Let’s actually read this thing:
Physical attractiveness and its relation to the theory of sexual selection deserve renewed attention from cultural and biological anthropologists. This paper focuses on an anomaly associated with
physical attractiveness-in our species, in contrast to many others, males seem to be more concerned than females with the attractiveness of potential sexual partners, perhaps because humans show far more age-related variance in female than in male fecundity. The resulting selection for male attraction to markers
of female youth may lead incidentally to attraction to females displaying age-related cues in an exaggerated form.
sounds like a justification for pedophilia waiting to happen, men actually desire sexual maturity first
men also like averages better than mutants
This paper reports cross-cultural evidence that males in five populations (Brazilians, U.S. Americans, Russians, Ache, and Hiwi)
no Europe in this study, so worthless, two nations minimum are mongrelised
show an attraction to females with neotenous facial proportions (a combination of large eyes, small noses, and full lips) even after female age is controlled for. Two further studies show that female models have neotenous cephalofacial proportions relative to U.S.
Anorexia does that, called a bobblehead.
Undergraduates and that drawings of faces artificially transformed to make them more or less neotenous are perceived as correspondingly more or less attractive. These results suggest several further lines of investigation, including the relationship between facial and bodily cues
biology looks at WHR already
and the consequences of attraction to neoteny for morphological evolution.
Problem 1 America is not a country with a genetic history, they aren’t even homogeneous.
Problem 2 I had to correct numerous spelling errors in the abstract alone, so paper is trash.
Feminine face traits are already neotonous, Marquardt (pictured) measured this with computer models.
That’s the most feminine female face possible.
Who cares what Brazil thinks?
The theory of sexual selection has advanced so far in recent years that it may be time for renewed attention to the relationship between sexual selection and standards of physical attractiveness in our species.
SS is conducted by women in this species.
It hasn’t changed at all. These guys are intellectually dishonest.
Men don’t have standards. At least, it’s rarer.
In many animal species, male reproductive success is more dependent on mating success than is female reproductive success, so sexual selection commonly acts with greater intensity on males than on females (Trivers I97I, Williams I975, Clutton-Brock and Parker i992, Andersson I994). The result is that in many species, males more than females show a syndrome of traits associated with intense sexual selection.
true, women don’t have the urgency to reproduce that men do
men are selected by women though
This “sexual selection syndrome” includes behavioral traits: males are more likely than females to resort to violence against sexual rivals and to force copulations on resisting partners;
rape is only r-selected, poor quality men, high quality men compete and win
males cpmmonly expend more time and energy and take greater risks than females in courtship;
women don’t court, they are courted
these guys are hacks
males will generally court and attempt copulation with a wider range of partners then will females.
no, that’s r/K already
The sexual selection syndrome also includes life-history traits: males commonly take longer than females to attain sexual maturity
no, untrue in humans
because of the sexual competition that they face from mature males; males commonly have higher mortality rates than females as a result of intrasexual competition;
no, stupidity, the low IQ doing dangerous things
males commonly senesce more rapidly than females because higher mortality rates reduce the selection pressure for longevity.
yes men age faster
might be genetic, as recently covered
Finally, the sexual selection syndrome includes morphological traits: males are more likely than females to display anatomical specializations for intra- and intersexual aggression, including horns, antlers, enlarged canine teeth, and body sizes in excess of the ecological optimum; males commonly show greater development of sexual advertisements, both tactile (complex genitalia) and visual (elaborate and brightly colored adornments)
selected by the females
Among humans, considerable anatomical and behavioral evidence suggests that males have been subject to stronger sexual selection than females
women are the ones doing it
these people are idiots
Human males are larger than females. Human males attain sexual maturity at a later age than human females
false, women don’t finish developing physically until the twenties
miscarriages and stillbirth is higher in teen mothers compared to women in their 20s, that’s the reason we married in the 20s in the middle ages
and senesce more rapidly
logically impossible given your prior claim
men age faster because they sexually mature faster, their system is simpler
they don’t need to carry a baby, duh?
Polygyny is much more common than polyandry.
No. Citation very much needed. You can’t just claim that based on current Third World religions about a time preceding those religious legal structures.
