[b_sharp]

I remember the studies done 20 years ago or so on the preference for facial symmetry but I've heard little about it lately.

My contention is that 'small faces' is not likely to be the result of sexual selection. This is because even those that do not match the 'ideal' appearance are given the opportunity to pass on their ugly genes (even I have two kids). In fact if we look at the statistics that show attractive people are more likely to be successful and better educated than the less than physically perfect and the statistics on family size as related to education level it appears the less attractive may be more likely to pass on their genes. Granted, this is a fairly recent phenomenon but humans have had a fairly stable gender ratio of 1 to 1 and monogamous relationships for quite a while.

Of course, the historians here are likely to tell me I'm out to lunch and I'll have to rethink my hypothesis.

[furball4paws]

I'll give you a couple of things I'm sure you already know about.

1. Perfumes
2. Deodorants
3. Cosmetics
4. PHERMONES

I can guarantee you that if a woman had hair on her back and howled, there'd be a long line to "service" her if she overproduced pheromones. Now they are covered up by assorted other "stinks".

And you add that the "preferred" ones now are so wrapped up in conquests and notches on their belts (both sexes) because of birth control and you get the ugly reproducing and happy and the "pretty" ones sterile and empty. Maybe we have a negative selection going on. I think having a really beautiful daughter or handsome son can be more a curse. My experience is that the really pretty people are so wrapped up in being looked at that they neglect their heads. Society has gotten in the way of Nature.

So the ugly ones sneak under the radar screen and pass on their genes. Many pretty ones end up old and flabby and alone.