â € ‹â €‹ â € ‹â €‹ â € ‹â €‹ â € ‹Alexander Gordon: … the same questions that concern the audience. But let’s start over anyway. Why are you doing this?
M.L. Butovskaya: It must be said that the topic of love, in scientific terms, is more than difficult. For a normal person, it would seem that everything is completely clear, since he constantly encounters this phenomenon in his life. For physicists, there is a temptation to translate everything into some formulas and schemes, but for me this interest is connected with answering the question of how, in fact, love arose. Probably, most of the humanists who are now watching us will say that everything is generally unknown, whether there was love from the very beginning of the birth of mankind. Perhaps it originated somewhere in the Middle Ages, when the idea of romantic love, knightly tournaments, the search for the lady of the heart, the conquest of this lady arose.
Alexander Gordon: And Song of Songs..
M.L. Butovskaya: Yes, yes, of course. I will say that in fact, of course, people love in all cultures, although the manifestations of love are different, and representatives of another culture may not understand them. And all societies known today, from hunter-gatherers to our post-industrial society, naturally know what love is. So love is inherent in a person, love follows him on his heels, love is evil, love is good, love is, finally, the continuation of life. That is, if there is no love, then there is no procreation, no reproduction of the species, and a person orders to live long as another animal that is dying out on earth. So, in principle, obviously, it is necessary to raise the question of — and this is what we, that is, researchers of human ethology — did in our time — why love is needed from the point of view of preserving humanity.
Alexander Gordon: You are talking now about Homo sapiens. And all these famous legends about swan fidelity, about creating permanent pairs in other animal species. That is, whether love is inherent only in man.
M.L. Butovskaya: Of course, this is another interesting question that ethologists are trying to solve. First of all, let’s address the question of when does sexual behavior occur? It does not appear immediately, at the beginning of the evolution of the living world on Earth, sexual behavior simply did not exist. Recall that protozoa reproduce asexually, often by simple fission. But asexual reproduction is being replaced by sexual reproduction. It is extremely widespread and is something very progressive and important in evolution. It is no coincidence that more advanced animal species already practice sexual behavior. Therefore, there is a period when, whether we like it or not, there is sex, but there is no love (why we insist that love does not exist in the early stages of the development of sexual reproduction will be clear from the following discussion).
Alexander Gordon: Chromosomal sex is.
M.L. Butovskaya: So, in principle, we must say that only at a certain stage of evolution does something arise that can be called love. What can be called love? Attachment to each other, because, as I already told you, sex and love are completely different things. And, let’s say, there are animals, many types of fish and even birds, for example, storks, which have a pair, a stable pair. And from the outside it may seem that storks are the most faithful and gentle spouses. However, in reality, their marriage is based on attachment to the same nest (that is, spouses are tied to the nest, not to each other). Perhaps I will even upset some of the romantically minded viewers by saying that storks do not even recognize their partner by sight. They don’t know so much that if you accidentally change one stork for another, then the spouse will not even suspect that a forgery has been made. And if in the spring a strange stork arrives at the nest before the legal wife, then the male will also not notice anything. True, the legal wife, upon returning, will restore her rights to the site, and to the male (unless, of course, she remains alive after a difficult flight).
Alexander Gordon: That is, once at home, then mine.
M.L. Butovskaya: Yes. Everything, nothing more, no attachments and feelings. Therefore, it turns out that only where personal recognition and personal affection arises, love arises. For example, gray geese, about which K. Lawrence wrote a lot, apparently know what love is. They recognize their partners by appearance and voice and have an exceptional memory for the image of the «lover». Even after a long separation, spouses prefer old love. Of course, primates have love. These may be fickle couples, they may not spend their whole lives together, they may not constantly mate with the same partner, but there are also distinct preferences in everyday life. And these preferences are persistent. Those who love each other spend a lot of time together, even outside the breeding season.
