What fascinating articles. With the focus on AI and all the tech upgrades for intelligence coming in the future, your focus on evolutionary sexual attractiveness and its’ ramifications is such a wonderfully appropriate antidote to the craziness. My mind is literally spinning with all the possibilities of what the future holds for people, for relationships and families. Not only will physical standards of attractiveness morph - what happens when intelligence is dictated by brain enhancements? What happens when we are demoted from our position being kings and queens of this planet? How will survival, attractiveness and even happiness be achieved? I can only guess it will be one helluva wild ride.
I know this is a difficult subject that touches on very sensitive issues, but intellectually, it's really interesting. Thanks for taking a chance on something like this.
There seem to be two types of debates. "What it is" and "What it should be". Clearly this article focuses on "What it is" and it is indeed an interesting analysis. Please keep going on (despite of some readers not understanding the difference). Thanks for your work
I read the article you linked in the “playing hard to get” section, which talking about how the strategy could lead men in the study to want to interact with the woman more, but like them less. A lightbulb went off as I remembered some material I’ve read about food cravings and addiction and how the wanting for junk food is fueled by dopamine, which can overpower the more fragile pathways that motivated by salience/liking of healthier foods. The food study participants did not particularly like the food they craved, but couldn’t stop wanting it.
I feel like there must be a parallel here, but not sure what it is exactly...if we are attracted to someone, but they play hard to get (the assumption being they are evolutionarily much fitter than us = out of our league in attractiveness), does dopamine drive us to make the risky play and still go after them, in the off chance that the play might work and we can land a evolutionarily much fitter mate than we otherwise would have? It’s a bit half baked, but I feel like there must be something there.
As a man who is not particularly dominant, with average to small physique, and a strong tendency towards honesty and faithfulness, I've sometimes wondered why my genetic line could be successful. Bashfully, I will say the males in my family are good looking. But would women just prefer a man with a good face?
I eventually drew the conclusion that the practical skills won the day. Can it be that men who have the ability to fix problems and produce an economic benefit could actually produce more offspring with a greater chance of survival than the handsome big shouldered square jawed Adonis? If I wrote my fathers gravestone I would say "a very capable man". Should I also write "and we were quietly productive guys who could spread their seed far and wide"?
Maybe always being number 3 is a genetic advantage.
This strategy is the long-term mating one, which is a valid one. In fact, with contraception now, it’s probably more successful than the Chad approach.
I'm enjoying the read - and admire your courage in covering this charged topic.
I'm wondering if you have read 'sex at dawn'. This book attempts to explain the sex lives of our distant forebears when they were living as hunters and gatherers - most of human history. I bought it full of scepticism that anything substantial could be known about this. Not only is it an amusing read, it really is amazing how much they can conject about the sex lives of early humans - much of these observations dovetail with your writing.
Hi Tomas. Brave of you to tread this ground. Speaking as a biologist again, I think some of your conclusions are a bit facile and tend to leave out the complexities. Uncertainty of paternity, for example, is a large issue in behavioral ecology. As you said, it is generally disastrous for a male to invest resources and time in rearing another male's offspring, with the relative cost rising as the number of offspring that can be produced in a life decreasing. For rodents with multiple large litters, cuckoldry may not be as dire. But for humans the cost is huge, given the limited number of children that could be birthed and survive to adulthood. I'm nvarious animals, like ungulates and social primates, males carefully guard females in their harems when they are fertile. This is possible when female are only in estous for a limited time each year. Humans are highly unusual in that women are often sexually receptive even when they are not ovulating. "Cryptic" ovulation and prolonged sexual receptivity may have evolved in women as an adaptation to keep males from roaming in search of other fertile women, given the importance of males helping to raise young kids. But these adaptations also make it harder for males to guard mates during times of fertilty. Humans apparently understood this conundrum early on and religious and folkloric traditions talk alot about the value of chastity and fidelity. In some Polynesian societies where promiscuity was the norm, males invested resources in helping to rear their sisters' children rather than their wives'! They knew for certain that their sisters kids shared 1/4 of their genes on average, but their wives kids could share no genes. All kinds of interesting variations in this story.
