Understanding Sexual Attraction Through Evolutionary Lenses

What does it mean to live a meaningful life? The answer varies significantly from person to person. Similarly, the aspirations we hold can differ greatly from one individual to another.

Yet, according to evolutionary psychologists, there exists a fundamental objective we all share. This objective revolves around survival and reproduction, deeply ingrained in our genetic makeup. In essence, it is about perpetuating our genes. Evolutionary psychologists argue that this underlying goal subtly directs much of our behavior.

Nonetheless, evolutionary psychology is a contentious topic and often frustrates many. It tends to strip away the romantic notions surrounding our motivations. I do not claim to be an authority in this area, and thus I won't assert that everything expressed in this article is entirely accurate. In truth, it likely isn't. For a deeper dive into this subject, I recommend The Ape that Understood the Universe by Steve Stewart-Williams, whose insights on sexual attraction resonate strongly with me.

Stewart-Williams points out that while having children may not be everyone's overt goal, it is indeed an implicit biological aim reflected in our physiology and innate drives. Our journey from conception to adulthood aims for sexual maturity. As we surpass our reproductive years, our bodies begin to decline, as Stewart-Williams articulates.

Here’s a poignant excerpt from his book:

Humans are not machines designed to last forever; they are machines designed to last long enough to reproduce. […] We know, of course, that humans are not actually machines—or to be more precise, that we’re machines designed by natural selection, rather than made in a factory.

Choosing a Partner

If an extraterrestrial being landed on Earth, would it discern which humans are deemed attractive? Likely not.

From an evolutionary standpoint, our standards of beauty signal whether an individual is suitable for reproduction. This explains why we gravitate towards people embodying these traits.

Every species has its own tailored standards of beauty and attractiveness, and there’s no reason to assume that the beauty standards of one large-headed primate—us—correspond to objective aesthetic truths. Indeed, there’s no reason to think that there are objective aesthetic truths. — The Ape That Understood The Universe

The renowned psychologist Jordan Peterson frequently discusses these markers, which predominantly signify health. After all, health is a crucial attribute for a potential partner in terms of reproduction.

Symmetry, for instance, is a trait that conveys health and is therefore appealing to the opposite sex, observed in both genders. Numerous studies indicate that symmetrical individuals are not only viewed as more attractive but also tend to be healthier, more fertile, and live longer—suggesting that symmetry serves as an effective indicator.

Are Beauty Ideals Shaped by Culture or Evolution?

It's reasonable to consider that our concepts of beauty are heavily influenced by culture and media. We encounter a specific portrayal of attractiveness daily.

However, Stewart-Williams asserts that a significant biological foundation underpins our ideals of beauty. He references a study where individuals from various ethnic backgrounds assessed images of women, revealing consistent ratings across cultures.

Stewart-Williams concludes:

The fact that people from very different cultural backgrounds converged so powerfully in their ratings suggests there is a biological contribution. In fact, it suggests more; it suggests that the biological contribution dwarfs the effects of culture.

One might argue that all participants were media-influenced regarding their preferences. However, the author counters this with two points:

Researchers studying this phenomenon found that media exposure did not affect ratings.
Even newborns, presumably untouched by advertisements or social media, show a preference for faces previously rated as attractive.

The book encapsulates this beautifully:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the beholder’s eye has been shaped by natural selection and thus doesn’t vary greatly from age to age or from culture to culture.

Attraction from Male to Female

Beyond universal beauty traits like symmetry, there are gender-specific characteristics that attract the opposite sex.

In this context, opposites tend to attract. Heterosexual men are generally drawn to distinctly feminine features. A feminine face is characterized by traits such as large eyes, high cheekbones, full lips, and a slender chin.

The ideal female body type is often described as the hourglass figure: a prominent bust, narrow waist, and fuller hips.

The distinction in body shape between genders, particularly the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), is significant. In The Ape that Understood the Universe, this is elaborated upon:

The evolutionary psychologist Devendra Singh argued that, although there are historical and cross-cultural differences in the preferred weight, the preferred WHR is always roughly the same: around 0.7. Again, this makes good sense. Not only does a low WHR distinguish women from men, but it’s a strong indicator of youthfulness and fertility. Older women—those beyond their reproductive years—have higher, more male-typical WHRs. Moreover, among young women of reproductive age, those with higher WHRs tend to be less healthy and less fertile. […] In short, if men were looking for a reliable cue that a prospective mate is the right sex, the right age, and capable of getting pregnant, they would hardly do better than WHR.

Attraction from Female to Male

Conversely, certain male attributes are particularly appealing to women. The male equivalent of the hourglass figure is known as the V-taper, characterized by narrow hips and broad shoulders. Additionally, a well-built physique and a deep voice are highly attractive. Stewart-Williams notes that men with these traits often engage in sexual relationships earlier, attract more partners, and have a higher incidence of infidelity.

While research indicates that women find increasingly feminine traits more appealing, not all women are attracted to excessively masculine traits like beards.

The Ape that Understood the Universe offers two insights on this:

First, highly masculine men may not make the best fathers, as they might prioritize status or seek multiple partners.
Second, traits like deep voices and beards might be more effective for intimidating other men than for attracting women.

Could Culture and Learning Be the Source?

This theory seems plausible, given humanity's capacity for learning. Nevertheless, Stewart-Williams presents compelling evidence to argue against this notion:

It is unlikely that it is coincidental that our beauty standards align with evolutionary relevant factors such as health and fertility.
These standards are prevalent across cultures.
It appears that principles governing attraction in the animal kingdom also apply to humans, suggesting an evolved preference for healthy, fertile mates.

This explanation is fascinating and seems logical to me. Since this topic is contentious even among scientists, likely due to ethical considerations, I encourage everyone to draw their own conclusions and regard this article as an exploratory summary based on Stewart-Williams' work. If you're intrigued by this subject, I highly recommend reading The Ape that Understood the Universe.

Thank you for taking the time to read!

Hold on a moment. You can receive my articles directly in your inbox. Subscribe here. If you're considering writing on Medium and earning money, I made $2300 in my second month! A membership only costs $5 monthly. If you register through my link, you support me with a portion of your fee at no extra cost to you.