Why would human males be attracted by the beauty of human females?

[Speakpigeon]

Men are supposed to be attracted by beautiful women. I'm not sure that's entirely true or even mostly, but I will assume it is broadly true, on average, for most men.

So, stupid question, why should that be so?

Most people are rather ugly, let's say not too good-looking, so beauty doesn't seem to be anything like a selective advantage otherwise we would all be less ugly. Beauty doesn't seem to serve any practical purpose other than to attract the other sex, but then why should the other sex be attracted by beauty to begin with? Why not instead be attracted on the basis of attributes signalling good health, strength, resilience and what not?

Bees are interested in the pollen and nectar of flowers. Flowers are interested in bees because they can use them as a go-between to reproduce. Flowers can produce more nectar on hearing the sound made by a bee flying nearby and emit a signal to attract the bee. This is effective and we all understand that it is.

So, is there any analogue to the sexual attractiveness of human beauty?

Is there any Darwinian theory about that?

Thank you to limit yourself to facts and logic.
EB

 

[untermensche]

There is no why to the sex drive.

If it didn't exist neither would humans.

But like so many things the mind can control the sex drive.

The disciplined mind.

 

[Lion IRC]

I assume your question isn't just about (heterosexual) male attraction to females.
It takes two to tango.

 

[bilby]

Much of what has historically been considered 'beauty' is strongly indicative of good health and good diet.

There's an obvious potential for evolutionary benefit in selecting a mate who is healthy and adequately fed.

A confounding factor is that another large part of what is considered 'beauty' is dictated by fashion, and changes over both time and geographical distance. There seems to be less reason to expect such variable concepts to have a large effect of evolutionary pressure - although there nay be something in the idea that an ability to follow arbitrary fashions implies access to resources in excess of those needed to live.

Perhaps the most likely reason is evolutionary coupling - if a particular feature or 'look' is a part of an animal's genome, and desire for others with that feature is also part of that genome, then the two genes will tend to support each other, and to push out of the population those members that do not carry both. This is a plausible mechanism by which otherwise pointless decorations such as peacock tails may have arisen.

Attraction to the opposite sex is less important than attraction to reproductively viable mates. Being attracted to all females (or all males) would lead to evolutionarily inefficient attraction to pre- and post- reproductive partners, and/or to unhealthy, poorly fed, or those otherwise less likely to successfully bear and/or help to raise your offspring (who may form a large fraction of the population). Certainly amongst humans, the ratio of highly viable mates to less- or non-viable members of the opposite sex was historically very high, and remains so.

Typical men are not attracted to 'women'; They are attracted to 'beautiful people', and typically mostly to women within that classification. Sexual attraction to the very young or very old is even less commonplace than attraction to beautiful humans of the same gender - which is what might be expected if beauty was linked to reproductive capability and attraction to beauty was to some degree genetically coupled with genes that generate that beauty.

 

[steve_bank]

Birds that have brighter cools and good plumage tend to be healthier.

Human attraction is highly chemical based, pheromones,,

There is a Pacific island where men and woman go bare chested. It is the expound thigh that is sexually provocative. Beauty is cultural.

I never liker makeup on women, often looks unattractive to me. A body in proportion is more attractive than big tits or ass. A general appearance of health and fitness is attractive. And those quest are subjective I suppose.

Big tits don't attract me. I do not think Stormy Daniels is attractive even when younger.

 

[untermensche]

Humans have fetishes.

Health is not always what people find attractive.

Some people want a lot of fat.

Some only care about the shape of the foot.

 

[rousseau]

Stereotypical beauty/good looks are a sign of fertility. Those who find fertile men/women attractive are the most likely to raise kids into adulthood. And so our psychology would evolve to find fertile (read: healthy, proportioned) people attractive.

 

[Bomb#20]

Stereotypical beauty/good looks are a sign of fertility. Those who find fertile men/women attractive are the most likely to raise kids into adulthood. And so our psychology would evolve to find fertile (read: healthy, proportioned) people attractive.

^^^^ This ^^^^

I read about a psychology experiment. The researchers got a lot of photos of women, and invited a lot of men to rate how pretty the women were. They threw out the pictures of women rated beautiful or ugly, and kept the dozens who were rated average-looking. Then they used a computer morphing algorithm to average those photos, constructing a picture of a woman all of whose features were the exact mathematical average of the features of all those average looking women, and then they had the men rate the resulting hypothetical woman. She was gorgeous.

 

[bigfield]

Stereotypical beauty/good looks are a sign of fertility. Those who find fertile men/women attractive are the most likely to raise kids into adulthood. And so our psychology would evolve to find fertile (read: healthy, proportioned) people attractive.

^^^^ This ^^^^

I read about a psychology experiment. The researchers got a lot of photos of women, and invited a lot of men to rate how pretty the women were. They threw out the pictures of women rated beautiful or ugly, and kept the dozens who were rated average-looking. Then they used a computer morphing algorithm to average those photos, constructing a picture of a woman all of whose features were the exact mathematical average of the features of all those average looking women, and then they had the men rate the resulting hypothetical woman. She was gorgeous.

