The modern day female’s quest to look fertile
Women like Pamela Anderson appear to be good breeders. Image via Wikipedia
Men are programed to lust after women with long flowing blond hair, small waists, big breasts and plump lips – not because these traits are intrinsically beautiful, but because they indicate fertility. Or at least they used to. In the 21st century, appearances can be deceiving.
Back in the caveman days, when successful reproduction was of utmost concern, males relied on visual cues to identify the healthiest, youngest, and therefore most fertile, females. The quality of a woman’s hair was a good place to start. A head of lustrous, long hair is sign of good health and easy to spot. When a woman is sick, her hair loses its sheen.
And men aren’t just shallow; there’s a scientific reason gentlemen prefer blondes. According to Psychology Today, “blond hair is unique in that it changes dramatically with age. Typically, young girls with light blond hair become women with brown hair. Thus, men who prefer to mate with blond women are unconsciously attempting to mate with younger women.”
The popularity of the hourglass figure has its roots in anthropology as well. Men have a universal preference for women with low waist-to-hip ratios – proven to correlate to female fertility. Women with smaller waists in comparison to their hips have an easier time conceiving than other women, and have higher levels of reproductive hormones.
It has been tougher for evolutionary psychologists to explain the male attraction to large breasts, because breast size has no relationship to lactating capability. The leading theory is that large, heavier breasts sag more conspicuously with age than smaller breasts do. So big and firm breasts are another easily identifiable sign of youth and fertility.
Similarly, plump lips signify youth, as lips naturally get thinner with age. A recent European study found that women with firm, plump lips (like actress Scarlett Johansson) are perceived to be younger than their thinner lipped counterparts.
With all that biological programming, men today must be so confused. Thanks to hair extensions, highlights, cosmetic procedures and all-out surgery, women well past their reproductive prime can sport flowing blond tresses, big firm boobs and bee stung lips – and more and more of them do.
Obviously, modern women’s lives are about much more than their reproductive capabilities. Women use birth control, delay having children while building careers, and want to be judged by their minds and achievements. As a nation, we choose to have fewer children than our predecessors; our birth rate is at an all time low.
So, it’s ironic that many women today aspire to the Barbie-like appearance that’s basically an advertisement for a functioning uterus. And what’s really ironic is that even young, healthy women (like Heidi Montag and Lindsay Lohan) feel they have to artificially mold themselves into some outmoded ideal – at a time when they really are at their fertile peak!
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
If it’s really an outmoded ideal that women should look like Pamela Anderson — by the way, love the lettuce bikini — then shouldn’t it also be passe for ugly dudes to be able to get young women just because of their fat bank accounts? Yet we still have Mick Jagger and others of his ilk scoring with the babes. Stupid evolutionary biology.
Maybe the tables will turn and women will be judged on the size of our bank accounts, and men on the size of their pecs. But I’m more concerned with how we women judge ourselves. We can’t see the qualities that make us unique and special as ugly. All these starlets are erasing themselves. Barbie is boring!
Barbie is not anatomically correct either!
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m pretty sure Pamela Anderson isn’t, either.
In response to another comment. See in context »Holy crap. Heidi Montag’s boobs look downright painful. Ouch.
Having only had foot surgery, I can’t imagine asking someone to cut me open, especially my face, willingly. No thank you.
All that pain just to be more attractive to men? Who cares what they think? Go on and live your lives, ladies. Society has come to a place where women can do and be more than just attractive.
Great post, Marjie!
I think they are double H’s. I can’t fathom wanting boobs that big. I’m voting for the return of the flat chested, thin lipped flapper.
In response to another comment. See in context »I read that Heidi’s implants are size DDD. But she wants H’s next time. “H” for Heidi.
In response to another comment. See in context »I know it’s been said before: For most men, a woman can go from pretty to downright ugly in the time it takes her to say something.
I think far too many women are obsessed over their looks to the detriment of their other attributes. All this biological imperative talk is interesting to the extent that it tells us what is most likely to turn heads. However, it is useless for determining what keeps an interest in a relationship.
Jake – I am pleased to agree.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’ve always been suspicious of evolutionary biology explanations for complex behavior, especially when we have the cosmetics and cosmetic surgery industries encouraging everyone to look one way. What we take as the sexual ideal may be much more about selling jeans than what’s in our genes. Look at hair, not the supposedly irresistible shiny mane of blond locks, but hair shaved from legs and under armpits. And now the exploding popularity of shaved pubic hair. We don’t need an evolutionary bio explanation for the fertility value of hairlessness when we have all those ads from Old Navy and A & F!