In one respect, however, human beings reverse the usual pattern of differences between more and less sexually selected sexes-men are more concerned than women with the physical attractiveness of a potential sexual partner.
Men are more shallow, yes. Doesn’t mean they have good taste.
Although women race mix less so maybe women are shallow in different ways.
This sex difference is not limited to Western society.
Buss (i 989) reviews survey data from 37 population samples from 33 countries and finds that in every sample males are more concerned than females with the physical attractiveness of a potential mate. The average sex difference is more pronounced among the non-Western populations in his sample.
Again why care?
The attractiveness of the man usually depends predominantly upon his skills and prowess rather than upon his physical appearance.”
You didn’t ask the women. Ugly researchers claim women don’t care how they look.
It’s pure cope.
Gregersen (i983) reports similar findings in a more recent review of nearly 300 societies,
mostly non-Western and nonurbanized. In other words, human beings seem to be an exception
to the general rule among animals that male attractiveness matters more than female attractiveness. The importance attached to female (as opposed to male) physical attractiveness in our species stands in need of an explanation.
Yeah this study doesn’t apply to Europeans whatsoever, only the bad faith actors are using this.
Male attractiveness does matter more. Third Worlders aren’t sexually selecting, they’re trying to survive or forced to marry. That isn’t evolutionary, it’s societal modern pressure.
Men wouldn’t go down the gym if they weren’t competing on looks.
Many anthropologists believe
that human behavior is so radically different in its ontogeny from that of other organisms that the theory of sexual selection is not applicable to human physical attraction.
….or you’re wrong? And bad at your job?
Anthropology is mostly BS, they are not evolutionary biologists.
Polhemus (i988:8) probably expresses the attitude of a whole school of anthropology of “the body” concerning the human irrelevance of the theory of sexual selection when he writes:
A male baboon has a fixed idea of what a desirable female baboon should look like…. The same general principle is true of any animal that reproduces by sexual selection. But there is an important difference between baboons and ourselves. For other animals the physical ideal is ioo% instinctively determined. Thus all baboons of a particular species pursue the same ideal…. For humans, on the other
hand, ideals of beauty are learned….
This is not science.
In a worldwide and historical framework, there is no such thing as natural human beauty.
So they’re debunking their own paper.
If beauty isn’t objective, I needn’t continue. A little, then.
If this view of the difference between human and nonhuman psychology were correct,
the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species might be merely one more consequence of our having freed ourselves from the instinctive constraints that hobble the lives of other animals. This view, however, is doubly wrong.
First, learning often plays a large role in the acquisition of standards of attractiveness among nonhuman animals. An immense literature demonstrates that early experience influences later mate choice via imprinting (Immelman I972). Imitation, too, plays a role in mate choice among nonhuman animals, and social transmission of mating preferences can even result in “fads” in mate choice that change from one breeding season to the next (Pruett-Jones i992).
Mixed race ad propaganda explained.
Second, physical attraction in humans cannot be entirely a product of enculturation. This is shown most
dramatically by the experiments of Langlois et al. (i987).
In these experiments, infants between the ages of two and three months were exposed to pictures of women rated attractive and unattractive by adult raters; infants spent more time looking at faces rated attractive. This held even across racial/cultural boundaries: for European-American infants looking at faces of AfricanAmerican women rated by African-American men and for African-American infants exposed to EuropeanAmerican faces rated by European-American men.
Thus students of physical attractiveness are asking for trouble if they start out assuming that nonhuman
animals are creatures of instinct and humans constructions of culture. A better starting point regarding the role of learning in behavior is suggested by several decades of research in comparative psychology: as a general rule, organisms have relatively “hard-wired” or canalized responses to stimuli that have had relatively unvarying fitness consequences over evolutionary time and relatively flexible learned responses to stimuli that have been associated sometimes with positive fitness consequences and sometimes with negative. In other words, given that learning entails costs, in terms of trial and error, organisms are expected to adapt to selectively important invariants in their environments with corresponding behavioral, cognitive, or motivational invariances (Seligman I970, Johnston 1982).
These people are morons.