Is this it?

Attractive Faces Are Only Average
Webpage: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x
PDF: https://sci-hub.tw/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x

 

[Speakpigeon]

Stereotypical beauty/good looks are a sign of fertility. Those who find fertile men/women attractive are the most likely to raise kids into adulthood. And so our psychology would evolve to find fertile (read: healthy, proportioned) people attractive.

^^^^ This ^^^^

???

I read about a psychology experiment. The researchers got a lot of photos of women, and invited a lot of men to rate how pretty the women were. They threw out the pictures of women rated beautiful or ugly,

Aren't "women rated beautiful" precisely what's called "stereotypes". So men threw out the pictures of women with stereotypical beauty even though according to rousseau those pictures signal "fertility". And yet you agree with what rousseau says?!

and kept the dozens who were rated average-looking. Then they used a computer morphing algorithm to average those photos, constructing a picture of a woman all of whose features were the exact mathematical average of the features of all those average looking women, and then they had the men rate the resulting hypothetical woman. She was gorgeous.

Yeah, that is good to me. Attractiveness based on averaging. Seems right.

---------------------------

Reproduction first means reproducing oneself. So, men going average is the population reproducing itself, aiming so to speak for the fat middle of the distribution. Reproduction is also, secondarily, as sexual reproduction, the means to test variability and maintain a varied genetic range. And then you'll always have more adventurous people to test outside of the fat middle, for whatever apparent reasons.

Still, it remains one question. If men respond to looks on the basis of an averaged look, why would that reflect good-health and fertility?

And still another question: Why is there so much hype about stereotypical beauty if most men are attracted in fact to the average girl?
EB

 

[James Brown]

I've been reading a history book that touched on an early Hollywood starlet named Clara Bow. She was describes as "enchanting", "universally adored", and was the world's first "It Girl."



Seems rather conventional to me, perhaps "above average"? Isn't it possible that beauty standards change over time, that today's "stereotypical beauty" will be tomorrow's average?

 

[rousseau]

Still, it remains one question. If men respond to looks on the basis of an averaged look, why would that reflect good-health and fertility?

And still another question: Why is there so much hype about stereotypical beauty if most men are attracted in fact to the average girl?
EB

Think of it less as 'average' more as 'genetically normal'. Being of perfect symmetry, and body shape reflects a genome without any defects. It's also not 'average' as in common, the middle of the distribution, but average as in when you average the flaws of many women they negate each other and create a beautiful woman.

If you were to create a bell curve, those who were extremely beautiful or ugly would be in short supply, and the brunt of the bell curve would be women who are good looking enough to attract mates.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Still, it remains one question. If men respond to looks on the basis of an averaged look, why would that reflect good-health and fertility?

And still another question: Why is there so much hype about stereotypical beauty if most men are attracted in fact to the average girl?
EB

Think of it less as 'average' more as 'genetically normal'. Being of perfect symmetry, and body shape reflects a genome without any defects. It's also not 'average' as in common, the middle of the distribution, but average as in when you average the flaws of many women they negate each other and create a beautiful woman.

If you were to create a bell curve, those who were extremely beautiful or ugly would be in short supply, and the brunt of the bell curve would be women who are good looking enough to attract mates.

I don't think you've answered any of my two questions. Ugly people can be symmetrical. And I doubt very much that symmetry and body-shape alone would be enough to signal "good-health" and "fertility".

So, why an average look would reflect good-health and fertility?

Why is there so much hype about stereotypical beauty if most men are attracted in fact to the average girl?
EB

 

[rousseau]

Why is there so much hype about stereotypical beauty if most men are attracted in fact to the average girl?
EB

Because 'average' isn't the correct term to describe stereotypical beauty. The most beautiful women aren't 'average' in reference to the population, they are rare women without any defects.

Consider it a spectrum from severely deformed, to completely symmetrical. Cleary symmetry is a better sign of physical fitness than deformity, no?

 

[Bomb#20]

I read about a psychology experiment. ...

Is this it?

Attractive Faces Are Only Average
Webpage: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x

Paywalled, but yes, looks like that's the one.

PDF: https://sci-hub.tw/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x

[Grrr. Stupid company firewall.]

The researchers got a lot of photos of women, and invited a lot of men to rate how pretty the women were. They threw out the pictures of women rated beautiful or ugly,

Aren't "women rated beautiful" precisely what's called "stereotypes". So men threw out the pictures of women with stereotypical beauty even though according to rousseau those pictures signal "fertility". And yet you agree with what rousseau says?!

Aggh! It's my annoying ambiguous antecedent affliction again. By "They", I meant the researchers, not the experimental subjects. Sorry to be unclear. It's a more impressive experiment if it the algorithm is creating beauty from scratch rather than extracting it from preexisting beauty already present in the input.

and kept the dozens who were rated average-looking. Then they used a computer morphing algorithm to average those photos, constructing a picture of a woman all of whose features were the exact mathematical average of the features of all those average looking women, and then they had the men rate the resulting hypothetical woman. She was gorgeous.

Yeah, that is good to me. Attractiveness based on averaging. Seems right.

