Evolution making women more beautiful, men remain as ugly as ever

[jimmy olsen]

I'm dubious, why is it a function of evolution in women but merely social effects with men?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/27/women-attractiveness-study-markets-faces-science.html

Beauty Fades? Ha!
Parmy Olson, 07.27.09, 01:10 PM EDT
A new study shows evolution is making women more attractive over time. Men, not so much.

LONDON -- Women are apparently becoming more attractive over time, and it's not because plastic surgery has become more popular or men are drinking more beer.

A study by the University of Helsinki has found that women are actually becoming more beautiful over time, thanks to the evolutionary process. University researcher Markus Jokela collected his data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, a long-term examination of a random sampling of 10,317 men and women who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957.

Nearly five decades later, people in a separate survey were asked to look at the yearbook photos of around 3,250 of the Wisconsin participants and rate them as attractive or extremely attractive, on a scale of 1 to 11. The women who were rated attractive on average had 16% more children than their less-attractive counterparts.

There was less of a discrepancy when it came to men. The least-attractive men simply tended to have fewer children than their more-attractive counterparts, but Jokela suggests that might have more to do with the social effects of finding a spouse than evolution.

Why is beauty increasing in women over generations? It may come as no surprise to some that physical attractiveness is more important to men than to women. "Women's attractiveness functions as a marker or signal of fecundity and gives some indication about health," Jokela explains. "Men, when they are selecting a mate, are more interested in physical attractiveness in women."

Jokela's study suggests that even as attractive women tend to have more children than their plainer peers, more-attractive men tend to have more daughters than sons. The cycle thus continues over time, suggesting that modeling agencies in the year 3000 will have a glut of applicants and cosmetic surgery will be a more-subtle affair, if it exists at all. "The effect is very small and over several generations," says Jokela.

Some caveats to consider: Jokela's study is based mainly on white high-school graduates from a single U.S. state; also, the study rated "attractiveness" in photographs, so it couldn't take into account things like voice and general mannerisms. Even so, it suggests that women today have a lot less to complain about in terms of what they inherit physically than their ancestors did.

[Grallon]

So attractive women are defined by the number of kids they pop out? 




G.

[Berkut]

So attractive women are defined by the number of kids they pop out? 




G.

Nearly five decades later, people in a separate survey were asked to look at the yearbook photos of around 3,250 of the Wisconsin participants and rate them as attractive or extremely attractive, on a scale of 1 to 11

He even bolded it for you.

[DisturbedPervert]

Jokela's study suggests that even as attractive women tend to have more children than their plainer peers, more-attractive men tend to have more daughters than sons

Other studies have concluded the opposite. Women are more likely to give birth to males when the father is extremely attractive, and females if he is unattractive.  An alpha male is likely to have the opportunity to pass on his genes many times, but even an ugly female will find someone to reproduce with.

[The Brain]

on a scale of 1 to 11

[jimmy olsen]

on a scale of 1 to 11

[HVC]

Make up and plastic surgery are making women more attractive. For men, as always, it's money that makes them more attractive :p


*edit* lol, "men", not "me"

[Martinus]

That'd because handsome men are gay and do not pass their genes.

Anyway, I haven't read the article but I disagree that men are uglier than women - quite the contrary. Women however know better how to keep their looks (because men are largely focused on looks so that's the way to keep the men interested) while straight men let themselves go after they marry and get a child (because then the woman can't just leave them despite them becoming nasty slobs).

This also explains why gay men care about their looks and gay women don't - everybody knows their audience.

[Malthus]

Smells like bullshit to me.

[Jacob]

Observable evolutionary change in humans over 50 years?  That sounds pretty damn fast.

[Eddie Teach]

Jokela's study suggests that even as attractive women tend to have more children than their plainer peers, more-attractive men tend to have more daughters than sons

So attractiveness in men is linked to having more/faster sperm with x-chromosomes?

[garbon]

That'd because handsome men are gay and do not pass their genes.

This also explains why gay men care about their looks and gay women don't - everybody knows their audience.

I don't think all gay men care about their looks...

[Admiral Yi]

Observable evolutionary change in humans over 50 years?  That sounds pretty damn fast.

The experiment was not designed to capture evolutionary change itself, it was designed to capture a mechanism of evolutionary change.

[jimmy olsen]

Observable evolutionary change in humans over 50 years?  That sounds pretty damn fast.

Well, it can happen but usually it takes something like a plague to do that. Sex selection is powerful but not that powerful. For example blue eyes are only 6,000-10,000 years old.

However this theory finally gives us an explanation why the women in Crusader Kings are so damn ugly.

[Josquius]

ehh.....I'd agree with their conclusion but the way they got to it sounds very iffy.