Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Evolutionary psychology: ideal female body type
Hello everyone,
Yesterday we were having a conversation with friends. We were talking about the signals of fertility in women (high oestrogen = thick lips, big breasts, big ass). I was explaining that the evolutionary psychology was making this a universal as an attraction signal for males.
My friend pointed out that there were times in History were ideal female body type that was attractive was different.
For instance:
- In 17th-18th century, the ideal female body type in Europe was a fat woman (as seen in art), which kind of invalidates the hip-to-waist ratio theory as a fertility signal
- In the 1980s, what was the ideal female body type was thin without big breasts nor big ass
I said that it was true that the research on the ideal hip-to-waist ratio as a universal dates back in the 1970s if I'm not mistaken using Playboy magazines.
Maybe it has to do with status as well: in 17th-18th century fat women were high status because of food scarcity and in the 1980s high status women were thin because the ability to refrain from eating too much was found in higher social classes?
I'm happy to read if you have an opinion on this topic.
Hi John,
I'm not very familiar with the history of the hip-to-waist ratio theory so that was interesting to read that. That being said, here are few things that come to mind:
- I don't think that high estrogen and the fertility signals you pointed out (thick lips, big breasts, big ass) necessarily correlates with the hip-to-waist ratio. These signals seem to be quite "transhistorical" (in the sense of universal historically).
- I believe that you could have a high general level of hormones, and that according to genetics it would have different effects in the body. For examples in males you can have a different androgen receptors distribution, which means that even though you have normal levels of androgens your beard might no develop much. In this woman for example, it seems she has 2 completely different bodies, probably because of a difference of receptor distribution while having normal levels.
- The "ideal" female body type in my book was not only about "attraction" in the past, but probably also about culture. This has to do with r/K strategies, I think that poor men in general prefer bigger boobs and rich men not as much. Females can be attracted to opposite types of males according to their menstrual cycles, so as you see attraction is highly contextual.
That being said, I believe our ancestors were less preoccupied with pure sexual attraction and fantasies than we are nowadays, and more preoccupied with pragmatic considerations or ideology such as the image of chastity, or even being a bit overweight in some cultures. This is the old debate of nature vs nurture. I guess it's an infinite loop of feedback between both poles.
Yeah, generally speaking one cay say that what's considered attractive is either:
- Cultural
- Social, as in "what others like, I like" and different markers of status, leadership, social skills, etc.
- Genetic/inborn, often as indicators of good genes
- Individually subjective
Sometimes it's easy to tell which from which, but other times the 4 mix together and feed into each other.
Some traits related to body shape are one of those areas where it's not always easy to tell which from which.
As far as I can remember, hip-to-waist ration is more inborn though, while the amount of fat a woman carries -including in her butt- is more cultural, social, and individually subjective.
Thank you Lucio and Alex for your answers!
Cultural
Social, as in "what others like, I like" and different markers of status, leadership, social skills, etc.
Genetic/inborn, often as indicators of good genes
Individually subjective
That is what I was looking for. Reading evolutionary psychology made me oversimplify my mental model. It helps me to enrich my mental model, thanks!
Quote from John Freeman on August 8, 2022, 2:46 pmThat is what I was looking for. Reading evolutionary psychology made me oversimplify my mental model. It helps me to enrich my mental model, thanks!
Yeah, great point, 90% of evolutionary psychology your read around teaches people how to craft good storytelling that "makes sense and adds up", but seldom is either good science, or a good representation of reality (some evolutionary psychology professors even fall for that).