How can we apply this principle to the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species? Let us define the mate value of a potential sexual partner, A, as the expected reproductive success from mating with A divided by some baseline expected reproductive success. The baseline expected reproductive success might be the expected reproductive success from mating at random or from mating with an individual of maximum mate value.
r v K
As a general rule we expect that human beings, and other animals, are likely to have both relatively canalized, “hard-wired” responses to visual stimuli that have been consistently associated with high mate value throughout the evolutionary history of the species and relatively flexible learned responses to stimuli that have been associated sometimes with high mate value and sometimes with low. In other words, standards of physical attractiveness are likely to have both species-typical and population-specific components, and variation in these components may be predictable given knowledge
of human biology and local circumstances (Symons I979). For example, since fat stores may be selectively advantageous in environments subject to episodic food shortage and disadvantageous in environments requiring considerable physical movement, one might expect that esthetic responses to fatness would vary between populations depending on social learning and on individual assessments of the consequences of being fat or thin, rather than developing in a uniform fashion within the human species.
By contrast, one might expect human beings to have a relatively invariant, species-typical emotional response to signs of aging, because age has a relatively invariant association with fecundity and thus with mate value.
association is weak, not causation
distinguish aging from maturation, you cannot
In a classic article Henry (i96i) reviews data on age-specific fertility rates in a wide range of “naturalfertility” (noncontracepting) populations. The levels of fertility in these populations range from a lifetime average of 6 to i i children per married female, but the shapes of the curves of fertility versus age are remarkably similar across all populations. For all populations, female fertility rates at age 30-34 are around 85% of rates at age 20-24, with further declines to around 35 % for women aged 40-44 and o% for women aged 50-54.
They don’t count teens because they are not mature to breed.
More recent work suggests that the curve of natural fecundity (potential reproduction) differ somewhat from the curve of natural fertility (actual reproduction) because the latter is influenced by such variables as age of spouse and frequency of intercourse (James I979, Menken, Trussell, and Larsen i986). Studies that control for the latter variables suggest that the decline in female Fecundity between 20 and 35 is less pronounced than the decline in female natural fertility-but the overall shapes of the two curves are fairly similar.
Most drop in conception is the men aging, paternal age.
That’s why older woman/younger man couples are more fertile.
The shape of the curve of fecundity versus age is very
different for males. Goldman and Montgomery (i989),
reviewing data from several traditional societies, report
Eertility declines to about 90% for men between 45 and
50, relative to younger men, and to about 8o% for men
over 55, after controlling for age of wife and duration of
Fecundity versus age curves thus have two important
characteristics that may help to explain the anomaly of
the curves (i) are relatively invariant in shape across populations
no, relatively means you’re wrong
and (2) show an earlier and more pronounced decline in fertility among females than among males.
Paternal age studies debunked this.
Given the general rule that organisms commonly have invariant responses to stimuli that have had relatively invariant fitness consequences over evolutionary time, the first characteristic
suggests that human beings are likely to have relatively invariant esthetic responses to signs of aging. The second characteristic suggests that these responses are likely to be stronger in males’ evaluations of females than in females’ evaluations of males.
Men are too weak to be judged on their looks by women. Too triggered.
This does not add up to a complete theory of physical
attractiveness, of course, or even a complete theory of
age-related changes in physical attractiveness. Fecundity
is only one component of mate value. Other components
include the ability and willingness to provision offspring
and heritable viability or attractiveness (“good genes”),
and these components of mate value may also vary with
age, while sensory bias will ensure that attractiveness
does not track mate value perfectly. Nevertheless, agerelated changes in fecundity are likely to be a particularly important component of age-related changes in physical attractiveness, especially in females, both because these changes have been relatively invariant over the history of the species and because other components of mate value such as provisioning ability and inclination may be more readily assessable on the basis of behavior than on the basis of physical appearance.
There is one alternative explanation for male attraction to youthful features in females that requires a more extended treatment.
Extended? You’ve done nothing so far. This paper is filler.
Gowaty (I992:23I-40) writes:
There should be strong selection on males to control
females’ reproduction through direct coercive control of females….
It’s called marriage.
