What body types do women/guys find most/least attractive?

LLMMLL wrote: »

A lot of types aren't down to genetics though. My sister goes crazy for a guy wearing geek glasses. There's hardly a gene for that.

Oh I don't think there's a gene or suite of genes for that L. The problem with genetics is that it's the science flavour of the decade and is applied to everything willy nilly. So if all you use is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Ditto for the exalted position of evolution*.

However your sister may be attracted to that type because a) it's a type prominent in her inner template and/or b) she is more that type herself and like tends to seek out like and/or c) "geek glasses" is more likely to signify higher intelligence(of a certain kind) in a man. Put it this way, in very general terms which group is likely to be more bookish and book smart, a gathering of bespectacled nerds or a gathering of bodybuilders? Again it would make sense that a species would have variability within the population for mate choice in changing environments. EG in a educated protected suburban environment the bespectacled highly educated "geek" is a better bet than the hyper masculine "jock" of average intelligence and education. Whereas if a war kicked off and protection required a more personal direct approach the muscled guy is the better bet. Regardless of environment it makes good sense for a generalist species to keep some minority traits on the go at any one time.

There is also culture and the evolution of same alongside the obvious physical. EG Chinese culture is extremely exam results focused. One explanation for this is that for a thousand plus years civil service entrance exams(and continuing exams within) formed the basis of pretty much the only way to climb through the social ranks(within limits). In European cultures this was far less in play and social mobility was far higher. Even in slave cultures. Many was the wealthiest and most connected Roman who was the offspring of previous slaves, or ex slaves themselves. Look at some populations of the Jewish diaspora who are very much over represented in the sciences. Go back to ancient Greek or Roman times and Jews were just another bunch of funny little middle easterners of little note. They have had quite the suite of social and environmental external pressures and a quite isolated population with it and one that heavily selected for education and learning. Both traits seen as sexually attractive in mates.

This is pretty much the problem with Ev Psych though. You can come up with any explanation and it's completely untestable. People have a certain type. Oh it must have a competitive advantage. There are lots of types. Oh we need genetic diversity.

Diversity is the competitive advantage. We are a species of generalists with an allowance for outliers of all types, in case they may be required in changing environments and this is reflected in our variable tastes.

There's no fossil record for people's preferences.

Actually there is. One could argue the fossil record, both in bones and genes above all shows direct evidence of people's preferences and evolution of what is considered "beauty" in people today, even with the cultural dressing on top. Certain features may have sprung up as a "fault" but were sexually selected for and became more common. EG blonde hair looks to be only about 15-20,000 years old as a feature. It seems women(and men) with such hair colour were having more kids over time.

Take the human waist. The aforementioned hip waist ratio in women is universal regardless of culture and time. The Venus de Milo has the same ratio as Marilyn Monroe and the same as Kate Moss and the women in Rubens paintings and so on and so forth. Hell the same ratio is present in the enormously obese sculptures of women in the paleolithic, the first sculptures of the recognisably human form in art history. Now consider previous humans before us. They had a different ratio. Neandertal women for example had no waists to speak of(neither did the men). Their rib cage kept flaring out towards the bottom, so they were more square, even an inverted V. At some point in our history this waist ratio was positively and heavily selected for as such an attractive feature it became universal among modern peoples**. To the degree that this ratio also shows to have actual reproductive advantages with more healthy hormonal profiles in women with this ratio. Not just in women. Men also have a ratio going on, where shoulders wider than hips was selected for as "attractive".

I have a friend who is solely into women well past child bearing age. His ex is 60. That provides zero advantage, even if all the under 60s are wiped out. She'll never be able to reproduce.

Sure, but in any population, especially one that is more open to diversity, outliers even individual "faults" are allowed. Or it's simply a "fault" in your friend. I mean there are folks who have fallen in love with objects, even buildings.







*caveat; I am NOT a doubter in evolution as a general and damned fantastic theory, I do sometimes doubt its blanket application based on our current understanding of the underlying processes involved.

** maybe this is why so far we've only found Neandertal gene flow into us coming from their male lines. Maybe their women's waist/hip ratio was sufficiently unattractive for our men to largely avoid them as mates? They themselves may show strong sexual selection for some of their traits too, as some traits make little environmental sense. EG they had enormous noses. This is a deleterious trait for living in colder climes. We see this today. Populations native to colder climates have smaller noses and the hotter the climates get the bigger the noses get. Maybe their bog noses came about by "accident" like blonde hair and was positively sexually selected for.