From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 12:02:34 MST
[Hermit] A generally good site. I disagree with more things than I have
commented on in this piece, but felt it might be worth contributing it to
the discussion anyway.
[Hermit] As many here already know, I feel that monagomy and marriage are
highly counter survival and almost designed to cause break-ups due to the
very high stress levels placed on the parents. Further, I have yet to see
anyone successfully defend either monagomy or marriage on a rational basis.
If anyone here chooses to attempt this, I will try to give them a response.
Regards
Hermit
PS Roly/Orly/Vinyacálë commented "Woah, you have a cool family!"
Hermit agrees, but notes that he did not always think so at the time. A lot
of how we lived just "was how it was" (and was, as I recall, just as
intensely frustrating as I'm sure other children sometimes find their
existence) and it was only much later, looking at other families as an
adult, that I came to realise just how well my parents had managed.
====
The Evolutionary Theory of Sexual Attraction
By Jan Norman
Source http://www.umkc.edu/sites/hsw/other/evolution.html accessed
2002-01-14
Throughout history, artists, song writers, poets, and novelists have
lamented and celebrated the delightful and frustrating differences in men
and women which compel us to fall in love and mate. For some, the mystery of
why we are drawn to mates has long been considered an unfathomable puzzle
which mere mortals were not meant to understand. But the age-old questions
linger. What makes us fall into the irrational state we know as love? Why do
women seem to prefer affluent, successful, dominant, older men? Why, in
spite of trends towards slimness or plumpness, are men attracted to
curvaceous "hourglass"
feminine figures, while women generally prefer broad shouldered T-shaped
male physiques? Why, in nearly every culture throughout history, do threads
of similarity run through the mate selection process? Is it sheer
coincidence, or are there practical logical reasons why humans consistently
find certain characteristics of the opposite sex especially alluring?
According to evolutionary psychologists, many of the traditional and
universal qualities which we link to sex appeal are grounded not merely in
assimilated social cultural traditions as we have been told, but are deeply
rooted in our basic physiological make-up: our unconscious innate drives to
do our fair share for survival of the species. If so, is it possible that
features which draw us to dates and mates appear to reflect reproductive and
parenting potential? If so, how might we differentiate between those which
are inborn and those instilled by our cultures?
Why Do We Fall in Love?
Although falling in love may seem to the lover to be a magical,
unprecedented event, it is in fact a universal, practical means to an end:
motivating human animals to mate, produce, and nurture offspring. Does this
mean that human beings are genetically programmed in the womb to eventually
become starry-eyed, love-sick adolescents? Are the roller-coaster highs and
lows and time-consuming rituals of human courtship actually purposeful
innate behaviors?
To one observing or experiencing these often emotionally chaotic and
draining life events, it may seem puzzling that these processes could have
any positive, practical implications the for the perpetuation of human life.
Why isn't it easier and smoother for humans to just find a mate and get on
with it? It appears that this elaborate human ritual of falling in love and
selecting a mate is circumscribed not merely by social patterns, but by our
brains as well.
>From the Bottom of My...Brain?
According to June Reinish of the Kinsey Institute, although some elements of
sexual attraction and preferences are learned from our environment, some are
"built into our brains". Scientists have verified that the brains of men and
women are different, in structure, chemical make-up, and operation. Although
understanding of the intricate workings of the central nervous system is a
relatively new frontier, it appears evident that decoding the brain is key
to explaining why sexual attraction is experienced so differently by males
and females. The puzzle of how and why these differences have evolved
appears to
be falling into place. As unromantic and pragmatic as it may seem, nature's
programming of our brains to select out and respond to stimuli as sexually
compelling or repelling simply makes good reproductive sense. (Donahue,
1985).
