November 3, 2005
MAX FACTOR’S APPLIED DARWINISM
How to make up for a lack of sexual chemistry (Mark Henderson, Timesonline, November 2nd, 2005)
A woman is judged to be more attractive and feminine by men if she has high levels of the hormone oestrogen, according to research.Women with low oestrogen, however, need not despair of their chances of attracting a partner, as the effect is easily defeated by applying a little make-up, leaving men and women alike confused about hormonal facial cues. The findings, from a team at the universities of St Andrews and Edinburgh, suggest that the perceived attractiveness of the female face is directly linked to physiological indicators of fertility and good reproductive health.
Abundant oestrogen is a good predictor of a woman’s ability to conceive, and a predilection for female faces that suggest fecundity could have evolved as a way for men to choose a more fertile mate.
The results suggest that a feminine jawline, a warmer, less pallid complexion and bright, clear eyes are alluring. [...]
“The female face does seem to hold detectable cues to underlying health and fertility, as indexed by oestrogen levels,” Ms Law Smith said. “These cues are used in judgments relevant to mate choice decisions.”
Any clues to fertility provided by the female face, however, are so subtle that they can easily be masked. The research found that any link between oestrogen levels and female beauty disappeared when the women studied wore make-up. These women were rated as more feminine, attractive and healthy than other subjects.
They just keep closing that evidentiary gap, don’t they?
Ha!!! So when my DH complains about the 96,000 little bottles of make up on my side of the bathroom I can just tell wave this study under his nose!
Posted by: Buttercup at November 3, 2005 7:55 AMOur idea of beauty matches what women look like when they wear makeup. Hmmm. Nope, no possible explanation for that except evolution.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 3, 2005 9:25 AM... and advetising.
Posted by: erp at November 3, 2005 10:03 AMMr. Cohen;
You're being silly. Preferred types of makeup evolved to mimic previously existing cues. Do you also think that it's very odd that eye glasses adjust vision to it's optimal natural state?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at November 3, 2005 10:36 AMAOG:
Makeup evolved? You've got it bad, don't you? Are you sure you shouldn't go and lie down until you feel a little better.
Posted by: Peter B at November 3, 2005 12:14 PMAOG: Reconcile this with that.
[Warning: Not completely work safe, though not at all offensive.]
Posted by: David Cohen at November 3, 2005 12:38 PMTotal confusion of biological and social evolution.
AOG is on the right track. Makeup does for sexual attractrion what glasses do for eyesight, cars for locomotion and guns for claws and fangs.
The other point worth examining is the distiction bewteen sexual attractiveness and beauty, concepts related, but not identical. Neither is completely biological or completely cultural.
I detect in some of the above the error that beauty is purely cultural and thus may be politically manipulated. No. While esthetic opinions can be shaded, than cannot be created by political force--there is much more involved than arbitrary fancies about what someone would like beauty to be. Does anyone think that the ancient Greeks looked like Greek gods and godesses?
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 3, 2005 2:21 PMDavid: I assume your point is that the subject of the Rubens painting is a plumper. But note the shared similarites, all of which demonstrate genetic fitness and lack of disease, all of which are qualities which are universally attractive: Facial symmetry, feminine features (small chins, oviod face, lack of facial hair), prominent (and flushed) cheekbones, thick lips, lustrous hair, and unblemished, radiant skin.
Posted by: carter at November 3, 2005 3:22 PMLou:
Makeup does for sexual attractrion what glasses do for eyesight, cars for locomotion and guns for claws and fangs
No, Viagra and raw oysters do. You are mixing up things that enable us or increase our capabilities with things that affect others' perceptions of us, no?
carter: Would you like a little time by yourself?
Posted by: David Cohen at November 3, 2005 4:40 PMif you look at paintings from greece, egypt, rome, babylon, etc the makeup in evidence is not a lot different from what is considered effective now.
makeup enhances and exagerates what is innately attractive. viagra works on the hydraulics but it has no effect on levels of desire; from what i read people tend to stop using it after awhile because it doesn't really address what is wrong in their love life.
put all you want on helen thomas and the ugly shines through loud and clear.
Posted by: plato at November 3, 2005 4:44 PMThe point is that this is inherently ambiguous. Men are attracted to women who look like they have high levels of Estrogen. That could be the result of evolution, or it could be the result of design -- we can't tell (although I am personally pleased to note that, if true, this would be another nail in the coffin of natural selection).
Posted by: David Cohen at November 3, 2005 7:24 PMall i want to know is who do i thank for setting us on the path away from those damn ugly chimps
Posted by: bob gucionne at November 3, 2005 9:52 PM"David: I assume your point is that the subject of the Rubens painting is a plumper. But note the shared similarites, all of which demonstrate genetic fitness and lack of disease, all of which are qualities which are universally attractive: Facial symmetry, feminine features (small chins, oviod face, lack of facial hair), prominent (and flushed) cheekbones, thick lips, lustrous hair, and unblemished, radiant skin."
My ears are burning.
Posted by: RC at November 4, 2005 2:18 AMOldlady: No wonder you're upset! She's lovely! And a darling figure. Supple pouting breasts. . . firm thighs . . . its a shame you two don't get along.
Striker: Yes, I know, things used to be different.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 4, 2005 2:20 PM