Why should women be beautiful? Column in ComputerreOnline #12
For a biologist, the most interesting question is not which women are more beautiful than others. It is surprising why female beauty matters to us at all.
←
Dmytro Shabanov
→
Double Standards Why should women be beautiful? The reward for beauty
Column in KompyuterraOnline #11 Column in KompyuterraOnline #12 Column in KompyuterraOnline #13
The body of a modern human serves as a kind of map, the correct reading of which <…> allows, if not to unequivocally unravel the mystery of the evolution of human sexuality, then at least to approach its solution. M. L. Butovska The topic of my previous column turned out to be related to the topic of beauty, particularly female beauty, for many readers (judging by their comments). Well, let's talk about it. However, for a biologist, the most interesting question is not which women are more beautiful than others. It is amazing why female beauty is important to us at all. Look at the diversity of other animals. Which individuals of which sex are distinguished by bright colors and amazing shapes? Which sex is characterized by complex ritual movements and mating displays? Males. This asymmetry is described by a simple regularity: the rule of female indispensability, or Bateman's rule. Angus Bateman formulated it in the mid-20th century. Follow the logic. The female invests much more in offspring than the male, and therefore no female can leave as many offspring as a successful male. The more partners a male has, the more offspring he has; for females, increasing the number of partners does not lead to an increase in the number of children. It is beneficial for a male to increase the number of partners, and for females – to improve their quality (whether in terms of good genes that ensure offspring survival, or for obtaining valuable resources from the male). Therefore, the male is ready for sex with almost any partner, while the female is only ready with one who meets her requirements. The female chooses the partner! And therefore, the markers that increase the probability of mating (from appearance to sophisticated behavioral forms) are demonstrated by males. Males are enough to remain males – males. And in human society, for which sex are efforts to improve appearance more characteristic – male or female? Doesn't the logic described above work? Feminists believe that women's desire for adornment is a consequence of their dependence on the male value system that dominates society. A woman "freed" from male dominance will not care about beauty more than a man. Feminists are lucky: their predictions can be tested thanks to a social experiment conducted on the scale of a huge country in the name of another equally fantastic ideology. It was assumed that a free woman would put on a robe, reject bourgeois conventions, and stride off to work as a track layer. And what? Women have not gotten rid of the pursuit of bourgeois cosmetics and imported clothes. Remember what 'fartsovka' (illegal trade) was? Do you think women adorn themselves to please men? Yes and no. For many modern men, soft female skin is much more attractive than a layer of foundation the thickness of a finger. Ask a girl why she spends a lot of effort and money hiding herself and showing a partner (and the whole world) a depersonalized mask of products from the "beauty industry"? She will probably answer: "To feel more confident." Where does this confidence come from? From innate, biological programs. And the meaning of changing appearance is not so much to become more beautiful as to demonstrate that the woman is waiting for attention from men. This way of attracting male attention is dictated by selection that occurred many generations ago. And this attention should be expressed not in the appreciation of beauty, but in the readiness to care in order to obtain sex. Our bodies indicate that such selection occurred in our rather distant ancestors. The secondary sexual characteristics of males in most cases continue the evolutionary trend that is also evident in our closest relatives. But in the figures of women, unusual trends are reflected. What about the breasts, enlarged not only during breastfeeding but also throughout the period when it is necessary to attract male attention. Can the shape of women's buttocks be explained solely by biomechanics, without considering the peculiarities of the male gaze? In humans and orangutans, male "ornaments" (secondary sexual characteristics, from beards to figure peculiarities) are quite comparable. But in the appearance of human women, serious innovations are reflected. Perhaps a not-so-beautiful girl finds it difficult to get sex from discerning men? Listen to the reflections of connoisseurs of female beauty: you will be convinced how unattainable their ideals are. Once, on an intercity bus, my drowsiness was dispelled by the conversation of a girl and a guy behind me. The guy was flipping through a catalog of beautiful models, and the girl was mocking their appearance and explaining why each subsequent "hag," "crocodile," and "degenerate" in the magazine photos was uglier than the previous one. I couldn't stand it and turned around. I've seen prettier girls... Probably, the desire to mock other women was related to her doubts about her own attractiveness. The roots of excessively discerning taste grow everywhere and nearby from soil fertilized by such complexes. Have you heard that there are no ugly women, only not enough to drink? Ethyl alcohol does not instill desires in a person that they do not have; it only weakens the control centers that normally block unconscious desires. When a man says that a woman is a "crocodile" with whom he will sleep only after a bottle of vodka, it means that she is attractive to his biological programs, but his proud consciousness is not ready to admit it. Bateman's rule works in this case, and in many others, as confirmed by sociology. But, probably, a man who has a choice will not seriously fight for a "crocodile" by satisfying and submitting to her. So why should women be beautiful? To attract a man to themselves and make him put in effort to earn access to her body. In human evolution, typical mate selection occurs in two steps. Step #1, characteristic of humans: The woman shows that she is ready for acceptance and attracts male attention. Step #2, common: From the interested men, the woman chooses the one she assesses as the most promising. The difference between a princess and a cleaning lady lies not so much in the circle of men they can sleep with, but in what they can get from these men. It makes no sense for a princess to sleep with a janitor; by getting pregnant by him, she will lose the chance to choose someone of her rank or even better (the king of a neighboring state). For a prince, a casual relationship with a cleaning lady will increase his contribution to future generations without preventing him from marrying a princess. As a result, the princess's partner will be an extra-class man, and the cleaning lady's partner will be anyone (there will likely not be enough princes for her, and she will have to settle for someone lower). The princess can count on royal maintenance and a kingdom for her children. The cleaning lady, even if she doesn't get a prince, can get by with being well-fed and given a small plot of land. Perhaps freedom of choice is the prerogative of princesses? The situation is more complex. Let's consider it in the example where it manifested most clearly. When the mass media space in our country was freed from party control, pop "stars" created by advertisers appeared in it. Cute young men, appearing out of nowhere, danced and sang rhyming romantic texts in sweet voices. The most promoted of them had difficulty getting home: the approaches to their homes were besieged by fans ready to follow their idol to the ends of the earth. Suppose a pop hero descended to some fan and slept with her. Who made the decisive choice in this case? The man who brought this particular fool, not the neighbor? No, the strategic choice was still made by the woman. It was she, like all her unfortunate comrades, who turned away from "earthly" escorts and went to stand guard under the "star's" house. Her choice reflects a strategy, the male choice is randomness. And why did the female strategy turn out to be so stupid? When the biological programs for selecting optimal partners were being laid down, a man surrounded by as many women as are buzzing around a "star" truly possessed exceptional qualities. He was not only extremely successful, but also extremely fertile. Getting his genes for her children was a good decision. Now the conditions have changed, and the "star" is just a dummy. Unfortunately, our innate programs "know" nothing about advertising! In general, the idea that women make the main choice is very difficult to fit into men's heads. It offends, damn it, to realize that someone is making decisions for you. On the other hand, what's so strange about it? We didn't decide whether to be born or not. We usually don't decide when we will die. So, it turns out that in the decisive choices in our fate, key decisions are most often made by women... So, does nothing depend on the man? It depends, it depends! But more on that another time.
←
Dmytro Shabanov
→
Double Standards Why should women be beautiful? The reward for beauty
Column in KompyuterraOnline #11 Column in KompyuterraOnline #12 Column in KompyuterraOnline #13