Although the reproductive parts are often ascribed credit (or blame) for
human sexual attraction, many scientists believe that sexual attraction
begins in a pea-sized structure called the hypothalamus deep in the
primitive part of the human brain. This tiny bundle of nerves sets off an
exciting chain of events when one person perceives another to be sexually
attractive. The hypothalamus instantly notifies the pituitary gland which
rushes hormones to the sex glands. The sex glands in turn promptly reacts by
producing estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone. Within seconds, the
heart pounds, muscles tense; he or she feels dizzy, light-headed, and the
tingling of sexual arousal. This chemical driven high induces moods which
swing from omnipotence and optimism to anxiety and pining. A malfunctioning
hypothalamus
can have bizarre effects on one's romantic love life, including irrational
and distorted romantic choices, obsessions, idealization, and separation
anxiety. The height of romantic passion creates illusions of well being,
feelings of possessiveness, and happily-ever-after fantasies within the
psyche of the new lover. On the darker side of infatuation, jealousy and
blind rage may surface as well (Donahue, 1985).
The Green-Eyed Monster
Dr. Melvin Konner, chairperson of the department of Anthropology at Emory
University in Atlanta, believes that jealousy is also a part of our
evolutionary programming. Sexual passion breeds wariness: for males,
awareness of male competition for the potential mate; for females, awareness
of possible harm or impregnation by an insistent unwelcome male. Early in
human history males who did not react jealously had mates who strayed, were
impregnated by other males, passing on someone else's genes to future
generations. Females who didn't care if the male strayed were left to raise
their offspring without help. (Donahue, 1985).
As Halladay (1982) points out, the lone human female, with a nine-month
pregnancy and protracted period of care for the helpless offspring, was
poorly prepared to meet the demands of obtaining food in primitive times.
Therefore, mating with (and keeping) a physically powerful and vigorous man
was an assurance for the female of food and safety.
Because of the potential question of paternity of their mate's offspring,
males have developed several innate thought and behavior patterns designed
to control the sexual relationship. Evidence of these patterns are seen in
many cultures, including some which profess contemporary attitudes towards
greater equality of the sexes. Consistently but to varying degrees,
chastity of the bride is preferred, and female adultery punished more
severely (Halladay,
1982).
[Hermit notes that he considers jealousy (justified or not) as the most
harmful emotion on the planet - far worse even than religious hate - because
it affects people at a very powerful individual level - and is the second
greatest cause of relationship failures. Primary being money. It also is a
major factor in preventing us from developing more effective family
structures (i.e. back to the pack).]
Only Skin Deep?
Geoffrey Cowley (1996) reminds us that whether fair or unfair, logical or
illogical, it is old news that looking good has its advantages, not only in
the marketplace of love, but in other social interactions as well. Some
object to, or even deny the existance, of such apparent superficiality in an
enlightened society. Nevertheless, numerous studies have shown that
beautiful people do have an advantage when competing for jobs, grades,
friends, or mates; leading us to berate and shame our culture for its
apparent obsession with physical attractiveness. But as Nancy Etcoff, an MIT
neuroscientist
tells us, obsession with beauty has existed in every culture at every point
in history. Like it or not, it appears that humans, much like other animals,
appear to make rapid automatic assessments of those we meet, judging whether
we would want this person to contribute genes to our offspring.
It has been commonly believed that standards for physical attractiveness
vary widely at different points in history and from one culture to another.
Surprisingly, Cowley states that studies have found that standards of
attractiveness are largely universal. People from all social classes, ages,
cultures, races, and eras, share a common sense of what's attractive, and
what's not. This does not mean that there are no variations in focal points
of attraction. To be sure, lip plates or rolls of extra fat have be more
appeal in some places or times than in others. However, when women or men
from diverse cultures are asked to rate a group of men or women from other
cultures, their responses were barely affected by their own backgrounds.
Some may argue that the media has taught people around the world to think
alike. But one group studied by scientists has no experience with beauty
biases: infants. Babies ranging from 3 to 6 months old stared significantly
longer at pictures of faces that adults had also agreed were attractive than
at less attractive ones, regardless of race, gender, or age. Recently
scientists have taken this research a step further by attempting to define
the physical traits which trigger sexual attraction. What are these
unconscious rules we follow in sizing each other up? It may be no surprise
that, we, along with other animals, seem programmed by nature to find signs
of good health appealing, as well as cleanliness and competence. Like others
in the animal kingdom, we also favor symmetrical and (with a few specific
exceptions) average features. Contrasting the famous faces of Lyle Lovett
and Denzel Washington, symmetry might explain the greater facial
attractiveness appraisal given to Washington. Similarly, the body and facial
symmetry of college-age women and men in one study showed a positive
correlation with a larger number of past relationship partners. Scientists
explain this surprising attraction to the average as our innate sense that
the average traits seem less likely to represent dangerous gene mutations
which may be passed on to future generations.