Thanks. I preferred your work on geography and of course, on COVID, which was of course brilliant and original, to this material on sexual selection, a subject which is widely understood. Still, there were a few tidbits in here (eyelashes) which I did not know. And thanks for the call for compassion for menopausal women and even Incel men. Compassion is not a bad general rule.
Thanks Barry. I was indeed acquainted with the topic for years, but started writing when I realized most people weren’t. It’s a handicap to understand human relationships!
I wouldn't touch this subject with a 10-foot pole. Attraction and 'love' is so individual . Some general rules tend to apply (wealth - "good looks" - ?? ) but some vary so much from person to person.
El tamaño de los senos importa porque son indicativos de: 1) de qué sexo es el individuo y 2) de haber dejado atrás la edad infancia y tratarse muy probablemente de individuos fértiles.
Pero luego del punto de base que proporciona el tamaño, es un atractivo mayor, o un indicador más refinado que el tamaño, la turgencia, ya que proporciona información sobre en qué etapa de la fertilidad se halla el individuo.
I usually find your articles to be well researched and insightful but this one feels like the research was only lightly done. I don't disagree with the points made but I feel like there is a lot missing. Many men (attractive men) decide to marry women who are average in looks as they possess other desirable traits. I think there is far more nuance here and usually you are quite good at uncovering that and presenting something with a unique and thoughtful perspective.
One interesting theory regarding breasts in women is to do with our noses. Other apes have flat noses where ours are better adapted to swimming (water flows over and away from the nostrils) but that means our newborns can have issues suckling from a flat chest. Protruding breasts makes room for the nose so the baby can breathe. The density of the breasts is important too as they still squish in but some firmness means air can flow.
Super interesting on breasts. Hadn’t thought of that. Thanks for sharing!
Articles can only be so big. I need several to cover the type of nuance you share. These first articles’ goal was to establish the basics. But I also think what you spell out is compatible with the articles. Indeed, assortative mating on psychological traits can be overwhelming of physical attractiveness, although usually assortative mating also applies there. In other words, the scenario you present is probable but not very prevalent. And those are the rules that I’m trying to convey.
It is prevalent though. The article that you linked showing the men prefer the look of 20 year olds goes on to show that men don't actually message those women or have their age ranges go that low. What other evidence do you show? If anything that article supports the idea that while men do prefer younger looking partners, they have other preferences that outweigh youth. If we look at the richest men in the world they are not often dating 20 year olds.
To bring this back to game theory, we need to consider two different scenarios for men. One is the short term, impregnate and run, the other is the long term, marry and provide. In the first, youth and fertility are much more important and standards are lower. In the second the man will spend a great deal of his resources supporting the family. He will select far more carefully and far more broadly for a variety of attributes in a partner.
You claim articles can only be so big but spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing indicators of youth, which is kind of boring and well trod ground. You present cultural preferences as universal preferences with large helpings of "might" and "maybe" to smooth over the poorly researched edges. Why waste words speculating if space is so precious? If the aim was to establish the basics it's fairly lopsided ground missing the structure to discuss the truly interesting parts of the topic.
Noted, thanks. A quick internet search seems to confirm your point, but I'm not totally convinced yet. I note here:
"the actual causes of low milk supply at the molecular level inside a breast’s epithelial tissue are still unknown...
Interestingly, the change in breast size (breast volume) from pre-pregnancy to lactation can be an indicator of how well the breast performs during lactation"
I wonder whether there is an indirect link, and not all fat is the same — so maybe the breast grows specialised fat to feed the milk-producing epithelial cells, which normal fat can't do (hence obese women with big breasts don't make more milk).
Also the research is probably done on typical western women with only one or two babies to feed. Being able to feed many more hungry babies in a collective cave tribe might be different.
Fat doesn't produce milk, breast tissue does. And increase in breast tissue would mean more milk production. Males also have a small amount of breast tissue hence they can lactate as you noted earlier.