Here, for example, species of monkeys of the Old and New Worlds are now appearing on the screen. For example, titi are now shown, who spend their whole lives in monogamous couples, together. It is quite obvious that the male and the female individually recognize each other, that they are attached to each other and yearn for the death of their spouse. In other words, they love each other. Whether we want it or not, it cannot be called anything other than love. And this love is a creation of evolution. And now golden tamarins are shown. Social systems in which permanent monogamous pairs are formed are associated with the characteristics of life and reproduction of specific primate species. New World monkeys often give birth to twins, and in order for the young to survive, the constant efforts of mother and father are necessary. The father carries, feeds and protects the cubs on a par with the female: for primates, such male dedication is rare. It turns out that love evolves in order to secure a permanent relationship between the male and the female and thus provide a greater chance for the survival of the offspring.
Where, say, permanent pairings do not exist, as with chimpanzees, one can also notice certain preferences between males with several females and females with several male friends. True, mating occurs, in general, indefinitely, there is a certain amount of promiscuity. However, upon careful observation, one can notice that a particular male most often shares meat with a particular female and her cub, or plays with a particular cub. In some cases, as with the gorilla, this thing happens, there is a constant relationship between the male and several females, and this is also love. Females compete with each other, they do not like each other, but all are attached to the male, and all are with this male of their own free will. If misfortune happens to a male, they grieve and fall into an outright depression. In conditions of polygyny, love is also possible.
So, apparently, it is wrong to raise the question of when and how did love arise in a person? It did not arise, it was inherited from his animal ancestors and developed on a very solid basis. And, most likely, all these permanent relationships, whether they are couples or relationships associated with several members of the opposite sex, are all connected with the need to care for offspring. In the ancestors of man, the cub was born underdeveloped or poorly developed, it had to be taken care of, both a father and a mother were needed. If there was only one mother, then, accordingly, the probability of survival of the cubs was almost very often reduced to zero. So it turns out that at the dawn of, say, the hominin line, that is, the line that led to man, some permanent, more or less stable pairs began to form. But to talk about whether it was a monogamous relationship, as, for example, is depicted here, because it was the idea of one of the anthropologists who studied Australopithecus (Lovejoy), or whether it was a polygamous relationship — a male and several females, this question remains controversial and still mysterious. Although some discussions about this may even be conducted. Further, I think, we will also talk about this in this program.
It is important to understand that, in principle, the whole system of love relationships is tied to the child and reproduction in general. The fact is that there is a complex biochemical, physiological side of love — a side of love in relation to a man or a male in a broader sense, if we are talking about animals, and a side of love that is directed at a child. When a child is born, complex physiological processes take place in a woman’s body that stimulate her love for the child. However, a woman begins to love a child much earlier, even when he is in the womb (and from the very first weeks of pregnancy, close bonds are established between mother and child). The father is not predisposed to love the child on a physiological level, his love is formed in the process of contact with the baby. He must take care of the child and constantly communicate with him, then only the feeling of attachment to the child comes and love is established.
The Japanese have known for centuries that the bond between mother and child is formed in the womb. Here is an old Japanese engraving illustrating the rules of communication between a pregnant woman and a child who is in the womb. Instructs how she should educate him and accustom him to the rules of good manners even before birth. Naturally, this is also not given to the father. But if the father is next to his wife, who is pregnant, and helps her, then some kind of good, positive climate for the child is established here.
Thus, this whole system of love, not sex, but love, is connected with the maintenance of constant, stable friendships between a woman and a man. Love is not, of course, without jealousy, because, in principle, there is no love without aggression, there is no love without competition among representatives of the same sex for their partner. This is the case for many animal species. And Bitstrup noticed the same phenomenon in one of his cartoons. A partner becomes more attractive if he is of interest to other members of the same sex as you. Let’s say a man courts a woman and gets rejected. But as soon as she sees that this man has become the object of interest of other women, she immediately rushes into the fight for the rejected admirer. Why? This is a tricky story. In fact, there is a purely scientific explanation for this. Because within the concept of sexual selection and the choice of sexual strategies, male and female, there is a certain paradigm according to which one must choose a partner who is valuable to others (obviously he has valuable traits that other representatives of this species are chasing).
Alexander Gordon: That is, chosen by others.
M.L. Butovskaya: Yes, the principle is this: choose someone who likes many members of the same sex as you, because it is more reliable. Well, of course (I already started talking about this), starting with Australopithecus, there is a system of some preferences and connections between men and women, but there is also a distribution of roles. And this distribution of roles is also partly related to love. Because there is a family, there is a division of labor: a woman always takes care of children, because she is carrying this child, she spends less time somewhere outside her home or some permanent habitat, she is engaged in gathering. The man is the hunter, the man brings the prey home.