Constent with the evolutionary theory, many of these sex-stereotypical
traits reflect what visually appears to be signs of reproductive potential,
says Cowley. The small jaw preferred in females, and the heavy jaw and chin
in males reveals the effects of female hormone estrogen, and male hormone
androgen respectively. With evolutionary theory in mind, it should not be
surprising that men find visual cues to attractiveness more relevant in
selecting a mate than women do.
As University of California anthropologist Donald Symons tells us, this
makes sense, since a greater proportion of women's traditional reproductive
mate value can be assessed visually. The clearest feminine cue to fertility
is the curving contours created by the contrast between waist and hips. This
fat carried in the hips and thighs which creates feminine curves represent
the stored calories needed by the mature female to sustain a pregnancy.
Interestingly, men presented with silhouettes of women of various heights
and weights and asked to choose the most sexually attractive, consistently
selected those with an hour-glass shape. Surprisingly, this shape preference
even superseded preferences for plumpness or slimness. Interestingly,
scientists have found that female reproductive capacity shows a positive
correlation with the sharp contrast between waist and hips. Preferred female
facial features; wide-set large eyes, small nose and jaw; are imitative of
youth and untapped reproductive potential. Similarly, the muscular, angular
T-shaped male figure, assertive behaviors, and deep voice most universally
preferred by women, are visually indicative of higher levels of the male
hormone testosterone (Cowley, 1996).
According to the late scientist Carl Sagan, research has revealed much
information about the physiological and psychological effects of
testosterone and its molecular cousins the anabolic steroids.. As male
hormonal levels are elevated, aggression increases, nurturing and
inhibitions decrease, body weight redistributes to the upper body. In
contrast, the female hormone estrogen contributes to enlargement of breasts,
vaginal lubrication, softening of the skin and distribution of weight to the
lower body creating rounded hips. Considering their origins, it seems
natural that these hormone-created traits are, not coincidentally, sexual
cues. If hormones can produce these effects when administered to adults,
then it should not be surprising that the natural effects of hormones during
the formative prenatal period could influence psychological traits such as
nurturance, aggression,
territoriality, sensitivity, gentleness, and sexual preferences (Sagan and
Druyan, 1992).
The proverbial battle of the sexes may have its origins in our genes as
well.
The contrasting sexual values, preferences and behaviors of males and
females appears to have roots in the natural biological differences in
reproductive functions of males and females. Since natural selection insures
the survival of organisms whose genes survive into future generations, males
who fertilize the most females will win. According to evolutionary theory,
sperm are plentiful, therefore males feel more free to share them generously
with as many mates as possible, thereby insuring their own genetic survival.
Aggression and competition with other males for female attention, and
initiating sexual activity with females is also part of the male sexual
strategy. As evidence, studies have revealed that males are much more likely
than females to interpret a female's friendliness as sexual interest. Other
studies have revealed that men, when approached by an attractive stranger of
the opposite gender with an offer of sex, are much more likely than women to
readily accept (Bus, 1994).
In contrast, women's reproductive strategy makes her much more selective in
the choice of a mate. Since the female usually produces only a single egg
each month and because fertilization of that egg demands years of commitment
to nurturing the resulting offspring, she shops more carefully for a mate.
She looks for signs of strength and capability to protect and provide for
herself and her children (Bus, 1994). According to Ackerman (1990) women's
brains produce oxytocin during romantic attachment, which creates the urge
to feel close and connected to the male. The outpouring of this hormone
during
lovemaking may be responsible for women's greater desire to snuggle and be
held close afterwards, reflecting her programmed need for protection and
care should a child result from this event.
Oil and Water?
