competition with one another for who gets to “have sex with all the women”. In modern society this becomes (hopefully) the choice of the female but – in animal terms – if each time you want to mate you have to lock antlers with all the other bucks for the chance, then you need to be choosier about how often you’re mating.
‘Cause we want a pretty face to look at while we’re spankin’ a phat azz and lickin’ a nice pair o’ tits.
Musical ability is demonstrable intelligence that men can’t fake (at least in the ancient world), similar to language use like story telling, joke telling, etc. Intelligence itself being a sexually selected ornament is possible.
One can try to write off sexual selection as some arbitrary thing, like one day peahens just collectively decided that guys with big tails were hot, or birds love singing to each other because whatever, but plenty end up being more or less explained.
Women don’t spread much seed. If one woman has sex with 100 men she gets pregnant once. If one man has sex with 100 women there can be 100 pregnancies. Moulay Ismail, a king of Morroco, fathered over 800 children.
Because those women are attractive? I don’t know, why are people more willing to eat food that tastes good rather than tastes bland?
Of course attractive and delicious are depending on individual tastes.
Or we think, there are women who are hot as hell who can’t pregnant and women who are “average” who can crank out babies. And there are hot men who can’t get it up, and “ugly” men who are very virile.