Although here the situation with hunting is not quite simple, because there is a question: why does he bring this meat? In many hunter-gatherer societies, women are indeed the main breadwinners. They bring roots, small animals that they catch. Men go hunting and bring meat. And it is celebrated by the entire hunter-gatherer group as a kind of triumph. In fact, if we turn to our closest relatives — chimpanzees, we will see that there, too, males often get meat and get it not just because it is a tasty morsel, but they get it in order to attract females. The females beg for this meat, and the males gain access to the currently sexually receptive females in exchange for this meat. Therefore, the question of why a person mastered hunting is not so simple and not so banal. Perhaps it was a kind of mating demonstration in order to attract females and establish some kind of stable contacts with specific females, that is, with prehistoric women.
Alexander Gordon: The way to a woman’s heart is through her stomach.
M.L. Butovskaya: Yes, we are used to saying that the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach, but in fact, to a woman too, through her stomach and her children’s. Most likely, children, first of all, although to her, because if she cannot bear a fetus from hunger, then there will be no children.
And why, in fact, are constant pairs needed? Because most animals do not have permanent pairs, the great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos). So, they are needed because a person lengthens the duration of the period of helplessness of an infant. In connection with upright posture, childbirth becomes more difficult, because the head of the fetus passes through the birth canal of a woman with tremendous difficulty. All of this has to do with upright posture. In general, bipedalism brought us a lot of benefits, and a person became a person, most likely due to the fact that he stood on two legs, all other transformations then went on increasing. And as for the complication and troubles associated with upright walking, these are: sick spines, everyone suffers from radiculitis, displacement of the vertebrae; and, of course, childbirth. Because it rarely happens that, say, a female chimpanzee or a female orangutan cannot give birth, but often this happens with a person, precisely because the head of the cub, that is, the child, is quite large, and because in general the process of childbirth is really painful and lengthy process.
So, a child is born completely immature, he cannot even cling to a woman in the way that, say, a newborn chimpanzee clings to his mother. Therefore, someone must take care of a woman, someone must be nearby, it must be a man, and she must bind this man to herself in some way. How can she bind him to her? Only love, because no one can bind anyone by force or in terms of duty. A number of anthropologists believe that primitive people did not know where children came from, and no one was interested in real paternity. In reality, in order to act in an adaptive way, it is not at all necessary to be aware of the real reasons for a particular behavior. Animals act adequately in the most difficult situations, and their actions are not mediated by consciousness.
I think that evolution created a stable mechanism in the form of this biological love, which ensured the constant connection of men with women, one man with one woman or a man with several women, or several men with one woman, we will talk about this a little later. But the fact remains. Where children appear, there must necessarily be some kind of permanent connection, a couple or several people of the same sex with the other sex, that is, with the female sex, because the child must be taken care of. And this remains a kind of postulate, which has been supported by selection for millions of years. This, in fact, was one of the promising lines that allowed a person to survive and survive. And this situation has persisted to the present day. And long-term bonds between a man and a woman were ensured not only by the fact that evolution selected a man and a woman who preferred each other, but also by the characteristics of male and female sexuality.
Everyone knows that there are rutting periods, say, in deer, or breeding periods in frogs. Most primates, at least the great apes, do not have breeding seasons, they are able to breed all year round. This was the first step towards a situation that made it possible to ensure constancy in love. Because here there was a fusion of love and sex into one close, unified system. Because, say, in the same gray geese, there are differences between love and sex. Partners in a couple bound by a marriage vow, the so-called triumphal cry, adore each other. They are attached and spend time in each other’s company all the time, but there is only one breeding season a year, and they enter into sexual relations only during this period. Monkeys, like humans, are able to breed all year round, and have sexual relations throughout the year, not only when the female is receptive. True, in some cases, for example, it is described for bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees), they can mate and enjoy mating, even outside the female’s conception period. That is, in other words, nature provides with the help of sex this relationship and interest in constant contacts between the male and the female.
