Tall, dark, handsome, and ready to reproduce.
BUT THIS IS not the only cliché that has a bearing on what we find visually attractive. What about the old adage about truth from the mouths of babes? Well, babies have an opinion when it comes to physical beauty.
According to the magazine New Scientist, researchers at Britain’s University of Exeter presented a series of facial pictures to a group of adults and had them rated for attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 5. They then paired photos that were similar in terms of composition, lighting, and contrast but at opposite ends of the attractiveness scale. The pairs were presented to babies less than a week old. We don’t know why, but in almost every case the babies spent considerably more time looking at the face with the higher attractiveness rating.
According to Alan Slater, an associate professor from the University of Exeter who studies development of perceptual and cognitive abilities in infancy, “Attractiveness is not in the eye of the beholder, it’s innate to a newborn infant.” He theorizes that what makes an attractive person attractive is how closely he or she resembles a kind of idealized, prototypical human face. The more someone looks like this theoretical prototype, the more likely others are to consider him or her as a potential partner. Slater’s theory certainly agrees with what researchers have long known about faces—when you blend the features of hundreds of random faces, the resulting “average” face is inevitably beautiful. According to the theory, then, it’s not the size of your nose on its own that affects your attractiveness; it’s how much the size of your nose deviates from this “average” ideal. So how do babies measure attractiveness? Slater believes babies are hardwired with that prototypical image of the “average” face: “Babies are born with a fairly detailed representation of the average human face that helps them recognize familiar faces and also helps them learn about the social world,” says Slater.
If babies can really recognize beauty, we ought to be able to quantify it, don’t you think? But as Charles Darwin, the standard-bearer for evolutionary theory, has said, “It is certainly not true that there is in the mind of man any universal standard of beauty with respect to the human body.” And some researchers, scholars, and philosophers might agree.
In 2007 researchers from the University of Stirling, Harvard University, and Florida State University published a study that examined standards of beauty on two continents. The results would seem to disagree with Darwin and others, and further confirm what other studies over the last two decades have indicated: there is in fact one universal quality that people find attractive, on the plains of Tanzania, in the streets of London, and around the globe: symmetry.
The research team showed eighty British people and forty members of Tanzania’s Hadza tribe, one of the only hunter-gatherer cultures still in existence, the same series of faces. In both groups, there was a clear and marked preference for symmetrical faces. Symmetry, of course, means exactly that—the same on both sides. And it may be that external symmetry is the best visual indication that the person is carrying a combination of genes, which also leads to proper internal development of organs and blood vessels. In other words, developmentally speaking, everything worked out.
The roots of our preference for symmetry lead to the same place as all the other preferences we’ve discussed. To some extent, symmetry advertises the pedigree of its owner; the right combination of genes and the exposure to a good environment. In nature, symmetry tends to be more successful—a butterfly with asymmetrical wings can’t fly very well, making it more prone to predation. Asymmetrical qualities are often caused by developmental challenges in the womb, which can include congenital defects, hormonal imbalances, poor nutrition, bad health, or substance abuse.
The preference for symmetry in mates isn’t unique to humans; actually, the lack of a preference for symmetry would be uncommon. Symmetry is key to the mating success of many species, from the Japanese scorpion fly to the peafowl, from the zebra finch to the earwig.
Dr. Anthony Little made that connection when he discussed his team’s study of attractiveness among British and Hadza people:
Symmetry has been shown to be important in mate-choice in many animals. For example, female swallows prefer males with symmetrical tail feathers. While there may be cultural variation in preferences for other traits, we show that symmetry in faces is attractive across two very different cultures.
Symmetry isn’t just an indicator of genetic health; it can also indicate reproductive health and fertility. As discussed in Chapter 1, women with evenly balanced breasts tend to be more fertile. Another small but interesting study showed that women involved with men who had more symmetrical bodies had more orgasms. Eighty-six women reported how frequently they had orgasms with their partners. The average was 60 percent. But among those with the most symmetrical partners, it was 75 percent; and among those with the least symmetrical partners, orgasm frequency dropped to 30 percent. Of course, this doesn’t mean that body symmetry is actually causing more orgasms. It’s more likely that body symmetry goes hand in hand with other qualities that combine to increase a man’s overall attractiveness. “We don’t think women are looking at asymmetry in hand width,” observed Randy Thornhill, one of the leaders of the orgasm study, and a pioneer in human symmetry research. “Symmetrical males may be more dominant and have the highest self-esteem and this could influence their attractiveness.”
The idea that at least some universal notion of beauty is connected to facial and body symmetry is not without controversy. And when coupled with the idea that it may be a marker of genetic and reproductive fitness, it can stir some pretty harsh criticism, especially in egalitarian societies that appropriately, teach us not to judge others on the basis of their looks.
But that won’t stop Thornhill and others from searching for a possible connection. As he says, “Looks really matter. We’re trying to find out what these looks are and how they evolved.”
The more we learn and reflect about the hidden biological influences on our likes and desires, the more we’re able to do something about it—regardless of sexual orientation to make up our own minds about whom we choose to spend our lives with.
FOR THOUSANDS OF years humans have turned to ornaments and body paint, makeup and all kinds of clothing, to make ourselves more attractive. And we’ve actually been going under the knife for the same reason for a lot longer than one might think—for centuries, in fact. Like so many other scientific breakthroughs that have later been put to more “recreational” (or at least optional) use, the first plastic surgeries were performed to meet a more urgent need. In the masterfully compiled book, Aesthetic Surgery, edited by Angelika Taschen, the contributors describe some of the first reconstructive surgeries, conducted in the sixteenth century to restore patients’ appearance to some sort of normalcy after the ravages of syphilis. This sexually transmitted infection has a propensity to destroy the nose, leaving an obvious mark of “disrepute.” Even before microbes were thought to cause disease, syphilis was understood to come from sexual vice. Unlike modern plastic surgeries—which are not always the most pleasant affairs—these early reconstructive procedures were downright excruciating, with multiple procedures extending over weeks and without any anesthesia.
Şerafeddin Sabuncuoğlu was a talented Turkish surgeon in the medieval Ottoman Empire who also happened to be a gifted artist. His two interests came together in Cerrahiyet’ül Haniye, or “Imperial Surgery,” the first illustrated comprehensive guide to surgery—and one of the first to describe plastic surgeries of any kind. In it, Sabuncuoğlu provides a detailed description of mammary reductions performed to treat gynecomastia, the enlargement of breasts in males. He also discussed ambiguous genitalia at great length and techniques to repair hypospadia, a congenital malformation of the male urethra in which the urethra does not open at the normal place, but somewhere else on the head of the penis or even along the shaft.
All of these surgeries—and their modern successors—are known as reconstruc
tive surgeries, one of the two types of plastic surgery, the other being cosmetic surgery, which is generally considered more optional. Strictly speaking, reconstructive surgery does not always reconstruct; rather, it corrects congenital defects as well as defects that occur later in life. It is surgery designed to create or restore proper function—a cleft palate or a hypospadia repair—while cosmetic surgery is more aesthetic. The distinctions can blur a little—a breast reconstruction after a mastectomy is considered reconstructive, not cosmetic, although it restores appearance, and not really function. The key difference is that, in the case of a breast reconstruction, for example, the surgery attempts to restore a woman’s body to its “normal” symmetrical appearance; it is not designed to give her an appearance that is simply more desirable, which is what cosmetic surgery is about.
While plastic surgery has been around for many centuries, cosmetic surgery really has its roots in the last hundred years. As the authors describe in Aesthetic Surgery, many of the techniques used in cosmetic surgery today were first developed after World War I by German surgeons performing reconstructive surgeries on people disfigured in the war.
Hollywood started flirting with cosmetic surgery and dentistry almost as soon as it became available. Louis B. Mayer, the legendary studio boss, reportedly forced Greta Garbo to get her teeth fixed. Marlene Dietrich had a nose job—rhinoplasty—in 1929. And according to Norman Mailer, Marilyn Monroe had “bumps on the nose” removed and a “small flaw around the chin” corrected. The mole, we know, she left alone.
For a long time, cosmetic surgery remained the province of the very well-to-do or the well-connected, but in recent years that’s been changing very rapidly. In 1997, Americans optionally subjected themselves to cosmetic procedures, both surgical and nonsurgical, 2.1 million times. According to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, that number almost quadrupled in the next six years, with 8.3 million cosmetic procedures performed in 2003—and a whopping 11.7 million in 2007. Those 2007 procedures cost $13.2 billion ($8.3 billion was for surgical procedures, and $4.7 billion was for nonsurgical procedures such as Botox injections)—making the quest for youth and “beauty” a very pricey practice.
It’s not just Botox injections, nose jobs, and tummy tucks that are on the rise, either; less well known and less obvious cosmetic surgeries are growing in popularity too. One of those is labiaplasty, a procedure to reduce the size of the labia minora, the inner lips of the vulva. Most often, this two-hour surgical procedure is requested by women for cosmetic reasons, although some women report that the size or placement of their labia minora causes pain during intercourse.
Of course, there’s no standard for “normal” labia minora, let alone an ideal. Just as eyes, ears, and noses come in enormous variety, so do sexual parts; from penises to nipples to vulvas, there’s great range in size, shape, and coloring, and labia minora are no exception. Labia minora very rarely interfere with intercourse, but women with especially large ones can sometimes experience some discomfort. The general rule of thumb many doctors follow is that labia minora under two inches in width, usually don’t need surgery for medical purposes. Of course, plenty of plastic surgeons are happy to perform cosmetic surgeries on labia minora of any size. Like other cosmetic surgeries, their take is, if it bothers you, then you can modify it. If you’re wondering why women have labia minora, they may have served a somewhat useful function to keep foreign objects out of the vagina. Bear in mind that for most of human history we had no undergarments, or even clothing in general. Labia minora also become engorged with blood when a woman is aroused, which helps to open and facilitate entry into the vagina.
Size alone isn’t the only reason some women choose to get labiaplasty. Just like breasts, it’s common for one lip (labia minus) of the labia minora to be bigger than the other, and some women want them evened out—symmetry, again. Obviously, as with any cosmetic surgery, a well-informed adult ought to be able to opt for such a procedure in consultation with her doctor and others close to her, as she chooses. But the skyrocketing rate of cosmetic surgery does beg the question: when have we gone too far in pursuit of perceived physical ideals? Perhaps, when girls as young as ten years of age feel compelled to undergo labiaplasty to even out their labia minora.
IF THERE ARE some innate measures of attractiveness that people use in the hunt for a mate, it follows that more attractive people ought to have more success in the mating game. An Australian study confirms that’s absolutely the case. Researchers from the University of Western Australia examined a large group of adults and looked for links between attractiveness and sexual activity. Here’s what they found: the more attractive a man was, the more short-term sexual partners he had; the more attractive a woman was, the more long-term sexual partners she had. From a biological perspective, that can spell success.
Remember, for most of human existence, male reproductive success probably depended on finding many short-term sexual partners in the hopes that one or more of them would become pregnant, deliver a healthy baby, and raise it. Female reproductive success, on the other hand, depended on finding good physical traits when fertile, but then securing the best long-term partner to provide resources, protection, and stability in order to care for and raise children. As we discussed earlier, women are actually attracted to different types depending on where they are in their menstrual cycles. For the short period of peak fertility around the time of ovulation, they tend toward more high-testosterone, dominant, masculine types who might increase the chances that their babies will sire the most children themselves one day. The rest of the time, they find more feminine traits, like finer facial features more attractive, as they search for a long-term provider for their children. So, if being more attractive makes it easier for a man to find multiple female partners and a woman to find and hold the right male, attraction really does help to fix the reproductive sweepstakes in your gene pool’s favor.
And a British study conducted back in 2001 garnered a lot of interest when researchers actually found evidence that looking an attractive person in the eye sparks activity in the ventral striatum that looking at less attractive people does not. The ventral striatum is an area of the brain that heats up in anticipation of a reward.
And, sure enough, brain scans of eight men and eight women shown a parade of images of forty different faces in four different ways revealed that the human ventral striatum is activated when someone looks into the eyes of an attractive person. The researchers concluded that the brain may consider the potential for social interaction with an attractive person a reward. Unattractive faces did not produce the same effect. Researcher Knut Kampe of University College London thinks catching the eye of an attractive person might activate the brain’s reward center because we associate attraction with social status. “Meeting a potential good friend or someone who might influence our career might be very rewarding,” he says.
Of course, the multibillion dollar pornography industry makes it clear that gazing into the eyes of beautiful people isn’t the only kind of visual stimuli people find rewarding. Interestingly, despite the vastly greater number of men than women who buy and use pornography, a spate of new research indicates that women are aroused by visual stimuli just as easily and just as quickly as men. There are differences in the way men and women look at and respond to sexual images, but they’re not necessarily what you’d guess. If I told you that one sex spends a lot more time looking at faces than genitals, while the other is aroused by a much broader range of sexual images, including fornicating monkeys, you’d probably guess that the first is women and the second is men. And you’d be wrong.
There has long been a consensus that men are more sexually responsive to visual stimuli than women. Dr. Daniel Amen, a psychiatrist and author of Sex on the Brain, even thinks that the way men respond to appearances is responsible for the cultural adaptation of makeup. “Most men are very visual, which is why women spend so much time on their appearances,” Amen says. And there have certain
ly been studies confirming this, such as one by researchers at Emory University in 2004, which used brain imaging to reveal that key parts of the brain related to sexuality were more activated in men than they were in women when both looked at the same erotic images. But the situation is much more complex than that.
Another 2004 study, led by Meredith Chivers of the University of Toronto and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, measured physical indicators of arousal in men and women who were shown a series of images. The women demonstrated clear signs of arousal in response to a greater variety of images—including pictures of bonobos (great apes closely related to chimpanzees) having sex—than the men did. The difference is that the women didn’t always know they were aroused. Physical arousal, which can include vasodilation of the genitals, erections in men, lubrication of the vagina in women, and so forth, can precede a conscious sense of sexual desire, or mental arousal, the thought of sexual interest. In other words, your body can be aroused before you realize it.
Then, in 2007, researchers at McGill University measured arousal in men and women who watched pornography, by using thermal imaging to detect rising temperatures in the genitals. The rise in temperature was due to the increase in blood flow to the genital region, which normally prepares the body for sex. In the study, both men and women reached peak arousal in about ten minutes, casting further doubts on the widely held belief that women take longer to become aroused than men or are less responsive to pornography.
Also in 2007, Kim Wallen, one of the Emory professors who authored one of the earlier reports, teamed up with Heather Rupp, a fellow at the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University, to produce a follow-up study. This time, the researchers not only used brain imaging to measure brain activity in response to sexual images; they also used eye-tracking technology to determine exactly what elements of the images their subjects focused on, and for how long. The combination allowed them to match brain activity to specific features in the images—faces, breasts, genitals.
How Sex Works Page 9