Another theory I think makes sense is that breast cleavage looks like butt cleavage which men find attractive. As we transitioned to waking upright it became a desirable trait. There is another ape that has a similar thing, a red patch on the female's chest that mimics the red of the buttocks when they're ovulating.
I realise fat doesn't produce milk. But the milk-producing epithelial cells can't make milk from nothing — they need nutrients and energy, so maybe they get that partly from the adjacent fat cells, if they're the right type.
They make milk from blood. Fat cells have mo mechanism to supply nutrients, they are storage that is transported via the blood stream. It doesn't matter where those stores are and, as we've discussed, the amount of fatty tissue in the breast isn't correlated with milk supply
Fat is needed for lactation, but not locally. Many mammals have nipples without local fat storages. As a result, it’s clear that female human breasts are sexual ornaments. The question is why it appeared there in humans, and I don’t know the answer. Linking it to bipedalism sounds like a valid hypothesis.
Fascinating. I recall reading that blonde hair is selected for in colder, northern climes because it’s a marker of youth and femininity that’s easy to detect even when the body is bundled up in clothes to keep warm.
I assume people have blonde hair in colder, northern climes because it allows more of the limited sun to reach the scalp to generate Vitamin D. So it's a marker of health. Maybe that's less important for men if they're outside more often (killing wooly mammoths, whilst the women mind the kids in the cave).
This topic is radioactive. You show a lot of courage (or naivete) in dealing with it. I fear you will draw the wrath of many zealots who will crucify you for daring to mess with their orthodoxy. Best of luck.
it does modern men no good to analyze their relationships to real women through the lens of gaming the cave-man’s dating life. when talking about attraction between men and women, wouldn’t it be more useful to frame your findings in terms a modern audience would find applicable? these sanitary terms have their place, but only in forensic anthropology.
as well i feel more sympathy for the menopausal woman as opposed to the average incel because women who have matured (in terms of intellect, decorum, respectability, and class) who are slowly abandoned by their society go through a silent tragedy. incels on the other hand are often in their state of course because of their looks but far more likely because of their disgusting disregard for the wants, needs, and views of people who don’t share their experiences. incels have fallen down a rabbit hole of insecurity and loathing that makes them lash out on the world and perpetuate an air of hopelessness. While both menopausal women and incels face some degree of injustice, incels loose half the battle every day by thinking in the cold terms laid out in this article and not as modern, rational adults.
I am not giving dating or seduction advice, at least not quite yet. I’m establishing the bases for that in the future. The language is adapted to the scientific approach I’m taking here.
The comparison between incels and menopausal women was not to undermine the lived experience of menopausal women. It has to be hard to lose attention. Whatever we can do as a society to ease that pain should be done.
What I was trying to do with the comparison is to create empathy for incels. Not the incel culture, which as I understand has toxicity, but for the incels themselves—literally involuntary celibates, men who would want to mate with a woman. I find lack of empathy for any suffering group one of the biggest barriers to helping them, and incels shouldn’t be different. Generalizations about how bad they all are probably don’t help either.
Agree with what Connie wrote, and I would add that menopausal women do not blame men or society for their state, while incel men tend to blame women for their celibacy, without taking a deep look at themselves and at how repulsive for women are their actions (probably much more than their physiques) towards them. I'd say that you definitively cannot compare menopausal women to incels. I am also not even sure about compassion. Menopausal women do not need compassion, but respect and recognition. Incels need therapy.
What fascinating articles. With the focus on AI and all the tech upgrades for intelligence coming in the future, your focus on evolutionary sexual attractiveness and its’ ramifications is such a wonderfully appropriate antidote to the craziness. My mind is literally spinning with all the possibilities of what the future holds for people, for relationships and families. Not only will physical standards of attractiveness morph - what happens when intelligence is dictated by brain enhancements? What happens when we are demoted from our position being kings and queens of this planet? How will survival, attractiveness and even happiness be achieved? I can only guess it will be one helluva wild ride.
Thank you for your work. It was amazing.
Glad to hear!
Enjoying your work sir. Well worth the money, don’t let the haters get you down
Thank you for the support, Derek. It’s not always easy
I know this is a difficult subject that touches on very sensitive issues, but intellectually, it's really interesting. Thanks for taking a chance on something like this.
