Environmental Factors and Mate Choice
Section A: Variation in preferences across societies
In this essay, I will be discussing the nuances of how environmental factors affect mate choice in society. In most blackpill forums, there is usually a consensus about the idea that environmental factors do affect social preferences. This seems to be actually one of the central concepts of blackpill itself; not only are the traits prized by society(height, looks, etc.) largely immutable, but these preferences themselves remain constant over large periods of time. There exist many common misconceptions about how environmental factors influence the preferences of society, however. In the first section of my essay, I will examine variations in mate preferences across societies, how they come to be, and their significance in our understanding of social dynamics.
Regional differences in beauty standards
Mate preferences are not absolute across both time and geography. Many people claim that there is some universal or objective standard of attractiveness, as evidenced by a strong preference towards certain features in many societies today. However, I argue that this is simply the result of increased globalism, where a common beauty standard is created by shared sources of media. The main reason behind similar beauty standards in the present is due to societies being subjected to the same conditions rather than there being some “universal” beauty.
A Tang dynasty drawing of court ladies seems to emphasize these characteristics: pale skin, round face, narrow eyes, large head size, sloped shoulders, and small nose, lips, and eyebrows. This differs significantly from both the current beauty standard in China and the ideal “western” beauty standard. While pale skin is favored, the facial features of the women are clearly not European.(1)
This West African sculpture also stands out as very different from the current beauty standard. Obvious characteristics are extreme prognathy(forwards-extruding jaw), long neck, large breasts with a relatively lean body, and short head. The dark material of the statue also indicates a preference for dark skin.(2)
The 1500s painting Venus of Urbino depicts an ideal that is closer to the contemporary beauty standard, but still diverging in meaningful ways. The woman in the painting still has light skin and blonde hair, but smaller eyebrows, a plumper face, and more body fat. We see that even within European civilization, beauty standards change significantly over time.(3)
The final argument for differing ideals of beauty is what I would call “backwards reasoning.” We simply consider that currently, different populations around the world exhibit different physical characteristics and social values. Since human society originally started from one region, these must have diverged over time; this would require significantly different beauty standards such that the average looks of a population change over time. In other words, a population of individuals exhibiting certain traits means that those traits were actively selected for in the past- either through survival or mate selection- enough so that the traits became most prevalent in the population. In other words, if any type of physical traits(such as the traits most favored today) were truly to be objective and universal, it must be the case that all societies in the past must have selected for these traits exclusively, and all societies today would exhibit the same traits due to this. This is obviously not the case.
Beauty standards and criteria for men
Male beauty standards are more interesting to consider because they seem to vary less across time and region. This may be due to the physical attractiveness of males being less emphasized in favor of ability and resources, as well as the male body simply having less room to “vary” due to the absence of hips and breasts. The favorable trait for males that seems to be common in many societies is physical size. This includes attributes like height, width, or facial bone mass. The degree to which this preference is prevalent across time and different societies needs further research, but it is safe to say that most societies historically have at least some preference for physical size. The reason for this should be obvious- for most of history, human society was structured such that size would be beneficial in many activities for survival.
There is a clear difference in the degree to which societies emphasize size compared to other attributes, however. This is most strongly shown by differences in average height between populations. From this, we can infer that conditions must have been different enough across societies such that they developed different average heights.
A difficult argument against this is one that argues that height was always highly favored in all societies, and simply gated by the available resources. Then, societies with different average heights differ not in the amount of value they place on height, but by elements such as climate or nutrition that might limit the height of the population. This is certainly accurate to some degree; a study shows that even in pygmy societies(the shortest population on earth), height is correlated either in either a neutral or positive way in sexual selection. Even though pygmies on average are very short, individuals with greater height are still favored by females.(4)
I will finish the rest later. I feel extremely unmotivated to write.
Current Developments
What are the unique characteristics of current society that shape social preferences? With the shift away from physical traits as an indicator for probability for survival, what are beauty standards driven by? Should we expect beauty standards to change meaningfully in the future?
Significance
How should this impact our understanding of social preferences?
Section B: Divergence of mate preferences with optimal traits.
