On Jun 9, 3:16 pm, "THE BORG" homeworld.com> wrote:

Are you sure it is maybe not the women but the ad consultants and
media executives that put them on the stage. What if you as a male
have biases for noticing the beauty of women, I mean nueral structures
that make you want to idolize them for their looks.

Well maybe the evolutionary pimpologists can show you that all this is
a little bit more complex than your folk religion and my knee jerk
reaction;

Why then do people of both sexes consistently rate women as more
physically attractive? They do not need to be physically attractive to
have sex with men. They are obviously not competing over opportunities
for sexual intercourse. Instead, they are competing to marry desirable
husbands who can help them to raise children.

Men's bargaining position is based on social status and wealth. In
subsistence hunter-gatherer societies, such as the Siriono of Brazil,
a man's sexual attractiveness to women is based largely on his
reputation as a successful hunter. In modem societies, women are more
interested in a man's education and income level than his hunting
ability, but this concern represents the same underlying need to find
a mate who will be a good provider of food and other economic goods.
Even though modern women sometimes earn more than most men, their
evolved psychology has not changed.12 They are still attracted to
successful men. Some striking examples of this phenom- enon in modem
sexually liberated women are presented in chapter.

In early subsistence societies, as well as more recent ones, women
were constantly pregnant, breast-feeding, or caring for children or
all three. This would have interfered with their ability to work and
acquire surplus food or property. Today, the birth rate is much lower
due to the use of effective birth control techniques. Moreover,
children spend the day in daycare or with babysitters, which frees
their mothers for full-time occupations. Successful rearing of
children among our hunter-gatherer ancestors was a cooperative
enterprise in which men contributed to feeding, sheltering, carrying,
protecting, and caring for their offspring.

THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF AGING

Men's physical attractiveness to women declines with age, but the
decline is generally less steep than that of women to men. In what
might be called the second cardinal rule of dating, men want partners
who are a year or two younger than they are, while women, in general,
want to date older men. As men age, they want women who are
increasingly younger than they are. A man of forty, for example, is
likely to want a partner who is ten years younger. Why?

The most fundamental reason relates to limitation of women's ability
to conceive children with advancing years. Fertility reaches a high
point in the early twenties and stays on a plateau until the age of
thirty-five, after which it declines sharply. Natural selection would
have caused men to select fertile women as wives since those who were
attracted to women over fifty would have left no offspring to carry on
their unusual taste. However, men see women as more attractive at
twenty than at forty. This is right at the beginning of their most
fertile phase in the life span.

Men are thus most attracted to women who are at the beginning of their
reproductive career. If a man marries a woman of this age, then he has
the potential of giving her all of her children and thereby hitting
the reproductive jackpot. Natural selection has thus favored men who
are attracted to younger fertile women rather than older fertile
women. For this reason, the perception of youthfulness is critical to
the physical attractiveness of women. This helps explain the success
of the cosmetics industry, as women attempt to conceal signs of aging
and try to appear younger and more attractive.

Men reach the peak of their physical attractiveness to women in the
late teens or early twenties. However, as they grow older, they
acquire social status and wealth, which enhances the value of the
overall package as far as a marriage partner is concerned. Although
men deteriorate with age, their physical appearance is less critical
to their overall attractiveness. One important cue to feminine
youthfulness that plays an important role in women's physical
attractiveness is their bodily shape.

The Science of Romance - by Nigel Barber
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573929700/

THE GROUND RULES OP HUMAN COURTSHIP

Understanding courtship in other species illuminates differences
between the sexes and explains why there are conflicts of interest
between men and women in courtship and marriage. The conclusion that
women are sexier in appearance than men suggests that women are
competing among themselves for access to men. Yet this con- clusion
does not ring true in the real world. According to anthropologist Don
Symons, of the University of California at Santa Barbara, sexual
intercourse is everywhere a female favor granted to men. Any woman,
whatever her looks, can succeed in becoming pregnant.

Why then do people of both sexes consistently rate women as more
physically attractive? They do not need to be physically attractive to
have sex with men. They are obviously not competing over opportunities
for sexual intercourse. Instead, they are competing to marry desirable
husbands who can help them to raise children.

