Men are all the same. And women too (Part I - the men)

My father is completely averse to fads. If more than 5 people start to like something (other than his soccer team, Vasco da Gama), he immediately finds a reason to disagree.

If I try to argue with him a bit longer, I find out that he has a great difficulty to 'understand' the topic of fashion. And he is not alone: most men have trouble understanding the interest of most women for fashion.

Are men generally are not interested in fashion? Or at least are less interested than women?

I will begin my answer reversing the question. Why would men be interested fashion? It's a better question, but still don't go to the heart of the matter (in my opinion) that is what men like? (Im drifting a bit, I know. Please, indulge me. I'll get to the point)

Men, real ones, like women. And this taste doesn't dependent on fashion. It isn't also something you learn. There is a genetic predisposition to organisms with XY sex chromosomes to like women. More specifically the SRY gene, SOX9, FGF9 and WNT4 (see 'Sex Angels'), since they control the testosterone doses during development do with the brain to be 'male' (see' is he? ' ) and, among other things, to 'like women'.

It is not a fad and will not pass. What I mean is that there are things, behaviors, which are not learned, are not flexible and could not vary with fashion.

But do men like any woman? That's a question a little more complicated than the first, but still easier to answer than the female variant.

Human males are actually much more selective than human females can imagine. Certainly not as selective as women, but much more selective other primate males close to us. A chimpanzee will be interested (and aroused) by a female in spite of her appearance or any other factor (be she ugly or beautiful, high or low, fat or thin, young or old), as long as she is in heat.

And then again, why should he waste an opportunity, whatever it was, to reproduce?

For human men this 'wasted opportunity' can be advantageous. As long as our species presents this very particular aspect of social life: monogamy. Monogamy is also not learned. It is something that was 'put on your head'. It is on our 'hardware'. From the factory.

Open parenthesis: A lot of people must now be squirming in the chair after that statement. I know that there would be much to say about monogamy in humans, but I ask that we keep our considerations for another time, so we can move forward in the matter of fashion. Closes parenthesis.

Reopens parenthesis: for a something to be hardwired, which means to turn a certain behaviour into a genetic trait, it was necessary that for millions of years, males who did not exhibit these characteristics (such trait), chosen females out of this pattern, left fewer children, which left fewer grandchildren, which eventually disappeared. Closes again parenthesis.

And along with monogamy, we evolution selected three other taste characteristics for men, without which the monogamy option would be fruitless. They are face beauty, youth and high waist-to-hips ratio.

If you are a woman, you may not like it and even meet several counter examples. However, the body of scientific evidence pointing in this direction is enormous. And no, dresses, new or old, blue or green, silk or knitted, patterned or flourished, with or without gloss, combining or not with shoes, are not part of the selected characteristics.

Facial beauty is a good indicator not only of good genes, but also of good nurturing. There are several studies (and I will not be cite them here because this is not a formal review, but you can read the chapter that I recommend at the end of text) that shows, for example, the effect of testosterone or estrogen doses in facial design (as transsexual are aware of).

Don Symons says "The face is the most information dense part of the whole body."

The ratio of the waist and hips (which I will call from now on W/H) shows if that there is an accumulation of fat that could be harmful to health, while suggesting ease in childbirth.

"Within reasonable limits, a man find a woman attractive of any weight since her waist is thinner than her hips."

Studies shown that a plump woman, but with a high W/H is more desirable than a thin woman with low W/H. Diet will have no effect on the W/H of fairly thin women, such as like catwalk models (actually thy could make it worse by reducing the hip rather than the waist) that are doomed to never feel attractive.

Finally, youth says that this female can reproduce many times. In fact, many of feminine beauty components are indicators of age: no marks on the skin, full lips, bright eyes, firm breasts, narrow waist and thin legs.

Open parenthesis: "Men (really) prefer blondes". Women dyed (or discolor) their hair to be blonde since ancient Rome. The gene for blonde hair in children is quite common in Europe (and also among Aboriginal Australians). So, when a mutation for blond hair in early adulthood (not after 20 years of age) appeared, men following how developed a genetic preference for blonde hair would be marrying only young women. Men never have a direct way to know the age of women and so this type of 'hardware' trait has led to a larger offspring, spreading the preference and also to trait propagation (blonde hair), which was, unlike today, an honest indicator of the female reproductive value. Closes parenthesis.

If these are the three factors that could genetically determine the men's preference for women, than the next question we should ask is: what is the role of fashion? Because, most certainly, is not to make women prettier to men. Whoever believes in that, actually does not know anything about men!

It is true, plastic surgery can give a taut face and postpone some age assessment, a skirt with crinolines (frames worn under skirts to give them volume) can trick the W/H; as well as those damn bras with lining (which are super trendy, although they are far less efficient and far less beautiful than the old 'half-cup' models). But all these subterfuges are not enough to fool the psychophysiological machinery of men to detect a good candidate for a partner.

Clothing can help, research shows, but in a way that everyone already knows: Men are attracted to women in revealing clothes, tight, short, low-cut and glued. The more 'inappropriate', the better. Fashion also does little for it.

"Men are all alike" says the popular feminine wisdom. At least regarding the taste for women, it is true. We can even say that all men want the same type of woman: the young, beautiful reproductive type.

But as the Stones have said, "You can't always get what you want."

In medieval Europe and ancient Rome, the mighty men caught all the beauties for their harems, leaving a general lack of women to all the other men (today it is still like this, although a little less). So an ugly woman had a chance to find a man desperate enough to marry her. This may not sound quite right, but justice is rarely a product of sexual selection.

I remember once talking to a girlfriend on the phone while the TV was on and suddenly the former model and former police office Marinara came up on the small screen. I mentioned the… lets say 'endowments' of Fausto Fawcett's Beelzebub blonde, which led her to tune even in the program. Her following comment was: "But did you see her hair? Nobody uses this fuzzy since the 80s!" For me fringe had passed completely unnoticed while I was focused on the W/H.
I think it was at that moment when I understood fashion was a very different thing for men and women.

(Continue)

Excerpt from the book 'The Truth about Dogs and Cats'. Back to the syllabus