Attractiveness some have claimed has biological roots. The Royal Society B Publishing produced a study related to the Biological Sciences. The study was mention here before, but it is wort revisiting. Does the experiment match the scientific method ? Evolutionary psychology may not explain all of human mating habits or sex selection behavior. If the theories of Aaron Sell, Aaron W. Lukazsweski and Michael Townsley are correct this has major implications on sexual politics and gender equality. Equality between the sexes may not be possible simply because of women’s behavior and selection of partners. The peer reviewed texted states ” One variable that predicted both a man’s genetic quality and his ability to invest is the man’s formidability (i.e. fighting ability or resource holding power/potential).” It explains further that “modern women, therefore, should have mate choice mechanisms that respond to ancestral cues of a man’s fighting ability.” Upper body strength is an indicator of fighting potential. If women are still having their behavior dictated by this natural and sex selection it makes combating domestic violence that more difficult. It could just be a practice in futility. The findings showed “estimates of physical strength determined over 70% of men’s bodily attractiveness. ” Further more the study expressed “additional analyses showed that tallness and leanness were also favoured, and, along with estimates of physical strength, accounted for 80% of men’s bodily attractiveness.” The strange part was why it did not reach at least 95 % or more. There could be other attributes that women find attractive in a man which accounts for unknown percentage points. People are of course different from their early hominid ancestors. Archaic humans were not like the anatomically modern humans of the contemporary period. We should not condemn biology, rather seek to understand it. Nor should it be used as a justification for for an unequal society.
What must be understood about biology is why organisms reproduce. Each one has a niche in the ecosystem in which it lives. Mate selection has to be done to ensure that healthy offspring can propagate . Multiple offspring allows an animal population to continue. Mammals have a pattern related to females that is consistent. Female investment in offspring is much more dedicated. The text explains ” specifically, females contribute the larger gamete to the formation of their offspring, gestate the offspring during which the child feeds from the maternal bloodstream, and nurse the offspring to provide calories and antibodies. ” Phenotype could be a measure or indicator of an organism’s reproductive fitness or genetic quality. This could explain why women would have more scrutiny in partner selection. This could explain why sexual dimorphism evolved the way it did. Women had an easier time getting mates, while males had to struggle. Beyond evolutionary behavior, it has been noted that female eggs have the ability block weak sperm. Sex selection made male and female bodies different. Natural selection favored the trait of physical strength to men. Women did not need to fighters simply, because another form of survival mechanism worked better for them. However, there is one claim that should be disputed. A strong body does not protect against all disease. The average life expectancy of the early hominid or archaic human was shorter compared to modern humans. The life of early man was most likely more miserable. Women due to their immune system advantage, probably still lived longer.
Much of the sex selection process could have revolved around resource procurement and offspring investment. The idea was a stronger man would be a better hunter and more competent at fighting off other males. Being physically formidable was an indicator to females that offspring would be protected. Human males the study states invest more in their offspring in comparison to other mammals. The theory runs into another problem :
“It has been hypothesized that physically formidable men, although better able to invest resources in a family, may be less willing to do so than weaker men of poorer quality [7,13]. The basis for this postulate is that men with higher bargaining power on the mating market may be better able to pursue a strategy of quantity by mating with multiple females and leaving the direct provisioning of offspring to the mothers (assisted by their kin or unknowing cuckolds). Evidence supports the prediction that physically stronger men are indeed more likely to succeed in pursuing sex with multiple partners [15,20]. ”
Physical strength alone does not ensure mating success. This was the case then weak men would not exist. The weaker men need another strategy to mate seeing as direct physical confrontation was too perilous. Committed pair bonds developed for the sake of survival. Just because men are competing for mates does not mean there were circumstances in which cooperation was occurring. Hunting in groups would produce more resources, than men going individually. Otherwise, it would seem that early humans would have killed each other off. The behavior should not be confused with social darwinist rhetoric. Herbert Spencer coined the term survival of the fittest describing the mechanisms of natural selection. Spencer applied it to social problems and made it eugenic in nature. This was a complete misunderstanding of the complexities of biological evolution. Biological fitness describes the ability of an organism to reproduce itself successfully. Organisms that can acclimate to their environment are considered successful. The study here seems to almost suggest physical fitness and biological fitness are the same.
This could easily be misunderstood considering knowledge regarding evolution continues to grow due to discoveries in genetics, paleontology, and anthropology. Attraction is not completely biological. There is a cultural and sociological element to it. The responses are related to a trend in which the concept of male attractiveness is more visible.
The survey showed that women did in fact like the image of physical strength. Features on animals are not just for protection or adaptation to environment They are for the attraction of mates. Birds have different colors to attract mates. Male birds have more colorful feathers than female birds. The women’s traits choice shows that in fact women do judge men on their appearance :
More directly on point with the hypotheses here, Franzoi & Herzog [39] surveyed women and asked them what features they were attracted to in men; the results showed that women particularly valued components of upper body strength, e.g. ‘muscular strength’, ‘biceps’. Similarly, Jones and co-workers [40] showed that men whose bodies were rated as more ‘masculine’ were preferred to men whose bodies were rated as ‘feminine’, and a similar study using composite images confirmed that manipulating men’s bodies to appear more masculine increased their attractiveness [41]. Similar work shows that women generally prefer figures representing mesomorphic body types (i.e. muscular bodies)
It would be difficult to determine how much of this is due to sociological programing or biological nature. Images of muscular men are present on men’s health magazines. If enough girls and women are exposed to this that only make presents one image of what is consider handsome. The problem also with this is the following : ” however, based on the aforementioned hypothesis that highly formidable men are relatively unwilling to invest resources in offspring, some researchers have suggested an inverted-U effect such that women prefer moderately strong men but not very strong or weak men .” That contradicts the hypothesis. If it is that strong men are preferred in mating, then that would mean the biggest and strongest men would be favored. Although the investment would be lacking the total amount of offspring would be higher. This indicates there are trade offs in sex selection.
