An Evolutionary Perspective On Physical Attractiveness By Doug Jones

Throughout history women have been denied the same social status as men and have been repeatedly excluded from things such as education, politics, and science. This has allowed men to have control over gender roles by controlling the laws, ability to obtain knowledge, and history. Until now, women have been historically excluded women from participating in science which has created a male-dominated and gender biased perspective of science. In the evolutionary sciences such as Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology, this male-dominated perspective continues to prevail in its biased reductive portrayal of gender roles which brand females with false stereotypes.
In the article “An Evolutionary Perspective on Physical Attractiveness”, Doug Jones
advocates a modernization of Darwin’s theory of sexual selection; the theory that individuals of a species possess certain traits which can increase their mate value, which causes them to be more successful in mating than other members of the same sex. Jones defines mate value as “the expected reproductive success from mating with a given individual...” (Jones 1996:97). This adaptationist approach claims that mate choice is caused by certain adaptations which accurately assess the mate value of the potential mate. Simply put, these adaptations or traits which the potential mate possesses are supposed to reflect the expected reproductive success of that potential mate. Jones argues that in light of recent empirical and theoretical data, this modern theory of sexual selection is applicable to human physical attraction. Jones argues that in human sexual selection the mate value of a potential mate is heavily dependant upon fecundity; the probability that mating will succeed in conception and the birth of offspring. According to Jones, physical attractiveness is particularly relevant to fecundity because humans use certain physical traits as cues in assessing a potential mate’s fecundity. Jones begins by relating age to fecundity; arguing that the data implies age as an important determinate of fecundity.
According to the data evidence, males have a higher preference for youthful partners than females do and that an increase in age causes a decrease in physical attractiveness, especially for females. Jones argues that humans have a universal adaptive response to age; we associate growing older as being an unattractive quality which reduces fecundity. Furthermore, Jones argues that in addition to being a universal trait of female attractiveness, a major correlate of female fecundity is waist-to-hip ratio, which is the ratio of the circumference of the narrowest part of the waist and the widest point in the hips. Jones makes the claim that because fat distribution is sensitive to ratios of estrogen to androgen, a high estrogen/androgen ratio causing a low waist-to-hip ratio is therefore associated with high levels of ovarian function and fecundity. Therefore Jones’ makes the critical argument that the “strong negative association between waist-to-hip ratio and female fecundity makes low waist-to-hip ratio a good candidate for a universal criterion of female attractiveness” (Jones 1996:97). Even though Jones discusses the potential extent to which culture influences the standards of female attractiveness, it seems however that he profusely supports the theory that the universal criterion of female attractiveness and fecundity such as waist-to-hip ratio are
genetically inherited/hardwired. In the article “Surveying a Cultural ‘Waistland’: Some Biological Poetics and Politics of the Female Body” Mary Orgel, Jacqueline Urla, and Alan Swedlund harshly criticize the research of sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists such as Doug Jones, which have focused their attention upon the female waist and the role in which they claim it has in mate choice and sexual selection in humans. More importantly, their critique of the waist-to-hip ratio illustrates a much larger problem which exists in science; reductive gender stereotypes . “Scientists import stereotypical understandings of women and men into their accounts of female and male biology and, in the process…these understandings become naturalized and fortified as scientific fact” (Orgel 2005:132). In the present day sociobiology and evolutionary psychology hold a great deal of power and control over explaining gender and sexuality, mainly because the theories and the works they produce are seductive to the mind because they take an extremely complex reality and drastically oversimplify it. They have also defined a set of stereotypic assumptions about gender roles and sexual preferences which they generalize to be human universals which maintain their integrity through all time and space.
Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists such as Jones believe that gender roles, sexual selection, and behavior are hardwired into our genes. For example, Jones argued that what males find physically attractive in females such as waist-to-hip ratio is hardwired, and he seemed very skeptical to the influence which culture might have on these preferences. In addition, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have embraced the selfish gene-centered view that the males focus is to spread their genes through frequent mating while the females are given the passive role of child rearing. These scientists have argued that in terms of the gene centered view, since males are supposed to reproduce as frequently and with as many mates as possible, preferable traits such as waist-to-hip ratio are meant to be shorthand cues which can quickly and accurately indicate fecundity. The prominence of this view has created extremely damaging stereotypical gender roles which are male dominated. Especially in the example of waist-to-hip ratio, sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists have ignored the rational physiological explanation that the purpose of wide hips is for the function of child birth, as opposed to an indication of fecundity meant to attract males. In order to obtain an accurate and fair depiction of gender roles and sexual selection in humans, it is essential to break down the gene-centered view and to better observe and understand culture as the key affecting factor. As far back as the Victorian era, men have promoted the portrayal of women who are delicate and wasp-waisted through fashion trends such as corsets. During the mid-twentieth century there grew a rising concern in the physical fitness of Americans which lead to an obsessive amount of measuring of specific body parts in order to evaluate fitness. One measurement which was obsessively focused upon became the female waist, causing many women concern and therefore promoted a cultural focus on the female waist. In modern American culture the popularity of the female waist has inspired young females to accentuate their hourglass figure with the help of fashion, which promotes the extremely small waists, wide hips, and overall thinness of supermodels and pop stars. “Evolutionary psychologists refer to fashion styles to validate their scientific claims about the female waist at the same time that they explain fashion styles in the language of evolutionary adaptation” (Orgel 2005:139). In this way, the female waist has become popularized as an icon because fashion and science have used it to reinforce one another. Also, it is important to note that many of the supermodels and pop stars who these scientists have used to validate their claims are actually extremely unhealthy and many have either unbalanced menstrual cycles and many have even lost the ability to reproduce because of their dangerous, unhealthy and yet scientifically claimed fecund body types. In response to the claim for the universality of the physically attractive low waist-to-hip ratio as a cue for fecundity, there has been a great deal of evidence which has supported the contrary.
Despite its popularity in Western culture, there are many cultures around the world such as the Matsigenka people of southeastern Peru whose standards of physical attractiveness and fecundity favor a tubular shaped body which has a much higher waist-to-hip ratio than that of Western culture. Another important example is of the Hadza who live in Tanzania and are particularly relevant because they presumably live in an area with conditions similar to that of the Pleistocene era, which is the time period that the waist-to-hip ratio theory is supposed to evolve from. So arguably if the waist-to-hip ratio theory were to maintain its validity then the Hadza would prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio. Sure enough the Hadza preferred a waist-to-hip ratio much higher than that of Western culture. This is evidence to disprove the waist-to-hip ratio theory and instead promote the idea that Western standards of physical attractiveness might be found in other cultures due to the pervasiveness of Western media; take for example the fact that American shows such as Baywatch are aired on television across the
globe. In addition to the stereotypical assumptions behind sexual selection such as waist-to-hip ratio, there exist many other sexist aspects of sexual selection, sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, and science in general which promote inaccurate and unfair stereotypes of gender roles. In “Misreading Darwin on Reproduction: Reductionism in Evolutionary Theory”, Adrienne Zihlman criticizes the historical exclusion of women as participants in science and the historical exclusion of females as active and important participants in many aspects of evolutionary science such as sexual selection. This exclusion was especially present even in the creation of evolutionary theory because Darwin highlighted males as active participants in sexual selection while portraying women as passive participants, even though he did grant them a minimal amount of mate choice. Darwin even carried these assessments to his portrayal of male humans possessing the dominate role. The main problem that has proved to be prevalent in science is the pervasiveness of masculinity which dominates science and “perpetuates and expands the focus on male role in reproduction” (Zihlman 2005:431), while females are excluded in science and portrayed as passive participants in sexual selection.