Handsome men evolved thanks to picky females

New Scientist ^ | 5/12/04 | Andy Coghlan

[LibWhacker]

Today's handsome hunks may owe their good looks to a sexual power shift towards the fair sex during primate evolution.

As our ancestors evolved, the ability to attract a female mate through good looks became may have become more important in the mating stakes than the ability to fight off male rivals, suggests a new study.

By analysing the shapes and sizes of facial features in chimps, gorillas and other primates, researchers in Germany and the University of Cambridge, UK, found evidence suggesting that our ancestors may have gradually sacrificed fighting for wooing.

"Our research suggests that in early humans, a face that was attractive as opposed to aggressive conferred an advantage," says Eleanor Weston at the Research Institute Senckenberg in Frankfurt, a member of the team.

She says that changes were probably driven by choosy females who began to demand handsomeness, not brute force.

Receding canines

Prominent canine teeth which still signify a male's dominance and fighting ability in many primates like baboons and gorillas, may have been replaced by less aggressive teeth and looks.

Broader faces with prominent cheekbones, not unlike those of contemporary movie stars including Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Viggo Mortensen, were picked preferentially by females.

Weston drew her conclusions after initially studying facial features of chimps and gorillas. In most primates, males have much longer canines than females, a trait that often reflects which males are dominant. This difference was much less prominent in the chimps.

Sexual selection was starting to be driven by the attractiveness of a male's face in the chimps, believes Weston, and this tallied with development of broader faces with more prominent cheekbones, plus receding canines.

The same pattern emerged when Weston unearthed facial data on other primates. Wherever males had broader faces, their canines were closer in size to those of females. The opposite was true in males with more elongated faces.

"At one end of the spectrum were humans and chimps, where mate choice may have been more important," says Weston. "At the other end where you had baboons and gorillas, competition between males may have been more important."

Weston, adds she has further, unpublished data on human faces which supports her conclusions.

[Enduring Freedom]

Yes, you need only a Socialist conspiracy to win the Pulitzer, Oscar or Nobel Prize.

Ask Jimmy Carter or Yassar Arafat.

[Tamzee]

But we do! Respect you for your minds, I mean.... in the morning ;-)

I wish to thank all the ladies that went before me for my handsome gent of a hubby. I don't believe he would be nearly as gorgeous if he had dog-teeth!

[tacticalogic]

And I notice the author doesn't address the complimentary riddle . . . Why aren't more women . . . um . . . like, 42Ds? Evolution works both ways.

As I understand the process, it doesn't actually work both ways. The man chases the woman until she catches him.

[Snerfling]

Once Maslow's basic requirements were met (food, clothing & shelter), women were able to focus on more esoteric ideals in selecting a mate, such as looks. (Probably an early indicator of good health.)

Of course, this goes both ways. Women have also become much more attractive over the eons. Just who do you think were the 'old maids'? Hot chicks were picked off at 16+. (I think the marriage age is 14 in Miss with parental consent.)

You can still see this today. How many heinous women are lezzies? How many times have you seen a ugly chick and thought that's she's too unattractive to breed?

[Socratic]

"It's a pet peeve of mine that so few journalists who write about evolution seem to understand the way that it actually works!"

Given the journalist's perspective on evolution, wouldn't it be more likely that the brutish, raping males "chose" females with finer, more delicate features which translated into a more feminine beauty being passed down to males and females alike? Aren't we told that all sex is basically rape?

[Enduring Freedom]

Yes, you need only a Socialist conspiracy to win the Pulitzer, Oscar or Nobel Prize.

Ask Jimmy Carter or Yassar Arafat.

Which is why I consider them worthless.

[Dr. Frank fan]

The females would not have suddenly decided that they liked some look better than others--they would have had some reason for deciding that males with that look would be more likely to reproduce than the others, and hence would have selected them.

I disagree. I doubt "he looks more likely to reproduce than the others" enters into mate selection in the first place. And, I don't think that's what evolution claims.

This author makes it sound like they woke up one day and thought, "hmm, the bulky aggressive look is out!"

I don't see why that can't be the case. Keeping in mind that "woke one up day and decided" really means "over a period of ten thousand years or so, their brain chemistry changed so that..."

(It's a pet peeve of mine that so few journalists who write about evolution seem to understand the way that it actually works!)

I'm not sure I understand how evolution "works" either, :-) but I do dispute the way you've presented it.

[varon]

.............found evidence suggesting that our ancestors may have gradually sacrificed fighting for wooing.

If this is the case then you'd think by now a 9" tongue for men would be the norm ;-)

[tacticalogic]

I think he's saying there's got to be more to it than just the cosmetics. Particular physical features need to have some intrinsic property generally associated with them that is actually a benefit to survival.

[rw4site]

Sorry! There's just not enough women who could command a good looking guy unless he's brain damaged. But then, maybe that explains the loss of man's will to protect "the weaker sex."

Too many overweight Hillary looking women (Notice! I didn't say ugly.) will never have the choice of good looking guys. Anyway, they all look prettier at closing time.

A woman drove me to drink and drinking drove me to women. Now I don't drink and does anyone know any more tired old clichés?

[Michael Barnes]

Right on..

Still trying to figure out your tag line...

[mtbopfuyn]

Handsome doesn't put food on the cave floor.

[tacticalogic]

If this is the case then you'd think by now a 9" tongue for men would be the norm ;-)

And our penises would be on our chins.

[Springman]

Because more that a mouth full is a waste.

[johnfrink]

Well, the basic concept of evolution is that "choices" are not choices as much as they are decisions about what is more likely to perpetuate the gene pool of the person/thing making the decision. So from an evolutionary perspective, men like women with big breasts because they believe, on a subconscious level, that those women will be better able to provide nourishment for young children, and thus will be better able to perpetuate the genes of the men into the next generation. It's for the same reason that you can claim women like taller rather than shorter men--because on a subconscious level they feel that those men are more likely to protect them, and will thus enable them to reproduce.

So that's what I'm saying about this article--there had to be some actual reason that men with the less aggressive look were judged to be better mates. And, from an evolutionary perspective, it had to be something that made the females think that they would be better suited to continue the gene pool.

One hypothesis could be that aggressive males were more likely to kill their own children, and the females correctly concluded that their genes would not be passed along if the males they selected were killing the children they helped produce.

[hunter112]

Good one! I think we can pretty much dismiss evolutionary development as affecting men's facial features ever since the invention of money.

[Billthedrill]

Egad - I'm the pick of the litter?

Well, the Drill cave-men weren't noted for looks, I guess, but ladies, I'm lookin' in the mirror here and you've got some 'splainin' to do...

[al baby]

"

[wtc911]

I thought it was big feet that attracted women.;^)....

You know what big feet mean.....big shoes.

[Betis70]

Because men will ... um ... you know ... 'do' pretty much anything that moves.