Men's bargaining position is based on social status and wealth. In
subsistence hunter-gatherer societies, such as the Siriono of Brazil,
a man's sexual attractiveness to women is based largely on his
reputation as a successful hunter. In modem societies, women are more
interested in a man's education and income level than his hunting
ability, but this concern represents the same underlying need to find
a mate who will be a good provider of food and other economic goods.
Even though modern women sometimes earn more than most men, their
evolved psychology has not changed.12 They are still attracted to
successful men. Some striking examples of this phenom- enon in modem
sexually liberated women are presented in chapter.

In early subsistence societies, as well as more recent ones, women
were constantly pregnant, breast-feeding, or caring for children or
all three. This would have interfered with their ability to work and
acquire surplus food or property. Today, the birth rate is much lower
due to the use of effective birth control techniques. Moreover,
children spend the day in daycare or with babysitters, which frees
their mothers for full-time occupations. Successful rearing of
children among our hunter-gatherer ancestors was a cooperative
enterprise in which men contributed to feeding, sheltering, carrying,
protecting, and caring for their offspring. The critical importance of
fathers for the survival of their children is demonstrated by the Ache
of Paraguay, who are more than twice as likely to die during childhood
if they lose their father (see chapter 4). Women, in general, have
evolved to compete for husbands with social status and wealth because
these are reliable cues to the ability to protect and care for
children.

Physically attractive women (as assessed from high school yearbook
photographs) are much more likely to marry. They also marry up the
social ladder, finding husbands that are wealthier than their parents;
the same, however, is not true of men. Physically attractive women
move up into wealthy elites through marriage, while physically
attractive men do not.

Peahens are very plain in appearance, suggesting that peacocks are not
drawn to the physical attractiveness of mates. The evolutionary logic
behind this male indifference is that peacocks invest so little in
their offspring they do not have to be selective in the choice of a
mate. Every female that they mate with will likely increase their
reproductive success.

The corresponding lower physical attractiveness of men compared to
women suggests that women are not as concerned about the physical
attractiveness of their mates.' Does physical appearance really not
matter to women in their selection of a spouse? Why not ask women what
they consider important in a potential husband? This straightforward
approach is fraught with unexpected problems. What if people have
limited insight into their own actions? What if they are telling white
lies to make themselves look good or to provide what they believe is
the "correct" answer to the question?

When asked, women and men agree that personality is all important.
They want a spouse who is kind and understanding, who is intelligent,
and has a sense of humor. Their actions belie their words. In a
classic study conducted at the University of Minnesota, Elaine Walster
and her colleagues organized a freshman dance. They told couples that
a computer program would match them on the basis of personality. In
reality, men and women were randomly paired up. The researchers were
interested in which personal characteristics would make people want to
have a second date with their dance partner. To their astonishment,
the researchers found that no personality measure predicted partner
desirability. The only predictor was physical attractiveness. Both men
and women wanted to be with the beautiful people! This shows an
astonishing split between people's stated motives and their actual
behavior. Either we are blind to the birdbrained mechanisms that
control interpersonal attraction or we are unwilling to admit to
them.

More recent research shows, however, that occupational status can
overwhelm the positive effects of physical attractiveness. If an
attractive man puts on a business suit and wears an expensive watch,
women find him far more desirable than the same man dressed in a
Burger King uniform. Men are far less picky about the occupational
status of women they are willing to date.

The discrepancy between what people say and what they do may have an
innocent explanation. It could be that admirers view attractive people
as having desirable personality traits. This phenomenon is known as a
halo effect. There are strong halo effects for physical
attractiveness. In other words, physical attractiveness creates a
favorable personality impression, and we imagine we like the person
for his or her personality. The positive first impression that
attractive people make on others means that they have an advantage in
getting to know people, which helps them to project a positive image
of their personality. Whatever else is said about the University of
Minnesota study, it finally dispels the myth that women do not care
about physical attractiveness in men. Appearance may not be as
important as social status but once the status hurdle has been
crossed, physical attractiveness may be the single most important
influence on women's dating choices.

To an evolutionist, saying that women are indifferent to the physical
attractiveness of their mate is equivalent to saying that they behave
as if the genetic quality of a man is unimportant. Such careless
choices could not have survived the ruthless forces of natural
selection. Women who paid more attention to the genetic quality of
their mates would have left more surviving descendants to inherit such
fastidiousness. Like peahens, they are turned on by the ornamentation
of their mates, even if this is not obvious on the surface.

The Science of Romance - by Nigel Barber
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573929700/