Glad to hear!
There seem to be two types of debates. "What it is" and "What it should be". Clearly this article focuses on "What it is" and it is indeed an interesting analysis. Please keep going on (despite of some readers not understanding the difference). Thanks for your work
Indeed!
I read the article you linked in the “playing hard to get” section, which talking about how the strategy could lead men in the study to want to interact with the woman more, but like them less. A lightbulb went off as I remembered some material I’ve read about food cravings and addiction and how the wanting for junk food is fueled by dopamine, which can overpower the more fragile pathways that motivated by salience/liking of healthier foods. The food study participants did not particularly like the food they craved, but couldn’t stop wanting it.
I feel like there must be a parallel here, but not sure what it is exactly...if we are attracted to someone, but they play hard to get (the assumption being they are evolutionarily much fitter than us = out of our league in attractiveness), does dopamine drive us to make the risky play and still go after them, in the off chance that the play might work and we can land a evolutionarily much fitter mate than we otherwise would have? It’s a bit half baked, but I feel like there must be something there.
Interesting. That sounds reasonable!
As a man who is not particularly dominant, with average to small physique, and a strong tendency towards honesty and faithfulness, I've sometimes wondered why my genetic line could be successful. Bashfully, I will say the males in my family are good looking. But would women just prefer a man with a good face?
I eventually drew the conclusion that the practical skills won the day. Can it be that men who have the ability to fix problems and produce an economic benefit could actually produce more offspring with a greater chance of survival than the handsome big shouldered square jawed Adonis? If I wrote my fathers gravestone I would say "a very capable man". Should I also write "and we were quietly productive guys who could spread their seed far and wide"?
Maybe always being number 3 is a genetic advantage.
This strategy is the long-term mating one, which is a valid one. In fact, with contraception now, it’s probably more successful than the Chad approach.
Hi Tomas,
I'm enjoying the read - and admire your courage in covering this charged topic.
I'm wondering if you have read 'sex at dawn'. This book attempts to explain the sex lives of our distant forebears when they were living as hunters and gatherers - most of human history. I bought it full of scepticism that anything substantial could be known about this. Not only is it an amusing read, it really is amazing how much they can conject about the sex lives of early humans - much of these observations dovetail with your writing.
Regards,
Vince
Reading now!
Hi Tomas. Brave of you to tread this ground. Speaking as a biologist again, I think some of your conclusions are a bit facile and tend to leave out the complexities. Uncertainty of paternity, for example, is a large issue in behavioral ecology. As you said, it is generally disastrous for a male to invest resources and time in rearing another male's offspring, with the relative cost rising as the number of offspring that can be produced in a life decreasing. For rodents with multiple large litters, cuckoldry may not be as dire. But for humans the cost is huge, given the limited number of children that could be birthed and survive to adulthood. I'm nvarious animals, like ungulates and social primates, males carefully guard females in their harems when they are fertile. This is possible when female are only in estous for a limited time each year. Humans are highly unusual in that women are often sexually receptive even when they are not ovulating. "Cryptic" ovulation and prolonged sexual receptivity may have evolved in women as an adaptation to keep males from roaming in search of other fertile women, given the importance of males helping to raise young kids. But these adaptations also make it harder for males to guard mates during times of fertilty. Humans apparently understood this conundrum early on and religious and folkloric traditions talk alot about the value of chastity and fidelity. In some Polynesian societies where promiscuity was the norm, males invested resources in helping to rear their sisters' children rather than their wives'! They knew for certain that their sisters kids shared 1/4 of their genes on average, but their wives kids could share no genes. All kinds of interesting variations in this story.
You’re right! You’re ahead of the curve. I will be covering all of this!
I look forward to future postings on this.
Thanks. I preferred your work on geography and of course, on COVID, which was of course brilliant and original, to this material on sexual selection, a subject which is widely understood. Still, there were a few tidbits in here (eyelashes) which I did not know. And thanks for the call for compassion for menopausal women and even Incel men. Compassion is not a bad general rule.
