Consider the apparently received wisdom that we prefer symmetrical, evenly balanced features. The scientific explanation seems sound: disease and stress during childhood could subtly influence the body’s development, creating an “instability” that leads one side to grow slightly differently to the other. A slightly lopsided face should therefore be a sign of physical weakness – making them less appealing as the parent of your children.
The problem had been that many of the previous experiments had asked just a small number of subjects to rate different faces – making it easier for fluke results to jump out. When Stefan Van Dongen at the University of Antwerp conflated the results in a large meta-analysis, he found the effect almost disappears when you consider enough people. In fact, facial symmetry may not even say much about your health. Although previous research had found some evidence for the idea, a 2014 study took 3D scans of nearly 5,000 teenagers and quizzed them about their medical history. It found that those with the most symmetrical features had been no fitter than the others.
Biologists had also hypothesised that we prefer faces that epitomise the ‘manliness’ or ‘femininity’ of their gender: the broad jaw of Jon Hamm for men; the delicate features of Miranda Kerr for women. Again, the rationale was sound: bone structure reflects the sex hormones pumping through our blood, so they could advertise a woman’s fertility and traits like dominance in men – important considerations when picking a partner.
Yet most studies had only examined Western societies. When Isabel Scott at Brunel University, and colleagues, decided to cast their net wider – across communities in Asia, Africa, South America and Russia, they found a variety of preferences. In fact, it was only in the most urbanised regions that they found the strong attraction to more masculine men and more feminine women; in the smaller, more remote communities, many women actually preferred the more “feminine” looking men.
The same goes for body shape. In the West, people may prize longer legs in women while preferring less “lanky men”, yet the nomadic Himba society in Namibia have the opposite tastes. Even Western preferences seem to have shifted over time; Botticelli’s Venus – once the Western ideal of beauty – has shorter legs, compared to her body, than the desired shape for models today.) And although an hourglass figure in women, and men with broad, V-shaped shoulders tapering at the waist, are admired in most places, the ideal extremes depend on the society.
Perhaps our choice of mate needs to be flexible, so we can choose the best partner based on our current circumstances. “For example, in cultures where starvation is a real risk, preferences for heavier weight in partners is expected because those individuals are most resistant to food shortages,” says Anthony Little at the University of Stirling – and indeed, this does seem to be the case. By the same token, someone who faces higher risk of illness will be more primed to value the signs that signal good health – like facial symmetry – compared to those who are relatively safe from infection. When dominance is valued, meanwhile, women may also prefer men with squarer chins – and higher testosterone. “We’ve found, for example, that exposure to cues of male-male competition, such as seeing men fight each other, increases women’s preferences for masculine male faces,” he says.
So although our concepts of beauty may seem ethereal and timeless, they may just be the direct product of our immediate circumstances. It’s also worth noting the effect of conformity: study after study has found that if you hear or see that someone else is attracted to someone, you are more likely to fancy them yourself. In this way, tastes for certain types of people could spread throughout a population, shaping our norms for what we consider beautiful.
s of fat, or as they call it plus sized, models and they're being hailed for being so brave and beatiful.
_/¯