How does physical attractiveness/masculinity correlate to good genes? Which is more important?

TheGreasyPole · 2015-06-19T15:38:41+00:00

Here's what I don't understand - how can women deduce (consciously or subconsciously) that a man has good genes just because he looks good and acts masculine?

Certain attributes and behaviours in our evolutionary past signalled a "Good Mate". One likely to provide children that would grow and have lots of children of their own.

Genes evolved that generated desires in women that pushed them towards selecting these mates.

So, facial symmetry is a good indicator that this persons genes coped well with the inputs given to him/her as a child. and because those inputs rarely changed for the next generation that signalled that your children with this man/woman are likely to cope well with the inputs given to them as children.

Similarly, genes built attraction into women for the kind of physique that is good at defending women and children from threats. Those women that selected those men had more surviving children/grandchildren etc. So the genes for liking a bit of a muscley bod spread.

So on and so forth...

How are the two related, speaking in terms of evolution?

Men who look good only do so because good is defined by your genes to be what is a desirable mate. Any traits that are good for genes, genes have built attraction in women for those traits.

So, facial symmetry... and masculinity... To pick your examples are things that just get a girl to like you because she is responding to the emotions genes have programmed to trigger in for those traits.

So, she just feels lust for the symmetrical manly man... And she does not feel lust for the unsymmetrical feminine man.

After all, a well-built alpha male may have hemophilia, or be genetically predisposed to heart disease, for example.

He may be, but the genes can't detect that. There is nothing for them to work on.

Lets say haemophilia came with a bright red splotch on your ass cheek. All haemophiliacs had it.

Guess what would very quickly become a big turn off for women, would be regarded as a very ugly feature ? Yup, bright red splotches.

Genes work with what they can to improve their chances however they can. In many ways this works very well. With some genetic defects it doesn't work at all because it's impossible to discern. If you made them discernable (circa 50k years ago) then they'd have been selected against.

So, when presented with a choice between an average beta male with good genes and no family history of hereditary disease and an attractive alpha male who carries potentially disease-causing genes, who would she choose?

The alpha.

The genes are not really going off of rational brain inputs when it comes to generating emotion. Rational brains ability to influence such emotions is (famously) very weak. As anyone who has ever tried to make themselves fall in love with someone or tried to make themselves not love someone has discovered.

Late technical advancements (like the kind that allow us to know this genetic information) are extremely new and not integrated into this millions of years old emotional system.

Maybe in 22105 they will be, if the selection pressure stays consistent over that timeframe.

Of what value would the aforementioned alpha male be to the woman?

He'd be hot as fuck. And it would be her decision whether to go with her emotions that are screaming in her ear fuck this guy, he's as hot as fuck or whether she'd overrule them with her rational brain and say "I know Mr Alpha is what I want, deep down inside, but I will pick Mr Beta instead because, even though I don't want to, it's the right decision".

It's just, in our experience, it very rarely works out that way. Women follow their heart and decide to go with Mr Dreamy because, ya know, he is so very very handsome and he makes me happy and, ya know what ? Maybe it's finally my time to be happy.

And another women is tugged by her genetic emotions towards the Alpha male despite the weak protestations of her rational brain.

Nazrath2112 · 2015-06-19T02:18:44+00:00

In this first video we discover the AF/BB system with some deciding factors from the middle of the video on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydwwrxWp-4M

In this second video we get into more physical specifics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkzQjwwS7E

CursedLemon · 2015-06-19T15:05:35+00:00

The actual factors that make up attraction in an evolutionary context are completely arbitrary. Look at peacocks - those tails mean jack shit.

capt-next-a-hoe · 2015-06-19T01:59:58+00:00

Because women don't want to create ugly, manlet, beta children. They will start life on extreme difficulty mode.

I'd assume they first get to know each other well and start discussing marriage and children. Then they bring out the genetic disease skeletons out of the closet and get a chance to really think if their partner is worth it, how easy/hard the diseases are to deal with, do they want to grow old (or possibly divorce later for prizes), etc. before marrying.

Cruel_Man · 2015-06-19T04:10:31+00:00

Human evolution selects on different criteria, and on the matter of sexual selection culture is going to play a huge role. What other reason did blond hair develop in Northern Europe? Vitamin D deficiency is only one part of the answer.

In the modern Western world, this has its own consequences. This does not necessarily equate to 'biotrufs', but then again, the field is more concerned about those mechanisms that are deterministic.

thereddespair · 2015-06-19T15:08:38+00:00

a woman once told me, some people are born to have a higher ability to grow muscle mass - towards the typical model of what is desirable.

how that is true, idk.

masculinity. men have low testosterone issues. just as some women can have low estrogen maybe but high testo?

maybe thats where the fem men come into play? high T, does it make people more prone to being red, low into blue? who knows

Ridelith · 2015-06-19T02:21:41+00:00

I usually call BS on evo psych, but I'll try to put on it's cowl and try to explain:

Evo psych would say that there is no need for woman to be "aware" of genetically transmited diseases, evolutionary speaking. Natural evolution already takes care of that - the "gating" of those genes would be done by the environment itself after a couple generations. The traits that woman perceive as attractive - muscular mass, "alpha personality" (high levels of testosterone) - are the evolutionary traits that they are responsible to gate for the next generation.

Lonny_zone · 2015-06-19T02:59:39+00:00

how can women deduce (consciously or subconsciously) that a man has good genes just because he looks good and acts masculine?

Men are supposed to be masculine. If you are a man and you aren't masculine then your physiologically imbalanced.

A healthy, masculine looking man is more likely to have good genes then a small, weak, frail looking man with low self-esteem.

Title	How does physical attractiveness/masculinity correlate to good genes? Which is more important?
Author	svaroz1c
Upvotes	1
Comments	30
Date	June 19, 2015 1:47 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3actdd/how_does_physical_attractivenessmasculinity/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/how-does-physical-attractivenessmasculinity.281534 https://theredarchive.com/post/281534

Comments