Evolutionary psychology has not only focused in on how natural selection
pulls us into sexual alliances, but how it leads us out. It suggests that
love and marriage are jeopardized by the seemingly naturally conflicting
sexual strategies of men and women: the male impulse to sow their abundance
of genetic seed as widely as possible, versus the female desire to find a
partner with the best genes and resources to invest in the care of her
offspring. According to Robert Wright (1994) both gender's reproductive
strategies may lead them to cheat on their mates as well if it seems to be a
reproductive advantage to do so. Cheating males exhibit greater
participation in casual flings, engaging prostitutes, and sex with numerous
nameless
partners.
Unfaithful women, in contrast, are more prone to covertly double-up on mates
when one cannot provide both the genetic qualities and the resources
desired. Interestingly, men and women are concerned about different aspects
of infidelity. Men's heart rates increase when imagining sexual infidelity,
however emotional infidelity is much more distressing for women. Male's
ancient unconscious protection of one's marital turf means making sure your
offspring are your own. Women sense greater danger and fear when loss of
resources and protection is threatened by the shifting of the man's
emotional commitment to another female (Bus, 1994).
The concern by the primitive female that she find adequate protection and
resources for herself and her offspring appears surprisingly similar and
prevalent today, even among independent contemporary women quite capable of
fending for themselves. Gould (1989) comments that while such practical
considerations might be unsurprising or expected among fish or even other
mammals, these human desires challenge the commonly held belief that we base
mate selection on rational or ethical principles. Gould also points out that
the female preference female taste for men with wealth and possessions and
male taste for physically beautiful mates as universal mate selection
criteria. Consistent with this correlation, among the most ill-fated
male/female pairings is a mismatch between the female attractiveness and
male earning potential. Gould cites an extensive cross-cultural study of the
mate selection process. Of 10,000 individuals from 37 different cultures and
six
continents, the results appear amazing similar to those gathered from US
college students. In all cultures studied, females rated men with greater
earning potential higher on the mate choice scale. Men in all 37 cultures
consistently valued physical attractiveness in potential mates significantly
more than did their female counterparts in the study. While women preferred
males slightly older than themselves, men state that their ideal mate would
be younger than themselves. Although the possibility cannot be dismissed,
such extensive global similarities are unlikely to be the result of learned
patterns. It seems likely that such natural preferences have evolved to give
our- hunter-gatherer ancestors a reproductive advantage.
What's Hot?.....What's Not?
If natural selection has indeed affected our sexual desires and preferences
in mates, it likewise influences what we find sexually uninteresting or
repulsive. Sagan and Druyan (1992) points out that although most cultures
have strict social or legal prohibitions against incestuous sexual liaisons,
the avoidance of sex with blood relatives appears to be an inborn taboo as
well.
[Hermit queries this hypothesis and suspects that numerous carefully
performed surveys indicate that it occurs almost unbelievably frequently and
the supposed "inborn taboo" results primarily from a lack of willingness to
discuss it.]
This natural aversion seems has most likely evolved from the genetic
advantages resulting from selecting a mate whose chromosomal contributions
complement and counteract, rather than compound a genetic abnormality.
Similarly, as discussed previously, in virtually no known human or animal
culture are signs of poor health normally perceived as erotic or
advantageous in mate selection. Perhaps our primitive ancestors who chose
unhealthy mates failed to survive or produce offspring, while those who
avoided visual signals of infirmity such as decayed or missing teeth, patchy
dull hair, sores on the skin, poor muscle tone, or chronic cough survived
and gave birth to healthy children.
[Yet Hermit - and an informal survey of other smart people whom he has
polled, find androgynous girls who wear glasses attractive. How about other
Virians?]
If this is true, one might wonder how marriages survive illnesses, disabling
or disfiguring accidents, or the inevitable effects of aging or familiarity.
[Hermit notes that they frequently don't. Boredom is the number one kliller.
I surmise that the 7 year itch is a powerful indication that we are
programmed to raise a child (7 years or so). After that we are programmed to
"hunt" again. When people lived shorter lives this was not significant, but
as our lives extend, I suggest that serial relationships are a natural
consequence.]