If possible, please next frame. Now we will see, and this is very important, that not only the behavior of males and females changed, respectively, but their appearance changed, because, in principle, only a woman has developed breasts and hips. Great apes, which are so close to us in their morphology, in principle, do not have breasts, even when they are breastfeeding an infant. For men, this is an important signal, an attractive signal. And this is something that was created by evolution, when a person was formed, when he had already switched to a two-legged way of life. The development of the female breast made the woman permanently attractive to the man. Outside the period of receptivity is no less attractive than in the period of receptivity.
The next picture, if possible. It should be said about the features of male morphology and physiology. The fact is that in some parameters, for example, the size of the testicles, a man, in principle, approaches those monkeys that lead a polygamous lifestyle, for example, gorillas. However, men have a fairly long penis, it generally has no analogues compared to other great apes. And here is another mystery. It would be easiest to declare a person a polygamous being who, at the dawn of even his history, was inclined to lead a harem lifestyle.
But things are not so simple, because this long penis and the pronounced ability of male sperm to compete, killing the active sperm of a rival in the female genital tract, most likely indicate that there were situations in the process of evolution, and they occurred often when several repeated mating with the same female by several males. In this case, the man who won (becoming a father) was the one whose sperm was more active and capable of killing the rival’s sperm and eliminating this sperm from the female’s genital tract. So there is a kind of equilibrium here.
The fact is that in modern societies, naturally, not in industrial, but pre-industrial societies, the situation is such that about 83% of all cultures are cultures in which polygamy is allowed, and polygamy is like polygyny, where there are several women and one man. Such a situation, it would seem, speaks of some initial, perhaps preferable, system in which a man had several permanent partners. However, there is a part of societies in which monogamy exists (16%), this is essentially a society like our Russian and any Western society. But there is also a small percentage of societies, about 0,5 percent of all known societies, where polyandry is practiced. And there we are talking about the fact that there is a connection between one woman and several men. This happens in extreme conditions, when the environment is very poor, and most often these few men are brothers, but this is a different situation.
However, I want to point out that a person is predisposed to different types of connections. And he moves from one type of connection to another very easily, it all depends on what social, economic and environmental situation prevails in this case. Therefore, those who try to ask ethologists the question will be wrong: what was the original protosystem of sexual relations between men and women at the dawn of evolution? I undertake to assert that, most likely, it was also diverse, depending on environmental conditions. Man is universal, and he is universal, and on this basis, he can create different types of social systems and different types of marital relations.
However, I want to say that there are differences in the choice of partners and characteristics of sexuality, in the degree of love in men and women. Although, of course, based on statistical principles, the average number of partners for both men and women is always different, it is noticed that a certain number of the top percentage of men have many more sexual partners than women who are most successful in this regard in terms of number sexual partners. Of course, some men in society are generally deprived of sexual partners, while almost all women enter into marriages. Therefore, here the system is not quite unambiguous and equal.
Alexander Gordon: One everything, the other nothing.
M.L. Butovskaya: Hence the competition, hence the differences in the strategies of sexual relations between men and women. Because men, in fact, and women are a product of sexual selection, which now, in fact, we need to talk about in relation to love. Sexual selection is not exactly the same as natural selection, and very often it generates some traits that are absolutely not adaptive for individual survival. We all imagine the tails of peacocks, the long wings of birds of paradise that prevent their owners from flying. It would seem pointless, but the fact is that there is a hidden competition between males. They do not fight each other, competing for females, but compete passively, while females are the choosing sex.
You may ask what all this has to do with a person, because we are all used to thinking in everyday life what men choose. In fact, women choose. Therefore, in principle, sexual selection in this form, which I am now talking about, is also applicable to explaining the phenomenon of the formation of permanent, stable pairs in humans.
However, who begins to choose and who begins to compete is connected with what is called the operational sex ratio. The operational sex ratio is an unstable situation, it is a system that changes depending on what happens in society. Sometimes there are more women than men. I, unfortunately, have to say that this system is typical for Russia, it was typical for the former Soviet Union as well, because we lost a lot of men during the war. Therefore, the competition between women for men in this situation was higher than in those countries that did not lose men. In most more or less calm countries, where there have been no wars, more often, especially in traditional cultures, the ratio is in favor of men. And then the competition between men is higher. This system is typical for such traditional countries as the countries of the Arab East, such as China and Japan.