Hmm, Todd, I gotta agree with you that the absence of pubic hair doesn’t exactly scream fertility – not every fashion trend is explained by the desire to reproduce. However, with our youth obsessed culture (especially the advertising) I believe that it’s still a powerful force.
In response to another comment. See in context »is sexual attraction considered a “complex behavior?” (real question)
i’m not referring to eventual determinations of suitability or overall attraction, but the biological explanations behind what – generally – is attractive at the base level seem “appropriate” “procrationally” (as opposed to “amateur-creationally”)
In response to another comment. See in context »(Hey Marjie, I hope you don’t mind my responding to Steve’s question on your page — but hey, it’s all your fault anyway for starting an interesting conversation!)
So Steve, in a word, yes. Think of all the passions stirred by non-reproductive possibilities, including gay, straight and both, as well as desire after one ages out of reproductive promise. We evolved both culture and that big pesky cortex which makes something like sexual attraction into a very, very complex behavior.
Take a look at Daniel Bergner’s NY Times article asking Freud’s famous question, “what do women want” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22female%20sexuality%22&st=cse
In response to another comment. See in context »Todd – Of course you have to answer Steve. I’m much too busy applying lip plumping serum to my 46 year-old mouth.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ms. Killeen,
The problem with the whole “evolutionary biology” hypothesis is that the standards of what drives men crazy with lust are socially conditioned. There are parts of Africa where women walk about with their breasts exposed and no one thinks a thing about it. This is because it is the woman’s thighs that are considered “sexy” and provoke lust in hearts of men. Women here are very careful to keep their legs covered lest they be considered temptresses. Blond hair and blue eyes are needless to say not a driving force in the local standard sex appeal.
In very conservative Muslim nations where women are covered in heavy clothing, men will notice and comment upon how attractive a woman’s fingers are, they only part of the body that they can see.
Further, even in the United States, the standards of what constitutes the ideal sexual attractiveness changes. Before the 1940’s, the ideal woman’s physique called for narrow hips and shoulders with a small buttocks and breasts. Clara Bow was the “It Girl” and had a boyish body. Mae West had a much more voluptuous body Clara Bow but in her films you will not that this rather downplayed as it was a liability rather than an asset.
While it is no doubt true that most men have a genetically programed to desire women, how that gets expresses is culturally defined.
Yes, fashions come and go and whatever is covered up is erotic. But today, American women (and men) can physically alter themselves to fit whatever the ideal is. When you shine a hard light on the basis of that ideal – whether it’s biology or society – trying to conform to it seems pretty pointless.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ms. Killeen,
I of course agree with you that the idea attempting to achieve some socially determined physical ideal is silly. One has to distinguish between social conventions of beauty (or sex appeal), particularly for the purposes of entertainment and advertising, and what ordinary people actually think is attractive. The irony is that most people do not actually select their mates based on those social conventions…
http://trueslant.com/daviddisalvo/2009/12/18/shes-got-legs-but-theyre-too-damn-long/
In art it is often effective to exaggerate the features of the objective to achieve a particular cathartic effect in the audience. The problem is that what is happening is that people believe that these unrealistic presentations of the human body are something that ordinary people should attempt to achieve. Of course even movies stars and super models do not look like that in real life. It is often unfortunate that people feel to need to appear like an advertisement.
In response to another comment. See in context »I dunno. I think all of this hair dyeing, body art, piercing, and plastic surgery is less about sex and more about insecurity. In fact, I think there’s a direct proportion to the level of insecurity and the extent to which one will alter one’s appearance to “be beautiful”. Do I have scientific proof of this? No, but anecdotally I can tell you that the trophy wives who are addicted to plastic surgery and the people who are addicted to body art and piercings have something in common: they are both trying way too hard to prove something. In the former case they are trying too hard to be youthful and in the latter they are trying too hard to “be different”. If they were truly comfortable in their own skins, they wouldn’t put a preposterously high price on what other people think of them and not go to such extremes.
I bet many people who go to extremes with plastic surgery or tattoos/piercings would say they do it to become more their true selves. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. I’m all for taking care of yourself and self expression – but as you say, when it’s motivated by insecurity or self loathing, it’s not a good thing!
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t know if anyone else noticed, but now Heidi Montag can no longer smile and have it look natural. Even my smile looks natural in comparison, and it needs work just because I don’t do it often enough.
Surely a nice, natural looking smile along WITH the lustrous hair and boobs would be lightyears better than the atrocities that occur when people have Botox or plastic surgery?
[...] My True/Slant colleague Marjie Killeen has a great look at the physiological reasons behind the push to look a certain way. [...]