Evolutionary thinkers, whether informed by feminist ideas or not, are not surprised
by one of the overwhelming facts of patriarchal cultures, namely that men … seek to constrain and
control the reproductive capacities of women…. Juvenilization decreases the threat some men may feel when confronted with women;
many men are comfortable around women whom they can clearly dominate and are profoundly uncomfortable around women whom they cannot so clearly dominate.
r-types, not real men
The hypothesis that femininity signals ability to be dominated through juvenilization is an alternative to, but not necessarily mutually exclusive of, other evolutionary hypotheses that posit that femininity signals, sometimes deceptively, reproductive value and fertility.
Several findings seem to be at odds with this hypothesis.
Berry and McArthur (i986) presented subjects with a series of outline profile drawings representing individuals ranging from juvenile to adult and collected ratings of
perceived social characteristics of each drawing. The
drawing rated weakest and least threatening was the
most juvenile-looking. (Subjects judged this drawing to
represent a 4-year-old.) The drawing rated sexiest was
intermediate in juvenility. (It was judged to be 23 years
old.) In other words, the level of juvenility that maximizes perceived vulnerability does not maximize perceived sexiness.
Because only pedophiles like children sexually.
Real men like sexually mature WOMEN.
Kenrick and co-workers (Kenrick I994)
show that for teenage males the ideal sexual partner is
older than they are-again, more consistent with the
hypothesis that males are concerned with cues to female
fecundity than with the hypothesis that males prefer
younger, more easily dominated females. Thus current
evidence suggests that female attractiveness cannot
simply be equated with powerlessness and that something more than changes in perceived vulnerability is involved in age-related changes in physical attractiveness. However, nothing in evolutionary theory rules out the possibility that markers of female submissiveness may be attractive to men, and the topic certainly deserves more research.
There may be room for argument about why attractiveness changes with age, but, in spite of a considerable literature devoted to the claim that human sexuality and standards of physical attractiveness are culturally constructed, there does not seem to be any evidence from any society that seriously challenges the proposition that physical attractiveness is perceived to decline from
young adulthood to old age, especially for females.
Yeah, funny that? Especially but not only. Men hit the Wall too, it’s called being human.
Because women are the ones selecting, idiots. Beggars can’t be choosers. Men are sexually desperate, overall.
“The correlation of female age and sexual attractiveness is so
also not causation
when is the actual study? this waffle is nauseatingly wrong
that ethnographers apparently take
it for granted-as they do the bipedalism of the people
they study-and the significance of female age tends to
be mentioned only in passing, in discussions of something else” (Symons I979:i88). Symons cites passing references to the effects of aging on female attractiveness
in ethnographies of the Kgatla, pre-revolutionary China,
the Yanomamo, and the Tiwi. Additional references can
be found in ethnographies of Trobriand Islanders (Malinowski I987 [i929], Weiner I976) and Gawa (Munn
I986) of Melanesia, Mende (Boone i986) of Sierra Leone,
and Mehinaku of Amazonia (Gregor i985), to name just
aka NOT EUROPE.
Why is this being applied to white people?
Who is this intellectually dishonest?
A number of social psychological studies (reviewed in Jackson i992) have documented such agerelated declines in physical attractiveness and demonstrated the expected sex differences as well.
Let us summarize the argument up to this point. Human beings are anomalous among sexually selected species in the importance attached to female (relative to
male) appearance in mate choice.
unproven, not science
Human beings are
anomalous in another respect as well: female fertility
commonly declines to zero long before the end of the
Biology explained this.
As a result of menopause there is considerably
more age-related variance in fecundity among adult females than among adult males in our species. The second anomaly may explain the first: the importance
attached to female attractiveness in our species may reflect the operation of adaptations for assessing agerelated changes in fecundity, a component of female
Men aren’t the peahens of the species! LIES.
Whether for this reason or another, social psychological and ethnographic evidence provides overwhelming support for the proposition that human beings have relatively invariant esthetic responses to signs of males’ aging and that these responses operate more strongly in evaluations of females than vice versa.