But even here, all these situations are spurred on by the tradition, according to which they are accustomed to constantly control the sex ratio in society by artificial means, that is, to kill babies. They kill babies, say, in China, India. They killed not just any babies, but only girls. And thus it turned out that there are always more men in society, the competition between them is higher. In traditional societies, almost every woman finds a partner, even if she is mean and inferior, but not every man gets the opportunity to get a wife. And the opportunity to acquire a spouse is received only by those who stand out for their talents or can financially provide for her. In other words, the one who can ensure the life and well-being of his wife and offspring.
Now I want to say that, in principle, there is a certain correlation between the choice of partners based on the principle of reliability and on the principle of some other qualities. These other qualities are appearance, this is health and some properties, say, of the immune system, for example, the stability of the immune system, which allows you to survive where there is a strong infection, for example, with parasites or infections. Therefore, in principle, a situation is obtained in which women or females, if we are talking about animals, can choose their partners, guided by different principles. If we are talking about choosing a permanent partner, then first of all they will choose “good fathers” who will take care of children, take care of a woman and invest in children and women. If we are talking about short-term relationships, very often they will lean towards “good genes”, they will choose men who are carriers of those genes that can make the children of this woman healthy and strong. The sons of such men will prove to be successful contenders to get, in turn, good wives. And daughters will be healthier and stronger and will be able to bear children more successfully.
Another curious detail. How do you choose your partners? Should partners be similar to each other or should they be different? It is often said that partners are similar. They really are similar in height, in intelligence, in terms of intelligence. But the question is, is similarity, for example, in appearance, or closeness in kinship, because sometimes it happens that in some cultures marriages between second cousins or even first cousins prevail? So, the fact is that, in principle, evolution directed its choice to ensure that the so-called heterozygosity of descendants prevailed. And heterozygosity can only occur when the partners are different, and, above all, different in the so-called histocompatibility complex. Because it is precisely heterozygosity that allows subsequent generations to survive and be stable, ready for the onslaught of various parasites.
Alexander Gordon: As far as the phenotype gives an idea of how genetically your partner differs from you.
M.L. Butovskaya: I mean, how to know it, how to recognize it?
Alexander Gordon: After all, the only way to distinguish a person close in genotype from a distant one is the phenotype, that is, how it looks. I have blonde hair, he has dark hair, and so on.
M.L. Butovskaya: Yes, of course you are right.
Alexander Gordon: And is there such a selection principle?
M.L. Butovskaya: Yes, there is a certain selection principle. But the principle of selection is not quite the same as you say, because if this society is homogeneous, say, the same culture, for example, the Chinese, then where are there generally light and dark. Hair color is about the same. But there are other criteria — a thinner nose, or a hooked nose, a wider face. Or, for example, ears — large or small.
The principle is that there are certain criteria for the selection of appearance, we will talk about this a little later, which allow you to choose these partners. Some partners will be more attractive than others. And, oddly enough, this attraction includes a whole set of signs, including smells. For a long time it was believed that a person does not react at all to olfactory signals. But as far as love and attraction are concerned, here our sense of smell works as well as in many animals. We very often choose a scent partner. But we are not aware of this, because, in principle, the perception of pheromones is a very subtle something that is perceived by our brain, but a person does not realize that he hears this smell. Sex pheromones are found in men and women. Accordingly, they change cyclically in women, and here it is just shown how experimentally it is possible to determine the smell of an attractive partner. These experiments were made by my Austrian colleagues. The photo shows how the girls rate the attractiveness of the smell of different men. It turns out that men who smell more attractive to women are also more attractive in appearance.
Alexander Gordon: That is, then these men were presented to her, and she had to?
M.L. Butovskaya: Yes Yes. That is, in fact, the sexier the smell of the body, the higher the external attractiveness, the connection is direct. Moreover, it intensifies at the moment when a woman is in the period of ovulation, when conception is most likely. That is, in fact, we need to say that there is a mechanism that has been worked out by evolution, and this mechanism continues to operate actively in humans, whether we want it or not. But at the present time, of course, there is a violation of the natural course of things associated with the use of contraceptives. Because when contraceptives are taken, a woman’s susceptibility is disturbed, she begins to perceive many things differently from what nature intended for her. But, by the way, the opposite will also be true, because men perceive a woman as more attractive, regardless of her appearance, when she is in the period of ovulation.