Thanks Barry. I was indeed acquainted with the topic for years, but started writing when I realized most people weren’t. It’s a handicap to understand human relationships!
I wouldn't touch this subject with a 10-foot pole. Attraction and 'love' is so individual . Some general rules tend to apply (wealth - "good looks" - ?? ) but some vary so much from person to person.
That is true indeed! That’s a lot of what assortative mating is about.
Love it. Keep going !!
El tamaño de los senos importa porque son indicativos de: 1) de qué sexo es el individuo y 2) de haber dejado atrás la edad infancia y tratarse muy probablemente de individuos fértiles.
Pero luego del punto de base que proporciona el tamaño, es un atractivo mayor, o un indicador más refinado que el tamaño, la turgencia, ya que proporciona información sobre en qué etapa de la fertilidad se halla el individuo.
Hi Tomas,
I usually find your articles to be well researched and insightful but this one feels like the research was only lightly done. I don't disagree with the points made but I feel like there is a lot missing. Many men (attractive men) decide to marry women who are average in looks as they possess other desirable traits. I think there is far more nuance here and usually you are quite good at uncovering that and presenting something with a unique and thoughtful perspective.
One interesting theory regarding breasts in women is to do with our noses. Other apes have flat noses where ours are better adapted to swimming (water flows over and away from the nostrils) but that means our newborns can have issues suckling from a flat chest. Protruding breasts makes room for the nose so the baby can breathe. The density of the breasts is important too as they still squish in but some firmness means air can flow.
Super interesting on breasts. Hadn’t thought of that. Thanks for sharing!
Articles can only be so big. I need several to cover the type of nuance you share. These first articles’ goal was to establish the basics. But I also think what you spell out is compatible with the articles. Indeed, assortative mating on psychological traits can be overwhelming of physical attractiveness, although usually assortative mating also applies there. In other words, the scenario you present is probable but not very prevalent. And those are the rules that I’m trying to convey.
It is prevalent though. The article that you linked showing the men prefer the look of 20 year olds goes on to show that men don't actually message those women or have their age ranges go that low. What other evidence do you show? If anything that article supports the idea that while men do prefer younger looking partners, they have other preferences that outweigh youth. If we look at the richest men in the world they are not often dating 20 year olds.
To bring this back to game theory, we need to consider two different scenarios for men. One is the short term, impregnate and run, the other is the long term, marry and provide. In the first, youth and fertility are much more important and standards are lower. In the second the man will spend a great deal of his resources supporting the family. He will select far more carefully and far more broadly for a variety of attributes in a partner.
You claim articles can only be so big but spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing indicators of youth, which is kind of boring and well trod ground. You present cultural preferences as universal preferences with large helpings of "might" and "maybe" to smooth over the poorly researched edges. Why waste words speculating if space is so precious? If the aim was to establish the basics it's fairly lopsided ground missing the structure to discuss the truly interesting parts of the topic.
I have alternative explanations for why women store fat so as to have uniquely-permanent breasts (and have longer, thicker hair than men):
https://sites.google.com/site/drdavidcthorp/human-services/queer?authuser=0#:~:text=this%20must%20be%20why%20permanent%20breasts%20are%20a%20uniquely%20human%20thing
Interesting but large, protruding breasts aren't necessary for lactation. And breast size doesn't correlate to milk production volume either
Noted, thanks. A quick internet search seems to confirm your point, but I'm not totally convinced yet. I note here:
"the actual causes of low milk supply at the molecular level inside a breast’s epithelial tissue are still unknown...
Interestingly, the change in breast size (breast volume) from pre-pregnancy to lactation can be an indicator of how well the breast performs during lactation"
https://www.milkgenomics.org/?splash=do-larger-breasts-make-more-milk
I wonder whether there is an indirect link, and not all fat is the same — so maybe the breast grows specialised fat to feed the milk-producing epithelial cells, which normal fat can't do (hence obese women with big breasts don't make more milk).
Also the research is probably done on typical western women with only one or two babies to feed. Being able to feed many more hungry babies in a collective cave tribe might be different.
