Phwoar Vs Pretty

Einhard

I was thinking the other day about some of the girls I know, and how one or two of them are quite stunning, the type that would cause the jaw of any red blooded male to drop, and elicit at least a mental phwoar. Then I thought that, as much as I can appreciate their great beauty, I'm more attracted to the girls who one might describe as pretty, rather than stunning. I obviously mean this in general- I'm not running around the place lusting after my friends!:D

I know that attraction is an evolutionary concept, and that we are attracted to those who we deem most healthy, and thus capable of potentially bearing most children. The brain must therefore believe the outstanding beauties to be most healthy and fecund, hence the phwoar reaction, and the generally idiocy that is induced in some men around beautiful women.

It might seem slightly odd therefore, that so many men would find the "lesser" beauties (for want of a better word), those that are merely pretty, more attractive than the model types. I was trying to come up with an explanation, and I think it probably has something to do with men spotting a more maternal, familial instinct in these women. Thus, the fact that, on an evolutionary basis, she might be slightly less fecund is balanced by the fact that she is more likely to stick around, and remain monogamous.

I could be completely wrong in all of this, but it makes sense to me. Does anyone have any information on exactly what causes such preferences in some men, and whether I'm correct or not?

slowburner

Perhaps it is a question of 'like with like'.

sarkozy

You are merely a carrier for your genes. Your genes are ordering you to 'prefer' progenitors of your genes that are 'within your league'.

slowburner

Isn't that what I just said?

Einhard

slowburner wrote: »

Perhaps it is a question of 'like with like'.

sarkozy wrote: »

You are merely a carrier for your genes. Your genes are ordering you to 'prefer' progenitors of your genes that are 'within your league'.

No, I don't think that's true at all. The best possible outcome for your genes is for you to mate with the person with the highest potential for bearing, and rearing, healthy children. Which, generally speaking, we equate with beauty. So one's genes should always direct one towards the most beautiful, and if that fails, to the next most beautiful and so on.

However, many men find pretty women, rather than stunning women, more attractive. I think it makes more sense to posit that we've evolved to see the former as more likely to be faithful and monogamous, and therefore a safer bet for our genes, than the latter. The beautiful women might indicate healthier genes, which increases the likelihood of generational transfer- but (in our genetic mind's eye as it were) there's also a higher possibility that she will be a poor mother, thus lowering the chances of gene survival, relative to the "plainer" pretty woman, who we may be pre-programmed to see as more motherly.

Could it be argued that extremely attractive females will be under more competition--by that, I mean they'll be more likely to attract the attention of other males, increasing the chances of you having to fight to first attract her, to "win" her, and then to "keep" her. If this was the case, then your going for a slightly less attractive female might mean that you'd have less long term "work" and possibly more offspring; that you'd have less trouble from other males. Also, slightly less attractive females might then have less bother from other males once they're pregnant than highly attractive ones might have, possibly resulting in more offspring for you.

But, if that strategy developed in most males, then the highly attractive females wouldn't be "targeted" at all, and competition for slightly-less attractive females would increase. It would then become advantageous to go for the highly attractive females. So there's probably some kind of balance between the two.

The above could be utter nonsense. I'm not as adept when it comes to aspects of evolutionary biology as many others are around here!

slowburner

Einhard wrote: »

but (in our genetic mind's eye as it were) there's also a higher possibility that she will be a poor mother,

Why do you think that beautiful women might be poor mothers, in our genetic minds' eye?

Dr. Astronaut

I think attraction has a lot to do with averages. Think about what you mean when you say someone (male or female) is "stunning"; chances are you mean their features are striking, make you stand up and take notice. The likely reason for that is that their features are somewhere on the extremes of human appearance, on the very opposite end of those you deem "circus ugly". I think there must be an evolutionary advantage to being close to average - fewer recessive genes? Fewer mutations? I don't really know, and it's been a long time since I studied population genetics, but I think there's something there. Think also about the last person you saw who would be attractive, but has made some cosmetic or stylistic choice that places them outside the mainstream - a girl who would be pretty if she didn't have a mohawk or something like that. I think non-genetic deviation from the norm has the same effect. There must be safety within a standard deviation of the mean.

looksee

A lot of the phwoar factor has to do with what the woman does with what she has got. Also with what society is telling us is desirable. A woman could have a great body and face but dress down to the extent that she is not noticeable. Another one who might be rather more average can do things with makeup and clothes that make her seem desirable. How desirable though is a skinny slim figure if you are looking for a mate who will easily produce children?