---------------------------

Reproduction first means reproducing oneself. So, men going average is the population reproducing itself, aiming so to speak for the fat middle of the distribution. Reproduction is also, secondarily, as sexual reproduction, the means to test variability and maintain a varied genetic range. And then you'll always have more adventurous people to test outside of the fat middle, for whatever apparent reasons.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Still, it remains one question. If men respond to looks on the basis of an averaged look, why would that reflect good-health and fertility?

And still another question: Why is there so much hype about stereotypical beauty if most men are attracted in fact to the average girl?
EB

Looks like rousseau's got this.

 

[AirPoh]

Men are supposed to be attracted by beautiful women. I'm not sure that's entirely true or even mostly, but I will assume it is broadly true, on average, for most men.

So, stupid question, why should that be so?

Most people are rather ugly, let's say not too good-looking, so beauty doesn't seem to be anything like a selective advantage otherwise we would all be less ugly. Beauty doesn't seem to serve any practical purpose other than to attract the other sex, but then why should the other sex be attracted by beauty to begin with? Why not instead be attracted on the basis of attributes signalling good health, strength, resilience and what not?

Bees are interested in the pollen and nectar of flowers. Flowers are interested in bees because they can use them as a go-between to reproduce. Flowers can produce more nectar on hearing the sound made by a bee flying nearby and emit a signal to attract the bee. This is effective and we all understand that it is.

So, is there any analogue to the sexual attractiveness of human beauty?

Is there any Darwinian theory about that?

Thank you to limit yourself to facts and logic.
EB

If you're gong to limit the answers to facts and logic, perhaps you should limit the question to facts and logic as well.

"why should that be so?"

No one says it should be so.

And "attributes signalling good health, strength, resilience" are things that are considered beauty.

 

[AirPoh]

Still, it remains one question. If men respond to looks on the basis of an averaged look, why would that reflect good-health and fertility?

And still another question: Why is there so much hype about stereotypical beauty if most men are attracted in fact to the average girl?
EB

Think of it less as 'average' more as 'genetically normal'. Being of perfect symmetry, and body shape reflects a genome without any defects. It's also not 'average' as in common, the middle of the distribution, but average as in when you average the flaws of many women they negate each other and create a beautiful woman.

If you were to create a bell curve, those who were extremely beautiful or ugly would be in short supply, and the brunt of the bell curve would be women who are good looking enough to attract mates.

I don't think you've answered any of my two questions. Ugly people can be symmetrical. And I doubt very much that symmetry and body-shape alone would be enough to signal "good-health" and "fertility".

So, why an average look would reflect good-health and fertility?

Why is there so much hype about stereotypical beauty if most men are attracted in fact to the average girl?
EB

Because most men are average as well, so they have to settle for the average girl if they want to get laid, and vice versa.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Why is there so much hype about stereotypical beauty if most men are attracted in fact to the average girl?
EB

Because most men are average as well, so they have to settle for the average girl if they want to get laid, and vice versa.

People tend to be attracted to what everyone else is attracted to, whether it's a matter of beauty or cuisine or style of car. What else is new? Opinion on female beauty is strongly influenced by the movies. And women can change their appearance with fashion and makeup. I find it rather strange that women need to alter their appearance so drastically to be considered attractive. The idea of beauty is basically in the eye of the beholder is true enough. There are some cues that fit rousseau's theory that have to due with fertility. But if everyone was attracted to "ugliness" it would become the new beauty. By definition really. People aren't attracted to beauty. Beauty is by definition what people are attracted to.

 

[skepticalbip]

Men are supposed to be attracted by beautiful women. I'm not sure that's entirely true or even mostly, but I will assume it is broadly true, on average, for most men.

So, stupid question, why should that be so?

Most people are rather ugly, let's say not too good-looking, so beauty doesn't seem to be anything like a selective advantage otherwise we would all be less ugly. Beauty doesn't seem to serve any practical purpose other than to attract the other sex, but then why should the other sex be attracted by beauty to begin with? Why not instead be attracted on the basis of attributes signalling good health, strength, resilience and what not?

Bees are interested in the pollen and nectar of flowers. Flowers are interested in bees because they can use them as a go-between to reproduce. Flowers can produce more nectar on hearing the sound made by a bee flying nearby and emit a signal to attract the bee. This is effective and we all understand that it is.

So, is there any analogue to the sexual attractiveness of human beauty?

Is there any Darwinian theory about that?

Thank you to limit yourself to facts and logic.
EB

If you're gong to limit the answers to facts and logic, perhaps you should limit the question to facts and logic as well.

"why should that be so?"

No one says it should be so.

And "attributes signalling good health, strength, resilience" are things that are considered beauty.

And the question seems to have been skewed, suggesting that only males recognize such attributes as beauty. Women (including hetrosexual women) also recognize those attributes in other women as beauty too.

Men are sexually attracted to beautiful women and also the less beautiful. Women can be envious of other women they see as beautiful.

 

[4321lynx]

skepticalbip

Women /are/ envious of other women they see as beautiful.

There, FIFY

They dress and use cosmetics and accessories not merely to attract men, but also to spite other women.