“overwhelming support for the proposition” WHERE
you are making that up
Women assess men all the time. We’re more realistic. They try to call us fussy but a lot of fuggos survive under dysgenic conditions, it’s realistic to think most men look like a dumpster fire compared to the WW2 gen. Look at photos!
Thus far we have been exclusively concerned with changes in attractiveness with age rather than differences in attractiveness between individuals of the same age. However, if age-detecting mechanisms do not operate with perfect accuracy, then adaptations for choosing a mate of a particular age may lead incidentally to nonadaptive biases in the choice of mates from among individuals who fall within a particular age-class. In other words,
non-adaptive adaptations are impossible
clue’s in the name
what mental midgets wrote this shit?
given that attractiveness varies with age, individuals may be more or less attractive than others of the
same age in part because they have facial proportions associated with younger or older ages.
no attractiveness is lower genetic load, stfu
there are young ugly people and older hot ones
Because the retention of traits from early stages of the life cycle into later stages, relative to ancestors or to other members of the population, is known as neoteny (“holding on to youth”), the proposition above may be rephrased: given that attractiveness varies with age, neoteny may be a component of facial attractiveness.
That wall of text for MAY?
This proposition may hold with particular force for female facial attractiveness: a by-product of the human male’s attraction to markers of youthful fecundity may be an attraction to adult females presenting markers of youth to an exaggerated or “supernormal” degree.
No, we call those sexual predators.
This is now the Pedo Paper.
Beginning with the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species, we are led to the hypothesis that neoteny may be a component of female facial attractiveness.
aka we guessed
and there is no anomaly
The remainder of this paper will be given over to testing and elaborating this hypothesis.
I doubt it.
These scribbles are not scientific. You need computer models like Marquardt to measure it!
There is no breadth of jaw variation, no round or narrow eye shape, no flat or pointed nose, no mouth breadth or narrowness!
A shape subject to positive cardioidal strain (k > o) shows a downward and outward expansion in features located toward the bottom and a downward and inward contraction in features located toward the top.
while the transformed faces were redrawn from the original face with the assistance of polar coordinate graph paper.
This is not a paper. It’s a joke.
These affect the relative sizes of eyes, noses, ears,
and lips. “Beginning at age 25, the eyebrows steadily
descend from a position well above the supraorbital rim
to a point far below it; sagging of the lateral aspect of
the eyebrows make the eyes seem smaller” (Larrabee
and Makielski I993:I4). Cartilaginous tissues grow
steadily throughout adulthood: ears get bigger, and
noses get longer, wider, and more protrusive with increasing age. With the loss of connective tissue, the vermilion or red zone of the lips gets thinner (Enlow I990,
Larrabee and Makielski I993, Susanne I977).
As a result of changes in hard and soft tissue with age,
it is possible to estimate ages of adults using information about the relative sizes of eyes, noses, and lips
I dunno, gamines exist as do old-looking young people.
Gould also argued “that the whole enterprise of ranking groups by degree of neoteny is fundamentally unjustified” (Gould, 1996, pg. 150). Doug Jones argued that human evolution’s trend toward neoteny may have been caused by sexual selection in human evolution for neotenous facial traits in women by men with the resulting neoteny in male faces being a “by-product” of sexual selection for neotenous female faces.
MAY – no proof, but it MAY! I may sprout a dick and call myself Charlie! I MAY!
so the pedo-bears are only finding this shitty paper from the 90s thanks to wikipedia 
talk about cherry-picking, all evobio is against this
anthropology is nothing
He’s right, Gould, but Marquardt already measured this.
Neotony – large round eyes (down to almond) – MOST important feature for this trait
Peramorphic – slanted, narrow eyes
Neotony – large forehead (3rd)
Peramorphic – short forehead
Neotony – soft gracile jaw (2nd most important feature for the trait)
Peramorphic – square or manjaw
The actual studies have been done, in computers. By real scientists.
Women also have a narrower mouth than men to match the jaw, also dimorphic.
Comparing races using ONE trait is ridiculous.
One paragraph on wikipedia is all it gets for human neotony, and doesn’t actually list the traits, distinguished from pedomorphic ones.
It doesn’t even study white countries, let alone compare European nations to one another!