The reasoning behind this is that women do not men too large, because that could come with risk to personal security. A man too weak would not be able to defend her or the offspring. Then this raises another question. Male sex selection would either mean that the woman with the highest body fat percentage would be preferred, seeing as it indicates fertility potential. So far, these claims are only speculative. Maybe there is some form of competition between strong and moderately strong men, but it is probably not like our hominid ancestors. Too many factors influence physical attraction. Cultural, biological, and psychological factors are active in this process. Later, the experiment admitted ” we found no evidence of the inverted-U hypothesis; rather, in both samples, the strongest men were the most attractive, and the weakest men were the least attractive.” The data showed this, yet other issues appear with the experiment.
The raters of the photographs were student volunteers from the US and Australia. They either attend Oklahoma State University or Griffith University. Obviously, there are more women in the world compared to Australia or the United States . If this pattern was seen in paces like France, China, South Africa, Brazil or India, then it would have more merit. Ideals of attractiveness vary from nation to nation. It is just that the West may consider its notions as a universal standard. Women would show the same preference if this were actually scientific fact. Raters were women who were just 21. There instructions were as follows :
“Raters were instructed to rate either ‘physical attractiveness’ or ‘physical strength’—between subjects, and rated photographs only from one set, either Set 1 or Set 2. Raters who were shown photographs from Set 1 rated photographs of men from the front and side separately (i.e. a subject would see the photograph of a man from the front, and then later see that same man from the side). Set 2 photographs were taken only from the front.”
The limitation was in female demographics. Would the results be different for women 30 to 49 ? Could there be a change in a middle age group ? The raters were accurate in assessing a person’s strength. This was not precise. Some subjects did weight train, but the exact measure of their strength was not mentioned. Hand grip normally is used or weightlifting statistics could provide a more precise measure. Having a rating system ( physical strength’ from ‘1 = very weak’ to ‘7 = very strong’. For attractiveness, raters rated the men from ‘1 = very unattractive’ to ‘7 = very attractive’) does not seem like a scientifically sound method. Then there is the connection between strength and formidability. One could appear strong, yet not have the best fighting ability. Strength may make it easier to overpower a person, but fighting requires skill. Certain animals can inflate their bodies to appear more formidable when they are not stronger than a certain predator. That is a trick that is used by bull frogs, puffer fish, and gibbons are animals that puff up to look stronger than they really are.
There could be people stronger than they look or may have the appearance of formidability. Although this experiment in not in the range of constitutional psychology or other pseudoscience, the potential for misinterpretation is high. Studies can be used to distort or promote conformation bias.
The results make note of height. Weight is also mentioned. Based on the studies strength was a larger predictor compared to weight or height. Height appears to be more attractive to women regardless in the sample. Having more body fat was unattractive to women raters. This might have to do with indirectly assessing the health of a potential partner. Weight, height, and strength account to 80% of variance in relation to women’s attraction. The study does not provide specifics to how much of these anthropometric measurements are needed to be successful with mates. The men who were used in the photographs had their faces blurred. Maybe doing the experiment with the faces being visible would produce another result. Facial features are a part of attraction. If the women were shown the face of the men, their rating might be different. Seeing as the upper bodies were exposed one test could involve those wearing shirts. Slight changes can alter ratings.
The major question relates to weak men. Based on the study, most would be phased out in nature. Other studies have indicated some women might like men with more feminized faces. The 160 women raters showed no preference for weaker men. What this demonstrates is that women can also have a shallow side. A study done with men’s preference for women could produce a certain result. Men might not be attracted to women of a certain weight. Overweight women are more likely to be viewed as unattractive. Men are subject to another form of this. Appearing too small or weak operates similar to the scrutiny over women’s weight. The text does claim that bodily attractiveness is a small aspect in mate value. One suggestion is that there is a type trade off theory. Women might select weaker men for the sake of investment or to escape possible exploitation by stronger men. The strong man could provide security, but use their power to dominate and abuse a female companion.
The conclusion and endnote does mention an important fact. There are many factors that go into women’s investment in a potential mate. If strength is determined to be a major factor, this poses a problem for efforts at gender equality. Women who have a tendency to gravitate to powerful men are at risk of violence. If this theory is correct, it explains why women stay with men of low ethical character. Personality traits may account for lower value in mate selection. The connection between resource holding power and mate selection is a fascinating one. Fighting ability was probably a bigger factor for mate selection in the Paleolithic and Neolithic. Mate choice mechanisms among women probably have become more complex. Culture and civilization has changed the way the sexes interact with one another. Money would have more impact of men’s success with mates in a modern industrialized society. The use of the term genetic quality can be debated. The concept of bad quality or great quality genes is not scientifically valid. Natural selection operates on which genes are favored. This is not about gene quality, rather how an organism adapts to an environment. The Royal Society B study might only describe the prediction of preferences.