Spring Break
The Daily OrangeResearch claims standards of beauty based on evolutionary ideals
By Colin Dabkowski
Posted: 4/22/04, 2:12 AM EST Section: Feature
We've been taught that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The maxim makes a pretty Christina Aguilera song, but it's not exactly true.
As research into human attractiveness increases, many biologists, psychologists and even some sociologists are drawing the conclusion that our choices for sexual partners are driven by evolutionary factors beyond our control - that is, hot is hot and not is not for a reason.
And, like any exciting contemporary problem, it all has to do with sex.
Much of this research suggests that the fixation of today's youth on facial reconstruction, breast augmentation and reduction, piercing and even hair dying comes from the evolutionary desire to impress, attract or compete for members of the preferred sex. This, the thinking goes, is responsible for trends like the skyrocketing nose-job rate and shrinking waistlines on frat rows from Syracuse University to UCLA.
"We look at attractiveness in all social domains," said Dr. Randy Thornhill of the University of New Mexico, one of the top researchers of evolutionary aesthetics. "There are always beauty judgments. Darwinian selection put these mechanisms of selection in our brains, because hanging out with attractive people is associated with hanging out with healthy people."
Much of evolutionary aesthetics, an expanding field of study, claims that who we find beautiful is a function of what Darwin termed "sexual selection." This phenomenon is responsible for seemingly absurd developments like a peacock's speckled tail and a moose's antlers - attributes that sometimes hinder the survival of one sex of a certain species, but which evolution has programmed to be sexually attractive, Thornhill said. This same selection is also widely accepted in evolutionary biology as the reason for human male competitiveness for "mates," and why humans consider similar characteristics attractive.
While personal tastes may vary in different environments, the underlying factors of attractiveness remain the same, according to the pervading scientific argument.
As research into human attractiveness increases, many biologists, psychologists and even some sociologists are drawing the conclusion that our choices for sexual partners are driven by evolutionary factors beyond our control - that is, hot is hot and not is not for a reason.
And, like any exciting contemporary problem, it all has to do with sex.
Much of this research suggests that the fixation of today's youth on facial reconstruction, breast augmentation and reduction, piercing and even hair dying comes from the evolutionary desire to impress, attract or compete for members of the preferred sex. This, the thinking goes, is responsible for trends like the skyrocketing nose-job rate and shrinking waistlines on frat rows from Syracuse University to UCLA.
"We look at attractiveness in all social domains," said Dr. Randy Thornhill of the University of New Mexico, one of the top researchers of evolutionary aesthetics. "There are always beauty judgments. Darwinian selection put these mechanisms of selection in our brains, because hanging out with attractive people is associated with hanging out with healthy people."
Much of evolutionary aesthetics, an expanding field of study, claims that who we find beautiful is a function of what Darwin termed "sexual selection." This phenomenon is responsible for seemingly absurd developments like a peacock's speckled tail and a moose's antlers - attributes that sometimes hinder the survival of one sex of a certain species, but which evolution has programmed to be sexually attractive, Thornhill said. This same selection is also widely accepted in evolutionary biology as the reason for human male competitiveness for "mates," and why humans consider similar characteristics attractive.
While personal tastes may vary in different environments, the underlying factors of attractiveness remain the same, according to the pervading scientific argument.