Alexander Gordon: When her composition of pheromones changes.
M.L. Butovskaya: Yes. The fact is that men may not be aware of this — it seems that a woman is completely unattractive, and it would seem that they never paid attention to her, but suddenly a man feels that he begins to like her sexually. This most likely occurs around the time of her ovulation. But with the use of contraceptives, all this pheromone magic is broken, and capulins (the so-called female pheromones) are not produced in the quantity and in the form that is necessary in order to be attractive. Therefore, it turns out that oral contraceptives generally violate the entire natural and natural system of attraction between the sexes, which has been developed for millions of years.
Alexander Gordon: Does a man feel a barren female?
M.L. Butovskaya: Obviously yes. In general, everything is aimed at ensuring that a man leaves offspring, which is why he will select partners who are more attractive. And who is the most attractive? First of all, there are criteria by which a man defines women as attractive — all men will say that this woman is attractive.
And here, as a kind of standard, I can name two examples, which we will now talk about. This is Vertinskaya, and this is Lanovoy, because they correspond to some principles by which one can determine the characteristic features of the attractiveness of a male and female face. For men, a square jaw is attractive, as is actually seen in Lanovoy, a powerful, well-defined and well-shaped, protruding chin, a narrow but rather wide mouth with narrow lips, and a protruding nose. Here are the profiles to show it. Low and fairly straight eyebrows, small eyes, and high, well-defined cheekbones.
For women, an attractive face profile is fundamentally different, because here we are talking about rounded lines, soft contours, full lips and big eyes. And, of course, about a convex, infantile forehead, a slightly pronounced triangular chin. In all cultures, these criteria of male and female beauty remain intact, regardless of whether they are African populations or Mongoloids. All this is pretty standard stuff.
Here are shown several male and female generalized portraits, both Mongoloids and Europiods. Feminization and masculinization of faces were computerized. It turned out that when a woman is in the period of maximum ovulation, she likes the most masculine faces. In all other periods of the cycle, she likes more feminized male faces.
Therefore, the question of who a woman chooses and what kind of male faces she likes, in principle, it should be put like this: when, at what period of the cycle does she like them? Because there is a certain difference here, and the difference is not idle, because if we are talking about carriers of good genes, then, most likely, we should choose a more masculine face. If we are talking about choosing a good father, and in modern society this is most likely important, then in this situation you need to choose someone who has more feminine characteristics, because, most likely, he will be good, reliable, caring father.
Now about the fact that there is a symmetry of the face. Faces with lower levels of fluctuating asymmetry are more attractive to both men and women. Therefore, in principle, there is one more point on which evolution selected ideal male and female images. As probable conception approaches, male faces, which have less fluctuating asymmetries, become more attractive to women.
I am not talking about psychological compatibility now, this is very important, but people should not resemble each other, and people should have certain criteria that correspond to some stereotype that provides an indication of signs of attractiveness and fertility typical of their sex. Because for evolution it is absolutely unimportant how intellectually developed people are, but it is important whether they leave offspring or not. Because the species that ceases to leave offspring dies out. There are certain eternal criteria of beauty.
We talked about the face, but there are also criteria for the beauty of the female body. Whether we like it or not, some of these criteria remain stable, from primitive society to post-industrial society. Here is one of these female figures with a narrow waist and rounded hips, which is the standard of beauty in the Middle Ages, and in the Renaissance, and, accordingly, in our time. Everyone will say that, yes, it is attractive. And there are male figures that are also considered attractive (broad shoulders, narrow hips). In many eras, the most important attribute of women’s clothing was a belt that emphasizes the waist. And for men, respectively, broad shoulders and narrower hips, as seen in this Renaissance sculpture, continue to be attractive today, which is reflected in modern men’s fashion.
What is going on? Can we say that the ideal image of, say, the female figure remains stable over the centuries? Or is the post-industrial society really so out of touch with its roots, and evolution no longer works in our society so much that even those signs that evolution cherished and preserved for millions of years have now ceased to be preserved? Let’s take a look. Since you are a man, I suggest that you compare these profiles of, in fact, female figures and say which of these figures seems to you the most attractive.
Alexander Gordon: In every group?
M.L. Butovskaya: No, choose only one.