Who uses this and doesn’t bother to actually read it? Mental manlets, mostly.
“My own observations in Brazil corroborate his account of sexuality in China. “
Brazilians often suggest that men in such relationships are especially vulnerable to cuckoldry and
because the WOMEN are the sexual selecting sex!
Cuckoldry wouldn’t happen without it!
What sort of weeb would cite this?
. But Symons’s (I995) recent work on this subject has persuaded me that we need direct tests of the possibility that estrogen/androgen ratios and parity have effects on facial attractiveness over and above the effects of aging.2
This is very simple. Measure women on every race in their native continent and test their saliva for T and E. No Pill users allowed, they cheat. Dare any weeb to do that study because manjaw women are higher T.
Even Asian men are reported to prefer white women!
A classic example is reported by Wagatsumc
(in the paper Jones cites). On first contact, Japanese mer
perceived white Western women as less physically at
tractive than Japanese women in most features, includ
ing skin texture, facial hair, and eye color. But the men
perceived Western women’s typical skin color as more
attractive, because it was a bit lighter than the adult
Japanese female average and, hence, close to their ideal
Oestrogen causes paler skin. That’s why they bleach.
From the Latin lover trope, even among whites, S Europeans have slightly higher T but this only works best within a race.
If there is significant interpopulation variation in fa
cial proportions, the perception of neoteny may be anal
ogous to the perception of skin color. That is, human
males may have been selected to prefer female faces:
features that are relatively neotenous, by local stan
dards, rather than to prefer certain absolute facial pro
portions. If so, males will not necessarily prefer female
features that are neotenous by the standards of every
those are pedophiles
Surely it is possible for a woman’s eyes to be too large, her lower face too short, her nose
too small, and her lips too full (imagine Betty Boop as a real woman). In fact, Jones’s data imply a ceiling effect for the attractiveness of facial neoteny even within populations.
Their example of neotony is a white woman, study ignores Europe.
So the add-on admits you can’t apply between races nor use one trait to judge everything.
That’s literally the conclusion in their own anthro paper. Do not cite this, creeps.
A species-typical male psychological mechanism that instantiates the rule “Prefer female skin that is a bit
lighter than the adult female average” (in ancestral populations relative lightness probably signified nubility, nulliparity, and high estrogen levels) would result in very different absolute skin color ideals in Nigeria and Norway
Yeah Nigerians are rejecting all the Norwegians girls as “too light”. That’s reality.
Nigerian men would perceive Norwegian women as much too light
Yet high androgen levels in women are positively correlated with reproductive system dysfunctions, and observable indices of high androgen levels-such as acne, hirsutism, and a high waist-to-hip ratio-seem to be systematically perceived as unattractive. To my eye, the faces in Jones’s figure
appear to differ more in “masculinity” than in age.
Maternal bone formation rates are elevated during pregnancy, which may permanently lengthen the mother’s face, and a growth hormone (hGH-V) is expressed in the placenta and secreted in large amounts into the maternal circulation which may permanently “coarsen” her facial features.
What is this paper. No, that doesn’t happen.
If the human male’s preference for neotenous facial features is merely a by-product, it presumably would have entailed at least some costs in ancestral populations. For example, assuming that Jones’s hypothesis is correct, an ancestral male given the opportunity to choose between two potential mates of the same age one of whom (A) had a more neotenous face than the other (B), would have been willing to pay a higher bride price for A because of her more attractive face, although B, at a lower bride-price, would have represented better value; or he might have failed to acquire B’s superior weaving skills, which would have contributed something to his fitness, and instead acquired A’s more gracile jaw, larger eyes, smaller nose, and fuller lips, which according to the by-product hypothesis, would have contributed nothing; or he might have chosen an older female with neotenous features over a younger female (higher mate value) with average features.
Genetic load explains that.
Narrow mouths are also neotony, look at babies. That’s why the lips look full.
” While this paper has emphasized the “biological” side of physical attractiveness, with the modern
theory of sexual selection as a starting point, this theory will undoubtedly have to be expanded and revised to allow for the unique importance of social learning in our species”
Nurture applied to biology, that’s why it’s wrong.