Fisherian runaway, mate preference lag
Sources
1. https://image5.sixthtone.com/image/5/78/560.jpg
2. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/...d668bf027c/KaatyeleoFigurine.JPG?format=2500w
3. https://smarthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/UrbinoWhole-2048x1152.jpg
4. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EHumB..33..615B/abstract
Section A: Variation in preferences across societies
In this essay, I will be discussing the nuances of how environmental factors affect mate choice in society. In most blackpill forums, there is usually a consensus about the idea that environmental factors do affect social preferences. This seems to be actually one of the central concepts of blackpill itself; not only are the traits prized by society(height, looks, etc.) largely immutable, but these preferences themselves remain constant over large periods of time. There exist many common misconceptions about how environmental factors influence the preferences of society, however. In the first section of my essay, I will examine variations in mate preferences across societies, how they come to be, and their significance in our understanding of social dynamics.
Regional differences in beauty standards
Mate preferences are not absolute across both time and geography. Many people claim that there is some universal or objective standard of attractiveness, as evidenced by a strong preference towards certain features in many societies today. However, I argue that this is simply the result of increased globalism, where a common beauty standard is created by shared sources of media. The main reason behind similar beauty standards in the present is due to societies being subjected to the same conditions rather than there being some “universal” beauty.
A Tang dynasty drawing of court ladies seems to emphasize these characteristics: pale skin, round face, narrow eyes, large head size, sloped shoulders, and small nose, lips, and eyebrows. This differs significantly from both the current beauty standard in China and the ideal “western” beauty standard. While pale skin is favored, the facial features of the women are clearly not European.(1)
This West African sculpture also stands out as very different from the current beauty standard. Obvious characteristics are extreme prognathy(forwards-extruding jaw), long neck, large breasts with a relatively lean body, and short head. The dark material of the statue also indicates a preference for dark skin.(2)
The 1500s painting Venus of Urbino depicts an ideal that is closer to the contemporary beauty standard, but still diverging in meaningful ways. The woman in the painting still has light skin and blonde hair, but smaller eyebrows, a plumper face, and more body fat. We see that even within European civilization, beauty standards change significantly over time.(3)
The final argument for differing ideals of beauty is what I would call “backwards reasoning.” We simply consider that currently, different populations around the world exhibit different physical characteristics and social values. Since human society originally started from one region, these must have diverged over time; this would require significantly different beauty standards such that the average looks of a population change over time. In other words, a population of individuals exhibiting certain traits means that those traits were actively selected for in the past- either through survival or mate selection- enough so that the traits became most prevalent in the population. In other words, if any type of physical traits(such as the traits most favored today) were truly to be objective and universal, it must be the case that all societies in the past must have selected for these traits exclusively, and all societies today would exhibit the same traits due to this. This is obviously not the case.
Beauty standards and criteria for men
Male beauty standards are more interesting to consider because they seem to vary less across time and region. This may be due to the physical attractiveness of males being less emphasized in favor of ability and resources, as well as the male body simply having less room to “vary” due to the absence of hips and breasts. The favorable trait for males that seems to be common in many societies is physical size. This includes attributes like height, width, or facial bone mass. The degree to which this preference is prevalent across time and different societies needs further research, but it is safe to say that most societies historically have at least some preference for physical size. The reason for this should be obvious- for most of history, human society was structured such that size would be beneficial in many activities for survival.
There is a clear difference in the degree to which societies emphasize size compared to other attributes, however. This is most strongly shown by differences in average height between populations. From this, we can infer that conditions must have been different enough across societies such that they developed different average heights.
A difficult argument against this is one that argues that height was always highly favored in all societies, and simply gated by the available resources. Then, societies with different average heights differ not in the amount of value they place on height, but by elements such as climate or nutrition that might limit the height of the population. This is certainly accurate to some degree; a study shows that even in pygmy societies(the shortest population on earth), height is correlated either in either a neutral or positive way in sexual selection. Even though pygmies on average are very short, individuals with greater height are still favored by females.(4)
I will finish the rest later. I feel extremely unmotivated to write.
Current Developments
What are the unique characteristics of current society that shape social preferences? With the shift away from physical traits as an indicator for probability for survival, what are beauty standards driven by? Should we expect beauty standards to change meaningfully in the future?
Significance
How should this impact our understanding of social preferences?
Section B: Divergence of mate preferences with optimal traits.
Fisherian runaway, mate preference lag
Sources
1. https://image5.sixthtone.com/image/5/78/560.jpg
2. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/...d668bf027c/KaatyeleoFigurine.JPG?format=2500w
3. https://smarthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/UrbinoWhole-2048x1152.jpg
4. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EHumB..33..615B/abstract