Alexander Gordon: I see three. And how many are there really?
M.L. Butovskaya: Yes, there are three rows of them, 4 in each.
Alexander Gordon: How not to make a mistake with the choice …
M.L. Butovskaya: Come on, come on.
Alexander Gordon: I think the second row is A.
M.L. Butovskaya: Quite right. You acted like a standard man, everything is in order with your taste, evolution did not rest on you, it continued to act. In fact, this is just the most optimal female figure. That is, moderately full, but with an optimal waist-to-hip ratio, a narrow waist and fairly wide hips. Here I want to pay attention to one detail: due to the constant hype in the press, the constant pursuit of a good so-called thin figure, women began to distort the idea of what it means to look good. Therefore, women believe that this figure is better.
That is, the majority of Western men choose the figure that you have chosen, this one. Most Western women, as well as ours, since we conducted such a survey, choose this figure. They want to appear thinner than men like. That is, in fact, they are already playing a game that, in principle, has a negative effect on themselves. An excessively thin woman has difficulty with childbearing.
Now the male figures. And here, in your opinion, which figure is the most attractive? Of course, you are not a woman, but from the point of view of a man.
Alexander Gordon: Here I just have to go from the opposite, imagine a figure that does not resemble me in any way, and decide. I think it should be the third man in the second row, no.
M.L. Butovskaya: Yes, and here you are absolutely right. For both women and men, this is the best option. And now I’ll ask for the next picture. The fact is that at one time Tatyana Tolstaya wrote a wonderful story «90-60-90». She wrote it, as always, with humor. And since she often traveled to the West, she apparently constantly heard about modern evolutionary concepts and could not help but react to what was happening in her own way.
In fact, there is some kind of stable, if you like, golden ratio. The optimal waist-to-hip ratio for women is approximately 0,68-0,7. This is a purely female figure, and this ratio is not an idle tribute to fashion, because it says that this woman’s metabolism and endocrinology are in order, that this woman is young and can give birth and bear a good child. With this ratio of waist to hips, her estrogen levels are in line with the norm for acquiring offspring.
As for men, they have the exact opposite ratio, because a healthy man should have a ratio of about 0,9. If in women the ratio of waist to hips shifts towards the male side, then we are talking about the fact that her metabolism is disturbed and the amount of male hormones increases. That is, in fact, this indicates that either she has some kind of severe endocrinological disorder, or that she is already aged and is approaching menopause. Naturally, there, at the dawn of our evolution, no one went to the doctors, there was no endocrinology, and men had to determine by appearance who they should deal with and with whom they would establish permanent connections. The biological age was also unknown. Nature gave a certain pointer. The same woman who has 0,68-0,7, she is the optimal sexual partner, you can establish connections with her. In addition, it is clear that she is not pregnant. Therefore, there was no danger that this man would take care of someone else’s child.
But does this constant waist-to-hip ratio remain sustainable? And if all the time in the West they say that something is changing in the stereotype of beauty, then what is changing? The researchers did this work, the Americans, the Sinkha group, analyzed some standard parameters of the body of Miss America, starting from the 20s and ending almost in our days, these were the 90s. It turned out that the body weight of these women naturally changed, it fell. Miss America, as you can see, are getting thinner. But the ratio of waist to hips did not change. It was stable. Fashion has no power over the holy of holies of human gender evolution.
We talked about the fact that breasts are also an attractive parameter, but in principle there was some idea that buxom women in some eras were attractive, in other eras they were attracted to teenage women. It really is. It just shows the ratio of the bust to the waist, starting from 901 and ending with the 81st year. We can continue it, because by our days it is quite stable.
So, it turns out that, in principle, during periods of certain cataclysms, stresses, ecological restructuring, famine, a buxom, buxom woman came into fashion. As soon as stabilization, economic recovery and growth took place, skinny women with small breasts began to get involved. Although the waist-to-hip ratio, as it was, I remind you again, remained the standard. Again a period of crisis, wars and all sorts of problems with food, again a plump woman comes into fashion. This, of course, is based on Western journals, as you can see, there is no analysis here for Russia. But since the 60s, this is already a period of hippies and, in general, sufficient prosperity and prosperity in society, a teenage woman again comes into fashion, like the famous top model Twiggy, who has practically no breasts, and she really becomes thin . And this period continues today.