A woman who has been tweeked to perfection sets out her stall to say 'look at me, I'm gorgeous' and men believe her. But how much is the price of gorgeousness, and do men subconsciously know that she will be high maintenance and may even realise that a child would suffer for the time she spends pursuing physical perfection.

Also, at what stage did humans move from the norm of the animal kingdom where the male has to attract a female, rather than the other way round?

slowburner

looksee wrote: »

A lot of the phwoar factor has to do with what the woman does with what she has got. Also with what society is telling us is desirable. A woman could have a great body and face but dress down to the extent that she is not noticeable. Another one who might be rather more average can do things with makeup and clothes that make her seem desirable. How desirable though is a skinny slim figure if you are looking for a mate who will easily produce children?

A woman who has been tweeked to perfection sets out her stall to say 'look at me, I'm gorgeous' and men believe her. But how much is the price of gorgeousness, and do men subconsciously know that she will be high maintenance and may even realise that a child would suffer for the time she spends pursuing physical perfection.

Also, at what stage did humans move from the norm of the animal kingdom where the male has to attract a female, rather than the other way round?

Very interesting question.
Of course males have to attract females. But the difference is in the display - Ferraris and expense accounts versus makeup and boob jobs

Dr. Astronaut

I think the parts that don't make strict evolutionary sense are accounted for by the fact that we are not under the same evolutionary pressures as we were when we were apes. Arguably, we're no longer under ANY evolutionary pressure, in the strictest sense. Sexual selection now accounts for all of our "fitness", and it's become distorted by our social natures. We no longer decide attractiveness based on perceived fitness, nor even on our own perceptions, but on what our social group has told us is attractive. It's sort of sad... group-think on a species-wide scale.

Seachmall

slowburner wrote: »

Why do you think that beautiful women might be poor mothers, in our genetic minds' eye?

Possibly the simple fact that pretty women are more common than absolutely stunning women is suggestive to poor mothering abilities.

If they do attract a large number of mates and have no fail in reproducing why would their genes become less common than women who we see as less attractive?

Of course as mentioned above it's all comparable, an extraordinarily beautiful women would be less common than an average looking one or they wouldn't, by definition, be extraordinarily beautiful.

Enkidu

I think this is one of those things that is very difficult to understand and ultimately as much as we like to come up with explanations we just currently do not know.

For example it might be simple enough to ask the question "Why doesn't a given man go for the most attractive female?", but the problem is that in order to have a fairly concrete evolutionary explanation there would need to be a fairly culturally independent notion of what is very attractive and unfortunately there isn't. Also, remember our genes don't influence us as directly as a lot of other animals. For example your genes might imprint on your brain "Go after the most attractive member of the opposite sex", but leave it to environmental imprinting in your formative years to come up with what is attractive. And so, if "pretty and nice" is attractive more so than "very pretty", you're still following your genes. You're still going for the sexiest there is, it's just that, for whatever environmental reasons, cute is sexy.

Although even this is just a suggestion, there's so much nonlinear back and forth between genes and mental processes in our behaviour that we are still at a very early stage in understanding human sexuality.

Iwannahurl

Could waist-hip ratio be the main influence?

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/profilewhr.pdf

Sinfonia

gvn wrote: »

But, if that strategy developed in most males, then the highly attractive females wouldn't be "targeted" at all, and competition for slightly-less attractive females would increase. It would then become advantageous to go for the highly attractive females. So there's probably some kind of balance between the two.

Isn't that exactly the example they use in 'A Beautiful Mind' to illustrate a Nash Equilibrium?

Phwoar girls are intimidating. Apparently in Japan some women are purposely getting fake crooked teeth put in because they want to be less intimidating to men.

Plus there is often a subconscious anger towards women you feel are "out of your league". Which is why very often men describe extremely attractive women as snobby or assume they're lacking in other facets of their life, such as intellect or maternal instinct.

Of course these are both gross generalisations, but there is a nugget of truth in there somewhere.

slowburner

true-or-false wrote: »

Phwoar girls are intimidating. Apparently in Japan some women are purposely getting fake crooked teeth put in because they want to be less intimidating to men.

Plus there is often a subconscious anger towards women you feel are "out of your league". Which is why very often men describe extremely attractive women as snobby or assume they're lacking in other facets of their life, such as intellect or maternal instinct.

Of course these are both gross generalisations, but there is a nugget of truth in there somewhere.

It can be a surprise alright when someone beautiful happens to be a very nice person too.