The beauty of the female face is no health certificate after all - which runs afoul of the dogma that human mate choice aims at good genes. https://osf.io/f9tu2/ pic.twitter.com/1xJqAcZFVV
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Any by the way, Shakespeare captured this in his first Sonnet, beauty for beauty's sake, l'art pour l'art.pic.twitter.com/UmanjUMge8
Ok, but If traits associated with sexual selection are arbitrary, not good genes stuff, then differences between short-term and long-term relationship criteria is refuted? I m confused
Natural selection applies after sexual selection, but natural selection is very permissive about inefficiencies.
Just looked up sexy son hypoth (Wikipedia). What does add? Females will want a male with genes that another (next generation) female will want. Infinite regress?
Yes, and Fisher showed with great math that it works. For both sexes, by the way. Sexy SONS is more true for the animal kingdom.
Maybe the "beauty" is to increase the desire and frequency of mating even after mate selection? To shorten the refractory period?
female facial attractiveness is correlated with a long fertile period male facial attractiveness is correlated with upper body strength
Doesn't neoteny play some kind of role here?
Birds of paradise
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.