Alexander Gordon: And there is a real correlation between the ability to feed and breast size.
M.L. Butovskaya: No, no, the whole point is that there is no such correlation. The ratio of the bust to the waist does not give any information, except for one. It turns out that in many societies in which there is a problem with nutrition, fat women are liked, and then the bust, as a criterion of beauty, will be extolled and considered beautiful.
Alexander Gordon: Because there is a certain reserve.
M.L. Butovskaya: Because fat deposits accumulate not only in the bust. If a society is fully provided for, like modern American society or, say, German society today, then there is a transformation towards preference for thinner partners. But not overly thin. Because, say, such a situation, which is shown in the film «Soldier Jane», when she, along with a man, tried to complete all the tasks and lost a lot of weight, leads to the fact that the necessary supply of fat is lost (it should be at least 18 percent in the body women), which maintains normal female cycles. If the amount of fat becomes the same as in men, then such a woman simply loses her childbearing abilities. Therefore, here nature also made sure that a woman was not very fond of her thinness. Perhaps this is a kind of antidote against such modern trends, when a woman strives to lose too much weight. Everything needs a measure.
Always the female body is an indicator of attractiveness. Therefore, many cultures took care to remove this body from sight altogether, and it was no longer present as some kind of object of desire for men. Those cultures that, in principle, completely controlled female sexuality, were the most successful in this, and part of Muslim cultures is an example of this. They covered the woman not only her face, but her whole body with a hoodie, absolutely shapeless, so as not to see this ratio of waist to hips. Often even the hands are covered.
But in principle, I have already said that there are different criteria for attractiveness for men and women. The sexual attractiveness of a woman is strongly associated with receptivity, with the ability to bear children. And this is possible only up to a certain age. For men, this criterion does not exist. Therefore, evolution made sure that men and women selected their partners according to different age criteria. That is, it is known that in most cultures, it is just shown here, women like men who are a little older than them more. And men in all cultures, without exception, like women who are younger than them. Moreover, the more, say, the culture is characterized by this selectivity towards polygyny, the more likely it will be that a man will take younger wives than himself. That is, we are talking about the fact that the leading criterion is the so-called wealth: a richer man has more wives, and his wives, as a rule, are younger.
Another criterion, which also differs for men and women when choosing partners, and, accordingly, we can even talk about this as a criterion of love, is virginity. In principle, in all cultures, with very few exceptions, such as, for example, the Chinese, virginity is wanted from women, but this is not required from men at all. Even many women say that they like men who have a past sexual experience. This situation is standard. Why such a double standard?
The double standard is ensured by evolution, because the man who chooses a woman who already had partners before her runs the risk of getting a child who will not be his own child, but he will take care of him. Because, in principle, any woman knows where her own child is, but a man can never be sure of paternity, unless he does a DNA analysis. And nature took care of that too. As observations show, most babies in their early infancy, about the first month from birth, are similar to their fathers. Then the situation may change, the child may already look like a mother, then a father, then a grandfather, but at the first time of his birth, he most often demonstrates a resemblance to his father.
What else do you like? Well, naturally, women like richer men. And men like more attractive women. You know, they say «better to be handsome and rich than poor and sick.» As trite as it may seem, this corresponds to some ethological ideas. In principle, of course, other things being equal, we are talking about the fact that a woman (this is how nature created it, our distant great-great-grandmothers also followed this example) should be interested in men who can stand up for themselves, and, therefore, they should be healthy and having a high social status, which will be passed on to children.
And men are interested in the youth and attractiveness of women. Therefore, in principle, there is also a standard selection option here, men will always be interested in more attractive women — the criteria for this are different, ranging from smell to profile and figure features — and women will always be more interested in the income and reliability of this particular man.
It is interesting that a line began to appear in modern advertising, focused on showing that a man becomes a caring father and master of the house. This is in line with the current trend in terms of employment: women in the West have ceased to be purely housewives, many of them have begun to work. Therefore, it often happens that a family has either the same income, or even a woman receives more. And advertising immediately responded to this, showing that a man can also be a caring family man, he can also make a significant contribution to housework in the family. And this sign can also be used as a criterion of love in modern society. For he also implies that the man who helps with the housework loves his wife.