True, some people are attraction junkies, moving from one romantic fix to
another when the initial chemical of thrill of infatuation abates. But as
Diane Ackerman (1990) points out, our evolutionary development has built in
features not only to ignite the flame, but others to keep it quietly and
steadily burning. The frenzy of being wildly infatuated is mercifully short.
As dizzying and exciting as it is, the roller coaster ride of being in love
is also exhausting and stressful. Fortunately as the infatuation wanes, our
a new chemical is produced in our brains to take over and the
amphetamine-like high is replaced by morphine-like opiates which addictively
comfort and reassure as they share life experiences. Even if the
relationship has its flaws, the endorphins produced by the warmth, trust,
stability, friendship,
and affection keep the partners close. The longer the couple has been
together, the more likely they will stay together. Nature has provided a
powerful glue to the couple bond.
Is Biology Destiny?
Fortunately, humans are not destined to merely follow their evolutionarily
programmed callings to mate. Our advanced cognitive abilities allows us
avoid blindly following physiological and emotional urges by anticipating
the long-term outcomes of our behaviors. Yet, in spite of our human pride in
being rational, logical, and ethical in love , our behaviors are often
surprisingly and disappointingly, imitative of mating behaviors of other
members of the animal kingdom.
[Hermit is not persuaded that this is "dissappointing"]
Our superior cognitive abilities may present a mixed blessing, allowing us
to delude ourselves by rationalizing irrational acts and choices. Attraction
messages from the primitive part of our brains pushing us to pursue
seemingly superficial traits and sometimes inappropriate
partners often seem so right at the time. As David Meyers (1995) states, sex
differences and mate selection behaviors which may have once been helpful in
ensuring the survival of our primitive ancestors and their young may no
longer be adaptive and useful in today's world.
In fact, these leftover reproductive strategies which once served a useful
purpose may be more like a vestigial tail. Being consciously aware of these
biological predispositions gives us power to make more rational choices in
love. Recognizing that the sexual impulse, like fire, is neither good nor
evil in itself, but a powerful fact of life, with the potential to provide
warmth and brightness, or pain and destruction.. As Ackerman (1990) reminds
us, evolution has merely provided us with only a blueprint for building a
partnership with a mate. How we actually structure a relationship from that
crude plan depends on many things: the quality of materials available, the
regulations and codes of our society, the skills and experiences we have
learned from our environment, as well as random windfalls and disasters.
Recognizing and understanding the role of natural selection in the
mysterious, wonderful, process of sexual attraction can perhaps help us to
maintain more objectivity and perspective and to learn to land on our feet
the next time we fall in love.
Links to more information on this subject:
http://psych.lmu.edu/hbes/websites.htm
Links to related web sites
http://www.evoyage.com/7.html
Evolutionary psychology and natural rejection: Thoughts on Rejection in the
Mating Process
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/socsex.html
Taking Advantage: Social Basis of Human Behavior: Sex by Richard F.
Taflinger
http://mitpress.mit.edu/book-home.tcl?isbn=0262620936
The Sexual Brain by Simon LeVay
References:
Ackerman, Diane. (1990). A natural history of love. New York: Random House.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies for human mating.
New
York: Basic Books.
Cowley (1996). The Biology of Beauty. Newsweek, 25, pp.60-67.
Donahue, Philip (1985). The human animal. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gould, James L. & Gould, Carol Grant. (1989). Sexual selection. New York:
Scientific American Library.
Halliday, Tim. (1982). Sexual strategy. London: Oxford University Press.
Myers, David G. (1995). Psychology (4th ed.). New York: Worth.
Sagan, Carl & Druyan, Ann. (1992). Shadows of forgotten ancestors. New York:
Random House.
Wright, Robert.(1994). Our Cheating Hearts. Time, 144, no. 7, pp. 45-52.
Wright, Robert. (1994). The Moral Animal: Evolutionary psychology and
everyday life. New York: Pantheon.
This page was last modified 04/21/98
This site is maintained at the University of Missouri-Kansas City
by Paul A. Gore, Ph.D.
Please take time to read our policy statement
Some material contained in these pages may be protected by copyright laws
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT