The science of attraction

[Nerys Ghemor]

I wonder...while there's been a lot of study lately to figure out what it is that determines a person's sexual orientation, has anybody ever done any study to learn what, within one's orientation, determines who your "type" is in terms of what you find aesthetically/physically attractive (without taking personality, interests, or beliefs into account), and where those preferences come from?

For instance--I would say that in terms of who I'd give that extra look to if I saw them walking by, I would say a man of Mediterranean/Middle Eastern, or Indian descent, with some people of Latino or Asian descent also being quite attractive. (Some white men are attractive too, but it tends to take more to get me to look again.) A tall, slender but healthy build (kinda...runner's physique, I guess), is my favorite--too much muscle is unattractive as well as too little.

To put it in terms you guys would all find a familiar frame of reference, a lot of the Trek actors are kinda neutral for me, but Alexander Siddig? He rates a 10 from me!

None of these terms, though, describes me or my immediate family. I'm a scrawny little paaaale white woman. What is it that would've wired me to that particular standard? Same for anyone...what is it that "sets" your preferences (after your orientation is set)?

 

[Myasishchev]

Well, that's not surprising--Alexander Siddig probably is the best looking male Trek actor I can think of.

I'll leave aside the obvious signs of general reproductive fitness, like not being diseased, missing teeth or limbs, or conversely being symmetrical, or tall, or smart, or having big tits, or owning the means to drive a Ferrari or buy a beach house.

Iirc there's a documented tendency for people to seek out people who look like them, the mechanism being that people who look like you tend to share more of your own genes. In other words, from an evolutionary standpoint, we would prefer to make copies of ourselves, but we can't, so we make babies with closer relatives.

A countervailing mechanism prevents people from attempting to screw close relatives, but I think I read somewhere that, while there appears to be a biological cause, it only works well in a social context, specifically the context of childhood familiarity--that is, people do somewhat often wind up banging their siblings if they're not raised together, and the converse is true, with non-biologically related children raised in the same household tending to refrain from romantic endeavors as adults. Interestingly, my state actually criminally prohibits the latter in some circumstances as well, due to what is either extremely poorly drafted law, or real legislative stupidity.

At any rate, inbreeding really isn't as bad as you might think. If inbreeding were really as awful as people make it out to be, the whole human race would be messed up, and the prohibition on cousin-fucking is not only historically recent but an unacknowledged luxury of a physically and socially mobile population.

I suspect there's also something to be said about the exotic. Genetic material from outside the ordinary pool could be valuable, bringing in, particularly, a resistance to foreign parasites and plagues. It's one theory on the origins of sexual reproduction that its selective advantage was driven by a need to stay ahead of germs and worms. Novelty might indeed be an important factor; I believe I read once that blondes evidently resulted from a mutation in a single individual, yet gained widespread representation in the European peoples. (Granted, if the mutation occurred on the same gene which controlled melanin concentration in the skin, which seems likely since hair color is derivative of melanin as well, this would lead to a greater dermal production of Vitamin D in more northern climes than otherwise, and it makes sense from the perspective of pure survival why the gene for blondeness would propser in the sunless, hyperborean wastelands of Europe.)

Edit: oh, and I think there is some very speculative research being undertaken to determine if humans can reliably determine the interactions of a potential mate's major histocompatibility complex with their own. Some kind of field mouse or something pretty definitely can, via the expedient of a good nose and urine stains. The last book on evo-bio I read said it was a possibility, but the author didn't go out on a limb to say our sense of smell was good enough to preferentially select mates based on MHC. I doubt it's that important to human mate choice, although the MHC is an important gene complex for the immune system, and hence it would stand to reason that it would be a sexually selective factor. I dunno. I can say one thing on this topic with certainty--a human being can't determine a good, diverse MHC from a monitor screen, yet representations of the human form seem to work pretty well--for both sexes--at arousing sexual interest.

But of course biology is only a beginning to determining the specifics of what a human being finds attractive. Social and psychological factors are almost without a doubt controlling. Which kind of sucks, because they're a lot more ambiguous and mutable.

Incidentally, for a male, the answer is probably simpler than you might think. I mean, I have a type (East Asian, ~50kg--"exotic"), or two (northern European brunette, ~55kg--probably fifth cousins), but it really doesn't matter very much...

And for a female? If anyone really knew, they'd be made the king of this world.

 

[Jadzia]

My own opinion, is that sexual attraction is more about a person having a homo- hetero- orientation rather than being attracted to a specific sex. What I mean here is that a person's sexuality is emergent from a childhood developed sense of "like belongs together" or "opposites belong together", - similarity, or complementarity.

Then sexual orientation falls in line with that once you become sexually mature.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I'm kinda thinking more specifically than just orientation, though. I was more thinking about...why it is, for instance, that some people would go for blondes, others for dark-haired people, why some women like really bulked-up Ahnold-type guys and others prefer different builds.

That is an interesting theory about attraction to the exotic, and probably explains me, and one girl I knew who was even more so to the point where she would not date someone of her race (did not find them at all attractive). But I wonder, why is it some of us come out that way, and other of us get other "types" in mind?

BTW, Myasischchev, you're talking about the Westermarck effect, for what keeps us from feeling attraction to those we're raised with, right?

 

[Zulu Romeo]

I had heard a recent radio discussion on this subject a few days ago, where it was concluded that introducing "exotic" and potentially beneficial alleles into a local population helps promote survival in an increasingly changing environment (although it can be argued that it could introduce potentially useless and/or detrimental alleles too), and that the attraction to exotic phenotypes (i.e. non-Local People™ who aren't welcome in Local Shops™ ) is a manifestation of this drive. (Incidentally, I consider myself to be fairly genetically exotic in comparison to the vast majority of people where I live, so I guess there are exceptions everywhere. )

 

[Jadzia]

Considering one example, say how far a person's eyes are apart. This has a significance in nature. Widely spaced eyes are common on herbivores, like rabbits and cows, because it gives them a wider field of view to watch out for predators.

Closely spaced eyes are more common on predatory creatures because it helps direct their vision onto their prey.

Applying this to humans. I know that I instinctively associate people with closely spaced eyes as being more focused, with predatory, action based, and narrow thinking characteristics. Seeing thse physical characteristics invokes a recognisable feeling for me. Let's call it feeling C.

Widely spaced eyes I instinctively associate with more gentle, thoughtful, and open minded behaviour. Hard to describe really, but it too invokes a recognisable feeling for me, let's call it feeling W.

Feelings C and W are emotionally neutral.

But in the aspect of personality discussed here, I feel that "like belongs together".

Now I have fairly widely spaced eyes. Not extreme in any sense of the word, but they are more widely spaced than closely spaced. And in par, I find widely spaced eyes the more attractive facial characteristic. How does this occur?

I have feelings about feeling W which I transfer onto the person I'm looking at. These are feelings of familiarity, empathy, insight and trust.

Likewise, I have feelings about feeling C, which I then transfer onto the person I'm looking at. These are unspecific awkard feelings.

 

[STR]

And for a female? If anyone really knew, they'd be made the king of this world.

I know. I ain't king of anything. Good looks help, but not as much as confidence. Unbreakable confidence. Bordering on asshole, but you can jump over that border if you want. You'll be a jerk, and will be incapable of long-term relationships, but you'll have immense dating success.