Fat doesn't produce milk, breast tissue does. And increase in breast tissue would mean more milk production. Males also have a small amount of breast tissue hence they can lactate as you noted earlier.
Another theory I think makes sense is that breast cleavage looks like butt cleavage which men find attractive. As we transitioned to waking upright it became a desirable trait. There is another ape that has a similar thing, a red patch on the female's chest that mimics the red of the buttocks when they're ovulating.
I realise fat doesn't produce milk. But the milk-producing epithelial cells can't make milk from nothing — they need nutrients and energy, so maybe they get that partly from the adjacent fat cells, if they're the right type.
They make milk from blood. Fat cells have mo mechanism to supply nutrients, they are storage that is transported via the blood stream. It doesn't matter where those stores are and, as we've discussed, the amount of fatty tissue in the breast isn't correlated with milk supply
Fat is needed for lactation, but not locally. Many mammals have nipples without local fat storages. As a result, it’s clear that female human breasts are sexual ornaments. The question is why it appeared there in humans, and I don’t know the answer. Linking it to bipedalism sounds like a valid hypothesis.
Fascinating. I recall reading that blonde hair is selected for in colder, northern climes because it’s a marker of youth and femininity that’s easy to detect even when the body is bundled up in clothes to keep warm.
That would be an interesting finding. I’ve never heard that
I assume people have blonde hair in colder, northern climes because it allows more of the limited sun to reach the scalp to generate Vitamin D. So it's a marker of health. Maybe that's less important for men if they're outside more often (killing wooly mammoths, whilst the women mind the kids in the cave).
Apparently scientists don’t know for sure, form a 3m Internet browse!
Haven't read your entire piece yet, but the extreme make-up is a "super-normal stimulus", which has been researched for some time.
Oh I didn’t know about this. Just googled. Fascinating! So are breasts apparently.
This topic is radioactive. You show a lot of courage (or naivete) in dealing with it. I fear you will draw the wrath of many zealots who will crucify you for daring to mess with their orthodoxy. Best of luck.
I’m trying!
it does modern men no good to analyze their relationships to real women through the lens of gaming the cave-man’s dating life. when talking about attraction between men and women, wouldn’t it be more useful to frame your findings in terms a modern audience would find applicable? these sanitary terms have their place, but only in forensic anthropology.
as well i feel more sympathy for the menopausal woman as opposed to the average incel because women who have matured (in terms of intellect, decorum, respectability, and class) who are slowly abandoned by their society go through a silent tragedy. incels on the other hand are often in their state of course because of their looks but far more likely because of their disgusting disregard for the wants, needs, and views of people who don’t share their experiences. incels have fallen down a rabbit hole of insecurity and loathing that makes them lash out on the world and perpetuate an air of hopelessness. While both menopausal women and incels face some degree of injustice, incels loose half the battle every day by thinking in the cold terms laid out in this article and not as modern, rational adults.
Hi Connie,
I am not giving dating or seduction advice, at least not quite yet. I’m establishing the bases for that in the future. The language is adapted to the scientific approach I’m taking here.
The comparison between incels and menopausal women was not to undermine the lived experience of menopausal women. It has to be hard to lose attention. Whatever we can do as a society to ease that pain should be done.
What I was trying to do with the comparison is to create empathy for incels. Not the incel culture, which as I understand has toxicity, but for the incels themselves—literally involuntary celibates, men who would want to mate with a woman. I find lack of empathy for any suffering group one of the biggest barriers to helping them, and incels shouldn’t be different. Generalizations about how bad they all are probably don’t help either.
"Generalizations about how bad they all are probably don’t help either."
But this whole series has been a big, fat generalization!
Agree with what Connie wrote, and I would add that menopausal women do not blame men or society for their state, while incel men tend to blame women for their celibacy, without taking a deep look at themselves and at how repulsive for women are their actions (probably much more than their physiques) towards them. I'd say that you definitively cannot compare menopausal women to incels. I am also not even sure about compassion. Menopausal women do not need compassion, but respect and recognition. Incels need therapy.